What I Believe

I believe...

1. That people must look to themselves to better their lives.  
2. The problem with thinking that government can improve your life is that you come to expect government to improve your life.  
3. We get more of what we subsidize, less of what we tax.  
4. We tax income and subisidize unemployment.  
5. That equality and liberty are diametrically opposed principles.  
6. It is easier to lose than gain new freedoms.  
7. That government has an insatiable appetite for power and control.  
8. We must fight diligently to retain our freedoms from subtle as well as blatant encroachment.  
9. The wealth of the nation consists of the sum of its' goods and services.  
10. Money is worth only what it can purchase.  
11. The forced transfer of a dollar from producer to non-producer dilutes the value of that dollar.  
12. The dilution in value of a dollar due to forced transfer increases proportionally with the percentage of total dollars transferred.  
13. We could double the number of dollars in circulation without increasing the wealth of the nation one bit.  
14. Families must provide sustenance, discipline and love to raise healthy, productive children.  
15. Government can provide sustenance and punishment (an inefficient form of discipline due to its reactive rather than proactive nature), but certainly not love.  
16. I believe you can legislate equality but not respect.  
17. I believe respect must be earned.  
18. We will not have racial harmony until there is mutual respect among the races.  
19. I believe that sometimes less is more.  
20. Statistics can lie.  
21. If people stop working, the unemployment rate goes up.  
22. If people stop looking for work, the unemployment rate goes down.  
23. If people start looking for work, the unemployment rate goes up.  
24. If people find work, the unemployment rate goes down.  
25. I believe that unemployment statistics can be twisted to mean anything.  
26. I believe that policies based upon incorrect assumptions are worse than no policy at all.  
27. I believe there were no homeless before Ronald Reagan became president.  
28. I believe there were bag ladies and bums before Ronald Reagan became president (this film clip is from 1979, a year before Reagan was elected).  
29. Drug use is at the root of most of our problems.  
30. Reducing demand for drugs will be more effective than trying to reduce supply.  
31. I believe that the death penalty for drug kingpins is not a deterrent because they have endured greater threats to their security in achieving the status of "kingpin".  
32. If we wish to penalize suppliers, we should reserve our harshest penalties for the frontline pushers in order to make the risk/reward relationship undesirable.  
33. I believe the private sector is more efficient at creating jobs than the government.  
34. Government investment should be limited to projects that are necessary for the national good.  
35. I believe that the military, courts, highway and transportation systems, the post office, law enforcement, basic scientific research and education are for the national good.  
36. I believe we need to distinguish between nice-to-have and need-to-have programs.  
37. The space station, the super-collider, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities and public television are nice to have.

In Support of Two Lakota High Schools

I would like to express my support for building at least one additional high school to complement the one we already have. As a local business owner who employs a fair number of Lakota High School students, I have both a personal interest in, and first hand insight into the quality of local education.

Most of those opposed to the multiple school approach cite incremental costs and fear of "splitting" the community as their primary objections to multiple schools.  I firmly believe that the benefits of multiple schools will more than offset these potential drawbacks for several reasons.

First, the costs of operating a single mega school will most likely end up higher than estimated due to the expense of responding to the greater social ills that can come about in a large high school.  Already I hear stories of students cutting classes without fear of being caught, not to mention drug use and the presence of weapons on school property. These problems can be controlled much more easily in smaller school settings.

Second, the quality of education will be naturally improved within a smaller school setting, since fewer students will be allowed, or even tempted, to fall through the cracks. This will happen naturally as students are known on a personal level throughout the student body, faculty and administration.  Problem students thrive on anonymity, a phenomenon that increases proportionally to the size of any institution.

Third, the chance to participate in sports and extracurricular activities will increase dramatically, increasing opportunities not only for students today, but for them later in life as they move onto college and the working world.  The discipline and drive required to participate successfully in outside activities are important indicators of a student's ability.  And as much as we might wish to deny it, recruiters look more favorably upon certain extracurricular activities than others.  We should try to maximize these opportunities for our children.

Last, the fear of splitting the community is exaggerated. Yes, allegiances will be divided, especially for sports.  But dedication to the overall education system will be enhanced as our children receive top-notch educations in safe neighborhood schools, where they retain their personal identity rather than becoming numbers and statistics. I grew up in a community (Utica, Michigan) that was very similar to West Chester today.  Between 1960 and 1975 our district, covering two cities and two townships, grew from one to four high schools.  Today, as in 1960, one will find Realtors listing "Utica Schools" as a selling point.  Despite the growth and additional schools, the district  never became split, approving every levy between 1960 and 1983 when I moved away.  Athletics and academics have thrived, as have friendly rivalries.

We would all love to offer our children the best education at the lowest cost, but no option is perfect or cost-free.  Even a voucher system would simply result in public funds being used to build and staff private schools.  In the end, it is imperative that we provide our children the best education possible, for they truly are our future.  I firmly believe that minimizing the size of the school and the distance traveled to get there is the best means to that end.  To do otherwise would be shortsighted and selfish.

When 1 + 1 is Less Than Two

On July 20, Labor Secretary Robert Reich raised a question about the cause of rising employment but sinking wages in the United States.  Katha Pollitt may have answered it in her piece on July 22.  In her closing paragraph she argues that to succeed, single women need only paid parental leave, day care, flexible schedules, child support and pediatricians with evening hours.  Dual income families need many of these same services.  Each of these bear a cost that must be paid, either by the family unit or society.  In either case, purchasing power is reduced because funds must be spent to provide services traditionally provided by the family.

Is it possible that part of the reason for rising employment with overall lower average wages is at least partly due to the rise in dual income and single parent families?  The lack of a domestic worker, whose duties were once performed by the "housewife", increases the need to subcontract such functions as cooking, cleaning, and child care to non-family members.  This not only dilutes the purchasing power of the family, but also creates demand for lower wage jobs such as food servers, house cleaners, day care attendants and the like.

In no way does this suggest that women should give up their careers to assume their former roles.  It is simply to suggest that as long as there are families without a full-time parent at home, there will be demand for someone to perform the duties that were traditionally performed by moms.  Economics will not allow these to be high wage jobs, for this would strain family budgets even more.  Improved training and education may help to improve our nation's productivity, helping wages to outstrip inflation.  Yet the old adage that "two can live as cheaply as one" does not apply when the two must pay for a third.

An Open Letter to WLW's Matt Reese

Listening to your argument today with John Philips on WLW regarding the need for higher taxes, I became confused by your belief that higher taxes in the name of fairness are good, especially if they help the poor.  While I understand your desire to help the less fortunate, your approach is misguided for several reasons, which I will explain.

First, creating tax law in order to acheive "fairness" is dangerous because it tends to favor emotional choices over logical ones.  I think we would both agree that some taxes must be collected in order for the government to function. With the need for taxes a given, we must then determine how much revenue is needed, and where it should be gotten.  Would you agree that it would be best to create a tax law that obtains the maximum amount of revenue with the least harm done to the economy?  This would allow the government to operate, while providing the most opportunity to ALL Americans.

The key is to look at taxes logically, approaching it as a business would.  When choosing between investment options, a business will always try to invest where it believes it will get the greatest return for its money.  The government should do the same, though with taxes, it operates in reverse.  They should try to leave as much money as possible where it is likely to do the most good.

Now consider who creates jobs.  It is business.  You may argue that people create demand for goods which drives the job creation, but you must keep in mind the law of supply and demand.  If there is more money in the hands of consumers, yet business has been prevented from investing in plant and labor due to higher taxes, then you have higher demand, lower supply and higher prices.  On the other hand, if business has invested in producing new wealth, higher supply leads to lower prices, not to mention the jobs created in order to produce the new goods.

One of the arguments raised today regarded the luxury tax on boats, automobiles, furs, etc.  Taxes were raised on these items in the name of fairness, though virtually everyone on both sides of the political spectrum now see the gross error that was made.  Today you argued that it might have helped because the people that would have bought a Jaguar might now buy a Lincoln. However, you are missing the basic problem with the tax. While anyone purchasing these items would probably be considered wealthy, most still must budget for such a purchase.  For example, suppose someone could afford to spend $100,000 on a new boat.  Before the tax, all $100,000 would go to the boating industry.  After the tax, the same person still spends $100,000 but only 90,900 goes to the boating industry, while $9,100 goes to the government.  In effect you have instantly cut the boating industries revenues by nearly 10 percent.

Whenever industry revenues are down this much, wage cuts or layoffs almost always follow.  This hurts not the boat buyers, but the boat builders.  Making matters worse is that the laid-off workers no longer pay income taxes, wiping out the government's gain from the luxury tax.  Unemployment claims from these workers drive up the deficit further. Add in the ripple effect as these laid-off workers put off purchasing new cars, appliances, etc., and it's not long before the entire economy is in a recession.  This is exactly what happened in 1990, all in the name of fairness.

You mentioned that you would favor a flat tax, where everyone pays the same percentage, yet at the same time you favor higher taxes on the rich.  The rich now pay a higher percentage than lesser paid people.  A flat tax rate would require a tax cut for the wealthy rather than a tax increase. I would like to know how you reconcile such diametrically opposed concepts.

Another thing you said that confused me was that you believe government can invest (spend) money more wisely than private investors, yet at the same time you explain wasteful pork spending as the result of politicians making the spending decisions.  You sounded as though you could not trust congressman with handling our money wisely because their decisions are based upon political rather than economic factors.  This being the way you believe, how can you think that government can make wise spending decisions. You seemed to think that congressional spending is separate from government spending.  I would like to hear your clarification of this as well.

I know you get irritated with people who write to you rather than call, but I rarely have the time to call you.  However, I would love to discuss this issue with you.  I would ask that you consider what I have outlined and develop your own coherent response, at which point I will be more than happy to call you.  I look forward to speaking.

Bill Clinton's Free-Market Revulsion

Every time positive news about the economy has been reported since his election last November, Bill Clinton has tried to downplay the numbers as meaningless, I suppose in an effort to downplay the appropriateness of his predecessors policies or justify the need for his own. 

In either case, he appears to be trying to deny that free market policies, combined with a positive economic outlook among the public can be the most powerful source of economic growth.  Instead, he is in fact spreading gloom so that he may impose his will upon the economy. 

This is a double whammy, because it first inspires despair, then weighs the economy down with government bloat, bureaucracy and intervention.  This is like the coach whose team is on a winning streak, but makes a blockbuster trade because he feels he must contribute something to the team's success.  The result is often a downward slide in the standings for the team and a place in the unemployment line for the coach.

Bill Clinton's Cynical Welfare Reform

"Welfare Reform" is a term bandied about as though it is the answer to all our problems.  In reality, it is a term used mostly by liberal politicians as a placebo to placate (note the common root for placebo and placate) the general public that something will be done to get people off welfare and into the workforce. 

This concept was used to great effect by Bill Clinton during his presidential campaign to win support from moderate swing voters.  He liked to quote the fact that as Governor of Arkansas, he had moved 17,000 people off the welfare rolls. What he failed to mention was that during that same period over 80,000 people were added to the welfare rolls.  Does this indicate an effective program that should be duplicated at the national level.  Hardly.  In fact, Arkansas performed well below the national average during the 1980's, meaning that Bill Clinton was worse at creating jobs than Ronald Reagan, whom he has lambasted for his pathetic performance with the economy. 

Eliminating welfare dependency will be a long and painstaking project.  It will take the coordinated efforts of government leaders AND advocates for the poor and minorities to make it reality.  It is easy for comfortable, middle-class people to claim that eliminating the subsidies for non-work will solve the problem.  Such an approach can help with the physical addiction to welfare.  However, without leaders of the underprivileged encouraging self-sufficiency for those they purport to help, then we will never end the psychological addiction that the poor have developed, seeing that government assistance as their birthright. 

Until we reach that time that it becomes universally expected that each person must take responsibility for their own lives, we will always have a significant portion of our population that believe that society owes them something, when actually it is the other way around, for all of us.

Personal Responsibility

It is important that one looks first to himself for the answers to one's problems because there is no other entity that can have as profound and direct impact on one's life than oneself.  At the same time there is nothing that one has more direct control over than one's own actions.

On the other hand, there is nothing that one has less direct control of (of man-made proportions) than the government.  In fact, one's direct control of government decreases proportionally with increases in population and government size.  The result is a sledgehammer approach to all problems, with an attempt to differentiate services and provide "personal" attention through the creation of bureaucracy.

This is one of the reasons, along with fear of tyranny, that our founding fathers feared large government and believed that the government that governs best is that which governs least.

Higher Taxes Could Hurt More Than the Wealthy

There are two basic flaws in Gary Clayton's claim that raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans is both fair and wise. First, virtually the entire increase in income among wealthy Americans during the 1980's occurred immediately following the Tax Reform Act of 1986, indicating not so much an actual increase in income as an increase in the accuracy of reporting income. The wealthy were encouraged to report more of their income because of the reduction both in loopholes and tax rates.

Second, no group is in as much control of their income as our top wage earners. Made up disproportionately of doctors, lawyers, business owners and senior executives, they are able to pass on additional costs, taxes included, to their clients and customers. In the end, it is we in the middle and lower classes who end up paying their tax bills in the form of higher prices.

Dr. Clayton's call for higher taxes on the wealthy are based upon faulty analysis of the income changes of the 1980's, will lead to higher prices for all Americans and will help to divert investment funds from the private sector to the government, one of the least productive investments we can make.

A Dangerous Use of Government Programs

President Clinton wants to allow the use of federal funds to pay for low-income Medicaid abortions. This raises the interesting concept of investing a few hundred dollars today that could cynically save perhaps tens of thousands later in welfare and possible prison costs. This smacks of such dangerous government intervention that I have a difficult time fathoming the depths to which it could lead.

The Surest Path to Equal Rights

Last night, during the Oscar telecast, Barbra Streisand said that while it was nice that this year was the "Year of the Woman", in which they celebrated women in film, she looked forward to the day when such tributes would not be necessary because women would be such a part of Hollywood's power structure that they would not be judged by their gender but by their ability and contributions to the industry.

The same can be said of racial equality. We should all look forward to the day when affirmative action programs are not necessary because all people will be judged upon their abilities and contributions rather than their skin color. The question becomes, how will we know when we are there?

The answer lies in part in what we hope to achieve with affirmative action. Some believe it should be used as a guarantee against on-going racial injustice. In other words as a means of ensuring fairness from this day forward. With that I can agree. There is no room for discrimination based on race. Others feel it should be used to make up for the injustices of the past, to make up for lost time. This is a bit more problematical in that it ex post facto penalizes some who have committed no crime and rewards some who have suffered no injustice. Even more difficult to accept are the arguments for lowering standards to assure that minorities are proportionally represented in all areas of society.

While a noble cause, the latter sets back the day when the ultimate goal of true color blindness can be achieved by breeding resentment not only among whites who feel they have been unfairly denied in the name of racial equality, but also among those minority members who have succeeded upon their own merits but are viewed as succeeding instead due to preferential policies.

Yes, government intervention has been necessary to wipe out institutionalized discrimination, but government can never make one learn, teach one morals, or instill independence. That is the individual's responsibility. We must all look at ourselves for the inner moral fiber to be successful members of society.

I do not intend to paint with a broad brush, as if all members of the minority are waiting for a government hand- out, or lacking personal will or morality. Nor do I claim that no one has benefited from government programs in the manner intended. However, if the detrimental societal impact of government programs outweigh the benefits, then we need to review these programs and overhaul them (eliminate them if necessary) to assure the greatest societal good.

It is essential that questioning any of these programs does not constitute racism in and of itself. Certainly, there are those who favor ridding ourselves of these programs for racist reasons, but that does not mean that all, or even most of, those favoring elimination or curtailment do so for anything less than hopes for a better tomorrow for all.