November 30, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

Royal Sargent, a local bozo, calls me names today in my home town newspaper. His letter about me is here.  

He writes:

I suggest that Tom is the one that should emigrate as he doesn’t seem to appreciate living in the USA. He thinks that everyone who believes as he does should be able to sit back and enjoy life and if our country is threatened, others will step forward to protect him ? how pathetic is that?
Tom’s arguments against a draft all assume that being drafted will dictate a person’s entire lifetime ? not true. Two or three years of military service are a small price to pay for the security and freedom of our country. Since Tom wrote his letters, I have not seen any letters which agree with his stance on a draft, but I have seen some letters which don’t. Perhaps Tom has not lived in Tennessee very long and doesn’t understand the meaning of “The Volunteer State.” Again, I suggest that Tom consider moving out of Tennessee ? San Francisco might be a good choice.

My response that I just sent to the newspaper:

Royal Sargent, ever the intellectual, resorts to name calling in his Nov. 30, 2007 letter to the editor, responding to my letters warning of the perils of military conscription.

Royal Sargent did not respond to any of my arguments; he simply resorted to a personal attack, which is the typical response of someone that does not understand the argument presented. To recap, here are my primary reasons for opposing a draft:

• A draft is akin to slavery. Free will is denied the drafted soldier, much like the free will of Mike Vick’s dogs was denied.
• Conscripted soldiers are less motivated than volunteer solders; after all, the U.S. military defeated the world’s most powerful military with an all-volunteer army in order to win its independence.
• Taxes to support these drafted soldiers result in deadweight losses.
• A draft is like a tax in kind, on the time of young persons. This tax hits the most capable workers the hardest, resulting in subsequently lower economic growth, negatively influencing prosperity in the United States.
• Government is not skilled at directing labor to its most efficient places; the price function is the mechanism by which scarce resources can be most efficiently allocated.

I’m confident Mr. Sargent does not understand the above arguments, which is why he resorts to name calling instead of responding with valid counter arguments. Here is what Mr. Sargent wrote in his letter:

• Tom Armstrong “should emigrate” to San Francisco. I can see from his response to my letters that Royal Sargent cannot follow complex arguments, but I’d expect him to at least understand that a person living in Tennessee does not “emigrate” to San Francisco. Incidentally, Mr. Sargent, I offer tutoring; feel free to join my second grade study group on Thursdays.
• He said that my arguments “assume that being drafted will dictate a person’s entire lifetime—not true. Two or three years of military service are a small price to pay for the security and freedom of our country.” Mr. Sargent makes some assumptions of his own, primarily: all soldiers return from battle. Tell the families of 60,000 deceased soldiers that served in Vietnam about their trivial two or three year commitments. In fact, tell that directly to me and my family members that have lost loved ones to warfare. Mr. Sargent, if you have any decency and respect for soldiers that have given their lives for this country, you will issue an immediate apology in this newspaper.
• Finally, Royal says I don’t “understand the meaning of ‘The Volunteer State.’” Wow! Mr. Sargent, you can’t be serious. I, you see, am the one that understands the meaning of “volunteer.” I’m the one that seeks to maintain an all-volunteer military, while Mr. Sargent seeks to eliminate all “volunteers” and replace them with forced labor.

Posted in General post | 2 Comments »

November 30, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

A letter I sent off a few days ago:

With the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) looming, I’m wretched to report we’re doing our part here in Tennessee to subvert the good intentions—to hold states and schools accountable for student performance–of the No Child Left Behind Act. Ever since its enactment in 2002, Tennessee schools, as well as other schools throughout the nation, have engaged in a race to lower educational standards.

One key flaw with NCLB was to require “improvement” in high school graduation rates without defining specific, minimum, reasonable requirements for graduation. One particularly disheartening result of this omission: high schools are setting lower requirements for students to graduate, in order to obtain yearly progress in reaching the ultimate 2013-2014 school-year goal of 90 percent graduation.

In the high school at which I teach, we are currently graduating 80.1% of our students, which is well below the 90 percent 2013-2014 goal. So, for the school district to demonstrate yearly progress and ultimately reach this goal, we must either become better instructors, find or develop more motivated students, or find a loophole. Since the first two options are difficult, and would require significant effort to actually improve student achievement, which is the intent of NCLB, we have decided to go with option three: find a loophole, which happens to be the option opted for in school districts throughout the country, and it is a perfectly legitimate practice under NCLB.

Before NCLB, for instance, the high schools in our local school district required 28 credits to graduate. This school year, after failing to meet yearly progress in our graduation rate, our school board, only reacting to poorly-designed legislation, decided to offer the Tennessee High School Diploma, a 21-credit diploma that counts in calculating our graduation rate; this is occurring statewide in Tennessee. So next year, having adopted this lower standard, we will certainly show significant yearly progress in our graduation rate. Only in government are lower standards and lower student achievement regarded and reported as progress.

Some elements of NCLB, such as the graduation requirement of 90 percent nationwide, are not based on reality; instead they’re based on political visions, which are often well intentioned and intended to warm the hearts of voting constituents on the campaign trail. Do a significant number of political leaders really care if NCLB is resulting in lower educational standards and lower student achievement as long as there is an illusion of improvement? After all, politicians don’t really make educational decisions; they make political decisions.

I for one prefer to confront realty, not to continue a façade that is leaving our children behind on the worldwide educational stage. The graduation rate requirement of 90% is a noble, lofty objective; it is, however, also based on hope, not reality. And as Thomas Sowell has said, “Reality is not optional.”

Any time a goal is predicated on hopes rather than reality, perverse incentives are created. Consider that graduation rates reflect the percentage of people willing and capable of meeting some minimum standard, and by definition of the Bell Curve, 50 percent are below average, so it seems reasonable that graduation rate requirements of 90% are unattainable, unless standards are low. Therefore, the incentive created is to lower standards, since reality does not permit 90 percent of students to be at or above a reasonable average.

NCLB, which seeks to hold schools accountable for student performance, has done the opposite and created perverse incentives, which have undermined student achievement. Unfortunately, real reform that could work, such as a well-designed voucher program, is politically dead considering the influence of the teacher’s unions, so let us all encourage Congress to change NCLB to reflect reality and establish some minimum nationwide standard for graduation.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

November 29, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

An old Denis Leary bit I found. (Please, for the love of all that is sacred, do not watch this video if you have an even remotely sophisticated sense of humor, or you’re another cry-baby liberal or conservative Republican. Otherwise, enjoy! Really, for those that might be offended, the short clip does contain profanity.)

Posted in General post | No Comments »

November 29, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

Don Boudreaux makes a good point with this Nov 29, 2007 post.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

November 29, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

Today’s headlines are all about last night’s debate. I did not even bother to watch; it’s a waste of time. Out of protest, I always vote for the libertarian candidate. But let’s be honest, the candidates the Libertarian Party offers are typically very bad. Remember Michael Badnarik in 2004? I think he’s pumping gas now at a 7-11. Harry Browne, you say? Please. Check out the bozos they are offering now.

I can’t name one person I’d feel comfortable voting for. Not one! Can anyone suggest a good libertarian candidate?

More on this topic later. I’d list my perfect qualities in a candidate (ideas matter and the will to fight for them), but I’ve got to prepare final exams and post them online. 

Posted in General post | No Comments »

November 28, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

From the National Taxpayers Union today:

Former President Bill Clinton complained to Iowans yesterday that he doesn’t pay enough in taxes:

“Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning, I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers,” Clinton said. He said he “should not have gotten” the tax cuts he received as a wealthy earner.”

It is odd that someone with so many resources and connections needs to be “given the opportunity” to support the troops. But I will step up and, as he requested, ask him to support the troops and provide him with some opportunities to do so:

1) Cut a check to the government:
Make your check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it is a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to:

Attn Dept G
Bureau Of the Public Debt
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

This will free up federal resources to support the troops.

2) Contribute directly to organization that supports soldiers and veterans.
The Pentagon has a web site, http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/americasupportsyou/help.html, with lots of ideas for President Clinton.

He could donate frequent flier miles (he might want to also suggest this to his globe-trotting pal, Al Gore), donate computers, write letters, support service aid societies and more.

3) Give up your taxpayer subsidized perks.
Taxpayers pay for rent and expenses for Clinton’s Harlem-based office, including a $75 thousand phone bill in 2006.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

November 28, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

How does a Rand-like libertarian, such as myself, end up working as a public servant? This book (subtitle: Swinging Through the Wall Street Jungle)pretty much sums up my three years in the corporate world. If you are currently working in Corporate America, particularly in finance, and you’re finding your job unfulfilling, you’ll likely find this book to be one of the most honest and funniest.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

November 27, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

Answer: Not much after Uncle Sam takes his share. Consider this 2007 Federal Tax Rate Schedule (single):

Are the wealthy paying enough? Ignoring other taxes and exemptions, one’s effective tax rate could approach 50%. How? Let’s add it up. 35% on income over $349,700 plus your FICA share (7.65%) plus the FICA share of 7.65% indirectly paid through your employer. This 35% plus 15.3% equals 50.3%. So, let’s add the employer share to your income and we get: 35%+15.3%/income+7.65%=46.7%. (Note: the SS tax over approximately $100,000 ends but the combined Medicare share of 2.9% does not stop at this income level).

Posted in General post | No Comments »

November 27, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

My fellow finance and/or econ grads will be very familiar with this man and his ideas. If you are not familiar, consider taking some time to learn.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

November 27, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

…if I were to marry someone in my own tax bracket. Not bad for a twenty-something public school teacher. Here’s more.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

November 27, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

This author says Lou Dobbs (winner, incidentally, of the Biggest Douche In the Universe Award, just announced) is winning, unfortunately.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

November 27, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

It’s been said a thousand times, but Thomas Sowell says it best.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

November 27, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

This opinion says there are excessive inefficiencies in government. The hell you say.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

November 26, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

I love this quote I saw at The Club for Growth:

I don’t know what the best tax rates are, for rich or poor.

But I’m pretty sure that it’s unhealthy for a democracy when the majority of citizens don’t see government as a service they’re reluctantly paying for but as an extortionist that cuts them in for a share of the loot.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

November 26, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

Warning: the below thoughts were quickly written, and assumptions were made without explanation. In fact, they may not even qualify as thoughts. Also, I am prone to hyperbole, which I will apologize for in advance. Proceed at your own risk.

Contemporary environmentalists, from the mainstream to the fervent, would hold me and “my kind,”—the new underclass in American society considered reprehensible by the moralizing environmentalists–in contempt if they were privy to our lifestyles: we find the costs of recycling to exceed the benefits, on average (ignoring externality costs, I concede); we don’t intend to start recycling any time soon; we also, perhaps most distasteful of all, don’t purchase carbon offsets to negate our destructive lifestyles.

Being included in this new underclass of society, which is unjustly villified, as I perceive it, is not surprising to me. In the course of human history, our species is very much prone to moralizing the issues; that is, painting an issue in terms of black and white, right and wrong, instead of managing the particular issue in terms of marginal costs and benefits.

Particularly disturbing to me about environmental moralizing is that many environmentalists openly preach conservation of our natural resources, but in private they fail to heed their own advice. Human beings, they lecture, are the cause of almost all of our environmental problems.

If our goal is to protect the environment without regard to human happiness, our best path to salvation, according to the fanatical environmentalists, is to kill ourselves. A little extreme, you say. Okay, but at the very least, if human beings are indeed nothing but trouble for our environment, and the environment’s well being is paramount, the environmentalist’s objective must logically be to reduce the number of human beings, if not now, at least the future. So, for the sake of our environment, shouldn’t the ardent environmentalists advocate a policy of no procreation? Another person is, after all, just more pollution.

I cannot see why they wouldn’t seek and abide by such a policy, unless they put their petty personal desires in front of the environment, and I know they’d no more do this than a Catholic priest would have an inappropriate relationship with a minor. After all, fewer humans produce less garbage, fewer used disposable diapers, drive fewer cars, require fewer lots to build homes on; in short, a policy of no procreation would eventually reduce the carbon footprint of the human race, which, if our goal is concerned only with benefiting the environment, is the shortest path to this magical paradise envisioned by impassioned environmentalists. But we don’t even see the High Priest—Al Gore—of the Church of  Environmentalism adhering to this policy. Could it be that he is considering both the personal costs and benefits of this particular policy, ultimately choosing his welfare over the welfare of the environment? Assuredly he is. 

With a policy of no procreation, nobody would live to enjoy this Eden envisioned by environmentalists. With a more reasonable goal that finds a balance between protecting the environment and the modern living standards of people, we might recognize that humans are benefits as well as costs. After all, environmentalists, even the most passionate, recognize that people are also a benefit (solution); otherwise they would not bother to advocate we do our part in protecting Mother Earth.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

November 26, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

The DC Vs. Heller case has me worked up, as it does so many others. Here’s a good piece on why the Second Amendment is an individual right, not collective.

Now let me offer you this far-left perspective. Notice that the author tries to characterize proponents of the 2nd Amendment as those on the fringe of politics. In this author’s view, those claiming an individual right to gun ownership are trying to create a right that has never existed in the U.S., despite over two hundred years of history to the contrary. It is his position–gun ownership as a collective right only–that is a relatively new take on the 2nd Amendment. For instance, look at this statement:

And so the Supreme Court is now being asked to decide whether the Second Amendment creates an individual right to own guns. There is a decent chance that the Court will say that it does. Whatever the Court says, we have seen an amazingly rapid change in constitutional understandings–even a revolution–as an apparently fraudulent interpretation pushed by “special interest groups” (read: the National Rifle Association) has become mainstream.

Notice how this author and others who admire intrusive, overbearing governments are attempting to re-write history. Hey, if the truth it detrimental to your case, fabricate your own “truth,” just like the Nazi’s and communists. Just read it and see yourself.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

November 25, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

Tax stats for the past several years.

Posted in General post | 1 Comment »

November 25, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

If you have not checked out the Scott Adams blog lately, you should; he has some good posts.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

November 25, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

Short article on what’s happening in Chavez’s Venezuela. This stands out:

The changes would not only repeal the two-term limit on his office, allowing him to serve for life, but also transfer virtually all power to one person: the president. He would gain the authority to supersede local governments on a whim, declare a state of emergency anytime it suits him and seize farms and processing plants if he deems it necessary for “food security.”

The question is not what Chavez he will be able to do if this plan passes. The question is what he will not be able to do — and the answer is, not much.

Still, Chavez apparently remains popular among the poor, who may be unaware of the economic stagnation generally produced by this brand of socialism. In following the example of Cuba, Chavez is doing something exceptionally novel: modeling his economy on one far poorer than his own. It’s as though General Motors, dissatisfied with its fortunes, were to embrace the business plan previously used by American Motors.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

November 25, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

A splendid little article on libertarianism and republicans.

Its mention of the Guy Fawkes episode reminded me of this movie, which happens to be my favorite (movies with gratuitous violence and sex excluded, of course). You’ll notice that you can watch it online free-almost free anyway. You must subject yourself to some quick advertising, some pornographic. Please do not click the link if you are easily offended.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

November 24, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

Jason provides this link to consider, which offers more detail on ethanol. I’m not familiar with the study, but it appears legit.

Posted in General post | 1 Comment »

November 24, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

Goods are cheap in the U.S., and folks are taking advantage.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

November 24, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

More on the DC Second Amendment case in today’s WSJ.

This opinion on ethanol is also good. It begins:

To hear the candidates tell it — especially those on the stump in Iowa — ethanol is the answer to America’s energy-security woes. And back in Washington, politicians since 1978 have been putting your money where their mouths are: Ethanol is currently subsidized to the tune of 51 cents per gallon when blended with gasoline.

Posted in General post | 2 Comments »

November 23, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

Don Boudreaux of Cafe Hayek writes a good short letter on returning to an imagined paradise, dated Nov. 23, 2007.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

November 23, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

My vote for best-ever TV show theme song.

My vote for worst president.

My vote for second worst president.

My vote for best comedy.

My vote for best Quagmire moments (please don’t watch if you are easily offended).

Posted in General post | 1 Comment »

November 23, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

November 23, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

A new study says the Democrats are the new party of the rich.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

November 23, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

Consider this article on the declining dollar.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

November 23, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

Two articles in today’s WSJ caught my eye. First, this Op-Ed, which concludes as follows:

Illegal guns continue to be widely available in the district; criminals have easy access to guns while law-abiding citizens do not. Cathy L. Lanier, Acting Chief of Police, Metropolitan Police Department, was quoted as follows: “Last year [2006], more than 2,600 illegal firearms were recovered in D.C., a 13% increase over 2005.” Crime rose significantly after the gun ban went into effect. In the five years before the 1976 ban, the murder rate fell to 27 from 37 per 100,000. In the five years after it went into effect, the murder rate rose to 35. In fact, while murder rates have varied over time, during the 30 years since the ban, the murder rate has only once fallen below what it was in 1976.

This comports with my own personal experience. In almost 14 years as prosecutor and as head of the Homicide Unit of the Wayne County (Detroit) Prosecutor’s Office, I never saw anyone charged with murder who had a license to legally carry a concealed weapon. Most people who want to possess guns are law-abiding and present no threat to others. Rather than the availability of weapons, my experience is that gun violence is driven by culture, police presence (or lack of same), and failures in the supervision of parolees and probationers.

Not only does history demonstrate that the Second Amendment is an individual right, but experience demonstrates that the broad ban on gun ownership in the District of Columbia has led to precisely the opposite effect from what was intended. For legal and historical reasons, and for the safety of the residents of our nation’s capital, the Supreme Court should affirm an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Second is this article on the backlash against tithing. This paragraph jumped out at me:

Steve Sorensen, director of pastoral ministries at Cornerstone, says the church requires its paid and volunteer leaders to tithe, and teaches new members to do so, although it doesn’t make them show proof of income. “When you tithe, God makes promises to us, that he … is not going to let anything bad or destructive come about,” says Mr. Sorensen. For those who don’t tithe, he says the Lord “is not obligated to do those things for you.”

So God is just an extortionist? Wow! What a great message. I see why church membership and participation is in a free fall.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

November 21, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

Ruth Marcus takes on Krugman for his insane comments several days ago.

Posted in General post | No Comments »