Book Review: "John Tyler" by Gary May

John Tyler was the 10th President, the 1st to become President after the death of another president (William H. Harrison), and the 23rd president whose book in the American Presidents Series I have read [Times Books].

I have found it amusing that, in general, the best-written books in this series are the ones about the most obscure presidents. This one is an easy-to-read, concise, and insightful look at a president nearly no one knows.

Given the current political climate, with its massive government spending and interference in the private sector, reading President Tyler's thoughts (and those of his father and his contemporaries of all parties) is delightful. Although a democrat with a southerner's tendency toward states' rights—he became a member of the Confederate Congress shortly before his death in 1862—Tyler's thoughts on the limits of government and on the Constitution are often refreshing and timeless.

Surely, every single president of the pre-Civil War era of our history would be appalled—nay, horrified and shocked—at what our national government looks like today. In Tyler's case, this is easy to understand.

Like the other books in the American President Series, it is about 150 pages and written at a level that any amateur U.S. historian (or historian wannabe) should easily digest. Gary May's work is, overall, one of the better volumes I have read so far.

Math, Budgets, and the Stimulus Bill

Big news today (and I mean BIG literally, in a sumo wrestler sort of way): According to foxnews.com, today the President will be unveiling a 2010 budget that is more bloated than ever, at $3.55 trillion (with a $1.2 trillion deficit)...while at the same time contending that he is beginning to restore fiscal discipline to the nation's finances.

That last part is, of course, a bunch of baloney.

Oh, and by the way—there were statistics on this year's budget changes. More below.

Let's take a look at the numbers.

If we assume that there are 300,000,000 people (legally) in this country, a $3.55 trillion budget works out to $11,833 per person—or for my family of six, that's $71,000! Our household income, in total, is well shy of $71,000!

The deficit of $1.2 trillion itself comes to $4000 per person—or for my family of six, $24,000!

A little subtraction shows that the government is projecting income of $2.35 trillion for the next fiscal year. This means that the government intends to budget expenses of about 51% more than it takes in. Can you imagine the consequences if your household tried that for any extended period of time....If you spent $151 for every $100 of earned income?

Keep in mind also, these statistics are for just one single year...and this president has three more to go. Does anyone see the importance of electing Republicans—fiscally conservative ones, as opposed to certain others I could name—to Congress next year?

Now let's look at the disaster that is this year's budget. In the words of the article,

In addition to next year's spending, Obama proposed more immediate changes that would push spending to $3.94 trillion in the current year. That would result in a record deficit Obama projects will hit $1.75 trillion, reflecting the massive spending being undertaken to battle a severe recession and the worst financial crisis in seven decades.

The cost of the stimulus bill and the increased bailout support would push the deficit for this year to $1.75 trillion, nearly four times last year's record $455 billion and a percentage of the economy -- just over 12 percent -- not seen since World War II. The deficit would remain near $1 trillion over the next two years before dropping to $581 billion in 2012 and $533 billion in 2013, the year that Obama has pledged to cut the deficit he inherited in half.

So for this year, that's a budget spending $13,133 for every man, woman, and child in this country, with a deficit coming to $5833 for every man, woman, and child in this country THIS YEAR.

Totals for 2008-2010 fiscal years:

• The government will spend about $24,966 for every person in this country;
• The deficit will increase by about $9833 for every person in this country.
  

For my family of six, that's two-year spending of $149,800 and two-year deficit of $59,000. Just for my family, mind you....

Understanding the Stimulus Plan

A friend posted this on facebook...so with my sincere apologies for not recognizing the person who originally authored it (for I do not know who that is), I am copying it here:

Shortly after class, a student approaches his economics professor and says, "I don't understand this stimulus bill. Can you explain it to me?"

The professor replied, "I don't have time right now, but if you come over to my house on Saturday and help me with my weekend project, I'll be glad to explain it to you." The student agreed.

At the agreed-upon time, the student showed up at the professor's house. The professor stated that the weekend project involved his backyard pool. They both went out back to the pool, and the professor handed the student a bucket. Demonstrating with his own bucket, the professor said, "First, go over to the deep end, and fill your bucket with as much water as you can."
The student did as he was instructed.

The professor then continued, "Follow me over to the shallow end, and then dump all the water from your bucket into it.." The student was naturally confused, but did as he was told. The professor then explained they were going to do this many more times, and began walking back to the deep end of the pool. The confused student asked, "Excuse me, but why are we doing this?"

The professor matter-of-factly stated that he was trying to make the shallow end much deeper. The student didn't think the economics professor was serious, but figured that he would find out the real story soon enough.

However, after the 8th or 9th trip between the shallow end and the deep end, the student began to become worried that his economics professor had kinda' lost it.

The student finally blurted out, "All we're doing is wasting valuable time and effort on an unproductive pursuit. Even worse, when this process is all over (and there's absolutely no way to know when that might be), everything will be exactly the same as before, so all we'll really have accomplished is the complete waste of both our time and our efforts which, if otherwise directed, might have had a chance of yielding a productive result!"

The professor put down his bucket and replied with a smile, "Congratulations. You now understand the stimulus bill."

More Democratic Corruption in Michigan

The full story is here...but this beginning of the Free Press article sums it up nicely:

LANSING -- The campaign fund of former Democratic state Sen. Mark Schauer of Battle Creek is paying the state $208,250 for improperly donating money to help elect Democrats to the Senate in 2006.

It is the largest fine for a campaign finance violation ever levied by the Secretary of State's Office.

Schauer was elected to the U.S. House last November.

Schauer's campaign committee admitted giving more than the allowable $20,000 per individual to the Senate Democratic Fund during the 2006 election campaign, according to an agreement with Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land.

Another Great Blog Posting

Today I encountered the Back to the Constitution blog, with this great article. I will copy the first part of it here:

As I was reading through parts of the Old Testament, and in particular some of the laws God gave Israel, it made me think that God’s laws are a reflection of God’s morality. God’s law reflect who God is. God’s laws told Israel to treat people honestly, to be responsible for your actions and make restitution if you caused harm or injury to another person or their property. God’s law says to honor your parents and the elderly, to honor your spouse, and to honor the sanctity of life. God’s law does not go contrary to God’s person - He is holy, just and righteous and so is His law.

When we look at the laws that men have established we must understand the same concept is in place.

To read the rest, click here.

Granholm Did Something Right...and More Thoughts on Government Support of the Arts

On the front page of yesterday's Kalamazoo Gazette was an article which tells us that the state contribution to arts organizations, already cut to $6.1 million in the current fiscal year, would be cut to only $1 million under Gov. Granholm's proposed budget for the next fiscal year. Furthermore, this million would be limited to construction projects.

I think it is fair that we commend the governor for taking an unnecessary state expenditure, small though it is in the scope of the state budget, and reducing it by 83.6%. She should also be commended for (in the current fiscal year) making Michigan 50th in state arts contributions—which in my book, amounts to a first place finish!

I do not believe that government has any business taking my hard earned money (via taxes) and giving it to organizations to produce "art." A lot of art, quite frankly, I find either offensive or void of positive value. Government support of the arts is simply not among its constitutional duties.

The article was rather lengthy, and a parallel editorial appeared at the back of the first section. Several observations come to mind in reading these:

• As is customary in any story of this kind, "artists" and their supporters decry the prospect of diminished government funding. Their quotes usually, as is the case here, smack of entitlement—as if the government existed to support their artistic endeavors. It doesn't. They also decry that this remaining million dollars will be administered through the Michigan Economic Development Corp., instead of "people who know the arts."
  
• Much of the state money apparently produces matching grants from (pause for dramatic effect...) the National Endowment for the Arts. Which is also supported by our tax dollars! So Gov. Granholm's cost savings will be multiplied!
  
• The above dramatic effect is art. However, I will not condescend to ask the state of Michigan to reimburse me for my artistic contribution.
• The very title of the article (Can the Arts Community Survive?) is misleading. Of course it will survive. It may not thrive in the same manner, but there is (and will be) a demand for what these folks produce. Capitalistic societies dictate that the demand will be supplied, and therefore the "arts community" will have something to do.
• It is noted in the article that even in the current economic climate, shows are still selling tickets. Changes in ticket pricing and promotion seem to be successful at some theatres. But this is as it should be—when the market changes, "businesses" (for so they are) must respond to it!

Then there is the math encountered in the article. Consider the following two quotes; the first comes from the article and the second from the editorial:

Jennifer Goulet, president of the nonprofit arts advocacy group ArtServe Michigan....also pointed out that $3.2 million of that MCACA money went toward paying 9,000 full-time and 2,200 seasonal employees. "A cut in funding for MCACA means a cut in jobs for Michigan,'' Goulet said.

But state arts funding is also a job creator. More than 2,000 local jobs connected to the arts scene are dependent on state funding.

Let's discuss these in order. In the first, we are told that $3.2 million funds 9,000 full-time jobs. Even if we ignore the part-time jobs, this works out to an average of about $356 per full-time job! Is this really significant? Are people going to get fired over $356? And if they do, doesn't that tell us that these jobs really aren't that great, financially speaking?

The second "statistic" does not tell us how much of the state arts funding comes locally here to the Kalamazoo area, but let's just assume that we get $1 million (of the $6.1 million), which would be well in excess of our proportion based on the population of the state living in this region. Then we see that these 2,000 jobs get about $500 apiece. Again, is this a job you would want...dependent on the goodness of the state for $500?

And after all, doesn't Gov. Granholm want high-paying jobs coming to Michigan?

It is not the responsibility of government, at any level, to subsidize the arts community. It is the responsibility of all of us, however, to keep our math facts in order.

Hymn of the Week: Abide With Me

The first stanza of this hymn is the familiar plea of the believer to the Savior that He dwell with us and keep us safe. The other seven verses (for this hymn, like many, contains more stanzas than are included in the typical hymnal) expand on this idea.

Read these additional stanzas. They may not be familiar to you, but I hope their message is. Our life is but a vapor; it will not always be safe nor comfortable. Danger is often present, as is sorrow. Yet the One Great Constant in the lives of the saved is that the God of the universe has sent a Comforter to dwell—to abide—with us. When He is with us, there is nothing to fear, no danger too great, no sorrow too heavy.

The words to the hymn were written by Henry Lyte in 1847, just weeks before his death. Although he had a tune to which it was sung, the more familiar tune common to most hymnals was written by William H. Monk in 1861.

Abide With Me

Abide with me; fast falls the eventide;
The darkness deepens; Lord with me abide.
When other helpers fail and comforts flee,
Help of the helpless, O abide with me.

Swift to its close ebbs out life’s little day;
Earth’s joys grow dim; its glories pass away;
Change and decay in all around I see;
O Thou who changest not, abide with me.

Not a brief glance I beg, a passing word;
But as Thou dwell’st with Thy disciples, Lord,
Familiar, condescending, patient, free.
Come not to sojourn, but abide with me.

Come not in terrors, as the King of kings,
But kind and good, with healing in Thy wings,
Tears for all woes, a heart for every plea—
Come, Friend of sinners, and thus bide with me.

Thou on my head in early youth didst smile;
And, though rebellious and perverse meanwhile,
Thou hast not left me, oft as I left Thee,
On to the close, O Lord, abide with me.

I need Thy presence every passing hour.
What but Thy grace can foil the tempter’s power?
Who, like Thyself, my guide and stay can be?
Through cloud and sunshine, Lord, abide with me.

I fear no foe, with Thee at hand to bless;
Ills have no weight, and tears no bitterness.
Where is death’s sting? Where, grave, thy victory?
I triumph still, if Thou abide with me.

Hold Thou Thy cross before my closing eyes;
Shine through the gloom and point me to the skies.
Heaven’s morning breaks, and earth’s vain shadows flee;
In life, in death, O Lord, abide with me.

How to Fund Highways?

This foxnews.com article discusses how the Obama administration is less-than-united on the topic of raising tax dollars via a gasoline tax (as is done now) or via "new" means of tracking the miles driven by automobiles using—in the words of some—Orwellian technology.

Unlike so much of what our government spends money on today, highway maintenance is a proper object of government care. And consequently, some of our tax dollars should go toward building and maintaining roads, bridges, and the like. Currently, gas taxes provide the majority of those tax dollars.

The trend toward more full-efficient cars, combined with the advent of cars which do not use gasoline, has resulted in the consumption of fewer gallons of gasoline and therefore fewer tax revenues. Environmentalists should be lauding this, and in truth, this is a generally good thing.

However, while gasoline consumption is decreasing, highway usage is not; and roads continue to deteriorate with time. Government needs to consider how to fund the needed highway and bridge work using other sources.

So here's my solution: In order to increase money for highway and bridge work, decrease an equal (or more) amount of money somewhere else! This will have the side benefit of forcing government leaders to think in the same sort of way we "common folk" think, and might even get them in the habit of using this same thought pattern for other fiscal issues that may arise. Furthermore, once it is realized that the reduction of wasteful spending makes money available without reducing what actually gets done, even greater efficiencies can be acheived!

Where Did It Go?

The blog mentioned in the preceding post appears to have been removed....therefore, for now, so will its link. I am disappointed...alas. My wife and I will just continue to save money on our own.