So, apparently a particular school district is having money problems.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/24451866/detail.html
The school has to borrow money from year to year in order to stay afloat. Now, is this really an issue of cash flow like the superintendent says?
They get a certain amount of money for each student they have. The school has to spend a certain amount of money on things like textbooks, teachers' retirement accounts, etc., as well as an emergency fund for replacement of the school in case of a natural disaster. That emergency fund has been donated to for years; state law requires it. The closure of the school is something of a disaster. If there's been a shortage, instead of borrowing, see if you can dip into some saved money instead of debting yourself out of existence, or in this case, trying to debt yourself out of existence. For the amount of money that school has been getting per student, they shouldn't have to take loans. I should know, I asked my mom. She was on a school board in Grand County for several years.
The school has apparently overspent itself. And now, they are pushing for a property tax raise when the whole county is already struggling.
If the school has had to borrow money from the state year after year just to remain open, I'de say the truth is that this school hasn't managed its money very well. Now because of that school district's shortsightedness, the students, and every taxpayer in the county, pays for it.
Now for the big picture. I'm going to pontificate strenuously.
Everybody agrees that debt is not a good thing. Debt doesn't happen unless you borrow. If you overspend, you're going to pay for it eventually. This isn't just a local problem. Look at the whole country. Everyone is in debt, including the government!
Higher taxes in times of recession have never been good. The reason we hear about the Great Depression, and not the several recessions that came before it, was because it lasted so long. The Great Depression was the only depression, before now, where the government raised taxes. The New Deal had a hand in lengthening it as well, as the stimulus probably will today (where do you think the money comes from?).
Americans don't save their money nowadays. The average amount of money an American saves is -2%. It's no wonder the economy is the way it is. We've spent our money, and now we have to borrow. And borrow. And borrow. The real injustice is that those who have been responsible with their money now have to pay for those who weren't.
The simple truth: People need to learn to manage their money better. Money doesn't grow on trees. Learn delayed gratification. Have some foresight. Debt is not a lurking monster as some people might like to think. It's the consequence for money mismanagement.
For those who didn't save, yes, it's your fault, and the credit companies need money for their families too. But there is hope. Consult someone like Dave Ramsey. His road is a hard one, but it will lead to financial stability. And the more stable people we have, the easier it will be to deal with both the current financial crisis and future ones.
Am I right? Do you wish to add more facts or details? Or am I wrong? Why am I wrong? What does this have to do with my purpose for blogging? Do you think I was too harsh? Too soft? Am I a wacko, out of touch with reality?
Comment, then. Parrots, commence!
Response to comments (because at the moment I can't comment on my own blog for some reason. Must be some plugin I added to Firefox):
To Rosemary:
I don't know what Grand County will do. For most, Middle Park is the only option (homeschooling is hard and has a bad odor to some and Winter Park Christian School admits pretty much by invite at the moment). Grand County is also a tourist town, so many of the locals might not even care because they only live here half the time, or are ski bums. But perhaps I'm being pessimistic, and I'll be surprised.
Maybe I can dig around a little, find as many facts as I can, and publish them in the local newspaper. We'll see what happens then.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Leadership. Politics vs. Statesmanship
I've been thinking about becoming a politician.
No, let me rephrase. I've been thinking about becoming a statesman. 'Politician' has so many negative connotations. A politician is likeable, very personable. He waves to the crowd, smiles that wide, fake smile, gestures to his family, makes innocuous comments about how he couldn't have done it without them and all of the people who voted for him. He promises something to everyone, so many promises, promises he won't be able to keep track of and therefore, to keep. When he actually starts the business of making and passing laws (the business of leadership), people demand favors of him, and he gives in, thinking this is all part of leading a community. He tries to please everybody. He may even be innocent, until his glaring defect burns him in the backside.
Both Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan were likeable, personable. The primary thing that flawed Clinton and set Reagan apart from him, aside from values, was the characteristic of leadership. The unbending kind of leadership. The kind that was common to all great men, men like Winston Churchill, or Teddy Roosevelt, or George Washington. Can anyone picture most of the people in Congress facing down a Stalin or Hitler, or leading a charge across a dessicated battlefield, or even defeating asthma or polio?
Few of our elected officials today are really leaders. They don't capture the hearts and minds of the people like a leader should. They're personable. If they have any kind of backbone, they use it to their own ends, for selflessness is another quality of leadership.
Back when this country was first formed, Senators wore guns in assembly. They even challenged each other to duels, when differences could not be resolved (fortunately not conducted in the building). When they backed down, they did it because they had at last seen reason. Politicians back down now when they're offered bribes, pet projects earmarking already large, bloated bills. They butt heads only when the voters get their attention overwhelmingly, as the sleeping majority awakens.
Not that duels should be brought back, the old days were anything but perfect! I'm saying that the American people should vote in people with spines, not people with charming personalities. Many early Presidents were anything but charming. But they could lead.
Personality did not stop the blitzes across France. Vote in people who have some kind of respect for themselves and for the ones they represent, so they stick to whatever values they hold, even if they're wrong. Not the silly flopping around that has been happening in recent years.
But of course, leaders shouldn't be too bull-headed, either. They should be knowledgeable, and not just about the law, but about how to apply the law correctly. They should know how to tell the difference between right and almost-right, i.e. wisdom. They should study moral philosophy as much as, if not more than, law, so they know the right decisions to make. Politicians lack wisdom as well.
A leader should be like bamboo. Standing straight and tall until convinced to change its course. Knowing when to stand, and when to give way. When to snap back in the face of the people who dared try to force it the wrong way.
So, I'm thinking about becoming a statesman. I'm terrified of public speaking. I'm very black and white, and hard to convince. I'm stubborn. My ultimate goal is to find truth and act on it (my reason for starting this blog as well). I hate politics as it is now, but I see a need for people who will stand for what they think is right, and know enough to know that they are right, in every corner of the government.
Maybe I'll tote a six-shooter around, too, and challenge people to duels.
No, let me rephrase. I've been thinking about becoming a statesman. 'Politician' has so many negative connotations. A politician is likeable, very personable. He waves to the crowd, smiles that wide, fake smile, gestures to his family, makes innocuous comments about how he couldn't have done it without them and all of the people who voted for him. He promises something to everyone, so many promises, promises he won't be able to keep track of and therefore, to keep. When he actually starts the business of making and passing laws (the business of leadership), people demand favors of him, and he gives in, thinking this is all part of leading a community. He tries to please everybody. He may even be innocent, until his glaring defect burns him in the backside.
Both Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan were likeable, personable. The primary thing that flawed Clinton and set Reagan apart from him, aside from values, was the characteristic of leadership. The unbending kind of leadership. The kind that was common to all great men, men like Winston Churchill, or Teddy Roosevelt, or George Washington. Can anyone picture most of the people in Congress facing down a Stalin or Hitler, or leading a charge across a dessicated battlefield, or even defeating asthma or polio?
Few of our elected officials today are really leaders. They don't capture the hearts and minds of the people like a leader should. They're personable. If they have any kind of backbone, they use it to their own ends, for selflessness is another quality of leadership.
Back when this country was first formed, Senators wore guns in assembly. They even challenged each other to duels, when differences could not be resolved (fortunately not conducted in the building). When they backed down, they did it because they had at last seen reason. Politicians back down now when they're offered bribes, pet projects earmarking already large, bloated bills. They butt heads only when the voters get their attention overwhelmingly, as the sleeping majority awakens.
Not that duels should be brought back, the old days were anything but perfect! I'm saying that the American people should vote in people with spines, not people with charming personalities. Many early Presidents were anything but charming. But they could lead.
Personality did not stop the blitzes across France. Vote in people who have some kind of respect for themselves and for the ones they represent, so they stick to whatever values they hold, even if they're wrong. Not the silly flopping around that has been happening in recent years.
But of course, leaders shouldn't be too bull-headed, either. They should be knowledgeable, and not just about the law, but about how to apply the law correctly. They should know how to tell the difference between right and almost-right, i.e. wisdom. They should study moral philosophy as much as, if not more than, law, so they know the right decisions to make. Politicians lack wisdom as well.
A leader should be like bamboo. Standing straight and tall until convinced to change its course. Knowing when to stand, and when to give way. When to snap back in the face of the people who dared try to force it the wrong way.
So, I'm thinking about becoming a statesman. I'm terrified of public speaking. I'm very black and white, and hard to convince. I'm stubborn. My ultimate goal is to find truth and act on it (my reason for starting this blog as well). I hate politics as it is now, but I see a need for people who will stand for what they think is right, and know enough to know that they are right, in every corner of the government.
Maybe I'll tote a six-shooter around, too, and challenge people to duels.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
The Purpose
I do not like the Internet as much as the printed word. The Internet has fostered inattention, a kind of autism, in almost every person who has grown up with it. Ever find your attention wandering when you read a wall of text? That's what I'm talking about. However, being a writer, I must follow my audience, or in this case my potential audience, and consign myself to the swamp of the blogosphere. Of course, it isn't all bad. The Internet gives maximum exposure, perhaps, too much. If only one person reads this blog, that's okay, too, for I've touched one person, however briefly.
This blog is about belief. Actually, it is about providing an example of how beliefs shape and change the world we live in. The term coined for this is worldview. Everyone has a worldview. A worldview is how we see the world. It is the lens we use to interpret reality. One may have a Christian worldview, a Muslim worldview, or an evolutionist worldview. People, more often than not, do not act on something based on the facts given, but on their predispositions, their "bias."
But people must ask, "Which bias is the best bias to be biased by?" Which worldview, or maybe combination of them, is closer to what is really true? Since we can't escape worldview, this is an unavoidable question. Some people seem to think that belief, or faith, should be removed as much as possible from real life or that it has no application to real life. I'm here to show that this is untrue. Belief collides with real life in almost every decision a person makes.
Is my bias the best bias? We shall see when I apply my bias to the rest of the world. I will write about anything that happens, like current events, or I will write about something as nebulous as the nature of time, but through it all, I will apply my bias, and hopefully, find the best bias, the true bias. I could be butchered by internet trolls, but that's all part of the quest.
This purpose might get whittled down to something a little more specific eventually, but for now, the range of subjects is broad.
This blog is about belief. Actually, it is about providing an example of how beliefs shape and change the world we live in. The term coined for this is worldview. Everyone has a worldview. A worldview is how we see the world. It is the lens we use to interpret reality. One may have a Christian worldview, a Muslim worldview, or an evolutionist worldview. People, more often than not, do not act on something based on the facts given, but on their predispositions, their "bias."
But people must ask, "Which bias is the best bias to be biased by?" Which worldview, or maybe combination of them, is closer to what is really true? Since we can't escape worldview, this is an unavoidable question. Some people seem to think that belief, or faith, should be removed as much as possible from real life or that it has no application to real life. I'm here to show that this is untrue. Belief collides with real life in almost every decision a person makes.
Is my bias the best bias? We shall see when I apply my bias to the rest of the world. I will write about anything that happens, like current events, or I will write about something as nebulous as the nature of time, but through it all, I will apply my bias, and hopefully, find the best bias, the true bias. I could be butchered by internet trolls, but that's all part of the quest.
This purpose might get whittled down to something a little more specific eventually, but for now, the range of subjects is broad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)