A Hit to Education

Wherever you live, I hope that your local government shows more foresight and intelligence than mine. The Kansas legislature has just approved a budget that virtually assures further cuts to public education in the coming years. At a time when our legislators need to be finding ways to replace funds that they cut during recent recession-plagued years, they have instead guaranteed that the quality of education in Kansas will suffer.

There is some window dressing on this year's bill. A small increase in education funding is indicated for one year and it appears that the necessary cuts in state services will not hit until next year. But, if nothing changes between now and then, our state will need to balance the budget, which the current funding will not cover. So, services will be cut and, in Kansas where 2/3 of state funding goes to education, that means taking public money from students.

This has all been done in the name of tax cuts. I'm all for low taxes; they do indeed help create jobs. But, there are necessary services that a state needs to provide such as law enforcement, roads and education. To neglect any of these services - especially the last - is the equivalent of eating your seeds. It fills your stomach now but guarantees hunger in the future.

Our governor, Sam Brownback, has indicated that he will sign the bill.

National Debt

Let's face it. Both political parties are being disingenuous about our federal budget and the national debt. Republicans are putting forth the illusion that we can balance the budget and pay off the debt by cutting expenses, while Democrats are insinuating we can do the same by simply raising taxes on the wealthy.

Both parties are - to put it bluntly - full of crap. If we have any hope of balancing the budget we will need to both make dramatic cuts in our expenses and raise taxes. These cuts will need to be far more severe than any politician is willing to admit and will need to include cuts to such sacred items as defense and social security. Likewise, the increased taxes will need to be levied not just on the wealthy, but on virtually all tax payers. Remember, if we would somehow balance the budget tomorrow, we would still need to pay off $15 trillion in loans which we, as a nation, have already acquired.

There are those, including President Obama, who would like to delay such balancing and repayment until our economy is healthier. But I say that delay could invite economic disaster. The interest rate we pay now for our debts is "bargain basement." The Federal Reserve - in an effort to encourage borrowing - has reduced the national interest rate to between 0.00 and 0.25 percent. However, that is sure to rise as our economy improves. Therefore, money borrowed now is relatively cheap. But money borrowed later - when interest rates are higher - will be much more expensive. The federal government is currently paying a miserly 0.60 interest rate on Series EE Savings Bonds. That will need to change when the economy improves.

Therefore we, at the very least, need to make the necessary sacrifices now and balance our budget. We certainly can't afford to borrow more money later when increased interest rates could, literally, break the bank.

War and Numbers

The war in Afghanistan continues to dominate US foreign concerns while, on the domestic front, we are, understandably, fixated on three sets of numbers.

The war has run its course long ago and has, predictably, turned sour for the United States. Whatever good we hoped to do - such as bringing down the Taliban controlled government of that Middle East country - was accomplished long ago. The Afghans have grown tired of our presence, especially after the recent accidental burning of the Korans and the tragic shooting of Afghan civilians by a US soldier. To be perfectly honest, the US efforts in the country are probably now counterproductive; we may well be doing more harm to US-Afghan relations than good.

This is the almost certain result of an undeclared war, entered without following the Powell Doctrine. We could not define "victory" when we entered the war and we did not have an exit strategy. Consequently, we now have a mess on our hands, one that is proving difficult and bloody to wash away. It seems to be a lesson we have to learn each generation and this time we learned it twice over - in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, back in the US, we are focused on three numbers: the number of delegates Mitt Romney has gathered, the price of gasoline and the unemployment rate.

Romney's struggle to acquire delegates has proven more difficult than I predicted. At this writing, he has just lost the Mississippi and Alabama primaries to Rick Santorum. I still believe Romney will, in the end, earn the nomination, but it is proving to be a difficult struggle.

Most people, however, are more concerned with the price of gas. Every time they fill up their tank, they are keenly aware of the sacrifices that will need to be made for the purchase. Entertainment, savings and, in some cases, even the quality and variety of food must be placed on the altar as people make financial sacrifices to get to work, home and school. This obviously cannot be good for the economy. The rising price of gas could easily stall an already shaky recovery.

But even the price of gas pales in comparison to the unemployment figures. The cost of filling your gas tank is important, but not as important as your job. Whether or not you have a place of employment trumps just about everything else and, in fact, I am willing to predict that the unemployment rate will, in the end, decide the next president. If the unemployment rate continues to improve, President Obama will be reelected. However, if the current 8.3 percent unemployment rate should begin to rise again toward double digit figures, the Republican nominee will stand a very good chance of occupying the White House.

Resolutions 2012

As we enter 2012, let us as a nation commit ourselves to two resolutions. First, we will bring our troops home from Europe. And second, we will not support any more undeclared wars.

I've written extensively before about removing our military out of Europe. Our troops no longer serve a clearly defined purpose by standing guard in Germany, Spain and Italy. World War II ended in 1945 and the Cold War ended in the late 1980s. European countries - if they will just make the commitment - are capable of funding and manning their own armies. Why should we allow them to freeload on our dollar by depending on American soldiers stationed on European soil?

We are currently pumping billions of dollars annually into the European economy. First we pay the host countries for the privilege of protecting them. And then, US troops help those host countries by spending their paychecks in local European stores, restaurants and bars.

If we would bring these men and women home, we could first of all stop paying rent. And secondly, we could help our own economy with our own money. US bases would need to be built and/or expanded, creating construction jobs in our own country. And then, US businesses around those bases would prosper as service personnel spend their paychecks in US bars, cafes and movie houses.

Surely, in these desperate economic times, finally bringing our troops home from Europe makes sense. Let us use a larger portion of our taxpayer funded defense budget to help US businesses and to create US jobs.

The second resolution is, in many ways, related to the first. Many do not realize that World War II was our last declared war. Those wars we fought since - in Korea, Vietnam and the Middle East, to name just a few locations - were undeclared wars. As a result, we often had a lack of support, both in government and on the home front, and our troops and veterans often suffered as a consequence.

Surely, if we ask a young military man or women to die for us on the battlefield, it is not too much to ask that they do so in a declared war. The next time our president - whether it be Obama or his successor - finds himself in an armed confrontation overseas, let us demand that he go before congress and request a formal declaration of war. It will help keep our future military conflicts to a more manageable number and it will help to cement our commitment, both to the war and to our troops.

Primary Season - 2012

We are about to enter the 2012 primary season. The action will, of course, center on the Republicans who must decide which of the numerous competitors will go against President Barack Obama. The Democrats obviously have their candidate. I am not one of those who believe that Hillary Clinton will challenge Obama this time around. She has her eye on 2016.

About a month from now, Iowa will hold its primary, followed shortly by New Hampshire and then by South Carolina. By the end of January, when Florida holds its primary, I believe we will have chosen the Republican nominee. The later primaries will mainly be campaign opportunities for the lead Republican to make his talking points, issue his sound bites and strengthen his attacks on Obama.

Like most, I believe the nominee will be Mitt Romney. The process has already culled the pack down to two candidates, even before the first primary vote has been cast, with Newt Gingrich being the last viable challenge to Romney. The anti-Romney Republicans have already run through the other challengers and found them all deficient, or at least not electable. Michele Bachman had her moment, and then faded into the background. Rick Perry became fodder for late night talk show hosts with his mangled memory and dissipated message. And Herman Cain's sexual past caught up with him and pushed his 9-9-9 mantra into obscurity.

As for the others: Ron Paul has some excellent libertarian ideas, but has never been able to expand his followers much beyond a few hundred thousand, hard core Paulites. Jon Huntsman, who has a reputation for being personable and intelligent, was unfairly held back by his religion. Huntsman, like Romney, is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and let us be perfectly frank for a moment. Much of the anti-Romney crowd near sightedly objects to having a Mormon in the White House. So, the likelihood that select group would turn to Huntsman is non-existent.

The only other candidate with his head (barely) above water is Rick Santorum. His campaign simply never caught fire, or the attention of Republican voters.

Gingrich, like Cain, has his own problems when it comes to women and reputation, and they are serious enough to keep him from being the Republican nominee. However, I don't believe they will keep him from being second on the ticket. If I had to make a prediction now, I would say that we will see a Romney-Gingrich Republican ticket in the national election.

This will actually be a strong ticket. Once he is officially the nominee, Romney will be seen as being pragmatic, which most independent voters will like, rather than being moderate, which conservatives disliked. Gingrich, on the other hand, has many good ideas, such as utilizing Lean Sigma Six principles to make the federal government more efficient and less costly. He is capable of articulating his ideas well and is known as a solid debater.

Time of War

Two recent incidents have caused me to fear that our commander in chief has forgotten our current international situation. Under President Obama's watch, two successful and effective officers have been removed from their assignments under interesting, if not downright stupid, conditions.

The most recent incident concerned Capt. Robert Gamberg, executive officer of the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69). For those of you who don't know, "executive officer" is the number two position on a ship, the second in command. It is an extremely important assignment aboard ship.

And what was the reason for Gamberg's dismissal? Cowardice in the face of the enemy? Mistreatment of his subordinates? No. He was removed from his post for an "inappropriate relationship with a woman soldier when both were married." Not a woman sailor under his command, mind you, but a woman in an entirely different branch of the service.

And what evidence was presented for this relationship? Emails. Not even steamy, passionate emails that used colorful euphemisms for certain body parts either, but ones that spoke of Gamberg's love for the soldier who, he stated, was an "amazing woman."

This comes on the heels of Capt. Owen Honors being removed as commanding officer of the USS Enterprise (CV-65). By all accounts, Honors was an extremely effective and well liked officer. But, while he was serving as the Enterprise's executive officer, he "co-produced and starred in shipboard video skits that used sometimes racy content to make messages - such as the importance of conserving water - resonate with the crew." In other words, he attempted to use occasionally spicy humor to help the people under his care learn some very important lessons.

Now, I'm not saying that either Gamberg or Honors used the best of judgment. Neither demonstrated good common sense and that is a commodity certainly called for in an effective executive or commanding officer. But folks, we are at war! To be more exact, we are involved in three deadly conflicts in the Middle East. The admiralty and their boss, the president, need to make their decisions based on military need, not on the whims of political correctness.

Obama already bears the burden of a president who has never spent a single day in the military. The public recognizes that he never faced the rigors of boot camp or the horrors of combat. He needs to recognize that deficiency himself and be especially certain that military decisions are made for military reasons and not for political ones.

Is The Stimulus Working?

Back when I was a reporter for a Kansas daily newspaper, I heard a word of advise that goes something like this: If you have both the liberals and conservatives mad at you, you're probably doing something right. So, maybe I'm about to do something right.

Figures have been released by the White House's Council of Economic Advisers concerning the Economic Impact of the American Recovery Act of 2009. It seems that, to date, the stimulus package has cost us $666.3 billion and has added or saved 2.4 million jobs. As Jeffery H. Anderson of The Weekly Standard has pointed out in a recent editorial, that means that each job cost taxpayers $278,000.

His primary inference is, of course, that liberals are incorrect in their belief that public money pumped into the economy will result in economic recovery and more jobs, or that, in the least, they are incorrect in the belief that these desired results can be accomplish in an economically feasible way. And, in these conclusions, Anderson is standing on pretty stable ground. Money poured into inefficient bank and factory bailouts, and into pork barrel public work projects is generally not money well spent.

However, his secondary inference, that the stimulus money should instead have gone into tax relief, is extremely shaky when one looks at the Seventh Quarterly Report itself. A quick study of the document reveals that a figure approaching half ($288.8 billion) of the stimulus did go to tax relief for individuals and businesses.

Of the remaining money, $126.1 billion went to individual states, $89.5 billion went to unemployed individuals and $161.9 billion went to public works.

If I may comment briefly on these last expenditures: the majority of the money going to the states was most likely spent on public education since this expense constitutes the majority of state budgets. In my own state of Kansas, public education, including public colleges and universities, consumes about 2/3 of the state budget. This was likely money well spent. No matter how you feel about public education, certainly you can agree that further cuts into already diminishing school budgets can do nothing but harm our children's education.

Likewise, the money going to unemployed individuals was needed. I do, however, strongly believe that any long term unemployment relief needs to be linked to training and, possibly at times, to relocation of individuals. A person laid off from an outdated profession and living in an economically depressed area needs to train for a new profession and move to a better area and, if necessary, public investment in these endeavors is, at times, certainly needed.

The $161.9 billion going to public works is a bit more controversial. I fear that way too much of it went to "bridge to nowhere" projects that did little more than soak up public funds and create temporary employment for a few lucky individuals. I understand that an obscenely small amount actually went to highway and bridge construction and repair, which was the great example put forth by politicians trying to sell the stimulus package to the taxpayers. I have long supported public works as long as they are for truly needed projects (such as highways) and go to areas of the country where they are actually needed. In other words, not just to areas represented by powerful senators and congressmen. I have also long supported one massive, and much needed, public work project: the construction of a coast-to-coast smart grid for our electrical needs. This project would save energy, create jobs and, if built correctly, create free or inexpensive internet access for nearly all Americans.