Hard Times

When I started reading The Worst Hard Time by Timothy Egan, I did a quick search on “Dust Bowl” for a little background information on the subject of the book. The Wikipedia article says little about what Egan identifies as the major factor: Government land giveaways and wheat price guarantees which resulted in tremendous overproduction, price collapses, bankruptcy of farmers, and abandonment of plowed land. Plowing for the purpose of growing wheat had destroyed the soil-stabilizing native grasses, leaving the dirt at the mercy of persistent high winds. According to the Wikipedia article, the cause was poor farming practices such as failure to rotate crops or use cover crops. The evidence is that following government advice is a poor farming practice also, so the article is not completely wrong. Egan’s book bears heart-breaking descriptions of the resulting damage and its impact on both cowboys and farmers who lived in that section of the country once known as the Great American Desert.

A major driver of destruction leading to the Dust Bowl was the Homestead Act which resulted in offers of free train rides to the prairies for potential homesteaders and promises of “Health, Wealth, and Opportunity” for those who would take the government up on its offer. Thousands responded and relocated to as little as 160 acres, a farm size later judged to be inadequate to sustain a family and acceptance of which was later deemed “An obligatory act of poverty.”

The problem was intensified by so-called “suitcase farmers” who flew in, bought large pieces of land with the help of the recently passed Federal Farm Loan Act, plowed the sod under to plant the over-priced wheat, and then flew out when the prices collapsed. At the time, the official position of the federal government was expressed by the Federal Bureau of Soils: “The soil is the one indestructible, immutable asset that the nation possesses.”  By 1934, the federal government had switched strategies and was offering to pay farmers to not grow wheat, to “bank” the soil, so to speak.

There was one Harvard geologist who attributed the problems to climate change, and many apparently believed that because considerable effort was expended trying to cause rain. Conditions did not improve, however, and responding to urgent pleas for help, President Roosevelt flew into the region in July, 1938. With his arrival, coincidentally I suppose, came an end to a drought that had lasted several years. But, neither the president nor the rain solved the underlying problems. 

It’s a great story, but don’t read the book to learn about government missteps. Read it for the stories of the hardy, courageous, and resilient settlers who made their homes on the prairies, suffered, and survived, some of whom were still living decades later and were interviewed for the book.

Here is a 1919 NYTimes story about the wheat price guarantee.

Note: The quotes above are from the book, which I read on Kindle without benefit of page numbers.  Did you know that with a Kindle it is now possible to borrow books from Amazon at no cost?  That is what I did with this one.

Tweet

Follow @dkw2020

I'm Part of the 99%, and These Are My Demands

I wouldn’t be surprised if some of my readers think I am in the 1%, but I just checked and can confirm that I am nowhere near that category in either income or wealth. The most troublesome aspect, to me, of the whole OWS movement is that it purports to speak for me and for tens of millions of others who disapprove of both their methods and their demands. I object especially to their infringement on the rights of people just trying to make a living and support their families or enjoy a park visit or a state house tour, and to their focus on wealth redistribution by government. And I sense strong notes of envy and greed and selfishness and find little evidence of any understanding of economics and business and free enterprise in OWS posters and statements.

I do, however, agree with some of the OWS positions. Too much coziness between government and business and too little statesmanship on the parts of our elected representatives for example are highly visible indicators of corrupt government and business practices that need reform. Money too often controls, and that should not be the case, especially when the objective is more money, when free enterprise is overridden by government policy, and when the public interest and individual freedoms are at stake.

So, here are my ten demands, which I believe would eliminate money as the primary influencer of public policy, attract a new class of contenders for political office, and reinvigorate our free enterprise economy.

1. No politician may announce for or campaign for or raise money for any election earlier than six months prior to the date of the election. Half the money raised by any politician for a political campaign, even if from his or her own assets, must go into a general fund to be shared equally by all other contestants in the election.
2. Registered lobbyists can meet privately with no fewer than three Senators or Representatives, and all such meetings must be publicly reported.
3. Any congressional district lines that do not follow established county lines must consist of straight lines, running either north-south or east-west and beginning and ending on such county lines.
4. Federal and state employees and elected officials are subject to the same rigorous insider-trading regulations as are the executives and boards of publicly listed companies.
5. Neither the federal government nor any state government may tax or subsidize any individual industry or business differently from how all industries and businesses are taxed and subsidized. Laws may not be passed, nor may rules be established, that apply specifically to oil or gas or steel or solar energy or electric cars or corn or wheat or milk or education or housing or health care or to operations in different geographic regions or to any other segment of US business or to individual companies in those segments.
6. Federal and state income taxes must be the same for and apply equally to all earned income above a clearly defined level and may not show favoritism to particular segments of earners such as home owners or those with large families or large contributions, etc. Rates may be lower for income from interest, dividends, and capital gains but such rates must be applied equally to all.
7. Prices of medical services and procedures and medical insurance must be transparent and advertised and must grant “most favored nation” status to individuals buying their own insurance and/or paying their own medical bills. In other words, a health care provider or insurance company may not charge an individual more than the least it receives from an insurance company or from Medicare for a particular service or procedure.
8. Primary and secondary education responsibility must lie solely with state and local governments, and success of their efforts measured primarily by the success rates of graduates in gaining either meaningful employment or admission to institutions of higher learning.
9. There must be a clear separation of powers between executive management teams, which are responsible for efficient and effective management of their enterprises, and the boards of directors which are responsible for hiring and evaluating and compensating executive management with the objective of protecting shareholder interests.
10. All compensation of boards of directors and senior executive managements must be subject to approval by shareholder vote on individual line items. Compensation may not be lumped in with other board recommendations and subject to only one vote for or against.

So, if OWS will adopt my demands as part of their platform, I might object less to their implication that they are speaking for me. Or maybe they could change their motto to “We are the 20%” or some other more reasonable number.

Free Camping on Public Property

I grew up loving to camp and did most of it with Boy Scout Troop 89 in the Cades Cove or Happy Valley Campgrounds of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. There were no “facilities,” just rich loamy soil latticed with roots of and shaded by enormous trees and divided by fast-flowing clear cold streams. I’m glad I got it out of my system when I was young and life was simpler, because camping on public property is a bit more complicated now.

I just went on line to check out the current facilities in the Cades Cove Campground. I guess group camping is on my mind because of the current high level of interest among some of our city dwellers so I focused right in on the “Group Campgrounds” option. First thing that pops up is the rules and regulations:

Group campsites will accommodate tents only. Trailers, campers, or other wheeled units are not permitted. Showers and electric hookups are not available in park campgrounds, however shower facilities are available in the communities surrounding the national park. Please inquire about the nearest facilities when you check-in at the campground.

The minimum party size is seven, and the maximum length of stay is fourteen nights in these areas. Check out time is noon. You are welcome to call the ranger station to obtain site-specific information, but be aware that the ranger stations are field offices and are not staffed during all hours!

You must have reservations to camp at a group site. You can make reservations online or by phoning the National Park Reservation Service toll-free at (877) 444-6777. Additional information about when you can make reservations. Payment is required at the time the reservation is made. http://www.nps.gov/grsm/planyourvisit/groupcamps.htm

If you didn't read the little blurb above, it includes a requirement for reservations, limits on the length of stay and group size, and up-front payment of fees.  On the same page, I learned that the maximum group size is 30 and the cost per night is $65. Not too bad at a little over $2 per person at capacity. Smaller campsites suitable for individual families are available for $17 to $20 a night.

Some may suggest that such a regimented system just doesn’t seem right…that the campground belongs to “we the people” and that we should all be able to go there and camp for free whenever we want to and stay as long as we like. Not me. If I decide to camp there at my advanced age I definitely want to find a clean, well-maintained, uncrowded, and secure campsite. And I am certainly responsible for paying the cost of that service if I am one of a very small minority that choose to take advantage of it.

I suggest our mayors and city councils brush up on the National Park policies and regulations, set aside some property in the cities where camping can be allowed, and put some good rules in place to be followed by those who choose to camp there. They might even raise some badly needed revenue that way.

As I understand it, some of the campers are encouraging others to share, so it would be good for them to move on and share the space with somebody else. I think that principle and the old idea of cleaning up your own messes are the basis of the National Park rules.

This is not a new idea to me. I’m reminded of it by the recent increase in interest in outdoor activity in our cities, including on the grounds of the South Carolina Capitol here in Columbia, but I posted a similar idea with respect to our homeless population in October, 2009, and in April, 2010.

Tweet

Follow @dkw2020

What About the Doctors?

It seems that all the discussion about health care in the US focuses on government policy, insurance companies, and drug and medical device manufacturers. I guess that is because those are the entities that get most of the money. But, in the final analysis, good health care for people with medical problems depends on the willing service of well-trained doctors, and it is such persons who will sometimes have to battle the bureaucracies in place to fulfill their callings.

Mr. Mac Bennett, president and CEO of United Way of the Midlands (Yes, even for the United Way, the president and CEO jobs should be separated.) wrote an editorial for The State about servant physician Dr. Stuart Hamilton who, thirty years ago, established the Eau Clair Cooperative Health Centers (ECCHC) in Columbia, SC. According to their website, ECCHC’s mission is to “provide comprehensive, high quality compassionate medical care in the spirit of the Good Samaritan,” and it does so for low-income, medically underserved, and uninsured patients using income based fees for those in financial distress. The centers accept Medicaid, Medicare, and donations from “individuals, churches, civic groups, corporations, and foundations.”

ECCHC is not a small, underfunded, operation. There are about fifteen sites, including a pharmacy and a dental practice, and areas of expertise include pediatrics, OB/GYN, counseling and behavioral medicine, internal medicine, and family practice. Current staff includes about 30 MD’s. Approximately 40,000 low income patients are served. According to Mr. Bennett’s column, United Way funds a program called The Plan which gives uninsured patients unlimited primary care doctor visits and discounts on other services for a payment of $25 per month.

My suggestion is that the best way to achieve access to health care for all is not through government mandates and expanded public and private bureaucracies employing hundreds of thousands of people unqualified to provide health care but through enabling physicians such as Dr. Hamilton, a true hero, and those who are employed by his organization to do their thing as simply as possible. What joy he and his employees must get from the good that has been done over the past three decades!

Here are links to Mr. Bennett's column and to the Eau Clair Cooperative website.  There is a nice picture of Dr. Hamilton at the website.


Tweet

Follow @dkw2020

Life Lessons from Yogi Berra and Jesus

There is a beautiful story in today’s WSJ column, The Couch by Jason Gay, called Taking Yogi Berra to ‘Money Ball.’ Mr. Berra is 86 and wears a World Series ring from the 1953 Yankees. According to Gay, Berra started in the majors at $5,000 a year, never had a contract for more than one season at a time, and never earned more than $65,000 in a year. A web based inflation calculator says that would be equivalent to about $525,000 in 2010.  Not too shabby, but nothing like the exorbitant multi-year contracts today’s players are getting. Average salary for a New York Yankee today is $6.7M, all earned, so to speak, "on the backs of" the tens of thousands of young players who must play baseball year after year for little or nothing just to make it possible for a few stars to make it to the major leagues.

In the column Mr. Berra reflects on life as a Yankee in his day, living within walking distance to the stadium, walking to the barber and the deli, speaking to fans who didn’t take pictures or ask for autographs but were just happy to see him.

I don’t know if Yogi is in favor of wealth redistribution or not, but he was once asked what he would do if he found a million dollars. His response: “I’d find the fellow who lost it, and, if he was poor, I’d return it.”

Probably nothing in Holy Scripture speaks to America today any more strongly than the parable Jesus told of the rich fool. You can read it in Luke 12:15-21. Our problem, it seems to me, is not the disparity of wealth distribution but that a vast majority of us, rich and poor, worship wealth and the wealthy and reward it with our dollars which just increases the wealth even more. It is covetousness of which so many of us are guilty. If we are rich we are focused on keeping it, primarily from the government, and if we are poor we are focused on getting it, often from the government. And we celebrate and adore sports and entertainment and, until recently, business people who achieve wealth. Google the phrase, "famous for being famous," and you get 43 million hits, many of them for people on whom we shower wealth by watching reality TV and buying products they endorse.  When and where else but in America today has wealth become such an important measure of success, completely out of step with the basic truths that “a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of things which he possesseth” and that there is a problem with anyone who “layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God?”

I’m not preaching. I’m commiserating. Feel free to count me as guilty, except that I don't watch reality TV.

Here’s the parable, from the King James Version, except that I boldened the I’s and my’s. Maybe at least tearing down those old barns and building new ones created some jobs. It’s a funny and sad story about the foolishness of humankind.

And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth. And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully: And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits? And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry. But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided? So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.

Now, to lighten up a bit and have a few good laughs, take a look at this list of Yogi Berra quotes, some of which are true.

Tweet

Follow @dkw2020

Future of Education - Khan Academy

If you haven’t watched any of MIT graduate Sal Khan’s videos, please go there and check them out. Khan Academy is a non-profit that has produced approximately 2600 educational videos and has had 80 million hits on YouTube. You can read the five-year history of Khan Academy and learn something about the New Orleans native founder here.

In When Will We Learn in the November 14 Time Magazine, use of Khan Academy YouTube videos by Los Altos, CA, public schools is discussed. Students are watching the videos at home, freeing classroom time for problem solving under the watchful eye of teachers who probably also are learning something from watching the videos. That clearly makes the best use of teacher time and gives students a chance to watch the several minute videos as many times as necessary to get the basic principles firmly in mind before showing up in class. I wish I had had such a great tool during my high school and college years. Here’s a simple video that would have been helpful even in college level Chemical Engineering courses in fluid dynamics.

I’m guessing this is the future of education and that both teachers and students will be learning a great deal in this new environment. It could even generate some excitement about academic achievement and help solve our problems of declining education and declining national competitiveness. It is, however, going to be tough on the textbook business and will require different teacher skills and more interactive classrooms.

Hooray for Mr. Khan. I’m sending a donation.

What's the Weather Going to Do?

For anyone who reads climate change stories under the impression that measuring global temperature is as simple as inserting an anal thermometer into an infant’s rectum, Carl Bialik, The Numbers Guy, has a very helpful column in today’s Wall Street Journal. The title is Global Temperatures: All Over the Map.

According to Bialik, there are more than 1.6 billion temperature readings taken over the past two centuries, some from more than 40,000 earth stations, some of which are poorly maintained, and some from satellites. Some of the reported temperatures came from neither of these sources but from mathematical techniques used to fill in gaps or adjust questionable data. The task is complicated by the fact that some parts of the globe become cooler over time while other parts become warmer and that measurements are more concentrated in some areas than in others.

Still given all these complications, there seems to be little doubt, according to Bialik, that the earth has warmed in the past fifty years or so by perhaps 0.9 degrees Celsius. Such a change seems pretty trivial compared to the long term warming trend that began about 10,000 years ago and brought us out of the last ice age. I don’t believe anybody is suggesting that the cause of that ancient gradual shift was human activity. Obviously there are other forces at work here than atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, and the focus on carbon dioxide makes me think there is some hidden agenda behind the climate change alarm movement, an agenda perhaps hidden even to many of the spokespersons.

And I still haven’t heard any explanation of why the current temperature is the right temperature and why a little more warming mightn’t increase our ability to produce food and reduce worldwide energy costs and pollution that results from energy consumption. I know the electric bills are a lot lower in Miami than in Minneapolis. And, warmer temperatures could reduce the demand for sweat shops and child labor that produce much of the clothing we use to keep warm in the further distances from the equator.

And, if the current temperature isn’t the right one, I’m still wondering how, if we learn to control the global temperature, we will reach agreement on where to set that thermostat. I’m guessing that struggle for consensus would result in declaration of another series of just wars.

There just aren’t any easy answers to the age-old question: What’s the weather going to do? Too much obsession over climate could lead to accusations of anality.

Football and National Politics - The Big Pictures

There is probably more interest in NFL Football and the college farm teams that it depends on than in any other single thing in the United States of America.  And a significant proportion of the population really cares about and has some basic understanding of what is going on there.

The Wall Street Journal Sports Page (Yes, there is just one page.) today features an article about the existence of high-level video coverage of the entire field for the entire game for all NFL games.  It is known as the “All-22” footage and is available only to NFL insiders.  The only thing the public ever sees is the close-in shots of plays in action.  Former head coach Bill Parcells is quoted:  “I don’t think you can get a full understanding without watching the entirety of the game.  The zoomed-in footage on TV broadcasts only shows a fragment of what happens on the field.  Without watching the All-22, analyzing football is impossible.”

The first thing that popped into my mind while reading the article was that what we need is All-536 coverage of what is going on in Washington DC.  Even that wouldn’t be enough considering how the power of the executive branch has expanded with the tendency toward passage of license-to-kill legislation and appointment of executive branch czars with almost unlimited power to interpret and implement such legislation.

And of course the Washington DC scene is slightly more complex than an NFL game and has no geographical boundaries so such broad and comprehensive coverage is pretty much an impossible dream.  The NFL has the advantage of professional observers who really do understand the game and know how to interpret the full coverage.  Few if any have the ability to achieve such understanding of what is going on in the Federal Government.  One thing we can be sure of though: It is one giant interactive system and every thing that happens affects everything else.

So, with the combination of ignorance and complexity reigning, we have to be satisfied with close-ups of something Herman Cain might or might not have done fifteen years ago and whether Mitt Romney is currently in flip mode or flop mode while the current leaders fiddle away their time and our economy while raising money and campaigning for the next election.

Maybe if we had just a single “National Politics” Page instead of the 24/7 frantic news cycle, we could get to some big picture views, shovel out the trivia, and develop some common understanding of what is going on. 

But maybe not, since the ignorance and apathy absent from NFL activity seem to be predominant in matters of national governance except when the political equivalent of recruiting and drafting are underway.  And even then it is mostly apathy, a welcome companion to ignorance, that wanes.

What In the World is Senator Reid Talking About?

There is a video on line of Senator Harry Reid making an appeal, on November 1, 2011, for an income tax surcharge of 0.7% on incomes over a million dollars. (This is the same Senator Reid who got caught on video arguing that the US Income Tax is voluntary.) The senator explains that this is a “tiny fraction of a percent” increase on only the “richest of the rich,” the top “two tenths of one percent,” “millionaires and billionaires,” who earn “more than half of all the money earned each year in this country.”

Senator Reid, I wish your proposal made sense so we could find some rationale for supporting it. You make it sound so reasonable, but you are just plain wrong. Of course something big might have happened since 2008, the most recent year for which IRS information on individual tax returns is available to the public, and you may have access to more recent data, but, in 2008, this was the situation. (Click for readable copy.)

So, in 2008 there were 319,000 tax returns with incomes equal to or greater than $1M. That was 0.35% of all the tax returns (Not 0.2 %.) and accounted for 17.92% of all the income (Not half.) and 24.15% of all the income tax paid.  The average income for these richest was about $2.9M or about 50 times the average for all filing tax returns.

In an effort to demonize these high earners, Senator Reid identifies them as the same people who, over the last three decades have seen their incomes increase 275%. Of course he knows nothing about the earnings thirty years ago of the people who are now in the top 0.2% or top 1%.  Most of them were probably in high school. Lady Gaga wasn't even born.  He is comparing the earnings of the top group now to earnings of the entirely different top group 30 years ago and making no acknowledgement of the simple fact that the membership of that infamous group changes every year.

We could forgive his hyperbole if he were proposing something that made sense and would truly help our overall economy. So, what do you think? A 0.7% surcharge on incomes over $1M would generate .007($938B - $319B) or $2.23B. That is 0.15% of our current year estimated federal deficit. As a matter of fact, if every dime over $1M earned by these richest were taxed away, it would only amount to 21% of the federal deficit.  Still, Senator Reid argues ridiculously that this tiny increase in revenue would "create hundreds of thousands of jobs."

And so of course neither Republicans nor Democrats nor Independents should be using congressional time and energy even talking about such trivialities let alone voting for or against them in the current environment of excessive federal deficit spending.

Here is a link to Senator Reid's appeal and one to a Huffington Post article about it.

And just in case you want to check my math, here is the IRS spreadsheet.  Click on 2008 under Table 2.

Education Essentials (For Getting A Job)

In today’s WSJ, William McGurn references www.whatwilltheylearn.com in his discussion of how some of the Occupy Wall Street protesters may have a point but are actually missing it. His argument is that it is the Ivory Tower rather than Wall Street that the recently graduated and unemployed protesters should target.

I checked out the website and learned that it rates liberal arts colleges and universities based on the extent to which they require some basic education in seven essentials: Composition, Literature, American History or Government, Foreign Language, Economics, Mathematics, and Natural or Physical Science. Data on graduation rates and tuition are also included. There seems to be nothing at all in this site about party ratings, Greek life, or football team success. MIT and other institutions that focus on engineering and technology are not rated.

Just to see how it works I picked eight institutions with which I have some personal experience or in which I have some interest. Here are results for those eight as shown on whatwilltheylearn.com:

That little table is going to give bragging rights to somebody I know. You can check out ratings for your own list of institutions of higher interest here.  The data seem to indicate that the chances of getting that diploma without getting the seven essentials increase with increasing tuition and that the in-state tuition is a real bargain.

Of course this is not to say that a student cannot get all the required basics at a college with low ratings. It just says the basics are not a requirement for graduation. Now, if we could just round up some transcripts and debt totals for the unemployed occupiers, we could see if there is any correlation there.

And, I am thinking that if those schools with such high tuitions were to narrow their options and focus on essentials, they could bring down their tuition charges.