Foxwood Online Marketing

Ron Paul is the Pied Piper of Millennials

An article in the liberal Salon.com was titled, "The screwed generation:  Libertarian not liberal".  As a political and Millennial junkie, I couldn't pass it up.  The basis of the article is that the Millennials are voting for Ron Paul in droves because the Libertarian philosophy holds more hope for this "screwed generation" than even the liberals.  In 2008 Millennials made up 18% of the vote for president with 66% voting for president Obama.  In 2012 they are expected to be 25% of the vote and based on their strong following for Ron Paul, they could be the demographic which propels the Republicans to victory if Paul can deliver them.  But will he?  If he continues to gain delegates through the primary and leverages those delegates to influence the platform and/or rhetoric from the eventual nominee, the Republican will probably win.  But if he chooses to go the 3rd party route, he would most probably hand the election to Obama.

The news commentators have often spoken about how Paul has the "youth vote" in the primaries.  In New Hampshire he captured 46% of the 18-29 year old vote, 31% in South Carolina, and 48% in Iowa.  What about Paul's rhetoric/Libertarianism appeals to Millennials?  Paul's message of drastically smaller government, balancing the budget, and eliminating the Federal Reserve appeals to young workers who will pay an increasing amount of their salaries to cover the out of control spending fostered by both parties in the past and accelerated by the Obama administration.  They also understand that they will be forced to pay for Social Security and other retirement benefits that they will likely not have.  The Libertarian philosophy also appeals to the more diverse Millennials.  In a recent Pew Research Poll 72% think homosexuality should be accepted by society.  But the item in the news recently that you may not have paid much attention to but is critical to Millennials was the SOAP/PIPA legislation.  These were the anti-piracy bills (SOPA in the House and PIPA in the Senate) that were pushed by Hollywood and big music but were opposed by the big internet companies.  In this battle, Millennials were the foot soldiers who signed petitions and "liked" numerous online campaigns opposed to the legislation.  Millennials are digital natives who grew up with the internet, therefore any effort to thwart its access hit a nerve. Finally let's not forget who fought in the 10 years of wars with Iraq and Afghanistan including multiple tours and significant loss of limbs.  Paul's libertarian isolation opinion could mean literally the difference between life and death to members of this group.

While older voters may be concerned about Paul's open borders, allowing Iran to get nukes, and decriminalizing drugs, Millennials are focused on the domestic issues Paul supports and appear to be willing to following his lead to the voting booth.  The question that remains is will Paul leverage this group in a third party effort or deliver them to the Republicans.  We'll know in November.

 

 

 

 

 

The Politics of Piracy: Hollywood VS Internet Companies

 

Politics has hit the internet!  You've probably heard about SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) from the House of Representatives and its counterpart in the Senate PIPA (Protect Intellectual Property Act).  But have you heard of ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) or OPEN (Online Protection & ENforcement of Digital Trade Act)?  Makes you think:  SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, OPEN, OH MY!...

So here's what happened.  The Hollywood and big media lobby got SOPA and PIPA created based on the logical need to prevent websites from sharing their content without getting paid.  However neighter Hollywood nor the politicians really understood what the bill as written would mean to the internet.  So that community banded together and notified their users and blacked out many of their sites as a protest.

The internet community leveraged their users to contact their representatives and senators by the thousands and the bills, which were cruising through congress, were stopped in their tracks.  Then at a roundtable discussion at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, we were told that ACTA could be even more harmful than SOPA/PIPA.  And worse yet, the US has already signed off on this agreement.  To complicate matters more, the US politician who understands these issues the most, Darrell Issa, has another proposition called OPEN which he and others, including Google are supporting.  If you are a nerd like me (I know I am a nerd rather than geek because of an infographic that defines the difference), you might be interested in the roundtable discussion at Davos hosted by Mashable:

What I picked up from the 43 minute video is that there is a political battle building between Hollywood, the music industry, and big media companies (content generators), and the internet companies (communicators).  The content generators are losing millions in dollars to internet pirates but the communicators are concerned that drastic remedies will inhibit user generated content and the entrepreneurial spirit that has made the internet what it is.  The best example here is Wikipedia.  As the bills were written if it was determined that some piece of owned content was placed on Wikipedia, then a DNS (Denial of Service) would be enforced basically putting it out of business.  The internet folks argue that while there is still some music piracy, the public has gradually gotten on board with subscription pricing like iTunes which has delivered millions to the content generators that wasn't the case in years past.  For years the content generators, particularly Hollywood, have learned how to lobby congress.  They also have tight-knit associations that pool money and speak with one voice on issues.  The internet folks who do not have this yet are beginning to realize they must if they are to compete in the realm of politics.  Another factor about the politics in this situation was raised by Representative Issa.  That is most of the elected people in Congress nor do their staffs have any depth on issues concerning the internet industry.  Following SOPA and PIPA where many were embarrassed to the point of withdrawing their co-sponsorships of these bills, including my favorite Senator Marco Rubio, have recognized they need to move up the learning curve fast. 

Part of the political process is for a lobbyist to give a political contribution to a member of Congress in lieu of being able to present their side of an argument.  The content generators and their associations have developed sophisticated processes to do just this over the years.  As the Google attorney in the video explained, their company just hasn't been around long enough to have developed this capability in spite of how much money they have.  The content generators have been good at putting their movie and music stars out as spokespersons to support their political issues.  The internet companies have the power of rallying their followers but must be careful to not overuse this tool.  It seems clear that this battle will continue.

I suggest you keep an eye on Congressman Darrell Issa.  He was the past president of the Consumer Electronics' Association and attended CES 30 years including back when he was an exhibitor.  He is very knowledgeable about current technology.  I chopped a session of PBS' Communicators shot at CES to give you some perspective on him:   

    

 

If you still want more, check out this chart from Congressman Issa's website that compares SOPA, PIPA, and his favorite OPEN by clicking here.  Given how much there has been in the media, I'm sure this story will go on for some time.

 

 

 

 

 

Why Is There Not an Occupy College Movement & Antitrust Case Aganst Colleges?

In February I wrote a post titled, "Higher Education:  How Colleges are Wasting Our Money and Failing Our kids".  This is an update.  Below is an infographic from The Best Colleges:

My questions are:

1. Why is there not an "Occupy College" movement?  We know many of the Occupy Wall Street protesters are college graduates who have excessive debt.  Why are they blaming Wall Street?  As indicated in the infographic above, college debt is now $1 Trillion with a 511% increase since 1999.  Why are they not pitching their tents on college campuses?
2. Why is the Justice Department not bringing a price fixing suit against colleges?  In the C-SPAN Book TV video I used as the basis for my February post, the 2 professors said there is a group of about 10 universities that set the prices.  They are made up of the Ivy League Schools (Harvard, Yale, etc.) plus a few of the major independents like Duke and Stanford.  Then the other independent schools, state schools, and down to community colleges base their pricing on this standard.  How is possible?  I worked for a hose clamp manufacturer.  There was a rumor about our CEO and the CEO of our major competitor meeting in a restroom in an airport accidentally where they agreed to raise their prices.  Since these 2 competitors controlled a major segment of the market share, prices across the board were raised.  Colleges do it in the open and nobody says a word.  And the last time I looked inflation remains not existent.  On what are they basing their huge price increases?  Here is a chart on prices, note the curve:

 

I guess since there is so much broken in America now, no one is focused on college price gouging.  It's a shame we don't have a common sense super hero to address this, overspending in Washington, crazy judicial rulings, etc.

 

 

New Study - Public School Teachers Are Overpaid by $120 Billion

I happened upon a very interesting live call-in show on C-SPAN's Washington Journal today.  It was an interview of Andrew Biggs, Resident Scholar of American Enterprise Institute.  He and Jason Richwine of the Heritage Foundation undertook a massive study titled, Assessing the Compensation of Public-School Teachers.  It can be found on both the Heritage and AEI websites.  You can also read the detailed report here.  The summary conclusions of the report from the AEI site are:  "We conclude that public-school teacher salaries are comparable to those paid to similarly skilled private sector workers, but that more generous fringe benefits for public-school teachers, including greater job security, make total compensation 52 percent greater than fair market levels, equivalent to more than $120 billion overcharged to taxpayers each year. Teacher compensation could therefore be reduced with only minor effects on recruitment and retention. Alternatively, teachers who are more effective at raising student achievement might be hired at comparable cost."

Here are the more detailed summary findings:

"First, formal educational attainment, such as a degree acquired or years of education completed, is not a good proxy for the earnings potential of school teachers. Public-school teachers earn less in wages on average than non-teachers with the same level of education, but teacher skills generally lag behind those of other workers with similar "paper" qualifications. We show that:

• The wage gap between teachers and non-teachers disappears when both groups are matched on an objective measure of cognitive ability rather than on years of education.

• Public-school teachers earn higher wages than private- school teachers, even when the comparison is limited to secular schools with standard curriculums.

• Workers who switch from non-teaching jobs to teaching jobs receive a wage increase of roughly 9 percent. Teachers who change to non-teaching jobs, on the other hand, see their wages decrease by roughly 3 percent. This is the opposite of what one would expect if teachers were underpaid.

Second, several of the most generous fringe benefits for public-school teachers often go unrecognized:

• Pension programs for public-school teachers are significantly more generous than the typical private sector retirement plan, but this generosity is hidden by public-sector accounting practices that allow lower employer contributions than a private-sector plan promising the same retirement benefits.

• Most teachers accrue generous retiree health benefits as they work, but retiree health care is excluded from Bureau of Labor Statistics benefits data and thus frequently overlooked. While rarely offered in the private sector, retiree health coverage for teachers is worth roughly an additional 10 percent of wages.

• Job security for teachers is considerably greater than in comparable professions. Using a model to calculate the welfare value of job security, we find that job security for typical teachers is worth about an extra 1 percent of wages, rising to 8.6 percent when considering that extra job security protects a premium paid in terms of salaries and benefits.

What I found so interesting in the C-SPAN show was the format.  The co-author of the report took calls from several teachers angerly questioning the results.  His answers defended their survey process while calmly addressing all the concerns.  He took each caller's questions seriously and was able to defend the study's results which did account for differences in teacher tenure, areas of the country, and union vs non-union.  He even politely responded to a published complaint from Secretary of Education Arne Duncan with detailed specifics and a strong conclusion that he did not read the study.  The bottom line conclusion is that public school teachers are overpaid.  However one can understand the teacher's complaints because a large portion of the valuation is because they do not work 12 months and their benefits package is significantly better than in the private sector; value which does not show up on the pay stub. 

When I came out of college it was well known that if you chose a career in government or teaching you would have to accept lower pay but you would not have to work as hard, you get much more time off, and you would have more benefits.  It seems that this is still the condition today.  The problem I have is that the education students are getting is not as good as it was when I went to school.  The global comparative results are unquestioned.  And yet the political call is to spend more on education, in other words, pay the teachers more.  But the arguments against this are also clear.  The union efforts have focused not on improving the quality of education but the benefits, protection, and happiness of the teachers.  You can also see multiple examples of better student performance at private and church schools where teacher pay is much less than in public schools.  So my conclusion is we as a society need to focus on student performance instead of teacher pay and the teacher pay system needs to be overhauled so the best get higher pay and the worst get lower pay or fired.  We need to have students attend year-round since they are not needed in the fields (as was the case 100 years ago) and most have part-time jobs who need to work.  I think both the student performance and teacher pay problems are a result of not having a market based economy.  History has shown consistently that higher results come from competition.  However, I am frankly not optimistic that these simple but effective solutions will be implemented because of politics.  So at least over the short term expect student performance to continue to lag behind global competitors and teachers to continue to demand (and receive) higher pay.

 

 

So How Different Was the Fox News/Google (YouTube) Debate?

Note this post is not political.  While I am a news & political junkie, even I did not watch the debate.  However this one was interesting from a digital media perspective.  Because Google was a co-sponsor and because Google owns YouTube, there was much more citizen participation than normal as 19,000 questions were submitted and 100,000 votes were received on which questions should be used.  Here is a short background video on the online process:

 

Here are some graphics on the debate:

Here's the data visualization of the most used words during the debate:

 

Here are some search results during the debate.  Note that the highest volume of searches came when (presumably) Gary Johnson was speaking and because he was a new entrant into the debates.  Likewise for the 2nd chart when Herman Cain spoke of his 9-9-9 plan which is relatively new.

Finally here is a 5 minute video that gives this Fox News/Google partnership perspective:

 

This is an excellent video.  It couples Fox News that is right-leaning with a CEO who is a big Obama supporter.  However for the partnership to work they had to work together.  When Bret Baier pushes back to Schmidt on his suggestion to have the government stimulate the economy, Schmidt provides ways that the government can stimulate without significantly raising the debt.  This is a private sector solution that makes so much sense we cannot expect our elected officials to do anything close, can we?

 

 

In 500 Years, What Will Make People Scratch Their Heads about the US?

  You ever think about the Romans and wonder how though very civilized, pitted humans against lions or each other to the death as a spectator sport?  It makes you scratch your head and wonder how it could be.  I think in 500 years people will look to the US and scratch their heads about 3 things:

 

 

• Slavery
• Abortion
• Death Penalty

What triggered me to write on this subject was a question during the Republician Debate.  Brian Williams of MSNBC asked Governor Rick Perry if he can sleep at night because Texas conducts so many executions. Bernard Goldberg, who makes a living focusing on media bias, made the point that  a conservative journalist would never be able to ask any liberal if he could sleep since they support abortion.  So since 2 of my 3 categories were discussed, it seems appropriate that I can make my case about our current and recent culture.

Slavery appears to be in our rear-view mirror but I suspect strongly the future person would just scratch their head when thinking about a country that comes to the aid of people around the world during natural or man-made disasters who had legal slavery.  Though it has been almost 150 years since the Emancipation Proclamation, there still appears to be issues today as a result of slavery.

The death penalty has become almost a non-issue.  In 2010, there were 46 people executed.  Contrast this as a method of death to 48 who are struck by lightning, 344 who drown in a bathtub, and 477 who fall from a ladder.  My argument against the death penalty is based on 5 simple points:  1) What part of "Thou shalt not kill" makes it OK for a society to put people to death regardless of what they did?  It's not part of a war where it could be argued that self-preservation supercedes this commandment.  2) It turns the perpetrator into a victim and celebrity for years.  Given how many years it takes between the conviction and execution, the media attention focuses on the perpetrator, especially at the time of execution.  3) It costs more to execute a person than life in prison without parole.  I heard a local preacher named Joseph Ingle who ministered to death row prisoners.  He said that because of the extra effort in expert witnesses, evidence, and legal fees for capital cases, the expense exceeds housing a killer for their entire life.  4) It is not administered evenly.  Joseph Ingle said that the chief criteria for a capital case is the race of the victim.  He walked around the room and said the could pull out a gun and shoot any non-white person and not get the death penalty regardless of how many witnesses there were nor how much pre-meditation there was.  Also many of the people proven innocent later were poor and had public defenders whereas someone like O.J. Simpson could apparently get away with murder.  5) There is no means to reverse a mistake. 

Finally, the one that will be really hard to understand is abortion.  So let's see, in order for women to gain equality they had to kill their unborn going against all motherly instincts?  The political party that is supposed to support the downtrodden and needy advocates killing the most vunerable segment of society?  The race that has suffered the indignities of slavery not only does not oppose abortion, they kill their unborn at a rate 3 times that of non-hispanic whites?  What really makes abortion so bad is the raw magnitude.  As of today, there have been over 54 million babies killed since the Roe V Wade decision in 1973.  That's more people than the residents of Canada or Spain.  One of the key cases cited in Roe V Wade was based on emanations and penumbras.  Emanations are a gaseous product of radioactive disintegration.  Penumbras are the partial or imperfect shadow outside the complete shadow of an opaque body.  So in Griswald V Connecticut Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority that the right of privacy was to be found in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections.  So in addition to the other oddities, our exalted rule of law used smoke and shadows to legalize killing over 50M babies so far.

Since these are political issues, or having to do with people, I also think the parties are confused.  As stated above the Democrats support abortion though they are for the downtrodden, Republicans support the death penalty though they oppose abortion, and African-Americans support Democrats even though Abraham Lincoln and and his Republican party freed the slaves. 

None of us will be around to see what future people or robots think of us.  But you have to admit, for an "advanced" society, it will make them scratch their head and wonder about us.

 

 

Why Did Obama Go After Gibson Guitars?

Gibson Guitars is headquartered in Nashville and one of the reasons Nashville is the Silicon Valley of music.  When I first heard about this story I thought it was about a business that sacrificed morals, in this case using rare wood illegally, for increased profits.  But as I read more I found a story that is as convoluted and bizarre as any novel.  At this point all I can do is speculate on why the Obama Administration is pursuing Gibson.

Here's a brief summary of the issue.  In November 2009 armed agents of the US Fish and Wildlife Service (there's an unusual image) raided the Gibson factory and confiscated wood used in making guitars under the Lacey Act.  No charges were placed against Gibson so they petitioned the court to have the government either bring the case to trial or give them back their expensive materials.  Then August 24 Gibson was raided again with more materials confiscated.  Still no charges.  Since then the CEO of Gibson, Henry E. Juszkiewicz, has been interviewed by multiple news outlets.  His most startling comment was that the US Government actually put in their legal pleading that if Gibson had used Madagascar labor that their problems would go away.  So a government that can't enforce the border nor has the resources to deport illegals goes after a US manufacturer and advises them if they had exported the jobs their problems would go away.  Not exactly focusing on jobs like a laser.  Part of the Lacey Act is support of foreign laws that seek to protect scarce natural products.  However Madagascar has not filed charges against Gibson which raises a potential answer as to why the Justice Department has not brought the 2009 case to trial.  You can read more details in the Wall Street Journal September 1, and August 26.

Here are a few speculative reasons why the government is going after Gibson:

• Supporting political friends.  One of Gibson's major competitors, Martin Guitars, gives heavily to Democrats while the Gibson CEO gives to Republicans.  For details click here.  By the way, reports are that Martin uses the same kind of wood from the same source.
• Support of Environmental activists to spur contributions and political support for the upcoming election.
• Support foreign laws to make America more of a 'citizen of the world'.
• Legislating from the executive branch rather than Congress to transform America.  The Obama Administration has used agencies like the EPA to force standards that support Cap and Trade and Immigration to support the Dream Act when both bills were rejected by what was then a Democratic Congress.  Charles Krauthammer makes this case quite well in a 5 minute video below.  http://video.foxnews.com/v/1136332872001/how-obama-is-trying-to-change-america/
• To support unions. Gibson is non-union and some of their competitors are not.
• Establish a vehicle for detaining potential terrorists or political enemies entering the country.  This law could be used to detain people coming into the US with guitars unless they can prove no Lacey Act violations occurred for wood in their guitar.  I know this is a stretch but is this crazier than telling Gibson if they had exported the jobs their problems would go away?  And as CNN states in the following video, the Lacey Act gives federal agents broad authority to pursue smugglers.

 

Maybe we'll get to the bottom of this bizarre mystery over time but you will have to admit this is strange.  To support my assertion, click here and read an article from a supporter of the Lacey Act who thinks the government is wrong in this case.  Sorry for the politics but this is so crazy I just could not pass it up.

 

 

 

   

Are the Millennials the New Greatest Generation?

Millennials, A.K.A. Generation Y, and A.K.A Digital Natives have been receiving a significant amount of publicity recently.  These are the people born between the mid 70s to the mid 90s, children of the Baby Boomers.  I had written 2 blogs about Digital Natives:  one on them as it relates to their online activities and another based on their impact on music.  But this generation was highlighted this week with 2 significant items that caught my attention. 

This past week, Time Magazine's feature article was titled, "The New Greatest Generation."  In this article several stories were told about veterans who came back from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to face struggles and to help others even if disabled.  Because so many had to face combat in these counter-insurgency wars, their experiences steeled them for anything they would face in the future.  As General Petraeus said, "They've had to show incredible flexibility, never knowing whether they are going to be greeted with a handshake or hand grenade.  I believe they are our next great generation of leaders."  The current title holder of Greatest Generation was based on overcoming the attack at Pearl Harbor and fighting a war that cost millions of lives.  They followed this by building our nation to great prosperity.  The common theme here is overcoming struggles that lead to greatness and country over self.

 

The 2nd relevant event was a BookTV segment on C-SPAN on Margaret Hoover's new book, American Individualism:  How a New Generation of Conservatives Can Save the Republican Party.  Hoover, who is Herbert Hoover's great granddaughter, lays out a compelling argument that the Republican Party must go after this group if it expects to be successful in the future.  Part of her presentation was a pretty significant amount of statistics.  This is a large group.  There were 50 million in 2008 and 80 million now.  This means they outnumber Baby Boomers by 17 million and Gen X by 27 million.  And they vote even more than the general electorate.  They are diverse.  40% are non-white and 20% have at least 1 immigrant parent.  They are strong believers in volunteerism with 83% saying they volunteered in the last year.

 

Here are some more key statistics from Pew Research:    

First, note items toward the bottom regarding their priorities.  Becoming famous and having lots of free time are not very important, nor is having a high-paying career.  This indicates to me that they are much less narcissistic than other generations like the entitlement sponge worst generation Baby Boomers, of which I am one.  Also note that living a very religious life is not high on their priorities yet 67% claim they pray every day according to Hoover.  At the top of their list of priorities is being a good parent, having a successful marriage, and helping others in need; evidence of their altruism.  And what is shocking to boomers like me is 58%, according to Hoover, believe government is good at running things.  Talk about optimism.....

Time will bear out whether or not these folks will deliver on the promise to become the next great generation.  But they have a similar shared struggle with the current greatest generation given 2 ongoing wars that have lasted 10 years, are much more trusting and charitable than any generation in a while, and have the advantage of growing up in a digital world.  It would also be encouraging from a human spirit perspective if this generation rectifies the problems caused by their parents the boomers.  Let's hope they can change our military colonialism to volunteer colonialism and fix our debt problems by shifting from an entitlement mentality to a contribution mentality.  They are on their way.  Let's hope they succeed as we and generations to follow are depending upon them.

Finally here's a light video that helps explain them:

   

 

 

 

My Take on the Debt Ceiling Debacle

OK, I'm a news junkie, particularly political news.  So this issue with all its drama has been interesting, boring, and infuriating though I can't say humorous.  Here's my take.  Some of the analysts claim the magnitude of the argument is a function of 7-24 news channels and social media.  I think it is because this is a clear conflict between liberal and conservative views.  The president and the Democrats/Liberals think the optimum structure is to have a large central government that serves as a safety net for the less fortunate in our society.  They would prefer a smaller military and are not as concerned with the debt because they see savings from getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan and possibly reducing the number of bases worldwide.  They also think the wealthy don't pay their fair share as the extremely rich have gained huge wealth in recent years.  So if we just tax them more than the deficit then eventually the debt will be OK.  The Republicans/Conservatives think the private sector needs the freedom to create jobs with minimal regulations and taxation, the federal government should be small, and defense spending should not be cut.  They are in favor of cutting the size of the federal government to reduce the deficit and debt and are in favor of a balanced budget amendment to force Washington to limit spending.

What struck me first about this episode is the lack of attention in the media regarding a balanced budget amendent.  Harry Reid, the head Democrat in the Senate said the Boehner bill is DOA (Dead On Arrival) because it contains a balanced budget ammendment.  The much talked-about CNN poll showed in question 23 that 66% of those polled favor a balanced budget amendment.  Why does the mainstream media let them get away with this?  The process takes a long time and is based on voting within the states.  What could be more democratic?  The second thing that strikes me about this is that the Republicans are getting most of the blame (question 19), 63% say the Republicans have not acted responsibly.  They said they would not just pass the debt ceiling without getting budget cuts; and that is irresponsible????  What about Obama and the Democrats who wanted a "clean" debt ceiling increase?  What about how Obama for 2 years and a Democratically led Congress for 4 years have added more to the debt than all the other administrations from Washington through Reagan? And why does Obama and the Democrats get a virtual pass for not passing a budget in the Senate and Obama's budget for this year tripled the deficit and was voted down in the Senate 98 to 0?  Now I do agree that if the debt ceiling is not raised the Republicans would be to blame as did 51% of the survey in question 20. That's because if the Republicans had not won the House then the debt ceiling would have been raised without any plan or pressure to reduce spending. 

Third the last aspect of Obama's position which hasn't been questioned regards his insistence that the debt ceiling be raised enough to get us through the next election.  It is plain to see that politics is driving this position.  Obama does not want the public to think about how he and the Democrats have added to the debt again before the election.  But the question not being asked is what is the logic of pushing out the debt ceiling vote for 16 months when the past average debt ceiling votes were every 6 months according to Charles Krauthammer?  Fourth, while the threat of the bond agencies downgrading the US bond rating has been tied to passing the increase in the debt ceiling, the real issue for them is whether or not the US is serious about getting a handle on deficit spending.  Check out this video from Charles Krauthammer from April:

Finally while the CNN survey showed that 70% of the respondents have either followed this issue Very Closely (23%) or Somewhat Closely (47%), I feel the lack of awareness of this and other issues is resulting in the election of people who are not governing in the best interests of the nation.  Thomas Jefferson is credited with saying “The government you elect is government you deserve".  I'm having more problems with people who vote yet are so uninformed.  I'm beginning to adopt John Stossel's opinion that some people should not vote.  The president's apparent strategy for re-election is to not do anything about the deficit and attack his opponents for any attempts to do so with "Mediscare" and promoting redistribution of wealth.  Take the class warfare.  Here are the facts:

As you can see the top 50% pays 97.3% of all taxes with the bottom 50% only paying about 3 %.  So convert this to voters.  Almost half of all voters pay no income tax so Obama's suggestion to raise taxes on the wealthy sounds like a no-brainer.  We've already seen ads with a likeness of Congressman Paul Ryan thowing gradma off a cliff  as part of Mediscare when Ryan's plan has no impact on seniors who are 55 or older.  With an estimated billion dollars of contributions expect ads that push this theme.  So instead of addressing the financial problems of entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security, Obama will use negative ads, scare tactics, and redistribution of wealth to go after voters who will buy in to this.  I just hope all those people who can't identify the vice president but who can identify Mike the Situation from Jersey Shores stays home on election day.....

 

Sorry about the politics.  And I'm sure some on the other side are just a certain Obama and the Democrats are the good guys and the Republicans are the bad guys.  God help us all!!!

 

 

Bill Gates Donates $42M to Reinvent the Toilet

You may have heard about the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation donating $42 million for research to reinvent the toilet.  Check out the video: