I forgot to mention in Thursday's post that it was my second blogiversary...I guess I'll have to send myself flowers. About 587 published posts in two years. That's somewhat of a misnomer because of the unit of analysis. I have written some lengthy posts and most of my posts have multiple sections whereas many bloggers publish as little as a paragraph.
My mom occasionally looks at my posts and is puzzled by why I put so much time into something hardly anyone ever reads--I don't make any money at it, after all. I think I can best explain in terms of an example from my teaching experience.
When I joined the UTEP business school, the MIS faculty consisted of a PhD graduate from another recognized MIS academic program (Texas Tech) and a couple of lecturers, one of whom was more of a practitioner and the other a Latino. [I ended up socializing more with the latter; I remember going him and another professor to a fantastic restaurant in Juarez, my first time across the border since my dad was stationed in Laredo. My friend had a lothario reputation, although we never discussed it. One urban legend was that the college urgently had to reach him once, and the person answering the call from their hotel room was a female student.] Me, I never got so much as a love note in 8 years of university teaching; the only time I can remember seeing a coed student outside a school building was near graduate housing just off the UH campus and along the path towards parking lots. A newly married former student spotted me and asked me to escort her to parking.
[It wasn't a safe area; I used to jog along the perimeter of campus in the late evening until one time as I was jogging a couple of young adult black male cyclists rode in my direction on the sidewalk when the one closer to me unexpectedly punched me hard in the face (I was listening to music on my Walkman and really wasn't paying attention to them); I could feel his knuckle on the surface of my eye. Of course, the campus police had nothing much to go on when I reported the crime. Days later, my eye was still so badly swollen my auditing professor asked me if I had walked into a door or something.]
Anyway, the Texas Tech graduate had basically recruited me; as I mentioned in an earlier post, the business college had applied, but not received, AACSB accreditation; they wanted my list of publications on file before the accreditation committee froze the application. So months later, I was depending on my new colleague for advice on the new courses I was teaching. in particular, a data structures course, taught in the early evening schedule. What I recall from the conversation was his philosophy on how the course was taught, how many computer assignments he did in teaching the course, etc. What he didn't tell me was that the students weren't happy with his format; the popular practitioner lecturer had frequently taught the data structures/database management courses and basically ignored course guidelines, teaching some database concepts in the first course and using the second course as sort of a local business internship program. The university really didn't care what he was doing, so long as students gave him high marks at the end of semester evaluation forms... I don't recall the exact number but I had something like 12-15 students the first week, maybe half of that number the second week, and soon I was down to 2 or 3 students (by the final drop date).
I was shocked, because nothing like that had ever happened before or since; I've had drops before, but nothing approaching that. I went to my colleague and confronted him. He then admitted he was telling me how he thought the course should be taught and his students didn't like it either. There is a natural resistance to change, and quite frankly, in my opinion, most of my students considered classes as punches on a job ticket diploma, and the less they had to do in getting their tickets punched, the better. There was little awareness with how their learning and training in the classroom would serve them in the long run competing against others from more rigorous programs.
But all that is spilled milk; the question is--how do I handle a classroom of 2 or 3 students? Obviously in that scenario you have more time for individual attention, but I still had lectures to plan and computer assignments and tests to write and grade. I was still spending a serious amount of time investing in a first-time course preparation. Whether I had 3 students or 30, I was putting in the same amount of effort. I still have to laugh at once reading an anonymous student at a former college hypothesize that my purpose for making a class rigorous was to force enough students into dropping to lessen the amount of time grading tests and assignments. Grading takes a trivial amount of time...
Hopefully my reader has gotten the point in my long example. I have to think through our national issues; I'm in the process of fleshing out my own political philosophy, and in a matter of speaking, writing this blog is cathartic. In the process I'm looking at topical issues and analyzing them in what I consider an even-handed, constructive, pragmatic manner; I dislike red meat/strident or overly personal views.
[I'm sure Shirley Sherrod might disagree, but I never accused her of being a racist; I was really more concerned about her, in this allegedly redemptive/transforming speech, simply switching from one stereotype to another, whether we are talking about the scapegoat upper-class or the absurd straw man characterization of the Bush Administration. All she is doing is redirecting her personal frustrations; what is truly redemptive is treating your adversaries with dignity and respect, patience, and even temperament. I mentioned in an earlier post about the fact her father was murdered by a white man never brought to justice. That's a horrible thing to live with for the rest of your life. But when you are a professional, you don't let your personal feelings get in the way of doing your job. I have dealt with bosses, colleagues, clients, students, and others whom have done things to me which violate any standard of civility. But I have the ability to control how I respond to an adverse situation. The issue I had with the Sherrod video was not the motive behind her initial response to the white farmer--it was her lack of professionalism. My reaction would have been the same if the video was about her response to a black male farmer making a sexist remark. You move on--you don't escalate the situation, and you don't abuse your authority. It's called gracefully handling a bad situation.]
Whether my readership is in the hundreds or millions (HINT: I don't think any of the popular American conservative bloggers seem to be aware of my little blog), I'm going to go through the same process of thinking through the issues and organizing my thoughts. My blog is not cookie-cutter; my format, positions, analyses, and sense of humor are unlike anything else I've seen on the web. I don't know if I'll be able to continue my recent pattern of blogging daily on multiple topics, but the progressive Democratic Congress and Obama Administration are like the gift that keeps giving.
Social Security, Pelosi, and the State of Denial
Obama and his fellow progressives are so much in a State of Denial, I'm surprised they haven't adopted it as the 51st state with 3 progressive votes in the Congress (a Congressman and two Senators)...
Progressives are trying to engage in conceptual gymnastics, redefining social security not as a self-financing, lockbox but as an "insurance" program, where those who haven't saved enough during their lifetimes can draw and those who have carefully saved to supplement their promised retirement income, which is not a gift but a compulsory retirement contribution program--well, if a politician or government bureaucrat thinks he or she doesn't need the money, well, they lose it.
This is not an insurance program; an insurance program spreads risk, particularly catastrophic risk. Economically successful people do have risks, of course; for instance, an investment banker who died during 9/11 probably left a young family without income to support payment of a significant mortgage and related expenses. A businessman may get into a serious auto accident, leaving the victim requiring assistance and significant health expenses for the rest of his life. The ongoing Gulf oil crisis is yet another example, with BP looking to sell billions in assets to cover losses associated with the industrial accident.
But old age is not catastrophe: it's a blessing. And believe it or not, people managed to live long, full lives before FDR introduced social security in the 1930's, when 16 workers supported each retiree. (There are other beneficiaries besides retirees, but I'm addressing the predominant beneficiaries.) Keep in mind that there were relatives, charities, and other alternatives; doctors donated services.
There are a number of things we conservatives hate about the current social security program. First and most important, it creates moral hazard. When government guarantees retirement income, even with only modest contributions into the system to qualify, people make other economic decisions based on that guarantee. In particular, if the government is going to guarantee me a comfortable living after reaching the age of 62, why should I save for the future? Even if I've only working a few years at a minimum wage and never tried to get ahead, e.g., further education or training for a higher-paying career, taking on a second job or whatever, why should I deprive myself? People could reach retirement with little or no savings by making little of the opportunities available to them as American citizens and developing bad habits (e.g., spending money they didn't have instead of putting something away for a rainy day). This is the exact problem that the recent "financial reform" was trying to grapple with in terms of banks: since the government guarantees depositors up to a certain amount of money, banks were able to free up some capital to engage in riskier loans or other transactions. But the hypocritical progressives who see moral hazard with government guarantees to business pretend not to see the same with government guarantees to retirees.
A second reason we hate it is because Democrats have perverted the program; in fact, the reserve has never been invested in income-produced assets, like timberlands, which can be harvested on a cyclic basis; in fact, social security reserves are required to invest in Treasury bills, i.e., covering progressive Democratic drunken sailor spending. The system doesn't get a return of misspent federal dollars. We own pieces of bad spending ideas, not natural resources that generate returns to investors. Instead of the reserve throwing off cash in the form of dividends from a diversified asset base, money being "invested" by employees and employer matches are simply repackaged and sent directly to recipients, with any leftover contributions used to paper over part of this year's deficit. In fact, some reports have it that receipts aren't enough to cover this year as some intending to retire at 65 opting instead for earlier retirement because of the bad economy, hitting the program with a double whammy because they've lost the contribution money while have to disburse more.
A third general reason is because the Democrats, who have run for decades on increasing benefits to politically powerful retirees, refuse to make adjustments to accommodate changes in actuarial factors, i.e., longer lifespans and hence benefits. Many, if not most retirees take out far more in benefits than they ever put into the program, and Democrats have continued to support benefit increases over and beyond legitimate cost of living increases and to oppose eligibility restrictions, including raising the eligibility ages.
It's not surprising that Pelosi rules out any meaningful steps to shore up the social security reserve, including some of the constructive suggestions made in the last paragraph. No doubt she would be receptive to means-testing, because it fits right into the rest of her class warfare agenda: means-testing, lifting contribution caps, etc. Make no mistake--she's talking about transforming social security into welfare.
What do I think needs to be done? I've discussed this in other posts: raised eligibility criteria; diversification of reserve assets; and capped disbursements/payment increases. (In fact, I'm intrigued by the concept of a uniform distribution.) What this country can't afford is Democrats failing to deal with ALL disbursements of the federal budget, including retiree benefits--nothing can be "off the table". What we have to do is make sure people are aware of the need to save for retirement and that government payouts are only a foundation of retirement income they must supplement.
A Struggling Economy and Convoluted Tax Code
I did not watch Obama's visit on "The View"; while Joy Behar basked in the glow of The One and proclaimed, for all the TV audience to hear, His Administration's many great works, He spoke to the masses, and they pondered the meanings of each and every Word: Yes, He did know the Hollywood starlet Lindsay Lohan was in jail (but did they get the answer to the question all Hollywood wanted to know: would she get a Presidential pardon?), He said he didn't know of Snooki (but Snooki is still upset with The One over the tanning surtax in the health bill (she's reasonably sure that John McCain would not be taxing her tanning sessions, and she feels The One can't identity with a white woman's need to get a good tan!)).... But He did point out His accomplishment of economic growth and private sector job growth over the last few months.
Of course, Obama didn't mention the fact that the GDP grew less than expected last quarter (about 2.4%) and 2-year bond rates dropping/bond prices prices rising for a ninth straight week while longer-term rates increased.With bond prices increasing/yields decreasing to multi-month lows and payrolls expected to drop for a second consecutive month, this is not good for the economy. We will probably see the Fed, led by Helicopter Ben, buy Treasury notes in an effort to bolster the money supply from ruinous deflation (as in the Great Depression).
I am sympathetic to Burman's argument that instead of freezing discretionary spending, Obama and the Congress should freeze tax expenditures. Tax expenditures are tax breaks for politically favored groups (the most prominent of which include health care insurance and mortgage interest subsidies). I have long argued against obfuscation of the tax code; basically, one company's tax break has to be made up by raising compensatory revenue elsewhere--including unconscionable debt inherited by our children and grandchildren. To me, things like the popular cash-for-clunkers program were bad ideas--a select number of windfall consumers, already in the market for new cars, got major tax breaks for modest fuel-efficiency gains in the wake of $4-plus/gallon (and the companies selling more fuel-efficient vehicles got a windfall opportunity to protect their profit margins at Uncle Sam's expense). I want to see Bernanke take into account the fact that American workers are on a spending strike of shorts, saving for a rainy day, which shows just what confidence of American consumers and businesses in Obama's economic policies.
Obama can't be so naive as to believe raising tax rates from 35% to 39.6% on the top 2-3% is going to make up for the trillions he and his fellow Democrats are permanently adding to federal spending. I suspect he's doing his imitation of the Gray Davis "hide-the-bad-news-until-after-the-election" trick. He knows that raising taxes on everyone is the only way he is going to be able to pay the bills, which will burden a fragile recovery, and he also knows that admitting such now would make his party's chances even worse this fall.
Political Cartoon
Steve Breen is wrong; Obama is aware of Iraq and Afghanistan, but the real enemies are Fox News and the GOP....
Quote of the Day
Curiosity is a lust of the mind.
Thomas Hobbes
Musical Interlude: American Songbook Series.
Fred Astaire, "Night and Day". Sigh...Cole Porter--need I say more? Probably the greatest songwriter ever. One of my favorite CD's is a collection of hit performances of Cole Porter tunes...
