Can Unions and Democracy Co-exist?

That is a silly question. Any person that suggests that unions and Democracy cannot co-exist needs to explain himself/herself.

I guess I better get started …`

Unions were born out of the abominable conditions created by corporations that had more interests in money than ensuring that their workers were safe and paid decent wages. Lots of people were available to work in the 19th century, keeping wages low, and competition for jobs high. Employers had the attitude that if one worker gets out of hand, fire him, and get a new employee. Or, if a worker dies, hire a new one. With a huge pool of labor, without rights, without organization, people were essentially cattle.

Marx, Lenin, and Sydney and Beatrice Webb all believed in the organization of people, and thus, labor, for the benefit of the Working Class, the Proletariat. Peasants, the uneducated masses, had one asset to bargain with – their own labor, their own sweat, blood, toil, and tears.

People did not organize to simply argue for better wages, benefits, or improved working conditions. No, there were other additional motives to organize, too.

The Knights of Labor, founded in Philadelphia, not only sought typical labor improvements, but also sought to exclude Chinese and other Asians from participating in the labor market.

The American Federation of Labour (AFL) controlled membership. Initially, blacks were allowed memberships to the union, breaking down racial barriers to employment. Later, blacks were not viewed as a skilled work force and were then banned from membership.

Trade Unions, those that specialize in specific economic sectors, electricians, police, teachers, steelworkers, etc., control entry into those fields, employment opportunities in those fields, and job contracts in those fields. Trade Unions control wages and benefits, through collective bargaining.

Trade Unions, through the political influence, then control the expense to the consumer by controlling the economies associated with Labor. Trade Unions control the size of the labor pool by controlling the numbers of people who are licensed or certified. Trade Unions control wages and benefits, and therefore control the price of the service or product. Whether that cost is a Police Officers salary, a Teachers salary, or an Electricians salary, that cost is not established by the Market Prices.

And therein lies the rub.

Information in the 21st century is a far more free-flowing commodity than it ever was in the 19th century, and throughout much of the 20th century. Corporations can behave as they once did, decades ago, abusing employees, however, word will get out about poor business practices, and the company will have a public relations nightmare on their hands.

Corporations also have an incentive to treat employees relatively well. Content employees are productive. Productive employees make the corporation money. And, money pleases shareholders. Companies that treat employees poorly are not acting their own best interest, undermining their own investment in people, which undermines the bottom-line, further hurting relationships with stakeholders.

Trade Unions represent Special Interest Groups. In fact, Trade Unions are Special Interest Groups, by definition. They act to protect their own interests above the interests of the larger group.

In Wisconsin, we see these dynamics playing themselves out. Politics of SIGs versus Economics.

Trade Unions (Special Interest Group) are seeking to protect a rarified environment built upon decades of essentially Social Democratic policies that provide a small number of workers benefits unavailable to the majority of workers.

Furthermore, the level of protection afforded to Trade Unions allows for wages to be set and fixed against market prices, provide for public subsidies of benefits, provide levels of protection for employees that are unfit for work, and encourage and promote inefficiencies within all levels of any given occupational sector.

The costs of Trade Unions are far greater than the mere cost per worker in terms of salary and benefits. Society loses the benefit of wage competition, of encouraging innovation, of encouraging and promoting employees through merit, and eliminating wasteful practices, and unproductive employees.

Of course, Unions and Democracy can play together. That is not the question that should be asked.

The real question to be asked is, “Should the Inefficiencies Created by Unions be Tolerated in a Free Market Economy?” Or, “Unions, But At What Cost?”

Trade Unions are political entities that influence everyone’s pocket-book. How deep are people willing to allow Trade Unions to delve into their pockets?

Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations”
Todd Buchholz’s “New Ideas from Dead Economists”
Thomas Sowell’s “Applied Economics: Beyond Stage I”

Technorati Tags: news,politics,trade unions,wisconsin,democracy,AFL,teachers,police,workers

Anonymity: Essential for Democracy

The New York Times today reported that Julian Assange is eligible for extradition to Sweden. Sweden is interested in talking to Mr. Assange about his actions that led to at least two women filing charges against him for sexual misconduct.

Supporters of Julian Assange and his organization, Wikileaks, are concerned that his extradition could be a prelude to his eventual extradition to the United States. The United States is interested in pursuing Mr. Assange for his role in releasing allegedly sensitive information.

I say “allegedly sensitive” as ‘sensitive’ is in the eye, or mind, of the beholder.

The people of Tunisia are probably glad to have to learned how corrupt their government leaders had become over time.

The Bank of America, though never named by Wikileaks, initiated a nervous frenzy of cleaning up documentation, emails, and interviewing employees in the wake of news that Wikileaks was preparing to reveal substantial documentation of wrong-doing or unethical behavior of a major bank. Guilty conscious?

The First Amendment guarantees speech. Period. No matter how insensitive, rude, stupid, or simply wrong that speech is, the speech is protected. Lying, however, is not protected.

Even the authors of the United States Constitution recognized the importance of operating in secret. John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison were rebels. They really were. They advocated separation from the Crown (Great Britain) and they initiated the documents that set forth in writing how the new government should operate. I’m sure they were hunted by the Crown, and perhaps Loyalists in the new colonies, and their lives were in jeopardy.

They adopted an alias to protect their true identity. “Publius” was their common alias which those three men used to publish their “Federalist Papers.” For 22 years, no one knew who the authors were. From the time the essays were initially published in 1787, until their identities were revealed in 1810, less than a handful of people knew the true identity of the men who worked to create our Constitution.

Madison, Hamilton, and Jay knew that anonymity was critical to their efforts, to protect their work, their lives, and the lives of their families and friends. Anonymity, from their viewpoint, allowed them to work and think and exchange ideas free from threats of retribution. Freedom of Speech was a fundamental human right necessary for the dissemination of ideas, to support and strengthen Democracy. Democracy can only flourish when people feel safe and secure from the rule of tyrants.

Today, we see these men as heroes. But, that is from our perspective, 200 years later. In their day, they were seen as traitors to the Crown of England, from the perspective of England.

I’m not holding up J. Assange as a hero. Wikileaks represents the 21st century version of open discourse and the free flow of information that stands against the Rule of Tyrants. The ability to speak openly, fairly and without the threat of retribution is an essential element of Democracy. Wikileaks thwarts the tyranny of small-minded people, thwarts governments that lie, cheat, and steal from the citizens that government should protect, and provides a necessary check-and-balance against agencies that work against people.

Technorati Tags: news,julian assange,wikileaks,first amendment,john jay,james madison,alexander hamilton

Social Media v. The World

Did Social Media cause the demise of the Tunisian government?

Did Social Media cause the demise of the reign of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt?

No; and Social Media is not causing the demise the reign of Mohammar Qaddafi in Libya, for that matter, either.

Protests in these countries were not caused by Social Media. The protests were created and caused by the existential conditions that exist within these countries by the actions of the leaders within those countries. If Tunisian President Ben-Ali had worked to establish suitable economic conditions in Tunisia, he would still be in power. If Hosni Mubarak had worked to create a suitable economic condition for jobs and employment in Egypt, he would still be in power. Likewise for Mohammar Qaddafi.

Facebook, Twitter, and SMS (simple messaging system - cellphone text messages) did help people organize. Social media did help expose circumstances and conditions that allowed people to see that throughout the region, people are being treated poorly. Not only are people being treated poorly but those in power are living lavish lives at the expense of millions of people.

While Social Media did not create the economic conditions, Social Media did help people organize and promote their discontent.

While thinking about this topic and the effects of social media & cellphone technology, my suspicious mind began to work out the details of how Social Media could be compromised for more nefarious actions.

What if, I thought, Twitter or Facebook were to be "spoofed." Spoofing occurs when Internet traffic is directed away from a legitimate Web site to a less legitimate or illegal Web site, usually to infect computers with spyware or adware, or to gather sensitive information, like bank accounts or credit card numbers.

Could that happen?

Could a group of hackers configure a system that would direct Internet traffic towards a site. This Web site would then infect a computer with a Trojan. The trojan would then broadcast fictitious Twitter updates, or Facebook updates, or SMS messages to people. These fictitious messages would appear to be from real people, real friends, real "links," and would encourage people to act, or meet, or to do "something." Perhaps the "flash" mob behavior that attracts hundreds of people to sing a song, or dance, and then they all go their separate ways afterwards.

Perhaps a government could not be brought down in this way, but could technology be used in a nefarious way, such as this, to aggregate people for a task?

I wonder.

Geography Lesson: Bahrain

View Larger Map

As the Bahraini Government attacks its own population, I thought maybe I would copy an idea set forth by Time and conduct a little geography lesson on Bahrain.

Bahrain's government answers to one person, Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifa ("Hamad, son of Isa; the King") the literal translation. King Hamad is the monarch, and Bahrain is an Absolute Monarchy, with about 1.23 million people.

Bahrain, as the map above illustrates, is a very small island in the Persian Gulf, just north of the country of Qater (pronounced "Cutter"), and just off the east coast of Saudi Arabia. In fact, there is a causeway, a long two-lane bridge that connects Bahrain to the Mainland.

A little larger than the city of Chicago, Illinois, Bahrain was once a world-leader in petroleum exports. But being the first to exploit their oil, they were also the first to run out. Today, they are a leading regional finance center. And, other than financial institutions, tourism is their other economy. Most their 8 million tourists arrive from regional Arab countries, though other countries are discovering Bahraini hospitality. Bahrain has a World Heritage Site, the castle Qalat al-Bahrain, which is a popular destination.

As for the military, the United States government is probably wringing its hands. The Bahraini military was provisioned with U.S. armament, F-16s, M60As, and Blackhawks, plus a couple decommissioned frigates they bought from the United States. Bahrain is the home of the U.S. 5th Fleet, as well.

Islam is the most popular religion, which should come as no surprise. Bahrain is more liberal Muslim country, promoting women's rights, allowing them to vote, and recently promoted a women as their country's representative to the United Nations. One Christian and one Jew have positions within the Shura, the upper "house" of one of Bahrain's legislative bodies.

Summer time temperatures commonly are higher than 100F, while winters are a balmy 70F. Most of the summer, Bahrain receives 0" of rain, and probably no more than 3 inches the entire year.

Bahrain loves fast cars and has hosted Formula One racing for a few years. The Grand Prix is popular, as is drag racing.

Sidewalks: Not Simply Convenient Ways For Running People Over

On my walk to work this week, I watched workers prepare a stretch of ground for a new sidewalk. I'm a huge fan of sidewalks, and though glad not to have to walk over mud and grass on the way to my office, I was disappointed by a number of aspects of this new pedestrian walkway.

Sidewalks, by design, should buffer people from street traffic. Sidewalks that sit essentially on the street's shoulder fail. The idea of providing people a sidewalk is to get them out of the way of vehicular traffic. Providing a designated walking path that abuts the street does not do this, not even if a small 6" curb exists.

That is the fate of my new sidewalk. My new sidewalk path is just an elevated part of the street. If I chose to, I could run my fingers along cars as they passed me. A pedestrian's distance to traffic is the length of one human arm. A small-framed human arm, no less.

Planned municipal areas, such as Boulder, Colorado, and Overland Park, Kansas, specify the "setback" for sidewalks. That is, there are rules as to how close a sidewalk can be to the street.

Why are setbacks important? For one, people can be clumsy. With a nice setback, if someone falls, they do not fall into the path of that on-coming Hummer. Children, carefree and frolicking, can get to horsing around. When that happens, kids have a grassy area that gives parents time to snatch them before they head of into the path of that 16-yr old Mustang-driving kid that got his license yesterday. As a dog-walker, I know that dogs can get jumpy; a setback provides a place to get an animal under control before Rover jumps out into the street, into the path of that guy driving his Explorer that just got dumped by his girlfriend via SMS message. Thus, there are several practical reasons to provide a 5-ft setback for sidewalks.

Having spent some time years ago working with the Main Street program in town, I was shocked and appalled to discover that the Main Street Committee Chairperson, a local banker, told me that "people did not need to be out walking around. Sidewalks were a waste of resources." I remember thinking, Wow, this guy, for being a respected member of the community, is dumb. Since then, we have had at least two no-sidewalk related fatalities and numerous serious injuries. The first fatality resulted in promises for sidewalks. Six years later, we are still waiting for those sidewalks to appear.

I spent 1-1/2 years working in a city where sidewalks were not only highly prized, but mandatory in any new development, residential, commercial, or industrial - no difference. The 135,000 residents of this city appreciated, approved, and used those sidewalks. People and families were out in nice weather, year-round, walking, riding bikes, walking pets, jogging, and roller-blading.

Sidewalks reduce crime. Sidewalks, when done well, encourage people to get out of their homes, introduce themselves to neighbors, pay attention to their environment, and create a sense of community. When we watch out for each other, and our neighborhood, crimes lessen.

Sidewalks also help us get and exercise, walk, and encourage good habits. Communities with sidewalks tend to have lesser incidents of weight-related illnesses, like diabetes. They provide another means of travel that does not require gasoline, or the emission of greenhouse gases.

Every new development should be required to accommodate sidewalks. Period. End of story. Do not whine to me about Big Government telling people how to run their lives. Sidewalks benefit everyone, hurt no one, and add a very small cost to the overall price of any development plan, when compared to the benefits.

As Filthy As We Want To Be

Regulation.

To many people, "regulation" is a dirty word. Regulation can be, when used appropriately, actually a good thing, and a necessary thing. But, Why? Why do I need the government to tell me what to do, or, what not to do?

Good question.

As individuals, we typically try to do what is best for ourselves. Companies or businesses try to do what is best for their business. What I mean by "best" is that these entities act to maximize their utility, and minimize their costs.

In a truly "Free Market," the true costs of our choices will NOT be manifest in the prices we pay for products or services. For example, the cost of a Dell computer does not represent the true cost of that computer. There are hidden costs. Several components of computers are produced from toxic substances. The production of some components may result in the creation of toxic substances. The disposal of those products is probably not reflected in the overall cost of the computer. Our computers would cost more if the cost of the proper disposal was figured into the cost of the computer.

Gasoline prices do not reflect the true cost of the environmental impact of the carbon monoxide entering into the atmosphere from cars and trucks burning gasoline.

Regulation steps in because people and industry have proven unable or unwilling to take steps to protect other people or industries from bad choices.

Regulation is not about harming a particular industrial sector. Regulation is about protecting people and industries in that sector or in other sectors.

If businesses and industries (essentially, people, because people make the decisions) made choices to protect the interests of others in adequate ways, regulation would not be necessary.

From an economic stand-point, two ways exist to manage corporate behaviors. First, a tax. Taxes are increased or levied against activities in order to dissuade behavior, or to provide monies to aid in clean-up should damage occur. Taxes have the distinction of occurring before any event occurs. The drawback of taxes is that the corporation may feel that since taxes are paid for clean-up, they can continue to act irresponsibly.

The other option is a Fine. Fines work on the back-end. A corporation may choose to manage their risk better because they know that a fine could cost them millions of dollars, or, as has happened in a few cases, completely put them out of operation. However, some companies will leverage the risk of fines versus the cost of doing business, and may act to continue to make bad choices. Fines resulting from risky behaviors maybe seen as affordable compared to the loss of revenues.

In an industry as dangerous and environmentally damaging as Coal, regulation is not only a good thing, but should be mandatory. Safety and health is paramount, for the workers, the workers families, and the communities that exist in and around coal mines. To remove regulation essentially provides coal mine operators Carte Blanche to "soil the nest" of everyone in proximity to a coal mine. Removal of regulation is both short-sighted and dangerous.

Finally, perhaps Chairman Jim Gooch was not correctly quoted. The management of Interstate Commerce is a mandate of our Federal Government. That a coal mine only provides coal to a local community is a disingenuous argument, knowing full well that coal from eastern Kentucky travels throughout the region, the United States, and potentially globally. The Federal Government, under a few different Constitutional paragraphs, has the right to manage national energy policy. 

Companies Can Make A Difference

Change the manufacturing culture - that is what Apple, Inc. has opted to do with its foreign contractors. Force these manufacturing facilities to police themselves better, or risk losing Apple's business.

Pay the local wage. Improve the ventilation systems. Make sure underage workers are in school. Reduce or eliminate worker abuse.

The Apple team was confronted with a bribery attempt, and ran across episodes of managers coaching workers prior to the arrival of the Apple Team.

Apple, when they toured the manufacturing facilities, brought suicide prevent teams, counselors, along. This action to address concerns, particularly at Foxconn, where suicides have been problematic.

Apple took this action of its own accord, with great attention to detail. Apple then published a list of its findings and methods taken to correct behaviors.

Other companies could do the same thing, and hold foreign factories accountable. Most U.S. corporation do not own the means of production abroad, but we can opt to take our business elsewhere. Thus, we can influence others to make good choices.

Tea Party and Constitutional Confusion

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

The Tea Party, like I've said in past writings, has some good ideas. Having a government that is fiscally responsible, that is an idea I can connect with.

But, I am struggling with the notion that Tea Partiers have with the elimination of the Department of Education. Not necessary, Tea Partiers claim; give the power to educate to the states and local communities. And, they claim, there is no provision in the United States Constitution for a Department of Education.

Technically, that statement is true; nowhere will one find the provision to instantiate a "Department of Education." I don't see anything for the Department of Energy, or Interior, either.

As an aside, there is a provision for the Federal Reserve Bank, because Article 1, Section 8 specifically gives the government power to coin money and control the value of said money.

Article 1, Section 8 provides two provisions for the creation of the Department of Education, and any other Department, Agency, Office, or whatever else the government needs. Let's look at the obvious one first.

"...provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United State..."

I don't know how you define "general Welfare" but to me, and to the Supreme Court (whose job it is to interpret the law) "general Welfare" means that Congress can do pretty much as it pleases for creating or abolishing whatever it sees fit to create or abolish. That means if Congress thinks that we need direction for education, then the creation of the Department of Education is completely within the domain of Congress.

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

The key part of the this provision is the "necessary and proper" fragment. It is this fragment that the Supreme Court, over the years, has allowed Congress to pretty much act with impunity in legislating policies.

People argue with me about the meaning of these provisions. These provisions are part of the original Constitution and not later Amendments. Furthermore, these provision appear in the First Article, which lends some weight to their importance. Arguing with me is like arguing against the Constitution ...

The Constitution is also what is referred to as a "Living Document," meaning the Constitution has the ability to change to reflect changes in American society and societal needs. The Constitutional is a tool with which to create, alter, modify, or delete elements of governance in order to adapt to changes in American society.

The vagueness of the document is DELIBERATE. There is no way the framers of the Constitution could anticipate future needs of Americans, other than to create a Constitution that would allow future generations the flexibility to govern. Govern, without the interference of Religion. Hence, the vagueness.

That there are no obvious references to the Department of Education, or to the Department of Interior, or to the Department of Energy does not mean that they cannot exist. There does not need to be any specific reference to any Office, Tax, Agency, or Department. The Constitution grants powers to Congress to create as needed.

Tea Partiers, and people leaning towards the Tea Party, need to really open their mind about their interpretation of the Constitution. Those that want to return the country to Constitutional Law - whatever that is - are living in a country created by Constitutional Law. Again, they seem to be a victim of Myopic Ignorance, of seeing only what they want to see.

Thoughts: Tea Party v. Federal Reserve Banking System

The Tea Party has some good ideas. Eliminating the Federal Reserve is not one of them.

People blame the Federal Reserve Banking System (FRBS) for such things as devaluing the dollar and causing the Great Depression. People actually do those things, through their misguided notions of trying to help - not the FRBS. That is like blaming the gun for killing people, not the people holding the weapon.

Americans have a dangerous form of myopic ignorance. First, we don't really understand governing processes very well. To compensate, we listen to allegedly smart people to tell us how we should think. These politicians, or WannaBe Politicians, get people worked into a lather, based some some truth, half-truths, and lies. The Tea Party is fomenting ignorance about the FRBS and advocating for its abolition. Second, not only do we not understand our own governing processes well, we do not understand the relevance of these processes to the Global Economy. I call these the Downstream Effects. Dump your garbage in the stream and who cares about the effects of your actions downstream.

Besides controlling monetary policy within the United States, the FRBS also engages with other countries. The FRBS is how countries pay each other for services or products rendered. Yes, that's right, that is how the United States buys and sells things on the global market. I'm not talking about Wal-mart, or IBM, I am talking about the money that the U.S. borrows from other nations to meet our own budget needs. Elimination of the FRBS throws uncertainty into the balance of payment equation as countries no longer understand the value of American currency.

People also need to understand this, too. Most all other developed nations, Japan, China, Russia, Germany, all have their own Central Banking System (CBS). These CBSs pretty much work the same way our FRBS works; controlling the money supply, interest rates, etc. Thus, not only does the United States have Fiscal Management Policies centered on a CBS, but all of our trading partners do, as well. Again, by going our own way, other countries now no longer have a basis of valuing American currency. Our trading partners expect and anticipate that everyone essentially operates in fundamentally the same ways, by the same set of predictable rules.

Consider this allegory for a moment. Imagine that each of our 50 States has its own currency. As long as each state operates by the same rules for circulating currency, each state understands the value of its own currency, and the currency of surrounding states. That is not to say that the values are equal. A California dollar may be of higher value than an Idaho dollar, or a Kentuckiana dollar may be more valuable than a Tennessean dollar. Exchange rates would be tabulated each day so people and businesses would know the differences in value. But, the market rules would be the same across the board. Now consider what happens when Kansas decides to eliminate Corn-backed monetary policy and instead impose a value based on Faith and the amount of Kansas dollars in circulation. People, being familiar with currency backed by some commodity, would have no idea what the value of the Kansas dollar might be. The Kansas dollar could become worthless, making life miserable for Kansans. The Kansas Government could peg the value of their dollar to the California wine-backed dollar, thereby saving the value of their currency. Kansas changed the rules for its currency. Our American lives are much better off that the individual state currencies alive before the Civil War did not survive after. Change the rules of our National currency has the potential of ruining the Global Value of our currency.

Another caveat to toss out: in order for the dissolution of FRBS to work, ALL OTHER COUNTRIES WITH CBS MUST DO THE SAME. Ron Paul-R (TX) states this in his book, "End the Fed," but states it in passing. All countries must agree to allow their currencies to float in the same way U.S. currency would float, or the process immediately fails, the American currency then becomes worthless. Now, what is the likelihood of all countries trashing their CBS in favor of free-floating currency. About the same as Satan converting to Catholicism, I'd wager.

Next, for our currency to have any value whatsoever, our money must be backed by something other than Faith (which it is essentially backed by now). That means returning to a precious metal supported monetary framework, like Gold. Again, another problem arises. In order to maintain the value of Gold, that means control of the Gold Supply. All Gold mines in the United States must then become wholly-owned, nationalized, by the government. Private ownership of Gold would also be severely restricted. In 1933 & 1934, in order to control the Gold supply, Executive Order 6102 required all people to sell their gold to the United States Treasury at a fixed price. Only since 1975 have Americans been able to legally own gold beyond a wedding ring.

Allowing U.S. to be backed by a precious metal and managed by market forces may seem like a good idea.
Actually, to me, this is a horrible idea. I should say, to the inattentive it may sound like a good idea. Or to those that are frustrated by current events, the removal of the FRSB may seem like a good idea.

The problem is that proponents, the Tea Party, especially Ron and Rand Paul, do not adequately describe the pitfalls of FRBS dissolution. I can only assume these proponents fall victim to Downstream Ignorance. They only see current events through a very small "lens" lack perspective regarding the repercussions of their ideas, and either have not fully explored all effects or simply do not care.

U.S. Budget Observations 1981-2007

I have the permission to use the chart at the right, because I created using data from the Budget of the United States Government, Government Printing Office (GPO).

American citizens are pretty blind when it comes to political parties, government spending, who spends more, etc. I am not immune to ignorance myself, but I try to make myself less ignorant when I can.

I spent some time over the weekend looking at budget numbers, overall revenues and spending, not on any special items. In my own life, I try to spend less than the revenue I bring in. In our political life, people think that is the basis of the Republican Party, think that is what sets apart Republicans from Democrats. I happen to think that both parties are fiscally liberal. That is, they both spend more money than the country takes in, they spend the money differently. My hypothesis is that while they are both identical in terms of spending habits, Democrats favor Social Spending and Welfare; Republicans favor subsidies for Business and Military Spending. The two parties differ only in their approach to social issues. Republicans are socially conservative, against Same-Sex Marriage, pro-Life, pro-Religion; while Democrats are socially liberal, pro-SS Marriage, pro-Choice, pro-Diversity.

The Tea Party seems to offer an option for those that are Fiscally Conservative and Socially Conservative. The Tea Party is currently causing turmoil within the Republican Party as they take issue with Republican spending habits. In essence, the Tea Party is illuminating the lack of spending discipline that exists within the Republican Party. Of note, controversy manifests through Tea Party members, such as Rand Raul-R (KY) supporting cuts of the military budget, and militarized welfare programs, such as commissaries, PXs, and the Morale, Welfare, and Family (MWF) Command.

Out of curiosity, I downloaded the Excel (XLS) file that contains data for all the budget receipts and spending for years between 1950s-2008. The graph represents the revenues versus spending over a 16-yr time period from the Reagan Administration through the 3rd year of Bush II's final term. I have noted terms of office. I have not altered or changed in any way the data. The link provided in the Title allows anyone access to the same data.

Presidents get the credit or take the blame for events or circumstances out of their control. People denigrate Pres. Carter for his apparent economic lapses. These people seem to forget that Nixon was the father of the problem, with his policy of instituting price controls that created the havoc. Carter got the blame because the bulk of the problems didn't arrive until after Nixon left office. Carter tried to gradually remove these price controls. His days were numbered as Americans blamed him rather than the true culprit, Nixon.

But the table is telling. Red is Spending, Blue is Revenue. When the Red Bar is higher than the Blue Bar, obviously we are over-spending. Republican Presidencies tend to be less budget-friendly, while Democratic Presidencies tend to be more budget-friendly. The trend is probably due to negotiations between the party in the White House and the party in power in Congress. Also, the trend indicates that a Democrat in the White House with a Republican Congress is better than the reverse.

Reviewing data from 1959 forward through visual inspection, only 5 years resulted in actual budget surpluses. Three of those years were essentially Clinton years, as they were the result of budget decisions during his term in office. The 2001 BY can be attributed to Bush II. However, Bush II would then go on to expand Deficit Spending more than any other president in history, and completely blow away the old record-holders of Deficit Spending, Reagan-Bush.

Trade Deal Tug of War | Nightly Business Report | PBS

Trade Deal Tug of War | Nightly Business Report | PBS

Do You Want Roses, or Cocaine, for Valentine's Day?

Me, I would much rather have neither.

Did you ever wonder where those roses came from? I thought they were grown here, in the United States, in greenhouses. I should have known better. My other guess would have been Denmark or Sweden. We get considerable quantities of cut flowers from those countries. Still, I would be wrong.

No, not the United States, or Europe, but Colombia, South America, is the home of 90% of roses for North America. Furthermore, even if you do not buy roses, chances are a little bit of our taxes go to help Colombian farmers grow roses.

Why should we help Colombian farmers grow roses?

Their other main money-making crop is coca (not "cacao" from which chocolate comes) which is the basis for cocaine. The question then becomes, do we want Colombian farmers to grow coca, which is then made into cocaine, of which 90%-95% ends up in the United States and Canada? Or, would we rather encourage them to grow roses, which end up in the United States and Canada?

U.S. policy has been to subsidize the Colombian farmer, to encourage them to grow roses.

Cannot they grow something else so we don't have to subsidize them?

Colombia is a country 2x's the size of France, mountainous, rugged, sitting very near the equator. Coastal areas, which is not much of the overall land area, can provide some citrus crops, fruits and vegetables that prefer warm, moist weather. In the higher elevations, which is most of the country, choices are few. Coffee, some types of beans, some types of potatoes, but nothing that provides the income derived from coca. Or, roses.

2010 US Census News & Data - USATODAY.com

2010 US Census News & Data

USA Today does an superb job of keeping the literate portions of the American population apprised of demographic changes occurring in the United States. I really have to commend the paper and their authors on educating America citizens.

New Census 2010 data is slowly but surely entering into the GIS/Demographer's domain. USA Today has some maps illustrating some of the newly released data.

The USA Today Census 2010 Web site contains some nice articles on demographic changes that have taken place in Indiana, Arkansas, Maryland, and a few other states.

Reading these articles could help people understand how public policy will change to mirror changes in our society.

Sudan Leader to Accept Secession of South - NYTimes.com

Sudan, from CIA World Factbook

Sudan Leader to Accept Secession of South

This July, 2011, the continent of Africa, and the world, will gain a new state.

Barring any further controversy, conflict, civil war, the country of Sudan will divide into two separate countries.

I have no idea what these countries will be named. Perhaps, "Sudan" will refer to the northern portion, with a capital at Khartoum. The southern portion of Sudan will tentatively be name "South(ern) Sudan." The capital of Southern Sudan will reside at Juba.

It is not particularly rare that new countries enter onto the global arena. Recently, we saw the independence of Kosovo (2008), and Montenegro (2006). Both of these countries arose from the fracture of the former state of Yugoslavia.

In the future, we could see Scotland become an independent state, in the British Isles. On the European Mainland, Belgium is very close to splitting into a French-speaking state, and a Dutch-speaking state.

Young Americans Increasingly Diverse, Census Finds - NYTimes.com

Young Americans Increasingly Diverse, Census Finds

Actually, the title of this article should read, "America is Less White Than 10 Years Ago." Something like that.

That American is less White than in the past should come as no surprise. White America reflects the same lack of population growth that Europe is experiencing. White America is generally more affluent, more wealthy, than other ethnic groups. I say, "generally," as there are numerically more White poor in the United States than of any other ethnic group, but represent a smaller portion of the White population.

With that affluence comes a different set of economic decisions. White people tend to achieve higher levels of education. They make choices regarding their incomes; rather than having children, they travel. They save for retirement. They buy a nicer car, a larger house, a nicer house, a second house.

In choosing to have fewer children, the White population no longer represents the same proportion of the overall U.S. population from 10 years ago.

Mississippi, Virginia, New Jersey, and Louisiana all experienced drops in the "under 18" White population .

In fact, according to demography Kenneth Johnson at the University of New Hampshire, Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics accounted for 79% of national population growth in the 10 years between 2000 and 2009.

Due to the disparity in growth rates among ethnic groups, young Whites are now the minority populations in 10 states.

That translates this way - with a large, older White population, will U.S. residents be willing to educate a population that looks less like themselves?

If you read "Comments" on Yahoo News, or other media sources, people broadcast their ignorance about these cultural changes.

These cultural changes have little to do with immigration. These cultural changes have far more to do with the center of wealth being in White America, and those members doing something other than having children.

Blacks, and Hispanics have larger families than White families. In some ways, these larger families act as the financial support system that Whites do not need, as again, Whites are much better off financially than other ethnic groups.

And, we are not talking strictly about discrete ethnic groups, either. People mingle, date, and marry people from other ethnic groups. The numbers of mixed-race children is also on the rise.

Lots of demographic changes have taken place over the last decade.

However, those changes are simply the tip of the proverbial iceberg as what is in store for America over the next 10 years.