Student Loan Interest Rates

Open email to Sen. Cruz (TX):

Dear Sen. Cruz,
    Thank you for your form letter on student loan interest rates.
    You said you joined with Democrats and Republicans to support a step in the direction of market-based solutions, voting for legislation that would tie those rates to the value of U.S. Treasury securities each year, rather than allowing Congress to set them at an arbitrary percentage.    This would presumably increase the student loan interest rate to something higher than the previous 3.4%, but that is not clear.
    While this is a step in the direction of market-based solution, as you claim, it is not sufficient. Student loan interest rates should be consistent with lending rates in the general market. While this will give a higher interest rate, it will also discourage unnecessary borrowing, on the part of students to obtain college degrees which in many cases will be of no significant value. The market is already flooded with college graduates who cannot find jobs equivalent to salary payments which would allow them to pay off their student loans in a practical manner. In effect, low student loan rates have done damage to the educational system, and should be stopped as soon as possible.

Unnecessary Government Involvement in Education

 Open email to Congress:

    In the June 17 issue of C&E News, it was reported that Pres. Obama surprised the educational community by proposing some significant changes in the federal education program. The President wants to cut the total number of federal education programs from the current 226 to 110. Great! However, he would also increase federal funding for science education to $3.4 billion from $2.9 billion last year. Bad news!.

    How does Pres. Obama get involved in science education in universities? He does so through the various agencies, which have been created by Congress and which then have developed grant programs whereby they give significant amounts of taxpayer funds to universities. This has been a bad move by Congress, and I have said many times before that the federal government should have no involvement in using taxpayer funds for federal education programs. The average American citizen is well able to handle his own education program.

    The President's plan also proposes that the various grants for education purposes should be removed from the various agencies and consolidated in the Department of Education. That's good news, because if there's one agency that we should dispose of, it is the Department of Education.

    Other good news is that skepticism of the general education program has already started in Congress through the House of Representatives Science, Space, and Technology Committee.
    In the same issue of C&E News, it is reported that the American Chemical Society's Committee on Professional Training (CPT) has developed guidelines and a review program to determine whether the undergraduate chemistry program at universities meets and remains in compliance with requirements related to faculty and staff, infrastructure, curriculum, undergraduate research, and student development. More simply, the American Chemical Society has taken a leadership position in developing and continuing to develop adequate educational programs within the universities, without any input from the federal government. I also suspect that similar organizations in physics and mathematics have had strong inputs to the educational programs of the universities.
    On this basis, I strongly urge Congress and particularly the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology to immediately start efforts to not only defund any federal programs related to education, but also to begin elimination of the Department of Education. Private industry and the public can well handle all requirements, without government intervention.

Teacher Evaluations Available to the General Public

     There was another discussion this morning on Fox News concerning release of teacher evaluations to the general public. The public seemed to be for the release. The teachers are against.
     I would like to make an analogy.
     In my many years of business, I found that one of the standard procedures involving personnel was to have an annual evaluation by each person's immediate boss. Those evaluations that were kept in the Personnel Department, now Human Resources, and were used for subsequent management judgments on employee advancement within the organization, or in some cases dismissal. The basis for the system was that the organization was paying the employee salary and had a right to determine the effectiveness of the employee within the organization, to see whether it was getting its money's worth.
     I see no difference between that private operation in companies and public employees. Since the public is paying salaries, it has a right to know how effective the individuals are with respect to earning those salaries.
     The teachers union is well-organized and seems to have the ability to out-shout the general public. However, that is no reason for the general public to acquiesce to unreasonable demands. It pays teacher salaries and has a right to know how effective those teachers are.

College Students Going Home

    There was a discussion this morning on Fox News concerning a large number of college graduates going home to live with their parents after graduation.
    The consensus was that this is bad, because as those young people return to homes where they lived his children, they do not have an opportunity to mature. The question then is what is maturity and is it a good thing? It seems that maturity is primarily an ability to assume a sense of responsibility, particularly maintaining one's own life and subsequently assisting in the development of responsibility in others, such as children.
    A second disadvantage of "going home" is that it admits to likely having made an improper judgment in obtaining a college education in a field for which there are no jobs. From that point of view, the cost of a college education is a waste of money.
    We should then be asking why the US society finds itself in this position. The answer is a fairly obvious. First, the advantages of a college education with respect to employment have been oversold. There is no doubt that employed college educated people on average make a higher annual salary than those with high school educations, but there is a limit to the availability of such high paying jobs.
    The second fallacy is a belief in the minds of the general public that a college education solves all personal economic problems. This leads to young people obtaining college degrees in fields where there is limited job opportunity, such as Family Relations and International Politics. This belief also leads to avoiding fields, where there are known bona fide job opportunities, such as Statistics, Accounting, Genetic Biology, and Mechanical Engineering. In other words, if all I need is a college education why not take the easy courses?
    The third significant problem is the interference of the federal government. Perhaps politicians see the opportunity for garnering additional young people votes or perhaps even have a misguided understanding of market economics. This has led to subsidizing college educations with taxpayer funds. In effect, the federal government is using your money to entice young people to do the wrong thing. However, you stand for this obvious stupidity, because you likely believe also that there is some advantage to you and your children. There is not. Your children will not mature under the system of living at home. They will have wasted your and taxpayer funds in an education of insignificant value to improve their own economic situations and aid in the development of the country.

The Zimmerman Trial in Perceived Injustice

    The Washington Times says, "Violence, riots do not materialize after George Zimmerman's verdict, but some in the media cry foul".
    I watched a little of the Zimmerman trial. How could I avoid it? For a while, there was nothing else on TV news.
    I concluded that it was, what I call "serious entertainment". That is, it lacked jokes, singing, and dancing. It was more like sports or soap operas. Much like sports and soap operas, there was an emotional overtone, which for my personality normally escapes me.
    However, I do not deny that emotional overtones can be extremely important, especially economically. When a particular soccer team loses a sporting event, a large segment of the public has been known to riot and inflict considerable damage on mostly property but also some people. I suppose the Zimmerman trial was ripe for such a reaction.
    However, this started me to thinking that these group emotional reactions can be especially dangerous and need control. It seems that I'm not alone in this approach, and various local authorities did their best to control any outbreaks of violence. My hat also goes off to the families of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman for their statements, which minimized riot incitement. There is also something a little deeper in this situation.. Normally sport riots are promulgated by a feeling of injustice in the latest event itself. In the case of the Zimmerman trial, we had racial overtones of unjustness that go back to slavery and the Civil War. That's not good. It's equivalent to why the Turks and the Greeks are continually at each other's throats, and why the Jews and Arabs are constantly trying to kill each other. We can't do much about that, with respect other countries, but this is the United States. We're supposed to be smarter and more rational through better education.
    In the US, the two groups of potential adversaries are the whites and the blacks. If we are to make any progress to alleviate the negative aspects of adversarial race relations, there are many things that need to be done. The federal government has used various programs to minimize negative racial emotions, some of which have been effective, but most of them have not.
    From the public side itself, I have noticed that in the past 50 years most of the whites have come to accept blacks as equal human beings. There are still a few holdouts, which I call rabble-rousers and which apparently operate not only on the basis of their hard to relinquish emotional position, but also do their rabble rousing for some other personal gain. I wonder whether some members of the media, as Indicated by the Washington Times, are in that category.
    Conversely, it does not appear to me that the blacks have an equivalent good record of integration. I have several black, close, personal friends. I suppose they are close personal friends, because they engage in rational thinking, much as I do. I doubt whether they could ever be a part of a black mob rioting on the basis of an emotional persuasion. However, that still leaves a large number of blacks who are a danger to our society. As long as they persist in perceived grievances against whites, the federal government, or anything else, they cannot be productive in the development of their personal economic wealth and their culture. The Arabs have been fighting the Jews and themselves for a few thousand years, during which time they have been unable to concentrate on their own economic and cultural development. Any wealth they have, they received from the sale of one of their natural resources, specifically oil. I've also been reading about the settling of the US West. It is clear that the Western Indians were never able to develop a reasonable economic and cultural life, because they were constantly at war with each other.
    What can we do about a majority of blacks who concentrate on a perceived injustice by whites or the government in the US? A perception of injustice is a state of mind, which can many times also control physical action. Therefore, in order for the US to develop a productive society, it must have the cooperation of all groups, without reticence of any one of them harboring injustice feelings. But, how does one accomplish that? I'm not a trained psychologist. I merely have long experience with people. However, this seems like a good project for our trained psychologist to work on. If we bother to properly develop the minds of our young children through school, is it anymore unreasonable that we should try to redevelop the minds of adults, who if allowed to continue in their attitudes are doing themselves a distinct injustice based on a perceived injustice by others.
    One of the first things I can think of is to minimize the destructive activity of rabble-rousers, be they black or white. Most of them now seem to be black leaders, but there are few whites in the secondary category. However, this is easier said than done. With the Bill of Rights, rabble-rousers have the right to free speech, even when it is destructive in nature. The only effective approach would be to have a free speaking individual or group combating in detail any rabble rousing statements.
    Another longer-term solution is to train black children in recognizing the irrationality of basing a life on perceived injustices and grudges, rather than the realism of what exists now and how it can be best develop it to their advantage. Blacks who have been able to work themselves into rational states of mind through the influence of their parents or personal education, should actually be spending more time in the teaching of black children to arrive at an equivalent position. This would lead to a greater number of blacks moving into a productive sphere of economic and cultural development, rather than the continuity of drug dealing and attempts to gain power through violence.

Congratulations to Chemical and Engineering News

    Congratulations to Dr.Rouhi, Editor-In-Chief of Chemical and Engineering News!
    I went through the June 3 edition and was unable to find the usual C&E News claptrap promoting big government and continued grants of taxpayer funds by federal agencies to universities. I also noted with surprise that Dr. Rouhi's editorial covered a technical matter, namely bacterial cellulose, and only casually mentioned that it was a product of private research and is being developed commercially.
    This is a radical change from Rudy Baum, the previous political hack Editor-In-Chief, who routinely promoted socialism through big government and government grants.

Capitalism Is Alive

Good news! Capitalism is alive in the world and expanding its programs!
A major German international chemical company, Badische Anilin und Soda Fabrik, also known as BASF, has established research collaboration with Harvard, MIT, and the University of Massachusetts. Research concentration will be on biofilms, and chemical formulations for drugs, foods, and cosmetics.
New and hopefully improved products for public use are generally developed through research operations at private or public companies, generally known as "industry". Much of that research is done within the company confines, known as the Research Department, where the economics and practicality of programs can be closely administered.
However, large American universities also have developed Research Departments, in conjunction with their major objective, which is teaching. Advanced degrees in the sciences, such as Masters and Doctorates, invariably require research, which is a combination of what is already known about a particular subject and physical laboratory work extension toward an increase in the knowledge of that subject.
In many cases, it is advantageous for industry to farm out some of its research programs to the universities, where much of the work can be done by graduate students at considerably lower cost. Industry administrators also have an opportunity to work with professors to reasonably direct the work toward their needs. This association is also advantageous to the graduate students, who are then through their research getting a head start on subjects of interest to their prospective employers. The system has been in effect for many years, but more recently has been overshadowed by large grants of taxpayer money from federal departments.
Federally supported research at universities is usually of less practical importance than industry supported research. Industry supported research has the intention of developing new profitable products for the supporting companies. Federally supported research is much less intent, since no profit motive is involved. This leads to a diversity of programs which are either favorable to government ideology, such as global warming, or those of a "curiosity" nature, such as how fast a butterfly beats its wings.
In these times of extreme budget deficits, I have been calling for a significant reduction of government grants research universities, because they effectively have no payback. However, I am a proponent of research of a more practical nature, and industry supported research more effectively supplies that need. In addition, the research cost is paid by industry and the economic nature of that operation automatically forces the research to be done at a practical level. Conversely, taxpayer supported research has no significant objective, other than to support, if possible, the ideologies of the federal government, and/or spend as much money as possible, which automatically enhances the power of the administrators.
It is on this basis that, I am pleased to report the newly established relations between BASF and the three Massachusetts universities.

Education Secretary Duncans Flap with the Press

    Two days ago Education Secretary Duncan was on the pan with reporters trying to explain about pink slips to teachers.
    It doesn't make any difference whether he called them pink slips, job dissolution, or anything else. He was trying to hedge, in an effort to make a political statement. More importantly, he really has nothing to do with it. Local teaches are hired and fired by the school board and teachers at military establishments are hired and fired by the military.
    If he thinks he has some power to hire and fire local teachers, he must be referring to his control of of federal taxpayer fund allocations to local school districts. However, even that is not a significant item. If you don't know who pays the bulk of local teacher school salaries, take a look at your local real estate tax bill. The biggest item by far is the school tax, payable if you own a property, whether you have any children in school or not.
    However, let's grant that federal funding may make up 10% or even 20% of the local school budget. An across-the-board cut based on the sequester might bring the funding down to say 1%, which is 5% of 20%. Remember that the sequester was supposed to apply equally to spending cuts across the board.
    Let's also grant that the federal government finds a way to make spending cuts disproportionate for political reasons, and that the reduction in funding might be 5%. Would that make a real difference?
    I believe most people would agree that public schools are not run economically. They tend to have bloated payrolls, not because the average teacher or even the best teachers are overpaid. Rather, because the administrations and costs thereof have grown disproportionately to the needs of the students. The teachers union has also arranged, as unions usually do, to keep on the incompetent at high salaries based upon their length of service.
    With that said, what could be done by local school boards to compensate for a 1% cut in revenue, based upon a 5% sequester cut or even a straight 5% cut?
    I have a few suggestions. First, weed out high paid incompetent teachers. This may require facing a threat of a teacher strike, but the threat should be faced. We may find that many teachers will continue to go to work in spite of a union strike position.
    Next, look at the administration for each local school. It needs a principal, a secretary/receptionist and a janitor. Other school maintenance, such as lawn, building repair, and plumbing & electrical emergencies should be handled by private contract in the same manner as we usually handle these items for our homes.
    For the remainder of the staff, a school nurse could be available for one to two hours each morning, with teachers and parents handling any emergency situations thereafter. Advanced therapy, such as psychiatrists, should be eliminated. Parents can do their own psychoanalysis or pay for professionals from their own pockets.
    When I say the "remainder of the staff", I don't mean only the staff of the individual schools but also the school administrative offices in each municipality. Use an ax. We don't need pencil pushers there. Individual principles and secretaries know how to do their jobs, without overseeing by a barrage of "over the shoulder" lookers. A municipality the size of Lubbock needs a Superintendent of Schools, his/her secretary, and perhaps 4 or 5 other people. Anything else is excessive.
    Eliminate all free school lunches. Maintain a lunchroom for students to eat their lunches brought from home. Parents can each morning prepare sandwiches and add fruit to a paper sack, with a bottle of water or milk for each lunch. If they have insufficient funds to do this, they can buy the food with their food stamps. This also eliminates the need for cooks, cleanup people, and the cost of food itself. The janitor can handle the disposal of sandwich wrappers and paper bags.
    If the school system has a Head Start program, eliminate it. A recent federal government report shows that students who have participated in a Head Start program are no further advanced after several years than are students who have not been involved. In fact, the Had Start students are somewhat behind. Obviously, Head Start is not only a waste of money, it is detrimental to student advancement.
    If those suggestions are implemented, I am sure we can not only continue to run a viable school program, perhaps more viable, to compensate for any sequester or further cuts that may be coming along and we would still likely be able to reduce our local school tax.
    Before I forget it, there is one item of considerable significance. That is students do not need a country club atmosphere in order to learn. I lived in Italy for some years and found that the Italian education was quite competent, even though students used buildings which were in many cases perhaps 50 or 100 years old. We don't need bond issues with interest being paid by taxpayers in order to replace buildings every 10 or 20 years.
    Finally, and of greatest importance, there is the need to eliminate the Department of Education. It is another high cost item of the federal government, which contributes nothing to the advantage of the public. Any kind of organization necessary to consolidate school districts can be done by state governments. We need to remember that the Constitution delegated few responsibilities to a federal government. Everything not so specified were reserved for control by the states.