Matt's Corner

Will the Next Ronald Reagan Please Stand Up?

2008-03-05T10:00:00.008-05:00

Last night, Gov. Huckabee conceded the race for the Republican nomination to John McCain. However, in one line, he summed up his reason for pressing on for as long as he did. The Kansas City Star reports:

Quoting Royals great George Brett, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee bowed out of the Republican presidential race Tuesday night.
"We kept the faith," Huckabee said from Irving, Texas, "and that for me has been the most important goal of all."
Huckabee said he hustled every day of his campaign the same way Brett did during his years as a Royal.
Of Brett, Huckabee recalled Brett's statement that he wanted to end his career not with a home run, but by hitting a routine ground ball to second base and then "running hard to first so everybody knows that’s how the game is supposed to be played."
Huckabee said that's what he tried to do himself in his presidential bid.
Reached in Arizona where the Royals are in spring training, Brett said he was flattered by Huckabee's reference to him.
"I didn't know Huckabee had even heard of me," Brett said.

In the final analysis, the former Governor demonstrated just how the game is supposed to be played.

First off the bat, Huckabee did more to take special interests out of politics than did McCain-Feingold. How, pray tell? He proved that one doesn't need a lot of money to go far in politics. On a shoestring budget, Gov. Huckabee beat Rudy Guiliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson---men who raised and spent between the three of them well over $100 million.

(Truth be told, this is what scared the special interests groups the most. A man who can run a campaign without them will run the country without them.)

Secondly, Gov. Huckabee ran the cleanest campaign of any candidate in the race. Yes, he did go negative for a little bit in Iowa, and some of his debate comments were pointed. But he never got as nasty as say Obama and Hillary--or for that matter, some of his opponents.

Finally, he knew how to have fun. Politics should be about getting out in the crowd and engaging the dialogue. The Governor enjoys this. And why? Because he truly cares for the people he wants to represent.

Richard Nixon once said that what separates the men from the boys in politics is that boys want to be great, while men want to do great things.

Gov. Huckabee demonstrated his greatness.

One who is only concerned about his own glory will stop fighting when the chips are down. But one who is concerned about a larger vision will keep fighting even when defeat is inevitable.

Other candidates claimed to don the mantle of Ronald Reagan. However, only Mike Huckabee demonstrated the courage that Reagan showed.

Ronald Reagan fought against the establishment in 1976; when the chips were down, he kept fighting, even though he knew that defeat was certain. When people told him to quit--to go along to get along--he ignored their pleas. And why? Because he was fighting for something larger than himself.

Mike Huckabee is, too.

Just like they did with Ronald Reagan in 1976, the Republican establishment has rejected an eloquent candidate with broadbased appeal and fresh ideas. ... And just like they did in 1980, I predict that the establishment will one day embrace this governor when he leads the party to victory.

Gov. Reagan... um, I mean, Huckabee.... your next to bat.

The Club for Growth Overplays Its Hand

2008-02-08T23:05:00.000-05:00

Brad Warthen makes an interesting point about John McCain and the Club for Growth:

[T]he Club's advice to the man who is getting nominated without it is that he simply must do its bidding in the matter of choosing a running mate ... To which I say, how come? He got past the hurdle that theoretically requires your favor without you. Your views don't amount to diddly among the independents he has to win now.

Mr. Warthen goes on to say that Mike Huckabee would be an excellent choice for Sen. McCain--the Club for Growth's protestations notwithstanding.

Although I agree with Sen. McCain's assessment that it would be "inappropriate and unrealistic" to dismiss Gov. Huckabee's campaign for President by entertaining discussions about prospective running mates, I find it amusing that the Club for Growth would dare to exert influence over Sen. McCain that it obviously does not have.

The Club for Growth spent millions of dollars to destroy the campaign of Mike Huckabee--probably more money than Gov. Huckabee spent himself. Despite this, Mike Huckabee exceeded expectations on Super Tuesday, and by doing so, he decimated the campaign of Mitt Romney--the Club for Growth's primary benefactor. (It should be noted that seven of Gov. Romney's top donors gave $585,000 to the Club for Growth.) Moreover, the Club for Growth viciously attacked Sen. McCain as well, accusing him of stealing a page out of Ted Kennedy's class warfare playbook.

As a result of Romney's departure, the two leading candidates for the Republican nomination are now men who owe the Club for Growth absolutely nothing. Yet for some reason the Club for Growth thinks it can boss at least one of them around.

The Club for Growth has demonstrated that it is irrelevant. It talks a big talk, but it can't walk the walk. MoveOn.org has about as much influence over the Republican Party. As such, the Club for Growth should be ignored.

Romney: Huckabee Would "Make a Fine President"

2008-02-08T14:04:00.000-05:00

Not too long ago, Mitt Romney said:

[W]e need to make sure that we have a strong person who can take the baton from President Bush, and Gov. Huckabee is certainly one of those individuals. He’d make a fine president.

http://www.swtimes.com/articles/2007/12/11/week_in_review/news/sunday/news04.txt

A Question for Talk Radio

2008-02-06T10:06:00.000-05:00

To hate John McCain, or to love Mitt Romney? That is the question for talk radio.

For the past several days, Rush Limbaugh has led the charge against John McCain, maligning the senator for his moderate-to-liberal views on issues ranging from tax policy to immigration. In hopes of thwarting the senator's nomination, Mr. Limbaugh (and others) have pushed and prodded for conservatives to come out in droves for Mitt Romney.

Last night, Mitt Romney lost BIG-TIME (to borrow a term from Dick Cheney) in key battle ground states. Romney got clobbered in California and Missouri--delegate rich states in which he was expected to be competitive. Then, to add insult to injury, he placed third in Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee--states where the supposed non-factor Mike Huckabee won.

Basically, it was a terrible night for Mitt Romney. At the end of the day, McCain gained about 600 delegates; Romney and Huckabee more-or-less split the rest.

Romney's performance raises an interesting dilemma for talk-radio. Limbaugh and Hannity know full well that either Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee must leave the race in order for John McCain to be defeated. Given that Huckabee had a strong showing last night in the conservative South, he is not going to leave the race. Conversely, Mitt Romney now has zero momentum.

Which brings me back to my original question.... If talk radio hates John McCain more than it loves Mitt Romney, then talk radio needs to rethink Mike Huckabee--otherwise Rush Limbaugh's most hated Republican senator will become the party's nominee for President.

STOP WHINING, MITT!!!

2008-02-05T15:28:00.000-05:00

Mitt Romney's official reaction to Mike Huckabee's victory in the West Virginia Convention:

Boston, MA – Today, Romney for President Campaign Manager Beth Myers issued the following statement regarding the outcome of West Virginia's Republican Party convention:

"Unfortunately, this is what Senator McCain's inside Washington ways look like: he cut a backroom deal with the tax-and-spend candidate he thought could best stop Governor Romney's campaign of conservative change.

"Governor Romney had enough respect for the Republican voters of West Virginia to make an appeal to them about the future of the party based on issues. This is why he led on today's first ballot. Sadly, Senator McCain cut a Washington backroom deal in a way that once again underscores his legacy of working against Republicans who are interested in championing conservative policies and rebuilding the party."

Oh, why don't you take your own advice, Mitt, and stop whining? You said it yourself: the first rule in politics is "No whining."

You lost! Deal with it! Be a man and suck it up.

UPDATE: Look at this press release a bit closer. Notice that it does not even mention Huckabee by name. That's how little Mitt Romney respects Mike Huckabee. What arrogance!

Wisdom from Rush Limbaugh

2008-02-04T16:52:00.001-05:00

Rush Limbaugh's daily newsletter for February 4, 2008 says:

For too long, Republican elites have said to conservatives: "Sacrifice your principles for party unity. Compromise." A lot of us are fed up with this. If you elites in the GOP, punditry and elsewhere are going to move this party to the left, you're going to take the hit for what happens.

If you think about it, this is exactly why social conservatives support Mike Huckabee. We are fed up with people like Rush Limbaugh telling us that we need to sacrifice our values for the sake of party unity--specifically for the sake of supporting Mitt Romney.

You would think that Mitt Romney is the second-coming of Ronald Reagan. We have been told to vote for Mitt because he stands for everything we all believe in. Yet when one listens to Mitt's own words, we know that this is not true.

I remember when in October 1992 Rush Limbaugh actually endorsed Bill Clinton in the first half-hour of his show... and then spent the next 2 and 1/2 hours denying that he had ever said it. Rush did this to illustrate a point: Your words mean things. Your record means something. You cannot flip-flop simply for the sake of political convenience. Character matters. Telling the truth matters.

Back in 1992, we were supposed to reject Clinton simply because he was a known liar--because he would say anything to anyone at anytime to get a vote. Yet for some reason, this standard doesn't apply with Mitt Romney.

Is it because Mitt Romney is rich? Is it because he is handsome and prim and proper? Is this some kind of pragmatism run amok? Or is it because we now define conservatism in purely dollar quantities?

A very wise man once said that "morality is not defined by individual choice." He knew that there are absolutes in life. One absolute is that you don't kill unborn children. Another absolute is that God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

For most of his political career, Mitt Romney demonstrated his belief that these tenets of morality are, in fact, defined by individual choice. Yet, for some reason, Rush Limbaugh---the man who coined the aforesaid phrase, and the man who so adeptly demonstrated that character means something---now supports Mitt Romney.

Why?

It seems to me that Mike Huckabee best reflects the virtues that Limbaugh once extolled in candidates for President. Yet, for some reason, he supports Romney.

What ever happened to the Rush Limbaugh who performed "caller abortions"?

Tricky Mitt

2008-02-04T16:20:00.001-05:00

Mitt Romney engages in a dirty trick. Film at 11.

Now compare this video to the latest RCP average:

McCain 42.5
Romney 24.5
Huckabee 17.9

Romney is down by 18. Huckabee is behind Romney by only 6.5.

Even though Romney is closer to Huckabee than he is to McCain, he still has the gall to say that this is now a "two-person race."

That's a stretch. (Of course, we all know how Mitt likes to stretch the truth.)

The Price of the Presidency

2008-02-01T18:40:00.000-05:00

RealClearPolitics reports that Gov. Mitt Romney has won 59 delegates to the convention. In order to win the nomination, Gov. Romney needs to win at least 1,191 delegates. Therefore, he still needs to win another 1,132 delegates.

OpenSecrets.org reports that as of December 31, 2007, Gov. Romney has spent $86,068,239 on his quest for the Republican presidential nomination. Accordingly, Gov. Romney has spent $1,458,784 for each delegate he has won thus far (or $86,068,239 /59). Therefore, at his present rate of spending, Gov. Romney will need to spend $1,651,343,171 (or $1,458,784 x 1,132) in order to win the nomination.

That's right... at his current rate of spending, Mitt will need to spend $1.6 billion to win the nomination! (And we haven't even gotten to the general election yet.)

Now let's compare this to Mike Huckabee's campaign. From the same sources listed above, we can find that as of December 31, 2007, Gov. Huckabee has spent only $7,090,087. Dividing this number by the 40 delegates he has already won, his dollar-per-delegate cost is only $177,252. Thus, with all other things being equal, he will need $204,017,052 to win the remaining 1,151 delegates.

Admittedly, Mike Huckabee has seen some difficulty in raising funds. However, it wouldn't be unusual for a presidential candidate to spend more than $200 million in a presidential race. Just look at the last election cycle: John Kerry spent more than $309 million in his bid for the White House, while President Bush spent more than $345 million. So from the perspective of recent history, Gov. Huckabee's rate of spending seems normal, leading me to conclude that he is a formidable campaigner.

The same, however, cannot be said for Mitt Romney. Despite the money he has spent--and the free media he is getting from likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity--Gov. Romney still cannot catch up to Sen. McCain... nor can he pull away from Mike Huckabee (who trails Mitt by only one point in the recent Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll--well within the margin of error).

This leads me to only one conclusion: Either (a) Mitt Romney is a poor campaigner who needs his millions to stay afloat, or (b) he is a good campaigner who is spending money like a drunken sailor, thus undermining his claim of being a "fiscal conservative." Either way, he shouldn't be the Republican nominee.

In the final analysis, a candidate with Mike Huckabee's personality and thriftiness would do quite well with Mitt Romney's money. (Yet another reason why campaign finance reform stinks.)

Hypocrisy from the Conservative Elites

2008-01-31T22:48:00.000-05:00

For most of the last fifteen years, I have been an avid listener of Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talk show hosts. During this time, I have listened to countless thousands of conversations between Rush and callers to his show.

On several occasions, I have heard Rush talk with disillusioned Republican voters who have felt neglected by the party establishment. Usually, these people were social conservatives. In most cases, these callers would openly contemplate staying home on election day; in other cases, they would call for the creation of a third-party. (These conversations were especially prevalent during the term of Bush 41 and the first term of Bill Clinton.)

When faced with such open dissent, Rush played the role of the pragmatist. He would say words to the effect of, "If you agree with the Republican nominee on some, if not most, of the important issues, then why would you ensure the election of a Democrat who opposes all of these issues by staying home or by bolting from the party?" To Rush, this seemed like foolishness.

My how times have changed! Today, John McCain and Mike Huckabee--two men for whom Rush has expressed open disgust--have garnered the support of most Republican voters. As a result, Rush has openly stated that he may not support the Republican nominee for President. (His fellow-traveller Ann Coulter has even stated that she would vote for Hillary over McCain.)

I find this to be hilarious. When social conservatives in the 1990's dared to question the Republican Party's direction, conservative pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter preached the gospel of party unity through pragmatism. But now that their oxen are being gored, they want to take their marbles and go home.

Crybabies!

Huckabee Is No Jimmy Carter

2008-01-11T09:43:00.000-05:00

Since the rise of the Huckaboom, pundits and candidates alike have alleged that Mike Huckabee, if elected President, would behave like another southern Governor-turned-President, Jimmy Carter.

Last night, Mike Huckabee dispelled that notion.

The London Times reports:

Asked whether the American commanders on the scene were right in not attacking the Iranian boats, Mr Huckabee said he backed their decisions, before warning Iran: "Be prepared, first, to put your sights on the American vessel. And then be prepared that the next thing you see will be the gates of Hell, because that is exactly what you will see after that."

I don't seem to recall Jimmy Carter using this kind of language during the 444-day Iranian Hostage Crisis.

Do you?

Mitt Romney is Toast

2008-01-05T11:02:00.000-05:00

I recently published this comment on another site. I figured that it was pretty good, so I would re-post it here (with minor corrections in spelling--oops):

How can a man say that he is a "fiscal conservative" when he spends 1,500% more money than his nearest competitor and still loses?

If Romney were half the candidate that Messrs. Hewett, Sekulow, et al. claim that he is, Romney should have blown Mike Huckabee away.

Beyond this, the evangelical vote is powerful---especially in the south. Mitt Romney is not going to win in South Carolina, or Mississippi, or Tennessee. Why? Mitt has essentially said that Iowa is an outlier because evangelicals came out in droves the other night. Well, evangelicals are going to come out in droves in these states, and it will be ugly for Mitt.

They are not going to vote for a guy who claims to don the very mantle of Reaganism that he so vociferously rejected in the early nineties.

97.35% Chance That Huckabee Will Win Iowa

2008-01-03T13:34:00.000-05:00

The latest polls listed on the RealClearPolitics website list the following numbers:

American Res. Group (12/31 - 01/02) Huckabee 29%, Romney 24% (600 Likely Voters)
Zogby Tracking (12/30 - 01/02) Huckabee 31%, Romney 25% (914 Likely Voters)
InsiderAdvantage (01/01 - 01/01) Huckabee 30%, Romney 24% (430 Likely Voters)
Strategic Vision (12/28 - 12/30) Huckabee 28, Romney 30% (600 Likely Voters)
Des Moines Register (12/27 - 12/30) Huckabee 32%, Romney 26% (800 Likely Voters)
CNN (12/26 - 12/30) Huckabee 28%, Romney 31% (373 Likely Voters)

The weighted average for these polls is Huckabee 29.99%, Romney 26.35%, with the aggregate sample size equalling 3,717 voters.

Let's calculate the margin of error for Mike Huckabee. This equals 1.96 X Square Root (29.99% x 70.01% / 3,717), or 1.47%. (The standard deviation is 0.0075). As such, Mike's range is 28.52% to 31.46%.

Let's calculate the margin of error for Mitt Romney. This equals 1.96 X Square Root [26.35% x 73.65% / 3,717], or 1.42%. (The standard deviation is 0.0072). As such, Mitt's range is 24.93% to 27.76%.

Notice that Mitt's high range (27.76%) is LOWER than Mike's low range (28.52%). Mike is leading outside of the margin of error with only seven hours to caucus.

What is the probability of Mike's true average exceeding Mitt's true average?

STEP 1: The probability of Mike's true average exceeding Mitt's high range number is based upon the normal distribution. The cumulative normal distribution will take Mitt's high range (we will call it "x"), Mike's sample average (we will call it "u"), and Mike's standard deviation (call it "sd").

The probablity of Mike's true average exceeding Mitt's high range is equal to 1-cumulative normal distribution with the aforesaid values for x, u, and sd. From the EXCEL spreadsheet function, this value equals 1- NORMDIST (0.2776, 0.2999, 0.0075, TRUE), or .998527.

STEP 2: Since the augmented poll has a confidence interval of 95% (hence the Z-value of 1.96), there is a 2.5% chance that Romney's true average exceeds his high range. Put in terms favorable to Mike, there is a 97.5% chance that Mitt's true average will be less than his high range value.

STEP 3: The probability of Mike winning is .998527 x .975, or .9735

FINAL ANSWER --- MIKE HUCKABEE HAS A 97.35% CHANCE OF WINNING.

Combined Polling Analysis

2008-01-01T17:58:00.000-05:00

According to RealClearPolitics, there have been three polls conducted in the last forty-eight hours in Iowa---the Des Moines Register, CNN, and Zogby's tracking poll. Here are the specific results from each poll:

Des Moines Register -- 32% Huckabee, 26% Romney (800 LV surveyed)
CNN -- 28% Huckabee, 31% Romney (373 LV surveyed)
Zogby -- 29% Huckabee, 25% Romney (928 LV surveyed)

Now if you were to combine all three polls into one poll, you would find that out of 2101 persons surveyed, 712 respondents supported Huckabee, while 656 supported Romney. Thus, in effect, 33.88% Huckabee, 31.22% Romney.

Given the size of this augmented, combined poll, the margin of error would be about 2% points. Here is how we come up with the margin of error. Take Mike Huckabee's number (33.88%) and multiply it by (1-33.88%). You get 0.2240. Then divide this number by 2101. You get 0.000106. Take the square root of this number, and you get the standard deviation of .0103. Multiply the standard deviation by 1.96. Voila! A roughly 2% margin of error. (Actually, 2.024% for Huckabee and 1.981% for Romney.)

Accordingly, the actual range extends from 31.86% to 35.91% for Huckabee and from 29.24% to 33.20% for Romney.

Notices that Romney's high-end number (33.20%) is less than Mike' average (33.88%).

If we wish to estimate the probability of Mike's true population average being greater than Romney's high end number, we can use the normal distribution to find this answer. Using the Excel Spreadsheets NORMDIST function, I have estimated that there is a 74.6% chance that Mike's numbers will exceed Mitt's if the election were held today.

MINOR CORRECTION: I failed to factor into the equation the fact that there is a 2.5% that Romney's high end number is greater than 33.20%. Therefore, Mike's chances of winning have been reduced slightly to 72.73% (or 97.50% times 33.20%)

Mike Huckabee to Appear on the Tonight Show on January 2

2007-12-31T10:09:00.000-05:00

Gov. Huckabee will be Jay Leno's guest on January 2, the night before the Iowa Caucus. This will be Jay's first show since the writer's strike began. Expect high ratings.

How Fiscal Conservatives Use Social Conservatives

2007-12-27T10:02:00.000-05:00

In an article at bloomberg.com, columnist Matthew Benjamin succinctly describes the division of labor (and rewards) in the Republican Party:

In doing so, he [Huckabee] threatens the uneasy if effective coalition Republicans have counted on for three decades: abortion opponents and other social-issue activists supplying foot soldiers, proponents of tax cuts and business-friendly regulatory policies putting up the money and getting the biggest economic benefits.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aW4kA.Dle4BU&refer=politics

Fiscal conservatives have used social conservatives to do all the heavy lifting so that they (the fiscal conservatives) can make a sizeable return on their investments. However, while the fiscal conservatives are making money off of the efforts of social conservatives who labor for their selected candidates, the social conservatives end up getting stuck with the bag. Instead of having a truly pro-life, pro-family candidate who will go out on a limb and say, "Right is right, wrong is wrong," social conservatives are told to be pragmatic. "Would you rather have Hillary Clinton?" they are told.

Well enough!

Even though he may lack financial backing, Mike Huckabee is demonstrating that social conservatives can unite behind a viable cnadidate. In fact, he has demonstrated that money cannot buy elections; otherwise, Mitt Romney would already be picking curtains for the Oval Office.

My First Look at Mike Huckabee

2007-12-23T17:51:00.001-05:00

This video describes, among other things, the events that transpired on July 15, 1996. Then Lt. Gov. Huckabee's address to the state (which was fed to C-SPAN) was why I joined the Huckabee bandwagon lo these many years ago:

Mitt Romney... meet John Kerry

2007-12-23T15:53:00.000-05:00

Mitt Romney reminds me of John Kerry.

On the issue of the Iraq War, John Kerry tried to play both sides of the fence, stating that he voted for a war-related resolution before he voted against it.

Gov. Romney is doing the same thing on abortion:

He also flip-flops on every other issue important to social conservatives while denouncing "Reagan-Bush":

Romney's Hypocritical Attack on McCain

2007-12-22T17:32:00.001-05:00

Today, Gov. Romney derides John McCain for not learning "Reagan 101." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22370986/

Of course, by his own admission, Gov. Romney completely skipped the course.

Mike Huckabee's Christmas Gift

2007-12-19T13:23:00.001-05:00

The Governor is getting unearned media in spades today all because of the Christmas ad. The more people attack it, the more people become curious to see it.Gotta love it!

read more | digg story

A Governor Turned Presidential Candidate Admits to Tax Hikes

2007-12-18T12:56:00.001-05:00

In 1973, former Gov. Ronald Reagan explained in an essay that as a governor, it is impossible to make promises along the lines of "no new taxes."

read more | digg story

Why Fiscal Conservatives Should Embrace Mike Huckabee

2007-12-17T23:03:00.000-05:00

It took me until just recently to finally admit that Rush Limbaugh is adamantly opposed to Mike Huckabee. Up to now, I had recognized that Mr. Limbaugh--like any other citizen--had a favorite candidate, and that there was only a 1 in 5 chance of it being Mike Huckabee. But now, after reading his daily update, I am convinced that Mr. Limbaugh has a strong negative bias against Gov. Huckabee.

The purpose of this posting is not to criticize Mr. Limbaugh (or Mr. Hannity, who has long been a Guiliani supporter) or anyone else for that matter. No, these men have their opinions, and they are entitled to have them and to express them openly. In fact, this is what they are paid millions of dollars each year to do.

Rather, my intention is to delve into the reason why Mr. Limbaugh in particular (and Mr. Hannity, to a lesser extent) seem to exhibit a bias against Gov. Huckabee.

When it all boils down, there are three distinct sections of the Republican coalition: (1) Fiscal conservatives, (2) social conservatives, and (3) defense conservatives. Now, these sections are not mutally-exclusive of each other. In fact, Messrs. Limbaugh and Hannity would boldly proclaim that they are members of all three groups.

However, the vast majority of Republicans fit in only one or two of these categories; hardly do they fit in all three. Even when Republicans do simultaneously espouse all three of these distinct characteristics, their respective priorities are not identical. Some place fiscal issues ahead of social issues. Others place the social ahead of the fiscal. (One could list all of the permutations very easilty.)

From what I have gathered, Messrs. Limbaugh and Hannity place social conservatism at the bottom of their respective lists. Therefore, when a candidate like Mike Huckabee puts social conservatism at the front of the line, the talk giants become scared. Here is why:

Fiscal conservatism deals primarily with money and taxation, right? Well, if you think about it, money is measured in analog terms. By this, I mean, wealth is not an "either-or" situation. There are people who have more money than I do, but they are not necessarily wealthy. Likewise, there are people who have less money than Bill Gates, but they are not necessarily poor. There are varying degrees of wealth (or poverty, as the case may be.)

Conversely, much of social conservatism deals with discrete events. Either abortion remains legal, or it is banned. Either gay marriage is legalized or it is prohibited. By and large, social conservatives do not see varying degrees of legalized abortion or sanctioned gay marriage. For social conservatives, the fight for our culture is an all or nothing affair.

In a purely pragmatic sense, Republicans who place fiscal issues ahead of social issues believe that we have more to lose fiscally than we could ever lose socially.

To such a person, the issue of abortion, for example, cannot get any worse. If a Democrat (or a liberal Republican) is elected President, abortion-rights will likely not expand. (Yes, there might be attempts to lift the bans on late-term abortions, but even if these bans are lifted, the actual number of abortions will likely remain constant.) Conversely, if a Democrat is elected, our collective gains on fiscal issues may be erased when taxes increase to record highs and the deficit balloons to stratospheric levels.

However, what these pragmatic Republicans fail to realize is that our fiscal stability is a direct function of our social strength.

Take the issue of abortion. But for abortion on demand, our economy would have generated more than $421 billion in social security taxes over the last 20 years. Here is how:

In 1973, the Supreme Court legalized abortion in all 50 states. Since that time, the Alan Guttmacher Institute reports the number of abortions as follows for the years 1973-1992:

Year --------- Number of Abortions (Yr)
1973---744,600
1974---898,600
1975---1,034,200
1976---1,179,300
1977---1,316,700
1978---1,409,600
1979---1,497,700
1980---1,553,900
1981---1,577,300
1982---1,573,900
1983---1,575,000
1984---1,577,200
1985---1,588,600
1986---1,574,000
1987---1,559,100
1988---1,590,800
1989---1,567,000
1990---1,609,000
1991---1,556,500
1992---1,528,900

Pretend that these children had not been aborted. Assume for the sake of this analysis that each of these aborted children had grown up, only to make the least possible contribution to our economy, by earning minimum wage for their entire working lives.

The 744,600 children aborted in 1973 would have turned age 15 in the year 1988. Back then, the minimum wage was $3.35 per hour. Working 40 hours per week for 50 weeks per year, these 744,600 children would have earned $4,988,820,000.00 in 1988.

In 1989, the 898,600 children who were aborted in 1974 would have started working, along with the 744,600 children who had been aborted in 1973. These 1,643,200 children, working 2,000 hours per year, would have earned $11,009,440,000.00 in 1989.

In 1990, the minimum wage increased to $3.80 per hour. As such, the 1,034,200 children who were aborted in 1975--along with the 1,643,200 children who were aborted in 1973 and 1974--would have earned $20,348,240,000.00.

You could go on and on until you get to the year 2007, when the 1,528,900 children who were aborted in the year 1992 would have gone to work for the first time. These children, along with the 26,983,000 children who had been aborted from 1973 through 1991, would have earned $333,589,230,000.00 in wages in 2007 alone, by earning only $5.15 an hour.

In all, these aborted children would have earned a total $2,807,884,880,000.00 from 1988 to 2007. Social security taxes generated from this revenue (paid by the employee and the employer) would have equalled $421,182,732,000.00

You see, by embracing social conservatism, we actually make fiscal conservatism possible.

Had we fought tooth and nail to stop abortion way back then, we wouldn't be worrying about "saving social security" now. Instead, our economy would be generating enough money to preserve social security for the next century.

By fighting abortion, we promote the future economic growth of our nation.

By promoting strong families, where work ethics are handed down from generation to generation, we undermine the welfare state.

Yet, when we embrace the fiscal to the exclusion of the social, we actually undermine the very foundation for our nation's prosperity.

In the final analysis, I believe that Messrs. Limbaugh and Hannity truly are fiscal and social conservatives, but they have placed the fiscal ahead of the social--to the very detriment of the fiscal policies they are trying to promote.

Shortsightedly, these pragmatic Republicans are stepping over dollars to pick up dimes.

Indeed, the fiscal conservatives would be much better off supporting a social conservative like Mike Huckabee.

Enthusiasm Explained

2007-12-12T23:30:00.000-05:00

Pollster Scott Rasmussen has said numerous times that he can find plenty of reasons why every candidate for the Republican nomination should lose, but that there are very few reasons why any candidate might win.

The fact is that every candidate in this race has characteristics that are repugnant to the typical Republican voter. Giuliani is for abortion. Romney is inconsistent. (I could list other candidates, but frankly I tired.) As such, enthusiasm for our field of Republican candidates is very thin to say the least.

Still, there is some enthusiasm. For instance, in my previous posting, I described why I support Huckabee. As mentioned, my reasons are as much personal as they are policy-related. The purpose of this posting, however, is to analyze why others are supporting Huckabee.

Essentially, Gov. Huckabee appeals to the average man or woman.

When we look at him, we see a reflection of who we are. We identify with his struggles. We identify with his working class background. We identify with his sincerity and compassion for other people. By rooting for him, we are in effect rooting for ourselves.

Perhaps this is why his numbers are continuing to rise even when the attacks are the strongest.

By and large the American people want to believe the best about Huckabee because we know he believes the best about us.

Why I Support Mike Huckabee

2007-12-05T23:01:00.000-05:00

I have known Mike Huckabee for more than ten years. I first met him in 1997. The following May, I joined his first campaign for governor. From my up close and personal observations, I can tell you that he would make an excellent president because he is an excellent person.

Bar none, of all the candidates for high political office that I have met in my 33 years, he is the only one who seems more concerned about other people than he does himself. I first observed this in June 1998. My wife and I were celebrating our first wedding anniversary, and we both were campaigning at a parade in Mena, Ark. As the Governor and Mrs. Huckabee (who insisted upon being called "Janet") drove by, they shouted "Happy Anniversary" to us.

I know this is not much, but it really impressed me. You see, we had just moved to Arkansas barely three weeks before. I was truly the new kid on the block. I had not told the Governor about our anniversary; unbeknownst to me, a friend had. So I was not expecting any greeting from the Governor and the First Lady. Still, out of the blue, they shouted this to us in public for all to hear.

Another time during the campaign, we attended a festival in Magnolia, Ark. A friend from Mississippi tagged along. This particular girl had been in our wedding, and she was thinking about going to seminary. With crowds of people all around--with people who could have either voted for him or donated to his campaign--the Governor spent a solid five or ten minutes talking just to this girl--a girl who could not vote for him--about her plans to go into ministry.

Although these two incidents are admittedly anecdotal, I don't think that they are outliers, by any means! Mike Huckabee is truly the type of guy who would carry on an in depth conversation with you, caring about what you have to say. Unlike most politicians who are more concerned about talking to people, he truly loves to listen.

About 1,900 years before Dale Carnegie was born, Jesus Christ showed people how to win friends and influence people. He once said, "My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me." From my own observation, Mike Huckabee uses this same approach to leadership.

The Governor understands people. He truly cares about them. Mike Huckabee cares less about what people can do for him and more about what he can do for them. And when you listen to the man, you will see this is exactly where he comes from. It's this sincerely concern for his flock, if you will, that draws people to listen to his message.

It's been said that people don't care how much you know, but they know how much you care.

And this is exactly why Mike Huckabee is now leading in the polls. People know that his candidacy is for real because they now realize that he is real.

Huckabee Has the Buzz

2007-12-02T11:51:00.000-05:00

ABCNews is reporting that Huckabee was the clear winner of the recent YouTube Debate. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/page?id=3489425

Rasmussen is reporting that Huckabee is gaining on Guiliani nationwide and is in a statistical tie for first. (Guiliani 22%, Huckabee 17% --- 4% margin of error.)
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Gays in the Military

2007-11-29T20:35:00.000-05:00

Last night, Gov. Huckabee was asked a question about gays in the military (by, oddly enough, a Hillary Clinton supporter). While contemplating this question myself, I reached the same conclusion as the Governor, but by a different route.

When homosexuals announce to the world their sexual proclivities, its known as "coming out of the closet." The very fact that these "closets" still exist presupposes that modern society has not completely accepted homosexuality as an appropriate lifestyle choice.

Well, if many pockets of society still do not accept this lifestyle choice, homosexuality must have some measureable quantity of shame associated therewith.

People who perform shameful acts are inherently susceptible to blackmail and extortion. This is why sexual immorality--including homosexuality, adultery, and fornication--is prohibited by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

A man who seeks gay sex with strangers in airport bathrooms is not someone I want to be entrusted with our nation's secrets. Because if such a person were photographed in the act, he might compromise our secrets in order to keep his secret safe.

Rasmussen: Huckabee 1st in Iowa

2007-11-28T16:39:00.001-05:00

Huckabee – 28%, Romney – 25%Mr. Huckabee again demonstrates his ability to do more with less. Just what we need--a candidate who truly is fiscally conservative.

read more | digg story

Huckabee Beats Hillary By Widest Margin

2007-11-27T00:23:00.001-05:00

Someone recently commented on another site that a vote for Huckabee is a vote for Giuliani. This made me think about why people who are otherwise inclined to support Huckabee are supporting someone more "viable."

Republicans--especially social conservatives--are concerned about losing the White House to social liberals like Hillary and Rudy. Of course, with all other things being equal, they would prefer Rudy over Hillary, but all in all, they don't like either one of them. In fact they are scared of both of them. So they consider the electability card, and right now, depending upon who you speak with, they think that Romney is the most viable social conservative running for the Republican nomination. Naturally, they fear that by voting for Huckabee (and therefore not Romney), Giuliani--or even worse, Hillary--might benefit from the divided social conservative vote.

What these people don't realize is that (a) Romney is not a social conservative, and (b) as the article demonstrates, Huckabee is a very good shot of beating Hillary---even better than the rest of the crowd as the linked article demonstrates.

So in the final analysis, social conservatives need to follow their heart and support Huckabee instead of acting out of fear and voting for anyone else.

read more digg story

How One Governor-Turned-Presidential-Candidate Raised Taxes by $1 Billion

2007-11-26T21:33:00.001-05:00

This is an article from National Review dated September 15, 2003. It shows how Ronald Reagan raised California's taxes by $1 Billion in 1967.

Back then, the price of gold was $35 per ounce. Today it's at approximately $800 per ounce. Thus, by using the fixed price of gold as a measure of inflation, one dollar ($1) in 1967 is equal to approximately twenty-two dollars ($22) today. Thus, Reagan's tax increase in California equals $22 Billion in today's dollars, if inflation is adjusted by the corresponding change in the price of gold. (Using the CPI as a way of measuring inflation, the tax increase equals about $10 Billion in today's currency--still nothing to sneeze at.)

It's funny how fiscal conservatives are quick to point out Gov. Mike Huckabee's miniscule tax increases, yet they conveniently forget how Gov. Reagan raised taxes in California by $10 to $22 Billion (depending upon the way inflation is measured).

Yet, as we all know, Reagan was one heck of a tax-cutting President.

So will Mike Huckabee!

read more digg story

And We're Back ....

2007-11-14T21:51:00.000-05:00

I had forgotten that I had this blog. Studying for the bar exam will do that.

More posts to come.

Perception

2006-05-07T23:31:00.000-04:00

In Mark 10:46-52, we read the story of Bartimaeus. Before we go into his story, we must fully comprehend the depth of his predicament.

Bartimaeus was blind. He lived 2,000 years ago in Israel. Back then, the typical Jew had three avenues of income: farming, fishing, and carpentry. All three required eyesight. Blind persons simply lacked the perception necessary to plow a field or to navigate a boat or to build a house. Accordingly, men like Bartimaeus usually begged for their meals.

Naturally, beggars needed to be positioned where people with surplus money would be. So they would beg in highly-traversed places, such as the gates of the city, where travelers would certainly pass. While most people would ignore their supplications, eventually someone would show pity.

And so the beggar learned to live by the law of averages. Like the modern telemarketer bent on selling magazine subscriptions at the dinner hour, the ancient beggar learned that survival is a product of persistence plus humility. The beggar understood that while rejection is painful, starvation is worse.

Nevertheless, even with his humble persistence, Bartimaeus was barely getting by. He was struggling. While sighted people--while people with perception--walked back and forth to their jobs carrying their money, Bartimaeus sat on the roadside.

To Bartimaeus, it seemed as if the world were passing him by.

And so, Bartimaeus had two problems. First he was blind. Second, he was poor.

There was nothing that he could do about the first problem, so he attended to the second, begging and pleading all the day long for a scrap of bread or some loose change.

Then he heard Jesus. Bartimaeus may have lacked sight, but he had hearing. He may have lacked some perception, but not all of it. When he perceived that Jesus was near, he addressed Him with the title, "Son of David," indicating that he, Bartimaeus, thought Jesus was the Messiah--the Son of God capable of opening blind eyes.

Bartimaeus had been trained as a beggar. So how did he approach Jesus? By begging... with all of his might! When people chastened him, he yelled all the more. He recognized his chance. He used what little perception he had-- and what little training he had--to attract the attention of Jesus. The very persistence and humility that Bartimaeus had developed as a beggar would attract the attention of the Person who could solve all of his problems.

Jesus asked him what he wanted. Bartimaeus could have replied, "Lord, I want to have a bunch of money so I will never have to beg again." If he had, who knows, Jesus might have pointed him to Nicodemus.

Instead of asking for a material blessing, Bartimaeus petitioned the Lord to expand his perception. Bartimaeus knew that if he had greater perception, he would be able to work. If he were able to work, he would no longer have need to beg. Bartimaeus knew that perception was the solution to his problem. So he asked for his sight, and Jesus obliged.

To some extent, we are all like Bartimaeus. We all have struggles for which we have never fully seen victory. A difficult marriage. A difficult financial situation. Rebellious children. A dead end job. You name it. One of us will certainly have it.

But like Bartimaeus, we have a series of choices that we must make if we want to overcome life's obstacles.

First, we must choose to persevere, even if our perseverance brings shame.

Bartimaeus could have stopped begging and then starved to death. But if he had done that, he would have missed his miracle; he would have lacked the perseverance to call on Jesus when the rest of the world told him to shut up.

Bartimaeus learned as a beggar that what other people think is irrelevant. We too must learn this lesson. We too must stand firm even though our decisions may bring ridicule or self-loathing.

Second, we must recognize that lack of perception is the root of our problems.

Yes, Bartimaeus was broke, but he was broke because he was blind. But, when he got his sight back, Bartimaeus never had to beg again. Likewise, we too need to learn that if God grants us perception of our situation--if God opens our eyes, giving us insight into the world around us--we will no longer need to struggle. Instead, like the newly-sighted Bartimaeus who could push a plow or cast a net or drive a nail, we will have the clarity to address our respective situations. Such clarity will make begging obsolete.

Third, and most important, we must use the lessons we have learned in the past to direct our search for perception.

Bartimaeus learned how to use his ears masterfully. He learned how to beg with humble persistence. So when Jesus came, he used his ears to hear his voice, and he responded as a beggar would. We also must develop our senses to seek after the Lord. Moreover, we must use our talents--our skills--to seek after Him. When we find Him, we must seek Him more persistently than we have struggled in our own problems. And when we find Him, we must ask for perception, not merely for a solution to our short-term problem.

Rising Gas Prices--An Objective Analysis

2006-04-25T12:44:00.001-04:00

If you were to examine the 2005 annual report for ExxonMobil (http://exxonmobil.com/corporate/files/corporate/sar_2005.pdf), you would find that the world's largest corporation made $36.13 billion of net profit after taxes.

Thirty six billion dollars is a lot of money. When gas prices have gone up to the point where it takes $50 or $60 to fill up one's tank, that seems a bit excessive. Doesn't it?

If ExxonMobil were to cut some of its profits, then maybe gas prices would drop, and the average American who is living paycheck-to-paycheck wouldn't have to choose between prescription drugs or fuel for his car. Right?

Well, maybe not.

According to ExxonMobil's 2005 Annual Report, the company produced 8,257,000 barrels of petroleum products per day for worldwide consumption in 2005. Gasoline represented only 3,274,000 barrels, or 39.65%, of this daily total.

If gasoline represents only 39.65% of ExxonMobil's production, then ExxonMobil's profits from the sale of gasoline should approximate $14,325,545,000 (or 39.65% of $36.13 billion).

A barrel, by definition, is 42 gallons. (http://www.metric-conversions.org/volume/gallons-to-barrels.htm) Therefore, ExxonMobil produced 137,508,000 gallons of gasoline per day last year. Multiplying this by the number of days in a year, ExxonMobil produced 50,190,420,000 gallons of gasoline during the year 2005.

Now, if we divide ExxonMobil's profits from gasoline ($14,325,545,000) by the total gallons of gasoline the company produced (50,190,420,000), ExxonMobil's per gallon profit equals 28.54 cents per gallon.

Today, I paid $2.94 per gallon for a half tank of gasoline. It was not at an ExxonMobil location, but these days every company in a given locale is charging basically the same price. If we assume that ExxonMobil is charging the same price at a nearby store, what would be the company's breakeven price, assuming a profit of 28.54 cents per gallon?

Naturally, ExxonMobil could sell its fuel for $2.66 per gallon (or $2.94 - $0.28).

If ExxonMobil overnight became altruistic and decided to completely eliminate its profits on gasoline, would that really have an impact on your pocketbook? Well, 28.5 cents per gallon multiplied by, let's say, 40 gallons per full tank, would equal savings of $11.20 per fill-up. Nothing to sneeze at, for sure. But, this is still nowhere near the $1.75 per gallon we paid three or four years ago.

Besides, if ExxonMobil did eliminate its profit, giving the rest of us a break, wouldn't that effect the value of the company? Wouldn't its stock price plummet? What about dividends? Wouldn't they drop?

Who gives a flip about the rich oil barons and their stock prices? No one really cares about dividends. Right?

If ExxonMobil eliminated its profit, its competitors would have to follow suit in order to break even. Then the earnings of all oil companies would collapse. Then investors, particularly institutional investors (pension funds, mutual funds) would go ape crap, filing shareholder derviative suits like they were going out of style.

In the meantime, retirees who live off of their investments would suffer as their income droped precipitously. The elderly would then have to choose between their food bills or their prescription drugs. Likewise, middle class workers who are saving for retirement will see an immediate reduction in the value of their nest eggs.

All because we demand $2.66 per gallon gasoline.

Tom, Katie, and Scientology

2006-04-20T08:58:00.000-04:00

Putting aside that Scientology teaches that 75 million years ago, a cosmic ruler named Xenu brought billions of aliens to Earth to blow them up with hydrogen bombs and that their souls are causing problems today (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu), don't you find it strange that this "religion" has its own "Celebrity Centre"? (http://celebritycentre.org/en_US/index.html.)

Seems mighty snotty, don't you think?

I mean, really... What would happen if the Southern Baptist Convention created its own "Celebrity Centre"?

While some of us would get stuck with a preacher and his wife/organ player in a 1500 square foot brick-and-mortar building in the back woods of Alabama, the special ones would get to see Jerry Falwell live and in person along with all the amenities you would expect at a five-star hotel (except, of course, for the booze).

And who would be allowed to enter such a Baptist "Celebrity Centre"?

I doubt that Jimmy Carter would be there. He is, after all, a moderate. As for the fundamentalists, there's way too many of them to place in an exclusive club. If the Baptists were to follow ole L. Ron's lead, there must be some criteria for admission into what would be the biggest family life center in the world.

According to the Celebrity Centre's official website, the Celebrity Center is "a special Church of Scientology which [caters] to ... artists, politicians, leaders of industry, sports figures and anyone with the power and vision to create a better world."

I guess a Baptist Celebrity Centre would need people of like ilk.

Do we know of any famous Baptist artists? (I'm sure K-LOVE radio would have a list. We should check with them?) What about politicians? (Just ask every governor south of the Mason-Dixon line to join.) Leaders of industry? (Does NASCAR owners count?) Sports figures? (Do NASCAR drivers count?)

What about people with the power and vision to create a better world?

Now that's a tough one, because anybody with faith in Christ fits this description. If the Baptist church were to create a Celebrity Centre, every born-again Christian would be eligible for admission. Why? Because the Bible tells us that when a single person repents, the angels in Heaven celebrate. (Luke 15:7)

That's right... to Jesus, if we turn to Him, if we give our hearts to Him, we become an instant celebrity... But to the proteges of L. Ron Hubbard, apparently there is a more of a bifurcation, to wit: the rich and powerful can hang out with Tom and Katie and John and Kelly at the Celebrity Centre; the rest of us can get lost.

Random Thoughts

2006-04-18T22:07:00.000-04:00

1. Clearly the folks at Google have no idea what I am discussing in this blog. Their last automatic ad had something to do with a test that you could take to determine what kind of Mom you were.

2. Assuming for a moment that George Bush lied about our reasons for going into Iraq, why is Tony Blair such an adamant supporter of the war effort? Remember, Tony Blair could lose his job tomorrow, and he is a member of the Labour party (which is about as liberal--if not more--than our country's Democratic Party). Why would a man like Blair risk his political career to follow Bush's lead when the PM is much more like Clinton than he is like the current president?

3. Liberals claim that George Bush is a pathetic leader incapable of making a coherent, cogent, concise, constructive comment. "He's no Reagan," they say, "and he is certainly no Clinton." Yet, in the same breath, they answer my previous question vis-a-vis the British Prime Minister by saying that Bush must have manipulated Blair into following his lead. Bush is supposedly incapable of communicating with the average American on his or her own level, but somehow he can effectively convey the need to go to war to an Oxford-educated, British Prime Minister with 23 years political experience who has everything to lose by following suit. Go figure.

4. Speaking of Tony Blair and the war... Have you ever heard him speak about the war? He makes more compelling arguments for the Iraq war than does Bush. (You have to hear this guy speak to understand what I am saying.)

5. Why is it that illegal immigrants from Mexico can influence our government, but they have no influence on their own?

6. What is the point in voting for Republicans if they spend more money than the Democrats?

What Is Wrong With Education Part II

2006-04-13T22:43:00.000-04:00

As we all know, people are not defined by their I.Q.'s. Some developmentally-challenged people, with I.Q.'s below 70, have done very well in life. Conversely, in some fast-food restaurants there are Mensa members flipping burgers. While some people fail to live up to their potential, others through sheer force of will and faith in God exceed their mental capabilities.

I mention this to clarify my earlier comments. Just because a person has a particular IQ does not necessarily mean that they will not be able to learn, or that they will not be able to pass their tests. IQ simply measures their natural ability to learn. Although it may take longer for a person with an IQ of 90 to learn than, say, a person with a 110 IQ, the former student may learn more because he pushes himself harder.

Be that as it may, with all other things being equal, a child with a higher IQ will tend to do better at school than a child with a lower IQ. If a child with a 90 IQ has the same educational experience (i.e., the same school, the same teachers, the same books, the same level of parental involvement) as a child with a 110 IQ, the former will probably make lower grades than the latter.

If one child learns at a faster rate than the other, and if they both are given the same amount of time to study for their tests, then by the time the test is given, the faster child will have a greater understanding of the material and a greater confidence as well. Thus, he will do better than the slower child.

Of course, if a faster child has more distractions and the slower child has better focus, the results may be different. (Remember the "Tortoise and the Hare.") But, again, we are assuming that all other things are equal. We are assuming that both children have the same levels of parental involvement, the same levels of social interaction with other children, and the same amount of time to study.

Now, if we adopt a paradigm where a school's performance is measured by its test scores (and only its test scores), and if the teacher's job security is a direct function of the school's performance, then we create a conflict of interest. If a teacher's livelihood may be placed in jeopardy every time she gives a student a failing grade, she will give less "F's." Likewise, if the principal's career may be placed in jeopardy every time a child is held back a grade, he may be inclined to institute a program of "social promotion."

Intuitively, the school's performance should not be measured by any instrument whereby the teacher or the principal can manipulate the results. School performance must be measured objectively; having the teacher or the principal involved makes it purely subjective.

Knowing this, the politicians have created SOL's. And they have created standardized tests. In theory, it puts an end to social promotion, ensuring that no child will be left behind.

Yeah, right!

What would happen if the state set SOL standards too high? If, let's say, the state set SOL standards so high that first graders needed to understand calculus before they could advance to the second grade, no child would pass. Right? (I'll admit that my hypothetical situation is absurd, but stay with me. ) How do you think the parents would react? Would they be thrilled about higher standards? Or would they be enraged that every first grader in the state had just been held back?

Point is, if politicians wanted to, they could make SOL tests really, really hard. So hard that no body would ever be able to pass them. But they would never do this, because if they did, they would be voted out of office in a heartbeat.

On the other hand, if politicians were to set academic standards way too low, would the parents care? Certainly, most parents wouldn't be too upset if their children advanced from the first grade to the second. This is, after all, the normal progression of events. And no parent thinks his child is abnormal (unless, of course, the child really is out there).

Besides, if the parents do care, all they will notice when they read the paper or watch the news is the Governor or the State superintendent of Education announcing record test scores while patting themselves on the back for a job well done.

While it is undisputed that teachers and principals have incentive to advance a social promotion program on a case-by-case basis, it also holds that politicians have incentive to advance a social promotion program on an aggregate level.

If kids fail out of school, the teacher, the principal, and the politician may lose their jobs. But while the teacher or the principal may have incentive to give one child an unearned grade, the politician may be tempted to give every child an easy test. Either way, when it comes to academic standards, the bank robber is in the vault. Certainly, as Ronald Reagan learned back during the Depression, "the first rule of the bureaucracy is to save the bureaucracy."

A SOLUTION

1. First and foremost, children should no longer be viewed as cogs in a wheel. We have adopted a factory mindset in our schools. The child is the capital; the test score is the product. Schools produce test scores. If a school doesn't produce, its workers are given pink slips and the factory is closed.

Unfortunately, such is the byproduct of SOL's. Because school funding is tied to performance on standardized tests--and not to the actual measure of a child's learning--teachers feel extreme pressure to teach the tests. Oh no, they may not have the tests, per se, from which to teach, but they do have the SOL's from which to guide their curricula.

In theory this may not seem wrong, after all the teachers should have some kind of road map. However, if the SOL's are geared to the least common denominator because the politicians/bureaucrats who drafted them do not want to be embarrassed when half of the students are held back at the end of the year, then the road map is flawed ipso facto.

Although one might argue that the SOL's are a minimum and that teachers are encouraged to teach above this floor, this premise does not account for the large class sizes, the discipline problems which abound these days, and other distractions which keep a teacher from adapting lesson plans to the needs of each child. Thus the floor turns into a ceiling very quickly--especially when the test scores are paramount to the needs of the child.

To return the classroom to its proper focus, we must abolish the SOL's. We must abandon this mindset of "test scores first" and replace it with a more child-centered mentality.

2. Success should be measured one child at a time. Morgan Stanley runs ads which claim that it measures "success one investor at a time." Our schools should adopt the same policy.

Up to now, our schools have focused upon the SOL's. "Children must grasp the SOL's," the state stresses to its schools. So the schools teach the SOL's--and only the SOL's. In turn, students are pigeonholed based upon their grade levels. First graders will know "X". Second graders will know "Y". The fact that some first graders may be capable of also learning "Y" or "Z" is irrelevant; they must go to school to learn "X".

You get the drift. SOL's create a one-size-fits-all, cookie cutter approach to education. All first graders will act a certain way. All second graders will act another way. Deviation from this approach is almost universally questioned. After all, the school must pass the SOL's or it will cease to exist.

May I suggest something different?

What if a school gave second graders a standardized test at the beginning of the year--a test written by experts from outside of the state. The test would cover material up through the fourth grade. For each child, the test would serve as a baseline, indicating exactly what that child knows as of the first day of school. Then, at the end of the year, the child is given the same test again.

The scores of both tests will be sent to a neutral, out-of-state grading company. The company will measure the grade level that the child was on at the beginning of the year and what level the child is now. If, for example, a child was on a first grade level at the beginning of the year, but now is on a third grade level, he would get 2 points (3-1=2).

Each grade-level would have the same type of testing. Fourth graders would get a test for sixth graders; eighth graders for tenth graders; twelfth graders for college sophomores in liberal arts. They would have the same test at the beginning of the year and at the end. And their changes in grade level will be measured the same way, as noted above.

After the marginal change in grade level is measured for each child in each grade-level, all of the scores for a given school will be averaged. Then they will be ranked statewide. The bottom ten-percent will be placed on probation.

Schools on probation will be examined on-site by business leaders from throughout the state, but not from business leaders in and around their community. Average people will go into these schools to investigate why these schools did not advance as quickly as the others. If there is a reason, such as poor parental involvement, the panel of leaders will make recommendations to the school board. The next year, if the school is on probation again, another panel of business leaders will review the implementation of the prior panel's recommendations. If it is determined that the school made no effort to implement those recommendations, it will close. However, if the panel finds that the school made a good faith effort to implement those recommendations, the school will remain on probation, and the new panel will issue more recommendations.

This approach creates accountability. Test scores are still important, but they are designed to measure aggregate improvement in individual performance. In other words, if more students than not are functioning at greater levels than the year before, the school is safe. But if individual students are not advancing, the school is in trouble. Thus, if a teacher knows that Bobby is already two grade levels ahead of his classmates, she will encourage him to study even more to pick up the slack for the rest of the class.

Furthermore, the tests will be written and graded by groups who are outside of the state. Neither the teacher, nor the principal, nor the politician will control what is on the test or how it is graded; the only control will be that each test will operate on a much higher grade level. As such, the fox will no longer guard the hen house.

This approach will create competition between the schools. Granted, there is already some measure of this with respect to SOL testing. However, since these tests are not based upon any set of SOL's, each school will have the freedom--and even the mandate-- to teach things over and above what they would otherwise show their students. For example, a second grade teacher would be free to expose her class to third grade concepts without fear of skipping any SOL. Likewise, a school board will actually develop curricula on their own to adjust to their situations, without unnecessary interference from the state.

Best of all, if a school is in trouble, business leaders will examine the school to see if there are other reasons for this lack of performance. If the leaders see that teachers are doing the best that they can given the lack of parental involvement--or whatever the reason is--they will make recommendations to fix the problem without necessarily calling for the school to close. In other words, the leaders will factor into the mix other concerns that could not be gleaned from a score report.

Right now our public schools operate like a communist nation. Students are viewed as giant groups instead of being treated like individuals. Each child works for the collective "SOL test score" farm. Their individual successes are not as important as the aggregate success of the entire school. Thus, they do not have the inspiration or the drive to learn on their own, much less succeed on their own. Even if they did have this spark to advance beyond their wildest dreams, the teachers are too busy teaching the SOL's to advance any other subjects.

By adopting my plan, our public schools will operate like a capitalist, free market society. Without undue governmental regulation, each school will adopt its own curricula, and each teacher will have the freedom to teach each child on his or her own level, without fear of upsetting the educational bureaucracy. With tests that are designed to see how each child has improved, the child will be challenged to show the world just how smart he really is. Moreover, really bright students will receive the attention they need to thrive in a learning environment.

What Is Wrong With Education

2006-04-11T23:27:00.000-04:00

I've written so much about immigration that my Google ads have shifted from "Help Support Wesley Clark and Barbara Boxer" to "Immigrate to Canada." This is ipso facto evidence that I have beaten a dead horse into the ground. So now I shift topics to education.

THE BELL CURVE

In order to fully understand my theories on education, one must understand the concept of an intelligence quotient (or "I.Q.") According to the internet encyclopedia www.wikipedia.org, I.Q. is a quantifiable measure of one's cognitive abilities, or one's ability to process information. By design, it is normalized. If you were to measure the I.Q. of every person and distribute the scores, the distribution would, by definition, resemble a bell curve. Depending upon which I.Q. test is used, the shape of the curve may vary slightly between tests since the standard deviation may range from 15 to 24. (It's usually 15.) For all tests, the average (or mean) score is 100.

If the entire world were given a standard I.Q. test (with a standard deviation of 15 and an mean of 100), about 53% of the population would score between 90 and 110. Since this is a bell curve, there would be just as many folks with scores of 111 or greater as there would be persons with scores of 89 or less. (In both cases, approximately 23% of the population.) Likewise, there would be just as many people with I.Q.'s of 79 or less as there would be persons with I.Q.'s of 121 or more. (In both instances, approximately 8% of the population.) This is illustrated below.

As scores deviate further from the average (or the mean), the percentage of the affected population drops. As the chart depicts, there are more average people than either mentally-challenged people or geniuses.

Now, let's examine this chart by breaking it into percentiles:

As the above chart indicates, persons having I.Q.'s of 125 have cognition that is greater than or equal to 95% of the population. Likewise, persons having I.Q.'s of 90 have cognition that is greater than or equal to only 25% of the population. Finally, persons having I.Q.'s of 76 have cognition that is greater than or equal to only 5% of the population.

STANDARDS OF LEARNING

How does one measure the performance of a public school?

The generally accepted answer is measure the school's performance by comparing its test scores to those from other schools. In theory, if students at a particular school are failing their tests left, right and center, then such a school should lose its accreditation and close.

The problem with this theory is that the teachers who have a vested pecuniary interest in the accreditation of the school are themselves the ones grading the tests. It's the classic case of the fox guarding the hen house. If Bobby makes an "F" on his math quiz, what would stop his teacher from giving him an "A"? The more "A's" she hands out, the better chance she has of keeping her job. Besides, the less "F's" she distributes, the less she has to deal with irate parents. And if Bobby is a good football player, this makes the coach happy, too.

State departments of education have long recognized this inherent conflict of interest. This is why they have established "Standards of Learning" or "SOL's" which, in turn, are measured by standardized tests that are graded by the state departments and not the schools.

In Virginia, for example, students are tested each year as to whether they have mastered the SOL's. Students who do not pass their SOL tests will not advance to the next grade, and schools with unacceptable numbers of failures will eventually closed. (Not to single out the Old Dominion, just about every other state uses some type of standard.)

In theory, SOL's are good because they provide accountability and raise school standards. But do they really?

TYING IT ALL TOGETHER

Pretend for a moment that Governor X. Y. Z. from the great State of (I don't know... let's make up a name) "Missabama" advances a campaign for higher standards in education. He wants to get tough on under performing schools. So he signs an executive order--or otherwise convinces his legislature to enact a law--that will gear the SOL's to the cognitive abilities of the average child.

Assuming that the cognitive abilities of the all public school children in Missabama is a representative of the rest of the world (that is, the I.Q.'s of Missabama school children can be distributed on a bell curve), what percentage of Missabama students would likely fail their SOL tests?

Naturally, if the SOL's are geared to those students with average I.Q.'s, then those with below-average I.Q.'s would be in trouble. Further, since approximately 50% of all people have cognition that is below average, it follows that close to 50% of Missabama children would have below average I.Q's. Thus, one would expect that about half of Missabama school children would fail or otherwise struggle with their SOL tests.

Now imagine what would happen to the Governor's political fortunes if 50% of public school children failed their SOL's and therefore failed to advance to the next grade? Would the Governor have any hope of being reelected?

OK, let's say the Governor has an epiphany and realizes that he can't gear the SOL's to the average child. So he decides to gear them to the child with a 90 I.Q. --until he realizes that one-in-four school children would likely fail their SOL tests at the end of the year.

So he drops it again, gearing the SOL's to children with I.Q's of 81. Now only 10% are likely to fail. But does he want one-in-ten school children to fail to advance to the next grade while he is in office?

Finally, he drops the standards one more time... this time gearing them to children with I.Q.'s of 76. Now only 5% will have problems. Great! He can live with that.

CONCLUSION

The above hypothetical involving the Governor of the fictitious state of Missabama demonstrates that no one in government is competent to set standards for education.

If academic standards are raised, generally speaking, more students will fail. Conversely, if academic standards are lowered, more students will pass. It's almost axiomatic, really.

Well, if more students fail, more parents will be upset. If more parents are upset, they will demand different leadership at the state and local levels. Governors, legislators, superintendents of education--they all will feel the wrath of angry parents who feel that their children have been mistreated.

Like the teacher who has a vested pecuniary interest in giving Bobby an "A" when he should receive an "F," these politicians have a vested political interest in giving Bobby an "A" as well. After all, as test scores go up... so do the photo ops with smiling children.

Next time I will address solutions.

Immigration Part IV

2006-04-10T23:09:00.000-04:00

I wish that I could address other topics, but how can one ignore the hundreds of thousands of people who are protesting for a more relaxed immigration policy.

A very brief recap. The Mexicans are poor. They need jobs desperately. A job paying $2.00 per hour would create an above-average lifestyle back home. So they flock across the borders in droves to search for willing accomplices--American employers who do not wish to pay $5.15 an hour. Selling their labor on the black market, they create a win-win situation for themselves and for their employers. The employer saves 40% to 70% on labor costs; the worker gets a 200% to 400% raise.

Up to now, I have addressed ways to reduce the flow of illigal human trafficking across our southern border by giving the Mexican more incentive to stay at home. In particular, I have augmented the basic premise for the implementation of NAFTA way back in 1993.

Back then, Presidents Bush (41) and Clinton both argued that a prosperous Mexico would purchase more U.S. goods and services. In turn, this would increase our prosperity as well. A rising tide lifts all boats. If the mobile home next to your stately manor is replaced by a mansion, your abode will see an automatic increase in its value. As our neighbor's prosperity increases, so will our prosperity.

The corollary to this principle vis-a-vis immigration is that a man living in a nice home will not leave his manor to scourge through his neighbors dwelling. If Mexico had more jobs, less corruption, and greater productivity, it would enjoy greater prosperity. With less poverty, there would be less incentive for Mexicans to cross our borders. Indeed, when was the last time you heard about illegal aliens from Canada?

Up to now, I have addressed positive incentives to reduce illegal aliens' demand for U.S. jobs. Now, I will address positive incentives to reduce the supply of jobs for illegal aliens.

Why would any U.S. employer even consider hiring an illegal alien?

I'm sure there is a "Christian" dynamic. Here I am-- a rich man with need for labor--watching a grown man beg for work at my feet. Should I turn him away? What would Jesus do? (I submit that Jesus would house him, clothe him, feed him, and then turn him over to the BICE. After all, we are supposed to "render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar...")

I seriously doubt that 12 million illegal immigrants have been given jobs simply because of Christian charity. No. There is an economic dynamic here.

Imagine, if you will, what would happen if Congress were to abolish the minimum wage?

By placing artificial floors on the price of labor--floors that were above the fair market value, Congress created greater incentive for the poor to find work. Discouraged workers who had abandoned all hope of working now had reason to pound the pavement. In and of itself, that's great! (People should never lose hope.) However there was an unintended consequence. As the cost of labor increased, so did the supply of workers. Moreover, as businesses saw a marked increase in labor costs, some employers reduced their hiring demands. Thus, a surplus of labor formed.

Today, our minimum wage attracts labor from parts of the world where $5.15 per hour is living "high on the hog." Like a magnet, it pulls illegal aliens across our borders. The added addition of illegals to our labor market depresses the fair market value for entry-level wages. Concomitantly, this drop in fair market value increases opportunity costs for the employer. But for the minimum wage, the employer recognizes that he could save $2.00, $3.00, maybe $4.00 per hour for each illegal alien he hires.

The employer figures that with twenty employees, he could save up to $166,400 per year by hiring illegal aliens. Before long he realizes that if his competition does the same thing, his competition would be able to lower his own prices. If that happens, he knows that he won't be able to compete. So, the employer hires illegal workers under the table.

Or maybe the employer is a decent guy who doesn't want to break the law. So he hires Americans at $5.15 per hour. But as he feared, he soon could not compete. So he shuts down his factory altogether. Either way, the American worker now has less opportunities--even though he is now entitled to a minimum wage.

Please do not misunderstand me. I am not advocating the abolition of the minimum wage. However, I want to illustrate the trade-offs that we must be willing to expect if we intend to set artificial, minimum prices for labor.

Assuming a paradigm where we are unwilling to deploy resources to secure our borders, where we are unwilling to invest capital into Mexico for the express purpose of creating prosperity south of the Rio Grande, where we are reluctant to allow guest workers across our borders, where we are unwilling to criminalize the hiring of illegal aliens---assuming that the present situation does not change, we have two options...

(1) We either can perpetuate a price floor that is ten times the average Mexican wage and still have illegal immigration from our neighbor to the south, OR (2) we can abolish or otherwise reduce our minimum wage and experience reductions in illicit border crossings.

Immigration Part III

2006-04-09T15:44:00.000-04:00

As I have discussed in my previous two postings, Mexican workers have strong incentive to leave their country, but there are barriers to legal immigration into the U. S. With an average wage of 51 cents per hour and with 40% of its population living below the poverty line, there are little, if any, economic opportunies in Mexico.

Conversely, with a minimum wage of $5.15 per hour, with free public education, and with government-subsidized health care, the U. S. has plenty of economic opportunities for the Mexican poor.

The problem is that the typical Mexican must wait seven to fourteen years to enter the U. S., assuming that such a one has family and/or a job awaiting in the States. Thus, with strong pressure to leave, and with impenitrable barriers to legal entry, the Mexican poor have only one real alternative--illegal immigration.

In my most recent posting, I have stressed the importance of job creation in Mexico. If poverty in Mexico decreases, then Mexican workers will experience less pressure to enter the U. S. Of course, political realities would prevent a politician from advancing such a position.

Would any candidate for President dare proclaim a "Jobs For Mexico" platform when GM workers are being laid off from their $73.73 per hour jobs? (This figure includes benefits. See http://www.freemarketproject.com/news/2005/news20051123.asp) In a climate where talk of "exporting jobs" is anathema, could any candidate survive the criticism that would follow an announcment to seal the borders with a wall of factories? No way!

Well if one cannot reduce Mexican demand to enter the U.S. on their side of the border, then what could the government do to reduce Mexican demand from this side of the border? For years, there has been talk of ending services for illegals. No more free education. No more healthcare.

In theory, I suppose this would work. But then again, how could one determine whether a person is a Mexican citizen or a Mexican-American (to borrow from the PC crowd)? Check their drivers' licenses? (In states where illegals are actually given drivers' licenses, this would be a problem. Further, there are some people who don't drive.) What about birth certificates? (Do you carry your birth certificate everywhere you go?) What about "green cards"? (If you are a natural born citizen, you won't have one. But even if you had one, could there ever be a time where a person is treated in an emergency situation where their wallets/purses were lost or destroyed, such as in car accidents?)

In some situations, we are not going to be able to differentiate between the bona fide U.S. citizen/LPR and the illegal. And the first time a hospital denies benefits to a citizen/LPR because of their race, you will see a Section 1983 civil rights suit for millions of dollars, plus attorney's fees. Hospitals are not going to risk this, so they will err on the side of caution, giving aid and comfort to legals and illegals alike.

Well, if we cannot create benefits in Mexico, or reduce benefits in the U. S., then what else is there? The only thing left is to create a more fluid border between the two countries--either by reducing the wait times for Mexicans to get their LPR status, or by creating some sort of temporary worker program.

Since the former alternative would require more funding to the BICE (Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, formerly known as the Immigration and Naturalization Service) to hire more employees to process these particular applications, assuming of course that wait times for other countries remain the same and existing employees are not redirected to process Mexican applications, this alternative would cost the taxpayers.

Besides, as incentive to immigrate permanently to the U. S. increases, so will the demand. People who otherwise would be resigned to stay in Mexico would now be inclined to apply for LPR status. I don't believe the BICE would have enough manpower to ever process Mexican applications and keep them current.

And even if they could, would we want 40% of Mexico's citizens joining the ranks of permanent residents of the U.S.? Rather, would we want 40% of any country's citizens moving to our country? We wouldn't be able to absorb all of these people, even if we wanted to.

The only alternative short of provoking riots and/or a Second Mexican War (see my last post) would be the creation of a temporary worker program. Now how would we go about it? In particular, how would we handle the illegals who are already here.

While I do support a guest worker program, which would give Mexican workers the opportunity to find work here, while ensuring their return to Mexico, I do not support any proposal that would give amnesty to those illegals who are already here. Neglecting any retroactive application of this program that would accomodate those who have crossed our borders hitherto, a guest worker program would give Mexicans the opportunity to better their lives without undue strain on our economy. They would come here, provide a service, and leave.

Regardless of which approach we take, if we do not make attempts to reduce the financial incentives for people to immigrate illegally, it will continue. The most efficient way would be to create jobs in Mexico. But if we are not willing to support such a measure, then we should create temporary jobs in the U.S. for these persons. Otherwise, they will continue to overrun our borders and tax our resourses.

Immigration Part II

2006-04-07T22:27:00.000-04:00

As I demonstrated in the previous posting, the average Mexican working south of the border can expect to make only $4.00 a day. (Actually $4.08, but who's counting?) Working eight hours per day, this translates into an wage of 51 cents per hour.

Given the picayune size of this wage, it would appear that Mexico has serious poverty. Indeed it does. According to the CIA World Factbook, 40% of Mexicans lived below the poverty line in 2003. (Only 12% of Americans shared the same plight.) Mexico's gross domestic product is one-tenth that of the United States GDP, and about 1/4 of its population is underemployed. (See http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/mx.html#Econ.)

In short and simple terms, the United States is rich while Mexico is poor. ("Gee, Matt, thanks for the tip.") In light of this stunning revelation, what would you do to fix this poverty if, let's say, you were running the Mexican government?

You might create a minimum wage--or if there is one, raise it. But really, what good would that do? Assuming for a moment that corruption wouldn't be a factor--that bureaucrats enforcing the minimum wage law wouldn't turn blind eyes in exchange for a few pesos--Mexican employers would see this as a barrier to their already hampered trade.

If Mexico were to set its minimum wage to what it is in the U.S., the majority of Mexican employers would see a 900% increase in labor costs (i.e., a jump from $0.51 to $5.15 per hour). To compensate for this increase, these employers would either have to (1) raise the price of their products, (2) cut their profits, or (3) go out of business. Ideally, they would cut their profits, but human nature doesn't work that way, and we all know this. This leaves price increases or business closures--neither of which are good for the poor. Presently, the Mexican economy could not support a minimum wage anywhere near ours. Until they experience a tenfold increase in their GDP, Mexican workers should not expect a tenfold increase in their average national wage. (Hey, the money has to come from somewhere.)

OK, then, Mexico can't grow its way out of this mess anytime soon. Now what?

When I was a child in Mississippi, our public schools were required by law to give achievement tests each year. Legend has it that one school district (which shall remain nameless) would conveniently allow special education students to stay at home on the day of testing. The principal reasoned that if they didn't take the test, the average score for the school would be higher.

By this same logic, if Mexico were to direct the poorest of its people to the United States, its average wage would increase and poverty would drop. In fact, this is what the Mexican government is doing. Reportedly, the Mexico City has distributed pamphlets that explain how to cross into the United States. If these reports are true, the approach of the Mexican government is clear. They intend to export poverty to the United States.

To solve this problem, the U. S. could increase security--making our southern border tighter than Michael Jackson's face--but would that by itself solve the problem? Oh yes, it would be a good start, but would it be enough? Or could that approach cause greater problems?

If the southern border were hermetically sealed, poverty in Mexico would increase in the short term. Not only would there be greater demand for scarce Mexican resources, the flow of American greenbacks into Mexico would steadily decrease as there would be less Mexican workers sending dollars back home. With a sealed border, transfers of wealth from the U.S. and reciprocal transfers of poverty from Mexico would decrease. With all things being equal, Mexico would get poorer while the United States gets richer.

As the disparity between rich and poor increases, so will the desperation. Before long, a band of impoverished Mexican rebels will reason that they have nothing to lose. After anointing some Pancho Villa wannabe, they will wage a daring attack on our sealed border. In response, the American military will blow them away. An international incident will follow as Mexico City will demand some sort of reparations. The U.S. will ignore these demands--until, that is, Hispanic Americans protest by the millions in New York and Los Angeles and Miami. Then, Washington will make some favorable overture to the Mexican government. When word leaks to the countryside that the Gringos have lost face, Pancho Villa's next successor will stage another attack, and the cycle will continue--until finally Washington is perturbed enough to declare a Second Mexican War.

My little hypothetical may be a bit of a stretch, I know. But it does illustrate that a mechanical solution---while necessary in the short term---is not a long term solution. When enacting a zero-tolerance approach to illegal immigration, we must also create positive incentives for Mexicans to stay in their home country (unless, of course, they immigrate legally).

It is a paradox. If we wish to save jobs in America and secure our borders at the least expense, Mexican workers must find better opportunities at home than they would otherwise find in the United States. In the short term, this may yield job losses in the United States, as factories are built in Mexico. But at the end of the day, a wall of factories lining the Mexican border may be less porous than a wall of bricks and mortar.

Immigration

2006-04-06T23:39:00.000-04:00

Last semester I took a course in immigration and naturalization. Although I am by no means competent to advise a person in matters of this sort since I am not yet an attorney, I did learn a lot about how our immigration system works. With all the talk about guest workers from Mexico, perhaps you may find this information helpful.

Basically, an alien who wishes to become a legal permanent resident ("LPR") of the United States must fit into one of three basic categories. He must receive either a family visa, an employment visa, or a diversity visa.

To qualify for a family visa, the alien must have at least one qualifying family member who is a United States citzen or LPR. Not counting immediate relatives, there are five different types of qualifying family members. I won't go into the differences between the particular categories except to note that an alien's wait time is a function of what category he is placed. While there is no wait for immediate relatives (i.e. spouses and minor children) of citizens or LPR's to obtain their "green card," all other types of relatives must wait in line before they can move to the United States.

To obtain an employment visa, the alien must have a job offer from a US employer. This would seem simple enough except that the alien must also have a labor certification from the state employment board for the jurisdiction where he intends to work. If the employment board believes that there is not a shortage of American workers in that field, the alien is out of luck. But if the employment board agrees that the alien would fill a desperately needed position, then the alien must wait to enter the United States, the wait time being a function of what category he is placed.

To obtain a diversity visa, the alien must be from a country that has been underrepresented in previous distributions of "green cards." If he is from such a country, the State Department holds a drawing. If his number is picked, he can move to the United States. Otherwise, he has to get an employment or family visa.

Notice that I have left out of the equation asylum seekers and refugees. Although they, too, are given a pass to enter the United States, they are not technically classified as LPR's because their statuses may change if the circumstances back home change. (At least that is how I remember it from class.)

I mentioned wait times. According to the April 2006 Visa Bulletin, an alien from Mexico must wait anywhere from seven to fourteen years to get a family visa. An alien from the Phillipines must wait anywhere from four to -- get this -- twenty-three years to obtain a family visa. Wait times are substantially better for employment visas. Most categories have no wait time at all. But for those that do, the alien may have to wait as long as five years.

Now, let's pretend that you are an uneducated migrant worker from Mexico who is living in dire poverty. There are no jobs for you in Northern Mexico. You must provide for your family. So what do you do?

The average wage in Mexico is 45.24 Pesos per day, which currently equals only four U.S. dollars. (Source: http://www.mexperience.com). You hear that just north of the Rio Grande, American employers are obligated by law to pay their workers more than $5.15 an hour (or ten times the average wage in Mexico.) On top of this outlandish wage, you will get free health care and education, paid for by the American taxpayer.

Being the legal eagle that you are, you go to the American Consulate and ask to get a visa. Sorry, you don't have a relative in the U.S. (Even if you did, it would mean a seven year wait.) And while there might be some employers willing to hire you, getting a labor certification would be quite a hassle. And don't even think about getting a diversity visa--Mexico is out of that loop altogether.

So you look at your impoverished family, and you look at the border where--just across the river--prosperity awaits. You count your costs; you weigh your options. Then you make a run for the border. (Apologies to Taco Bell.)

After getting past the border patrol and Minutemen, after surviving a swim across the river, or as the case may be, a long hike through the desert, you finally make it to a small manufacturing facility where the owner offers you a job. Since he knows you are desperate, he offers you something slightly below minimum wage. Since he knows that you won't report him, and since he knows that $2.00 an hour is much better than the $4.00 a day you were getting back home, he has a lot of leverage over you. So you take the job.

After a few weeks, you find that the working conditions are not that great. Safety issues are prevailent. Your living conditions aren't much better. You have to share an "apartment" with twenty of your closest friends.

When it is all said and done, you have become a slave. If you go home, you will starve. If you stay, the owner will put you through hell.

They say that 11 million illegal immigrants are in the United States. Assuming that to be the case, what if all 11 million illegals were given a free pass--amnesty if you will. On the one hand, that would certainly allieviate some of the pressures that these people are facing. Without the fear of reprisal, these poor Mexicans could report safety and labor concerns to the government.

But on the other hand, would it be fair to the legal immigrants who have waited for their green cards--some as long as twenty years? The Filipino woman who has spent decades praying for God to let her into the States, waiting for her priority date to finally appear on the Visa Bulletin--is it fair for her to allow an illegal alien from Mexico to stay in the U.S. even though he evaded the law for years? Of course not!

If we are to grant amnesty to the Mexican workers who skipped into America wrongfully, then we must open the borders for every person from any country to enter the United States. That would be the only fair thing to do. Of course, if we did that, our population would balloon overnight, and our financial, political, and social resources would be overextended.

Completely opening our borders would destroy our way of life. And amnesty for one group would--in fairness--necessiate amnesty for all groups, which would, for all practical purposes, yeild to a completely open border. Thus, amnesty can never work.

Tommorow, Lord willing, I will address solutions. But for now, its nighty night.

Confessions From a Guy With Nothing to Say

2006-04-06T00:01:00.000-04:00

When I was in college, I had an opinion on just about everything. I once had an editorial in my campus newspaper. I was so controversial that, from time to time, I got hate mail. On one occasion, grafitti artists colored the sidewalks in chalk to protest one of my columns. My girlfriend--now my wife--feared for my safety. An acquaintance told me that my column was the only reason anybody picked up the paper.

That was ten years ago. Since then, I suppose that I have mellowed. Well, I am still as conservative now as I was then. With age, I suppose wisdom has finally caught up with me. (At least I hope it has!) As I have gotten older, I have learned how to dialogue (and not to demogouge.) While I am still an idealogue, I am no longer a partisan. (If you believe what I do, I don't care about your label.) Yes, I remain passionate about my political views, but now I am for the right reasons.

To me, politics shouldn't be a game. It shouldn't be a competition where two equally insecure men (or women) want to enhance their self-worth by destroying someone else. It ought to be different from an election for student body president where one fraternity sets out to crush the other.

Instead, politics should be the expression of everything that is good about our representative republic. Through vigorous, yet respectful, debate, the liberal should proclaim his support for abortion-rights while the conservative should proclaim his support for the right-to-life. Then, after the best case is made, the people should direct the ship of state with their ballots by selecting their leaders pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Constitution.

Although I am not a candidate for public office, nor will I become one in the near future, perhaps I do have something to say after all. My blog will expound upon what I would do if I were an elected public official. Yeah, that's what I'll do!

I wonder if I will get hate mail.