I do not claim to be an expert on the Middle East. I do however understand that we can not apply the same reason and logic when dealing with that region as we would dealing with anyone else. History has proven that it does not work.
We have seen uprisings in Libya, Egypt, and now Syria. I do believe that the people of those nations should not be oppressed and deserve to live free from Tyranny. The problem is that they do not understand how to live in a democratic world. Take Egypt for example. They elect a President, and rather than wait for the next election like we do here, a percentage of the population decides to stage a military coup.
I do believe that our Foreign Policy is in shambles. It is absolutely disgraceful and embarassing. I do not put all of the blame on our current Administration, but I do believe that they have made it worse rather than better. The sheer incompetence of this Administration is overwhelming. Sadly the media has refused to hold them accountable. I do fear that through this Administration's incompetence, they may have backed us into having no choice but to respond militarily. President Obama said himself, ""If you don't do it, you send a message of impunity. Iran, North Korea, and Hezbollah will look at the United States and say 'Nothing means anything' -- that's what's at stake here."
Syria is a true quagmire in my view. The rebels there are begging for the world's help. I feel for them. But Al Qaeda is in there fighting alongside the rebels. Al Qaeda is our sworn enemy. So not only will we have to deal with the current regime, but we will have to figure out who is Al Qaeda and who are legitimately Syrian Rebels. And if we do help the rebels, will Al Qaeda turn their attention towards us?
CNN reported this morning, "In June, France said sarin had been used several times in the war, including at least once by the Syrian regime." Hmm... now if chemical weapons have been used previously several times and "at least once by the Syrian Regime" then who else is using them and where is the outcry against those groups as well?
Don't get me wrong, NO Government on this planet should use Chemical Weapons. Especially on its own people. It is absolutely unacceptable and should not be tolerated. Assad and his regime should be punished for using chemical weapons on its own people.
Obama is quickly learning what Bush learned a long time ago. The UN is a joke. Russia and China are hell bent to veto anything that the rest of the world believes is the right course of action. The Security Council has become a laughing stock as it is the epitome of grid lock. Doing anything in this world with the UN's blessing is nearly impossible. So I do not hold President Obama to the "Must have UN Permission" to proceed standard.
I have grave concerns when I do not see our normal allies up in arms sharing our same outrage and desire to do something about it. Our European Allies in recent days have pulled back the rhetoric and are now calling for diplomatic solutions. Why? Is it because they see similar polls where 80% of our citizens oppose military action against Syria? Or do they know something that our media is withholding from us?
I believe that based upon History, Military action is the only option that will have any long term success. Unfortunately that option requires more than just firing some tomahawks from the Mediterranean if we are going to see any fruitful success. For us to do that though, we need to get a coalition together like we did in the first Gulf War. We can not do this alone. What happened to the League of Arab Nations? You never hear about this organization the last several years? These are the people that should be screaming and taking the lead with us acting in support.
My largest concern/fear is that if we attack Syria, that this will cause a domino effect in the region. Russia and China don't scare me because they will not get militarily involved against us. They have too many higher priorities than to go to war with us. But we have the loonies in Iran. I am not convinced that they are not smart enough to not use this as an opportunity to start trouble with Israel. Remember that the people in power there believe that this is all a sign of their equivalent to our "Revelations" in our Bible.
Remember that both World Wars started in what appeared as isolated events that escalated. Is Syria that Pandora's Box that could lead to a much bigger conflict? I don't believe that we are talking World War 3 here, but I do fear a war that makes the recent wars look small.
I am glad that President Obama is going to go through Congress. He really doesn't have a choice after his VP went all over the airwaves in 2007 threatening impeachment of Bush if he attacked Iran without Congress approval. I do not hold any criticism of President Obama for having to take this course. Frankly, given the risks of escalation, I would feel better if Congress was involved versus just President Obama.
I do pray that our President and the leaders in Congress make the right decision to get us through this. I am against going at this alone. I hope that the world's attitude changes after the UN reports come out proving that Chemical weapons were indeed used. And if the report doesn't prove it, then I hope that we will pursue diplomatic avenues until we do have our allies lined up in support of military options.
Sunday, September 1, 2013
Friday, October 19, 2012
First it was Big Bird, now it's Binders?
In Tuesday night's Presidential Debate, Romney discussed his cabinet being made up of a number of women. Here is the transcript:
Rather than talking about how the price of gas doubled over the last 4 years, or how the number of people on welfare has grown by 32%, or how we need to get 23 million people back to work, this is the hot issue that comes from the Democrats?
Can anyone really with a straight face sit there and say that Romney meant anything other than "Binders full of resumes of qualified women candidates?" Set the politics aside for a second and really ask yourself if you truly believe otherwise.
Furthermore, reading that answer that Romney gave, WHERE is there any example of sexism? I don't see it. In fact it looks like to me that he referenced a 3rd party to reinforce the fact that he is NOT a sexist!
Of course the main stream media won't report on this, but a number of women that worked for Romney's administration, including one or two that were on his cabinet, have come out in support of Romney and said that they enjoyed working for the man. One in particular said in an interview that while he didn't always agree with her opinion, she always felt like he respected her opinion on a topic. Does this really sound like a man that is sexist?
This is all just "noise" to distract the voters from the real issues. Can we please get back to the real issues at hand?!?! Seriously? Frankly all of this talk about Binders and Big Bird just makes President Obama and the Democrats look very desperate.
As a voter, I don't want to have all of this "noise" thrown at me. Tell me what you are going to do these next four years to address the high gas prices, how you are going to improve the economy so that more people are working and less people are on welfare. Tell me how you plan to address the budget deficits and the overall national debt. These are the issues that the American Voter is concerned about.
It was during this answer that Romney made the now infamous "Binders of Women" comment. Since making that comment the Democrats have seized upon this as if it were yet another example of Romney's and the GOP's sexist view of women. Seriously?CROWLEY: Governor Romney, pay equity for women?ROMNEY: Thank you. And important topic, and one which I learned a great deal about, particularly as I was serving as governor of my state, because I had the chance to pull together a cabinet and all the applicants seemed to be men.And I — and I went to my staff, and I said, "How come all the people for these jobs are — are all men." They said, "Well, these are the people that have the qualifications." And I said, "Well, gosh, can't we — can't we find some — some women that are also qualified?"ROMNEY: And — and so we — we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet. I went to a number of women's groups and said, "Can you help us find folks," and they brought us whole binders full of women. I was proud of the fact that after I staffed my Cabinet and my senior staff, that the University of New York in Albany did a survey of all 50 states, and concluded that mine had more women in senior leadership positions than any other state in America.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82484_Page4.html#ixzz29kDLChMu
Rather than talking about how the price of gas doubled over the last 4 years, or how the number of people on welfare has grown by 32%, or how we need to get 23 million people back to work, this is the hot issue that comes from the Democrats?
Can anyone really with a straight face sit there and say that Romney meant anything other than "Binders full of resumes of qualified women candidates?" Set the politics aside for a second and really ask yourself if you truly believe otherwise.
Furthermore, reading that answer that Romney gave, WHERE is there any example of sexism? I don't see it. In fact it looks like to me that he referenced a 3rd party to reinforce the fact that he is NOT a sexist!
Of course the main stream media won't report on this, but a number of women that worked for Romney's administration, including one or two that were on his cabinet, have come out in support of Romney and said that they enjoyed working for the man. One in particular said in an interview that while he didn't always agree with her opinion, she always felt like he respected her opinion on a topic. Does this really sound like a man that is sexist?
This is all just "noise" to distract the voters from the real issues. Can we please get back to the real issues at hand?!?! Seriously? Frankly all of this talk about Binders and Big Bird just makes President Obama and the Democrats look very desperate.
As a voter, I don't want to have all of this "noise" thrown at me. Tell me what you are going to do these next four years to address the high gas prices, how you are going to improve the economy so that more people are working and less people are on welfare. Tell me how you plan to address the budget deficits and the overall national debt. These are the issues that the American Voter is concerned about.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Follow-up regarding Libya Attack
It amazes me how the Main Stream Media is completely sweeping this story "under the rug". I swear that Headlines talking about the failures of the Romney Campaign were more dominant in the news than this story. It is truly sad.
So what have we learned in the last 10 days? Our Administration spent the first 9 days claiming that the attack in Libya was an out of control spontaneous protest over an Anti-Muslim film. A trailer to a film at that. For several days the President of Libya disagreed with this and was very public in the International Media that this was a coordinated terrorist attack. One that they had warned the US about as much as 3 days prior to the attack. Today finally the Administration changed course and said that it is "self-evident" that this was a pre-meditated terrorist attack. Of course there was no mention of being alerted a few days prior.
The bottom line is that for 9 straight days our Presidential Administration lied to the American people. For 9 days they claimed that this was a spontaneous protest. Turns out there was no protest at all. It was a direct attack. They claimed that the Ambassador had "sufficient" security detail including 2 former SEALS. The fact of the matter is that the Ambassador's security was provided by a Libyan militia. The 2 former SEALS were NOT part of his security detail. They were there on "other business". But when the attack occurred they took up arms and attempted to repel the attack. They deserve Congressional Medals of Honor for doing so.
I believe that the President and White House has been so focused on the campaign that they completely dropped the ball here. While the attacks occurred and the days following, the President was busy with fundraisers and campaign events. He just started attending his Daily Security Briefings in person because it had gotten out that he skipped the majority of them thus far in his Presidency.
No I am not proposing that the President orchestrated this uprising in the Muslim world, nor this attack on our consulate. Normally, this would be a benefit to the Republicans. However, I believe it is the failed International policies and the naiveté of this administration that is to blame. This President claimed back in 2008 that if he were to be elected, then Muslim tensions and hatred toward us would magically diminish because of his background. I believe that this arrogance has proven his incompetence in the world.
I further blame the Main Stream Media for this lack of coverage of this event. Our country was attacked on 9/11 and yet they continue to keep this story on the back burner in fear that it look negatively on our President.
I hope that Congress will look into this. Who knew exactly what and when? How was this Ambassador not better protected? How did we go 9 days of being lied to, when the International Media clearly had the proper read on the story?
So what have we learned in the last 10 days? Our Administration spent the first 9 days claiming that the attack in Libya was an out of control spontaneous protest over an Anti-Muslim film. A trailer to a film at that. For several days the President of Libya disagreed with this and was very public in the International Media that this was a coordinated terrorist attack. One that they had warned the US about as much as 3 days prior to the attack. Today finally the Administration changed course and said that it is "self-evident" that this was a pre-meditated terrorist attack. Of course there was no mention of being alerted a few days prior.
The bottom line is that for 9 straight days our Presidential Administration lied to the American people. For 9 days they claimed that this was a spontaneous protest. Turns out there was no protest at all. It was a direct attack. They claimed that the Ambassador had "sufficient" security detail including 2 former SEALS. The fact of the matter is that the Ambassador's security was provided by a Libyan militia. The 2 former SEALS were NOT part of his security detail. They were there on "other business". But when the attack occurred they took up arms and attempted to repel the attack. They deserve Congressional Medals of Honor for doing so.
I believe that the President and White House has been so focused on the campaign that they completely dropped the ball here. While the attacks occurred and the days following, the President was busy with fundraisers and campaign events. He just started attending his Daily Security Briefings in person because it had gotten out that he skipped the majority of them thus far in his Presidency.
No I am not proposing that the President orchestrated this uprising in the Muslim world, nor this attack on our consulate. Normally, this would be a benefit to the Republicans. However, I believe it is the failed International policies and the naiveté of this administration that is to blame. This President claimed back in 2008 that if he were to be elected, then Muslim tensions and hatred toward us would magically diminish because of his background. I believe that this arrogance has proven his incompetence in the world.
I further blame the Main Stream Media for this lack of coverage of this event. Our country was attacked on 9/11 and yet they continue to keep this story on the back burner in fear that it look negatively on our President.
I hope that Congress will look into this. Who knew exactly what and when? How was this Ambassador not better protected? How did we go 9 days of being lied to, when the International Media clearly had the proper read on the story?
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Embassies Attacked
On Tuesday, September 11th, 2012 our embassies and consulates in both Egypt and Libya were attacked. At first, these were portrayed in the media as being spontaneous riots resulting from a film posted on YouTube that Muslims find to be insulting. Sadly, four Americans including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya were killed in the attacks.
Not only was our media slow to report on the breaking news, but the White House was slow to react as well. When Presidential Candidate, Mitt Romney, made a statement before the White House did, of course the media and administration attacked Romney. In fact on Wednesday, President Obama spent more time talking about Romney's comments than he did condemning the attacks and the Islamic extremists behind the attacks. One could argue that the condemnation of Romney's remarks still outnumber the condemnation of the attackers in the news media.
In the last 24 hours, more information is coming out. Unfortunately it is very disturbing information if indeed true.
I pray that these reports that Officials knew of these upcoming attacks ahead of time are incorrect. If they are indeed correct and our officials did nothing with the information, then I hope that the liberal news media will lambast Obama just as much as they recently did against Bush claiming that his administration ignored intelligence reports of the 9/11 events.
I really scratch my head behind the logic of not allowing the Marines to carry live ammunition. This naiveté amazes me. How is it NOT standard operating procedure for all Embassies in the middle east to be on High Alert on the anniversary of 9/11? In my opinion this is pure negligence on the part of the Administration and State Department.
Remember that it was this Administration that supported and encouraged the Arab Spring that brought down Mubarak in Egypt. With Mubarak's removal the Muslim Brotherhood rose to power. We have been giving them $1.5 billion dollars in aid. What do we get in return? They are openly calling for muslims to rise and protest/attack the US. Our embassy is attacked, overrun, and our flag is removed and burned in the streets. What is our response? Nothing. We are sitting back and watching.
Libya... In early 2011, rebels rose up against Libyan Leader Muammar Gaddafi. When Gaddafi fought back against these rebels, we came to the defense of the rebels and enforced a no fly zone. What do we get in return for these efforts? Our consulate is overrun, burned, documents are stolen, flag is burned, and four Americans lost their lives, including the US Ambassador. What is our response? A terse public statement condemning the attacks. Otherwise nothing.
I am not advocating that we should invade or go to war in these two countries. However, these events are directly the results of the failed Foreign Policies of our current President and his Administration. Appeasement and pacification will NOT work in the case of the Middle East.
If I were President, I would have had a statement and/or press conference Tuesday night. It would have been short and sweet simply condemning the violence and assuring the American People that my administration was on top of the situation and monitoring events closely. That my top priority was protecting our Embassies and Staff Members.
After that my next steps would be to call the leader of Egypt and tell him that I was suspending all future foreign aid to his country until their rhetoric and positions against our country change. Period. Same with Libya. I would call up the leader there and tell him that we were monitoring things and that his foreign aid from us was in severe jeopardy. Next, I would fly in teams of Marines to every Embassy and Consulate throughout the Middle East and Europe. I would ensure that these Marines are armed to the hilt. I would make it very clear to the local governments that we will protect our embassies and staff. As a result, ANYONE attempting to attack our embassy or attempting to scale our walls will be immediately shot. I know that sounds harsh. But if you scale our walls, we will view that as an attack and we will shoot first and ask questions later. If any leader protests our defending ourselves? Their foreign aid will be reviewed and will be in jeopardy as well.
While I believe that appeasement does not work, I would issue a statement condemning the controversial film and it's message. I would be clear that the US Government, nor the American people condone the message of this film.
I would also be "circling the wagons" with my allies in the region. Turkey, Jordan, Saudia Arabia, and yes Israel too! I would also reach out to the Arab League as well. I would be consulting with all parties to determine a more long term response to these attacks.
Anyway, that is what I would do if I were President.
Not only was our media slow to report on the breaking news, but the White House was slow to react as well. When Presidential Candidate, Mitt Romney, made a statement before the White House did, of course the media and administration attacked Romney. In fact on Wednesday, President Obama spent more time talking about Romney's comments than he did condemning the attacks and the Islamic extremists behind the attacks. One could argue that the condemnation of Romney's remarks still outnumber the condemnation of the attackers in the news media.
In the last 24 hours, more information is coming out. Unfortunately it is very disturbing information if indeed true.
- Supposedly we received reports 48 hours earlier that these attacks were going to happen.
- Marines in Egypt were not allowed to carry live ammo to protect our Embassy and staff.
- In Libya, there were no Marines, but rather we had outsourced the security to Libyans who abandoned "their posts" when the violence started leaving the staff and Ambassador in danger.
I pray that these reports that Officials knew of these upcoming attacks ahead of time are incorrect. If they are indeed correct and our officials did nothing with the information, then I hope that the liberal news media will lambast Obama just as much as they recently did against Bush claiming that his administration ignored intelligence reports of the 9/11 events.
I really scratch my head behind the logic of not allowing the Marines to carry live ammunition. This naiveté amazes me. How is it NOT standard operating procedure for all Embassies in the middle east to be on High Alert on the anniversary of 9/11? In my opinion this is pure negligence on the part of the Administration and State Department.
Remember that it was this Administration that supported and encouraged the Arab Spring that brought down Mubarak in Egypt. With Mubarak's removal the Muslim Brotherhood rose to power. We have been giving them $1.5 billion dollars in aid. What do we get in return? They are openly calling for muslims to rise and protest/attack the US. Our embassy is attacked, overrun, and our flag is removed and burned in the streets. What is our response? Nothing. We are sitting back and watching.
Libya... In early 2011, rebels rose up against Libyan Leader Muammar Gaddafi. When Gaddafi fought back against these rebels, we came to the defense of the rebels and enforced a no fly zone. What do we get in return for these efforts? Our consulate is overrun, burned, documents are stolen, flag is burned, and four Americans lost their lives, including the US Ambassador. What is our response? A terse public statement condemning the attacks. Otherwise nothing.
I am not advocating that we should invade or go to war in these two countries. However, these events are directly the results of the failed Foreign Policies of our current President and his Administration. Appeasement and pacification will NOT work in the case of the Middle East.
If I were President, I would have had a statement and/or press conference Tuesday night. It would have been short and sweet simply condemning the violence and assuring the American People that my administration was on top of the situation and monitoring events closely. That my top priority was protecting our Embassies and Staff Members.
After that my next steps would be to call the leader of Egypt and tell him that I was suspending all future foreign aid to his country until their rhetoric and positions against our country change. Period. Same with Libya. I would call up the leader there and tell him that we were monitoring things and that his foreign aid from us was in severe jeopardy. Next, I would fly in teams of Marines to every Embassy and Consulate throughout the Middle East and Europe. I would ensure that these Marines are armed to the hilt. I would make it very clear to the local governments that we will protect our embassies and staff. As a result, ANYONE attempting to attack our embassy or attempting to scale our walls will be immediately shot. I know that sounds harsh. But if you scale our walls, we will view that as an attack and we will shoot first and ask questions later. If any leader protests our defending ourselves? Their foreign aid will be reviewed and will be in jeopardy as well.
While I believe that appeasement does not work, I would issue a statement condemning the controversial film and it's message. I would be clear that the US Government, nor the American people condone the message of this film.
I would also be "circling the wagons" with my allies in the region. Turkey, Jordan, Saudia Arabia, and yes Israel too! I would also reach out to the Arab League as well. I would be consulting with all parties to determine a more long term response to these attacks.
Anyway, that is what I would do if I were President.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
The Gong is being rung...
When I was a youngster there was a TV show called "The Gong Show". You may remember it. A contestent would come on stage and perform a talent (usually very unsuccessfully of course). After enduring as much as they could, a judge would jump up and hit a huge Gong to signal the contestent to stop.
Congressman Akin, the Gong is being rung.
Your statement on Sunday was very offensive on so many levels. I realize that you have spent the last 48 hours apologizing profusely. However, the damage has been done. No matter how unfair you may feel that it is, the fact of the matter is that the damage is far more reaching than just your Senate Campaign in Missouri.
Despite their immediate condemnation of your statement, your statement is now being linked to the Romney/Ryan campaign as if they had said the statement themselves. This is the reality of today's political environment. You have interjected yourself into the national media and the presidential campaign in a very negative way. Rather than talking about the Economy and Jobs, they are now getting distracted with this controversy. Your continued candidacy will only prove to be a further distraction. You have become the "Christine O'Donnell of 2012."
Again the Gong is being rung. This is your queue to exit Stage Right. Please do the right thing and end your candidacy so that this controversy can quickly be forgotten and we can get back to the issues that matter in this election.
*Update - 08/21/2012 6:35pm Central
Let me be clear... while I disagree with Congressman Akin's position on abortion without exceptions, this is not the reason for my calling for his stepping down. If he had merely stated "I am against Abortion in all cases" and left it at that, this would never been a news item. My issue is that he did not have the sound judgement and political wherewithal to shut up beyond that. Instead he continued with the indefensible statement about "legitimate rape" and how a woman's body can shut down the potential for pregnancy as a result. This is complete nonsense and showed that he is not the candidate fit to represent the good people of Missouri.
Furthermore, he is completely oblivious and does not understand the far reaching damage that this has caused. We have now gone two days of talking about this issue instead of talking about the REAL issues that matter to the American People. He has proven to be a negative distraction in this election and will continue to do so as long as he is in this race.
Congressman Akin, the Gong is being rung.
Your statement on Sunday was very offensive on so many levels. I realize that you have spent the last 48 hours apologizing profusely. However, the damage has been done. No matter how unfair you may feel that it is, the fact of the matter is that the damage is far more reaching than just your Senate Campaign in Missouri.
Despite their immediate condemnation of your statement, your statement is now being linked to the Romney/Ryan campaign as if they had said the statement themselves. This is the reality of today's political environment. You have interjected yourself into the national media and the presidential campaign in a very negative way. Rather than talking about the Economy and Jobs, they are now getting distracted with this controversy. Your continued candidacy will only prove to be a further distraction. You have become the "Christine O'Donnell of 2012."
Again the Gong is being rung. This is your queue to exit Stage Right. Please do the right thing and end your candidacy so that this controversy can quickly be forgotten and we can get back to the issues that matter in this election.
*Update - 08/21/2012 6:35pm Central
Let me be clear... while I disagree with Congressman Akin's position on abortion without exceptions, this is not the reason for my calling for his stepping down. If he had merely stated "I am against Abortion in all cases" and left it at that, this would never been a news item. My issue is that he did not have the sound judgement and political wherewithal to shut up beyond that. Instead he continued with the indefensible statement about "legitimate rape" and how a woman's body can shut down the potential for pregnancy as a result. This is complete nonsense and showed that he is not the candidate fit to represent the good people of Missouri.
Furthermore, he is completely oblivious and does not understand the far reaching damage that this has caused. We have now gone two days of talking about this issue instead of talking about the REAL issues that matter to the American People. He has proven to be a negative distraction in this election and will continue to do so as long as he is in this race.
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Rising Costs for Higher Education vs Inflation
*Originally posted on December 3, 2011 on a previous, now defunct, blog site. Re-posted here for historical purposes.
I was walking through O'hare Airport earlier this week and I saw a graphic being shown on CNN that illustrated the disparate rise in Tuition vs Income over the last 20 years. Would you believe that the average tuition costs have risen 130% over the last 20 years? Here is an article from CNN Money that has the graphic at the very top:
CNN Money Article about Tuition vs Income
I am trying to remember for sure, but I swore that in 1989, I paid $56/credit hour to go to college. Today that same school charges $203.50/credit hour for In-state Undergraduate Students. In 2002-2003, it was $137, according to their website. This means that in 9 years, tuition has risen 48.54% alone. This is not an indictment against one particular University. I believe that this is a national issue and thus I am refraining from naming just one particular University.
According to Inflationdata.com, the cumulative inflation increase from August 2002 to August 2011 was 25.37%. This means that tuition in the last 9 years has increased almost TWICE the rate of inflation in the same period? Adding insult to injury, if you go back to the graph in the above article, you will see that the median income has not grown substantially in that same period. In fact it has remained rather stagnant despite inflation. I would be interested in seeing a statistic on the amount of grants offered by the Government and Scholarships offered by the schools themselves comparing that same time period? Did the amount of such aid increase at the same rate?
I can completely understand the frustration of many on this issue. While I don't share a lot of the sentiment of "Hey government, forgive my student loans!", I do believe that this issue needs to be looked at. How can Universities justify an increase in tuition that is nearly double the rate of inflation? I would welcome feedback on this issue. I would love to understand.
What does a student get in an education today, vs those received 9 years ago that can justify an increase in tuition nearly twice the rate of inflation?
While I agree that the Middle-class is probably the largest victim from this, I don't believe that this is some "class warfare" conspiracy of the rich trying to keep the middle-class down. I could not find a variable tuition rate based upon your income level. It appears that we all pay the same rate. I don't believe that anyone can blame this on Conservatives, when it is fairly widely known that most of Higher Education officials are considered to be Liberals.
In our current economic times and where we constantly hear that companies are forced to send jobs oversees due to a shortage in skilled workers (this despite a current unemployment rate of 8.6%), I believe that this is a critical issue that must be addressed. How can we expect to compete in a global market if our youth can not afford to go to college to get the skills necessary to succeed in today's workplace?
We keep hearing about how Healthcare costs are out of control and stifling our economy. I believe that a strong argument could be made about the out of control Higher Education costs as well! I would encourage you to contact your Congressional Representatives (and Senators) and raise this issue with them.
CNN Money Article about Tuition vs Income
I am trying to remember for sure, but I swore that in 1989, I paid $56/credit hour to go to college. Today that same school charges $203.50/credit hour for In-state Undergraduate Students. In 2002-2003, it was $137, according to their website. This means that in 9 years, tuition has risen 48.54% alone. This is not an indictment against one particular University. I believe that this is a national issue and thus I am refraining from naming just one particular University.
According to Inflationdata.com, the cumulative inflation increase from August 2002 to August 2011 was 25.37%. This means that tuition in the last 9 years has increased almost TWICE the rate of inflation in the same period? Adding insult to injury, if you go back to the graph in the above article, you will see that the median income has not grown substantially in that same period. In fact it has remained rather stagnant despite inflation. I would be interested in seeing a statistic on the amount of grants offered by the Government and Scholarships offered by the schools themselves comparing that same time period? Did the amount of such aid increase at the same rate?
I can completely understand the frustration of many on this issue. While I don't share a lot of the sentiment of "Hey government, forgive my student loans!", I do believe that this issue needs to be looked at. How can Universities justify an increase in tuition that is nearly double the rate of inflation? I would welcome feedback on this issue. I would love to understand.
What does a student get in an education today, vs those received 9 years ago that can justify an increase in tuition nearly twice the rate of inflation?
While I agree that the Middle-class is probably the largest victim from this, I don't believe that this is some "class warfare" conspiracy of the rich trying to keep the middle-class down. I could not find a variable tuition rate based upon your income level. It appears that we all pay the same rate. I don't believe that anyone can blame this on Conservatives, when it is fairly widely known that most of Higher Education officials are considered to be Liberals.
In our current economic times and where we constantly hear that companies are forced to send jobs oversees due to a shortage in skilled workers (this despite a current unemployment rate of 8.6%), I believe that this is a critical issue that must be addressed. How can we expect to compete in a global market if our youth can not afford to go to college to get the skills necessary to succeed in today's workplace?
We keep hearing about how Healthcare costs are out of control and stifling our economy. I believe that a strong argument could be made about the out of control Higher Education costs as well! I would encourage you to contact your Congressional Representatives (and Senators) and raise this issue with them.
My solution to changing Wall Street
*Originally posted on October 31st, 2011 on a previous, now defunct blog site. Re-posted here for historical purpose.
In my previous post, I identified three key areas where I agreed with the frustrations of the Occupy Wall Street Protesters. I also stated that I felt that the use of the "Arab Spring" tactics were flawed and were therefore doomed for failure. I believe there are more effective ways to force change.
As I stated in my previous blog, Corporate Executives could not care less about a bunch of people camping out in a park. You are not effecting their bottom line. The first thought is to organize boycotts of these companies. However, this has a very undesirable ripple effect. If you successfully organize a boycott and get people to stop buying ones products/services, then all they are going to do is reduce their workforce even more and put even more people out of work. So that doesn't really solve anything. You are just making the problem even worse.
In any interview that you see with a CEO or Executive, what is the number one thing they all say? They claim that they are not bad people, they are merely doing their job. They also clearly state that they answer to their shareholders. That is their #1 responsibility. Want to change a Corporation's behavior? Affect their stock price. I guarantee you that if a companies stock starts dropping, they will change their ways real fast. Just look at Netflix as an example. Their stock dropped over 35% after they ticked off their users. You don't think that CEO and Board is in the hot seat?
So my three gripes were:
As I stated in my previous blog, Corporate Executives could not care less about a bunch of people camping out in a park. You are not effecting their bottom line. The first thought is to organize boycotts of these companies. However, this has a very undesirable ripple effect. If you successfully organize a boycott and get people to stop buying ones products/services, then all they are going to do is reduce their workforce even more and put even more people out of work. So that doesn't really solve anything. You are just making the problem even worse.
In any interview that you see with a CEO or Executive, what is the number one thing they all say? They claim that they are not bad people, they are merely doing their job. They also clearly state that they answer to their shareholders. That is their #1 responsibility. Want to change a Corporation's behavior? Affect their stock price. I guarantee you that if a companies stock starts dropping, they will change their ways real fast. Just look at Netflix as an example. Their stock dropped over 35% after they ticked off their users. You don't think that CEO and Board is in the hot seat?
So my three gripes were:
- Outsourcing our middle class jobs oversees
- Not bringing workforce levels back despite an increase in corporate profits
- Insane Corporate bonuses that do not reflect the performance of the company.
The Primary solution to solving each of these three grips lies in affecting the stock price of a company. People spend many years of college learning how exactly a stock price is valued. But in very basic terms, it is based on what people are willing to pay for that stock. So for example, I have a stock that I believe is worth $10, but I call my broker to sell it. He says "Hey i have a stock to sell." However the best offer he can get for it is $9. Now I can say no deal and wait a little longer until someone is willing to pay me the amount I want, or I can cave and sell it for the $9. At that moment, the stock is really worth $9.
So rather than spend all of these fruitless efforts protesting, why not research and figure out all of the companies that are currently shipping good paying middle class jobs oversees. Research and identify these companies. Once you know the companies, make it politically and socially embarrassing to own stock in those companies. Sway popular opinion that it is politically and socially bad to be associated with those companies, until they bring their jobs back to the US.
The second prong to the solution is for our government to offer tax incentives encouraging companies to bring those jobs back. Not blanket tax incentives mind you One idea is a temporary payroll tax holiday on those jobs that are brought back to the US.
The third prong is the solicitation of these companies to look at moving those jobs into places that have low cost of living. Whether it is the Midwest or the South, the idea is that costs far less to employ someone in "Smalltown USA" than it does in New York or California. Foreign companies are realizing this when they are opening up manufacturing plants here in the States (Honda, Mitsubishi, Toyota, etc).
The Workforce Levels issue is tougher to solve directly. This is because it impossible to have guidelines on how many people to employ for a job. I would love to say that this is the niche that the Unions could fill. However the Labor Unions are as corrupt as the politicians (maybe even more). They don't care about their workers. They only care about power. Nothing else. So I don't have a clear solution yet. I would love to hear constructive ideas though.
As for the insane bonuses... the primary approach has to be the same as above. Affect the stock price. When a company performs badly and yet still hands out crazy bonuses then they should be vilified by the public. Make it socially awkward to be a stockholder of that company. And if a company receives a Government bailout, then the entire Board of Directors and CEO must resign as a terms of receiving that bailout.
Again the entire key is that you must affect the stock price and make it so that the stockholders are not happy. That is what will gain the attention of the Executives on Wall Street. I commend the efforts of the protesters, however take that energy and focus it in a way that will gain the result that you wish to achieve.
Rather than demonize capitalism, use it to your advantage to achieve your goal. It could not be clearer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)