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

Obama's Excellent Adventure

© 2016 Jim Spence  We went fishing this week and were holed up in a rental house on the San Juan River, thanks to forty and fifty mile per hour winds. We had plenty of time to watch as the aftermath of the Brussels terror attacks unfold on the television news networks.

If you have lived long enough, you can’t help but be reminded of just how long radical Islamic terrorists have been waging a war on civilization as we know it. Consider the 1972 Olympic Games. They were shattered by Islamic killers, intent on destroying an event that featured athletes from countries all around the civilized world. Headline grabbing mass murder events, orchestrated by Muslims, have never stopped.

Unfortunately, over the decades the civilized world has alternated between recognizing the war being waged against it by Muslims, and ignoring it. Increasingly in Europe and in the U.S. we have let our guards down on common sense immigration policies. In Europe they have been been creating zones where Islamic communities have grown pretty much independent of law and order. There, terror cells fester.

The advent of the internet has changed every industry on the planet including the radical Islamic mass murder indoctrination industry. These days, the mass killings you have seen in Paris, San Bernardino, and Brussels are also a part of the digital age. Recruiting is done via remote locations.

Consider how Democrats have evolved their reaction to mass murder since 9-11. And consider how their standard bearer, Barack Obama, represents the mindset of most Democrats today. If someone points out the fact that Islam is the common thread in this terrible war against civilization, since it was the religion of the killers in Munich in 1972 and is the religion of the killers in Brussels in 2016, you aren’t connecting the dots, instead, your are an Islam-phobic bigot. And if you are leery of allowing more immigrants from Muslim countries to come to America, you don't have common sense, you are a bigot.
The pattern is clear. Mr. Obama finds the idea that he needs to have a real plan to deal with tens of thousands of murderers who embrace radical Islam...to be a nuisance. He has more important things to do......like rub elbows with Marxist dictators. Each time there is a mass murder here or abroad, Obama feels compelled to take a few annoying questions on the subject at a annoying press conference. And when the media notes his tone of indifference at the press conference, he usually follows up the next day with an insincere, but more emphatic assertion of his intent to get serious about mass murders. But of course Obama never does get serious. Instead, he calls for the U.S. to take even more Muslim immigrants from Syria. 
Why would Obama insist on ignoring the fact that Muslim transplants are the most likely source of new terrorists? Why does Obama argue vainly that NOT all Muslims are terrorists, which is true but irrelevant because he ignores that fact that nearly all terrorists are Muslims? Obama’s indifference to all of this, and the Democrats pretend game regarding racism and radical Islam is the most startling betrayal on our national security in 240 years.
It was an amazing coincidence that Obama was in Cuba embracing the Castro brothers earlier this week. As we watched him help legitimize these freedom-hating butchers, I was reminded of the harrowing stories told to me by the widow of a Cuban born pediatrician, who fled the Castro regime and landed in Las Cruces decades ago. What an irony that Mr. Obama finds little fault with these men who have jailed and killed many thousands of dissidents in Cuba, and continue to do so to this day. JFK and Harry Truman must be rolling over in their graves.
Disgracefully, Mr. Obama flew Air Force One from Cuba to Argentina later in the week. Argentina is a jurisdiction that has confiscated more private property than any other country in the western hemisphere, except those run by Marxist dictators. There Obama was filmed doing the tango at the same time his underlings were admitting to Congress that men he released from the Guantanamo Bay prison had killed Americans after he inexplicably set them free.
The following day in Argentina Obama baffled us all when he suggested that there is very little difference between capitalism and communism. What he must have meant by that absurd statement was there is very little difference between himself and the Castros. And on this comparison he made a point we could all agree with.

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

A curious value system

© 2016 Jim Spence - If you watch the Democratic debates they can provide unmistakable clues regarding the value systems of people who vote in the Democratic primaries.
Consider Bernie Sanders. Bernie loves to go after Hillary Clinton for her “Wall Street” connections. He finds it despicable that she has taken millions from New York-based securities firms, but won’t release the transcripts of her paid speeches to these firm’s employees. Bernie gets downright furious when he claims that her friends on Wall Street “destroyed” the U.S. economy.
It is actually a pretty amusing assessment of the economy, considering the rapid pace of the advance of socialistic policies under Barack Obama. With total control of the government for the first two years of his presidency, and far-reaching executive orders ever since, plus Sanders votes every step of the way; Obama was able to shape the same economic conditions Sanders now thinks are so bad.
Sanders says the economy has been destroyed, but he does not blame the anti-business socialist environment he and Obama created, instead, he blames the ever convenient boogieman……“Wall Street.”
It is fascinating to observe the media moderators at the Democratic debates. The moderators have actually stopped prompting Sanders when it comes to the fact that Clinton purposely did an end run around highly secured federal government protocols designed to protect secret information while she was Secretary of State. Bernie knows his opponent instructed her employees to scrub the words “classified” from the headings before re-sending them. And he knows she lied when she said she never sent classified emails. Mrs. Clinton committed several crimes that are now very well known, thanks to her own email releases. And the public does not trust Mrs. Clinton because they know, thanks to her own statements and emails, that she is a liar. Bernie knows this too. Why doesn’t Bernie harp on this? Why have the media monitors actually stopped asking Bernie about these crimes during “debates?” 
Perhaps a little background can easily explain the Democrat world view on lying about national security and how Mrs. Clinton and Sanders fit pretty snugly there.
Mrs. Clinton is known almost universally, thanks to several books written by Secret Service agents who worked on her detail, for her deep dislike and utter disrespect for those who were and still are responsible for protecting her. It is a curious thing. People who guard her are the ones she treats the worst (she is actually very mean and contemptuous towards almost everyone).
It is also very well known that Mrs. Clinton abhors the military. She has an almost pathological hatred for armed service and law enforcement uniforms, as well as a deep disgust for people wearing those uniforms. Again these are the people who not only protect her, but are part of the group of people she claims, in her speeches, to be fighting for. It is an amazing phenomenon. Clinton's disregard for security people is reflected in the way Mrs. Clinton mishandled Benghazi as well as top secret information. 
The reason why it is a felony to not protect your communications when you have top secret clearance is simple. The U.S. government employs thousands of national security agents in the field overseas. These men and women face grave dangers every day (like those in Benghazi). When information regarding their operations is breached, these people can be identified and killed. Hundreds of people have gone to jail for transgressions in this area because they cause deaths.
Why won’t Bernie Sanders talk about Clinton’s lies on the deaths of people in Benghazi or her utter disregard for the safety of other people serving overseas? The answer is pretty simple. Bernie doesn’t really care either. Sanders thinks freedom of speech and freedom to come and go as he pleases is just like everything else in his fantasy world. It is simply FREE because he thinks it should be free.
Bernie Sanders does not devote any time or energy to think or talk about terrorism policies. He has his own big bad boogie men that he prefers to condemn and attack. And his enemies are not gun-toting and bomb-building Islamic terrorists. No, the real danger to America in Bernie’s world, are business people who sign paychecks each week. Bernie thinks most business people exploit their workers. He thinks anyone who takes risks, and is successful, should be targeted for abuse. What they earn should be confiscated for the greater good. Most Democrats agree and Hillary parrots Bernie on this topic because business people, like Secret Service agents, police officers, and soldiers, are just pawns in her power world.
So there you have it. Bernie Sanders could not care less that Hillary has been jeopardizing American agents out working in the danger zones around the world. He finds it easy to dismiss her criminal handling of classified information as not important. He simply doesn’t care about such things. In fact Bernie cares so little, he doesn’t even care if many other Democrats do care about these important laws and find her to be a liar.
Indifference towards the lives of these people speaks volumes about the value system of Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and the rest of Democrats. In the end most Democrats will look past Mrs. Clinton’s crimes and also look past the fact that they do not find her to be trustworthy. You see, trustworthiness is just not an important part of that value system.

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