As a baseball fan, I have witnessed the squeeze play in action. For those unfamiliar with it, it occurs when there is a runner on third base. The batter bunts the ball while the runner runs home and avoids the tag at home. They call it a squeeze play because the ball is not that far away from home plate and the runner must run as fast as he can to get home before being thrown out.
Unfortunately, the stagnant economy, stagnant wages, and the second round of quantitative easing (QE) proposed by the Federal Reserve might result in an economic squeeze play that could affect everyone. In addition, the tax increase set to occur on January 1, 2011 will make it even more difficult for many.
The nature of the economic squeeze play is simple. The stagnant economy means that many, including myself, are not getting raises or bonuses from our employers. In fact, many have seen their incomes decrease due to furloughs, having to seek part-time employment due to downsizing, or being underemployed. Tax increases scheduled for 2011 will only further decrease the income individuals have available.
As far as the role of QE in the squeeze play, I will need to take a minute to explain what QE is. QE is when the central bank (i.e., The Federal Reserve Bank in the United States) injects money into the economy by buying back some of its own debt from entities in the private sector, primarily banks (Benford, Berry, Nikolov, Young, & Robson, 2009; Ganley, 2010). The theory is that this injection of money into the economy will increase economic activity and growth.
This injection of money into the economy effectively increases the supply of money. However, as we learned in economics 101, when the supply of a commodity increases in the market, its value in the market decreases. If we look at money as a commodity in the global market, this injection of dollars into the U.S. economy will devalue the dollar. We are already seeing this devaluation before any additional dollars have actually found their way into the economy due to the anticipated increase in supply through QE.
A devalued dollar means that it will require more of them to purchase goods and services, especially goods and services imported into the U.S. With oil being one of our nation’s greatest imports, QE will result in higher prices for crude oil simply due to the devaluation of the dollar against currencies in countries where the U.S. purchases crude oil. This will not only result in higher gas prices at the pump, but higher prices for other goods and services since the cost of shipping them to retailers will also increase.
The squeeze play for consumers will be that they will have to deal with higher prices and taxes while they see their incomes remain the same or even decrease. Instead of using QE to increase economic activity, policymakers need to consider reductions in government spending coupled with tax cuts. The reduction in government spending will result in additional capital being available for the private sector. Tax cuts will place more discretionary income into the hands of consumers so they will be able to purchase products and services produced in the private sector. Increased activity in the private sector will mean more jobs, less unemployment, and even a return of pay raises and bonuses. What we have to ask ourselves is why people we elect to office, who claim to be so smart, cannot figure out this simple concept. Instead, we want to try gimmicks like QE and endanger the financial future of individuals by squeezing them economically.
Our newly elected congress needs to call up officials in the Federal Reserve and question them as to why they believe in even trying the dangerous gimmick of QE. They need to expose their ignorance. Then, they need to truly stimulate the economy using tax cuts and responsible government spending. When they do, they will unleash the power of the free market and real economic growth will be the result.
References:
Benford, J., Berry, S., Nikolov, K., Young, C., & Robson, M. (2009). Quantitative easing. Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin, 49(1), 90-100. doi:175268231 ProQuest Database
Ganley, J. (2010). Quantitative easing: injecting money into the economy. Teaching Business & Economics, 14(2), 21-23. doi:2079122171 ProQuest Database
Monday, November 15, 2010
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
We Are Lagging Behind
As the U.S. Economy continues to under-perform and thousands remain unemployed and risk losing their homes, other economies in the world are experiencing growth. In India, they are experienced the fastest growth rate in more than two years during the last quarter with a GDP growth of 8.8% (BBC News Business, 2010). The Russian economy showed a 4% growth in spite of a drought and businesses having to shut down due to wild fires (Google News a, 2010). The unemployment rate in Germany remains stable at 7.6% while the rate in the U.S. hovers around 10% (Google News b, 2010).
These numbers show that the U.S. economy continues to struggle while much of the rest of the world is starting to recover. The question we must ask is what they are doing that we are not.
In India, they credit their growth with strongly rising sales of Goods at home to Indian customers (BBC News Business, 2010). This means that demand for goods in India is increasing which causes us to assume the Indian people must have more income to spend or they are incurring debt. However, India has raised its interest rates four times to curb inflation. This increase in the cost of borrowing makes it more probable that the increase in demand is due to rising incomes in the developing economy of India.
In Russia, the recovery of energy prices has made up for the effects of the drought and wildfires. Russia is also experiencing increased economic activity, which led to a strong performance in the second quarter. We could therefore expect that the growth rate will increase as Russia recovers from the effects of the wildfires and drought (Google News a, 2010).
Germany’s stable employment picture is due to stimulus that subsidized shorter working hours so companies did not have to layoff workers but could keep them on their payroll with the government subsidizing the shortfall of income for these individuals. As the economy recovers, these workers are returning to full-time hours, reducing government subsidies and government deficits (Google News b, 2010). Since these employees were never fully on unemployment, and never experienced a reduction in their incomes, Germany avoided an increase in home foreclosures like those that we have experienced in the U.S.
The U.S. lags behind the rest of the world because threats of higher taxation due to the expiring of the Bush tax cuts, assessment of fees to pay for the new health care program, and higher energy costs because of cap and trade are stifling innovation and consumer demand. Instead of recovering energy prices, the U.S. has placed a moratorium on offshore drilling because of one accident on one oil platform. The BP oil spill was a tragic ecological disaster but it was an isolated incident and does not require the stoppage of all offshore drilling.
We also lag behind because the U.S. idea of a jobs bill is not the creation of more private sector jobs but the extension of unemployment benefits. Instead of following Germany’s lead by encouraging companies to cut hours instead of employees, and subsidizing workers who work less hours so they could remain on company payrolls, we opt to let the companies layoff workers and pay them unemployment benefits in perpetuity.
What our economy needs is a freeing up of capital through lower taxation. Encouragement of innovation through reduced regulation. With these incentives, U.S. companies will have capital for research and development and expansion. This will lead to more jobs, increased consumer demand, and lower unemployment. In November, we have an opportunity to vote for change that results in smaller government that is more responsive. We must vote for government that will begin freeing up capital so America can get back to work doing what made us great.
References
BBC News Business. (2010, August 31). India growth rate rises to 8.8%. Retrieved from http://ww.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11135197
Google News a. (2010, August 31). Russia grows 4% as economy recovers from crisis. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iakitYFiqHmNaZPjcLXg29BJ5Kw
Google News b. (2010, august 31). German official unemployment rate stable at 7.6%. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/hostdnews/afp/article/ALeqM5hpC20s4vZTTZQwJRzslwIdKy6Uug
These numbers show that the U.S. economy continues to struggle while much of the rest of the world is starting to recover. The question we must ask is what they are doing that we are not.
In India, they credit their growth with strongly rising sales of Goods at home to Indian customers (BBC News Business, 2010). This means that demand for goods in India is increasing which causes us to assume the Indian people must have more income to spend or they are incurring debt. However, India has raised its interest rates four times to curb inflation. This increase in the cost of borrowing makes it more probable that the increase in demand is due to rising incomes in the developing economy of India.
In Russia, the recovery of energy prices has made up for the effects of the drought and wildfires. Russia is also experiencing increased economic activity, which led to a strong performance in the second quarter. We could therefore expect that the growth rate will increase as Russia recovers from the effects of the wildfires and drought (Google News a, 2010).
Germany’s stable employment picture is due to stimulus that subsidized shorter working hours so companies did not have to layoff workers but could keep them on their payroll with the government subsidizing the shortfall of income for these individuals. As the economy recovers, these workers are returning to full-time hours, reducing government subsidies and government deficits (Google News b, 2010). Since these employees were never fully on unemployment, and never experienced a reduction in their incomes, Germany avoided an increase in home foreclosures like those that we have experienced in the U.S.
The U.S. lags behind the rest of the world because threats of higher taxation due to the expiring of the Bush tax cuts, assessment of fees to pay for the new health care program, and higher energy costs because of cap and trade are stifling innovation and consumer demand. Instead of recovering energy prices, the U.S. has placed a moratorium on offshore drilling because of one accident on one oil platform. The BP oil spill was a tragic ecological disaster but it was an isolated incident and does not require the stoppage of all offshore drilling.
We also lag behind because the U.S. idea of a jobs bill is not the creation of more private sector jobs but the extension of unemployment benefits. Instead of following Germany’s lead by encouraging companies to cut hours instead of employees, and subsidizing workers who work less hours so they could remain on company payrolls, we opt to let the companies layoff workers and pay them unemployment benefits in perpetuity.
What our economy needs is a freeing up of capital through lower taxation. Encouragement of innovation through reduced regulation. With these incentives, U.S. companies will have capital for research and development and expansion. This will lead to more jobs, increased consumer demand, and lower unemployment. In November, we have an opportunity to vote for change that results in smaller government that is more responsive. We must vote for government that will begin freeing up capital so America can get back to work doing what made us great.
References
BBC News Business. (2010, August 31). India growth rate rises to 8.8%. Retrieved from http://ww.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11135197
Google News a. (2010, August 31). Russia grows 4% as economy recovers from crisis. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iakitYFiqHmNaZPjcLXg29BJ5Kw
Google News b. (2010, august 31). German official unemployment rate stable at 7.6%. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/hostdnews/afp/article/ALeqM5hpC20s4vZTTZQwJRzslwIdKy6Uug
Attention U.S. Secretary of Education
In 2004, after working for 10 years at my present job, I decided to look for something better but after much searching, I discovered that the only way I would be able to better myself would be to finish my degree. Therefore, at the age of 48 I decided to return to school and complete my degree. However, a working professional like me must find a way to return to school, maintain a career, and care for their family.
The person I sold my home to the year before mentioned he was returning to school to complete his Masters Degree at the University of Phoenix. Knowing he was a busy professional himself, I decided to check out the program at the University.
I discovered that the program was tailored to the working professional and therefore, decided to enroll at the University of Phoenix to complete my Bachelors Degree in Accounting, earn a MBA, and sit for the CPA exam. Believing this was my ticket to financial success, I used student loans to pay for my education, believing that upon graduation, I would move into a better job. However, my timing was off for I graduated with my MBA in 2008, the same year the economy started declining. In addition to this, my wife’s job was eliminated in January of this year so we are now a one-income family. This, and not the curriculum at the University of Phoenix, is why I am among those who have applied for a deferment of my student loans.
I still have not found a better job but do not blame the University for this. Instead, I blame it on the down economic cycle the country is currently experiencing. I have experienced economic downturns in my life, and know that even though this one has lasted longer than most, it will end. I also do not regret my decision to continue my education.
Unfortunately, the proposed “Gainful Employment” regulation threatens to take away options for adult learning from individuals like myself. Many in our society have recently lost their jobs. I believe many of them find themselves in the same situation I did in 2004 and need to further their education to find gainful employment. They also need to find work and need a university tailored to the working individual. The “Gainful Employment” regulation threatens to take this opportunity away from them by making it difficult for universities like the University of Phoenix to offer student loans to their students.
I urge you to stop consideration of the “Gainful Employment” regulation option as a means to decrease the percentage of student loans in deferment or default and instead focus on growing our economy so their will be increased opportunities for professionals like myself to earn the resources they need to begin repayment of their student loans.
The person I sold my home to the year before mentioned he was returning to school to complete his Masters Degree at the University of Phoenix. Knowing he was a busy professional himself, I decided to check out the program at the University.
I discovered that the program was tailored to the working professional and therefore, decided to enroll at the University of Phoenix to complete my Bachelors Degree in Accounting, earn a MBA, and sit for the CPA exam. Believing this was my ticket to financial success, I used student loans to pay for my education, believing that upon graduation, I would move into a better job. However, my timing was off for I graduated with my MBA in 2008, the same year the economy started declining. In addition to this, my wife’s job was eliminated in January of this year so we are now a one-income family. This, and not the curriculum at the University of Phoenix, is why I am among those who have applied for a deferment of my student loans.
I still have not found a better job but do not blame the University for this. Instead, I blame it on the down economic cycle the country is currently experiencing. I have experienced economic downturns in my life, and know that even though this one has lasted longer than most, it will end. I also do not regret my decision to continue my education.
Unfortunately, the proposed “Gainful Employment” regulation threatens to take away options for adult learning from individuals like myself. Many in our society have recently lost their jobs. I believe many of them find themselves in the same situation I did in 2004 and need to further their education to find gainful employment. They also need to find work and need a university tailored to the working individual. The “Gainful Employment” regulation threatens to take this opportunity away from them by making it difficult for universities like the University of Phoenix to offer student loans to their students.
I urge you to stop consideration of the “Gainful Employment” regulation option as a means to decrease the percentage of student loans in deferment or default and instead focus on growing our economy so their will be increased opportunities for professionals like myself to earn the resources they need to begin repayment of their student loans.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Trusting God v. Trusting Government
When faced with uncertain times, we have no choice but to place our trust in something greater than ourselves. This is because in these times we do not have the answers and must seek them from someone or something greater than us. Some of us turn to God in these times, but who do people choosing not to believe in God turn to? In this posting, we will contrast trusting on God during these times against trusting in government programs and officials to help us.
Philippians 4:19 says “And this same God who takes care of me will supply all your needs from his glorious riches, which have been given to us in Christ Jesus.” (NLT). Those choosing to place their trust in God are depending on God to supply their needs out of his resources. The question we must ask is if God is willing to meet our needs. In addition, does God have the resources to meet our needs?
During a great famine in Israel, a poor widow was preparing to cook the last meal for her son and herself when she encountered Elijah. This is the Biblical account of the story.
1 Kings 17:10-16
"Would you please bring me a cup of water?" 11 As she was going to get it, he called to her, "Bring me a bite of bread, too."
12 But she said, "I swear by the LORD your God that I don't have a single piece of bread in the house. And I have only a handful of flour left in the jar and a little cooking oil in the bottom of the jug. I was just gathering a few sticks to cook this last meal, and then my son and I will die."
13 But Elijah said to her, "Don't be afraid! Go ahead and cook that 'last meal,' but bake me a little loaf of bread first. Afterward there will still be enough food for you and your son. 14 For this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: There will always be plenty of flour and oil left in your containers until the time when the LORD sends rain and the crops grow again!"
15 So she did as Elijah said, and she and Elijah and her son continued to eat from her supply of flour and oil for many days. 16 For no matter how much they used, there was always enough left in the containers, just as the LORD had promised through Elijah.
NLT
However, how do we know this is not just some mythological story that cannot be verified? Since there no witnesses living to verify the story, we can only look at the facts surrounding the story. First, there was a drought in the land at this time. Second, Elijah, a Jewish prophet was traveling to a Gentile city, hardly a place where he would be welcomed. If a Jewish prophet had entered a Gentile city and demanded a poor starving widow’s last meal, there is not doubt the other inhabitants of the city would have turned him over to the King from whom Elijah was running. The only reason the inhabitants would not have turned Elijah in is if they believed the widow’s needs were being taken care of, which they were in a supernatural fashion by God.
In another case, Peter and Jesus owed their taxes but lacked the resources to pay them. This is the biblical account of the story.
Matt 17:24-27
24 On their arrival in Capernaum, the tax collectors for the Temple tax came to Peter and asked him, "Doesn't your teacher pay the Temple tax?"
25 "Of course he does," Peter replied. Then he went into the house to talk to Jesus about it.
But before he had a chance to speak, Jesus asked him, "What do you think, Peter? Do kings tax their own people or the foreigners they have conquered?"
26 "They tax the foreigners," Peter replied.
"Well, then," Jesus said, "the citizens are free! 27 However, we don't want to offend them, so go down to the lake and throw in a line. Open the mouth of the first fish you catch, and you will find a coin. Take the coin and pay the tax for both of us."
NLT
Once again, the Bible presents a story for which we have no direct verification. However, since the Roman government and Jewish high priests at the time viewed Jesus as a threat, they would have taken any opportunity to arrest him. The fact that we have no record of an arrest of Jesus, other than the account in the Garden of Gethsemane, forces us to believe that Jesus and Peter were able to pay their tax. Otherwise, the Roman's would have arrested them for non-payment of their taxes.
As far as having the resources to meet our needs we have to look at Genesis 1. If we are going to choose to trust God to meet our needs, we must also believe that He created everything around us. If God created everything around us, it is not difficult to believe that he can meet our needs. This is a biblical account of some of the resources God possesses.
Ps 50:10-12
10 For all the animals of the forest are mine,
and I own the cattle on a thousand hills.
11 Every bird of the mountains
and all the animals of the field belong to me.
12 If I were hungry, I would not mention it to you,
for all the world is mine and everything in it.
NLT
The story of the widow and Elijah along with the story of Peter and Jesus paying their taxes show us that God is willing to meet our needs. The account in Psalms 50:10-12 and Genesis 1 show us he has the resources to meet our needs and if for some reason he does not have the resources, he can create them. However, if we choose not to believe in God to meet our needs, we can always trust in the Government.
The Government is willing to meet our needs. At least that is what politicians say during political campaigns. However, the continual war on poverty and failure of government programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid say differently. During political campaigns, politicians will say anything to get votes. However, once they get into office and discover that they lack the resources to make good on their promises, the needs of the voters who placed them in office, often are forgotten.
However, politicians can pass legislation to meet the voter’s needs by taking it from others through taxation, printing or creating more money, or borrowing it from some foreign government. So, let us take a moment to look at the effects of these policies.
Taxing others to meet the needs of voters may meet the voter’s needs that the politician promised to meet in the election, but it creates needs in other areas. For example, taxing the wealthy to provide healthcare or additional entitlement programs means that wealthy employers have less capital to build their businesses. In fact, they may have to downsize their businesses to pay the additional taxes. This means fewer new jobs and lay-offs due to downsizing. Therefore, voters receive the promised healthcare plan and other entitlement programs at the expense of jobs.
Printing or creating more money to meet these needs increases the money supply in the economy. This leads to inflation through devaluation of the dollar because it takes more dollars to pay for what we want to buy. In other words, the voter’s needs are met at the expense of paying more for other things they need
Borrowing money from foreign countries places us at their mercy. What if the foreign country demands immediate payment of the debt? What if our country lacks the resources to pay the debt? This situation could compromise our national security and place the population at risk. In other words, the voter’s needs are met at the expense of national security.
The problem with dependence on Government to meet our needs is that even if the Government has the desire to meet the voter’s needs, they lack the resources to do so and must take resources away from someone else, cause inflation, or risk national security to make good on their promises.
This is why I believe that the best place to put our trust during uncertain times is in God. Even though both God and Government may have the desire to meet our needs, their motives for having this desire are different. God loves us and does not want to see us perish.
Ps 37:25
25 Once I was young, and now I am old.
Yet I have never seen the godly forsaken,
nor seen their children begging for bread.
NLT
John 3:16
16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.
NLT
God’s motives are to care for our physical needs out of his rich resources and meet our spiritual needs though the sacrifice of his only Son, Jesus. Politicians running for office are only interested in one thing, our vote. After receiving our vote, they have little incentive to work on meeting our needs, at least until the next election.
However, the biggest reason for my belief in placing our trust in God is that he has infinite resources available for meeting our needs. This does not mean we will all have a mansion or luxury car if we place our trust in God, but that our physical needs (Philippians 4:19, Psalm 37:25, Matthew 6:33) and spiritual needs (John 3:16) will be met.
Take a moment today and place your trust in God. If you have not placed your trust in God for meeting your spiritual need for salvation, I encourage you to do it know. The Bible tells us in Romans 10:9-10
9 For if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved.
NLT
Now with the same trust you placed in God to save you, trust him to meet your physical needs as well and watch what happens.
Philippians 4:19 says “And this same God who takes care of me will supply all your needs from his glorious riches, which have been given to us in Christ Jesus.” (NLT). Those choosing to place their trust in God are depending on God to supply their needs out of his resources. The question we must ask is if God is willing to meet our needs. In addition, does God have the resources to meet our needs?
During a great famine in Israel, a poor widow was preparing to cook the last meal for her son and herself when she encountered Elijah. This is the Biblical account of the story.
1 Kings 17:10-16
"Would you please bring me a cup of water?" 11 As she was going to get it, he called to her, "Bring me a bite of bread, too."
12 But she said, "I swear by the LORD your God that I don't have a single piece of bread in the house. And I have only a handful of flour left in the jar and a little cooking oil in the bottom of the jug. I was just gathering a few sticks to cook this last meal, and then my son and I will die."
13 But Elijah said to her, "Don't be afraid! Go ahead and cook that 'last meal,' but bake me a little loaf of bread first. Afterward there will still be enough food for you and your son. 14 For this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: There will always be plenty of flour and oil left in your containers until the time when the LORD sends rain and the crops grow again!"
15 So she did as Elijah said, and she and Elijah and her son continued to eat from her supply of flour and oil for many days. 16 For no matter how much they used, there was always enough left in the containers, just as the LORD had promised through Elijah.
NLT
However, how do we know this is not just some mythological story that cannot be verified? Since there no witnesses living to verify the story, we can only look at the facts surrounding the story. First, there was a drought in the land at this time. Second, Elijah, a Jewish prophet was traveling to a Gentile city, hardly a place where he would be welcomed. If a Jewish prophet had entered a Gentile city and demanded a poor starving widow’s last meal, there is not doubt the other inhabitants of the city would have turned him over to the King from whom Elijah was running. The only reason the inhabitants would not have turned Elijah in is if they believed the widow’s needs were being taken care of, which they were in a supernatural fashion by God.
In another case, Peter and Jesus owed their taxes but lacked the resources to pay them. This is the biblical account of the story.
Matt 17:24-27
24 On their arrival in Capernaum, the tax collectors for the Temple tax came to Peter and asked him, "Doesn't your teacher pay the Temple tax?"
25 "Of course he does," Peter replied. Then he went into the house to talk to Jesus about it.
But before he had a chance to speak, Jesus asked him, "What do you think, Peter? Do kings tax their own people or the foreigners they have conquered?"
26 "They tax the foreigners," Peter replied.
"Well, then," Jesus said, "the citizens are free! 27 However, we don't want to offend them, so go down to the lake and throw in a line. Open the mouth of the first fish you catch, and you will find a coin. Take the coin and pay the tax for both of us."
NLT
Once again, the Bible presents a story for which we have no direct verification. However, since the Roman government and Jewish high priests at the time viewed Jesus as a threat, they would have taken any opportunity to arrest him. The fact that we have no record of an arrest of Jesus, other than the account in the Garden of Gethsemane, forces us to believe that Jesus and Peter were able to pay their tax. Otherwise, the Roman's would have arrested them for non-payment of their taxes.
As far as having the resources to meet our needs we have to look at Genesis 1. If we are going to choose to trust God to meet our needs, we must also believe that He created everything around us. If God created everything around us, it is not difficult to believe that he can meet our needs. This is a biblical account of some of the resources God possesses.
Ps 50:10-12
10 For all the animals of the forest are mine,
and I own the cattle on a thousand hills.
11 Every bird of the mountains
and all the animals of the field belong to me.
12 If I were hungry, I would not mention it to you,
for all the world is mine and everything in it.
NLT
The story of the widow and Elijah along with the story of Peter and Jesus paying their taxes show us that God is willing to meet our needs. The account in Psalms 50:10-12 and Genesis 1 show us he has the resources to meet our needs and if for some reason he does not have the resources, he can create them. However, if we choose not to believe in God to meet our needs, we can always trust in the Government.
The Government is willing to meet our needs. At least that is what politicians say during political campaigns. However, the continual war on poverty and failure of government programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid say differently. During political campaigns, politicians will say anything to get votes. However, once they get into office and discover that they lack the resources to make good on their promises, the needs of the voters who placed them in office, often are forgotten.
However, politicians can pass legislation to meet the voter’s needs by taking it from others through taxation, printing or creating more money, or borrowing it from some foreign government. So, let us take a moment to look at the effects of these policies.
Taxing others to meet the needs of voters may meet the voter’s needs that the politician promised to meet in the election, but it creates needs in other areas. For example, taxing the wealthy to provide healthcare or additional entitlement programs means that wealthy employers have less capital to build their businesses. In fact, they may have to downsize their businesses to pay the additional taxes. This means fewer new jobs and lay-offs due to downsizing. Therefore, voters receive the promised healthcare plan and other entitlement programs at the expense of jobs.
Printing or creating more money to meet these needs increases the money supply in the economy. This leads to inflation through devaluation of the dollar because it takes more dollars to pay for what we want to buy. In other words, the voter’s needs are met at the expense of paying more for other things they need
Borrowing money from foreign countries places us at their mercy. What if the foreign country demands immediate payment of the debt? What if our country lacks the resources to pay the debt? This situation could compromise our national security and place the population at risk. In other words, the voter’s needs are met at the expense of national security.
The problem with dependence on Government to meet our needs is that even if the Government has the desire to meet the voter’s needs, they lack the resources to do so and must take resources away from someone else, cause inflation, or risk national security to make good on their promises.
This is why I believe that the best place to put our trust during uncertain times is in God. Even though both God and Government may have the desire to meet our needs, their motives for having this desire are different. God loves us and does not want to see us perish.
Ps 37:25
25 Once I was young, and now I am old.
Yet I have never seen the godly forsaken,
nor seen their children begging for bread.
NLT
John 3:16
16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.
NLT
God’s motives are to care for our physical needs out of his rich resources and meet our spiritual needs though the sacrifice of his only Son, Jesus. Politicians running for office are only interested in one thing, our vote. After receiving our vote, they have little incentive to work on meeting our needs, at least until the next election.
However, the biggest reason for my belief in placing our trust in God is that he has infinite resources available for meeting our needs. This does not mean we will all have a mansion or luxury car if we place our trust in God, but that our physical needs (Philippians 4:19, Psalm 37:25, Matthew 6:33) and spiritual needs (John 3:16) will be met.
Take a moment today and place your trust in God. If you have not placed your trust in God for meeting your spiritual need for salvation, I encourage you to do it know. The Bible tells us in Romans 10:9-10
9 For if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved.
NLT
Now with the same trust you placed in God to save you, trust him to meet your physical needs as well and watch what happens.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Lessons From the Primaries of 08/24/2010
The primary elections this week are over. Now it is time for the Monday morning quarterbacks to begin analyzing what happened. The election in Alaska proves that the polls are not always right and that even after voters cast their vote, we must be diligent to insure no vote tampering occurs. The gubernatorial primary in Florida provides a roadmap for conservative victory in the general election.
The Alaskan Republican Senatorial Primary
Less than a month before Tuesday’s Republican Senatorial Primary, Joe Miller trailed Incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski 61.8% to 29.6%. However, after Tuesdays election, Joe Miller holds a 2300 vote lead with 13000 absentee ballots left to count leading to the question of how the pollsters could be so wrong (Gizzi, 2010).
.
Pollsters have observed that when a conservative challenger goes up against a moderate Republican candidate there is usually a late surge as occurred in this election. There is also the demographics of Alaska, which is a large state with a small population that spreads out over a large area making it difficult for pollsters to generate a representative sampling for their polls (Gizzi, 2010).
.
However, I believe the main reason for the disparity in the polls is the underestimation by pollsters of the role conservatives play in Republican primaries. Liberals usually underestimate the large turnout of conservatives when a truly conservative candidate energizes them. It also helps when well-known conservatives like Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee endorse the candidate. In this election, the effect of the Tea Party Movement, driven by the failures of the current Congress and Administration, is causing many independents to favor conservatives.
However, the election in Alaska also reminds us that it is not over until the election is officially certified. With over 13000 absentee ballots left to count, the election is too close to call at this point. Experts believe that Joe Miller will win based upon where the absentee ballots are coming from but there are rumors of “found” ballots ala Al Franken (Erickson, 2010a). The Miller campaign must remain diligent and investigate any allegations of found ballots to insure no vote tampering is occurring between now and when the election is officially certified.
Lessons from the Florida Republican Gubernatorial Primary
Some pundits believe Rick Scott bought the Florida GOP gubernatorial primary (Erickson, 2010b), but that is shallow thinking and fails to look at the bigger picture. Although spending a lot of money allows a candidate to purchase advertising and gain name recognition, voters also consider a candidates stand on the issues when voting. Looking at the campaign of Rick Scott provides valuable lessons for candidates in the general election.
Rick Scott ran on a conservative agenda. He ran as a common sense businessman, a pro-lifer, and as someone who could create jobs (Erickson, 2010b). With the economy in a recession and out of control government spending, the voters were attracted to Rick Scott, believing his business savvy would bring fiscal responsibility to the state budget and create an atmosphere of job creation for the state.
His opponent ran a smear campaign but Rick Scott stuck to the issues and his conservative values (Erickson, 2010b). The lesson his campaign teaches is that conservatives can win in November by sticking to the issues and their conservative values and not resorting to a smear campaign. The voters this year are well informed and seek leaders who will lead them out of the current economic malaise.
Conclusion:
Conservative victory is possible by candidates sticking to their conservative values and the important issues (i.e. the economy and jobs), and not resorting to a smear campaign as most likely will be done by their opponents. However, the candidates must be on guard against any vote tampering before, during, and after the votes are cast. The important thing for all conservatives is to go out, vote in November, and take as many fellow conservatives to the polls with them as they can.
References:
Erickson, E. (2010a, August). Red alert: Emergency in Alaska. Retrieved from http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/08/26/red-alert-emergency-in-alaska/
Erickson, E. (2010b, August). Lessons for conservatives from the Rick Scott campaign. Retrieved from http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/08/25/lessons-for-conservatives-from-the-rick-scott-campaign
Gizzi, J. (2010, August). Why pollsters were wrong on Alaska. Retrieved from http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38712
The Alaskan Republican Senatorial Primary
Less than a month before Tuesday’s Republican Senatorial Primary, Joe Miller trailed Incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski 61.8% to 29.6%. However, after Tuesdays election, Joe Miller holds a 2300 vote lead with 13000 absentee ballots left to count leading to the question of how the pollsters could be so wrong (Gizzi, 2010).
.
Pollsters have observed that when a conservative challenger goes up against a moderate Republican candidate there is usually a late surge as occurred in this election. There is also the demographics of Alaska, which is a large state with a small population that spreads out over a large area making it difficult for pollsters to generate a representative sampling for their polls (Gizzi, 2010).
.
However, I believe the main reason for the disparity in the polls is the underestimation by pollsters of the role conservatives play in Republican primaries. Liberals usually underestimate the large turnout of conservatives when a truly conservative candidate energizes them. It also helps when well-known conservatives like Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee endorse the candidate. In this election, the effect of the Tea Party Movement, driven by the failures of the current Congress and Administration, is causing many independents to favor conservatives.
However, the election in Alaska also reminds us that it is not over until the election is officially certified. With over 13000 absentee ballots left to count, the election is too close to call at this point. Experts believe that Joe Miller will win based upon where the absentee ballots are coming from but there are rumors of “found” ballots ala Al Franken (Erickson, 2010a). The Miller campaign must remain diligent and investigate any allegations of found ballots to insure no vote tampering is occurring between now and when the election is officially certified.
Lessons from the Florida Republican Gubernatorial Primary
Some pundits believe Rick Scott bought the Florida GOP gubernatorial primary (Erickson, 2010b), but that is shallow thinking and fails to look at the bigger picture. Although spending a lot of money allows a candidate to purchase advertising and gain name recognition, voters also consider a candidates stand on the issues when voting. Looking at the campaign of Rick Scott provides valuable lessons for candidates in the general election.
Rick Scott ran on a conservative agenda. He ran as a common sense businessman, a pro-lifer, and as someone who could create jobs (Erickson, 2010b). With the economy in a recession and out of control government spending, the voters were attracted to Rick Scott, believing his business savvy would bring fiscal responsibility to the state budget and create an atmosphere of job creation for the state.
His opponent ran a smear campaign but Rick Scott stuck to the issues and his conservative values (Erickson, 2010b). The lesson his campaign teaches is that conservatives can win in November by sticking to the issues and their conservative values and not resorting to a smear campaign. The voters this year are well informed and seek leaders who will lead them out of the current economic malaise.
Conclusion:
Conservative victory is possible by candidates sticking to their conservative values and the important issues (i.e. the economy and jobs), and not resorting to a smear campaign as most likely will be done by their opponents. However, the candidates must be on guard against any vote tampering before, during, and after the votes are cast. The important thing for all conservatives is to go out, vote in November, and take as many fellow conservatives to the polls with them as they can.
References:
Erickson, E. (2010a, August). Red alert: Emergency in Alaska. Retrieved from http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/08/26/red-alert-emergency-in-alaska/
Erickson, E. (2010b, August). Lessons for conservatives from the Rick Scott campaign. Retrieved from http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/08/25/lessons-for-conservatives-from-the-rick-scott-campaign
Gizzi, J. (2010, August). Why pollsters were wrong on Alaska. Retrieved from http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38712
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
The Power of Innovation
Innovation is the driving force of economic growth. The innovation of manned space flight drove the economic boom of the 1960’s. The innovation of computer technology drove the boom of the 1980’s. The innovation of the Internet drove the boom of the 1990’s. However, we must ask the question, where is the innovation of the 2000’s? Is this lack of innovation a reason for the economic recession we are currently experiencing? What is the cause of this lack of innovation?
Adam Bernhard has discovered success in retailing in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression. In a recent interview for Entrepreneur Magazine, the interviewer asked for his advice about going into the retail business. His response was surprising. He said not to do it. His reason is that he credits his success with innovation and not a booming retail market (Moore, 2010). The success experienced by Mr. Bernhard demonstrates the power of innovation even in tough economic times.
One potential reason for a lack of innovation is failure of leaders of organizations to foster an organizational atmospheres that encourages innovative thinking ("Innovation and leadership," 2008). One way to begin fostering this atmosphere is for leaders of organizations to hire entrepreneurial-type employees. They should seek out employees who have been entrepreneurial in the past (Peters, 1991). In the fast changing world of the twenty-first century, leaders of organizations must tap into and use the entrepreneurial skills of their employees to develop innovative ideas. It is out of this think tank of knowledge that the next great innovation driving economic growth will come from.
However, there are also external threats to innovation. In our current recession, the main source of these threats is uncertainty caused by the rapidly changing economic policies of the current administration. The potential tax increases that will result from the grandfathering of the tax cuts of 2003 threaten the profitability of organizations that are already struggling to remain profitable. Intel CEO Otellini stated, “Unless government policies are altered …, the next big thing will not be invented here. Jobs will not be created here” (Faughnan, 2010, para 2).
To grow, organizations like Intel must plan but planning is difficult when there is uncertainty about economic policies (i.e. taxation, healthcare, energy costs) coming out of Washington D.C. If our current leaders are unable, or unwilling, to provide pro-innovation policies, they need to be replaced by leaders that will. The first decade of the twenty-first century is almost over without any significant innovation. We cannot afford to go much longer without some innovation to fuel economic growth. When voting in the November 2010 and November 2012 elections, we must elect leaders who will enact policies favoring innovation. Then it is up to the owners of organizations to hire employees and CEO’s that will foster an organizational atmosphere of innovation.
References:
Faughnan, B. (August 24, 2010). Intel CEO Otellini: The democrats are destroying our economy. Retrieved from http://www.redstate.com/brianfaughnan/2010/08/24/intel-ceo-otellini-the-democrats-are-destroying-our-economy/
Innovation and leadership. (2008). Strategic Direction, 24(5), 36. doi:1464052911 ProQuest Database
Moore, B. (2010, September). Who says no one is shopping. Entrepreneur, 38(9), 26-30.
Peters, T. (1991). Part two: Get innovative or get dead. California Management Review, 33(2), 9. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=288717&Fmt=7&clientld=13118&RQT=309&VName=PQD
Adam Bernhard has discovered success in retailing in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression. In a recent interview for Entrepreneur Magazine, the interviewer asked for his advice about going into the retail business. His response was surprising. He said not to do it. His reason is that he credits his success with innovation and not a booming retail market (Moore, 2010). The success experienced by Mr. Bernhard demonstrates the power of innovation even in tough economic times.
One potential reason for a lack of innovation is failure of leaders of organizations to foster an organizational atmospheres that encourages innovative thinking ("Innovation and leadership," 2008). One way to begin fostering this atmosphere is for leaders of organizations to hire entrepreneurial-type employees. They should seek out employees who have been entrepreneurial in the past (Peters, 1991). In the fast changing world of the twenty-first century, leaders of organizations must tap into and use the entrepreneurial skills of their employees to develop innovative ideas. It is out of this think tank of knowledge that the next great innovation driving economic growth will come from.
However, there are also external threats to innovation. In our current recession, the main source of these threats is uncertainty caused by the rapidly changing economic policies of the current administration. The potential tax increases that will result from the grandfathering of the tax cuts of 2003 threaten the profitability of organizations that are already struggling to remain profitable. Intel CEO Otellini stated, “Unless government policies are altered …, the next big thing will not be invented here. Jobs will not be created here” (Faughnan, 2010, para 2).
To grow, organizations like Intel must plan but planning is difficult when there is uncertainty about economic policies (i.e. taxation, healthcare, energy costs) coming out of Washington D.C. If our current leaders are unable, or unwilling, to provide pro-innovation policies, they need to be replaced by leaders that will. The first decade of the twenty-first century is almost over without any significant innovation. We cannot afford to go much longer without some innovation to fuel economic growth. When voting in the November 2010 and November 2012 elections, we must elect leaders who will enact policies favoring innovation. Then it is up to the owners of organizations to hire employees and CEO’s that will foster an organizational atmosphere of innovation.
References:
Faughnan, B. (August 24, 2010). Intel CEO Otellini: The democrats are destroying our economy. Retrieved from http://www.redstate.com/brianfaughnan/2010/08/24/intel-ceo-otellini-the-democrats-are-destroying-our-economy/
Innovation and leadership. (2008). Strategic Direction, 24(5), 36. doi:1464052911 ProQuest Database
Moore, B. (2010, September). Who says no one is shopping. Entrepreneur, 38(9), 26-30.
Peters, T. (1991). Part two: Get innovative or get dead. California Management Review, 33(2), 9. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=288717&Fmt=7&clientld=13118&RQT=309&VName=PQD
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Hope in Times of Struggle
We do not need to look hard today to find individuals struggling financially. Most of us either are struggling ourselves or know someone who is. In these tough economic times, many hard working intelligent individuals find themselves on the verge of financial collapse. During these times it is disheartening to see our leaders enjoying lavish vacations, date nights, and concerts at the White House while we continue to struggle for survival. David, the second King of Israel knew what struggling was all about and what he did in his times of struggle can teach us what to do in our struggles.
Forced to leave everything he owned because of King Saul’s threats of death, David found himself hiding in caves with a rag tag army to protect him. His situation appeared hopeless and it must have seemed to him and his family that there was nowhere to turn. However, David found his hope in the Lord and wrote many Psalms declaring his hope. Psalm 25 is one of these Psalms and I wanted to share it with you in the hope that it will give you something to hold on to in your time of struggle.
Ps 25
25:1 A psalm of David.
To you, O LORD, I lift up my soul. 2 I trust in you, my God! Do not let me be disgraced, or let my enemies rejoice in my defeat. 3 No one who trusts in you will ever be disgraced, but disgrace comes to those who try to deceive others.
4 Show me the path where I should walk, O LORD;point out the right road for me to follow. 5 Lead me by your truth and teach me, for you are the God who saves me.All day long I put my hope in you.
6 Remember, O LORD, your unfailing love and compassion, which you have shown from long ages past. 7 Forgive the rebellious sins of my youth; look instead through the eyes of your unfailing love, for you are merciful, O LORD.
8 The LORD is good and does what is right; he shows the proper path to those who go astray. 9 He leads the humble in what is right, teaching them his way. 10 The LORD leads with unfailing love and faithfulness all those who keep his covenant and obey his decrees.
11 For the honor of your name, O LORD, forgive my many, many sins. 12 Who are those who fear the LORD? He will show them the path they should choose. 13 They will live in prosperity, and their children will inherit the Promised Land. 14 Friendship with the LORD is reserved for those who fear him. With them he shares the secrets of his covenant. 15 My eyes are always looking to the LORD for help, for he alone can rescue me from the traps of my enemies.
16 Turn to me and have mercy on me, for I am alone and in deep distress. 17 My problems go from bad to worse. Oh, save me from them all! 18 Feel my pain and see my trouble. Forgive all my sins. 19 See how many enemies I have,and how viciously they hate me! 20 Protect me! Rescue my life from them! Do not let me be disgraced, for I trust in you. 21 May integrity and honesty protect me, for I put my hope in you.
22 O God, ransom Israel from all its troubles.
NLT
The Lord heard David’s many prayers and delivered him from all of his troubles. David did ascend to the throne and one of his descendents, Jesus Christ, The Son of God came and provided salvation for our sins just as God promised in his Word.
I encourage you to never stop praying to the Lord. Never stop worshiping Him or offering up praise for what he has already done and is going to do in your life. God has a plan for you and is now leading you in the direction he wants you to go but you must stick with him and not wander off.
I am praying for you and know God has great things planned for your life.
Forced to leave everything he owned because of King Saul’s threats of death, David found himself hiding in caves with a rag tag army to protect him. His situation appeared hopeless and it must have seemed to him and his family that there was nowhere to turn. However, David found his hope in the Lord and wrote many Psalms declaring his hope. Psalm 25 is one of these Psalms and I wanted to share it with you in the hope that it will give you something to hold on to in your time of struggle.
Ps 25
25:1 A psalm of David.
To you, O LORD, I lift up my soul. 2 I trust in you, my God! Do not let me be disgraced, or let my enemies rejoice in my defeat. 3 No one who trusts in you will ever be disgraced, but disgrace comes to those who try to deceive others.
4 Show me the path where I should walk, O LORD;point out the right road for me to follow. 5 Lead me by your truth and teach me, for you are the God who saves me.All day long I put my hope in you.
6 Remember, O LORD, your unfailing love and compassion, which you have shown from long ages past. 7 Forgive the rebellious sins of my youth; look instead through the eyes of your unfailing love, for you are merciful, O LORD.
8 The LORD is good and does what is right; he shows the proper path to those who go astray. 9 He leads the humble in what is right, teaching them his way. 10 The LORD leads with unfailing love and faithfulness all those who keep his covenant and obey his decrees.
11 For the honor of your name, O LORD, forgive my many, many sins. 12 Who are those who fear the LORD? He will show them the path they should choose. 13 They will live in prosperity, and their children will inherit the Promised Land. 14 Friendship with the LORD is reserved for those who fear him. With them he shares the secrets of his covenant. 15 My eyes are always looking to the LORD for help, for he alone can rescue me from the traps of my enemies.
16 Turn to me and have mercy on me, for I am alone and in deep distress. 17 My problems go from bad to worse. Oh, save me from them all! 18 Feel my pain and see my trouble. Forgive all my sins. 19 See how many enemies I have,and how viciously they hate me! 20 Protect me! Rescue my life from them! Do not let me be disgraced, for I trust in you. 21 May integrity and honesty protect me, for I put my hope in you.
22 O God, ransom Israel from all its troubles.
NLT
The Lord heard David’s many prayers and delivered him from all of his troubles. David did ascend to the throne and one of his descendents, Jesus Christ, The Son of God came and provided salvation for our sins just as God promised in his Word.
I encourage you to never stop praying to the Lord. Never stop worshiping Him or offering up praise for what he has already done and is going to do in your life. God has a plan for you and is now leading you in the direction he wants you to go but you must stick with him and not wander off.
I am praying for you and know God has great things planned for your life.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Look for Hidden Agendas
By: Dale Weckbacher
In a class on leadership I recently attended, the instructor posed a question on whether leaders like Hitler or Stalin could be considered great leaders. When asked to write a response to the question, I came up with the following response. I believe it is a good lesson for us to learn today.
The idea of greatness in a leader is in the eyes of those who follow them. Some researchers divide charismatic leadership into two theories. The leader-centered theory that believes the source of charisma in a leader is due to the follower’s response to some exceptional/exemplary characteristics of behavior exhibited by the leader. In the follower-centered theory, the followers project exceptional/exemplary characteristics on the leader (Avolio & Yammarino, 2002).
Perhaps the followers of leaders like Hitler or Stalin initially projected exceptional/exemplary characteristics on these men and saw them as great leaders. After the followers placed them in their position of leadership, they began to develop a personal charismatic relationship with their followers (Humphreys, Zhao, Ingram, Gladstone, & Basham, 2010). The leader focusing on how the followers perceive them characterizes this type of leader follower relationship. The leader becomes obsessed with his or her image and can even begin to exhibit narcissistic behavior (Avolio & Yammarino, 2002).
Leaders like Hitler and Stalin can be considered great due to their ability to rise to power. The events that occurred after their rise to power are what history records and why many today do not see these leaders as great. However, for the purposes of the study of leadership theory we cannot ignore what these men did because there is much to learn from what they did right to rise to power, and how they fell after assuming power.
The Bible tells us in Proverbs 16:18 that pride precedes a fall. When a leaders becomes caught up in themselves, their pride will lead to their downfall. Both Hitler and Stalin were victims of their pride.
A classmate of mine then responded by asking how a group of people could just stand by and watch their leader do such horrid crimes. After much thought I responded with the following.
We can also look at this from the viewpoint of the follower. In post World War I Germany, the people were experiencing hyperinflation (Burdelin & Burkett, 1992). The people of the nation were struggling to survive and have their basic needs met. When people find themselves in this condition, a leader who seems to have all the answers to their pressing needs can easily sway them.
Unfortunately, this leader-centered leader may have a hidden agenda ignored by people primarily focused on survival. Hitler alluded to his hidden agenda of building a master race and elimination of any inferior race (i.e. the Jews) in Mein Kampf but the people were so focused on having their needs met that they appointed Hitler leader without looking for any hidden agendas (Carr, 2007).
The lesson to learn from this is that when appointing a leader, whether a political leader or someone to lead an organization, conduct sufficient research to insure the leader has no hidden agendas that could damage the nations or organization’s mission.
Prior to the November 2008 election, our nation found itself in an economic emergency. The focus on the nation was on how to recover from this emergency. Common sense was thrown out the window and the nation fell for the words of someone they believed had all the answers. Individuals (e.g. Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Mark Levin) were sounding the alarm regarding Obama’s radical tendencies but few listened and we find ourselves today being led by a narcissistic leader who would rather play golf and vacation then address the needs of the people who elected him.
This November, we must send a clear message to Obama. We now know about your hidden radical agenda. We have had enough and are going to take control of the Congress and Senate away from you in the November 2010 elections. We will then begin the process of electing a new President in November 2012. One who’s agenda is restoring the greatness of this country and restoring economic opportunities for the people instead of regulating and legislating these opportunities out of existence.
We now know your hidden agenda Mr. Obama and we soundly reject it and will vote for change that works in this next election.
References:
Avolio, B. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (2002). Transformational and Charismatic Leadership: The Road Ahead. Bingley , UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Burdelin, R. C.K., & Burkett, P. (1992). Money, credit, and wages in hyperinflation:
Post-World War I Germany. Economic Inquiry, 30(3), 479-495. doi:8590893 ProQuest Database
Carr, R. (2007). Mein Kampf - The text, its themes and Hitler's vision. History Review, 57(), 30-35. doi:1289953491 Research Library
Drath, W.H. (2008, November/December). Leadership Beyond Leaders and Followers. Issues & Observations, 28(5), 20-22.
In a class on leadership I recently attended, the instructor posed a question on whether leaders like Hitler or Stalin could be considered great leaders. When asked to write a response to the question, I came up with the following response. I believe it is a good lesson for us to learn today.
The idea of greatness in a leader is in the eyes of those who follow them. Some researchers divide charismatic leadership into two theories. The leader-centered theory that believes the source of charisma in a leader is due to the follower’s response to some exceptional/exemplary characteristics of behavior exhibited by the leader. In the follower-centered theory, the followers project exceptional/exemplary characteristics on the leader (Avolio & Yammarino, 2002).
Perhaps the followers of leaders like Hitler or Stalin initially projected exceptional/exemplary characteristics on these men and saw them as great leaders. After the followers placed them in their position of leadership, they began to develop a personal charismatic relationship with their followers (Humphreys, Zhao, Ingram, Gladstone, & Basham, 2010). The leader focusing on how the followers perceive them characterizes this type of leader follower relationship. The leader becomes obsessed with his or her image and can even begin to exhibit narcissistic behavior (Avolio & Yammarino, 2002).
Leaders like Hitler and Stalin can be considered great due to their ability to rise to power. The events that occurred after their rise to power are what history records and why many today do not see these leaders as great. However, for the purposes of the study of leadership theory we cannot ignore what these men did because there is much to learn from what they did right to rise to power, and how they fell after assuming power.
The Bible tells us in Proverbs 16:18 that pride precedes a fall. When a leaders becomes caught up in themselves, their pride will lead to their downfall. Both Hitler and Stalin were victims of their pride.
A classmate of mine then responded by asking how a group of people could just stand by and watch their leader do such horrid crimes. After much thought I responded with the following.
We can also look at this from the viewpoint of the follower. In post World War I Germany, the people were experiencing hyperinflation (Burdelin & Burkett, 1992). The people of the nation were struggling to survive and have their basic needs met. When people find themselves in this condition, a leader who seems to have all the answers to their pressing needs can easily sway them.
Unfortunately, this leader-centered leader may have a hidden agenda ignored by people primarily focused on survival. Hitler alluded to his hidden agenda of building a master race and elimination of any inferior race (i.e. the Jews) in Mein Kampf but the people were so focused on having their needs met that they appointed Hitler leader without looking for any hidden agendas (Carr, 2007).
The lesson to learn from this is that when appointing a leader, whether a political leader or someone to lead an organization, conduct sufficient research to insure the leader has no hidden agendas that could damage the nations or organization’s mission.
Prior to the November 2008 election, our nation found itself in an economic emergency. The focus on the nation was on how to recover from this emergency. Common sense was thrown out the window and the nation fell for the words of someone they believed had all the answers. Individuals (e.g. Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Mark Levin) were sounding the alarm regarding Obama’s radical tendencies but few listened and we find ourselves today being led by a narcissistic leader who would rather play golf and vacation then address the needs of the people who elected him.
This November, we must send a clear message to Obama. We now know about your hidden radical agenda. We have had enough and are going to take control of the Congress and Senate away from you in the November 2010 elections. We will then begin the process of electing a new President in November 2012. One who’s agenda is restoring the greatness of this country and restoring economic opportunities for the people instead of regulating and legislating these opportunities out of existence.
We now know your hidden agenda Mr. Obama and we soundly reject it and will vote for change that works in this next election.
References:
Avolio, B. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (2002). Transformational and Charismatic Leadership: The Road Ahead. Bingley , UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Burdelin, R. C.K., & Burkett, P. (1992). Money, credit, and wages in hyperinflation:
Post-World War I Germany. Economic Inquiry, 30(3), 479-495. doi:8590893 ProQuest Database
Carr, R. (2007). Mein Kampf - The text, its themes and Hitler's vision. History Review, 57(), 30-35. doi:1289953491 Research Library
Drath, W.H. (2008, November/December). Leadership Beyond Leaders and Followers. Issues & Observations, 28(5), 20-22.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
It’s Good to be Back
It has been awhile since I have posted to this blog but it sure is good to be back. After pursuing other endeavors, which I believed would be profitable, I have decided to return to what works, commonsensenomics. In this first posting, I want to share some lessons I learned.
I made the decision about a year ago to pursue a Doctorate Degree in Organizational Leadership. You most likely noticed numerous postings on the subject, which were a result of studies I was conducting on the topic. The topic of leadership is a fascinating topic and it is my desire to continue writing about the topic. However, my experience as a student in academia revealed some of the problems with our current education system and how it is failing students, which is why I decided to exit the program much like the flight attendant for JetBlue.
Let us begin by discussing what is involved in a doctorate program. Earning a doctorate or PhD degree involves the writing of a dissertation on a study related topic, defense of the dissertation, and publication of the approved dissertation. The approval of the dissertation is from the committee at the university. This committee dissects the dissertation for its content and adherence to rules for grammar and citation. The finished dissertation is considered accurate and useful by others for additional research.
However, as I got into the program, I realized that this process turns out researchers who are proficient at reviewing the literature of others, but does little to spur independent creative thought. As an independent thinker, this process soon became frustrating and something I saw as unproductive. After much thought and prayer, I discovered that there were other directions in which I needed to go that would allow me to use my creative thinking in a productive manner.
I set up Grace Accounting Service LLC a year ago and have decided to use it as a vehicle to use my creative thinking. We will prepare taxes for individuals and businesses as well as helping them develop tax strategies. We will also help businesses hurt by the current recession develop strategies for recovery.
In addition to this, I will also begin teaching as an adjunct professor as a means of helping develop future creative business leaders. Leaders who will possess the critical thinking skills to confront challenges and successfully lead their organizations through them. As we continue to struggle through the recession and the challenges it brings, learning to think critically has never been more important.
I plan to use this blog to comment on current events, share insights on leadership in the twenty-first century, common sense economic principles, and encouragement and inspiration from God’s Word. My desire is for these discussions to spur your creative thinking process so you will be equipped to overcome challenges and excel in your lives and careers. I also welcome your comments, as they will help add to the discussion.
I made the decision about a year ago to pursue a Doctorate Degree in Organizational Leadership. You most likely noticed numerous postings on the subject, which were a result of studies I was conducting on the topic. The topic of leadership is a fascinating topic and it is my desire to continue writing about the topic. However, my experience as a student in academia revealed some of the problems with our current education system and how it is failing students, which is why I decided to exit the program much like the flight attendant for JetBlue.
Let us begin by discussing what is involved in a doctorate program. Earning a doctorate or PhD degree involves the writing of a dissertation on a study related topic, defense of the dissertation, and publication of the approved dissertation. The approval of the dissertation is from the committee at the university. This committee dissects the dissertation for its content and adherence to rules for grammar and citation. The finished dissertation is considered accurate and useful by others for additional research.
However, as I got into the program, I realized that this process turns out researchers who are proficient at reviewing the literature of others, but does little to spur independent creative thought. As an independent thinker, this process soon became frustrating and something I saw as unproductive. After much thought and prayer, I discovered that there were other directions in which I needed to go that would allow me to use my creative thinking in a productive manner.
I set up Grace Accounting Service LLC a year ago and have decided to use it as a vehicle to use my creative thinking. We will prepare taxes for individuals and businesses as well as helping them develop tax strategies. We will also help businesses hurt by the current recession develop strategies for recovery.
In addition to this, I will also begin teaching as an adjunct professor as a means of helping develop future creative business leaders. Leaders who will possess the critical thinking skills to confront challenges and successfully lead their organizations through them. As we continue to struggle through the recession and the challenges it brings, learning to think critically has never been more important.
I plan to use this blog to comment on current events, share insights on leadership in the twenty-first century, common sense economic principles, and encouragement and inspiration from God’s Word. My desire is for these discussions to spur your creative thinking process so you will be equipped to overcome challenges and excel in your lives and careers. I also welcome your comments, as they will help add to the discussion.
Monday, July 5, 2010
A compelling argument for guns rights.
Gun History
After reading the following historical facts, read the part about Switzerland, twice.
In 1929, the
Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929! to 1953, about 20,000,000 dissidents, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1..5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Germany estab lished gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend
themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56,000,000!!!
------------------------------
It has now been 16 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms
to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first
year statistics are now in:
Australia-wide: Homicides are up 3.2 percent.
Australia-wide: Assaults are up 8.6 percent.
Australia-wide: Armed robberies are up 44 percent..
Victoria-wide: Homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, so criminals still possess their guns!)
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey are unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won't see this data on the U.S. evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding
citizens..
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late! The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson. With guns, we are 'citizens.' Without them, we are 'subjects'.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends and relatives
The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and
skill is more important than either. No weapon can be properly used or wielded without the brain.
SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT TO WHOM
THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN-RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT'S A NO BRAINER, FOLKS!! DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET OR WORSE, A CHALK OUTLINE.
I'm a firm believer of the 2nd Amendment!
If you are too, please forward this note. Just consider how powerful our government is getting!
OUR GOVERNMENT THINKS THESE OTHER COUNTRIES SIMPLY DIDN’T DO IT RIGHT. WELL, LEARN A LESSON FROM HISTORY!!
Gun History
After reading the following historical facts, read the part about Switzerland, twice.
In 1929, the
Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929! to 1953, about 20,000,000 dissidents, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1..5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Germany estab lished gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend
themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56,000,000!!!
------------------------------
It has now been 16 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms
to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first
year statistics are now in:
Australia-wide: Homicides are up 3.2 percent.
Australia-wide: Assaults are up 8.6 percent.
Australia-wide: Armed robberies are up 44 percent..
Victoria-wide: Homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, so criminals still possess their guns!)
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey are unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won't see this data on the U.S. evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding
citizens..
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late! The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson. With guns, we are 'citizens.' Without them, we are 'subjects'.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends and relatives
The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and
skill is more important than either. No weapon can be properly used or wielded without the brain.
SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT TO WHOM
THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN-RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT'S A NO BRAINER, FOLKS!! DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET OR WORSE, A CHALK OUTLINE.
I'm a firm believer of the 2nd Amendment!
If you are too, please forward this note. Just consider how powerful our government is getting!
OUR GOVERNMENT THINKS THESE OTHER COUNTRIES SIMPLY DIDN’T DO IT RIGHT. WELL, LEARN A LESSON FROM HISTORY!!
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Noah’s Long Wait
By: Dale Weckbacher
After the fall of man in the garden and the murder of Abel by Cain, the human race became more and more corrupt. At the height of this corruption, we see the grief of God and God’s decision to completely wipe out the human race.
Gen 6:5-7
5 Now the LORD observed the extent of the people's wickedness, and he saw that all their thoughts were consistently and totally evil. 6 So the LORD was sorry he had ever made them. It broke his heart. 7 And the LORD said, "I will completely wipe out this human race that I have created. Yes, and I will destroy all the animals and birds, too. I am sorry I ever made them."
NLT
In the midst of this dire situation for mankind, we see one man, Noah who found special favor or grace with the Lord.
Gen 6:8
8 But Noah found favor with the LORD.
NLT
Verse 9 of Genesis 6 tells us why Noah found this favor with God.
Gen 6:9-10
9 This is the history of Noah and his family. Noah was a righteous man, the only blameless man living on earth at the time. He consistently followed God's will and enjoyed a close relationship with him.
NLT
God knew he could depend on Noah so he proceeds to give instructions to Noah on what to do to protect himself and his family.
Gen 6:11-22
11 Now the earth had become corrupt in God's sight, and it was filled with violence. 12 God observed all this corruption in the world, and he saw violence and depravity everywhere. 13 So God said to Noah, "I have decided to destroy all living creatures, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. Yes, I will wipe them all from the face of the earth!
14 "Make a boat from resinous wood and seal it with tar, inside and out. Then construct decks and stalls throughout its interior. 15 Make it 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high. 16 Construct an opening all the way around the boat, 18 inches below the roof. Then put three decks inside the boat — bottom, middle, and upper — and put a door in the side.
17 "Look! I am about to cover the earth with a flood that will destroy every living thing. Everything on earth will die! 18 But I solemnly swear to keep you safe in the boat, with your wife and your sons and their wives. 19 Bring a pair of every kind of animal — a male and a female — into the boat with you to keep them alive during the flood. 20 Pairs of each kind of bird and each kind of animal, large and small alike, will come to you to be kept alive. 21 And remember, take enough food for your family and for all the animals."
22 So Noah did everything exactly as God had commanded him.
NLT
120 years after God’s decision to wipe out mankind and instructing Noah to start building the ark, the flood came. How do we know this much time passed? The answer is in Genesis 6:2-3
Gen 6:2-3
3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not put up with humans for such a long time, for they are only mortal flesh. In the future, they will live no more than 120 years."
NLT
Some might interpret this passage to mean that the lifespan of man in the future would only be 120 years, but we do observe men and women living longer than 120 years after the flood.
Gen 11:10-26
10 This is the history of Shem's family.
When Shem was 100 years old, his son Arphaxad was born. This happened two years after the Flood. 11 After the birth of Arphaxad, Shem lived another 500 years and had other sons and daughters.
12 When Arphaxad was 35 years old, his son Shelah was born. 13 After the birth of Shelah, Arphaxad lived another 403 years and had other sons and daughters.
14 When Shelah was 30 years old, his son Eber was born. 15 After the birth of Eber, Shelah lived another 403 years and had other sons and daughters.
16 When Eber was 34 years old, his son Peleg was born. 17 After the birth of Peleg, Eber lived another 430 years and had other sons and daughters.
18 When Peleg was 30 years old, his son Reu was born. 19 After the birth of Reu, Peleg lived another 209 years and had other sons and daughters.
20 When Reu was 32 years old, his son Serug was born. 21 After the birth of Serug, Reu lived another 207 years and had other sons and daughters.
22 When Serug was 30 years old, his son Nahor was born. 23 After the birth of Nahor, Serug lived another 200 years and had other sons and daughters.
24 When Nahor was 29 years old, his son Terah was born. 25 After the birth of Terah, Nahor lived another 119 years and had other sons and daughters.
26 When Terah was 70 years old, he became the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
NLT
The correct interpretation of Genesis 6:3 is that the men living at that time were only going to live 120 years more. God could have destroyed them immediately but in his grace he was giving them time to come back to him. These people would have seen Noah building the ark for 120 years. Most likely, they would have asked Noah what he was doing. Noah, a righteous man of faith would have shared the truth with them and since none of these people joined Noah and his family in the ark, we can assume they did not believe what Noah told them.
Noah had to wait 120 years to see God fulfill his promise to him. The question we must ask ourselves is how long would we be willing to wait for the fulfillment of God’s promise to us?
Just as Noah’s faith was rewarded and his family was spared the destruction that God brought upon the earth, our faith in God’s fulfillment of his promises to us will also be rewarded. We live in tumultuous times and it often may seem that God has forgotten his promises to us. My word of encouragement to you is to remain faithful for God is true to his Word and he will reward our faithfulness to him.
After the fall of man in the garden and the murder of Abel by Cain, the human race became more and more corrupt. At the height of this corruption, we see the grief of God and God’s decision to completely wipe out the human race.
Gen 6:5-7
5 Now the LORD observed the extent of the people's wickedness, and he saw that all their thoughts were consistently and totally evil. 6 So the LORD was sorry he had ever made them. It broke his heart. 7 And the LORD said, "I will completely wipe out this human race that I have created. Yes, and I will destroy all the animals and birds, too. I am sorry I ever made them."
NLT
In the midst of this dire situation for mankind, we see one man, Noah who found special favor or grace with the Lord.
Gen 6:8
8 But Noah found favor with the LORD.
NLT
Verse 9 of Genesis 6 tells us why Noah found this favor with God.
Gen 6:9-10
9 This is the history of Noah and his family. Noah was a righteous man, the only blameless man living on earth at the time. He consistently followed God's will and enjoyed a close relationship with him.
NLT
God knew he could depend on Noah so he proceeds to give instructions to Noah on what to do to protect himself and his family.
Gen 6:11-22
11 Now the earth had become corrupt in God's sight, and it was filled with violence. 12 God observed all this corruption in the world, and he saw violence and depravity everywhere. 13 So God said to Noah, "I have decided to destroy all living creatures, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. Yes, I will wipe them all from the face of the earth!
14 "Make a boat from resinous wood and seal it with tar, inside and out. Then construct decks and stalls throughout its interior. 15 Make it 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high. 16 Construct an opening all the way around the boat, 18 inches below the roof. Then put three decks inside the boat — bottom, middle, and upper — and put a door in the side.
17 "Look! I am about to cover the earth with a flood that will destroy every living thing. Everything on earth will die! 18 But I solemnly swear to keep you safe in the boat, with your wife and your sons and their wives. 19 Bring a pair of every kind of animal — a male and a female — into the boat with you to keep them alive during the flood. 20 Pairs of each kind of bird and each kind of animal, large and small alike, will come to you to be kept alive. 21 And remember, take enough food for your family and for all the animals."
22 So Noah did everything exactly as God had commanded him.
NLT
120 years after God’s decision to wipe out mankind and instructing Noah to start building the ark, the flood came. How do we know this much time passed? The answer is in Genesis 6:2-3
Gen 6:2-3
3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not put up with humans for such a long time, for they are only mortal flesh. In the future, they will live no more than 120 years."
NLT
Some might interpret this passage to mean that the lifespan of man in the future would only be 120 years, but we do observe men and women living longer than 120 years after the flood.
Gen 11:10-26
10 This is the history of Shem's family.
When Shem was 100 years old, his son Arphaxad was born. This happened two years after the Flood. 11 After the birth of Arphaxad, Shem lived another 500 years and had other sons and daughters.
12 When Arphaxad was 35 years old, his son Shelah was born. 13 After the birth of Shelah, Arphaxad lived another 403 years and had other sons and daughters.
14 When Shelah was 30 years old, his son Eber was born. 15 After the birth of Eber, Shelah lived another 403 years and had other sons and daughters.
16 When Eber was 34 years old, his son Peleg was born. 17 After the birth of Peleg, Eber lived another 430 years and had other sons and daughters.
18 When Peleg was 30 years old, his son Reu was born. 19 After the birth of Reu, Peleg lived another 209 years and had other sons and daughters.
20 When Reu was 32 years old, his son Serug was born. 21 After the birth of Serug, Reu lived another 207 years and had other sons and daughters.
22 When Serug was 30 years old, his son Nahor was born. 23 After the birth of Nahor, Serug lived another 200 years and had other sons and daughters.
24 When Nahor was 29 years old, his son Terah was born. 25 After the birth of Terah, Nahor lived another 119 years and had other sons and daughters.
26 When Terah was 70 years old, he became the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
NLT
The correct interpretation of Genesis 6:3 is that the men living at that time were only going to live 120 years more. God could have destroyed them immediately but in his grace he was giving them time to come back to him. These people would have seen Noah building the ark for 120 years. Most likely, they would have asked Noah what he was doing. Noah, a righteous man of faith would have shared the truth with them and since none of these people joined Noah and his family in the ark, we can assume they did not believe what Noah told them.
Noah had to wait 120 years to see God fulfill his promise to him. The question we must ask ourselves is how long would we be willing to wait for the fulfillment of God’s promise to us?
Just as Noah’s faith was rewarded and his family was spared the destruction that God brought upon the earth, our faith in God’s fulfillment of his promises to us will also be rewarded. We live in tumultuous times and it often may seem that God has forgotten his promises to us. My word of encouragement to you is to remain faithful for God is true to his Word and he will reward our faithfulness to him.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Mr. President, What Country are You President of?
By: Dale Weckbacher
This week President Obama had the President of Mexico at the White House. Of course the hot topic of conversation was the Arizona immigration bill. The statement issued by The President in the Rose Garden was troubling and begs the question, Mr. President, what country are you president of?
Mr. Obama’s statement is as follows:
“We also discussed the new law in Arizona, which is a misdirected effort — a misdirected expression of frustration over our broken immigration system, and which has raised concerns in both our countries…
And I want everyone, American and Mexican, to know my administration is taking a very close look at the Arizona law. We’re examining any implications, especially for civil rights. Because in the United States of America, no law-abiding person — be they an American citizen, a legal immigrant, or a visitor or tourist from Mexico — should ever be subject to suspicion simply because of what they look like” (The Heritage Foundation, 2010).
It appears from this statement that President Obama is more interested in not violating the “rights” of individuals entering the United States illegally then protecting the people of Arizona. I live in Arizona and the last time I checked, Arizona is part of the United States. After all, I do recall filing a U.S. tax form this year.
Mr. Obama, the voters elected you President of the United States, not Mexico or the world. When you were sworn into office you promised to uphold the constitution of the United States, which includes protecting its citizens.
Phoenix Arizona is the capital of Arizona. Unfortunately, it is also the kidnapping capital of the U.S. In my own neighborhood, I cannot go to the public park behind my house without fearing for my safety. This is because my skin is not dark enough. I have no problem with anyone using the park no matter what color their skin is so it seems to me that the racism is not with me but others. The Reverend Martin Luther King’s dream was that people be judged by their character and not the color of their skin.
Those of us who favor the Arizona immigration bill are not being racist, we are only interested in the safety of our families. You are right in your statement that our immigration system is broken but the answer is not in catering to those who enter this country illegally. The goal of any countries immigration system is not to close the door on anyone who wants to enter the country but to allow the country to know who is coming into the country in order to protect the country’s citizens.
What is broken about our immigration system is that it takes an excessively long time to enter this country legally and it is extremely expensive. With today’s technology, it should be possible for us to run a background check on individuals wanting to enter this country in a rather short time-period. After successfully passing the background check, we can issue either a work-permit or a student visa so they can enter this country legally.
For those already in the country illegally, give them the opportunity to turn themselves in during a 60-day grace period and have a background check run. Upon passing the background check, they will be issued the proper documentation and become legal. They can then begin the process of becoming a citizen if they desire or they can re-apply for a work-permit of student visa every two years. Failure to do this during the grace period will result in deportation.
This will root out those in the country illegally who intend harm to our citizens since the last thing they will want to do is have a background check run. In fact, most of these people will most likely go home during the grace period rather than risk deportation leaving us with only those seeking a better life in this country.
Mr. President, rather than standing up before the cameras and demeaning the citizens of one of the states you are president of, take the initiative and begin serious immigration reform. Reform designed to insure the safety of the citizens you govern and not pander to the desires of some foreign dignitary visiting the White House.
References:
The Heritage Foundation. (2010). The Foundry. Retrieved from http://blog.heritage.org/2010/05/21/morning-bell-raising-arizonas-defense/
This week President Obama had the President of Mexico at the White House. Of course the hot topic of conversation was the Arizona immigration bill. The statement issued by The President in the Rose Garden was troubling and begs the question, Mr. President, what country are you president of?
Mr. Obama’s statement is as follows:
“We also discussed the new law in Arizona, which is a misdirected effort — a misdirected expression of frustration over our broken immigration system, and which has raised concerns in both our countries…
And I want everyone, American and Mexican, to know my administration is taking a very close look at the Arizona law. We’re examining any implications, especially for civil rights. Because in the United States of America, no law-abiding person — be they an American citizen, a legal immigrant, or a visitor or tourist from Mexico — should ever be subject to suspicion simply because of what they look like” (The Heritage Foundation, 2010).
It appears from this statement that President Obama is more interested in not violating the “rights” of individuals entering the United States illegally then protecting the people of Arizona. I live in Arizona and the last time I checked, Arizona is part of the United States. After all, I do recall filing a U.S. tax form this year.
Mr. Obama, the voters elected you President of the United States, not Mexico or the world. When you were sworn into office you promised to uphold the constitution of the United States, which includes protecting its citizens.
Phoenix Arizona is the capital of Arizona. Unfortunately, it is also the kidnapping capital of the U.S. In my own neighborhood, I cannot go to the public park behind my house without fearing for my safety. This is because my skin is not dark enough. I have no problem with anyone using the park no matter what color their skin is so it seems to me that the racism is not with me but others. The Reverend Martin Luther King’s dream was that people be judged by their character and not the color of their skin.
Those of us who favor the Arizona immigration bill are not being racist, we are only interested in the safety of our families. You are right in your statement that our immigration system is broken but the answer is not in catering to those who enter this country illegally. The goal of any countries immigration system is not to close the door on anyone who wants to enter the country but to allow the country to know who is coming into the country in order to protect the country’s citizens.
What is broken about our immigration system is that it takes an excessively long time to enter this country legally and it is extremely expensive. With today’s technology, it should be possible for us to run a background check on individuals wanting to enter this country in a rather short time-period. After successfully passing the background check, we can issue either a work-permit or a student visa so they can enter this country legally.
For those already in the country illegally, give them the opportunity to turn themselves in during a 60-day grace period and have a background check run. Upon passing the background check, they will be issued the proper documentation and become legal. They can then begin the process of becoming a citizen if they desire or they can re-apply for a work-permit of student visa every two years. Failure to do this during the grace period will result in deportation.
This will root out those in the country illegally who intend harm to our citizens since the last thing they will want to do is have a background check run. In fact, most of these people will most likely go home during the grace period rather than risk deportation leaving us with only those seeking a better life in this country.
Mr. President, rather than standing up before the cameras and demeaning the citizens of one of the states you are president of, take the initiative and begin serious immigration reform. Reform designed to insure the safety of the citizens you govern and not pander to the desires of some foreign dignitary visiting the White House.
References:
The Heritage Foundation. (2010). The Foundry. Retrieved from http://blog.heritage.org/2010/05/21/morning-bell-raising-arizonas-defense/
Finding the Ideal Leader (Part 6)
Leadership Qualities of Ronald Reagan
By: Dale Weckbacher
Bailey (2004) in a speech delivered at Bowling Green University outlined eight points that make up an ideal leader.
1) Having a vision
2) Communicating strongly and optimistically
3) Focusing on a few priorities
4) Exhibiting the courage of your convictions
5) Relentlessly preparing for the challenge
6) Being willing to take risks and make decisions
7) Understanding that you are a steward of other people’s resources
8) Caring about what you are doing….that is demonstrating passion
(Bailey, 2004)
One of the most powerful leaders in recent history has been President Ronald Reagan. He was able to take a country mired in stagflation and a protracted Cold War, transform its economy, and set in place the processes that would end the long protracted Cold War. However, was Ronald Reagan an ideal leader according to Bailey’s (2004) criteria? In the next few paragraphs, we will measure Reagan’s accomplishments against these criteria.
Reagan’s Vision:
The situation for the country in 1980 was dreary. The nation was suffering from stagflation, a situation with high inflation and a stagnant economy. To make matters worse radical Islamic Terrorists took over the embassy in Tehran. There was an attempt to rescue the hostages but it failed (Tristam 2010).
In Candidate Reagan’s acceptance speech at the 1980 Republican Convention, Reagan outlined his vision. “More than anything else, I want my candidacy to unify our country; to renew the American spirit and sense of purpose. I want to carry our message to every American, regardless of party affiliation, who is a member of this community of shared values” (Reagan 2020, 2006). Reagan had a positive message for a nation tired of stagflation and showing weakness on the world stage.
In preparing Reagan for the 1980 presidential debates, Martel (2006) remembers Reagan telling him that a leader “must be clear with his followers about what he stood for”. Reagan’s positive vision coupled with his ability to clearly communicate it to the voters resulted in a landslide victory in the 1980 election (Leip, 2005).
Reagan became the Leader of the United States because of his vision and his ability to clearly communicate it to his followers. However, after becoming President, would he be able to continue communicating his vision with strength and optimism?
The strength and optimism of Ronald Reagan:
Perhaps the greatest measure of a leader’s effectiveness is the leaving of a legacy that outlasts their tenure as leader. In commentary on the ongoing legacy of Ronald Reagan, Hallow & Lambro (2004) cited that his two greatest accomplishments were cutting taxes and defeating the Soviet Union.
The tax cuts initiated by Reagan resulted in unprecedented economic growth and were the basis used by President George W. Bush to bring the nation out of the recession caused by the bursting of the dotcom bubble and the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Even though the Soviet Union remained intact when Reagan left office, his policy of “peace through strength” and “trust but verify” laid the groundwork for the eventual fall of the Soviet Union. Once again the legacy of Reagan lives on as President George W. Bush adopted these same policies when facing a new enemy, radical Islamic Terrorism (Hallow & Lambro, 2004).
The legacy of Ronald Reagan’s policy and the fact the other leaders were able to successfully use similar policies when facing similar situations demonstrate the power and strength with which Reagan was able to communicate his vision even after he became leader.
Reagan’s simple but difficult plan of action:
Leaders often find themselves inheriting extremely desperate situations. These leaders often have trouble when they attempt to change too much too soon. In order to prevent himself from falling into that trap, President Reagan’s agenda upon taking office was a tenacious pursuit of a few strongly held convictions (i.e. cutting taxes, reducing regulations, restoring the national defense) (O’Toole, 2004) (Hallow & Lambro, 2004).
Even though Reagan’s agenda was simple, the initiation of the agenda would be difficult but throughout his tenure in office, Reagan remained the idealist (O’Toole, 2004). Just like Reagan’s optimistic vision was able to propel him into office, his tenacious optimism enabled him to follow-through on his promise and successfully implement his agenda, leaving a lasting legacy and pattern for future leaders to follow.
Reagan’s preparation for the challenge:
Martel (2006), worked as a debate advisor for Ronald Reagan during the 1980 campaign. In his book “Leadership Legacies”, he wrote of how he was impressed with Reagan’s belief that a leader “be clear with his followers about what he stood for”. Reagan had a strong set of core values, which had developed throughout his lifetime. In preparing for the debates, he wanted to make it clear that his responses clearly communicate these values to the voters.
Core values are something we acquire as we progress through our lives. Parents, teachers, and other people we encounter in our lives teach them to us. These core values prepare us to fulfill our calling in life. Reagan’s core values prepared him for the presidency and as long as he adhered to them, he found himself adequately prepared for whatever challenges he would face.
This is a valuable lesson for all leaders. We are prepared to lead according to the core values we have acquired in our lives but when we stray from these values, we will find ourselves unprepared for the consequences. David, King of Israel was known as a man after God’s own heart (1 Samuel 13:14) but when David sinned with Bathsheba, there were consequences for which David was not prepared to handle (2 Samuel 12:1-12). David had strayed from his core values and found himself ill prepared for the consequences that would follow (Holy Bible, n.d.). Reagan refused to fall into the same trap as David and as such, remained prepared to handle any and all challenges he would face.
Reagan’s willingness to take risks and make decisions:
In order for a leader to lead the way, he or she must be willing to take risks and make decisions. Every leader is one major bad decision away from being let go but failure to do anything or make any decisions is also a sure way to be let go as a leader. All leaders must be aware of this delicate balance.
When Ronald Reagan assumed The Presidency, he did so with a few simple and strongly held ideas and pursued them tenaciously. For Reagan quitting was not an option and he persisted until he accomplished what he wanted (Johnson, 2004). The risk with this strategy is what if what you want to do makes things worse instead of better.
This is where preparation and a dedication to ones values are most important. Ronald Reagan had no doubt that his policies were just what the country needed to come out of its troubles. This lack of doubt in is policies came after years of experience seeing these policies work in other situations. For Reagan, adopting these policies was no risk for he knew they would work.
Reagan also had a deep love for his country and wanted to see it succeed. As President he knew he had the power to initiate policies that would move his country forward and had no fear in implementing his policies.
The ideal leader must have a deep love and commitment to his or her organization. They must also have a deep set of core values from which they will formulate policies for success in their organizations. The ideal leader is then able to fearlessly move forward with their policies knowing the risks involved but moving forward anyway because of a deep belief in their policies. Ronald Reagan was this type of leader and this was why he was able to accomplish great things for his country and the world.
Reagan’s awareness of whose country it is:
The United States has a representative republic form of government. In a representative republic, the citizens elect representatives who make the policies that run the country. In other words, the citizens are the main stakeholders in the country and hire, or elect, leaders to represent them (Republic, 2010).
Reagan was fully aware of this and is why he was committed to restoring the confidence of the nation that had elected him to office (Johnson, 2004). He understood the importance of explaining his policies to the public that had elected him in a manner they could understand. He also understood the importance of explaining to the public how his policies would benefit them and make their lives better.
Whether we are leading a country, an organization, or our families, the people we lead are looking to us to lead them. We are not just leading an inanimate organization but we are leading people. As leaders we have the responsibility to empower those we lead and to enrich their lives. This is an enormous responsibility, but the leader that is willing to take it on will be greatly rewarded by those they lead and the legacy they leave will be remembered long after they are gone.
Reagan’s Passion:
Reagan had a simple idealistic plan to restore the United States back to greatness (O’Toole, 2004) as do most people who become leaders in their organizations. What sets great leaders apart from ordinary leaders is a deep passion for their organizations. This great passion drives them forward through opposition to success.
When seeking an ideal leader for an organization it is expedient to find someone with a contagious passion. A charismatic leader with tremendous passion will be able to get and hold the attention of those they lead. Their followers will not be following out of duty but out of a love for their leader and what he or she stands for.
However, passion alone is not a determinate of a great leader but must be compared with the other qualities of great leadership. With Reagan, the nation got a complete, but not infallible package.
Conclusion:
Bailey (2004) has provided qualities with which to judge leadership. When these are applied to leaders, we can assess their effectiveness as a leader. Applying these concepts to Ronald Reagan revealed much about his qualities and taught us some valuable lessons.
First, effective leaders must develop a vision and strongly communicate it with optimism. Reagan was known as the great communicator. He won election as President by strongly communicating his vision of a strong and prosperous America. He won the nation’s affection, and re-election, by never wavering in is commitment to his vision.
Secondly, Reagan spent his entire life developing his deeply held values of individualism and national security. His deep conviction to these values prepared him for the challenges of being President. Reagan was willing to take the risk of implementing policies in line with his values because he knew in his heart that they were right.
Finally, Reagan was effective because he maintained focus on a few priorities and did not think he had to accomplish everything right now. Leaders must learn to prioritize their agenda. This way they will focus on what is most important and work down from there.
In future leadership postings I plan to apply Bailey’s qualities to other leaders. I invite you to respond to this post with ideas of leaders to investigate.
Resources:
Bailey, J. (2004). Taking Precedent From Presidents. Vital Speeches of the Day, 70(20),
626-630. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.
Hallow, R., & Lambro, D. (2004). Legacy: Tax Cuts and the End of the USSR. World &
I, 19(7), N.PAG. Retrieved from International Security & Counter Terrorism
Reference Center database.
Holy Bible (n.d.). The new american standard bible, Updated Edition (2002), Anaheim California, Foundations Publications Inc.,
Johnson, P. (2004). A New Beginning. National Review, 56(12), 18-20. Retrieved from
Academic Search Complete database.
Leip, D. (2005). 1980 Presidential general election results. Uselectionatlas.org. Retrieved 1/4/2010. http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1980.
Martel, M. (2006). On goodwill and great leadership. Directors & Boards, 30(3), 80.
Retrieved from Business Source Complete database.
O'Toole, J. (2004). The Realist-Idealist Dilemma. Fast Company, (86), 31-32. Retrieved
from Business Source Complete database.
Reagan 2020, (2006) Acceptance of Republican nomination for president at the 1980 Republican National Convention in Detroit Michigan. Reagan 2020, Retrieved 1/4/2010, http://reagan2020.us/speeches/nomination_acceotance_1980.asp.
Republic. (2010). In Encyclopedia Britannica (Online edition). Retrieved from http://www.search.ed.com.exproxy.apollolibrary.com/eb/article-9473188
Tristam, P. (2010). What was operation eagle claw, the failed rescue of American hostages in Iran? About.com Guide, Retrieved 1/4/2010, http://miccleeast.about.com/od/usmideastpolicy/f/me090413c.htm.
By: Dale Weckbacher
Bailey (2004) in a speech delivered at Bowling Green University outlined eight points that make up an ideal leader.
1) Having a vision
2) Communicating strongly and optimistically
3) Focusing on a few priorities
4) Exhibiting the courage of your convictions
5) Relentlessly preparing for the challenge
6) Being willing to take risks and make decisions
7) Understanding that you are a steward of other people’s resources
8) Caring about what you are doing….that is demonstrating passion
(Bailey, 2004)
One of the most powerful leaders in recent history has been President Ronald Reagan. He was able to take a country mired in stagflation and a protracted Cold War, transform its economy, and set in place the processes that would end the long protracted Cold War. However, was Ronald Reagan an ideal leader according to Bailey’s (2004) criteria? In the next few paragraphs, we will measure Reagan’s accomplishments against these criteria.
Reagan’s Vision:
The situation for the country in 1980 was dreary. The nation was suffering from stagflation, a situation with high inflation and a stagnant economy. To make matters worse radical Islamic Terrorists took over the embassy in Tehran. There was an attempt to rescue the hostages but it failed (Tristam 2010).
In Candidate Reagan’s acceptance speech at the 1980 Republican Convention, Reagan outlined his vision. “More than anything else, I want my candidacy to unify our country; to renew the American spirit and sense of purpose. I want to carry our message to every American, regardless of party affiliation, who is a member of this community of shared values” (Reagan 2020, 2006). Reagan had a positive message for a nation tired of stagflation and showing weakness on the world stage.
In preparing Reagan for the 1980 presidential debates, Martel (2006) remembers Reagan telling him that a leader “must be clear with his followers about what he stood for”. Reagan’s positive vision coupled with his ability to clearly communicate it to the voters resulted in a landslide victory in the 1980 election (Leip, 2005).
Reagan became the Leader of the United States because of his vision and his ability to clearly communicate it to his followers. However, after becoming President, would he be able to continue communicating his vision with strength and optimism?
The strength and optimism of Ronald Reagan:
Perhaps the greatest measure of a leader’s effectiveness is the leaving of a legacy that outlasts their tenure as leader. In commentary on the ongoing legacy of Ronald Reagan, Hallow & Lambro (2004) cited that his two greatest accomplishments were cutting taxes and defeating the Soviet Union.
The tax cuts initiated by Reagan resulted in unprecedented economic growth and were the basis used by President George W. Bush to bring the nation out of the recession caused by the bursting of the dotcom bubble and the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Even though the Soviet Union remained intact when Reagan left office, his policy of “peace through strength” and “trust but verify” laid the groundwork for the eventual fall of the Soviet Union. Once again the legacy of Reagan lives on as President George W. Bush adopted these same policies when facing a new enemy, radical Islamic Terrorism (Hallow & Lambro, 2004).
The legacy of Ronald Reagan’s policy and the fact the other leaders were able to successfully use similar policies when facing similar situations demonstrate the power and strength with which Reagan was able to communicate his vision even after he became leader.
Reagan’s simple but difficult plan of action:
Leaders often find themselves inheriting extremely desperate situations. These leaders often have trouble when they attempt to change too much too soon. In order to prevent himself from falling into that trap, President Reagan’s agenda upon taking office was a tenacious pursuit of a few strongly held convictions (i.e. cutting taxes, reducing regulations, restoring the national defense) (O’Toole, 2004) (Hallow & Lambro, 2004).
Even though Reagan’s agenda was simple, the initiation of the agenda would be difficult but throughout his tenure in office, Reagan remained the idealist (O’Toole, 2004). Just like Reagan’s optimistic vision was able to propel him into office, his tenacious optimism enabled him to follow-through on his promise and successfully implement his agenda, leaving a lasting legacy and pattern for future leaders to follow.
Reagan’s preparation for the challenge:
Martel (2006), worked as a debate advisor for Ronald Reagan during the 1980 campaign. In his book “Leadership Legacies”, he wrote of how he was impressed with Reagan’s belief that a leader “be clear with his followers about what he stood for”. Reagan had a strong set of core values, which had developed throughout his lifetime. In preparing for the debates, he wanted to make it clear that his responses clearly communicate these values to the voters.
Core values are something we acquire as we progress through our lives. Parents, teachers, and other people we encounter in our lives teach them to us. These core values prepare us to fulfill our calling in life. Reagan’s core values prepared him for the presidency and as long as he adhered to them, he found himself adequately prepared for whatever challenges he would face.
This is a valuable lesson for all leaders. We are prepared to lead according to the core values we have acquired in our lives but when we stray from these values, we will find ourselves unprepared for the consequences. David, King of Israel was known as a man after God’s own heart (1 Samuel 13:14) but when David sinned with Bathsheba, there were consequences for which David was not prepared to handle (2 Samuel 12:1-12). David had strayed from his core values and found himself ill prepared for the consequences that would follow (Holy Bible, n.d.). Reagan refused to fall into the same trap as David and as such, remained prepared to handle any and all challenges he would face.
Reagan’s willingness to take risks and make decisions:
In order for a leader to lead the way, he or she must be willing to take risks and make decisions. Every leader is one major bad decision away from being let go but failure to do anything or make any decisions is also a sure way to be let go as a leader. All leaders must be aware of this delicate balance.
When Ronald Reagan assumed The Presidency, he did so with a few simple and strongly held ideas and pursued them tenaciously. For Reagan quitting was not an option and he persisted until he accomplished what he wanted (Johnson, 2004). The risk with this strategy is what if what you want to do makes things worse instead of better.
This is where preparation and a dedication to ones values are most important. Ronald Reagan had no doubt that his policies were just what the country needed to come out of its troubles. This lack of doubt in is policies came after years of experience seeing these policies work in other situations. For Reagan, adopting these policies was no risk for he knew they would work.
Reagan also had a deep love for his country and wanted to see it succeed. As President he knew he had the power to initiate policies that would move his country forward and had no fear in implementing his policies.
The ideal leader must have a deep love and commitment to his or her organization. They must also have a deep set of core values from which they will formulate policies for success in their organizations. The ideal leader is then able to fearlessly move forward with their policies knowing the risks involved but moving forward anyway because of a deep belief in their policies. Ronald Reagan was this type of leader and this was why he was able to accomplish great things for his country and the world.
Reagan’s awareness of whose country it is:
The United States has a representative republic form of government. In a representative republic, the citizens elect representatives who make the policies that run the country. In other words, the citizens are the main stakeholders in the country and hire, or elect, leaders to represent them (Republic, 2010).
Reagan was fully aware of this and is why he was committed to restoring the confidence of the nation that had elected him to office (Johnson, 2004). He understood the importance of explaining his policies to the public that had elected him in a manner they could understand. He also understood the importance of explaining to the public how his policies would benefit them and make their lives better.
Whether we are leading a country, an organization, or our families, the people we lead are looking to us to lead them. We are not just leading an inanimate organization but we are leading people. As leaders we have the responsibility to empower those we lead and to enrich their lives. This is an enormous responsibility, but the leader that is willing to take it on will be greatly rewarded by those they lead and the legacy they leave will be remembered long after they are gone.
Reagan’s Passion:
Reagan had a simple idealistic plan to restore the United States back to greatness (O’Toole, 2004) as do most people who become leaders in their organizations. What sets great leaders apart from ordinary leaders is a deep passion for their organizations. This great passion drives them forward through opposition to success.
When seeking an ideal leader for an organization it is expedient to find someone with a contagious passion. A charismatic leader with tremendous passion will be able to get and hold the attention of those they lead. Their followers will not be following out of duty but out of a love for their leader and what he or she stands for.
However, passion alone is not a determinate of a great leader but must be compared with the other qualities of great leadership. With Reagan, the nation got a complete, but not infallible package.
Conclusion:
Bailey (2004) has provided qualities with which to judge leadership. When these are applied to leaders, we can assess their effectiveness as a leader. Applying these concepts to Ronald Reagan revealed much about his qualities and taught us some valuable lessons.
First, effective leaders must develop a vision and strongly communicate it with optimism. Reagan was known as the great communicator. He won election as President by strongly communicating his vision of a strong and prosperous America. He won the nation’s affection, and re-election, by never wavering in is commitment to his vision.
Secondly, Reagan spent his entire life developing his deeply held values of individualism and national security. His deep conviction to these values prepared him for the challenges of being President. Reagan was willing to take the risk of implementing policies in line with his values because he knew in his heart that they were right.
Finally, Reagan was effective because he maintained focus on a few priorities and did not think he had to accomplish everything right now. Leaders must learn to prioritize their agenda. This way they will focus on what is most important and work down from there.
In future leadership postings I plan to apply Bailey’s qualities to other leaders. I invite you to respond to this post with ideas of leaders to investigate.
Resources:
Bailey, J. (2004). Taking Precedent From Presidents. Vital Speeches of the Day, 70(20),
626-630. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.
Hallow, R., & Lambro, D. (2004). Legacy: Tax Cuts and the End of the USSR. World &
I, 19(7), N.PAG. Retrieved from International Security & Counter Terrorism
Reference Center database.
Holy Bible (n.d.). The new american standard bible, Updated Edition (2002), Anaheim California, Foundations Publications Inc.,
Johnson, P. (2004). A New Beginning. National Review, 56(12), 18-20. Retrieved from
Academic Search Complete database.
Leip, D. (2005). 1980 Presidential general election results. Uselectionatlas.org. Retrieved 1/4/2010. http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1980.
Martel, M. (2006). On goodwill and great leadership. Directors & Boards, 30(3), 80.
Retrieved from Business Source Complete database.
O'Toole, J. (2004). The Realist-Idealist Dilemma. Fast Company, (86), 31-32. Retrieved
from Business Source Complete database.
Reagan 2020, (2006) Acceptance of Republican nomination for president at the 1980 Republican National Convention in Detroit Michigan. Reagan 2020, Retrieved 1/4/2010, http://reagan2020.us/speeches/nomination_acceotance_1980.asp.
Republic. (2010). In Encyclopedia Britannica (Online edition). Retrieved from http://www.search.ed.com.exproxy.apollolibrary.com/eb/article-9473188
Tristam, P. (2010). What was operation eagle claw, the failed rescue of American hostages in Iran? About.com Guide, Retrieved 1/4/2010, http://miccleeast.about.com/od/usmideastpolicy/f/me090413c.htm.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
It’s About Security Not Racism
By: Dale Weckbacher
Arizona Senate bill 1020 has created quite a national stir making Arizona a center of political attention in our country. On the one hand, we hear that this law will mean that authorities in Arizona will stop people on the streets asking them to show their papers. This scenario sounds like something out of a spy movie in the Soviet Union during the Cold War. On the other hand, some claim that the bill does not promote racial profiling and actually prohibits it. They claim that the purpose of the bill is only to enforce federal immigration legislation that is already on the books. So, which side is correct on this issue?
In order to determine that, we must determine if anyone has actually read the bill. In testimony before congress on Thursday May 13, 2010, Attorney General Eric Holder admitted that he has not read the bill even though he is contemplating legal action against it. When questioned about his constitutional concerns over legislation he has not read, he admitted that his opinion was based on newspaper accounts, television, and talking to people who are on the review panel. In other words, he is basing his statement on hearsay evidence; something a highly educated attorney such as himself should know is not credible evidence (Fox news, 2010). In addition, President Obama has not read the legislation either but feels free to lampoon it at the White House Correspondents Dinner (O'Hannigan, 2010).
Gabriela Salcedo, who has actually taken the time to read the 16-page legislation, made a passionate debate in favor of the legislation at a recent Tucson City Council meeting (O’Hannigan, 2010). It appears that those who have actually taken a few minutes to read the bill, without any political agenda, interested in the security of themselves and their families have a completely different opinion than those with a political agenda who have not. However, why should that surprise any of us?
Ever since the current crew took over we have had a stimulus package and health care legislation passed by The Congress and signed by The President without being read either. It seems that the mode of operation for this bunch is to pass or comment on legislation based on some political agenda or hearsay evidence rather then taking the time to read the actual legislation.
My recommendation to the voters in the next election is quite simple. Ask them if they can read and if they will read any and all legislation presented to them for a vote or a signature. If the cannot answer yes to both questions, do not vote for them. What we need are literate legislators that will take the time to read what they vote on instead of just rubber-stamping it because of its political expediency. This legislation is not about race but the safety and security of the people of Arizona.
References:
Fox News (2010, May 14). Holder admits to not reading Arizona's immigration law
dispite cirticizing it.. Retrieved May 16, 2010,
http://www.foxnews.com/polotics/2010/05/13/holder-admits-reading-arizonas immigration-law-despite-slamming/
O'Hannigan, P. (2010, May 14). The governor, the president, and the race card. The
American Spectator, 6:08 AM, . Retrieved May 16, 2010,
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/05/14/the-governor-the -president-and
Arizona Senate bill 1020 has created quite a national stir making Arizona a center of political attention in our country. On the one hand, we hear that this law will mean that authorities in Arizona will stop people on the streets asking them to show their papers. This scenario sounds like something out of a spy movie in the Soviet Union during the Cold War. On the other hand, some claim that the bill does not promote racial profiling and actually prohibits it. They claim that the purpose of the bill is only to enforce federal immigration legislation that is already on the books. So, which side is correct on this issue?
In order to determine that, we must determine if anyone has actually read the bill. In testimony before congress on Thursday May 13, 2010, Attorney General Eric Holder admitted that he has not read the bill even though he is contemplating legal action against it. When questioned about his constitutional concerns over legislation he has not read, he admitted that his opinion was based on newspaper accounts, television, and talking to people who are on the review panel. In other words, he is basing his statement on hearsay evidence; something a highly educated attorney such as himself should know is not credible evidence (Fox news, 2010). In addition, President Obama has not read the legislation either but feels free to lampoon it at the White House Correspondents Dinner (O'Hannigan, 2010).
Gabriela Salcedo, who has actually taken the time to read the 16-page legislation, made a passionate debate in favor of the legislation at a recent Tucson City Council meeting (O’Hannigan, 2010). It appears that those who have actually taken a few minutes to read the bill, without any political agenda, interested in the security of themselves and their families have a completely different opinion than those with a political agenda who have not. However, why should that surprise any of us?
Ever since the current crew took over we have had a stimulus package and health care legislation passed by The Congress and signed by The President without being read either. It seems that the mode of operation for this bunch is to pass or comment on legislation based on some political agenda or hearsay evidence rather then taking the time to read the actual legislation.
My recommendation to the voters in the next election is quite simple. Ask them if they can read and if they will read any and all legislation presented to them for a vote or a signature. If the cannot answer yes to both questions, do not vote for them. What we need are literate legislators that will take the time to read what they vote on instead of just rubber-stamping it because of its political expediency. This legislation is not about race but the safety and security of the people of Arizona.
References:
Fox News (2010, May 14). Holder admits to not reading Arizona's immigration law
dispite cirticizing it.. Retrieved May 16, 2010,
http://www.foxnews.com/polotics/2010/05/13/holder-admits-reading-arizonas immigration-law-despite-slamming/
O'Hannigan, P. (2010, May 14). The governor, the president, and the race card. The
American Spectator, 6:08 AM, . Retrieved May 16, 2010,
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/05/14/the-governor-the -president-and
The Best Use of Knowledge
By: Dale Weckbacher
Ps 46:10-11
10 "Be silent, and know that I am God!
I will be honored by every nation.
I will be honored throughout the world."
11 The LORD Almighty is here among us;
the God of Israel is our fortress.
NLT
We live in complex times and face many challenges. How will we survive the rough economic times we face as a nation? What will we do to keep our nation and ourselves safe from criminals and terrorists? What will I do if I loose my home? What will I do if I loose my job?
These are real questions asked by many of us today. The message in Psalm 46:10-11 is telling us to be still in these times and know that God is in control. In the end all nations and the entire world, will honor God. The greatest message, however, is that this same God is here among us right now. He is our fortress in these challenging times but many do not acknowledge Him and instead try to navigate these challenges on their own.
Many think that their education will deliver them. I can relate here as someone who has two college degrees and is working on their doctorate degree. It is easy to think that I have the education to determine what is necessary to succeed in these times but no education in the world can give you what God has for God knows the future.
Rom 8:28
28 And we know that God causes everything to work together for the good of those who love God and are called according to his purpose for them.
NLT
Our future can be secure with God on our side. All we need to do is love Him and be called. Everyone who has accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior has expressed their love for Him but how do we know if we have been called?
1 Cor 7:17
17 You must accept whatever situation the Lord has put you in, and continue on as you were when God first called you. This is my rule for all the churches.
NLT
The context of this passage is a teaching by the Apostle Paul regarding Marriage. He is answering the question on whether it is better to be married or remain single. Since every person, whether male of female, is either married or single, we can conclude that this instruction applies to everyone. Therefore, we can conclude that God has called every one of us. Our work for Christ may be different, but every one of us who have given their hearts to Christ is called.
Therefore, the message of Romans 8:28 applies to every believer who loves God. This gives us hope for no matter how bleak our situation seems, God has something good waiting for us on the other side.
This does not mean that acquiring an education is not necessary for all knowledge comes from God (Proverbs 2:6) but I am encouraging everyone not to forget God and only trust in their education. Therefore, I encourage everyone to join me today in learning to depend on God and let him show us how to apply the knowledge he has given us in order to learn how to navigate these challenging times.
If you have not accepted Jesus Christ as your savior, I encourage you to do it now.
Rom 10:9
9 For if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
NLT
Pray with me know. Lord Jesus, I know I have sinned in my life. I ask you to forgive me of my sins. I love you and want you to be the Lord of my life. I believe you died, were buried, and rose again from the dead. Come into my life and be Lord of my life.
If you have prayed this prayer, reply to this posting and let me know. I will not contact you or put you on a mailing list. I simply want to pray for you. You can also click on the link for spiritual help on the right side or this blog. Go to the link on “How to know God” and request a New Believers Packet. This packet will not place you on anyone’s mailing list but contains valuable information on what to do now.
May God Bless you.
Ps 46:10-11
10 "Be silent, and know that I am God!
I will be honored by every nation.
I will be honored throughout the world."
11 The LORD Almighty is here among us;
the God of Israel is our fortress.
NLT
We live in complex times and face many challenges. How will we survive the rough economic times we face as a nation? What will we do to keep our nation and ourselves safe from criminals and terrorists? What will I do if I loose my home? What will I do if I loose my job?
These are real questions asked by many of us today. The message in Psalm 46:10-11 is telling us to be still in these times and know that God is in control. In the end all nations and the entire world, will honor God. The greatest message, however, is that this same God is here among us right now. He is our fortress in these challenging times but many do not acknowledge Him and instead try to navigate these challenges on their own.
Many think that their education will deliver them. I can relate here as someone who has two college degrees and is working on their doctorate degree. It is easy to think that I have the education to determine what is necessary to succeed in these times but no education in the world can give you what God has for God knows the future.
Rom 8:28
28 And we know that God causes everything to work together for the good of those who love God and are called according to his purpose for them.
NLT
Our future can be secure with God on our side. All we need to do is love Him and be called. Everyone who has accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior has expressed their love for Him but how do we know if we have been called?
1 Cor 7:17
17 You must accept whatever situation the Lord has put you in, and continue on as you were when God first called you. This is my rule for all the churches.
NLT
The context of this passage is a teaching by the Apostle Paul regarding Marriage. He is answering the question on whether it is better to be married or remain single. Since every person, whether male of female, is either married or single, we can conclude that this instruction applies to everyone. Therefore, we can conclude that God has called every one of us. Our work for Christ may be different, but every one of us who have given their hearts to Christ is called.
Therefore, the message of Romans 8:28 applies to every believer who loves God. This gives us hope for no matter how bleak our situation seems, God has something good waiting for us on the other side.
This does not mean that acquiring an education is not necessary for all knowledge comes from God (Proverbs 2:6) but I am encouraging everyone not to forget God and only trust in their education. Therefore, I encourage everyone to join me today in learning to depend on God and let him show us how to apply the knowledge he has given us in order to learn how to navigate these challenging times.
If you have not accepted Jesus Christ as your savior, I encourage you to do it now.
Rom 10:9
9 For if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
NLT
Pray with me know. Lord Jesus, I know I have sinned in my life. I ask you to forgive me of my sins. I love you and want you to be the Lord of my life. I believe you died, were buried, and rose again from the dead. Come into my life and be Lord of my life.
If you have prayed this prayer, reply to this posting and let me know. I will not contact you or put you on a mailing list. I simply want to pray for you. You can also click on the link for spiritual help on the right side or this blog. Go to the link on “How to know God” and request a New Believers Packet. This packet will not place you on anyone’s mailing list but contains valuable information on what to do now.
May God Bless you.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Great Men of Faith (Moses)
Another great man of faith in the Bible is Moses. Moses miraculously survived Pharaoh’s death sentence at birth because God had great plans for him.
Ex 1:22-2:10
22 Then Pharaoh gave this order to all his people: "Throw all the newborn Israelite boys into the Nile River. But you may spare the baby girls."
1 During this time, a man and woman from the tribe of Levi got married. 2 The woman became pregnant and gave birth to a son. She saw what a beautiful baby he was and kept him hidden for three months. 3 But when she could no longer hide him, she got a little basket made of papyrus reeds and waterproofed it with tar and pitch. She put the baby in the basket and laid it among the reeds along the edge of the Nile River. 4 The baby's sister then stood at a distance, watching to see what would happen to him.
5 Soon after this, one of Pharaoh's daughters came down to bathe in the river, and her servant girls walked along the riverbank. When the princess saw the little basket among the reeds, she told one of her servant girls to get it for her. 6 As the princess opened it, she found the baby boy. His helpless cries touched her heart. "He must be one of the Hebrew children," she said.
7 Then the baby's sister approached the princess. "Should I go and find one of the Hebrew women to nurse the baby for you?" she asked.
8 "Yes, do!" the princess replied. So the girl rushed home and called the baby's mother.
9 "Take this child home and nurse him for me," the princess told her. "I will pay you for your help." So the baby's mother took her baby home and nursed him.
10 Later, when he was older, the child's mother brought him back to the princess, who adopted him as her son. The princess named him Moses, for she said, "I drew him out of the water."
NLT
Moses, perhaps aware of the circumstances surrounding his birth, visits his people and comes to their defense but it was not God’s time.
Ex 2:11-15
11 Many years later, when Moses had grown up, he went out to visit his people, the Israelites, and he saw how hard they were forced to work. During his visit, he saw an Egyptian beating one of the Hebrew slaves. 12 After looking around to make sure no one was watching, Moses killed the Egyptian and buried him in the sand.
13 The next day, as Moses was out visiting his people again, he saw two Hebrew men fighting. "What are you doing, hitting your neighbor like that?" Moses said to the one in the wrong.
14 "Who do you think you are?" the man replied. "Who appointed you to be our prince and judge? Do you plan to kill me as you killed that Egyptian yesterday?"
Moses was badly frightened because he realized that everyone knew what he had done. 15 And sure enough, when Pharaoh heard about it, he gave orders to have Moses arrested and killed. But Moses fled from Pharaoh and escaped to the land of Midian.
NLT
Now living in exile, Moses finds himself tending his father-in-law’s flocks. This may have seemed demeaning to Moses but God was training him for his eventual shepherding of the people of Israel out of Egypt. Then after many years, he confronts God at the burning bush and receives his calling from God.
Ex 3:1-10
1 One day Moses was tending the flock of his father-in-law, Jethro, the priest of Midian, and he went deep into the wilderness near Sinai, the mountain of God. 2 Suddenly, the angel of the LORD appeared to him as a blazing fire in a bush. Moses was amazed because the bush was engulfed in flames, but it didn't burn up. 3 "Amazing!" Moses said to himself. "Why isn't that bush burning up? I must go over to see this."
4 When the LORD saw that he had caught Moses' attention, God called to him from the bush, "Moses! Moses!"
"Here I am!" Moses replied.
5 "Do not come any closer," God told him. "Take off your sandals, for you are standing on holy ground." 6 Then he said, "I am the God of your ancestors — the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." When Moses heard this, he hid his face in his hands because he was afraid to look at God.
7 Then the LORD told him, "You can be sure I have seen the misery of my people in Egypt. I have heard their cries for deliverance from their harsh slave drivers. Yes, I am aware of their suffering. 8 So I have come to rescue them from the Egyptians and lead them out of Egypt into their own good and spacious land. It is a land flowing with milk and honey — the land where the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites live. 9 The cries of the people of Israel have reached me, and I have seen how the Egyptians have oppressed them with heavy tasks. 10 Now go, for I am sending you to Pharaoh. You will lead my people, the Israelites, out of Egypt."
NLT
However, Moses is reluctant to go and offers up numerous excuses. Perhaps he was remembering what happened the last time he tried to come to his Israelites defense. He has also learned to wait on God and this time God would be with him.
In the remainder of the book of Exodus and the books of Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, we see how Moses was able to lead the people to the edge of the Promised Land but was not allowed to go in due to his lack of faith in God at the waters of Meribah.
Num 20:1-13
1 In early spring the people of Israel arrived in the wilderness of Zin and camped at Kadesh. While they were there, Miriam died and was buried.
2 There was no water for the people to drink at that place, so they rebelled against Moses and Aaron. 3 The people blamed Moses and said, "We wish we had died in the LORD's presence with our brothers! 4 Did you bring the LORD's people into this wilderness to die, along with all our livestock? 5 Why did you make us leave Egypt and bring us here to this terrible place? This land has no grain, figs, grapes, or pomegranates. And there is no water to drink!"
6 Moses and Aaron turned away from the people and went to the entrance of the Tabernacle, where they fell face down on the ground. Then the glorious presence of the LORD appeared to them, 7 and the LORD said to Moses, 8 "You and Aaron must take the staff and assemble the entire community. As the people watch, command the rock over there to pour out its water. You will get enough water from the rock to satisfy all the people and their livestock."
9 So Moses did as he was told. He took the staff from the place where it was kept before the LORD. 10 Then he and Aaron summoned the people to come and gather at the rock. "Listen, you rebels!" he shouted. "Must we bring you water from this rock?" 11 Then Moses raised his hand and struck the rock twice with the staff, and water gushed out. So all the people and their livestock drank their fill.
12 But the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "Because you did not trust me enough to demonstrate my holiness to the people of Israel, you will not lead them into the land I am giving them!" 13 This place was known as the waters of Meribah, because it was where the people of Israel argued with the LORD, and where he demonstrated his holiness among them.
NLT
The lessons we can learn from Moses are
1) God has a plan for our lives and no matter what may try to destroy us, God’s plan will be accomplished.
2) When we attempt to fulfill God’s plan in our way, it ends in failure.
3) When we wait to receive our calling from God, he will give us the help and resources we need to accomplish it.
4) Just because we have his calling does not give us an excuse to be disobedient for disobedience to Gods direction always has consequences.
In the difficult times in which we live, we need to be like Moses knowing that God has a divine plan for our lives. We must not run ahead of God but wait on him to reveal his plan for us and when we have God’s plan we must move forward in total obedience to the instructions God gives us.
Ex 1:22-2:10
22 Then Pharaoh gave this order to all his people: "Throw all the newborn Israelite boys into the Nile River. But you may spare the baby girls."
1 During this time, a man and woman from the tribe of Levi got married. 2 The woman became pregnant and gave birth to a son. She saw what a beautiful baby he was and kept him hidden for three months. 3 But when she could no longer hide him, she got a little basket made of papyrus reeds and waterproofed it with tar and pitch. She put the baby in the basket and laid it among the reeds along the edge of the Nile River. 4 The baby's sister then stood at a distance, watching to see what would happen to him.
5 Soon after this, one of Pharaoh's daughters came down to bathe in the river, and her servant girls walked along the riverbank. When the princess saw the little basket among the reeds, she told one of her servant girls to get it for her. 6 As the princess opened it, she found the baby boy. His helpless cries touched her heart. "He must be one of the Hebrew children," she said.
7 Then the baby's sister approached the princess. "Should I go and find one of the Hebrew women to nurse the baby for you?" she asked.
8 "Yes, do!" the princess replied. So the girl rushed home and called the baby's mother.
9 "Take this child home and nurse him for me," the princess told her. "I will pay you for your help." So the baby's mother took her baby home and nursed him.
10 Later, when he was older, the child's mother brought him back to the princess, who adopted him as her son. The princess named him Moses, for she said, "I drew him out of the water."
NLT
Moses, perhaps aware of the circumstances surrounding his birth, visits his people and comes to their defense but it was not God’s time.
Ex 2:11-15
11 Many years later, when Moses had grown up, he went out to visit his people, the Israelites, and he saw how hard they were forced to work. During his visit, he saw an Egyptian beating one of the Hebrew slaves. 12 After looking around to make sure no one was watching, Moses killed the Egyptian and buried him in the sand.
13 The next day, as Moses was out visiting his people again, he saw two Hebrew men fighting. "What are you doing, hitting your neighbor like that?" Moses said to the one in the wrong.
14 "Who do you think you are?" the man replied. "Who appointed you to be our prince and judge? Do you plan to kill me as you killed that Egyptian yesterday?"
Moses was badly frightened because he realized that everyone knew what he had done. 15 And sure enough, when Pharaoh heard about it, he gave orders to have Moses arrested and killed. But Moses fled from Pharaoh and escaped to the land of Midian.
NLT
Now living in exile, Moses finds himself tending his father-in-law’s flocks. This may have seemed demeaning to Moses but God was training him for his eventual shepherding of the people of Israel out of Egypt. Then after many years, he confronts God at the burning bush and receives his calling from God.
Ex 3:1-10
1 One day Moses was tending the flock of his father-in-law, Jethro, the priest of Midian, and he went deep into the wilderness near Sinai, the mountain of God. 2 Suddenly, the angel of the LORD appeared to him as a blazing fire in a bush. Moses was amazed because the bush was engulfed in flames, but it didn't burn up. 3 "Amazing!" Moses said to himself. "Why isn't that bush burning up? I must go over to see this."
4 When the LORD saw that he had caught Moses' attention, God called to him from the bush, "Moses! Moses!"
"Here I am!" Moses replied.
5 "Do not come any closer," God told him. "Take off your sandals, for you are standing on holy ground." 6 Then he said, "I am the God of your ancestors — the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." When Moses heard this, he hid his face in his hands because he was afraid to look at God.
7 Then the LORD told him, "You can be sure I have seen the misery of my people in Egypt. I have heard their cries for deliverance from their harsh slave drivers. Yes, I am aware of their suffering. 8 So I have come to rescue them from the Egyptians and lead them out of Egypt into their own good and spacious land. It is a land flowing with milk and honey — the land where the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites live. 9 The cries of the people of Israel have reached me, and I have seen how the Egyptians have oppressed them with heavy tasks. 10 Now go, for I am sending you to Pharaoh. You will lead my people, the Israelites, out of Egypt."
NLT
However, Moses is reluctant to go and offers up numerous excuses. Perhaps he was remembering what happened the last time he tried to come to his Israelites defense. He has also learned to wait on God and this time God would be with him.
In the remainder of the book of Exodus and the books of Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, we see how Moses was able to lead the people to the edge of the Promised Land but was not allowed to go in due to his lack of faith in God at the waters of Meribah.
Num 20:1-13
1 In early spring the people of Israel arrived in the wilderness of Zin and camped at Kadesh. While they were there, Miriam died and was buried.
2 There was no water for the people to drink at that place, so they rebelled against Moses and Aaron. 3 The people blamed Moses and said, "We wish we had died in the LORD's presence with our brothers! 4 Did you bring the LORD's people into this wilderness to die, along with all our livestock? 5 Why did you make us leave Egypt and bring us here to this terrible place? This land has no grain, figs, grapes, or pomegranates. And there is no water to drink!"
6 Moses and Aaron turned away from the people and went to the entrance of the Tabernacle, where they fell face down on the ground. Then the glorious presence of the LORD appeared to them, 7 and the LORD said to Moses, 8 "You and Aaron must take the staff and assemble the entire community. As the people watch, command the rock over there to pour out its water. You will get enough water from the rock to satisfy all the people and their livestock."
9 So Moses did as he was told. He took the staff from the place where it was kept before the LORD. 10 Then he and Aaron summoned the people to come and gather at the rock. "Listen, you rebels!" he shouted. "Must we bring you water from this rock?" 11 Then Moses raised his hand and struck the rock twice with the staff, and water gushed out. So all the people and their livestock drank their fill.
12 But the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "Because you did not trust me enough to demonstrate my holiness to the people of Israel, you will not lead them into the land I am giving them!" 13 This place was known as the waters of Meribah, because it was where the people of Israel argued with the LORD, and where he demonstrated his holiness among them.
NLT
The lessons we can learn from Moses are
1) God has a plan for our lives and no matter what may try to destroy us, God’s plan will be accomplished.
2) When we attempt to fulfill God’s plan in our way, it ends in failure.
3) When we wait to receive our calling from God, he will give us the help and resources we need to accomplish it.
4) Just because we have his calling does not give us an excuse to be disobedient for disobedience to Gods direction always has consequences.
In the difficult times in which we live, we need to be like Moses knowing that God has a divine plan for our lives. We must not run ahead of God but wait on him to reveal his plan for us and when we have God’s plan we must move forward in total obedience to the instructions God gives us.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Are We Exposing our Weaknesses?
This week much debate occurred over how the alleged suspect in the failed Times Square bombing was able to get through security and board a plane to flee the country. The debate also focused on how this individual was able to gain U.S. citizenship. This leads to the question, have our security procedures become weak and are our enemies testing us to discover where our weaknesses are?
In addition to this, the stock market dropped nearly 1000 points suddenly allegedly due to an error made on a stock sale. This occurred on the same day that economic unrest in Greece led to violence and market uncertainty. Regardless of whether the computer glitch was intentional or not, this incident exposes a weakness in the handling of electronic stock transactions. If one transaction of a sizable amount can cause such a rapid market decline, what is to prevent some enemy of our country, whether domestic or foreign, from hacking into the system and causing a market meltdown?
An article appearing in the Washington Post on Friday May 7, 2010 authored by David Cho and Jia Lynn Yang theorized that this failure of the system is a result of changes made in 2007. “The goal was to give investors more control over how their trades were executed and to guarantee the best price when they buy stocks” (Cho & Yang, 2010).
To accomplish this goal the changes allowed the routing of orders for stock transactions to the platform offering the best price. In other words, an order for a stock purchase was no longer under the sole control of the New York Stock Exchange but routed to several different platforms in order to find the best price. This has made it more difficult for the market to react to panic selling, evidenced by Thursday’s failure of the market to react to billion-dollar instead of million-dollar sale.
This has exposed yet another weakness in our national security, the security of our stock markets. There must be some way for the market to detect an unusual transaction such as occurred on Thursday and place the transaction on hold until it can be determined if the transaction in an error or not. However, we must be careful not to panic and place such stringent regulations on the market so as to restrict legitimate sales.
One recommendation would be to place transactions that are over a certain amount on hold until they can be investigated. We could freeze the price of that transaction so as not to harm someone seeking to make a legitimate sale. If the transaction is found to be legitimate, the sale could then proceed but if the sale is an error or suspicious (e.g. from a suspicious source) the sale would be stopped, avoiding the panic which occurred on Thursday.
September 11 taught us a valuable lesson, our nation has enemies. These enemies attacked our financial institutions (Wall Street), military (The Pentagon), and our government (The belief that the failed hijacking in Pennsylvania was to attack the Capitol or White House). Since that time, our country has been diligent and no further attacks have occurred. However, the events of this week have exposed some possible weaknesses. It is imperative that we strengthen these areas of weakness so as not to leave our enemies an open door to attack us once again. Otherwise, we may wake up some morning to another attack on our country, an attack that could not only result in the loss of innocent live but could also tip our sluggish economy and markets over the edge. We must remain diligent and strengthen our areas of weakness as we become aware of them.
References:
Cho, D. & Yang, J. L. (2010, May 7). Wild day on Wall Street leaves electronic
exchanges under scrutiny. The Washington Post, , . Retrieved May 8, 2010,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/05/07/AR201005700643html?hpid=topnews
In addition to this, the stock market dropped nearly 1000 points suddenly allegedly due to an error made on a stock sale. This occurred on the same day that economic unrest in Greece led to violence and market uncertainty. Regardless of whether the computer glitch was intentional or not, this incident exposes a weakness in the handling of electronic stock transactions. If one transaction of a sizable amount can cause such a rapid market decline, what is to prevent some enemy of our country, whether domestic or foreign, from hacking into the system and causing a market meltdown?
An article appearing in the Washington Post on Friday May 7, 2010 authored by David Cho and Jia Lynn Yang theorized that this failure of the system is a result of changes made in 2007. “The goal was to give investors more control over how their trades were executed and to guarantee the best price when they buy stocks” (Cho & Yang, 2010).
To accomplish this goal the changes allowed the routing of orders for stock transactions to the platform offering the best price. In other words, an order for a stock purchase was no longer under the sole control of the New York Stock Exchange but routed to several different platforms in order to find the best price. This has made it more difficult for the market to react to panic selling, evidenced by Thursday’s failure of the market to react to billion-dollar instead of million-dollar sale.
This has exposed yet another weakness in our national security, the security of our stock markets. There must be some way for the market to detect an unusual transaction such as occurred on Thursday and place the transaction on hold until it can be determined if the transaction in an error or not. However, we must be careful not to panic and place such stringent regulations on the market so as to restrict legitimate sales.
One recommendation would be to place transactions that are over a certain amount on hold until they can be investigated. We could freeze the price of that transaction so as not to harm someone seeking to make a legitimate sale. If the transaction is found to be legitimate, the sale could then proceed but if the sale is an error or suspicious (e.g. from a suspicious source) the sale would be stopped, avoiding the panic which occurred on Thursday.
September 11 taught us a valuable lesson, our nation has enemies. These enemies attacked our financial institutions (Wall Street), military (The Pentagon), and our government (The belief that the failed hijacking in Pennsylvania was to attack the Capitol or White House). Since that time, our country has been diligent and no further attacks have occurred. However, the events of this week have exposed some possible weaknesses. It is imperative that we strengthen these areas of weakness so as not to leave our enemies an open door to attack us once again. Otherwise, we may wake up some morning to another attack on our country, an attack that could not only result in the loss of innocent live but could also tip our sluggish economy and markets over the edge. We must remain diligent and strengthen our areas of weakness as we become aware of them.
References:
Cho, D. & Yang, J. L. (2010, May 7). Wild day on Wall Street leaves electronic
exchanges under scrutiny. The Washington Post, , . Retrieved May 8, 2010,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/05/07/AR201005700643html?hpid=topnews
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
America was Built on Independence not Dependence
On July 4, 1776, our founders signed the Declaration of Independence. They had enough of the tyrannical policies of the British Crown and wanted to separate from it. They were tired of dependence on the Crown and instead wanted to be independent. However, this spirit of independence is being replaced by a spirit of dependence for many in our nation.
It all began with Roosevelt’s New Deal. The country was experiencing a great depression. Roosevelt’s new deal promised to give people a hand up to assist them until the economy recovered. However, like many well-intentioned government programs, they expanded and more and more individuals have come to depend on these programs. Instead of saving for their retirement, many depend on Social Security and Medicare to take care of them. This is the main reason both of these programs are broke and cannot be sustained in their present state.
The elderly are not the only ones who are dependent. Instead of helping the poor work out of their poverty, our government continues to give them more money. Without any incentive to better themselves, these individuals become entrenched in poverty.
Even corporations have come to depend on government grants and small business loans to survive. In addition, our higher education system is primarily funded through government grants and student loans from the government.
Whenever an individual or corporation accepts government money, there are usually strings attached. Through Social Security and Medicare, the government can dictate the quality of life someone will enjoy in their retirement years. The poor who have been entrenched in poverty for several generations no longer believe they can work their way out of poverty. Corporations receiving government largesse open the door for the government to regulate their business. Institutions of higher learning that depend on grant money and student loans must be accredited by the government. This accreditation process allows the government to control the school’s curriculum.
It is time to begin dismantling the dependent class and create a new independent class. Welfare payments and refundable tax credits need a limit on how many years an individual can take them. This will create an incentive for these individuals to better them selves and become independent of government handouts before they run out.
We need a less intrusive government so that jobs and opportunities can be created for these individuals coming off welfare programs. This will also create a business friendly atmosphere for businesses to profit without government handouts.
Our education system also needs to teach people how to think instead of teaching them what to think. Independent thought encourages innovation. Innovation is what has made this country great since its inception.
The American Dream is asleep for many today. It is time for it to awaken. When it does, we will see this nation become the land of opportunity it once was. Most of us are descendents of immigrants who came to this nation with dreams of a better life. That dream is still alive and available for any one of us who wants to put in the effort to pursue it.
It all began with Roosevelt’s New Deal. The country was experiencing a great depression. Roosevelt’s new deal promised to give people a hand up to assist them until the economy recovered. However, like many well-intentioned government programs, they expanded and more and more individuals have come to depend on these programs. Instead of saving for their retirement, many depend on Social Security and Medicare to take care of them. This is the main reason both of these programs are broke and cannot be sustained in their present state.
The elderly are not the only ones who are dependent. Instead of helping the poor work out of their poverty, our government continues to give them more money. Without any incentive to better themselves, these individuals become entrenched in poverty.
Even corporations have come to depend on government grants and small business loans to survive. In addition, our higher education system is primarily funded through government grants and student loans from the government.
Whenever an individual or corporation accepts government money, there are usually strings attached. Through Social Security and Medicare, the government can dictate the quality of life someone will enjoy in their retirement years. The poor who have been entrenched in poverty for several generations no longer believe they can work their way out of poverty. Corporations receiving government largesse open the door for the government to regulate their business. Institutions of higher learning that depend on grant money and student loans must be accredited by the government. This accreditation process allows the government to control the school’s curriculum.
It is time to begin dismantling the dependent class and create a new independent class. Welfare payments and refundable tax credits need a limit on how many years an individual can take them. This will create an incentive for these individuals to better them selves and become independent of government handouts before they run out.
We need a less intrusive government so that jobs and opportunities can be created for these individuals coming off welfare programs. This will also create a business friendly atmosphere for businesses to profit without government handouts.
Our education system also needs to teach people how to think instead of teaching them what to think. Independent thought encourages innovation. Innovation is what has made this country great since its inception.
The American Dream is asleep for many today. It is time for it to awaken. When it does, we will see this nation become the land of opportunity it once was. Most of us are descendents of immigrants who came to this nation with dreams of a better life. That dream is still alive and available for any one of us who wants to put in the effort to pursue it.
Finding the Ideal Leader (Part 5)
In part 4 of finding the ideal leader, we studied the Type A personality. We discovered that these individuals exhibit the characteristic of time urgency, competitiveness, polyphasic behaviors and hostility. Because of these characteristics, these individuals usually experience high work stress (Walter, 2010). However, Walter (2010) discovered that a reduction in this work related stress occurred by placing the Type A in a position of leadership where he or she could control their environment. Type A’s function best in crises requiring a turnaround or transformation of an organization.
Our focus will now switch to the Type B personality type. The temperament of a Type B is characterized by “a relaxed, easygoing approach to life, a focus on quality over quantity, low competitiveness and a tendency for self reflection. Type B behavior is essentially the opposite of Type A” (The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology, 2001). However, does this antithetic behavior disqualify them as potential leaders?
Rastogi and Dave (2004) conducted a study of the effectiveness of both Type A and Type B managers in both marketing and production. The study looked at both lower and upper level management. One would believe that the hard driving and highly competitive Type As would out perform the Type Bs but the study results concluded that the Type Bs ranked higher in managerial effectiveness. Type As make good salespersons but, surprisingly, Type Bs make better senior executives.
President Ford is an example of a Type B leader. He assumed office during a devastating national crisis where the sitting president, President Nixon, resigned due to the Watergate Scandal. The nation was in need of national healing to recover from both this crisis and the controversial Vietnam War. President Ford’s calming Type B style was just what the nation needed to begin the healing process (Leighton, 1998).
This is because the Watergate scandal and Vietnam War had caused the nation to loose confidence in its very foundation. President Ford continually reminded the people of the nation to “stop-downgrading” themselves. When he left office, the nation still had challenges but they had regained confidence in the foundations of government, especially the Presidency (Leighton, 1998).
President Carter also exhibited Type B characteristics. However, in his case the situation facing the country was different. He won election promising to be “a man of the people” (Leighton, 1998). His plan was to carefully construct legislative proposals that Congress would be unable to resist passing. However, his resistance to engage Congress prevented passage of his agenda. In this case, his Type B characteristics were a hindrance to passage of legislation needed to restore the nation’s economy. He was also late in engagement during the Iranian Hostage Crisis and when engagement was attempted, it failed (Leighton).
These two examples of Type Bs in action as leaders demonstrate that the Type B characteristic is an asset when the organization needs healing after suffering a crisis but can fail when it prevents engagement during a crisis. This might explain why the nation chose Ronald Reagan over Jimmy Carter in the 1980 Presidential Election (Leighton, 1998). Perhaps they viewed Reagan as more willing to engage in a time of crisis.
In our next lesson, we will look at the leadership characteristics of President Reagan. President Reagan seemed to exhibit both Type A and Type B characteristics. This leads us to ask the question, is it possible for a leader to exhibit both Type A and Type B characteristics depending on the situation? Could this be a key to finding the ideal leader?
References
Leighton, A. (1998). Public therapy and the presidency: Presidential symbolism and the
post-Watergate presidents PhD dissertation, Temple University, United States –
Pensylvania. Retrieved April 17, 2010, ProQuest Database Dissertations & Tesis: Full
Text (Publication No. AAT9838501)
Rastogi, R. & Vandana, D. (2004). Managerial effectiveness: A function of personality
type and organisational components. Singapore Management Review, 26, pp.79-87.
Retrieved April 17, 2010, EbCohost Database
The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology (2001). Type B personality. Retrieved April 17,
2010, http://www.credoreference.com/entry/penguinpsyc/type_b_personality
Walter, L. (2010, January). Leadership: The type A characteristic that lowers work
stress.. EHS Today, , . Retrieved March 24, 2010, ABI/INFORM complete (document
ID: 1952095791
Our focus will now switch to the Type B personality type. The temperament of a Type B is characterized by “a relaxed, easygoing approach to life, a focus on quality over quantity, low competitiveness and a tendency for self reflection. Type B behavior is essentially the opposite of Type A” (The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology, 2001). However, does this antithetic behavior disqualify them as potential leaders?
Rastogi and Dave (2004) conducted a study of the effectiveness of both Type A and Type B managers in both marketing and production. The study looked at both lower and upper level management. One would believe that the hard driving and highly competitive Type As would out perform the Type Bs but the study results concluded that the Type Bs ranked higher in managerial effectiveness. Type As make good salespersons but, surprisingly, Type Bs make better senior executives.
President Ford is an example of a Type B leader. He assumed office during a devastating national crisis where the sitting president, President Nixon, resigned due to the Watergate Scandal. The nation was in need of national healing to recover from both this crisis and the controversial Vietnam War. President Ford’s calming Type B style was just what the nation needed to begin the healing process (Leighton, 1998).
This is because the Watergate scandal and Vietnam War had caused the nation to loose confidence in its very foundation. President Ford continually reminded the people of the nation to “stop-downgrading” themselves. When he left office, the nation still had challenges but they had regained confidence in the foundations of government, especially the Presidency (Leighton, 1998).
President Carter also exhibited Type B characteristics. However, in his case the situation facing the country was different. He won election promising to be “a man of the people” (Leighton, 1998). His plan was to carefully construct legislative proposals that Congress would be unable to resist passing. However, his resistance to engage Congress prevented passage of his agenda. In this case, his Type B characteristics were a hindrance to passage of legislation needed to restore the nation’s economy. He was also late in engagement during the Iranian Hostage Crisis and when engagement was attempted, it failed (Leighton).
These two examples of Type Bs in action as leaders demonstrate that the Type B characteristic is an asset when the organization needs healing after suffering a crisis but can fail when it prevents engagement during a crisis. This might explain why the nation chose Ronald Reagan over Jimmy Carter in the 1980 Presidential Election (Leighton, 1998). Perhaps they viewed Reagan as more willing to engage in a time of crisis.
In our next lesson, we will look at the leadership characteristics of President Reagan. President Reagan seemed to exhibit both Type A and Type B characteristics. This leads us to ask the question, is it possible for a leader to exhibit both Type A and Type B characteristics depending on the situation? Could this be a key to finding the ideal leader?
References
Leighton, A. (1998). Public therapy and the presidency: Presidential symbolism and the
post-Watergate presidents PhD dissertation, Temple University, United States –
Pensylvania. Retrieved April 17, 2010, ProQuest Database Dissertations & Tesis: Full
Text (Publication No. AAT9838501)
Rastogi, R. & Vandana, D. (2004). Managerial effectiveness: A function of personality
type and organisational components. Singapore Management Review, 26, pp.79-87.
Retrieved April 17, 2010, EbCohost Database
The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology (2001). Type B personality. Retrieved April 17,
2010, http://www.credoreference.com/entry/penguinpsyc/type_b_personality
Walter, L. (2010, January). Leadership: The type A characteristic that lowers work
stress.. EHS Today, , . Retrieved March 24, 2010, ABI/INFORM complete (document
ID: 1952095791
The History of U.S. Taxation (Part 2)
Like many other government programs, the U.S. Income Tax has changed since its inception. Rates have changed, more individuals are subject to the tax, and tax deductions and tax credits were added to the system. With these changes, the income tax is more than just a means for the government to raise revenue, it is also a means for politicians to gain favor with special interest groups who help them gain election to office.
When the income tax was first instituted in 1913, the bottom tiered rate was only one percent and it did not kick in until an individual earned $20,000 (Tax Foundation, 2010). $20,000 in 1913 was worth much more than it is in 2010. In fact, accounting for inflation, $20,000 in 1913 is equivalent $439,659 in today’s dollars (U.S. Inflation Calculator, 2010). This means that the initial income tax only affected the wealthy.
Through the years additional tax brackets were added, making more individuals subject to the tax. For example, in 1962 there were 24 tax brackets with a low rate of 20% starting at zero income up to 91% for individuals making $400,000 plus. In 1982, the number of brackets was reduced to 12 with a low rate of 12% and a high rate of 50%. In 2009, there are six brackets with a low of 10% and a high of 35% (Tax Foundation, 2010).
The lowering of the threshold where individuals are required to pay income tax has broadened the tax base to where not only the wealthy but also the middle class and lower income individuals are now required to pay income tax. However, tax deductions and credits have been introduced to the tax code with the intention of making it fairer.
The difference between tax deductions and tax credits is that a tax deduction reduces an individual’s taxable income. This has the effect of lowering the individual’s tax liability but only by the percentage of the tax bracket the individual is in. A tax credit, however, is a direct reduction in an individual’s tax liability dollar for dollar (Phillips, 2003).
The home mortgage interest deduction and the charitable contribution deduction are examples of tax deductions. Individuals who own a home are able to deduct the interest they pay on their mortgage. In addition, they are able to deduct the property taxes they pay for their home. Many believe that this deduction has encouraged more individuals to buy their own home as opposed to renting.
However, in a study conducted by Glaeser and Shapiro (2003) the findings showed that the percentage of home ownership has remained unchanged through the years of this deduction, in spite of many changes that have occurred. The deduction has caused more individuals to itemize their deductions as opposed to taking the standard deduction, but the research concluded that the deduction did little to cause renters to move into home ownership. However, home consumption did increase in relation to the deduction. This is most likely do to current homeowners moving into a more expensive home, possibly to receive a higher deduction.
Another common deduction for individuals is the charitable contribution deduction. It is believed that individuals giving to charities relieve the government of some responsibility for taking care of the needy in society, so giving individuals a deduction would encourage more charitable giving.
In his doctoral dissertation, Toolson (1986) conducted a study of individuals with the goal of determining if the deductibility of charitable contributions caused individuals to give more. Interestingly, unlike the home mortgage deduction, individuals did give more when their contributions were tax deductible. This might me because individuals must obligate themselves to a long-term mortgage to take advantage of the home mortgage deduction whereas contributing to a charity usually does not carry such a long-term obligation. We can therefore, conclude that use of a tax deduction to encourage certain behavior works best when no long-term obligation is required to take advantage of the deduction.
Tax credits come in two different varieties. They can be either refundable or non-refundable. A refundable tax credit is given to an individual even if their tax liability is less than the amount of the credit. If the amount of the credit exceeds their tax liability, the additional amount is given to the individual in the form of a tax refund. Non-refundable tax credits are limited by the amount of the individual’s tax liability (Lattanzi, 2009).
The energy credit is an example of a non-refundable tax credit. It is a credit offered to individuals for energy saving improvements to their home (i.e. installing an energy efficient air conditioning unit). In individual can earn a tax credit for purchase of such a unit but if the amount of the tax credit exceeds their tax liability, they can only deduct the amount of their tax liability, bringing their liability to zero. Their tax liability cannot be less than zero due to this type of credit (Lattanzi, 2009).
The (EITC) is a refundable tax credit implemented to assist lower income individuals. Individuals making under a specific income qualify for this credit. Since it is a refundable credit, they receive the entire credit regardless of their tax liability. For example, if an individual qualifies for an (EITC) of $2000 but only has $500 of tax liability, their tax liability will be eliminated and they will receive a refund of the additional $1500 (Bartlett, 2003).
Tax deductions and credits may have made the tax code fairer but they have also had an unintended consequence. Any attempt to change a deduction or credit is met with lobbyists who want to block the change. In addition, depending on the demographics of a representative’s district, congresspersons will make promises to increase or reduce a deduction or credit in order to gain votes. This has had the unintended consequence of politicizing the tax code.
For example, many view the EITC as a welfare program contained in the current tax code (Bartlett, 2003). Congresspersons with wealthy constituents will promise to reduce or even eliminate the credit to gain more votes whereas congresspersons with poor constituents will promise to increase the amount of the credit by taxing the wealthy. The resulting class warfare in congress creates many heated debates.
The original intent of the income tax was to create a means for the government to raise revenue based on the incomes of individual citizens. However, changes to the tax code through the years have created a politicized tax system. In our next lesson, we will begin looking at some alternatives to the current income tax code that make it fairer and eliminate the politicization that has crept into the system
References
Bartlett, B. (2003, June 30). Tax-credited welfare. Human Events, 59 (22), pp. 1-3. Retrieve
April 17, 2010, Academic Search Complete Database Accession Number 10155839
Glaeser, E. L., & Shapiro, J. M. (2003). The benefits of the home mortgage interest
deduction. NBER/Tax Policy & the Economy (MITPress), 17, pp. 37-82. Retrieved April
17, 2010, Business Source Complete Database Accession Number 11690482
Lattanzi, M. (2009, October). Explaining the federal tax credit. Air Conditioning,
Heating & Refrigeration News, 238(6), pp. 26-28. Retrieved April 18, 2010, from
ABI/INFORM Complete (document ID: 1889089341) ProQuest Database
Phillips, M. J. (2003, February). Tax zone; credits vs deduction. The Atlanta Tribune,
16(10), 17. Retrieved April 18, 2010, From Ethic NewsWatch (ENW). (Document ID:
4947734210
Tax Foundation (2010). U.S. federal individual income tax rates history, 1913-2010.
Retrieved April 17, 2010, http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
Toolson, R. B. (1986). The tax incentive effect of the charitable contribution deduction,
Ph.D. dissertation, Arizona State University, United States -- Arizona. Retrieved April
18, 2010, From Dissertations & Thesis: Full Text (Publication No. AAT 8702940).
ProQuest Database
U.S. Inflation Calculator (2010). U.S. inflation calculator. Retrieved April 21, 2010,
http://www.inflationcalculator.com/
Lattanzi, M. (2009, October). Explaining the federal tax credit. Air Conditioning,
Heating & Refrigeration News, 238(6), pp. 26-28. Retrieved April 18, 2010, from
ABI/INFORM Complete (Document ID: 1889089341) ProQuest Database
When the income tax was first instituted in 1913, the bottom tiered rate was only one percent and it did not kick in until an individual earned $20,000 (Tax Foundation, 2010). $20,000 in 1913 was worth much more than it is in 2010. In fact, accounting for inflation, $20,000 in 1913 is equivalent $439,659 in today’s dollars (U.S. Inflation Calculator, 2010). This means that the initial income tax only affected the wealthy.
Through the years additional tax brackets were added, making more individuals subject to the tax. For example, in 1962 there were 24 tax brackets with a low rate of 20% starting at zero income up to 91% for individuals making $400,000 plus. In 1982, the number of brackets was reduced to 12 with a low rate of 12% and a high rate of 50%. In 2009, there are six brackets with a low of 10% and a high of 35% (Tax Foundation, 2010).
The lowering of the threshold where individuals are required to pay income tax has broadened the tax base to where not only the wealthy but also the middle class and lower income individuals are now required to pay income tax. However, tax deductions and credits have been introduced to the tax code with the intention of making it fairer.
The difference between tax deductions and tax credits is that a tax deduction reduces an individual’s taxable income. This has the effect of lowering the individual’s tax liability but only by the percentage of the tax bracket the individual is in. A tax credit, however, is a direct reduction in an individual’s tax liability dollar for dollar (Phillips, 2003).
The home mortgage interest deduction and the charitable contribution deduction are examples of tax deductions. Individuals who own a home are able to deduct the interest they pay on their mortgage. In addition, they are able to deduct the property taxes they pay for their home. Many believe that this deduction has encouraged more individuals to buy their own home as opposed to renting.
However, in a study conducted by Glaeser and Shapiro (2003) the findings showed that the percentage of home ownership has remained unchanged through the years of this deduction, in spite of many changes that have occurred. The deduction has caused more individuals to itemize their deductions as opposed to taking the standard deduction, but the research concluded that the deduction did little to cause renters to move into home ownership. However, home consumption did increase in relation to the deduction. This is most likely do to current homeowners moving into a more expensive home, possibly to receive a higher deduction.
Another common deduction for individuals is the charitable contribution deduction. It is believed that individuals giving to charities relieve the government of some responsibility for taking care of the needy in society, so giving individuals a deduction would encourage more charitable giving.
In his doctoral dissertation, Toolson (1986) conducted a study of individuals with the goal of determining if the deductibility of charitable contributions caused individuals to give more. Interestingly, unlike the home mortgage deduction, individuals did give more when their contributions were tax deductible. This might me because individuals must obligate themselves to a long-term mortgage to take advantage of the home mortgage deduction whereas contributing to a charity usually does not carry such a long-term obligation. We can therefore, conclude that use of a tax deduction to encourage certain behavior works best when no long-term obligation is required to take advantage of the deduction.
Tax credits come in two different varieties. They can be either refundable or non-refundable. A refundable tax credit is given to an individual even if their tax liability is less than the amount of the credit. If the amount of the credit exceeds their tax liability, the additional amount is given to the individual in the form of a tax refund. Non-refundable tax credits are limited by the amount of the individual’s tax liability (Lattanzi, 2009).
The energy credit is an example of a non-refundable tax credit. It is a credit offered to individuals for energy saving improvements to their home (i.e. installing an energy efficient air conditioning unit). In individual can earn a tax credit for purchase of such a unit but if the amount of the tax credit exceeds their tax liability, they can only deduct the amount of their tax liability, bringing their liability to zero. Their tax liability cannot be less than zero due to this type of credit (Lattanzi, 2009).
The (EITC) is a refundable tax credit implemented to assist lower income individuals. Individuals making under a specific income qualify for this credit. Since it is a refundable credit, they receive the entire credit regardless of their tax liability. For example, if an individual qualifies for an (EITC) of $2000 but only has $500 of tax liability, their tax liability will be eliminated and they will receive a refund of the additional $1500 (Bartlett, 2003).
Tax deductions and credits may have made the tax code fairer but they have also had an unintended consequence. Any attempt to change a deduction or credit is met with lobbyists who want to block the change. In addition, depending on the demographics of a representative’s district, congresspersons will make promises to increase or reduce a deduction or credit in order to gain votes. This has had the unintended consequence of politicizing the tax code.
For example, many view the EITC as a welfare program contained in the current tax code (Bartlett, 2003). Congresspersons with wealthy constituents will promise to reduce or even eliminate the credit to gain more votes whereas congresspersons with poor constituents will promise to increase the amount of the credit by taxing the wealthy. The resulting class warfare in congress creates many heated debates.
The original intent of the income tax was to create a means for the government to raise revenue based on the incomes of individual citizens. However, changes to the tax code through the years have created a politicized tax system. In our next lesson, we will begin looking at some alternatives to the current income tax code that make it fairer and eliminate the politicization that has crept into the system
References
Bartlett, B. (2003, June 30). Tax-credited welfare. Human Events, 59 (22), pp. 1-3. Retrieve
April 17, 2010, Academic Search Complete Database Accession Number 10155839
Glaeser, E. L., & Shapiro, J. M. (2003). The benefits of the home mortgage interest
deduction. NBER/Tax Policy & the Economy (MITPress), 17, pp. 37-82. Retrieved April
17, 2010, Business Source Complete Database Accession Number 11690482
Lattanzi, M. (2009, October). Explaining the federal tax credit. Air Conditioning,
Heating & Refrigeration News, 238(6), pp. 26-28. Retrieved April 18, 2010, from
ABI/INFORM Complete (document ID: 1889089341) ProQuest Database
Phillips, M. J. (2003, February). Tax zone; credits vs deduction. The Atlanta Tribune,
16(10), 17. Retrieved April 18, 2010, From Ethic NewsWatch (ENW). (Document ID:
4947734210
Tax Foundation (2010). U.S. federal individual income tax rates history, 1913-2010.
Retrieved April 17, 2010, http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
Toolson, R. B. (1986). The tax incentive effect of the charitable contribution deduction,
Ph.D. dissertation, Arizona State University, United States -- Arizona. Retrieved April
18, 2010, From Dissertations & Thesis: Full Text (Publication No. AAT 8702940).
ProQuest Database
U.S. Inflation Calculator (2010). U.S. inflation calculator. Retrieved April 21, 2010,
http://www.inflationcalculator.com/
Lattanzi, M. (2009, October). Explaining the federal tax credit. Air Conditioning,
Heating & Refrigeration News, 238(6), pp. 26-28. Retrieved April 18, 2010, from
ABI/INFORM Complete (Document ID: 1889089341) ProQuest Database
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)