College Is Not For Everyone

Students set to protest student loan debt


I am sick and tired of this nonsensical protest and debate over student debt and here is why.


Students are going to college of their own free will knowing the cost and knowing they are borrowing at lower than ever interest rates to pay for it.  They also know the job market is horrible, despite what President Obama says about the economy and job creation under his administration.


For decades every politician in Washington DC has told every teenager in America to go to college, get a good education and find a good job.  Consequently, more students than ever are entering college, and avoiding trade schools and community colleges.  Colleges are booming with students.  Enrollment is up all over the country.


If any of these students are enrolled in Econ 101 they'd be learning about the cost curve, supply and demand.  When demand goes up, price go up, until supply catches up, then price stabilizes.  When demand goes down and supply is up, prices drop.  As more students enroll at State U, costs go up.  Colleges meanwhile, are spending more money to increase capacity, and attract even more students.  Since the interest rate is low,  money is cheap.  As schools build more classrooms, dormitories and athletic complexes, the cost of higher education goes up and up. 


Now compound that activity with a lower than expected job market, and more students are entering schools and staying for post graduate courses than ever.  More students, more cost, fewer jobs.  People in the job market are not getting out as quickly either, and delaying retirement as cost of living increases and retirement savings are not quite what they hoped for.


It s a cycle that leads to higher costs.  What is the solution you ask?


Drop out of school or delay going to college if you're not there yet.  Check out community colleges or trade schools.  Avoid the typical four year college.  If this were to happen broadly, many schools would be forced to slow down the rate of building and lower costs.


There are also many trade jobs available to those willing to work and get their hands dirty.  Many trade jobs offer good salaries or wages, plus benefits.


Another thing people may not realize is that as more and more college graduates can't find full time employment in their chosen field of study, the value of a diploma decreases also.  More prospective employees means lower wages and salaries, not higher.


Stop expecting everyone else to pay for a college education that means less every year that we repeat hitting our heads agains the campus gates.

Divisive Liberals

I once heard someone say that republicans think democrats are wrong, but democrats think republicans are evil.  If that is true, and I see that in many, many cases, then divisiveness is the ultimate result.


Examples of this liberal think are as follows:

1. Liberals think that conservatives opposed to abortion hate women.
2. Liberals think that conservatives opposed to Obamacare hate grannies.
3. Liberal think that conservatives opposed to the welfare state hate the poor.
4. Liberals think conservatives who disagree with the global climate change thory hate clean air and polar bears.
5. Liberals think conservatives opposed to higher taxes hate the middle class.
6. Liberals think conservatives opposed to open borders hate immigrants.

Of course the only logic behind such assertions is that liberals think conservatives hate just about every demographic group there is.


Meanwhile the left leaning groups lean further left every election cycle.  We now have an avowed socialist running in the democrat presidential primary race.  And his opponents keep moving further left to keep up with him. 


Of course the result of all this leftward leaning while declaring the right hates you, only causes division among the citizens.  You can see it online on any social media platform, in the streets, and on TV and in movies. 


If you disagree, consider that only #BlackLivesMatter to large numbers of citizens who could not be considered conservative and never would vote republican.  You see rich versus poor, white versus black versus brown, christian versus muslim.


The fact that so many democrats are willing to overlook possibly illegal and definitely immoral, acts by Hillary Clinton, is proof of how much the party rank and file are buying into the division.  Many of the same people who wanted George W. Bush tried for war crimes, are so willing to accept Hillary's faults and explain them away as insignificant or old news.

Who Should be Able to Donate Money to Political Campaigns?

Media Lobbyists Financing Campaigns


Reading this article about lobbyists and super PACs raising money for presidential hopefuls got me thinking about campaign finance reform.  Here is my solution:

1. Only registered voters should be permitted to donate to political campaigns or to spend money advertising on behalf of a candidate or issue.  Corporations, labor unions and professional associations are not registered voters.  Groups like the AFL-CIO, NRA or Planned Parenthood are not voters and should not be allowed to donate money.  Only voters should have the right to donate.  If members of these groups believe strongly enough in a candidate or issue they can write their own check and donate.  This also eliminates the circumstances whereby an idividual member disagrees with the group leadership on issues and candidates and does not want to support them.
2. Some dollar limit should be imposed on individual voters' donations.  We could debate that amount forever.  I suggest $5000 per donor per candidate or issue.  This would eliminate the huge sums of money spent on mudslinging and negative attack ads.  Candidates would be forced to spend their money more wisely and efficiently.
3. Unrelated to campaign finance reform, but campaign reform nonetheless, is the negative advertising.  When I coached youth sports I had a rule for my assistant coaches when dealing with kids.  Before you could criticize a player, you had to compliment him.  I would revise that rule to apply to political campaigns as follows.  Before you attack your opponent, you must tell me something about yourself.  This will force candidates to spend time explaining why they should get your vote, instead of why the other candidate should not.  It will turn the campaign into one of the choice of the better candidate, instead of the lesser of two evils.

Live to Fight Another Day

Cop Slams Teen Age Girl

Did this policeman handle the situation correctly?  No.  The police officer reacted badly, but he was reacting to the girl's action.  Surely there was some other method available, even though this girl was told my multiple authorities to leave the room.  But if this girl had done as she was instructed, none of this would have happened.

Many people are quick to blame cops for any use of force, excessive or otherwise.  There are cops who use too much force at times.  But if this young girl had simply stood up and walked out of the classroom with the officer, there would be no video to watch.

The lesson to be learned is do what police tell you, and if things go very wrong, you will have your day in court to tell the judge.  The key thing in that statement is you will live to fight another day.

If you obstruct police authority, things will not go well for you and you will lose that battle on that day.  In some cases we have seen people die in police altercations, though not in this case.  But the lesson remains valid.

However, if you do as you are told, there will be no use of force by the officer, and you can tell the authorities how wronged you were, and let the process work that out.

Breaking rules and/or laws does not give you permission to not follow police orders given in a lawful manner.  Get up and leave the room, and you won't get body slammed.  It cannot be worth it to aggravate the situation thereby causing an escalation of force required for the officer to remove you.

Nobel Prize Economist Says Growth is Key

Pro-Growth Economist Angus Deaton Echoes JFK

Economic growth is key to getting out of poverty.  High taxation and high regulation inhibit growth, and therefore lead to more poverty and greater inequality of income.

Conservatives have argued this for years.  Ronald Reagan was criticized for his "tax cuts for the wealthy", but lower tax rates led to higher tax revenues and greater economic growth.   Those tax cuts were followed by a long period of economic growth.

President Kennedy also argued for lower taxes to provide for higher growth.  At the time the highest tax rate was 90%.  That rate has already been proposed anew by candidate Bernie Sanders.

Many people on the left repeat the theme of "trickle down economics" when referring to this lower tax for higher growth meme.  In fact, trickle down has never been an accurate description of what occurs here.  What does happen is tax payers are allowed to keep more of their income to spend as they wish versus sending it to the government to spend.  When people have more money to spend or invest they do so.

There are several factors the impact the economic engine that we can control.  Taxation is one, and regulation is another.  Reducing both would be a good step toward growing the economy and raising the economic position of many, including lifting them out of poverty.

Just Fall from a Turnip Truck?

Five Year Old Meets Pope


In case you just fell from the turnip truck, this story is complete fiction.  Ask yourself the following questions to validate my assertion.

1. With heightened security around  the pope not permitting him to mingle with the crowd, are we to believe a 5 year girl simply climbed barricades and walked to the pope's vehicle?
2. Are we to believe a 5 year old wrote the letter that is quoted in this piece?
3. What 5 year old anxiously awaits the pope to hand deliver a letter in a highly guarded motorcade?  Or 25 year old for that matter?
4. How do you suppose the secret contents of the letter became so public?
5. Do you still think this is a spontaneous act of a 5 year old?
6. Would you like to buy ocean-front property in Kentucky?

We Still Have Free Speech, No?

UC goes back to the drawing board on controversial revamp of free-speech policy

So the University of California system instituted an intolerance policy which in effect limited free speech to only non-offensive language.  The problem with that policy, according to some, is that it did not go far enough.

The problem as I see it is that we have this thing called the 1st Amendment which provides for free speech.  In particular, it provides for free speech that others may not agree with.  The reason that is so is because speech that everyone agrees with requires no protection at all.

Too many colleges and universities are trying to protect overly sensitive students who seemingly are incapable of either countering the speech with debate, or ignoring it.  What will come of our country if our youth are treated like china dolls who cannot be permitted to hear rough or insensitive language?  This intolerance for free speech must not continue.