Subject: Request for Additional Data Transparency/Availability
Mr. Ehlmann,
I have been a resident of St. Charles County for 33 years and am incredibly proud to call it home for me, my wife and our 4 children. I value the service that you and your colleagues have provided during that time to the over 400,000 residents under your charge and I thank you for all of your many efforts to make St. Charles County such a wonderful place.
I am writing to you today to request additional information and data resources around Covid-19 in St. Charles County. I have been following closely the disease in our County since the first case was announced in March and have been manually tracking the numbers on a daily basis. The Covid-19 dashboard that was released is helpful and provides some insight into the numbers, but I desire and wish for some additional insight. I wish to begin a discussion around how the County might share the underlying data tables to the residents, empowering them to perform analysis and make the graphs that they find valuable. I understand that many people are not as into data as I am, but I believe that there is value in being as transparent as possible with the citizens. I understand that there are possible HIPAA concerns and other legalities that must be considered, but I was hoping to see if it might be possible to even just start by sharing the data that drives the current dashboard.
At the moment, you can see the number of Total Deaths, but you cannot see the day to day # of deaths in a table. You can see the numbers broken out by each Zip Code if you click on that portion of the map, but you cannot find the Zip Code level data in a table. You can filter and see all of the data by gender or race, but none of that data is available in a table. This lack of tabular data has led to an inability to do any type of detailed analysis of trends and impacted populations.
Currently, I am creating and tracking the Estimated Active Cases, as that number is more meaningful than the much reported Cumulative Totals. I use this calculated value to determine what the 7 and 14 day trend is for Cases the County, which many people have found useful. I have attached today's graph of the Active Cases for reference. (Additional graphs can be found here, if desired.)
I understand that this has been an unforeseen global event, and I do appreciate the data that the County has made available. However, I do believe that we can work to make the data even more transparent and available for residents who, like myself, might find more data availability a great thing.
I welcome any comments, suggestions and discussion, as I hope to improve what our wonderful County has already put in place. Thank you again for your time and for your service.
Respectfully,
Jeremy Walker
CC:
Doug Bolnick - Director Public information Officer
Mary Enger - Director, Communications
Matthew Seeds - Director, Information Systems
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Open Letter to St. Charles County Executive Steve Ehlmann
I have just sent the following email to our County Executive (and others), in the hopes of beginning a conversation around how the County might improve the sharing of Covid-19 data with concerned residents. I am hopeful that there can be some enhancements and improvements in how the data is shared.
Covid-19 Data Issues in Saint Charles County
May 22 Update:
I reached out to the County Health Department about this discrepancy and received the following reply/explanation:
Original post:
I have been tracking the spread of Covid-19 in St. Charles County since the day the first case was announced. For several weeks, the County only had a table of current data on the site, so I was manually tracking daily case totals in a spreadsheet in order to see the trends. Finally, the County utilized PowerBI to provide some graphs of the data in a dashboard format. However, the County had not created some of the graphs that I thought helped better tell the story, so I continue to input and update daily new cases and deaths into my spreadsheet, all based on the published County data.
Over the course of this pandemic, firm numbers regarding positive cases, and even deaths, have been hard to establish. For Saint Charles County, the tale is no different. Most days, I have to scroll back though the previous days and update a few up or down by 1 or 2 cases. Typically, most of the changes occur to dates within the past 14 days, which makes sense, as this is within the window of symptoms presenting and test results being obtained. However, over the past week, I have noticed that the numbers are changing on dates much further back in time.
I reached out to the County Health Department about this discrepancy and received the following reply/explanation:
The County’s health and information systems departments did switch reporting systems recently and noticed an error in the presentation of reported numbers. This caused the issue you note, and this was corrected as soon as possible.I am not sure if the switch refers to the update to the PowerBI dashboard or if it refers to the actual source they are collecting the data from. I have not nioticed any updates the the actual layout or content of the dashboard, so i assume it is the data source. If the change in source resulted in a greater than 5% negative change in reported cases, then there seems to be valid reason for concern with the validity of the numbers that have been previously reported.
Original post:
I have been tracking the spread of Covid-19 in St. Charles County since the day the first case was announced. For several weeks, the County only had a table of current data on the site, so I was manually tracking daily case totals in a spreadsheet in order to see the trends. Finally, the County utilized PowerBI to provide some graphs of the data in a dashboard format. However, the County had not created some of the graphs that I thought helped better tell the story, so I continue to input and update daily new cases and deaths into my spreadsheet, all based on the published County data.
Ethanol and The Dust Bowl
Lisa and I recently watched the Ken Burns' documentary "The Dust Bowl". It was very interesting, very informative and very moving. The stories featured told of the causes of that environmental catastrophe, the impact of the event on the people in the area and the fragility of the land. It featured a lot from Timothy Eagan's wonderfully written book on the subject "The Worst Hard Time" - I highly recommend reading it.Today I read this article "The Secret, Dirty Cost of Obama's Green Power Push" which details how the EPA, Department of Agriculture and the White House have pursued pushing ethanol as a sustainable biofuel, when the evidence is more and more to the contrary.
There are several things stated in the article that brought to mind the Dust Bowl, but this one really stood out to me:
This is similar to what happened in the 1920s when the cost of grain skyrocketed and the government expanded homestead settlement programs. Investors from the big city or even out of state would purchase acreage or pay to farm someone's previously untouched existing acreage. The land hadn't previously been planted with crops because it was unsuitable for that type of farming. The huge increase in demand and price led to a boom of converting prairie land to farm land. Yet the fact remained, the newly converted land was historically known as not being suitable for crops. When the unusually wet years turned back to the normal dry years, the ground dried out and the soil began to erode and blow. When the drought of the 30s hit the former prairie lands, there was nothing to hold the soil down and it literally took off with the wind.Investors from as far away as Maryland and Pennsylvania have bought thousands of acres in Wayne County, sending prices skyrocketing from $350 per acre a decade ago to $5,000 today.One in every four acres of in the county is now owned by an out-of-towner.
Those who still own land often rent it to farming companies offering $300 or more per acre. Perkins could make perhaps $27,000 a year if he let somebody plant corn on his land. That's nothing to dismiss in a county where typical household income is $36,000.
But he knows what that means. He sees the black streaks in his neighbor's cornfields, knowing the topsoil washes away with every rain. He doesn't want that for his family's land.
It would behoove us to learn from past mistakes and not farm land that is not meant to be farmed. It would be wise for our government to eliminate subsidies for programs that produce little benefit, encourage a misuse of the land and place us in a position that could lead to another environmental disaster.
In short, it would be beneficial for us as a country to learn from our own not-too-distant history.
On the Fiscal Cliff
Thomas Sowell expresses his thoughts about the Fiscal Cliff, and these portions echo exactly what I think and feel:
And there are these nuggets from Part 2:
First of all, despite all the melodrama about raising taxes on "the rich," even if that is done it will scarcely make a dent in the government's financial problems. Raising the tax rates on everybody in the top two percent will not get enough additional tax revenue to run the government for ten days.
No previous administration in the entire history of the nation ever finished the year with a trillion dollar deficit. The Obama administration has done so every single year.
Referring to the Federal Reserve System's creation of hundreds of billions of new dollars out of thin air as "quantitative easing" makes it seem as if this is some soothing and esoteric process, rather than amounting essentially to nothing more than printing more money.
Debasing the value of money by creating more of it is nothing new or esoteric. Irresponsible governments have done this, not just for centuries, but for thousands of years.
It is a way to take people's wealth from them without having to openly raise taxes. Inflation is the most universal tax of all.
But it is not the same politically, so long as gullible people don't look beyond words to the reality that inflation taxes everybody, the poorest as well as the richest.
And there are these nuggets from Part 2:
A key lie that has been repeated over and over, largely unanswered, is that President Bush's "tax cuts for the rich" cost the government so much lost tax revenue that this added to the budget deficit-- so that the government cannot afford to allow the cost of letting the Bush tax rates continue for "the rich."And here are the table and images referred to above:
What is remarkable is how easy it is to show how completely false Obama's argument is.
What both the statistical tables in the "Economic Report of the President" and the graphs in Investor's Business Daily show is that (1) tax revenues went up-- not down-- after tax rates were cut during the Bush administration, and (2) the budget deficit declined, year after year, after the cut in tax rates that have been blamed by Obama for increasing the deficit.
The Election's Undecided
Tonight is the first Presidential debate for the 2012 election cycle. I have yet to determine if I will attempt to watch it live or in my usual, after-the-fact YouTube manner. I'm sure everyone reading this is just dying to find out what I think of it all, so I might update the page tomorrow with some of my thoughts.
One thing that seems clear to me with this election is that it seems to me that there are two very different candidates and agendas on this year's ballot. In some circles I am sure that is frowned upon, but I'm okay with the seemingly simplistic choices that are set before us as voters.
Is either candidate perfect? No. Candidates never are.
Do they represent everything everyone in their respective party believes in? No. Presidential candidates never represent the entirety of the party and never will be able to.
And then I read this today:
The "undecideds" make up roughly 6 percent of the electorate, with a slightly higher concentration in an Upper Midwest region including Ohio and Wisconsin, swing states that could determine the outcome of a close election.What? How is this possible?
How do you look at the two candidates and not already know who you are going to pick?
I seriously have no idea how anyone could not have already formed their vote in this election.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by this fact, but I am.
If you don't know who you are going to vote for, do a little research.
It won't be hard, I promise.
You can start with the candidate websites.
You can perform news searches on each candidate.
You can watch hours of video containing campaign speeches, interviews and other information.
In my opinion, there is no reason whatsoever to not know who you will be voting for at this point in the game. The only way I see this as being possible is if you are a single issue voter and you don't know where the candidates stand on that issue. Given the amount of time and coverage that has already been poured into this election cycle, it is hard to believe that you all important single issue has not already been discussed by either candidate.
So tonight two men will take a stage and talk to a camera about a lot of different issues.
Then each campaign will spin what the other guy said to maximize the "damage" to gain a few votes.
Then the pundits will chime in with their thoughts and opinions.
Is it worth watching/listening to the debates? I believe it is.
Should it help you determine in this election who you will vote for? I don't believe so.
That decision should be clear enough by now on its own merits.
Lincoln and Daniel Day-Lewis
- I've heard good things about the book it is based on: Doris Kearns Goodwin’s biography, ‘Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln
’. I hope to read it in the near future.
- I'm a fan of Spielberg. I hope to see how he captures this story.
- I think that Daniel Day-Lewis is arguably the greatest character actor of our time. The intensity that he devotes to studying and developing a character prior to setting foot on set is amazing. I simply cannot wait to see how he portrays the President.
Patriotism and the Christian
Kevin DeYoung on patriotism and the Christian:"I understand the dangers of an unthinking “God and country” mentality, let alone a gospel-less civil religion. But I also think love of country–like love of family or love of work–is a proximate good. Patriotism is not beneath the Christian, even for citizens of a superpower.Read the rest.
So on this Independence Day I’m thankful most of all for the cross of Christ and the freedom we have from the world, the flesh, and the devil. But I’m also thankful for the United States and the freedoms we enjoy. I’m thankful for the big drops of biblical truth which seeped into the blood stream of Thomas Jefferson. I’m thankful for our imperfect ideals. I’m thankful for God-given rights and hard-fought liberty. I’m thankful for the idea of America."
We Meet to Meet
"When an organization has more of its decisions made by committees, that
gives more influence to those who have more time available to attend
committee meetings and to drag out each meeting longer. In other words,
it reduces the influence of those who have work to do, and are doing it,
while making those who are less productive more influential." - Thomas Sowell
I have found this to be incredibly true.
If you look around your company, you can probably identify several people who seem to be on all sorts of project teams or committees or groups or whatever they may be called at your place of employment.
The natural response to recognizing this fact is usually "How do they have time for all of that?".
The answer to that question is quite simple: they either don't have enough work to do or they don't do the work they are supposed to do, usually pushing it off onto other people.
The sad thing is that managers love to see people who are "great team members" running from meeting to meeting to meeting and are so busy. Although they might never accomplish a single thing of significant value, the effort and time involved in those meetings is valued far greater than the value of the person with his head down in the cubicle cranking out work that adds to the bottom line of the company. In fact, more often times than not, the person in the cube is also carrying the workload of the meeting monster next door.
It's a shame that managers who love to meet for the sake of meeting breed people who meet for the same reason. Meetings do not get work done. While it is useful to pull groups together from time to time to strategize how the workload will get completed, most meetings that are on the schedules of many employees are not helpful and add little, if any, value to the bottom line of the company.
So managers - Kill the meetings and get back to allowing your employees to do some real work. Hold your employees equally accountable for the work that they are accomplishing, not the work they are talking about doing someday.
That is what the employee in the cubicle would love to tell you.
I have found this to be incredibly true.
If you look around your company, you can probably identify several people who seem to be on all sorts of project teams or committees or groups or whatever they may be called at your place of employment.
The natural response to recognizing this fact is usually "How do they have time for all of that?".
The answer to that question is quite simple: they either don't have enough work to do or they don't do the work they are supposed to do, usually pushing it off onto other people.
The sad thing is that managers love to see people who are "great team members" running from meeting to meeting to meeting and are so busy. Although they might never accomplish a single thing of significant value, the effort and time involved in those meetings is valued far greater than the value of the person with his head down in the cubicle cranking out work that adds to the bottom line of the company. In fact, more often times than not, the person in the cube is also carrying the workload of the meeting monster next door.
It's a shame that managers who love to meet for the sake of meeting breed people who meet for the same reason. Meetings do not get work done. While it is useful to pull groups together from time to time to strategize how the workload will get completed, most meetings that are on the schedules of many employees are not helpful and add little, if any, value to the bottom line of the company.
So managers - Kill the meetings and get back to allowing your employees to do some real work. Hold your employees equally accountable for the work that they are accomplishing, not the work they are talking about doing someday.
That is what the employee in the cubicle would love to tell you.
Our Current Position Visualized
This was the front page on CNN this morning and I couldn't resist capturing it and posting it here.
To me, this is a perfect example of what is wrong with our economy and country right now.
Warning: Generalized statements are about to be made which may not be true for all parties involved.
Standing for Nothing
There is a group of people who feel entitled to something without doing anything, or whatever it is they want. (see Occupy Something)
Speaking for Nothing
There is a group of wealthy people who feel that government should place even more of the burden on the rich. The fact that this call is now also coming from a couple dozen wealthier people does not change the fact that it is just another call to redistribute wealth. The fact that Warren Buffet is being used to champion this idea is simply ludicrous. (Buffet has sheltered his wealth from Federal Taxes and has admitted that he thinks the government would not handle the money as effectively and efficiently as a private organization.)
If the wealthy are so concerned with how much they have, they should stop making so much profit (money) or start giving a lot more of it away. This is their personal problem and not the government's problem. If they truly were struggling to sleep at night because they honestly believed that they had too much money and that it could be used to aid other people who desperately need it, they would have already set into motion the actions required to reconcile that conviction on their own. There is no role for the government required here. Thus, it is a cheap political stunt.
Neither of these groups represent a majority opinion. Far from it.
How did we end up here?
Our government has adopted the strategy of the one offered by the company to the right of the page. Spend what you do not have now, pay off less than the interest later and at some point down the line you will realize you are in way over your head and you will desperately need to change your behavior. However, like most Americans, our government refuses to change its spending behaviors, even after after the cost of continuing down the same road become patently clear and the outcome unavoidable.
How do I think we get out of this mess?
- We stop catering to the minority of the population who screams the loudest. We stop handling them with soft gloves. If you want to protest anything, you need to do it within the bounds of the law. If you go beyond the law, then you should have the entirety of that law brought to bear against you and the organization you claim to represent.
- We need to stop listening to people who claim to offer solutions that appear selfless, when the reality is that their "solution" will not solve the problem. In fact, their path only leads to people other than themselves having more money taken away from them, thus increasing the gap between the ultra-rich and the wealthy.
- We stop spending money we do not have. We force our government to work for us, as it was intended. I do not work in order to pay for a government program. I work in order to have the ability to provide for my family's current and future needs. I am planning for my own future, as best as I can. It would be a lot easier for me if the government that is charged with protecting me woudl stop attacking me financially.
- We stop putting people in positions of power that cannot balance a budget. If you cannot run a household or business without going into debt, we do not need you attempting to guide the country. If you cannot run an election campaign without bungling your finances, we don't need you "helping" solve the crisis we have placed ourselves in as a nation.
- We stop electing people because they seem nice or energetic or young or whatever. We need to elect good, strong people to lead this country in a new direction. We need politicians who see it as being allowed to offer their services to their country and fellow citizens for a season, instead of having politicians who see it as the ultimate SWAG party and ridiculous retirement plan.
- We need to stop electing non-representatives. You work for me as well as the guy who disagrees with me. I am a fellow citizen of yours, just like he is - we are not just your constituents. You answer to me, even when you don't want to. If you make a choice that I find different from my desire, I have the right to express that opinion, regardless of how it might make you feel. If you do not want to hear the opinions of those that you claim to represent, then you have no right to claim to be their representative.
- We need to throw political correctness and sensitivity in the trash can. At the moment, there is very little room in political discourse for us to skirt around certain issues on our tippy toes because you or one of your lobbyist friends might take offense. Please be offended. Be offended that it took so long for you to feel or recognize how poorly you have done your job. Be offended at the fact that many of your actions have led us to this place. If you are too sensitive to deal with these very real, very large issues without getting your feathers ruffled through a lively, boisterous and heated debate, then there is no place for you in politics. Go home and cry in your bed for a while - the country will be better off with you there. This isn't to say that we should be hateful or disrespectful, but we should get fired up about what you are and are not doing with and to our country. That is patriotic. If you cannot handle grown up conversation in a real world that isn't filled with fairies and color-blindness, then you should go write children's stories and not attempt to tell us what stories we can and should read to our children.
- See Why I Think America is in Deep Trouble
Sorry about the length of this post. I got a bit carried away here. It started out as a quick picture and ended with me getting all riled up. I do not apologize for my convictions nor my vocalization of those beliefs, merely for the length of the content.
I hate politics as they are and dream of how I think they could be.
There are so many people on both sides of the aisle that do not deserve to be called representatives or leaders of our country. I am hoping that real world Americans begin to be better represented in the Washington DC.
That starts with you in the voting booth.
Get informed.
Get fired up.
Get represented.
Get America back on track.
To me, this is a perfect example of what is wrong with our economy and country right now.
Warning: Generalized statements are about to be made which may not be true for all parties involved.
Standing for Nothing
There is a group of people who feel entitled to something without doing anything, or whatever it is they want. (see Occupy Something)
Speaking for Nothing
There is a group of wealthy people who feel that government should place even more of the burden on the rich. The fact that this call is now also coming from a couple dozen wealthier people does not change the fact that it is just another call to redistribute wealth. The fact that Warren Buffet is being used to champion this idea is simply ludicrous. (Buffet has sheltered his wealth from Federal Taxes and has admitted that he thinks the government would not handle the money as effectively and efficiently as a private organization.)
If the wealthy are so concerned with how much they have, they should stop making so much profit (money) or start giving a lot more of it away. This is their personal problem and not the government's problem. If they truly were struggling to sleep at night because they honestly believed that they had too much money and that it could be used to aid other people who desperately need it, they would have already set into motion the actions required to reconcile that conviction on their own. There is no role for the government required here. Thus, it is a cheap political stunt.
Neither of these groups represent a majority opinion. Far from it.
How did we end up here?
Our government has adopted the strategy of the one offered by the company to the right of the page. Spend what you do not have now, pay off less than the interest later and at some point down the line you will realize you are in way over your head and you will desperately need to change your behavior. However, like most Americans, our government refuses to change its spending behaviors, even after after the cost of continuing down the same road become patently clear and the outcome unavoidable.
How do I think we get out of this mess?
- We stop catering to the minority of the population who screams the loudest. We stop handling them with soft gloves. If you want to protest anything, you need to do it within the bounds of the law. If you go beyond the law, then you should have the entirety of that law brought to bear against you and the organization you claim to represent.
- We need to stop listening to people who claim to offer solutions that appear selfless, when the reality is that their "solution" will not solve the problem. In fact, their path only leads to people other than themselves having more money taken away from them, thus increasing the gap between the ultra-rich and the wealthy.
- We stop spending money we do not have. We force our government to work for us, as it was intended. I do not work in order to pay for a government program. I work in order to have the ability to provide for my family's current and future needs. I am planning for my own future, as best as I can. It would be a lot easier for me if the government that is charged with protecting me woudl stop attacking me financially.
- We stop putting people in positions of power that cannot balance a budget. If you cannot run a household or business without going into debt, we do not need you attempting to guide the country. If you cannot run an election campaign without bungling your finances, we don't need you "helping" solve the crisis we have placed ourselves in as a nation.
- We stop electing people because they seem nice or energetic or young or whatever. We need to elect good, strong people to lead this country in a new direction. We need politicians who see it as being allowed to offer their services to their country and fellow citizens for a season, instead of having politicians who see it as the ultimate SWAG party and ridiculous retirement plan.
- We need to stop electing non-representatives. You work for me as well as the guy who disagrees with me. I am a fellow citizen of yours, just like he is - we are not just your constituents. You answer to me, even when you don't want to. If you make a choice that I find different from my desire, I have the right to express that opinion, regardless of how it might make you feel. If you do not want to hear the opinions of those that you claim to represent, then you have no right to claim to be their representative.
- We need to throw political correctness and sensitivity in the trash can. At the moment, there is very little room in political discourse for us to skirt around certain issues on our tippy toes because you or one of your lobbyist friends might take offense. Please be offended. Be offended that it took so long for you to feel or recognize how poorly you have done your job. Be offended at the fact that many of your actions have led us to this place. If you are too sensitive to deal with these very real, very large issues without getting your feathers ruffled through a lively, boisterous and heated debate, then there is no place for you in politics. Go home and cry in your bed for a while - the country will be better off with you there. This isn't to say that we should be hateful or disrespectful, but we should get fired up about what you are and are not doing with and to our country. That is patriotic. If you cannot handle grown up conversation in a real world that isn't filled with fairies and color-blindness, then you should go write children's stories and not attempt to tell us what stories we can and should read to our children.
- See Why I Think America is in Deep Trouble
Sorry about the length of this post. I got a bit carried away here. It started out as a quick picture and ended with me getting all riled up. I do not apologize for my convictions nor my vocalization of those beliefs, merely for the length of the content.
I hate politics as they are and dream of how I think they could be.
There are so many people on both sides of the aisle that do not deserve to be called representatives or leaders of our country. I am hoping that real world Americans begin to be better represented in the Washington DC.
That starts with you in the voting booth.
Get informed.
Get fired up.
Get represented.
Get America back on track.
Virtue is Not Hereditary
Today's quote comes from the section entitled "OF THE PRESENT ABILITY OF AMERICA, WITH SOME MISCELLANEOUS REFLEXIONS":
We ought to reflect, that there are three different ways, by which an independancy may hereafter be effected; and that ONE of those THREE, will one day or other, be the fate of America, viz. By the legal voice of the people in Congress; by a military power; or by a mob: It may not always happen that our soldiers are citizens, and the multitude a body of reasonable men; virtue, as I have already remarked, is not hereditary, neither is it perpetual.- Above quote is Thomas Paine's "Common Sense"
This is the fifth and final post in a series of my favorite portions of Thomas Paine's book "Common Sense
". It is a worthwhile read and is available free from Amazon for download to Kindle or other device. An Apostate From Manhood
Today's quote comes from the section entitled "OF THE PRESENT ABILITY OF AMERICA, WITH SOME MISCELLANEOUS REFLEXIONS":
The Speech if it may be called one, is nothing better than a wilful audacious libel against the truth, the common good, and the existence of mankind; and is a formal and pompous method of offering up human sacrifices to the pride of tyrants.- Above quote is Thomas Paine's "Common Sense"
...
And he who can so calmly hear, and digest such doctrine, hath forfeited his claim to rationality—an apostate from the order of manhood; and ought to be considered—as one, who hath, not only given up the proper dignity of a man, but sunk himself beneath the rank of animals, and contemptibly crawls through the world like a worm.
This is the fourth post in a series of my favorite portions of Thomas Paine's book "Common Sense
". It is a worthwhile read and is available free from Amazon for download to Kindle or other device. Debt Without Advantage
Today's quote comes from the section entitled "OF THE PRESENT ABILITY OF AMERICA, WITH SOME MISCELLANEOUS REFLEXIONS":
But to expend millions for the sake of getting a few vile acts repealed, and routing the present ministry only, is unworthy the charge, and is using posterity with the utmost cruelty; because it is leaving them the great work to do, and a debt upon their backs, from which, they derive no advantage. Such a thought is unworthy a man of honor, and is the true characteristic of a narrow heart and a pedling politician.- Above quote is Thomas Paine's "Common Sense"
This is the third post in a series of my favorite portions of Thomas Paine's book "Common Sense
". It is a worthwhile read and is available free from Amazon for download to Kindle or other device. An Honest Man Versus the Crown
This week, I feel like sharing some of my favorite portions of Thomas Paine's book "Common Sense". It is a worthwhile read and is available free from Amazon for download to Kindle or other device.Today's quotes come from the section entitled "OF MONARCHY AND HEREDITARY SUCCESSION":
Male and female are distinctions of nature, good and bad the distinctions of heaven; but how a race of men came into the world so exalted above the rest, and distinguished like some new species, is worth enquiring into, and whether they are the means of happiness or of misery to mankind.And:
Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when they succeed to the government are frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions.Finally, his conclusion on this topic:
Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived.- All quotes are from Thomas Paine's "Common Sense"
Occupying Something
I've resisted posting anything about the Occupy Wall Street protests to this point, but I wanted to say something about it today.
Here in St. Louis, we have our version of it currently operating on downtown St. Louis. Even the local newspaper can't figure out what the fuss is about. With that being said, it seems that one of the common themes of these activities is to make the wealthy pay their "fair share", which apparently translates into simply meaning they need to "pay more". If the some of the people doing the protesting are, in fact, currently unemployed, then they are essentially working against themselves.
Let's say that the politicians adopt the strategy of taxing the wealthier even higher rates. Inevitably, this will lead to the wealthy moving their financial assets from the American economy to another economy with less exorbitant taxes. In doing so, the American government will take a massive hit on tax income. The result of that income loss will lead to program cuts. Undoubtedly, some of those program reductions/eliminations could be in the welfare programs that currently support the unemployed, although knowing that politicians recognize this program as a way to maintain/buy voter support for re-election, I doubt many drastic measures would be taken. In the above scenario, if cuts do happen in these programs, the unemployed will be the ones paying the price, not the wealthy. And if they didn't happen, the politicians would be scrambling to find other areas to reduce their expenditures. Given Washington's track record of late, I think it is more likely that they would borrow against the future even more and drive the country towards a place where unemployed protestors in a park are the least of our worries as a nation.
In the meantime, the lack of a clear agenda and recognized leader of the movement provide little reason to listen to them at all.
Get organized (beyond union lines), figure out what your issue is that you want changed, offer several viable solutions and work towards influencing people in a positive direction. At the moment, it would seem that this is a bunch of unhappy people ready to protest anything. And that is fine, because they have that right. And they have that right, because other people are working hard and paying their taxes. But that doesn't mean they should be given the power to dramatically impact the lives of others or the future of our nation.
We'll see how the protest hold up when the weather turns much colder.
- Oh, and with the St. Louis Cardinals going to the World Series, I'd like to see the fans of the game reclaim the public property that has been used as a rally area for years and, prior to Wednesday's game 1, take back Kiener Plaza from the "99%" that are currently monopolizing it.
Here in St. Louis, we have our version of it currently operating on downtown St. Louis. Even the local newspaper can't figure out what the fuss is about. With that being said, it seems that one of the common themes of these activities is to make the wealthy pay their "fair share", which apparently translates into simply meaning they need to "pay more". If the some of the people doing the protesting are, in fact, currently unemployed, then they are essentially working against themselves.
Let's say that the politicians adopt the strategy of taxing the wealthier even higher rates. Inevitably, this will lead to the wealthy moving their financial assets from the American economy to another economy with less exorbitant taxes. In doing so, the American government will take a massive hit on tax income. The result of that income loss will lead to program cuts. Undoubtedly, some of those program reductions/eliminations could be in the welfare programs that currently support the unemployed, although knowing that politicians recognize this program as a way to maintain/buy voter support for re-election, I doubt many drastic measures would be taken. In the above scenario, if cuts do happen in these programs, the unemployed will be the ones paying the price, not the wealthy. And if they didn't happen, the politicians would be scrambling to find other areas to reduce their expenditures. Given Washington's track record of late, I think it is more likely that they would borrow against the future even more and drive the country towards a place where unemployed protestors in a park are the least of our worries as a nation.
In the meantime, the lack of a clear agenda and recognized leader of the movement provide little reason to listen to them at all.
Get organized (beyond union lines), figure out what your issue is that you want changed, offer several viable solutions and work towards influencing people in a positive direction. At the moment, it would seem that this is a bunch of unhappy people ready to protest anything. And that is fine, because they have that right. And they have that right, because other people are working hard and paying their taxes. But that doesn't mean they should be given the power to dramatically impact the lives of others or the future of our nation.
We'll see how the protest hold up when the weather turns much colder.
- Oh, and with the St. Louis Cardinals going to the World Series, I'd like to see the fans of the game reclaim the public property that has been used as a rally area for years and, prior to Wednesday's game 1, take back Kiener Plaza from the "99%" that are currently monopolizing it.
Why I Think America Is In Deep Trouble
Last week I was thinking about all of the hype surrounding the debt-ceiling when it occurred to me that I haven't check the status of the Federal Reserve's Monetary Base lately. What follows is a lengthy post where I try to recapture all of my thoughts on this and various topics that I have written about over the course of the past few years.
I started tracking the Monetary Base prior to attending the April 15, 2009 Tea Party in downtown St. Louis, after which I posted my reasons for attending the tea party event. Included in that post was a graph showing the National Debt Per Capita and the Adjusted Monetary Base.
I started tracking the Monetary Base prior to attending the April 15, 2009 Tea Party in downtown St. Louis, after which I posted my reasons for attending the tea party event. Included in that post was a graph showing the National Debt Per Capita and the Adjusted Monetary Base.
The State of the Union 2011
As is my annual ritual, I read through the President's State of the Union Address this morning. I haven't read or listened to any political commentary at this point, so my perspective is untainted and solely my own.
There are several portions of the speech that I could draw attention to, but I will choose only two.
Here's the first:
The idea of sacrificing for the good if the nation is noble and all, but when the government doesn't choose to adopt the same strategy, one has to question the motivation behind this course of action. America's success isn't going to be determined by whether or not the wealthiest Americans are taxed higher. Her success will be determined by how well the Federal government allows the American people to innovate, create and prosper - including financially. When you tax the wealthiest people at an ever-increasing rate, what do you suppose the final outcome of that will be? Inevitably, the wealthy people find the loopholes, reinvest their finances in other places, or they simply move to a place that will not tax them so heavily.
I'm all for simplifying the tax code. What currently exists is so convoluted and complex that even the government institution chartered to enforce those regulations (the IRS) is having trouble keeping up.Contrary to what the President and members of the government believe, this is a fairly simple goal to accomplish. It's called a flat tax. The amount of paperwork and hassle that such a system would remove from businesses is huge. The reduction in size of the Federal government, by way of drastically reducing the size of the IRS, would be sizable. While I am open to the idea of reducing and removing large portions of the existing to tax code as a preliminary step, I cannot see how this type of effort would prove worthwhile over the course of time. Every year there are additions to the tax code. I am of the opinion that a flat tax would work and would allow the citizens and companies of this great land to prosper. The only way this would work is if the government is held accountable and sticks to a non-deficit increasing budget. (That's sounds a lot like common sense, doesn't it. Some might even say it's Constitutional.)
[Feel free to insert a rant about the Federal Reserve's ability to print an unlimited amount of currency here.]
Here's the second portion that I want to draw attention to:
Overall, the speech read like most of the State of the Union speeches. Obviously, I cannot speak to the effectiveness of the President's delivery of these words, nor to the receptiveness of the blended-party crowd. I am sure there is plenty being said about all that extraneous stuff anyway. If I find anything worth linking to or pointing out as I read more and hear more today, I will add it to the bottom of this post.
There are several portions of the speech that I could draw attention to, but I will choose only two.
Here's the first:
And if we truly care about our deficit, we simply can’t afford a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. (Applause.) Before we take money away from our schools or scholarships away from our students, we should ask millionaires to give up their tax break. It’s not a matter of punishing their success. It’s about promoting America’s success. (Applause.)Okay, where to start. If you truly care about the deficit, you will stop spending more than you have. Period. This isn't rocket science. Don't spend what you don't have. That means that you can't create new government institutions, agencies, positions and programs until you have funded existing programs. Since the existing programs were running a deficit when the President took office, he should have reigned in spending and reduced the size of the Federal government. But he didn't. He increased its size and scope and buried the nation under a crushing amount of debt that will cripple us in the coming years if the tough decisions aren't made.
In fact, the best thing we could do on taxes for all Americans is to simplify the individual tax code. (Applause.) This will be a tough job, but members of both parties have expressed an interest in doing this, and I am prepared to join them. (Applause.)
The idea of sacrificing for the good if the nation is noble and all, but when the government doesn't choose to adopt the same strategy, one has to question the motivation behind this course of action. America's success isn't going to be determined by whether or not the wealthiest Americans are taxed higher. Her success will be determined by how well the Federal government allows the American people to innovate, create and prosper - including financially. When you tax the wealthiest people at an ever-increasing rate, what do you suppose the final outcome of that will be? Inevitably, the wealthy people find the loopholes, reinvest their finances in other places, or they simply move to a place that will not tax them so heavily.
I'm all for simplifying the tax code. What currently exists is so convoluted and complex that even the government institution chartered to enforce those regulations (the IRS) is having trouble keeping up.Contrary to what the President and members of the government believe, this is a fairly simple goal to accomplish. It's called a flat tax. The amount of paperwork and hassle that such a system would remove from businesses is huge. The reduction in size of the Federal government, by way of drastically reducing the size of the IRS, would be sizable. While I am open to the idea of reducing and removing large portions of the existing to tax code as a preliminary step, I cannot see how this type of effort would prove worthwhile over the course of time. Every year there are additions to the tax code. I am of the opinion that a flat tax would work and would allow the citizens and companies of this great land to prosper. The only way this would work is if the government is held accountable and sticks to a non-deficit increasing budget. (That's sounds a lot like common sense, doesn't it. Some might even say it's Constitutional.)
[Feel free to insert a rant about the Federal Reserve's ability to print an unlimited amount of currency here.]
Here's the second portion that I want to draw attention to:
Let's see how long it takes to break this promise. I cannot imagine the President being able to stick to this. Now perhaps the senators and Congressman will find another way to tack on their pet projects, or call them by a different name, but I just don't see this being a line in the sand that the President is unwilling to withdraw from.And because the American people deserve to know that special interests aren’t larding up legislation with pet projects, both parties in Congress should know this: If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it. I will veto it. (Applause.)
Overall, the speech read like most of the State of the Union speeches. Obviously, I cannot speak to the effectiveness of the President's delivery of these words, nor to the receptiveness of the blended-party crowd. I am sure there is plenty being said about all that extraneous stuff anyway. If I find anything worth linking to or pointing out as I read more and hear more today, I will add it to the bottom of this post.
Economic Recovery Hinges on One Word
"One of the biggest obstacles to economic recovery is that politicians and the media are both focused on how government can MAKE the economy recover, rather than on how it can LET the economy recover. One of the biggest deterrents to investments, and the jobs they could create, is uncertainty as to what new bright idea will come out of Washington to change the rules in midstream." - Thomas Sowell
Gun-ControL Laws Can Be Repealed, If Need Be
Thomas Sowell writes the following about Gun-Control Laws:
When you stop and think about it, there is no obvious reason why issues like gun control should be ideological issues in the first place. It is ultimately an empirical question whether allowing ordinary citizens to have firearms will increase or decrease the amount of violence.
...
If the end of gun control leads to a bloodbath of runaway shootings, then the Second Amendment can be repealed, just as other constitutional amendments have been repealed. Laws exist for people, not people for laws.
Large Bureaucracy Leads to Democracy's Demise
"Least of all shall we preserve democracy or foster its growth if all the power and most of the important decisions rest with an organization far too big for the common man to survey or comprehend. Nowhere has democracy ever worked so well without a great measure of local self-government, providing a school of political training for the people at large as much as for their future leaders. It is only where responsibility can be learned and practiced in affairs of one's neighbor rather than some theoretical knowledge of the needs of other people which guides action, that the ordinary man can take a real part in public affairs because they concern the world he knows.Where the scope of political measures become so large that the necessary knowledge is almost exclusively possessed by the bureaucracy, the creative impulses of the private person must flag."
- p. 257-258 The Road to Serfdomby F.A. Hayek
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)