2. Repeal Sarbanes Oxley.

3. Drop Capital Gains tax to 0.5% and use all of the revenue to pay off whatever “bailout” plan Congress approves.

4. Freeze the federal budget — no new spending, no budget increases, except maybe defense.

Why:

1. Corp taxes in the USA are the second highest in the world.  Drop them to the lowest, and watch the foreign investment soar.  Bring money and jobs back to our own country without having to pass more regulation that won’t work.  Obama bemoans jobs moving off-shore. Duh!  His plan to raise taxes on corporations will only make the problem worse.  McCain’s plan doesn’t go far enough.  We want to be the best place for companies to come to and set up shop, not the second or third best.

2. SOX is a disaster, not accomplishing its goal and preventing thousands of companies from going public.  Like it or not, we have a public market economy; most of us rely on new and profitable companies entering the public exchange for our retirement plans.  SOX is a massive hindrance.

3. Removing the punishment of capital gains tax means people will be more likely to invest their earnings, spurning growth, instead of hiding their money away in other areas that aren’t taxed so high but don’t benefit the public on a whole, or sending their money overseas where it doesn’t benefit our economy.  Remember, we need growth and investment to raise the value of our currency and make jobs.

4. Obviously, we spend too much.

The answer to getting out of debt; to rising unemployment; to revenue shortfalls (not that we have that), is growth — not more government interference.

Feel free to write my name in for President come November 4.

This post is about me — and other people doing things that just don’t benefit from a college education.

I fully realize this is non-conformist thinking. Most people will dismiss what I’m saying as crackpot stuff. But let me tell you what I think is truly crazy: going into debt before you even get your life started. With college debt for even the most simple of degrees starting at $30,000, one has to ask who’s crazy — the people assuming that debt for the sake of a college degree or the people who decide to skip the debt and go to work?

First, some foundation: College is really expensive and people pay for it for a long, long time. It sounds obvious, but people don’t seem to really understand it, so read it, and let it sink in. Is it any wonder that our nation is getting deeper and deeper into debt? People are starting their life in the hole. One salient paragraph from the article linked above:

A 22-year old student graduating this year who consolidates their $40,000 loan at 6.125 percent will need to pay $243 a month…until they’re 52. By that time, they will have paid $47,494 in interest alone.

So, is this necessary? Rarely.

Let’s dispense right now with that myth that says College = More Money. Wrong. College may be necessary for certain, specific lines of work, but College does not cause increased earning over a lifetime although it correlates with it. (Sad aside: I bet half of the college graduates from last year couldn’t explain to you what the difference between causation and correlation actually is. Those are the same people who think big profits equal big profit margins and vote for candidates who promise to take on Big Oil. But I digress.)

Check this out: Five reasons to skip college. An excerpt:

In fact, there is plenty of evidence that what really matters is how smart you are, not where–or even if–you went to school. According to a number of studies, small differences in SAT scores, which you take before going to college, correlate with measurably higher incomes. And, according to a report from the National Bureau of Economic Research, the lifetime income of high-school dropouts is directly associated with their scores on a battery of intelligence tests.

Those correlations contradict the notion of a causal relationship between college degrees and increased earnings over a lifetime.

Let’s get on to another simple fact: College doesn’t teach you all that much. Another excerpt from the above linked article:

For, in truth, most professions–journalism, software engineering, sales, and trading stocks to name but a few–depend far more on “on-the-job” education than on classroom learning. Until relatively recently, lawyers, architects and pharmacists learned their trade through apprenticeship, not through higher education.

Let’s take software engineering, a subject I happen to know a bit about. I can say with absolute, unequivocal certainty that there is nothing about computer science college can teach you that you can not learn on your own. I know this because I: 1. Spent the summer between my last year of high school and first year of college learning all sorts of computer science-y things on my own, and 2. Spent the first year of my time in college bored out of my mind in my computer science classes. Every now and then I would wake from my stupor to help a fellow pupil or correct an error on the dry erase board.

What’s the difference between a computer programmer with a college degree and a computer programmer without one? The guy without the degree has a four year head-start on the guy with the degree.

But there’s more — colleges don’t even teach real programming skill in the first place. (Seriously — as a programmer, I find the notion of someone holding a computer science degree who has never used pointers a complete absurdity.)

My first undeniable truism of college:

Going to college to “learn” is like taking a one month vacation to Mexico for a taco. And putting it all on a credit card. With no job. Fact 1: Tacos taste better in Southern California. Fact 2: Tacos in Mexico may or may not be made out of what you expect a taco to be made out of. Fact 3: Any idiot can fly to Mexico for a taco: it takes a smart person to realize that money is better spent eating at an upscale Mexican restaurant in Southern California. Fact 4: Taking vacations when you don’t have a job or money just isn’t wise.

A big lie our culture has embraced is the notion that learning only occurs in institutions. We are all collectively taking a vacation from a job we don’t even have just to fly to a foreign country to eat a taco.

Lost? Okay: the guy who stays in his own country to eat a taco and has a job is the guy who reads books to learn instead of mortgaging his future for a college eduction with the same goal.

Going to college because one “loves to learn” is just crazy. I love to learn. I can spend $100 on books and learn more than a college student does in an entire semester — unless you count all that nonsense about “socialization” where one “socializes” with tons of other people who know just as little as they do about the real world and spend weekends chugging beer to prove it (or, if they’re a little more mentally developed, maybe they chug lattes). What’s more, I can actually live my life while I read the book. You know, like working. I suppose the guy who reads books does miss out on the “Psych 101″ factor — that college thing were one semester of Psychology (even when you are majoring in computer science) suddenly makes the college student an expert in human behavior. I guess there are trade-offs.

Here’s my second truism of college: If you go to college and yet don’t know exactly how it will benefit you in your specific career, you are wasting time and money. Here’s a little-realized fact: College will still be there in another couple of years. If you haven’t decided what you need to learn yet, you should not be spending your money (or your parents’ money) — especially not debt — on college. So don’t go to college without a plan. If you can’t make a plan, then go do something real for a while first. (Hint: going to college is as far from real life as you can get.) This country is full of opportunity, and you don’t need to shell out tens of thousands of dollars to explore your options. And if you butt up against someone who says you’re nothing without a college degree — forget ‘em. Move on. Make your own life.

Here’s a third truism: People who go into debt for tens of thousands of dollars and come out of college with a degree they will never use are not running on all thrusters. There exists no rational, justifiable reason to spend so much money on something that is not going to directly enhance your life in a tangible way.

You think saying most people don’t need college is crazy? I say going to college and only coming out with a piece of paper, warm and fuzzy feelings about “learning,” and over $30,000 in debt and no job is crazy.

The fact is, education has become a multi-headed monster our culture worships. Money and time is burned on the altar of institutionalized education, when real life — character, honesty, tenacity, hard work, and independence — is only learned through experience.

If you’re a college grad (and kudos to you for reading this far!), don’t be insulted. Take stock of your accomplishments in life. I think you’ll find that the gains you’ve achieved in your life are not due to time you spent in college, but what you did with your life. And if you haven’t got their yet? Don’t worry — it’s only four years.

PS: Before anyone says “what about heart surgeons,” please read the first sentence of this post before embarrassing yourself.

However good that is for votes, it’s not reality. As George Will points out:

Economist Stephen Rose, defining the middle class as households with annual incomes between $30,000 and $100,000, says a smaller percentage of Americans are in that category than in 1979 — because the percentage of Americans earning more than $100,000 has doubled from 12 to 24, while the percentage earning less than $30,000 is unchanged. “So,” Rose says, “the entire ‘decline’ of the middle class came from people moving up the income ladder.” Even as housing values declined in 2007, the net worth of households increased.

What I think both of these candidates have in common is the recognition that acknowledging prosperity for the country hurts them as politicians. After all, when you’re doing well and know it, who needs a politician to pick someone else’s pocket on your behalf?

Huckabee’s envy, populist politics is more insidious than Edwards’, though.  Whereas Edwards is simply a Marxist and easily identified as such, Huckabee is counting on his identity as a conservative Christian to really ratchet things up for his populist message. Huckabee is running on the platform that he should be the one to reform the federal government in order to facilitate “Christian Duty.”

Bruce Walker writes:

…as a Christian, Huckabee can be a witness to Christian behavior; he can exhort others to themselves become a witness to Christian behavior; but he cannot demand the enslavement of others to do those things which, as a Christian, he feels that he should do. The term “enslavement,” of course, is relative. Americans are comparatively free. But everything that Huckabee feels government should do requires a loss of freedom for every American. Moreover, Huckabee is not just asking for the greater enslavement of Christian Americans, but he is asking for the greater enslavement of all Americans. This is most un-Christian. Does my verdict sound extreme? Substitute “Rome” for “America” and substitute “publican” for “tax dollars.” [...] Despite the ways in which Roman power could be used to improve the world, Christ never looked to Rome to bring paradise or earth or even to be the agent of doing good in this world.

Both Huckabee and Edwards share the same basic philosophy of government: use it to make everyone do what you think they should be doing.  Or to at least make everyone pay for those things.

What was really missing in last night’s debates, both Republican and Democrat, was a sense of individuality and freedom as the underpinning of what made our country great. The closest anyone came was Fred Thompson, but the fact is, I just don’t think many people are interested in hearing about personal responsibility (because that is what freedom means).

Case in point: A Judge rules that school administrators can take punitive actions against students for things they write outside of school.

U.S. District Court Judge Mark Kravitz denied Avery Doninger’s request for a temporary injunction to overturn her high school election results Friday, but the Burlington teenager isn’t giving up her fight.

Doninger alleges Lewis S. Mills High School Principal Karissa Niehoff and Region 10 Superintendent Paula Schwartz violated her First Amendment right to free speech when they banned her from running for Class of 2008 secretary after she posted an offensive reference to school officials on a blog site from her home computer.

If public schools are a function of the government, what does punishing students for things they say against it, on personal blogs, teach about free speech?

Is it any wonder that each American generation seems more willing to give up responsibilities to the government?  Why not?  They are trained to sit down, shut up, and do as they’re told.  And if they speak out against the agents overseeing their daily training, there will be consequences.

“The aging of America is not just a population change or, as a budget problem, an accounting exercise. It involves a profound transformation of the nature of government: commitments to the older population are slowly overwhelming other public goals; the national government is becoming mainly an income-transfer mechanism from younger workers to older retirees.

“Consider the outlook. From 2005 to 2030, the 65-and-over population will nearly double to 71 million; its share of the population will rise to 20 percent from 12 percent. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—programs that serve older people—already exceed 40 percent of the $2.7 trillion federal budget. By 2030, their share could hit 75 percent of the present budget, projects the Congressional Budget Office. The result: a political impasse.”

Samuelson is pointing out a problem that we’ve known about for a long time now. FDR’s creation of the massive Social Security entitlement and ponzi scheme set this in motion and made it inevitable. However, Samuelson’s proposal is, to say the least, overly optimistic:

“As an antidote to this timidity, I propose that some public-spirited sugar daddy (the MacArthur Foundation? Warren Buffett?) sponsor a short book. A possible title: “Facing Up to an Aging America.” Six leading think tanks would be invited to participate: three liberal—the Brookings Institution, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Urban Institute—and three conservative—the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation.”

I’ve seen no evidence that good books are capable of getting a significant number of people to face up to reality. The Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation are both good think tanks, but most people just couldn’t be bothered.

The fundamental problem is that solving the looming entitlement crisis is going to require people to take on more personal responsibility. Too many people just aren’t interested in having to worry about their retirement, health care, and other things that are “tough choices.”

There’s nothing surprising about this. I’ve always thought that the liberal line is based entirely on appeal to emotion, rather than a rational view of factual evidence.

What’s more cushy to say: “everyone deserves health coverage” or “the free market economy is the best system for ensuring advanced health care and coverage in the long term.” That one’s easy. If you don’t know anything about economics, research and development, and the private sector, then the guy who denies that there should be “universal health insurance” is just an evil conservative.

Or how about this: “We must raise the minimum wage so everyone can have a living wage!” or “minimum wage requirements do nothing to improve the buying power of low wage earners, since the market must adjust to compensate for the increased pay with higher costs across the board.” Again, easy: The guy arguing for higher minimum wages “cares” about the “poor,” and the guy who understands economics, inflation, and the fact that there are jobs that simply do not warrant a “living wage” is “cruel” and “detests” people who “earn” their income.

The fact is, it’s usually easier for Democrats to win the “hearts” of voters because their arguments appeal to emotional responses rather than realities. In my view, a capitalistic policy is in fact more compassionate on the whole because it rewards hard work and innovation, whereas a more socialistic approach punishes achievement and encourages mediocrity. And since people are not taught basic economics or about market forces in public school, they tend not to care about the realities of socialism verses capitalism.

And it’s easy to say “tax the rich” to pay for whatever you want to “give” voters, like “free” health care or other forms of welfare, because most people aren’t “rich.” The guy trying to argue for personal freedom and responsibility — the freedom to fail or succeed — always has the tougher fight because, well, people just don’t care. They’re not that interested in freedom, if it means they have to be personally responsible for their own welfare.

“…I’d prefer to say that the default position is a terrible enervating passivity. Murderous misfit loners are mercifully rare. But this awful corrosive passivity is far more pervasive, and, unlike the psycho killer, is an existential threat to a functioning society.”

Wanted: A culture of self-defense (Michelle Malkin)

Suppose that one year ago, house bill 1572 were not squashed before it could get a floor vote:

[State quashed bill allowing handguns on campuses]

Clearly, squashing a bill reaffirming students’ Second Amendment rights didn’t make Virginia Tech “safer.”

Imagine if those students had their First Amendment rights infringed in college. The ACLU would have been there in a heartbeat. Where are those students’ civil rights now?

The attack on the Second Amendment rights of responsible United States citizens hasn’t just disarmed law abiding citizens; it has also had the effect of making them dependent upon government agents for their defense. And that’s the tragedy in the atrocity: that a single student could rampage for over two hours without being stopped by his peers.

Mark Steyn makes a compelling argument that Europe is already lost to Islamofacism, and the Islamofascists didn’t need to bomb a single pizza parlor to do it.

Steyn’s book is all about demographics. His argument is nigh unanswerable: if the folks in your country are reproducing at a rate lower than is necessary to even sustain your population, and you have a cradle-to-grave welfare state that requires you to have workers to tax, you’re going to have to let them come in and they will eventually own the place. This is already happening all over Europe.

Steyn also makes a solid case for something most of us already understand intuitively: our culture is superior to theirs. If you’re intent on holding to the indefensible position that all cultures are morally equal, you won’t like what you read in Steyn’s book.

All-in-all an excellent read. Steyn has a good sense of humor that fills every page. Even though he’s discussing what amounts to a coming New Dark Ages, you’ll find yourself giggling all the way through.

America Alone is easily the best political book of the year.