Several news outlets in the Beehive State are reporting that the University of Utah has a graduation rate that is too low. The audit claims that the entrance standards are too low and too many students who would not graduate are getting in.
This may explain only part of the problem. This is simply one symptom of a broader problem. Here are the published graduation rates for all public colleges in Utah.
Brigham Young (Private school included for an example.)
70% admission rate
78% 6-year graduation rate
Source: NY Times
Southern Utah University
100% admission rate
43% graduation Rate
Source: The Republic/US News and World Report
University of Utah
90% admission rate
46% graduation rate
Source: NY Times
Utah State University
97% admission rate
55% graduation rate
Source: The Republic/US News and World Report
Utah Valley University
100% admission rate
18% graduation rate
Source: Provo Daily Herald
Weber State University
100% admission rate
43% graduation rate
Source: The Republic/US News and World Report
As you can see by the numbers, the admission rate does not necessarily correlate with the graduation rate. The numbers are evidence of a broader problem. It is likely a state-wide cultural problem. In Utah, we have many high school gets that get into college, but we do not have a lot of people complete college. The reason is readiness for college.
According to the Education Working Paper from the Manhattan Institute, Utah ranks near the top for high school graduation, but in the lower third in readiness for college. It should go without saying that is someone is not ready for college, that person is less likely to graduate. In the long run, roughly 75% of Utah kids go to college, only 25% of Utahans have a degree.
This has been know for several decades, but the solutions to this problem have been a matter of debate for decades. Perhaps, higher standards for admission to the state's flagship university are part of the solution and maybe it is not. Certainly if the University of Utah would raise it's admission standards, may Utah school districts would raise their graduation standards. But wouldn't it be logic that the graduation rates at Utah high schools would fall?
Howard Stevenson said something last fall that a lot of people, including this blogger ridiculed. Perhaps he would have made more sense if he said it differently. But look at the numbers. About 2/5's of Utah families are going to earn an acceptable living without a college degree. Therefore, it is senseless to push so many of our high school students to college. Therefore, why not push an 70/80% admission rate to Utah Colleges where now we have a 90/100% admission rate? With fewer unprepared students hitting our colleges and universities, more resources can be dedicated to the students who can not quite make it in the current system. The total number of college graduates could increase by admitting fewer students.
How will that work? Class sizes will be smaller. Guidance counselors will have a lighter work load. Students that can be helped through college will get the help they need. Fewer will fall through the cracks.
True, there will be less tuition collected from college students, but it may be costing and not helping Utah's colleges to deal with such a load of unprepared students.
Another help will be a greater emphasis on helping students return to college to finish. Circumstances arise that prevent even the best college students from completing their schooling. But when their career dead-ends with out a degree, why not help them finish at that time? This is a role that Weber State University and Utah Valley University can better fulfill than the research-intensive University of Utah.
Everyone needs some sort of training beyond high school, and it is irresponsible for government to assume that this will all be on-the-job training. Therefore, the state needs to put more resources into the junior college and vocational training systems. But the state also need to ensure that a greater number of high school students are ready for college. That will be the key.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Mitt Romney on Gay Marriage
This is another article intended to set the record straight and should not be construed as an endorsement of Governor Romney as the GOP Presidential Candidate. Here is the record on the Gay Marriage Initiative in Massachusetts.
It is a little more complicated than most people believe, but the common belief that many ultra-conservatives will argue is that as Governor, Romney did not do enough to stop same gender marriage when he was governor of his state. If you think this way, my question to you is what could Romney have done to stop it?
The Massachusetts same-sex legalization came about because the State Supreme Court ruled that under the state constitution, is was discriminatory to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. There were 8 couples in the state who sued and eventually won out in the state's top court.
I suppose that Governor Romney could have pulled an Andrew Jackson who once famously said, "let the Supreme Court enforce it's own decision." That is what a Tea Party Governor would have done. That would likely have led to impeachment and a contempt of court charge. The "Morgan Philpot Principle" could have applied here...that it is better to lose and stand for your convictions than compromise and win. But Massachusetts would have lost had Governor Romney not been there to fight the good fight afterwards.
Romney did 3 things that made a difference and that ultra social conservatives should appreciate. First, he cleared hurdles to allow for a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage in his state. This amendment would fail in to win enough support in the legislature. Second, he ensured that an old 1913 law remained in effect. This law states that if your marriage is illegal in your home state, you can not get married in Massachusetts. This law was repealed after Romney left office. Third, Romney attempted to use same-sex marriage as a wedge issue in the 2006 campaign, hoping to get a more conservative legislature and get a constitutional amendment before the voters. This effort failed.
Ultra conservatives should keep in mind that today 60% of Massachusetts voters support same-sex marriage. Many who support same-sex marriage believe that it has not changed the quality of life in the state. But it may take a generation or two to see any effect at all as marriage is about children. It will not be until next decade until we will know what effect same-sex marriage has on society. They should remember that there is little a legislative body or a state executive can do once a court decides to legislate from the bench. Latter-day Saints should also realize that Mosiah 29:27 has not been repealed...meaning that the people of Massachusetts will get no less than what they deserve. There is little that even the most conservative governor can do when the majority of the people are liberal.
Therefore, ultra conservatives may wish to give Governor Romney a break on this one. If another GOP candidate can defeat Obama in 11 months, fine, let's support him. So far, everyone the anti-Romney crowd can come up with has baggage. Whether it be Perry or Cain or Gingrich. Huntsman does not have baggage, and I wish that more GOP primary voters would consider the former Utah governor. But if that does not happen, I support Romney.
It is a little more complicated than most people believe, but the common belief that many ultra-conservatives will argue is that as Governor, Romney did not do enough to stop same gender marriage when he was governor of his state. If you think this way, my question to you is what could Romney have done to stop it?
The Massachusetts same-sex legalization came about because the State Supreme Court ruled that under the state constitution, is was discriminatory to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. There were 8 couples in the state who sued and eventually won out in the state's top court.
I suppose that Governor Romney could have pulled an Andrew Jackson who once famously said, "let the Supreme Court enforce it's own decision." That is what a Tea Party Governor would have done. That would likely have led to impeachment and a contempt of court charge. The "Morgan Philpot Principle" could have applied here...that it is better to lose and stand for your convictions than compromise and win. But Massachusetts would have lost had Governor Romney not been there to fight the good fight afterwards.
Romney did 3 things that made a difference and that ultra social conservatives should appreciate. First, he cleared hurdles to allow for a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage in his state. This amendment would fail in to win enough support in the legislature. Second, he ensured that an old 1913 law remained in effect. This law states that if your marriage is illegal in your home state, you can not get married in Massachusetts. This law was repealed after Romney left office. Third, Romney attempted to use same-sex marriage as a wedge issue in the 2006 campaign, hoping to get a more conservative legislature and get a constitutional amendment before the voters. This effort failed.
Ultra conservatives should keep in mind that today 60% of Massachusetts voters support same-sex marriage. Many who support same-sex marriage believe that it has not changed the quality of life in the state. But it may take a generation or two to see any effect at all as marriage is about children. It will not be until next decade until we will know what effect same-sex marriage has on society. They should remember that there is little a legislative body or a state executive can do once a court decides to legislate from the bench. Latter-day Saints should also realize that Mosiah 29:27 has not been repealed...meaning that the people of Massachusetts will get no less than what they deserve. There is little that even the most conservative governor can do when the majority of the people are liberal.
Therefore, ultra conservatives may wish to give Governor Romney a break on this one. If another GOP candidate can defeat Obama in 11 months, fine, let's support him. So far, everyone the anti-Romney crowd can come up with has baggage. Whether it be Perry or Cain or Gingrich. Huntsman does not have baggage, and I wish that more GOP primary voters would consider the former Utah governor. But if that does not happen, I support Romney.
Monday, November 28, 2011
The Obama Campaign is Giddy with the News
Newt Gingrich is pulling ahead of Mitt Romney in many polls. There are many reasons why the Obama Campaign is pleased with this news. Here are five of them...
1. Newt has been a Fox News contributor for many years. The Obama camp can downplay Newt as a puppet of the Fox News Channel.
2. Only one man is history has ever served as both House Speaker and as President of the United States, and he was elected in 1844.
3. When Newt was speaker of the House, there was an effort to unseat him by the Republicans in the House. One of the member of that coup trying to unset Newt was current House Speaker John Boehner. There must still be some bad blood been Boehner and Gingrich.
4. Newt has spoken in the past about the need to reform Social Security and let Medicare "wither on the vine." Surely the AARP and other PAC's that lobby for the Perks of Seniors will join the fight to stop Newt.
5. Newt is the only Speaker of the House to have been convicted by his peers in a House Ethics violation.
The Obama campaign must be giddy with excitement at the prospect of running against Newt.
1. Newt has been a Fox News contributor for many years. The Obama camp can downplay Newt as a puppet of the Fox News Channel.
2. Only one man is history has ever served as both House Speaker and as President of the United States, and he was elected in 1844.
3. When Newt was speaker of the House, there was an effort to unseat him by the Republicans in the House. One of the member of that coup trying to unset Newt was current House Speaker John Boehner. There must still be some bad blood been Boehner and Gingrich.
4. Newt has spoken in the past about the need to reform Social Security and let Medicare "wither on the vine." Surely the AARP and other PAC's that lobby for the Perks of Seniors will join the fight to stop Newt.
5. Newt is the only Speaker of the House to have been convicted by his peers in a House Ethics violation.
The Obama campaign must be giddy with excitement at the prospect of running against Newt.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
What History Says About Newt's Chances.
Cain is now old news, and GOPs are now supporting Newt Gingrich as the GOP guy. GOP voters, especially those who think that Mitt Romney is neither conservative enough nor christian enough are now flip-flopping to Gingrich. This may or may not be another temporary flirtation.
But Newt, who was a house speaker who left Congress 1999, does not have history on his side. We have had a few presidents whose experience was in the US House and even a president who was a former House Speaker, but no one who came from the House of Representatives has ever unseated the incumbent president. Can it be done? Here is the History.
First, you have to go a long way back to find where a member of the house even won the nomination of the party.
1924--Congressman John W. Davis loses in a landslide to President Calvin Coolidge. Silent Cal won 382 electoral votes, Davis carried 12 states and won 136 electoral votes. 3rd party candidate, Former Governor Robert M. LaFollette carried his home state of Wisconsin and their 13 electoral votes.
1908--In his third try, William Jennings Bryant, a Democratic Congressman from Nebraska lost to William Howard Taft 321 to 162.
1900--In his second try, Bryant lost to President William McKinnley 292 to 155.
1896--Congressman William Jennings Bryant of Nebraska lost to Governor William McKinley from Ohio 271 to 176.
1880--Congressman James A. Garfield from Ohio defeated Major General Winfield Scott Hancock of Pennsylvania 214 to 155.
1860--Former Congressman Abraham Lincoln of Illinois defeated Vice President John C. Breckenridge, Former House Speaker John Bell or Tennessee and Senator Stephen A Douglas also of Illinois 180-72-39-12. The US is forever grateful that Lincoln won.
1844--House Speaker James A. Polk of Tennessee defeated Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky. Polk was also, at one time, the Governor of Tennessee. He won 170 to 105. Polk would no doubt be touting his experience as both a state governor and as House Speaker. Polk is the only man who served as President, Speaker of the House and as his state's governor.
1824--There were four candidates on the final ballot, all from the same party. In this election Secretary of State John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts defeated Senator Andrew Jackson from Tennessee, former Senator William H. Crawford of Georgia and then House Speaker Henry Clay. Jackson won 99 electoral votes, but that was not enough to win the Presidency, so the election was decided in the House of Representatives. Clay was not put onto the ballot sent to the House, but was House Speaker and used his influence to persuade the House to vote for Adams. Clay would be named Secretary of State by Adams. After Adams was defeated by Jackson in 1828, Clay would run successfully for the Senate.
Conclusion
Only twice has a member of the House taken on a former president, and he has lost both times. That is probably not conclusive enough to say that it can not be done. Certainly a member of the House is considered qualified, or even Lincoln and Garfield would have lost.
When running for president, members of the House of Representatives are 2 wins and 6 losses. But a member of the US House has only been formally nominated 8 times. Probably the main reason that House Members are not nominated for this office very often is the logistical impracticality of running for President and keeping a seat in the House. Basically, one would be running and raising money for two separate campaigns at the same time.
What about Newt's History?
Newt has some successes as House Speaker. He is credited with the Contract with America which helped win a GOP majority in 1994 and he became House Speaker as a result. As House Speaker, he pushed welfare reform, balanced the federal budget and pushed through a large tax cut.
However, there are some things that are sure to haunt him if he continues to lead the GOP. First, for two consecutive years, late in 1995 and early in 1996 there was a showdown over the budget that caused a government shutdown. Gingrich spinned the shutdown as a positive because it led to success in producing a balanced budget, but the Republicans paid for it as the polls that fall. The GOP lost 8 seats in the House, but picked up 2 seats in the Senate. The shutdown did not seem to have an effect on Bob Dole's chances, one way or another, in the Presidential Election of 1996.
Gingrich was challenged in his leadership of the House in 1997 and one of the leaders of the GOP coup was John Boehner, who is the current house speaker. If Newt wins the nomination, his first priority will be to make peace with Boehner. Otherwise, the bad blood will be exploited by Obama.
After the election of 1998, the GOP lost 7 seats in the House, and it was the worst performance by the GOP in mid-term elections before 2006. Newt was forced to take the blame.
In 1998, Newt's public image suffered as a result of the Clinton Impeachment Scandal, and he was forced to resign both as House Speaker and as a Representative from Georgia. It was rumored, but not proven that Newt was having his own affair at the time. He would divorce his second wife and marry his third in 2000.
Gingrich deserves a lot of credit for balancing the budget, but it should be also be pointed out that federal revenue was at a record high in the late 1990s. Spending was not reduced when Newt was Speaker, but it was curtailed at a time when Congress was tempted to spend even more than they did.
Even though Clinton was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice, many Americans felt that Clinton was being impeached for Adultery. There was simply bad blood between Gingrich and the American People afterwards, which is why he did not run for president earlier.
The real question is whether or not Newt can win in key battleground states, especially Ohio and Florida--states that are must-haves for the GOP nominee. As of today, some polls have Gingrich neck and neck with Obama, while Quinnipiac has Obama with a 9 point lead over Newt, where Romney has a 1 point lead.
Many "red states" will vote republican no matter who the nominee is...but in the swing states, Newt's success will depend upon how well voters remember Newt when he was speaker. It will be key to accentuate the positive and what he accomplished and downplay the negative. Now, if people begin to remember what happened in 1997 and 1998 and if the spin goes against Newt, Gingritch's positives may not help. In the end, it's not US History that could doom Newt, it's his own. People will forgive and forget in time. Is 12 years enough time?
To read more about Newt when he was House Speaker...
http://americaneedsmitt.com/blog/2011/11/18/baggage-adultery-dishonesty-corruption/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm
(Warning, this is a Romney site and not very neutral at that.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich
http://www.newt.org/get-involved-now
(Newt's campaign site.)
But Newt, who was a house speaker who left Congress 1999, does not have history on his side. We have had a few presidents whose experience was in the US House and even a president who was a former House Speaker, but no one who came from the House of Representatives has ever unseated the incumbent president. Can it be done? Here is the History.
First, you have to go a long way back to find where a member of the house even won the nomination of the party.
1924--Congressman John W. Davis loses in a landslide to President Calvin Coolidge. Silent Cal won 382 electoral votes, Davis carried 12 states and won 136 electoral votes. 3rd party candidate, Former Governor Robert M. LaFollette carried his home state of Wisconsin and their 13 electoral votes.
1908--In his third try, William Jennings Bryant, a Democratic Congressman from Nebraska lost to William Howard Taft 321 to 162.
1900--In his second try, Bryant lost to President William McKinnley 292 to 155.
1896--Congressman William Jennings Bryant of Nebraska lost to Governor William McKinley from Ohio 271 to 176.
1880--Congressman James A. Garfield from Ohio defeated Major General Winfield Scott Hancock of Pennsylvania 214 to 155.
1860--Former Congressman Abraham Lincoln of Illinois defeated Vice President John C. Breckenridge, Former House Speaker John Bell or Tennessee and Senator Stephen A Douglas also of Illinois 180-72-39-12. The US is forever grateful that Lincoln won.
1844--House Speaker James A. Polk of Tennessee defeated Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky. Polk was also, at one time, the Governor of Tennessee. He won 170 to 105. Polk would no doubt be touting his experience as both a state governor and as House Speaker. Polk is the only man who served as President, Speaker of the House and as his state's governor.
1824--There were four candidates on the final ballot, all from the same party. In this election Secretary of State John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts defeated Senator Andrew Jackson from Tennessee, former Senator William H. Crawford of Georgia and then House Speaker Henry Clay. Jackson won 99 electoral votes, but that was not enough to win the Presidency, so the election was decided in the House of Representatives. Clay was not put onto the ballot sent to the House, but was House Speaker and used his influence to persuade the House to vote for Adams. Clay would be named Secretary of State by Adams. After Adams was defeated by Jackson in 1828, Clay would run successfully for the Senate.
Conclusion
Only twice has a member of the House taken on a former president, and he has lost both times. That is probably not conclusive enough to say that it can not be done. Certainly a member of the House is considered qualified, or even Lincoln and Garfield would have lost.
When running for president, members of the House of Representatives are 2 wins and 6 losses. But a member of the US House has only been formally nominated 8 times. Probably the main reason that House Members are not nominated for this office very often is the logistical impracticality of running for President and keeping a seat in the House. Basically, one would be running and raising money for two separate campaigns at the same time.
What about Newt's History?
Newt has some successes as House Speaker. He is credited with the Contract with America which helped win a GOP majority in 1994 and he became House Speaker as a result. As House Speaker, he pushed welfare reform, balanced the federal budget and pushed through a large tax cut.
However, there are some things that are sure to haunt him if he continues to lead the GOP. First, for two consecutive years, late in 1995 and early in 1996 there was a showdown over the budget that caused a government shutdown. Gingrich spinned the shutdown as a positive because it led to success in producing a balanced budget, but the Republicans paid for it as the polls that fall. The GOP lost 8 seats in the House, but picked up 2 seats in the Senate. The shutdown did not seem to have an effect on Bob Dole's chances, one way or another, in the Presidential Election of 1996.
Gingrich was challenged in his leadership of the House in 1997 and one of the leaders of the GOP coup was John Boehner, who is the current house speaker. If Newt wins the nomination, his first priority will be to make peace with Boehner. Otherwise, the bad blood will be exploited by Obama.
After the election of 1998, the GOP lost 7 seats in the House, and it was the worst performance by the GOP in mid-term elections before 2006. Newt was forced to take the blame.
In 1998, Newt's public image suffered as a result of the Clinton Impeachment Scandal, and he was forced to resign both as House Speaker and as a Representative from Georgia. It was rumored, but not proven that Newt was having his own affair at the time. He would divorce his second wife and marry his third in 2000.
Gingrich deserves a lot of credit for balancing the budget, but it should be also be pointed out that federal revenue was at a record high in the late 1990s. Spending was not reduced when Newt was Speaker, but it was curtailed at a time when Congress was tempted to spend even more than they did.
Even though Clinton was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice, many Americans felt that Clinton was being impeached for Adultery. There was simply bad blood between Gingrich and the American People afterwards, which is why he did not run for president earlier.
The real question is whether or not Newt can win in key battleground states, especially Ohio and Florida--states that are must-haves for the GOP nominee. As of today, some polls have Gingrich neck and neck with Obama, while Quinnipiac has Obama with a 9 point lead over Newt, where Romney has a 1 point lead.
Many "red states" will vote republican no matter who the nominee is...but in the swing states, Newt's success will depend upon how well voters remember Newt when he was speaker. It will be key to accentuate the positive and what he accomplished and downplay the negative. Now, if people begin to remember what happened in 1997 and 1998 and if the spin goes against Newt, Gingritch's positives may not help. In the end, it's not US History that could doom Newt, it's his own. People will forgive and forget in time. Is 12 years enough time?
To read more about Newt when he was House Speaker...
http://americaneedsmitt.com/blog/2011/11/18/baggage-adultery-dishonesty-corruption/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm
(Warning, this is a Romney site and not very neutral at that.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich
http://www.newt.org/get-involved-now
(Newt's campaign site.)
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Who is actually winning?
Here is the current state-by-state picture for the January and February Primaries.
Iowa Caucus, January 3...Romney has a slim lead in Iowa, Cain is still in second
New Hampshire Primary, January 10...Romney has a significant lead in New Hampshire, Bauchmann is still in second
South Carolina Primary, January 21...Romney is ahead in South Carolina with Gingrich in second
Florida Primary, January 31...Romney is leading in Florida with Paul in second
Nevada Caucus, February 4...Romney is tied with Cain and Gingrich in Nevada
Maine Primary, February 4...Romney is ahead in Maine with Perry in second
Colorado Primary, February 7...Romney is ahead in Colorado with Gingrich in second
Minnesota Primary, February 7...Bauchmann is ahead in Minnesota with Romney in second
Arizona Primary, February 28...Romney is ahead in Arizona with Perry in second
Michigan Primary, February 28...Romney is slightly ahead in Michigan with Gingrich in second
Romney is not ahead of the margin of error in any state but New Hampshire and Maine, but if this holds up, Romney will have significant momentum heading into Super Tuesday on March 6th.
But if Romney loses in every state except for New Hampshire and Maine and Michigan, then the GOP could be a real mess. You could have a virtual 4-way tie heading into Super Tuesday.
For Example,
Iowa...Cain
New Hampshire...Romney
South Carolina...Gingrich
Florida...Paul
Nevada...Romney
Maine...Romney
Colorado...Gingrich
Minnesota...Bauchmann
Arizona...Perry
Michigan...Gingrich
So, who is the leader at this point?
But I feel if Romney wins in South Carolina, then the GOP race is all but over.
Iowa Caucus, January 3...Romney has a slim lead in Iowa, Cain is still in second
New Hampshire Primary, January 10...Romney has a significant lead in New Hampshire, Bauchmann is still in second
South Carolina Primary, January 21...Romney is ahead in South Carolina with Gingrich in second
Florida Primary, January 31...Romney is leading in Florida with Paul in second
Nevada Caucus, February 4...Romney is tied with Cain and Gingrich in Nevada
Maine Primary, February 4...Romney is ahead in Maine with Perry in second
Colorado Primary, February 7...Romney is ahead in Colorado with Gingrich in second
Minnesota Primary, February 7...Bauchmann is ahead in Minnesota with Romney in second
Arizona Primary, February 28...Romney is ahead in Arizona with Perry in second
Michigan Primary, February 28...Romney is slightly ahead in Michigan with Gingrich in second
Romney is not ahead of the margin of error in any state but New Hampshire and Maine, but if this holds up, Romney will have significant momentum heading into Super Tuesday on March 6th.
But if Romney loses in every state except for New Hampshire and Maine and Michigan, then the GOP could be a real mess. You could have a virtual 4-way tie heading into Super Tuesday.
For Example,
Iowa...Cain
New Hampshire...Romney
South Carolina...Gingrich
Florida...Paul
Nevada...Romney
Maine...Romney
Colorado...Gingrich
Minnesota...Bauchmann
Arizona...Perry
Michigan...Gingrich
So, who is the leader at this point?
But I feel if Romney wins in South Carolina, then the GOP race is all but over.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Herman Cain...will History Repeat?
"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Those who fail to learn history correctly--why they are simply doomed." --Gene Roddenberry
I have nothing against the potential of a Herman Cain presidency. I hope that a leader can emerge out of the woodwork and lead the US back to prosperity. But I think his chances at election are about as good as mine are, perhaps only slightly better. The reason is history. Americans like an experienced person in the Oval Office, otherwise the history we study would be different. We have only elected people to the Presidency who have served successfully in the following offices prior to running for President.
State Governor if 4 years have been completed. Last Governor was George W. Bush. Last Governor to lose was Michael Dukakis.
Vice President, Last VP to win White House was George H.W. Bush. Last one to lose was Al Gore.
Cabinet Secretary, Last one to win was Herbert Hoover. Last one to lose was...Lewis Cass
US Senator, Last one to win was Barrack Obama. Last one to lose was John McCain.
US House of Representatives, Last one to win was James Garfield. Last one to lose was John W. Davis
4-Star Military Officer, senior commander or higher. Last one to win was Dwight Eisenhower. (Eisenhower was a 5-star General.) No 4-star military officer or senior commander has lost. The military men who lost their White House bids were of lower rank.
Those who have not served in one of these offices has not only lost, but lost badly without exception. Here is the history.
1940--GOP selected businessman Wendell Wilkie to take on President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt wins 449 electoral votes to 82 for Wilkie.
1904--Democrats of Tammany Hall push New York State Appeals Court Justice Alton B. Parker to take on President Teddy Roosevelt. Roosevelt wins 336 to 140.
1880--Major General (2-star) Winfield Scott Hancock is selected by the Democrats to take on Congressman James A. Garfield. Garfield wins 214 to 155. (Of note, Brian Mallon portrayed Hancock in the film Gettysburg.)
1872--Writer Horace Greeley stood up to President Grant and lost 286 to 76. Horace Greeley was an independent who peeled off the liberal faction of the Republican Party (Yes, there used to be one). The Democrats did not put forth a nominee of their own against Grant in 1872, but supported Greeley.
1864--Major General (2-star) George B. McClellan accepted the Democratic nomination against President Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln won 212 to 21.
1852--Lieutenant General (3-star) Winifield Scott wins the Whig nomination against Democrat Franklin Pierce. Pierce wins 254-42. Pierce served as a Senator from New Hampshire.
1808--Secretary of State James Madison defeated Colonel CC Pinckney 122-47
1804--President Jefferson easily defeated Colonel CC Pinckney 162-14
In the 8 elections where the nominee from the major party served outside of the six traditional preparatory offices, all 8 were landslides. They were not even close.
There, of course, were mitigating factors in all of these elections. In 1940, Wilkie won the nomination because the early favorite Robert A. Taft was an isolationist who wanted to keep the US out of World War II. But the Nazis were over-running France during the party convention, and delegates soured on Taft.
In 1904, Tammany Hall was ruling the national Democratic party. They could be compared to the Tea Party today, but those are fighting words...maybe not. I doubt most Tea Party members know history well enough to know about Tammany Hall. Follow the link if you do not know about Tammany Hall. My next blog will compare the Tea Party of today to Tammany Hall.
Of course the Civil war was a factor in Presidential politics long after Appomattox. And slavery was a big issue before the Civil war. And Pinckney was probably a concessionary candidate from the weakening Federalist Party.
The election of 1872 is probably the most similar to the election of today. It was a faction of one of the major parties that pushed for Greeley's candidacy. Just is today where a faction of the Republican Party, the Tea Party, is pushing for the candidacy of Cain. The President and administration of US Grant was considered one of the most corrupt in history, where the administration today is considered to be one of the most ineffective in recent history. This election goes to show that you need a good candidate to challenge a sitting president, even if the incumbent is unpopular.
But as a student of History, and married to a History major, the potential nomination of Herman Cain is worrisome. As a Republican, the potential nomination of Cain is scary. It seems, however, that the Tea Party does not care. They would rather I believe that when the Obama camp sees a poll with Cain in front, they have to be overjoyed. Based upon what I am seeing, I am worried that we will not see another Republican President until next decade. I beg people who are drinking the Tea Party cool-aid to read this article. Learn from history. Please consider Romney, Perry, Huntsman or Johnson instead. This quartet gives us the best chance at winning the White House.
About the sexual harassment allegations. None of them have been in the last 10 years. If it is in his past and a problem that he has personally addressed, then that is good enough. As long as this does not turn out to be an on-going or current problem.
If Cain wins the nomination, he will likely win some firmly republican states. My guess is that he will win 14 states, including Texas. Obama would win the election 414 electoral votes to 124.
I have nothing against the potential of a Herman Cain presidency. I hope that a leader can emerge out of the woodwork and lead the US back to prosperity. But I think his chances at election are about as good as mine are, perhaps only slightly better. The reason is history. Americans like an experienced person in the Oval Office, otherwise the history we study would be different. We have only elected people to the Presidency who have served successfully in the following offices prior to running for President.
State Governor if 4 years have been completed. Last Governor was George W. Bush. Last Governor to lose was Michael Dukakis.
Vice President, Last VP to win White House was George H.W. Bush. Last one to lose was Al Gore.
Cabinet Secretary, Last one to win was Herbert Hoover. Last one to lose was...Lewis Cass
US Senator, Last one to win was Barrack Obama. Last one to lose was John McCain.
US House of Representatives, Last one to win was James Garfield. Last one to lose was John W. Davis
4-Star Military Officer, senior commander or higher. Last one to win was Dwight Eisenhower. (Eisenhower was a 5-star General.) No 4-star military officer or senior commander has lost. The military men who lost their White House bids were of lower rank.
Those who have not served in one of these offices has not only lost, but lost badly without exception. Here is the history.
1940--GOP selected businessman Wendell Wilkie to take on President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt wins 449 electoral votes to 82 for Wilkie.
1904--Democrats of Tammany Hall push New York State Appeals Court Justice Alton B. Parker to take on President Teddy Roosevelt. Roosevelt wins 336 to 140.
1880--Major General (2-star) Winfield Scott Hancock is selected by the Democrats to take on Congressman James A. Garfield. Garfield wins 214 to 155. (Of note, Brian Mallon portrayed Hancock in the film Gettysburg.)
1872--Writer Horace Greeley stood up to President Grant and lost 286 to 76. Horace Greeley was an independent who peeled off the liberal faction of the Republican Party (Yes, there used to be one). The Democrats did not put forth a nominee of their own against Grant in 1872, but supported Greeley.
1864--Major General (2-star) George B. McClellan accepted the Democratic nomination against President Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln won 212 to 21.
1852--Lieutenant General (3-star) Winifield Scott wins the Whig nomination against Democrat Franklin Pierce. Pierce wins 254-42. Pierce served as a Senator from New Hampshire.
1808--Secretary of State James Madison defeated Colonel CC Pinckney 122-47
1804--President Jefferson easily defeated Colonel CC Pinckney 162-14
In the 8 elections where the nominee from the major party served outside of the six traditional preparatory offices, all 8 were landslides. They were not even close.
There, of course, were mitigating factors in all of these elections. In 1940, Wilkie won the nomination because the early favorite Robert A. Taft was an isolationist who wanted to keep the US out of World War II. But the Nazis were over-running France during the party convention, and delegates soured on Taft.
In 1904, Tammany Hall was ruling the national Democratic party. They could be compared to the Tea Party today, but those are fighting words...maybe not. I doubt most Tea Party members know history well enough to know about Tammany Hall. Follow the link if you do not know about Tammany Hall. My next blog will compare the Tea Party of today to Tammany Hall.
Of course the Civil war was a factor in Presidential politics long after Appomattox. And slavery was a big issue before the Civil war. And Pinckney was probably a concessionary candidate from the weakening Federalist Party.
The election of 1872 is probably the most similar to the election of today. It was a faction of one of the major parties that pushed for Greeley's candidacy. Just is today where a faction of the Republican Party, the Tea Party, is pushing for the candidacy of Cain. The President and administration of US Grant was considered one of the most corrupt in history, where the administration today is considered to be one of the most ineffective in recent history. This election goes to show that you need a good candidate to challenge a sitting president, even if the incumbent is unpopular.
But as a student of History, and married to a History major, the potential nomination of Herman Cain is worrisome. As a Republican, the potential nomination of Cain is scary. It seems, however, that the Tea Party does not care. They would rather I believe that when the Obama camp sees a poll with Cain in front, they have to be overjoyed. Based upon what I am seeing, I am worried that we will not see another Republican President until next decade. I beg people who are drinking the Tea Party cool-aid to read this article. Learn from history. Please consider Romney, Perry, Huntsman or Johnson instead. This quartet gives us the best chance at winning the White House.
About the sexual harassment allegations. None of them have been in the last 10 years. If it is in his past and a problem that he has personally addressed, then that is good enough. As long as this does not turn out to be an on-going or current problem.
If Cain wins the nomination, he will likely win some firmly republican states. My guess is that he will win 14 states, including Texas. Obama would win the election 414 electoral votes to 124.
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Who Should Be the GOP Vice President
One of the failures of John McCain's capmaign was his inability to unite the Republican Party. He did well to select Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate as she gave many conservatives a reason to come out to vote. She was also the rallying point for a new conservative movement, the Tea Party. Sure, Obama won the campaign thanks to the October bailouts, but GOP losses in Congress could have been worse without Palin on the ticket. The right VP pick may not make or break the election for President, but it can make the difference in in the overall picture.
At this point, the GOP nomination is down to just four candidates, Romney, Cain, Perry and Gingrich. Bauchmann, Huntsman, Santorum and Johnson are at a miracles pace away from the others. Here is who I believe the candidates should pick in order to unite the GOP and ensure that Obama is a one-term president.
Mitt Romney
Mitt is considered more moderate fiscally because of "Romney Care" but is record in both government and private business otherwise shows that he is fiscally conservative. Where Mitt may have trouble is showing that he is more socially and culturally conservative. One of the criticisms with Latter-day Saints in the political arena is that the church is socially conservative, but culturally progressive in that they take a softer stand on immigration issue. Mitt is also having a little trouble with the religious right and the Tea Party because if his religion. Therefore, religion will need to be considered when Romney is picking a Vice Presidential running mate. Romney will probably have to pick a southern evangelical and definitely not another Latter-Day Saint. Placating the Tea Party should not be the sole consideration, but it will help to chose someone who the Tea Party will feel good about. As a former governor and from the northeast, Romney would balance the ticket by picking a congressman or senator from the south or southwest. Romney's best choice is JC Watts, a former Oklahoma Congressman as his running mate, or someone with similar credentials. Watts fits what Romney needs in a running mate. He provides regional balance and is someone that will help Romney unite the party. Others that could help are Florida Senator Marco Rubio or Representative Eric Cantor. Cantor is not a southern evangelical, but is likable by Tea Party Republicans.
Herman Cain
Cain's weakness is his lack of political experience. He has been part of the Federal Reserve board, but does not have any other experience in the public sector. It would help his candidacy to pick a running mate with a long and positive history of public service. As Cain seems to be the Tea Party dude, he does not need to pick another southern evangelical, but someone that would help the "republican establishment" vote for him. As we have observed, even in Sarah Palin's Alaska, the Tea Party is not strong enough to even win some local elections, and their is no reason to drink their Kool-Aid and believe that a Tea Party person would win a national election without the support of the Moderate Wing of the Republican Party. Therefore, Jon Huntsman may be the best choice for Herman Cain as a running mate, if that selection does not destroy the party it will help deliver the White House to Cain. Others that could help Cain are Rick Santorum or Mike Johanns from Nebraska who has experience in all phases of government.
Rick Perry
Rick Perry is known for being business friendly. But his weakness will be in reaching m ore traditional republicans who may not be as socially or culturally conservatives he is. He is not as culturally conservative as the rest of the pack and has been attacked for his views on immigration. He needs the help of the establishment republicans to deliver Pennsylvania, Ohio and Virginia...critical states that McCain lost in 2008. And he needs help with cultural conservatives. As a governor, Perry would balance the ticket by picking someone with Congressional ties and from the northeast or southeast. Perry's best choice for a running mate would be House Majority Leader, Congressman Eric Cantor from Virginia. Marco Rubio or Eric Brown from the Senate may have enough of the cool factor to balance the sometimes off cuff Perry. Another possible running mate for Perry is presidential candidate Rick Santorum.
Newt Gingrich
Newt has served as Speaker of the House and is from Georgia. It has been nearly a century since a former or current member of the House of Representatives has risen to the top of a Presidential Ticket. If Newt wins the nomination, he will need someone with balance of experience and a regional balance to convince independents and moderate democrats to vote for him. His best match may be New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. He could also do well to pick a running mate like Jon Huntsman.
Best VP picks in recent elections...
1976...Governor Jimmy Carter of Georgia picks Senator Walter Mondale of Minnesota
1980...Governor Ronald Reagan of California picks Congressman George HW Bush of Texas
1988...Governor Micheal Dukakis of Massachusetts picks Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas
1992...Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas picks Senator Al Gore of Tennessee
2000...Governor George W. Bush of Texas picks Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney of Wyoming
2008...Senator John McCain of Arizona picks Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska
Worst VP picks in recent elections...
1972...Senator George McGovern of South Dakota picks Senator Thomas Eagleton of Missouri (First Pick)
Problem...lack of experience and regional balance.
1972...After Thomas Eagleton was dropped from the ticket, Senator George McGovern picked Ambassador Sergeat Shriver of Massachusets
Problem...no experience
Who McGovern could have picked? Governor Terry Sanford of North Carolina
Note: In 1972, the VP was picked by the convention delegates and not by the presidential nominee. This was the last time a VP running mate was chosen in this manner.
1996...Senator Bob Dole of Kansas picks Congressman Jack Kemp of New York
...Problem, no balance in experience.
Who Bob Dole should have picked? Governor Lamar Alexander from Tennessee
2004...Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts picks Senator John Edwards of North Carolina
Problem...lack of balance in experience.
Who John Kerry should have picked? Outgoing Washington Governor Gary Locke.
At this point, the GOP nomination is down to just four candidates, Romney, Cain, Perry and Gingrich. Bauchmann, Huntsman, Santorum and Johnson are at a miracles pace away from the others. Here is who I believe the candidates should pick in order to unite the GOP and ensure that Obama is a one-term president.
Mitt Romney
Mitt is considered more moderate fiscally because of "Romney Care" but is record in both government and private business otherwise shows that he is fiscally conservative. Where Mitt may have trouble is showing that he is more socially and culturally conservative. One of the criticisms with Latter-day Saints in the political arena is that the church is socially conservative, but culturally progressive in that they take a softer stand on immigration issue. Mitt is also having a little trouble with the religious right and the Tea Party because if his religion. Therefore, religion will need to be considered when Romney is picking a Vice Presidential running mate. Romney will probably have to pick a southern evangelical and definitely not another Latter-Day Saint. Placating the Tea Party should not be the sole consideration, but it will help to chose someone who the Tea Party will feel good about. As a former governor and from the northeast, Romney would balance the ticket by picking a congressman or senator from the south or southwest. Romney's best choice is JC Watts, a former Oklahoma Congressman as his running mate, or someone with similar credentials. Watts fits what Romney needs in a running mate. He provides regional balance and is someone that will help Romney unite the party. Others that could help are Florida Senator Marco Rubio or Representative Eric Cantor. Cantor is not a southern evangelical, but is likable by Tea Party Republicans.
Herman Cain
Cain's weakness is his lack of political experience. He has been part of the Federal Reserve board, but does not have any other experience in the public sector. It would help his candidacy to pick a running mate with a long and positive history of public service. As Cain seems to be the Tea Party dude, he does not need to pick another southern evangelical, but someone that would help the "republican establishment" vote for him. As we have observed, even in Sarah Palin's Alaska, the Tea Party is not strong enough to even win some local elections, and their is no reason to drink their Kool-Aid and believe that a Tea Party person would win a national election without the support of the Moderate Wing of the Republican Party. Therefore, Jon Huntsman may be the best choice for Herman Cain as a running mate, if that selection does not destroy the party it will help deliver the White House to Cain. Others that could help Cain are Rick Santorum or Mike Johanns from Nebraska who has experience in all phases of government.
Rick Perry
Rick Perry is known for being business friendly. But his weakness will be in reaching m ore traditional republicans who may not be as socially or culturally conservatives he is. He is not as culturally conservative as the rest of the pack and has been attacked for his views on immigration. He needs the help of the establishment republicans to deliver Pennsylvania, Ohio and Virginia...critical states that McCain lost in 2008. And he needs help with cultural conservatives. As a governor, Perry would balance the ticket by picking someone with Congressional ties and from the northeast or southeast. Perry's best choice for a running mate would be House Majority Leader, Congressman Eric Cantor from Virginia. Marco Rubio or Eric Brown from the Senate may have enough of the cool factor to balance the sometimes off cuff Perry. Another possible running mate for Perry is presidential candidate Rick Santorum.
Newt Gingrich
Newt has served as Speaker of the House and is from Georgia. It has been nearly a century since a former or current member of the House of Representatives has risen to the top of a Presidential Ticket. If Newt wins the nomination, he will need someone with balance of experience and a regional balance to convince independents and moderate democrats to vote for him. His best match may be New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. He could also do well to pick a running mate like Jon Huntsman.
Best VP picks in recent elections...
1976...Governor Jimmy Carter of Georgia picks Senator Walter Mondale of Minnesota
1980...Governor Ronald Reagan of California picks Congressman George HW Bush of Texas
1988...Governor Micheal Dukakis of Massachusetts picks Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas
1992...Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas picks Senator Al Gore of Tennessee
2000...Governor George W. Bush of Texas picks Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney of Wyoming
2008...Senator John McCain of Arizona picks Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska
Worst VP picks in recent elections...
1972...Senator George McGovern of South Dakota picks Senator Thomas Eagleton of Missouri (First Pick)
Problem...lack of experience and regional balance.
1972...After Thomas Eagleton was dropped from the ticket, Senator George McGovern picked Ambassador Sergeat Shriver of Massachusets
Problem...no experience
Who McGovern could have picked? Governor Terry Sanford of North Carolina
Note: In 1972, the VP was picked by the convention delegates and not by the presidential nominee. This was the last time a VP running mate was chosen in this manner.
1996...Senator Bob Dole of Kansas picks Congressman Jack Kemp of New York
...Problem, no balance in experience.
Who Bob Dole should have picked? Governor Lamar Alexander from Tennessee
2004...Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts picks Senator John Edwards of North Carolina
Problem...lack of balance in experience.
Who John Kerry should have picked? Outgoing Washington Governor Gary Locke.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
What it takes to create a job.
I have been reading all of the debate about job creation. I must admit that there are things that most Republicans miss in the debate. But they do get more than the Democrats do, who seem to be missing the entire scope of what it takes to create a job to begin with. For review, there are three things that are necessary for someone to get hired.
1. If I am to hire someone, the most important thing is to have the cash on hand to do so. If I can't pay someone, I don't hire someone unless I want a whole heap of trouble. I also don't borrow money to make payroll as that is a recipe for failure. This is where the debate on taxes come in. If Congress lowers my taxes, any of my taxes, then I have more funds to do other things, including hiring people.
In the US, we have one of the heaviest corporate tax rates in the world. It is an average aggregate tax rate of 39%. This means that Federal plus State plus City taxes for the average business is 39%. These taxes come in many forms. There are taxes on revenues, there are property taxes, there are tariffs, there are sales taxes and there are many other types of tax. That means that some businesses in some cities in the US pay more than 39% and some pay less. Yes, there are loopholes and incentives and many businesses pay less. But really, 39%? How many people can would you be able to hire if 2 out of every 5 dollars that you earn go to the government at every level in some form or another? This is not all the fault of the Federal government. Some cities and some states have to work to lower their taxes as well.
BTW, energy costs are also a problem and are stopping some businesses from hiring more people. Health care costs are also a burden. Lower costs, and businesses can hire more people.
2. Costs are just the first part of the problem. The second part is a lot more complicated to solve. But in order to hire someone, there needs to be work for them to do. I am not going to hire someone to manicure my lawn in the middle of winter. I am not going to hire a computer programmer when I can purchase all of the software I need off the shelf. You get the picture? This problem is a little more complicated to resolve. This is the part of the job creation equation that government probably can't resolve, or can they?
When the housing market crashed a few years ago, regulators went overboard with new regulations. Very few people can qualify for a mortgage any longer, and according to many experts, the pendulum has swung too far to the other direction. We had a situation where there was not enough regulation and it was too easy for people to qualify for homes they could not afford. Now, people who can afford the homes can not qualify for mortgages. It would be just like a highway, where the speed limit is 100 and a lot of people are crashing and dieing. So, do you lower the speed limit on that highway to 30? Of course not. But that is exactly what has happened in the financial industry. We need to roll back some, but not all of the new regulations that have passed since 2008.
In the long run, regulation reduces the demand for product through the economy as a whole. It takes customers out of the equation and people and businesses who would be customers can not longer qualify to do business with you. The new regulations have reduced the demand for credit because fewer people can qualify. As a result, interest rates have had to been reduced to record lows, but still, there are fewer people who can qualify for regular loans. The only firms that have benefited from this are the payday loan people, who are not as regulated as the traditional banks are.
3. Third, but not least important, there needs to be a qualified person to do the work. Back to my lawn. Would I hire someone to manicure my lawn who has never worked a lawn mower before? I prefer experience in mowing my lawn, but if I had not other choice but to hire inexperience, I would. But, I would have to expect that the quality of the work would be diminished and the time in which it would take to complete the task would increase at first. Still, it is better than letting my yard go to seed when I do not have the time to do the job myself. But as my lawn caretakers grow in their experience, the quality of the work would improve and the time it takes to do the job would decrease. This is called a learning curve. Most businesses can only afford so much learning curve. Therefore, there should be patience with the job creation/economic growth cycle. If you have too much learning curve, the quality and quantity of the work that a company can produce are greatly diminished. It is the reason why some businesses never get off the ground.
If there is no one qualified to do the work, you have to hire the best person you can find and be patient as that person learns his job.
What can government do about this? Be patient, be understanding and don't become the enemy of business. As a businessman, I can only do so much while me and the people who work for me are learning our jobs. Government, as they have taken Education as a Government duty, can do more to ensure that people are better prepared for the work force when they graduate from school. Once we all know our jobs, the economy will run more smoothly.
Conclusion
I believe that both Democrats and Republicans understand the first point, to a point. It seems to both parties want to mess with the tax code when what really needs to happen is that government needs to cut spending so that the tax burden can be lifted. If there are more people paying taxes, the tax burden is spread among more people. The Democrats really do not understand point 2. They want more regulation. You can not regulate all of the problems out of the system, unless the system is so overburdened with regulation that it can not function. Is that what you really want? And neither party seems to understand point 3. You can't expect people to hire just because they have cash. No education system in the world completely prepares people for every possible job. We can certainly do better in this regard here in the US, but everyone has a learning curve when they take on a new job. It takes patience to deal with it. A company can only deal with so much learning curve at once. Therefore, hiring is a gradual process. Therefore, no matter what happens, the economy will not heal overnight. It will naturally take years.
1. If I am to hire someone, the most important thing is to have the cash on hand to do so. If I can't pay someone, I don't hire someone unless I want a whole heap of trouble. I also don't borrow money to make payroll as that is a recipe for failure. This is where the debate on taxes come in. If Congress lowers my taxes, any of my taxes, then I have more funds to do other things, including hiring people.
In the US, we have one of the heaviest corporate tax rates in the world. It is an average aggregate tax rate of 39%. This means that Federal plus State plus City taxes for the average business is 39%. These taxes come in many forms. There are taxes on revenues, there are property taxes, there are tariffs, there are sales taxes and there are many other types of tax. That means that some businesses in some cities in the US pay more than 39% and some pay less. Yes, there are loopholes and incentives and many businesses pay less. But really, 39%? How many people can would you be able to hire if 2 out of every 5 dollars that you earn go to the government at every level in some form or another? This is not all the fault of the Federal government. Some cities and some states have to work to lower their taxes as well.
BTW, energy costs are also a problem and are stopping some businesses from hiring more people. Health care costs are also a burden. Lower costs, and businesses can hire more people.
2. Costs are just the first part of the problem. The second part is a lot more complicated to solve. But in order to hire someone, there needs to be work for them to do. I am not going to hire someone to manicure my lawn in the middle of winter. I am not going to hire a computer programmer when I can purchase all of the software I need off the shelf. You get the picture? This problem is a little more complicated to resolve. This is the part of the job creation equation that government probably can't resolve, or can they?
When the housing market crashed a few years ago, regulators went overboard with new regulations. Very few people can qualify for a mortgage any longer, and according to many experts, the pendulum has swung too far to the other direction. We had a situation where there was not enough regulation and it was too easy for people to qualify for homes they could not afford. Now, people who can afford the homes can not qualify for mortgages. It would be just like a highway, where the speed limit is 100 and a lot of people are crashing and dieing. So, do you lower the speed limit on that highway to 30? Of course not. But that is exactly what has happened in the financial industry. We need to roll back some, but not all of the new regulations that have passed since 2008.
In the long run, regulation reduces the demand for product through the economy as a whole. It takes customers out of the equation and people and businesses who would be customers can not longer qualify to do business with you. The new regulations have reduced the demand for credit because fewer people can qualify. As a result, interest rates have had to been reduced to record lows, but still, there are fewer people who can qualify for regular loans. The only firms that have benefited from this are the payday loan people, who are not as regulated as the traditional banks are.
3. Third, but not least important, there needs to be a qualified person to do the work. Back to my lawn. Would I hire someone to manicure my lawn who has never worked a lawn mower before? I prefer experience in mowing my lawn, but if I had not other choice but to hire inexperience, I would. But, I would have to expect that the quality of the work would be diminished and the time in which it would take to complete the task would increase at first. Still, it is better than letting my yard go to seed when I do not have the time to do the job myself. But as my lawn caretakers grow in their experience, the quality of the work would improve and the time it takes to do the job would decrease. This is called a learning curve. Most businesses can only afford so much learning curve. Therefore, there should be patience with the job creation/economic growth cycle. If you have too much learning curve, the quality and quantity of the work that a company can produce are greatly diminished. It is the reason why some businesses never get off the ground.
If there is no one qualified to do the work, you have to hire the best person you can find and be patient as that person learns his job.
What can government do about this? Be patient, be understanding and don't become the enemy of business. As a businessman, I can only do so much while me and the people who work for me are learning our jobs. Government, as they have taken Education as a Government duty, can do more to ensure that people are better prepared for the work force when they graduate from school. Once we all know our jobs, the economy will run more smoothly.
Conclusion
I believe that both Democrats and Republicans understand the first point, to a point. It seems to both parties want to mess with the tax code when what really needs to happen is that government needs to cut spending so that the tax burden can be lifted. If there are more people paying taxes, the tax burden is spread among more people. The Democrats really do not understand point 2. They want more regulation. You can not regulate all of the problems out of the system, unless the system is so overburdened with regulation that it can not function. Is that what you really want? And neither party seems to understand point 3. You can't expect people to hire just because they have cash. No education system in the world completely prepares people for every possible job. We can certainly do better in this regard here in the US, but everyone has a learning curve when they take on a new job. It takes patience to deal with it. A company can only deal with so much learning curve at once. Therefore, hiring is a gradual process. Therefore, no matter what happens, the economy will not heal overnight. It will naturally take years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
