Swickard column: Our in debt forever society

© 2016 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. “As quickly as you start spending federal money in large amounts it looks like free money.” Dwight Eisenhower
             It was a short political conversation when he started, “Our leaders…” and I interrupted, “They are not my leaders, they are my representatives. I didn’t empower them to lead me, I empowered them to represent me.”
            He was trying to make a different point but I wouldn’t call the people who won elections my leaders. Leaders are like the King and Queen. Leaders rule over me. Well, perhaps Congress is full of leaders and lacks representatives of the people.
            Many of the representatives we send to Congress act like they are royalty. They get rich on the public dole. While making less than $200,000 a year from their congressional salary their wealth increases by millions each year. The media turns a blind eye to this.
            Also, there is the long-term effect of our representatives. They have put every man, woman and child in our country very much in debt without our permission. Every year for decades they spent more money than our country had from tax revenue.
            Know this: I did not empower my representatives to place me in debt. They won’t admit it either that our country is broke because our representatives have consistently for decades spent more money than they received from tax revenue.
            In fact, our representatives have and are spending more money than taxes can ever bring in. Our listed debt is near twenty trillion dollars and our unfunded debt is near a hundred trillion dollars. That means we could take every dollar in our economy for five years and apply it to our debt but we would still be hopelessly in debt.
            This has been done in less than sixty years. During the Eisenhower presidency there were several years of budget surpluses. Then starting in the 1960s our representatives spent and spent and spent making government bigger and bigger and bigger. Each new class of representatives seemed to outdo the last in making government bigger and more intrusive.
            Worldwide we see this in many countries. Their politicians over decades have consistently spent more money than tax revenue to the point these countries are completely broke but will not admit it. At first they borrowed and borrowed and borrowed to keep their power going.
            When they couldn’t borrow any more money they printed money. Now they are in default as will be almost all nations who spend more than they take in. They still deny their debt and try to make it someone else’s problem. Ultimately, that will not work.
            In New Mexico it is a similar story. States cannot spend more money than they take in from taxes so our representatives starting with Governor Bill Richardson stopped only spending what they had and started borrowing money so they could spend even more money.
            Previously under Governor Gary Johnson New Mexico only spent what it had. The state was one of only several states who did not have debt. Richardson changed that and floated bonds for spending which are debt instruments. Now a large percentage of our spending is paying for the debt they borrowed. It only gets worse.
            Everything in Santa Fe is about bonding capacity and using more and more debt instruments. The debt of these practices will bankrupt the state at some point. But the media didn’t take Economics 101 so all they see is more spending, not realizing that the spending is achieved with debt which must be repaid.
            There is an old saying, “Laugh when you borrow and you will cry when you repay.” Yep, we are about to have a sob-session like no others. Look at countries that have spent and spent and spent. They are forced to tighten their belts and the citizens often are rioting because they feel entitled to money the country doesn’t have.
            The very least we can do with the debt that is being foisted upon the citizens of New Mexico is to admit that it is debt and not good in the long-term. Our representatives are money-holics who live to spend. First they must admit their addiction to debt if we are to cure this problem.

Share/Bookmark

Swickard column: Sutton’s Law goes to college

Willie Sutton inspired a law
© 2016 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.  “Why do you rob banks?” asked Mitch Ohnstad. “Because that’s where the money is,” said Willie Sutton.
            A noted bank robber from the Twentieth Century is used by medical students as a way of making a quicker diagnosis. Rather than think of all that might be wrong with a patient, they go directly to the most likely diagnosis which has been dubbed, “Sutton’s Law.”
            We are seeing Sutton’s Law in our New Mexico institutions of higher learning when it comes to budget problems. Money is tight. That normally should trigger soul-searching and budget searching to see what could be cut. Being short on money is the time to look at priorities and adjust programs accordingly.
            Instead, using Sutton’s Law, colleges only raise tuition “because that is where the money is.”
            In the 1990s I did a Ph.D. at New Mexico State University. The tuition and fees when I started were under $600 a semester. Currently they are $4,000 a semester and there are calls by the NMSU administration to raise tuition because of budget woes.
            As to inflation, $600 in 1994 would be $960 today. But NMSU’s tuition is $4,000 meaning tuition has risen more than four times the rate of inflation. Ignoring economics, NMSU again and again increased tuition and then had a surprised look on their faces when enrollment dropped.
            I have written about this repeatedly over the last twenty years as the cost of a college education in New Mexico increased rather than NMSU cutting programs and becoming leaner. It’s Sutton Law, increasing tuition is where the money is.
            I enjoyed my time at college and went to college willingly, in fact eagerly. The education I received was very good for what I wanted and I am satisfied that my time was well spent. But it was spent at $600 a semester and I am tightly wound so I didn’t stay long.
            The other day I was speaking to a very bright young person. We were discussing educational options. I confessed to this potential college student that am not sure I would go to NMSU at $4,000 a semester and then buy books and all the other costs. Might not.
            The question is: could I self-educate in some fields instead of sitting for years in classes? Are there other things I could do productively to earn an income that would satisfy me?
            Now in degree-requiring fields you have to go college to get a job. The question is: which colleges can give you the required credentials most economically? Colleges and universities are up against several trends which might spell the end of higher education as we have known it.
            There are three issues that our higher education administration apparently does not want to address: first, most college students assume a job will follow. Programs that do not have a vibrant job market are not being phased out to the detriment of students.
            Secondly, college students are charged the same for high value classes as for low value classes. In some programs the professors are paid less than $30,000 a year while some professors in Engineering make six figure salaries. There is no adjustment in the cost of classes.
            Finally, the sunk cost of bricks and mortar in the physical plants cause our institutions of higher learning to lean toward using those physical plants since they have to pay for them regardless of if they are useful for the future of students.
It asks the question: does the administration of NMSU have a fiduciary relationship with the students or their employees? It can only be one. If it was financially appropriate to fire a quarter of all NMSU employees, could the administration do so or would the students be asked to cover the costs to no gain for them?
Those are tough questions in this changing world. It is like NMSU football which I touched on recently. I still intend to buy tickets to the football games whether they are D1 or not. I will be at their games cheering.
            Are they going to continue selling losses because “that’s where the money is?” If they do, they will eventually lose the entire football program and probably look surprised.


Share/Bookmark

Swickard column: To stop an attack upon America

Perhaps not if, it is when
© 2016 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.   There is a mainly unseen and undiscussed danger in America. It is that we are subject to irrational fear in some areas. And our enemies know this. What do we fear the most? Atomic bombs.
            The Soviet Union and our country engaged in a War of Fears during the Cold War from a principle known as Mutually Assured Destruction or MAD. Growing up in the 1950s I became aware that my life would be over in minutes if any madman pushed the button. In October 1962 that almost happened.
            The central idea of deterrence was where you and your enemy if either use nuclear weapons will both be completely destroyed. It worked. We haven’t had a nuclear attack in seventy years of nuclear weapons.
            But now our country faces a dilemma: if some terrorist organization explodes a nuclear weapon on American soil what is our national response? We do not have an articulated policy.
            No one is talking about the threat of a nuclear attack, yet rouge states have fissionable material and making a bomb while complicated is possible. It is not my intention to unduly scare Americans but there is a lot of the material already made. And, Iran along with North Korea have been making more for bombs.
            It would seem to rational Americans that it isn’t a question of if, rather when, some terrorist attacks our country with a nuclear bomb. I would predict widespread panic that will bring our nation to its knees. America would be hurt more by the panic than by anything else.
            A nuclear bomb doesn’t need to be the size of the first bombs, it can fit in a suitcase. So the question is: what is America’s policy about being attacked? What is our response to nuclear attack by terrorists?
            Rather than trying to come up with a policy while in ashes, it would seem that we need an articulated policy that we would really do. Would we bomb some enabling country into the Twelfth Century or is our response to send a protest letter to the United Nations?
            MAD worked with the Soviets, but the threats are terrorist groups and their sponsors. How can America respond if say ISIS sets off a nuclear bomb in our country?
            To end World War Two, the Allies had to do three things: defeat and disband the armies of Germany, Italy and Japan. Second, the Allies had to displace the leadership of those three countries. Finally, they had to change the culture of those three countries so that a new generation of fascists did not arise.
            We are engaged in multiple places in our world in a war of small scale domination. It is not like Germany taking Europe, but there are similarities. Most notably, any method was fine with the Nazi Government. Likewise, there seems no restraint of our attackers in the Middle East.
            At the start of WWII, Admiral William “Bull” Halsey is quoted as saying, “Before we’re through with them, the Japanese language will be spoken only in hell.” The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor sparked that feeling in many Americans.
            Thankfully we beat Japan’s dictatorship but after the war joined hands with the Japanese people. Not so much at first but they became good trading partners. I lived in Japan for three years and enjoy their culture.
            We must have a plan for the threat of nuclear attack and after the first nuclear attack on America to insure that no other attack every comes. Perhaps we can stop the threat entirely if we have the right policy.
            That will require a ruthlessness that matches our enemies since that is all that they know. Importantly, it is not the ground people that enable such attacks, it is the nations that supply money, training and hardware to the terrorists. That is who we must intimidate into inaction.
            For that reason, our leaders in Washington must be clear that an attack on America with nuclear weapons will result in catastrophic damage to the nations that enabled that attack. This must happen even though innocent lives in those countries would be taken.
            We must have a rational response policy if we are to deter attack.

Share/Bookmark

Swickard: Being smart in college football programs

© 2016 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.  “I find that the three major administrative problems on a campus are sex for the students, athletics for the alumni and parking for the faculty.” Clark Kerr, 1958
          There is a gloom over some New Mexico State University Aggies due to their football team falling on hard times these last fifty years. If the administrators wanted to get a good look at whom it was than precipitated the crisis, they only need to find a mirror.
            The NMSU Aggie motto might even be to blame: nobody tells an Aggie what to do. That’s the Aggies I have known since I started watching Aggie Football during coach Warren Woodson’s last season in 1967. He found success while none of the following coaches even came close.
            Woodson had a great quote: “The perfect record is seven and four because the fans are happy with the winning season, the Alumni are sullen but not mutinous and the NCAA won’t come and look at your program.”
            In the last thirty years of writing columns the number one topic has been Aggie Football. More than anything else I have protested one policy: selling loses to big programs for cash.
            NMSU has been harvesting cash with loses for most of forty years and each year their fortunes get worse because all football programs are judged by their win/loss record. I have made no progress with the leaders of the university. One said to me, “We know what we are doing!”
            My reply was that they were ignoring research and available data. This same person said that I just did not understand university administrative issues. Friends, I have a Ph.D. in educational administration from NMSU and pointed this out to that administrator. To no avail, they kept selling losses and the program gets weaker and weaker with their abysmal win/loss record.
            Finally, NMSU was thrown out of the good football league that included some great teams. Our college was dragging the rest of the league down because we sold losses. Currently NMSU finds that there is not a league that wants NMSU because NMSU sells losses but NMSU next year is going to continue selling losses.
            Fine, but don’t look surprised when your Football Program ends. That is the fate of Football Programs that continually sell losses.
            From the Clark Kerr quote to start the column, parking is a big problem at colleges. I asked a professor at NMSU about the parking some thirty years ago. He said, “It’s going to get a lot worse before it gets better.” So I immediately asked, “Do you think it will get better?” He shook his head, “No.”
            Many colleges had declining enrollments and act surprised. Why should less students coming be a surprise? College doesn’t hold the magic key of prosperity like was once the case. Now to even get a job students have to be savvy enough to select an employable major.
            The colleges won’t help because their administrative fiduciary relationship is with the professors so they will try to keep everyone employed rather than pare off majors where few jobs are available. With the football program and the majors at the university, NMSU is a contrast in roles.
            Does NMSU have the best interests of the students in mind or are those administrators feathering their nests? Why sell losses when it only weakens the program. Why keep majors where there are few if any jobs? Those questions need to be answered.
            Remember that the motto of NMSU is: nobody tells an Aggie what to do. So I doubt that there will be any changes. In fact, each time I point out the lunacy of selling losses the leaders double-down on their stupidity and amaze me even more with bad leadership.
            Ultimately, it is easy to see that these failures are my fault. I always buy season tickets to the Football Program and I went to NMSU for my Ph.D. So I guess I have no complaints. While I talk bad about the management they know I still support their decisions with my money.
            The customer is not always right but the customer always is the one with the money. This customer would like NMSU to be smarter.

Share/Bookmark