Swickard: The lost world of human capital

© 2016 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. "Achieving the highest possible return on human capital must be every manager's goal." 
     Brian Tracy  People in business know the value of human capital, but do we citizens? Brian Tracy writes about the value of good employees. I was thinking about the human capital of our citizens, as a whole, in our country. Some of that valuable human capital is being lost. And we are not attending to our losses.

            We spend lots of money educating all children. Billions of dollars are being used in public education and colleges. We get doctors, lawyers and engineers along with people in the trades who keep our country functioning. We, as a country, are only as good as all of our citizens.

            However, a third of all children drop out of a free education and often end up in jail. America loses when people who could have invented something useful or who would have raised children well are put in prison for non-violent crimes. America needs those Americans, but our leaders have a political need to ruin lives.

            The New Mexico Legislature leaders are talking for this session about getting tougher on crime. As if this country has not being doing that for decades. That sounds nice in political speeches but our country is either a Police State right now or very close to it.

            I do realize that violent crimes must be dealt with harshly. No, I am talking about non-violent crimes that have filled our prisons to capacity and more. We have allowed police units to become a military of their own.

            Everywhere I go I am under the watchful eye and firearm of the police. Every action I take is monitored by a government agency. Not just me, every American. Yes, the NSA said they were going to stop spying on Americans. They are such liars.

            Here's the problem: progressives from both parties over the last one hundred years have used any excuse to make government bigger and bigger. The War on Drugs for the last seventy years has just been an excuse to turn our country into a de facto Police State. Sadly, drugs are just as plentiful today as when they started.

            America's incarceration rates are far beyond any other free country and now the New Mexico Legislature wants to toughen up the laws, which means incarcerate more New Mexicans. These are just numbers to the politicians and leaders. But they are flesh and blood humans.

            And we are losing their potentials. When we incarcerate them then all of their talents are lost and often lost forever. Some convicts do come out of prison and restart their lives. And that is the lesson. We really lose when we keep people incarcerated their entire lives.

            In the last year I have gotten to know someone who five years ago was in prison. I think his violations were drug related. When he got out all he could get was a janitor's job. But amazingly he was the best janitor that company had ever seen. He is naturally clever without any college.

            Over a couple of years he first became assistant manager and then a store manager. I am being vague because I do not have permission to identify this person. I have owned several businesses and run others. This person's store reflects his great managerial skills. So do his employees. Even when he is not in his store I see him in every one of his employees.

            He is changing lives by leadership. Years ago he was in prison and only by the fortune of a company taking a chance on him do we see the potential of his human capital. How much value are we losing when we send so many to prison?

            Becoming a Police State benefits politicians and unions by having many more people employed in police departments, courts and prisons. It is a vast ever-growing industrial complex that knows no bounds. New Mexico is getting tougher on crime for more political benefits. And we all lose the human capital from our society.

            America thought their way to the moon. Can we readjust our legal system so as to not lose all of this human capital? Perhaps.

Email: drswickard@comcast.net 

Swickard: The lost world of human capital

Swickard: The wealth effect in politics

© 2016 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.  It's no secret money and power flows to and from politics. Lots of it. This has been the modus operandi of our political system for much of our country's history. Countering those politicians and money waving influencers are supposed to be the mainstream media.

            They're supposed to watch for bad behavior in politicians and take the side of the citizens. But now they are taking sides for themselves in the political fights. They are vicious against the politicians they oppose while absent from the watchdog role with the politicians they support.

            In the last twenty years the Internet has blossomed in a watchdog role despite taking no vows to be accurate. With all of these eyes watching politicians you would think scummy behavior by elected officials would be as dead as television rabbit ears.

            However, scummy behavior in politicians seems more rampant than ever. With the next session of the New Mexico Legislature set to start shortly there are many initiatives looking to reign in the influence of money in politics. Transparency watchdogs are pushing for tougher reporting of campaign donations.

            What it shows is that few people really understand the scummy side of politics. Paper shufflers and those who look at the paperwork only get a tiny look at scummy behavior. Filed paperwork only shows mistakes made in reporting but not the real intent.

            The real players when major money is given and taken do not intend for it to be seen. When a willing bribe giver and a willing bribe takers exchange there is not any paperwork filed. If both parties are happy no one will talk about it. The same is true for those politicians who sell out for sexual rewards or jobs for relatives.

            To see the real effect of money on politics you must look at a measured effect of the money. Not the decisions elected officials make because there are always explanations. If someone is on the take, their net worth goes up. But the watchdogs are not looking at net wealth increases.

            If watchdogs don't look at the wealth effect, they will not see it. What needs to be done by the investigative reporters is very mundane and labor intensive: chart every year of service as to the net worth of the person serving. Start with the year before elected and keep a running tab on how their wealth changes.

            There are ways to hide wealth with spouses and children and other relatives. But wealth sticks out in our society because to have wealth is to use it. Just piling up numbers in an account doesn't do anyone any good. To have money is to spend money.

            So when looking at a public servant on the take there will always be evidence of unbridled increase in wealth. This is especially so when you compare them to colleagues. Some people in politics will have a similar wealth before, during and after their years in service. Others hit the jackpot and pile up wealth.

            Of course there will always be explanations such as: I started a new way of investing. It is returning a thousand percent per month... Can we see your market report? Ah no.

            It is important to treat each wealth inquiry fairly and not with partisan zeal so that some slip through and others are caught. For this to be useful we must catch everyone who spins up their wealth briskly while in office.

            Questions of fantastic increases in wealth are not proof of taking bribes, but it certainly opens the door to looking very carefully. But if this inquiry is automatic to all who are elected it will discourage bribes because when caught politicians turn on the bribe givers. There is no one thing to clean up politics but this will help.

            Most importantly, it is unfair to the honest servants of the people to look at them like they are a chicken killing dog. The effect of the time served on honest politicians shows they give citizens a great gift of their time and effort while not taking any advantage of their position.

            We owe them this inquiry to catch scummy politicians. We are left with honest and faithful servants.

Email: drswickard@comcast.net 

Swickard: The wealth effect in politics

Swickard: The real statehood day in New Mexico

Bottom right, William Gallacher

© 2016 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.  Today I am thinking of New Mexico Statehood Day, January 6th, 1912. Also I'm thinking of William Gallacher, the last surviving member from the New Mexico State University Class of 1908. He died at age ninety-eight a few years ago. He was living in New Mexico on statehood day so I asked him about it.

            From living in White Oaks, N.M. before the turn of the twentieth century and before the railroads came; he lived to see the landing of the space shuttle sixty miles from his ranch. He was thirty-five miles away from the first atomic explosion at Trinity Site, July 16, 1945.

            He was also one of the few who could look up in the sky and say, "Halley’s Comet, what do you know, there it is again."

            I drove out to his ranch in 1978 to ask him about the day New Mexico became a state. January 6, 1912 was the day that President Taft signed the official paperwork.

            Since Bill was four years out of college by then he would be a perfect person to ask. I pictured writing a story about people firing guns in the air, firecrackers going off, dogs barking, people toasting statehood at the local bar and speeches being made about, "Our date with destiny and our place in the sun."

            New Mexico spent sixty years trying to become a state with one thing or another stalling our chances. In 1912 we made it. Gallacher’s neighbor, William McDonald was New Mexico’s first elected governor, and owner of the famous Bar W ranch north of Carrizozo.

            Bill greeted me warmly and we sat over coffee at the kitchen table. He was the kind of person to always look right at you when he spoke. You knew right away what he thought. We started off by discussing the happenings of the day. Bill was like that, more interested in today than yesterday.

            After a while we had run through all of the available topics so I told him my perception that there must have been a big celebration in Lincoln County since the first elected governor was a local rancher.

            He thought a moment and then leaned closer, as a school master would a student who was a slow learner, "Celebrations?" He remembered back all of those years and did not smile.

            "On the day we became a state I got up about an hour before dawn, had a little breakfast and at first light went out to tend to sick animals, kill coyotes and do all of the chores that used up an entire day. About an hour after sunset I came back in and had a little supper then went to bed.

            "I was cold, tired and hungry. I would not have gone into town for any celebration. We hardly noticed statehood the first few years. Most of us were too busy just trying to stay alive, to feed ourselves and to carve out a place that would become our home to notice any politicians, not even a fine cattleman like McDonald.

            "Every day I got up early and worked late. I had no other energy and did not come in off of the range sometimes for months at a time."

            He noticed my lack of comprehension so continued, "Politicians and celebrations were a luxury most of us then could not afford. For thirty years on this land I worked with all of my energy. It was not a forty hours a week job, it was dawn to dark seven days a week or we would not have made it. Only after the ranch was on solid footing did I notice the government. I served on the Lincoln County Commission and the school board."

            I was thankful that Bill brought me back to reality before I wrote something silly about the celebrations the citizens all had when New Mexico became a state. It was a hard time back then, more so than most of us can even realize. And January 6, 1912 was, for most of the citizens of New Mexico, just one more working day.

            The way to celebrate the anniversary correctly is by going to work early and working late.

 Email: drswickard@comcast.net

Swickard: The real statehood day in New Mexico

Swickard: Half of all Americans are below average

Surprise for my high school teachers 

© 2016 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.  "For the first time ever, overweight people outnumber average people in America. Doesn't that make overweight the average then?" Jay Leno

            I salute the wisdom of Jay Leno. My high school nickname was "Slim" since I swam competitively in high school. Today when someone says, "Hey Slim," I know they are just trying to get a rise out of me. But I'm now average.

            Since the Clemson - Alabama game is a couple days away I was thinking of William "The Fridge" Perry who in 1981 played on the National Championship Clemson team and then on the Super Bowl Chicago Bears team. Coach Ryan gave him the nickname of "Biscuit." The coach said, "The Fridge is only one biscuit away from 350 pounds."

            And perhaps we could say I am just one bowl of green chile and beef away from having to buy new clothes. Hence this week is the start of the 2016 annual diet week where I do gerbil like activity until I get distracted from all of that exercise. However, this year I have a Fitbit activity tracking band that counts my steps so perhaps I will turn over a new leaf. Perhaps indeed.

            Americans try to understand average. I can safely mention this since we just got by the Thanksgiving Christmas and New Year's juggernaut of extra calories. After a successful holiday season, I resemble the average American.

            We swim in a sea of statistics with very few people understanding what they suggest. When I say that half of all Americans are below average the average American wants to do something about it. We can't have all of those Americans being below average, or can we?

            This notion has been humorously dealt with by Garrison Keillor's A Prairie Home Companion where in the segment News from Lake Wobegon he says, "... (Lake Wobegon) where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average."

            In 1987, John Cannell, a Virginia physician, noticed at that time every state claimed their students were above average. Further, the student scores were found to be uniformly above average in all states. This syndrome was then labeled the “Lake Wobegon Effect.”

            In a recent poll 95% of all drivers rated themselves above average drivers. Go figure. I admit it sounds bad to be below average if we care about whatever we are being judged upon. In public school I was a statistical average student consistently getting the grade of C. Teachers in exasperation would say, "You could get a B or an A if you tried."

            They didn't understand my philosophy: if you turn homework in, they will expect it every time. So the non-existent dog ate my homework. And I cultivated a persona of not being academically inclined. Truth be known I was just not tuned to their radio station as the saying goes.

            Should we rate my teachers down because I was not interested in high school except for the things that I found interesting? In a conversation about my lack of achievement since I had just over a two point zero grade point average my mother mentioned to the counselor that I owned a couple thousand books.

            Yep, I read all of the time when I wasn't doing sports. But I didn't find what they wanted me to know interesting. As far as students going to go to college I was very much below average. But they just did not understand me since I achieved a Ph.D. when I decided that it was what I wanted.

            The great failing of our public schools is that they are focused on the adults, not the kids. Some kids are more compliant than others. All of the measures of public schools are actually only measuring how compliant the kids are in today's schools. Most are just not compliant.

            Me, I would purposely get every answer wrong on the accountability tests if I was forced to take it. I know myself and how I dealt with public school fifty years ago. And I would be labeled below average. So? What the accountability would measure with me is my engagement with their agenda. I am not.

 Email: drswickard@comcast.net 

Swickard: Half of all Americans are below average

Swickard: Each year has a lesson to teach

© 2015 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.  In a small unscientific study looking only at myself I find that the years go by quickly. They are packed with victories and losses. If we have a loss, at least we should get the lesson. Getting lemons doesn't help unless you have sugar and water for lemonade.

            Let's look at 2015 as we think about 2016. We must remember the mistakes that were made this year so we don't repeat them. We also need to remember our victories so we have some chance to repeat them.

            George Santayana in 1906 wrote, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Our society doesn't seem to learn. Let's make 2016 the year we learn from a previous year's mistakes.

            If there was an organization to remember society's wins and losses each year they would say you must acknowledge both the wins and losses. Losses are difficult because people gloss over them while fixating on wins.

            The biggest loss in the last few years is the loss of the truth. Truth has become the new hate speech. George Orwell wrote, "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."

            Many people are afraid of the truth because an expedient political power play has emerged in our society. It is to label as racist or worse anyone who opposes the wishes of the political parties. 2015 was a name-calling year with most of the name-calling being done for political gain.

            A friend runs a political blog and has a hard time with the inclination of some posters to name-call and act ugly. I am glad he is fighting that fight because we can never have truth in our society if the name-calling brigands are allowed to take over public dialogs.

            The year 2015 will be remembered as the year everything offended someone. David Bednar wrote, "To be offended is a choice we make; it is not a condition inflicted or imposed upon us by someone or something else."

            This year I found I could concurrently offend both Republicans and Democrats. I got hate emails from both the same week. I have written a weekly column for more than thirty years so I am used to offending people. It happens. But this year it seemed that there was a virulent practiced response to opposing ideas and that was name-calling and ignoring the truth.

            One person was very offended when I wrote about something that happened in the 2015 New Mexico Legislature. The problem for me was that I did not witness this situation myself. But I found four people who confirmed to me what happened along with two others in law enforcement who witnessed it. I would not retract my column.

            This last year the two major political parties were nationally very similar. The only thing they disagree on was which person should be elected, not the will of the people and how Congress should protect the Constitution.

            The emphasis of 2015 for the national leaders of both parties was to make government bigger. This has been covered extensively by the national press that can be identified by their political editorial leanings. Both the liberal press and the less liberal press have their agendas. If it wasn't for the Internet they would succeed.

            Many years ago Bob Hope quipped, "No one party can fool all of the people all of the time; that's why we have two parties." A friend said to one politician, "Please act as if you actually talk to citizens and not just consultants and fixers." That didn't go over well.

            Comedian George Burns was asked, "How's your wife?" He answered, "Compared to what?" That is what we have to realize each year. When we do a year in review in some ways we are often comparing to other years.

            Can we learn from 2015? Yes, but we must want to learn. We may have to change some of our elected politicians if we want real change. Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1789, "Whenever people are well informed they can be trusted with their own government."

            We have many well-informed citizens but everyone loses when truth is politically inconvenient and so is absent from our society.

 Email: drswickard@comcast.net 

Swickard: Each year has a lesson to teach

Swickard: When it is too early for formal public schooling

© 2015 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. Question: when is the best age to start children in public schools? This is like the question: why not teach algebra to five-year olds? Answer: our brains must develop before we can do formal logic. The age to start formal public school education is not until the age of six.

            However, a big push in our society by well-meaning people and power-hungry politicians is that earlier contact with school makes a better scholar. They say that while ignoring the research. They have many reasons not involving the welfare of the children when they want to start children younger.

            However, others people, myself included, feel that certain brain development phases must occur for children to thrive in a formal education setting. Research which I will point to suggests you can injure young children by putting them in formal academic settings too soon.

            We should look at the research but the way many professional educators have been operating of late is to ignore all research that doesn't support what they want. They say, "Forget the research we want to have a bigger empire and employ more people."

            When I was young most students began their formal education at the age of six. The generation that sent men to the moon and returned them safely started their schooling at this age. It works. The children were in family or church daycare until it was time to start school.

            Then there came kindergarten. In the 1960s there was the adoption of public school kindergarten for many students. In New Mexico it was the middle of the 1970s when the public schools uniformly started offering kindergarten. But that kindergarten was vastly different than what we see now.

            Back then it was only for half of the day and focused on play activities. Children sang songs and played games and took naps and went home saying, "I love school." Then well-meaning people said, "Why don't we keep them all day." It made sense since parents would not have to accommodate the other half of the day.

            The beauty for the politicians was it allowed public schools to hire twice as many kindergarten teachers. And for a while that was how schools went. But then administrators started talking about changing kindergarten into a formal academic activity.

            They justified changing kindergarten to formal education for five year olds so when these young students are in fourth grade they will do better making the school seem more successful. Kindergarten now doesn't look like it did. The play and informal curriculum is gone and the five year olds are just trying to learn the six year old stuff a year early. How is that working? Terrible but no one is paying attention.

            Research at Stanford University suggests the move to get children into academic classrooms sooner comes with liabilities. There is an interesting study that even mainstream news organizations are noticing. It is: The Gift of Time? SchoolStarting Age and Mental Health.

            This research from Stanford University looks at when students start and if starting a year later would be better. There are countries that start their children later in school. What is the outcome?

            The later starting children do better on the fourth and eighth grade tests and seem to not have as many mental health issues. But the research doesn't fit the political needs of our education leaders. The vast industrial public education complex needs the young children in the system.

            And I am fine with that if these politicians will just read the research and see that they can make the first year a year of curiosity, play and social involvement but they cannot teach formal education to the majority of the five year olds.

            Further, we must see our young children by their number of day alive and not birth year. I was born seven days before the cutoff so I was the youngest and smallest boy in most of my classes. Some of my competing classmates were fifteen percent older than me that first year.

            The Stanford study, which can be downloaded for five dollars talks about all of these issues. I do wish some of our leaders would look at this great research.

 Email: drswickard@comcast.net 

Swickard: When it is too early for formal public schooling

Swickard: Free college or free students from college?

Grandfather E V McKim Sr's practical education

© 2015 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.  One of the talking points for politicians is free college for students. They reason that preschool to high school graduation in public education is free, why not college? It is not free, someone else pays.

            Perhaps we should debate the aim of our education system. Thomas Jefferson wrote that education had two aims, "The laboring and the learned. Few students had the ability to be (academically) learned but our country always needs educated labor."

            In today's world our public schools push all students to attend college. In 1968 it was not my intention to attend college. My Grandmother Frieda wanted me to go so I went.

            In 1917 she got a Masters Degree from Western New Mexico University in Silver City. It was then New Mexico State Teachers' College. She had come to New Mexico in 1908 from upstate New York to be a teacher in a one room schoolhouse in Three Rivers. Later she taught in White Oaks.

            Of her children only my uncle went to college. He got a degree in Electrical Engineering in 1952 after serving in the Navy during WWII. I went to New Mexico State University in 1968 reluctantly since I already was a fine photographer. My father taught at the Air Force School of Photography. I thought I had all of the education I needed.

            But my grandmother saw something in me that a college education made better. Ultimately I got a Ph.D. in Educational Administration with a focus on distance education. But I could have just been a photographer and writer. Life is a funny old dog when it comes to what we set out to do and what happens.

            America was built by artisans and laborers. Two of my great-grandparents came to America to work on the railroads, one from Sweden and the other from Ireland. My Grandmother Frieda's husband was a railroad engineer in steam locomotives.

            He only went through the fourth grade but could fix almost anything. Today some are saying that only the academics really matter. Tell that to someone with an overflowing toilet.

            In Junior High I took six semesters of shop covering tools, wood, metal, electrical, automotive, and home building during those three years. It was outstanding. I am handy enough to handle most things and experienced enough to know when things need to be fixed by someone who really knows what they are doing.

            We will always need handy people in our society. Everything will break, we just do not know when. Instead of pushing every student to college we should smile on all education, be it academic or mechanical.

            The movement for free college really is because colleges in the last twenty years have increased the tuition and fees many times the inflation rate. I went to New Mexico State University twenty years ago for my Ph.D. The tuition and fees were about six hundred dollars a semester.

            Currently at NMSU it is nearly four thousand dollars a semester so that either parents must pay the cost or the students incur lots of debt. The student-loan default rate is terrible. The solution for some is free college to keep students from going into debt. But should they be going to college in the first place?

            The college graduation rate in New Mexico is perhaps forty percent with many students just quitting. These students have student loan debt and no degree. That is one of the things driving the horrible student loan default rate.

            Many of the current graduates are either under-employed or unemployed. The college degree for many did not make life better as to supporting themselves. Now one of my favorite classes at college was a wonderful year of Irish writing from poetry to novels. But what pays the bills are the things I do which require my Ph.D. No, column writing does not require a degree, but my statistics and research background helps.

            Perhaps the current generation of college students who have graduated and cannot find a degree-required job should have explored something more practical to do. Would it be better if they had a professional trade to support themselves? They could afford college later if they found a desire to change fields.

 Email: drswickard@comcast.net 

Swickard: Free college or free students from college?

Swickard: The flaw in hating flawed leaders

Pat Garrett - Guts, Gumption and Courage

© 2015 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.  "The one thing I want to leave my children is an honorable name." Theodore Roosevelt

             There is a revisionist history move in the news which has been simmering for years but now has burst out in college campuses. Some activists want to remove many of our founding leaders from public buildings and revise our American history books because in today's world they all are scoundrels.

            Even more modern presidents like Theodore Roosevelt are legitimately under attack for their flaws. And all forty-three men who have taken the oath of office for the presidency are flawed. There are some flawed with graft, some with goofy ideas and some with being intentionally ignorant in times of crisis.

            This is not a black and white issue. We must view our leaders in a more mature way than these protesters are doing. There is a more compelling story about the founding leaders clear up to our leaders today: what did they do for the ages.

            That is the yardstick for me: what did these leaders do that others could not or would not such that we have the country we have today. Our country has brought freedom to other countries by example and by fighting wars, not for our own gain, but to insure freedom from dictators for other people.

            As to our founding leaders and the complaints currently about them: all of the leaders who founded our country either were slave holders or did not effectively resist the holding of slaves. That much is true. And we cannot change that flaw in them.

            Some people suggest we even change the name of our national capital because George Washington was a slave holder. The angels on earth who created liberty for much of the world were flawed humans. Yet through their actions we have our freedom today.

            But in the arena of public opinion there is an outcry to cleanse our national history of those who were flawed. And it is every leader we have ever had starting with the first ones during our Revolutionary War. It is a mistake to not consider all of each man.

            Thomas Jefferson is under attack and unable to defend himself. He wrote for the ages, "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

            Yes Jefferson was a flawed man in that he had slaves. And with Jefferson there are other things. But one of the problems with revising history is can we do without the good just to punish the bad?

            There were arguably four men who were essential to the Revolutionary War: George Washington who brilliantly commanded the weaker American forces into ultimate victory: Samuel Adams who provided the man-on-the-street leadership in effective citizen resistance; Benjamin Franklin who got the French to side with our nation or we would not have won and Thomas Jefferson who provided the words for our new country.

            Alas, can we find anyone who is not flawed? My favorite modern person, Martin Luther King, Jr. was certainly flawed. Yet he wrote for the ages, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

            In New Mexico we falsely worship a rascal we call Billy the Kid and ignore a man, yes flawed, who is a hundred times more interesting historically and as a member of our state: Pat Garrett. He was flawed in some ways and a legend by his resolve and courage. He had gumption and guts and ran toward the problem not away.

            In no way do I advocate obscuring the flaws of our leaders. We see that Americans in general have a simplistic view of our presidents, "George Washington was the father of our country and a good man." That is a disservice to their sacrifices.

            We have had some bad actions by men in the Oval Office which should be known. But ultimately let's take a look at their entire effect upon our country.

Email: drswickard@comcast.net 

Swickard: The flaw in hating flawed leaders

Swickard: Thanksgiving is an Immigrant holiday

Great-grandparents Erik and Johanna and Grandmother Freda

© 2015 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.  "It's a bit of a sore spot, Thanksgiving in Indian country." Robbie Robertson whose mother was Mohawk raised on the Six Nations Reservation in Canada

             The Pilgrim immigrants and the Native Americans who resided in America around the year 1600 died centuries ago. We are the descendants. Americans are divided on the question of immigration because it has such political gains and losses.

            For much of our history immigration was a benefit for both political parties. Then in 1914 something happened that changed our view of immigrants: the first year of our federal income tax.

            It passed in 1913 and in 1914 politicians had a wave of money to buy votes thanks to the people who worked. It was and is a tax on productivity therefore those who are productive like it less than those who get the benefits without working.

            Before 1914, immigration was open and appreciated. It brought workers to our country that had to stand on their own feet or suffer the consequences. Our transcontinental railroads were built by immigrants.

            The immigrants who came to America from the time of our founding until 1914 were people who could and did stand on their own feet. They added to our country's resources rather than taking resources. My relatives came from Germany, Ireland and Sweden not for American charity but for a chance to live a better life.

            My Great-Grandfather Erik Greenberg came from Sweden in 1867 and worked on the railroad. My grandmother was born in upstate New York in 1891. In 1908 the family moved to New Mexico and homesteaded land near Three Rivers. He is buried in Alamogordo.

            These days we frame immigration as our charity to the world where we take care of people from other countries. Americans support them with our productivity. This is also the debate about people who come to our country without legal status or stay illegally.

            The prime objection is that these people take our charity without giving us in America anything of value. While that is painting with a wide brush, it is the argument against allowing illegal immigration in our country. I think America should always be open to those who bring us something and follow our laws.

            I have a world view from having lived some years abroad and with the ability to speak several languages. I appreciate other cultures and especially appreciate the melting-pot aspect of America where for generations people of other lands came and made America stronger.

            This Thanksgiving I am most thankful for this wonderful country. I know Americans took by force the lands and ways of life of the inhabitants already in North America. I cannot do anything about that other than tell the truth. The Thanksgiving story is revisionist history since it happened around 1620 and the story of Thanksgiving we know came out during the Revolutionary and Civil Wars when the image of Thanksgiving was used to bolster American spirits.

            We should go out of our way to enable the current generations of Native Americans to live their lives as they wish because we know the truth of their loss. As to people who wish to come to our land without legal status or stay beyond their legal permit, I must oppose this for a reason not in public dialog currently.

            If in the year of my birth, 1950, President Truman wanted to spend money on refugees that might be fine. So what is different today? Truman would have been spending that generation's money.

            Contrast that to now when people coming to our country both legally and illegally with the intention to take our charity are not taking it from us Americans. Rather, they take it from our children and grandchildren's wealth. We Americans have already spent our wealth, and now are spending the wealth of future generations.

            Future generations should be allowed to be charitable if they so desire and not forced into it by us already spending their wealth before some of them are born. We cannot change what was done to the native populations centuries ago in what is now our country, but we can stop abusing the next generations.

            That is my prayer for this Thanksgiving.

 Email: drswickard@comcast.net 

Swickard: Thanksgiving is an Immigrant holiday

Marita Noon: Ethanol loses its few friends

Commentary by Marita Noon - http://energymakesamericagreat.org/

Early in his campaign, now top-tier Republican presidential candidate, Ben Carson, supported ethanol—a position for which I called him out. It has long been thought, that to win in Iowa, a candidate must support ethanol.

However, in a major policy reversal, Carson told a national audience during the CNBC GOP debate that he no longer supports subsidies for any industry, including U.S. ethanol producers: “I have studied that issue in great detail and what I’ve concluded, the best policy is to get rid of all government subsidies and get the government out of our lives and let people rise and fall based on how good they are.”

Plainly irritated, the ethanol industry shot back immediately, saying it receives no government subsidies. But it neglected to mention a very important fact. Instead of subsidies, ethanol producers get something better: a mandate that orders refiners to blend ethanol into motor fuels which forces consumers to buy their product. A federally guaranteed market beats a subsidy every time.

The ethanol industry also benefits indirectly from agriculture programs that support farmers who grow corn for ethanol. And recently, the Obama Administration announced the U.S. Department of Agriculture is offering $100 million in grants tosubsidize the installation of blender pumps at gas stations all over the country.

In attempt to push more ethanol into the motor fuel market, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) readily admits it plans to “drive growth in renewable fuels by providing appropriate incentives. (Italics added.)”

Carson, and a majority of Republicans and many Democrats, knows the ethanol mandate is a do-gooder program that has gone horribly wrong. Enacted by a well-meaning Congress, in a different energy era, it is part of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which requires refiners to add biofuels to gasoline and diesel—ostensibly to reduce imports of foreign oil. This multi-headed hydra is siphoning money from consumers’ pockets.

The ethanol mandate has been blamed for rising food prices—particularly for beef and poultry—because it has increased the cost of animal feed. Ethanol-blended fuel provides fewer miles per gallon because ethanol contains only two-thirds as much energy as gasoline, forcing motorists to fill up more often.

The mandate puts at risk millions of vehicles owned and operated by private citizens and fleets. Ethanol is corrosive. In tests, it has been proven to eat engine components, including seals and gaskets, causing expensive repairs. The government does not reimburse motorists for their loss; rather it is allowing—in fact, encouraging—the sale of fuels containing more and more ethanol.

Most vehicles on the road today can withstand E10, a gasoline blend containing up to 10 percent ethanol, but the EPA has granted a “partial waiver” for the sale of 15 percent blends. AAA advises owners of non-flex-fuel vehicles to avoid E15, warning that manufacturers will void their warranties. Although the EPA maintains that 2001 model-year and newer vehicles can safely use E15, studies by the prestigious Coordinating Research Council found that E15 caused engine damage to some of the EPA-approved vehicles, leading to leaks and increased emissions.

Likewise, marine engine makers also caution boat owners to avoid E15. During winter storage, they suggest pouring a fuel stabilizer into built-in gas tanks to avoid problems. A survey of boat owners has shown ethanol-related repairs cost an average of about $1,000.

These days, ethanol has few friends. Opponents include such strange bedfellows as the petroleum, restaurant, livestock and auto industries—and environmental groups.

Despite government claims to the contrary, studies show ethanol also harms the environment. Earlier this year, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) discovered the EPA grossly understated the amount of carbon spewed into the air by the expansion of corn farming. This month, the EWG found the corn-ethanol mandate is discouraging advanced biofuels development, which could have environmental benefits.

These are just some of the problems. There’s also the EPA’s complicated Renewable Identification Number (RIN) trading scheme, which allows refiners to buy ethanol credits when not enough is available for purchase. This poorly managed program has allowed phony ethanol companies to sell fictitious credits and abscond with millions of dollars. And then there were the huge fines levied against oil companies for failing to add cellulosic ethanol to gasoline although the advanced fuel did not exist in commercial quantities—even according to the EPA’s own data.

All of these costs have an impact on consumers who buy fuel and for taxpayers who pay the salaries of the bureaucrats who administer the RFS program. Yet the RFS continues to stumble along because Congress has not mustered the will to repeal it.

By November 30, the administration must finalize the amount of biofuels that must be blended into motor fuels in the next couple of years. A pitched battle is developing on Capitol Hill. On one side are those who want an even larger market share for ethanol. On the other side are those who see the program for what it is—a massive payout to one allegedly “green” industry.

The latter group includes more than 180 Washington lawmakers, including Rep. Bill Flores (R-TX), who have sent a letter to the administration asking it to “limit the economic and consumer harm this program has already caused.” Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT.) was more direct. “We’ve got to just acknowledge that the corn-based mandate is a well-intended flop,” he said.

If their effort succeeds, it will not end ethanol production, as there is a free-market call for it. Energy Economist Tim Snyder, who was influential in developing many early ethanol plants, told me: “Regardless of the limits the EPA sets, or the fate of the RFS, we will continue to use ethanol as an additive to provide an adequate oxygenate for our fuel. Oxygenates are beneficial in reformulated fuels to reduce carbon monoxide and soot. Formerly we used lead. We replaced lead with methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) then ethanol replaced MTBE. Ethanol was initially targeted as only a replacement for previous oxygenates, however, today with ethanol being 23 cents per gallon more expensive than NYMEX RBOB, the math doesn’t work and the need to increase blends of ethanol doesn’t meet the test of proper blending economics.”

Wisely, Ben Carson has figured out that government meddling in the marketplace is a bad idea. Contrary to conventional wisdom, his rejection of special treatment for ethanol is not hurting his campaign. Although the State of Iowa has made support for ethanol a litmus test for presidential candidates, polls conducted before and after the Oct. 28 debate, when he announced his revised view on ethanol, show Carson continues to rise in popularity nationally. Even the pro-ethanol lobby, using its semantic gymnastics, cannot dispute that fact.

Congress could learn from Carson’s positive poll numbers by once and for all ending the ethanol subsidies, er, mandates, without fearing political reprisal. Like Carson, doing so might even help Congress’ pitiful approval numbers.

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy—which expands on the content of her weekly column. Follow her @EnergyRabbit.

Marita Noon: Ethanol loses its few friends