Government?

I have been thinking about this for some time, and I am not sure I know the answer.

But I believe a lot of politicians don't have an answer either. So, here are some of my thoughts, right off the top of my head, balding as it might be.

What is the purpose of government?
Why do we have so many governments?
Do we really need all these governments, and their continuous law making?

After much consideration, I have decided that government is an extension of the feudal system that evolved in Europe. Government has evolved from the system of kings, lords, knights, priests, bishops and such. We, the common citizen, are surfs of course.

We have a federal government because we had to replace King George with something. We, the 13 colonies, needed to unite for common defense. In creating this replacement, the framers took on a number of other tasks for the federal government; among them being the issuing of money, and the control of interstate commerce.

We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This is the preamble to our constitution. The document is four, handwritten, pages long, and lays the foundation for our government, all three branches. Yes the pages are quite large, but still, hand written. It contains just 4,500 words.

Let's compare that to a recent federal law passed by both houses of Congress and signed by our President. Public law 111-148, March 23, 2010. Depending on formating, it contains between 906 and 2197 pages with somewhere between 384,000 and 418,000 words. (I am not sure how you count all those numbers in this law.)

The title of this Federal Law is "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." The Table of Contents for this law runs 12 pages; thats three times longer than the Constitution!

Did any legislator read the whole thing? How many people are employed, full-time, to interpret what it says? Do you know what it says? How many people will be employed to enforce it? Do you know what it is going to do to your life? Why does it take 4 years to go into full effect? The Constitution went into effect as soon as 8 states ratified it. Maybe four years is how long Congress thought it would take us to take cover, or maybe it had to do with elections in 2012. Perhaps it is the amount of time needed to set up a new federal bureaucracy to manage it, and budget for the operations an maintenance of that bureaucracy.

Well, one thing I know is that over all, given the time to prepare, Medical insurance costs are going up, and benefits are going down. I have just recently been informed that Walgreen's Drug Stores will not be accepting my Drug Prescription Plan starting next year. Do you remember what happened when Congress passed a law to "protect" us from those unscrupulous credit card companies?

What were they thinking?

It seems to me that for years now, since the early 1990s, America has not been working to make America a great country, or world leader in economics.

Big government and big business have not been working to make this country better, stronger, or a world leader. Look at all the companies that have left America, because they could make more money with their factories outside the United States. Are these not American companies making products for Americans?

Once you start closing the factories and laying off workers who do you think is going to buy your product? Unemployed Americans? Why does China hold more American debt than any other country? Must be that they have the money to lend. Where did they get it, from the Chinese people? Maybe they got it from us every time we buy something that says, "Made in China."

We are buying oil from the middle east to drive our cars made in Mexico. Meanwhile, the government is requiring Americans to buy light bulbs made in China.

Why are Mexicans trying to get into this country? They have most of our jobs now.

From the web site, mexicotoday.org

With an Increase in Mexican Investment, Mexican Manufacturing Rates Are Growing

Fri, 2011-06-24

With manufacturing rates rapidly rising since last year, Mexico is fast-becoming a world-leader of the manufacturing business. In 2010, Mexican manufacturing rates jumped up to 2.261 million vehicles, a staggering 50 percent increase from 2009. Fast-forward to May of this year, May alone yields a five-month boost for Mexico exports. As reported by the Mexican Association of the Automotive Industry, Mexico produced more than 213,000 cars in May and saw a 21.3 percent increase in exports.

Poor people want to get rich, rich people want to get richer. Politicians want to get re-elected. Everyone wants the good life, but who defines that life? CEO's want bigger profits. Labor unions want more wages, everyone wants a free lunch. There is no free lunch.

Have I mentioned Education?

When I was in my Masters program, I took some classes on statistics. These weren't so much classes on how to make statistics, but on how to interpret them. With statistics, you can prove just about anything. Let's look at America's "failing education system." Supposedly, we are failing our students when we compare America with other countries. Well, what are we comparing?

Most countries, have different education systems and goals than we do. Lets look at some areas where there are differences.

First, and most obvious, is language. How can you compare tests in different languages? Are the tests on the same material? Are the answers to the questions given the same degree of difficulty? What is expected of the student in the answer? In the SATs, students in America are allowed to use calculators on the math sections. ( I don't know what they do in China.) When I took my college entrance exam we didn't have calculators. Are today's test questions the same as the test I took? Has math changed that much? Are we testing the use of calculators or knowledge of math principles?

Second, different countries have different systems. The concept of the same eduction for every student is not universal. In Germany, students take different educational tracts after the elementary grades 1-4. Better students take more advanced courses and different subjects. Many countries have selective schools based upon student performance and expectations. In America equal opportunity has been confused with the same education for all. We have taken ability out of the equation. We assume that everyone should have the same education. Why? When I was a student in a rural community, farm management was an option, wood and metal shop was an option, typing was an option. Everyone didn't have to take and pass a math test to get out of high school. Take 1000 people at random and give them a test. Now take 1000 people who ranked in the top 1/2 of their sixth grade class and give them the test. Which group will perform better? What are the odds?

Third is size. It should be obvious that the size of the population will create a lower average. Without looking up actual numbers, If a country has 1,000,000 students and another has 10,000 students the odds are the test group with one million will have a lower average, but that group will also have more high scores.

If you are reading or hearing about America's dismal performance in an educational test as compared to other countries, consider:

1. What are they comparing, top scores or average scores?
2. What is the test group size for each country?
3. Did the tests cover the same content?
   
4. Where all test groups of comparable students as to age, type of school?
5. What is the countries mandatory educational requirement?

When people say our educational system is failing, then perhaps we need to change the system and not fire the teachers.

If we want top scores, then only let the top scores go to school.

If we want a balanced education for all children in America regardless of capability, life goals, language and citizenship then we must accept that the average education will be less than maximum possible performance of the best. I am not saying that the best won't do better, just not their maximum. I am not saying all children don't deserve and education, just that they should have the education that meets their needs.

I say, give every child the opportunity, but don't keep them in something that is beyond their ability until they just drop out. Give them the education that will give them productive, meaningful, happy lives. We aren't all rocket scientist. I know I'm not one.

More from our First President

It seems to me that Washington had an almost Nostradamus-like quality in his farewell address. In the quote below, he warns of the political parties becoming too powerful in our Federal Government.

Oh George if you could see us now!

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and the duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true— and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming it should consume.

It seems to me that Washington knew what power political parties could attain, and what they could do to our system of government. I leave you with this question. Is our federal government a government of the people or a government of the parties?

A Thought on George Washington's Farewell

I recently read George Washington's Farewell address. He never gave it as a speech, but it was published in a prominent newspaper. You can find it in various forms. Congress has it available as a PDF document; portions of it with comments can be found on Wikipedia.

I feel that Washington and his writing assistants, Hamilton and Madison, must have had some forewarning of our countries future. This address contains so many warnings about what could go wrong, and it seems to me that most of them have occurred. One of his warnings deals with religion and morality in our country, but let me add here a quote from the address; it speaks for its self. I have added bold to the statements I feel most strongly about.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

I am now of the opinion that court decisions barring the expression of religious principles in public meetings and gatherings such as commencement exercises is in itself a violation of our first amendment rights.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Court prohibition of prayer, invocations, etc. is in effect creating law "prohibiting the free exercise of religion." It seems to me that not all religions are being treated equally. Christianity seems to have been particularly hard hit. We are a nation founded on Christian principles and these principles are now under attack from within as well as from without.

I totally agree with President Washington that without a religious foundation, our morality is in danger. My hope is that we wakeup in time.

Sorry for the long break

I have not blogged since that poor Congresswoman was shot in Arizona. It was a terrible thing to happen. I had to give it some time. I had to digest the dialog and think about what was happening. I am glad the Congresswoman is recovering. I am sad that a crazy person was able to do this terrible thing. I blame no one but the killer.

But what really upset me was the way the Left, and the media immediately blamed conservatives. Without a single fact they started pointing fingers at the right.

The verbal attacks (oh dear, I used a violent word there) will continue. Left vs Right, Conservative vs Liberal, Christian vs Atheist it doesn't matter. And things will only get worse. We are already in the campaign ( it should be spelled camPAIN) for the next elections in 2012.

Have you noticed in your news, however you get news, that every time a Republican announces their candidacy for President, the media immediately becomes involved in discussions on their faults and the reasons why they are a poor choice for President. There seems to be only one news source to balance this deluge. Thank you Fox News.

All Hope is Not Lost

Thanks to a friend, I have just learned that all is not lost. I don't have all the details, but apparently there is a U.S. manufacturer of CFLs. Hurray for TCP Inc of Ohio. After some searching I found the article below on the internet. It is old, but apparently has come to pass. Interesting side note, TCP Inc. was founded by a Chinese-American.

In a July 2009 entry, Supply Chain News posted the following article.

In a move that in some ways may be illustrative of a potential trend, TCP Inc., a manufacturer of a variety of advanced light bulbs that currently manufactures exclusively in China, is now planning to build bulbs in the US and develop a branded product line.

TCP is currently the largest producer of compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) in the US, until now exclusively as a supplier for other brands such as GE, Osram Sylvania and Philips (though it has branded product in China already). It makes other advanced light bulbs as well, such as LEDs.

The products were also exclusively made in China, but the company now says it is planning a factory near Cleveland.

The move, in a sense, is a double shot at industry leader GE Lighting. Not only does it appear that TCP will soon compete at the retail level with GE, its current customer, but GE also recently closed most of its existing lighting manufacturing capacity in the region near its own Cleveland headquarters. The company shut down a number of traditional incandescent lighting factories in the northern Ohio area, saying demand for those products was falling versus more energy efficient bulbs. However, it nixed the idea of revamping those factories to make CFLs, saying the upgrade costs were too expensive, and that all its CFLs would be manufactured in China.

Now, TCP has announced plans for a new CFL factory near Cleveland that will employ 50-60 to start. Likely, Cleveland was picked to tap into a labor pull with lighting experience from GE.

The move was made possible by the increased level of automation that TCP uses to produce the bulbs, drastically reducing labor costs as percent of the total. Three years ago, TCP made all of its bulbs in China by hand. Today, 60% are made by machines. The automation has led the company to reduce its workforce there to just 8,000, down from 15,000 in 2007.

Company CEO Ellis Yan says it will likely cost 20-30 cents more per CFL bulb to produce them in Cleveland versus China, but that the cost can be managed given that the retail price of such bulbs is generally more than $3.00 and that TCP will be closer to eventual US customers.

The US has passed legislation that will ban the sale of incandescent lamps starting in 2012.