Where has the language all gone?

This has been a topic I’ve thought writing about for some time. Today’s culture is losing the sense of expressing itself in complete, accurate, thorough, written communication.

I am guilty of participating in most of today’s social media. I do too much Facebook time, according to my brother. I dabble a little with Twitter and play the Foursquare game. I have read there are many other sites out there, but I think I would go into technology overload.

What I have been noticing has been the overuse of communication shortcuts – the use of numbers or symbols as replacements for words or parts of words. Even more fascinating to me has been the lack of spelling accuracy and incorrect grammar, especially when many programs offer spell check/grammar check before sending a message.

Of course, there used to be the use of shorthand, the use of symbols to replace words as a method of recording conversations.

When I taught a class at IPFW, I gave the students one essay question on each test that gave them the opportunity to express their opinion and justify why. I did not grade according to their opinion, but, rather, their ability to express their opinion in complete sentences.

I guess the quality of the English language is slowly deteriorating. First goes the spoken language – the word “ask” no longer exists, it has instead become “axed.” Next, we lose the written language. Oh well, before long everybody will be speaking Chinese, so I guess it really doesn’t matter.

East Allen County Schools meeting (and what went wrong)

Last night the East Allen County (EACS) school board voted to pursue the option of letting voters increase their property taxes to maintain a status quo school system. That is what the mainstream media is reporting. There were many other events that took place that need to be told. I do want to say that I think some school realignment should take place. But that should take place with current facilities, not building new ones.

First, the board has instituted a time limit for members of the public to address the board. Three minutes. That’s it. When you hit the limit, they cut you off immediately. They did this to me last month. I was granted somebody else’s time when he chose not to speak. Last night they cut off the mayor of New Haven. A certain amount of respect for another elected official would have been in order, especially when the mayor granted a request from the board president to speak before the New Haven city council last month regarding the board’s options. The board president was not given limited speaking time by the mayor.

In a presentation by the bus director, multiple times referred to bus changes that would take place with closed schools – when they close, not if they close.

Another presentation centered on the proposed Capital Projects fund. Of significance was the carryover amount in the line item for future projects in excess of $4 million. That should include an amount of approximately $1 million the board raised from property taxes about 5 years ago to remodel at Highland Terrace. But that plan has since been abandoned. I have raised this issue nearly every year that that money should be returned to the taxpayers. Also within the CPF report was the option that EACS could use bonds to make up the difference to upgrade schools if insufficient funds came in through property taxes. In other words, in the opportunity to consolidate schools would be the time to really upgrade facilities. I think the board should physically review every upgrade in the plan which included, for example, new drinking fountains in one building. Are they really needed?? Now is the time for austerity.

Another point that I have repeatedly mentioned is the property that EACS owns in Leo-Cedarville. It should be sold! It is unnecessary for future facilities. It was brought up by another speaker last night.

At the start of each year (term), board members and staff must fill out potential conflict of interest forms. Board member Bill Hartman is the lead administrator of Blackhawk Christian School. I have no problem with him as an administrator. I have no problem with his Christian declaration. I do believe that his day job requires him to recruit new students to keep the school financially viable. How many of those students have come out of the EACS district?? A student that leaves EACS for Blackhawk takes the public funds away from the district. Is that meeting his fiduciary responsibility to the school district?

The board voted to allow the property taxpayers of the district to increase general operating funds. This should not be used just to balance the financial accounts as Chris Baker from the New Haven Chamber of Commerce said before the board. I think it fair to let the public decide to increase their taxes for the schools. I do, however, think there should be specific restrictions put on that increase: 1. All employee groups must agree not to pursue that money for salary increases. 2. Prior to implementation, use of the money MUST be identified. Again, as Mr. Baker said, I think the money should be used for advanced programs in the district.

There are many other points that probably need to be made, but I will finish with this one. After the bus director’s presentation, board member Terry Jo Lightfoot implied that the reason the southeast part of the school district faces consolidation is because so many students attend local parochial schools. She implied that closures are the fault of parochial students.

The board needs to change its approach to public input.

America needs a leader

Recently on Facebook, I lamented about the need for a GOP presidential candidate for 2012 that offers more encouragement for individual liberty and entrepreneurship. I received several comments back that current domestic economic climate began under the previous president. Some of that is true. Medicare Part D is probably the biggest disappointment. But now, we see the rundown of the United States and the promotion of the third world. Most recently, the admission of the head of NASA that his primary role - as directed by the president - is to make the muslim world feel good about themselves. Forget about putting man in space outside of earth orbit, requiring increases in scientists, etc.

Following is an excerpt from President Reagan's first State of the Union speech in 1982. He makes no apologies for US economic supremacy. Young people may feel it is silly to invoke Reagan. I feel he belongs in the tier of Washington and Lincoln. When reading many of his speeches, they are inspiring.

To view the State of the Union in perspective, we must not ignore the rest of the world. There isn’t time tonight for a lengthy treatment of social or of foreign policy, I should say a subject I intend to address in detail in the near future. A few words, however, are in order on the progress we’ve made over the past year re-establishing respect for our nation around the globe and some of the challenges and goals that we will approach in the year ahead.

At Ottawa and Cancun, I met with leaders of the major industrial powers and developing nations. Now some of those I met with were a little surprised I didn’t apologize for America’s wealth. Instead I spoke of the strength of the free marketplace system and how that system could help them realize their aspirations for economic development and political freedom.(my emphasis) I believe lasting friendships were made and the foundation was laid for future cooperation.

Compare the texts of the first SOTU speeches from Reagan and Obama and you will see 2 totally different philosophies. When you examine the application, you see the difference in the outcomes played out in our economies.

Reagan in 2012!!

Proof of citizenship

This is tongue-in-cheek for the people in California that can't understand this.

Today I had to go visit my bank. I had done a mistake on my online access and so I went in to the local branch to have them correct my boo-boo.

Can in you imagine this? The first thing the customer service rep asked of me after explaining my mistake was for my DRIVER'S LICENSE. And to make matters worse, I gave it to her - no questions asked.

Really, I expected her to ask for identification and if she didn't ask I was going to show it to her anyway.

So what is so bad about aliens ANYWHERE within the borders of the United States expected to show proof of legitimate presence. If CITIZENS are expected to show ID, why not aliens? If they are here legally, they should not be a problem to display proper credentials.

The US government has got to get control of this issue.

Today is Tax Day! Ow, that hurt

April 15^th is U.S. tax day. Supposedly the day all Americans pay their taxes. This is such a false assumption.

As reported on the Tax Foundation.org website, April 9^th is the day that theoretically Americans have stopped working for the government and they can now earn their own money. Half of America has never been working for the federal government. They pay no federal income taxes. Unfortunately, many people think if their refund this year is larger than last year’s must mean that they have paid less taxes.

Americans really need to grasp how much they actually pay in taxes, at all levels. This includes income, sales, property, auto tags, and on and on and on. We don’t realize how much we really pay. Add in to the mix that businesses never pay taxes. All of those obligations are passed on to the consumer through product prices.

I think that government needs to learn a lesson who pays the bills. We need to reduce our withholding to a minimum and pay taxes due next year. Some states are not refunding overpayments to residents because they don’t have the cash available.

It is time that we taxpayers took more control over government revenues, specifically how we pay our taxes to the government!

In support of my ideas

I keep trying to tell people how far ahead of the conservative thinking that I am.

I recently wrote here that the best controls on health care costs would put the consumer in charge of his/her own decision-making.

Now I see that well-respected economist Thomas Sowell has written an article in full support of my ideas. He articulates exactly what I was leading into. I'm glad to see that he reads my blog also.

Loosen the bureaucratic collar

My last post raised the issue of reducing bureaucratic regulations as a means to reduce expenses to business and local government.

Here is one example of regulations that could be addressed. Various vehicle fuels are required to meet requirements for regions of the country and seasons of the year. These variations increase costs in development, storage, and transfer which are all obviously passed on to the consumer. The consumer includes me at the gas station, the trucking industry that transports products around the country, and even local government when the schools have to put fuel in the buses.

The following map gives an example of fuel (boutique blends) differences around the country.

Can you give some examples also?

A new suggestion to save some money

At all levels of government, belt-tightening is taking place. Here in Indiana, property taxes will soon be frozen as a percentage based on property values. Because of that, local government will be facing lower revenues to provide current services. Sales, business, and income tax revenues are also much lower for the current fiscal year.

So to avoid the pain, some local governments are considering new forms of local income taxes to offset revenue deficits. Other localities are severely reducing services, such as fire protection or trash pickup.

I would like to suggest a third alternative that could relieve some pressure to local governments and possibly help private businesses reduce expenses and possibly redirect those expenses to hiring new employees. My suggestion would be that all levels of government look to reduce regulatory burdens.

Even though I do not identify any specific regulations to eliminate, I do believe – if asked – businesses could easily identify which are most burdensome or costly. There are many federal and state regulations that are imposed on local governments without sufficient revenues to fulfill those policies. Some could be reduced or removed to provide relief.

This is the time and place for somebody out there to start talking. What regulations cause you the most problems that could save everybody some money??

That was then, this is now

Twenty-eight years minus one day, another President gave his first State of the Union speech. Similarly, the United States was in an economic recession. At that time, unemployment was over 10%, inflation and consumer interest rates were above 15% each. In his speech, President Reagan outlined his plan to bring the country out of that recession.

The cumulative national debt had just exceeded one trillion dollars. More than 200 years were needed to accumulate that level. (We have now crossed $12 trillion and see no end in sight for its continued growth.)

Reagan listed 3 keys to reducing budget deficits. First, encourage economic growth. Second, Lower interest rates and third, control federal spending. He was very adamant about NOT raising taxes as an attempt to lower the deficit. He felt that would encourage federal spending (and the Democrats in charge of Congress did not lower spending) and would discourage private investment.

He also referred to recent meetings with foreign leaders. He said how they were surprised that he (Reagan) did NOT apologize for American wealth and its strength of the free marketplace.

These policies DID turn around the national economy then.

Now, 28 years later, another President stood before Congress with a similar economic situation. Fortunately, we do not experience the devastating interest rates we did then. Unfortunately, he is taking just the opposite approach. Considering that Reagan's plan worked - and it did - Obama's plan will probably will not succeed. Our international standing will fall, as it already has started.

I believe Obama may very well be a one term president.

The Awful Dilemma

I am amazed that the tree-hugging, environmentalist liberals are so determined to link human existence to global warming. Now the US EPA is going to regulate carbon dioxide as a deadly gas.

Last time I checked, every time I breathe, I exhale that deadly gas. Last time I checked, nature needs carbon dioxide to survive. I guess we kind of need each other to survive.

Well, many of these environmental do-gooders really want to limit global population to regulate global carbon dioxide. Yet, I find so much irony in the behavior of these do-gooders in failing to limit their "carbon footprint."

I think the real proof in their dedication to preserving the natural state of the global environment would be in the ultimate self-sacrifice. Reduce global population to preserve the environment starting with themselves.

But, if they are gone, who would be our social conscience???? The awful dilemma.

Carbon controls in the US

Now the EPA is going to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide.

Yet, the US is the world leader in fossil fuel reserves. We are going to restrict our energy production so that China and India will surpass in production output.

My state of Indiana will be severely affected by these controls. Jobs will be lost under this plan.

Where will the federal governemnt get the money to replaced lost revenues from these plans?

Thank goodness 2010 is coming, unfortunately maybe not fast enough.

which is better - a national sales tax or VAT??

This is an interesting news bit.

Former Chief of Staff to President Clinton, John Podesta, favors the use of a national value-added tax. A Value-Added Tax - VAT - is a tax that is applied to a product throughout its production. A car would have taxes added to it throughout the production process, such as the construction of sub-parts and parts to an engine, the transmission, frame, etc. would all be taxedd and then added to the price of the vehicle. Then the car would most likely also be charged a sales tax and possibly a luxury tax. The problem with VAT is that it becomes part of the cost of production, significantly raising the final retail price.

A VAT tax would not be so bad if all other taxes were eliminated. If they were, it would become somewhat similar to the concept of the Fair Tax. Thus only the consumer would be charged for the consumption of a manufactured item. Of course, the problem is that all of the taxes are hidden into the production costs and the consumer would never really know the actual cost of the product minus the added taxes.

In contrast, the FAIR Tax does eliminate ALL taxes - sales, income, property, etc. - and just charges a sales tax. The consumer has better information regarding the actual production cost of the product. The consumer pays taxes for only what he/she consumes. Purchasers of luxury items like motor homes, yachts, or SUV's would not be perceived as bad people owning expensive stuff. If you want to pay the sales tax on an item, so be it. Go to their web site for a better explanation. But it is a much better and fairer tax.

The problem with Mr. Podesta's suggestion is that the VAT would be in ADDITION to sales taxes. He advocates this to increase more federal government revenue. What this will obviously do is hurt the national economy by discouraging purchasing and result in reduced need of labor - higher unemployment.

He justifies his position saying that Clinton raised taxes on the rich in the 1990's and it resulted in large increases in revenues while also growing the national economy. That is FALSE! Clinton happened to be the beneficiary of circumstances, namely the explosion of the era of technology. Home computers, the internet, and the overvaluation of technology companies during this decade. Once some intenet-based companies died or were bought out by other companies, the economy came back to reality.

Don't buy into VAT. It will do as much to destroy the economy as cap and trade and health care reform.

compare the protesters

It is quite humorous to see what is happening in Pittsburgh this week. Aside from the official events planned for the G-20 Summit, watching the planned protests and police response is very interesting. The city has been boarded up, fenced up, and locked down to control or limit the activities of protestors of the event.


The fear is that violence – whether planned or spontaneous – may spawn destruction or threaten the safety of the summit participants. The ACLU is there defend protester rights. Watch the videos and observe the number of law enforcement officers in the scene and the force they have available to maintain peace.



Now compare that to the march on DC back on 9/12. Protesters everywhere. Hundreds of thousands of participants. Yet, in all of the videos and photos how many police officers were present and how much firepower did they have available? What about all of the tea parties and health care protests around the country? What was the level of police presence? Significantly lower than that in Pittsburgh.

Yet the liberals in control of Congress are more fearful and willing to label conservative protesters as more dangerous to the peace of our country. They say blood will flow in the streets. It takes the Speaker back to the violence of the 1970’s.

I attended a tea party in Fort Wayne, Indiana earlier this year. Hundreds of participants, yet I did not see any police presence. I heard some were there, yet invisible. But this is very demonstrative of the expected behavior of protesters by the police. They don’t fear the conservatives. They are peaceful, yet vocal. They just want to live in peace, trusting that the government will protect them from enemies of that peace, both foreign and domestic.

This is objective proof that conservatives are not the people that the government needs to fear.