WASHINGTON, Sept 28 (Reuters) - The Obama administration on Wednesday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to back the centerpiece of Barack Obama's sweeping healthcare overhaul -- the requirement that all Americans have health insurance.
The appeal was largely expected as a high court ruling against the law could be a fatal blow to the president's signature domestic policy achievement and could have major implications for his re-election bid.
The case is important because healthcare reform has been on of the corner stones of Obama's presidency. Additionally, the ruling will come down only a few months before what should be a heated reelection campaign for the President. Obama supporters are confident:
“We believe that a prompt resolution of the constitutionality and severability of the individual mandate is in the best interest of individuals, employers, states, and the federal government. We are confident in the merits of our legal arguments, and we look forward to presenting them to the Supreme Court.”
What may be more concerning than the constitutionality of the law at this moment, is the rising costs of healthcare:
Even a slow economy can't stop healthcare costs from rising. A new report by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust shows that the cost of employer-provided insurance rose 9% this year — even as workers and their families were cutting back on trips to the doctor's office — and has more than doubled over the last decade.
Costs are growing out of control since Obamacare was passed:
The report was based on interviews with more than 2,000 employers between January and May. Researchers found that premiums rose three times faster from 2010 to 2011 than they had the previous year, pushing the average cost of policies for single workers to $5,429 and for families to $15,073.
“As this survey shows, the president’s promise that his partisan health law would lower costs was just empty rhetoric,” Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah), the top Republican on the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement. “The fact is employers aren’t hiring, in large part, because they have to spend more and more money on health insurance.”
And Paul Ryan is always lurking with a fiscally responsible plan:
“Giving patients and consumers control over healthcare resources would make all Americans less dependent on big business and big government for our health security; give us more control over the care we get; and force health care providers to compete for our business,” Ryan said.
Until there is a ruling on this, healthcare will continue to be a hotly contested issue. In addition, all the Republican presidential candidates have said that if they are elected, they will repeal the law. The shelf law for Obamacare might not be that long anyway.
On a more concerning note, at the moment, it appears that healthcare reform may not reduce the cost of healthcare, thus making the law expensive. This will make it anti-jobs because company growth will be restrained by these costs. Furthermore, with our national debt crisis, it is important that the legislation we pass has a positive effect on our economy. I'm not convinced that this is the right move for that.
I've been meaning to write about Herman Cain for a while. As a black Republican businessman, he seemed out of place in the Republican Presidential race, but he always spoke with precision and confidence. Even before his Florida straw poll victory, I thought he was making a strong run as a potential Vice Presidential candidate. Needless to say, I learn more about an issue or a person when I write about them and I have to do the research.
So let's start off with a little background; unlike the rest of the candidates, Herman Cain has no experience in political position. He's a career businessman:
Cain, 65, grew up in Georgia and graduated from Morehouse College. He became a turnaround artist, rescuing the Burger King outlets of Philadelphia. From there, he went to Omaha, where in 1986 he took over and stabilized Godfather’s Pizza with clever advertising and aggressive downsizing.
By the early 1990s, Cain had started to transition out of day-to-day management at Godfathers and delve into politics. In 1992, he was appointed to the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. In 1994, he became head of the National Restaurant Association, a post he held for five years.
He's a turnaround specialist, something he's highlighted in all the debates. The US is in need of a turn around, and he feels he's the best man for the job. This isn't the first time he's run for office. He ran for President in 2000 and he ran for Senate in 2004. Despite those failures, he left an impression:
But despite his lack of political success, he managed to attract the notice of a radio executive with his rich, booming voice. His campaign manager became his producer. He trademarked the expression “The Hermanator Experience.”
The two main talking points of his campaign have been the 9-9-9 tax plan he wants to institute and the Chilean social security model he wants to implement.
Most economists agree that a national sales tax would raise the relative tax burden on low- and middle-income earning taxpayers. "The main reason is that low- and middle-income households consume more of their income than high-income households do," said William Gale, senior fellow for economic studies at the Brookings Institution. "Another way of saying that is high-income households save more of their income than low-income households do."
Basically, if all people consume the same amount of taxable goods and services, if you have a lower income, whatever is taxed is going to be a higher percentage of income.
His whole system will make the lower classes pay more while the upper classes pay less. Now, I've already said that taxes need to be lower for the US to be competitive, but I don't think it makes sense to increase taxes on people who already are having trouble making ends meet. Yes, you want a society that encourages economic advancement, but you also need a minimum standard of living across the board. This is the United States where we tout our economic opportunity and high standards of living. Instituting a national sales tax is a straightforward attack on the lower classes.
But while the reform's supporters argue it has been a major success story, officials both inside and outside Chile now increasingly question whether the high costs and modest investment returns have doomed Piñera's original promise: a decent retirement income for workers at a savings for the government.
Social Security has come under fire because of the uncertainty surrounding its future. The government has misappropriated funds, so this would be another way of protecting individuals. The problem is that it doesn't provide enough income for the retired:
A recent report by the Chilean government brought more grim news, forecasting that as many as half of all workers won't be able to save enough to receive the minimum pension when they retire—even after paying into their accounts for 30 years—and will therefore rely on government subsidies. More than 17 percent of Chile's retirees now continue working because they can't afford to live on their pensions, according to that study, and another 7 percent want to work, but can't find jobs.
Despite this, the model has been praised and used as the basis of models in other countries. I think it is important that someone takes a greater look into this and challenges Cain in the next debate. He can't tout a program that doesn't get real results. Praise is one thing, results is the real thing.
Here’s the problem: To finance benefits at promised levels for those 55 or older, we would need to continue to collect payroll taxes from today’s working-age population. However, we would also propose to divert a significant share of those payroll tax into personal accounts. In effect, we would be trying to spend the same dollar twice, and we would do it trillions of times.
This doesn't seem like a worthy endeavor considering our country's tricky financial situation.
One thing is for certain, he is very confident: And he'll need it because his Florida win has brought him under fire as people begin to think whether he is a viable candidate for Presidency or not. It's uncertain whether his tax plan will work:
"I don't understand how the 9-9-9 plan -- which includes both a national sales tax and an income tax while purporting to repeal the 16th Amendment at some point -- can be taken seriously by anyone who feels we are already overtaxed," said Andrew Nappi, director of the Florida 10th Amendment Center.
And has it been vetted:
Zimmermann, a Romney supporter, said, "I don't know anyone who has vetted the 9-9-9 proposal and confirmed it as a viable plan."
Top aides in Iowa and New Hampshire quit earlier this year, saying Cain wasn’t taking the early states seriously. One former staffer recently alleged that staff members tried to cover up the role of a gay campaign adviser. He refuses to name the economic advisers who helped come up with his plan. In May, Cain said he couldn’t talk about foreign policy until elected.
That makes me believe that he hasn't taken himself seriously up to this point. If he really wants to make a run for this, he will aim for the transparency necessary to be a viable candidate. Until then, Herman Cain will be a bump in the road for the front runners. You cannot ignore potential skeletons in your closet and run for president. You will have people make you reveal that information as you rise a legitimate candidate. You should do your best to be prepared.
Now that Cain has one Florida, he best be prepared. He's been shooting for the stars; now the stars will be shooting back.
(Reuters) - Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O), which revolutionized reading with its Kindle e-reader, is expected to unveil a tablet computer next week that analysts say will seriously challenge Apple's (AAPL.O) market dominating iPad.
Indeed, the big question is whether it will challenge Apple's iPad. The iPad has been hugely successful and Apple is selling every tablet that they can make. Everyone wants to know if Amazon's tablet, which will reportedly be called the Kindle Fire, will be a threat to the iPad:
Ultimately, it’s a question of how much Amazon has in common with Apple. If they have enough of the same DNA, that fact may separate the color Kindle apart from every other Android tablet on the market — and give Cupertino a run for its money.
The big deal with Apple has been their execution in delivering their products and for the iPad, it's been with Apps:
Today, there are almost half a million iPhone and iPod apps. In the space of less than two years, there are almost 100,000 iPad apps. I don’t know exactly how many Android tablet apps there are, but I do know that any time I’ve used an Android tablet, I have a heck of a time finding decent Android tablet apps (there are thousands of excellent Android phone apps). Tablet developers are clearly building their iPad versions first and, given the 25 millions iPads already sold, likely achieving their greatest success on the iOS platform.
Mashable believes that Amazon has a similar built in ecosystem that'll enable the Kindle Fire to thrive:
Amazon has one big advantage over virtually every other Android Tablet manufacturer: it understand user interfaces. No other competitor, aside from Apple, runs such an active and varied website for consumers. The Seattle-based retailer has been perfecting Amazon.com’s interface for 16 years. When Amazon was just books, it was pretty straightforward — but as the company added other product categories, it struggled to find an rational interface metaphor. Even so, Amazon was the acknowledged leader in the space. When it introduced tabs, all other online retail sites tried them as well.
Then there's pricing:
But I doubt Amazon cares if it takes a small loss on the tablets. They’ll be putting a fully functional, Internet and media-ready portal to all of its products in the hands of millions of existing customers. (How many people do you know who do not have an Amazon account?)
Amazon has features like Amazon Prime and the Amazon App Store which can give it a pricing advantage over the iPad, while still being a profitable entity for the company.
The hat trick with an Amazon tablet will lie not with whether Amazon can offer a device that integrates its storefront and services—that's an easy bet, and a foregone conclusion given its history with Kindle e-readers. The real question is whether the company can produce a tablet with an interface that's natural, visually pleasing, and functionally spot-on for how it will be used by consumers.
The Tablet market isn't easy to break into:
If, with this tablet, Amazon can finally make a product that's a standout star with its interface and usability, the tablet has legitimate potential to be a threat to Apple's iPad. But if the company doesn't nail the interface, it runs the risk of offering yet another ho-hum tablet in a crowded landscape, albeit a ho-hum tablet with, presumably, a better-integrated media consumption and e-book experience than most. One can hope.
Amazon is late to the Tablet party, but only Apple is really having fun in the party. Other companies have made attempt to compete with the Cupertino giant, but have come up short. The iPad is a jack of all trades, and it has the support of Apple's application Arsenal. Amazon seems to be the one company that can compete with Apple on the application front, with its App Store, but the fact is the tablet, itself, has to be good in order to compete.
Amazon is taking a risk by entering the tablet market, but if they get it right, it could be a huge win for the company.
Barack Obama gave a speech to the Congressional Black Caucus on Saturday:
President Obama won accolades from supporters praising his speech to the Congressional Black Caucus Saturday night, but not everyone is convinced the president is invested in his recommitment to fighting Republicans and helping minority communities.
He has urged them to support him:
"I expect all of you to march with me and press on. Take off your bedroom slippers, put on your marching shoes. Shake it off. Stop complaining, stop grumbling, stop crying. We are going to press on. We've got work to do, CBC," he said.
Not everyone is happy with him:
"We have a president that yesterday says to the Congressional Black Caucus take off your slippers, implying that black people with 16.7 percent unemployment are staying home in their slippers. I doubt it. They are all looking for jobs and waiting for the president to come up with a plan," said Cheryln Harley LeBon, a member of the national advisory council of the Project 21 black leadership network and former senior counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
"If [former President] Bill Clinton had been in the White House and had failed to address this problem, we probably would be marching on the White House," Cleaver told “The Miami Herald” in comments published Sunday. "There is a less-volatile reaction in the CBC because nobody wants to do anything that would empower the people who hate the president."
They can't react like they normally would because the President is black. They are backing him only because of his race. As an organization, it makes sense to protect future black leaders who might want to run for office from the bias that would come from this, but it certainly doesn't them right now. Obama's presidency has not been kind of blacks across the United States. African Americans have one of the nation's highest unemployment rates. These are the people who helped get him elected, and he's taken them for granted.
Yesterday, the Saudi Arabia Monarch gave women the right to vote:
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia on Sunday granted women the right to vote and run in future municipal elections, the biggest change in a decade for women in a puritanical kingdom that practices strict separation of the sexes, including banning women from driving.
While this does not mean immediate freedom for women, it's an important first step in providing them with more liberty. This development comes in the midst of a critical time in the middle east:
“There is the element of the Arab Spring, there is the element of the strength of Saudi social media, and there is the element of Saudi women themselves, who are not silent,” said Hatoon al-Fassi, a history professor and one of the women who organized a campaign demanding the right to vote this spring. “Plus, the fact that the issue of women has turned Saudi Arabia into an international joke is another thing that brought the decision now.”
There's still a question of how much this will change the social environment. While they have instituted this law, it might just be for show. There are still a lot of customs that prevent women from having full liberty in life. There might be another purpose:
Some analysts described the king’s choice as the path of least resistance. Many Saudis have been loudly demanding that all 150 members of the Shura be elected, not appointed. By suddenly putting women in the mix, activists feared, the government might use the excuse of integration to delay introducing a nationally elected council.
Someone who knows more about women's rights than me had this to say:
“[Today's announcement] is definitely an important step forward that there is a promise that women will be allowed to vote in the next municipal election, but not a promise that means anything for the election happening now,” Sarah Leah Whitson, director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East and North Africa division, told ABC News.
“This announcement does nothing to address the systematic and institutional discrimination against women which includes not only no right to drive, but no right to make decisions about their everyday lives, including the right to seek an education, the right to employment, the right to travel, the right to open a bank account, even the right to obtain medical care without the permission of a male guardian,” she said.
"It's a mixed feeling. On one hand he opens the door for her and on the other hand she is still banned from driving," said Mohammad Fahad Qahtani, a college professor and human rights advocate. "It doesn't save her from horrible treatment by government agencies and the courts. It's a symbolic gesture, but it is in no way enough to improve the lives of women."
So the way I see this, it seems like a symbolic measure rather than a landmark law. Yeah, women are gaining the right to vote, but that doesn't mean that it is instantly going to change society. If anything, it marks a victory in a much longer war to get women on equal standing in Saudi Arabia.
It might have taken 3 years longer than expected, but it's here:
The first $200 million aircraft was handed over to Japanese carrier All Nippon Airways three years behind schedule after persistent delays that cost Boeing billions of dollars.
It's special:
Boeing says the revolutionary carbon fiber design will hand 20 percent fuel savings to airlines struggling to avoid a new recession, and give passengers a more comfortable ride with better cabin air and large electronically dimmable windows.
Here's the Dreamliner taking off for the first time:
Free at last! Free at last! God almighty, it is free at last!
Remember when you were little and planes were cool? The world seemed so big, yet these planes made it seem so small. Now we take them for granted.
The Dreamliner is a big deal for Boeing:
The Seattle Times reported on Sunday that 787 program costs had topped $32 billion due to delays. That estimate raised questions, the newspaper said, over whether the new jet would make money for Boeing before "well into the 2020s, if ever."
Boeing declined comment.
Analysts say new jets typically cost closer to $15 billion.
They invested a lot in this aircraft. They need to win battles with Airbus for airline fleets. This new innovative vehicle can help them do that. One of the markets they want to really make a killing in is China:
BEIJING—Boeing Co. is engaged in "very advanced discussions" with Chinese airlines to revitalize sales there of its 787 Dreamliner, according to a senior sales executive, as the U.S. plane maker competes with rival Airbus for a greater share of the growing market.
It's a strategc measure:
Boeing officials say the company needs to win more orders in China, one of the fastest-growing commercial aircraft markets, where competition from Airbus is becoming stiffer. Airbus's China president, Laurence Barron, said in a separate interview Wednesday that it expects to account for a 50% share of China's commercial-jet market by 2013. Also speaking on the sidelines of Aviation Expo, Mr. Barron said he expects Airbus's market share in China to be 47% by the end of this year. Airbus is a unit of European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co.
And it has a lot of potential for the company:
Earlier this month, Boeing raised its 20-year forecast for China's spending on commercial aircraft by 25%, citing planned international expansion by airlines in what the company expects will become the world's second-biggest aircraft market after the U.S. In that forecast, Boeing said it expects Chinese carriers and others to spend $600 billion for 5,000 new commercial airplanes from Boeing, Airbus and other manufacturers. Boeing last year estimated that China would spend $480 billion on 4,330 planes over the next 20 years.
This is just a really neat airplane:
I can't wait to experience this in person. As a fan of engineering and technology, I think this plane is a fantastic innovation. I hope it does great. It sounds like it took to account many of the things that are happening in the world. Boeing is not only trying to be more fuel efficient, but it's also trying to provide a quieter, more comfortable experience. The Dreamliner is everything you want as far as a step forward.
Swapping Apotheker, who has now been ousted from two high-profile CEO jobs in two years, for Whitman is a decision designed to stem investor fury over a series of questionable strategy moves.
Analysts are worried about Whitman's technology experience. It seems like HP has struggled because it has fallen behind in the ever evolving technology sector and bringing in a candidate that does not fit into that mold can be concerning:
“Our concern would be that she doesn’t have a lot of enterprise and technology experience,” said Jayson Noland, a tech analyst at Robert W. Baird & Co. told the Post. “She’s not the most obvious choice to me.”
In response to doubts about Ms. Whitman’s qualifications to run H-P, Ray Lane compares Meg Whitman to Ronald Reagan! He says “Ronald Reagan was an actor. He turned out to be a pretty good president.”
These are probably attempts to appease shareholders. HP stock has dropped off since the announcement was made: Bernstein is not impressed:
The Street is duly unimpressed with Whitman's appointment:
Scott McNealy, former CEO of Sun Microsystems, is a Meg Whitman fan and says she's a good fit for HP:
“I am a big fan of Meg Whitman and she surrounds herself with good people,” said McNealy in a phone interview. He argued that she will bring much-needed stability. “I am bullish on Meg, but not bullish on how HP got there.”
He's not worried about her familiarity with tech either:
“She understands tech, even though she didn’t come from the computer industry. Heck, even Lou Gerstner (ex-CEO of IBM) didn’t come from the computer business.”
I'm not convinced by Whitman. I see that she did a great job with EBay, but I don't know if she can do the same with HP. They are in different businesses. From what I've seen, it seems like she is the flashy hire. I think the board is banking on her name brand appeal to make up for some of what they've lost in the last year in terms of credibility. However, what would have restored credibility in the best way was hiring the best candidate to lead HP. Now, Whitman could turn this ship around. Regardless, I feel HP could have been more thorough in finding a new CEO.
When I heard him talk about this last night, I wasn't sure he understood how what he was saying was coming across. He keeps referring to it as "sex" but I thought he meant to say "sexual orientation" given the context of what he was saying.
GOProud said in a statement that Santorum "disrespected" men and women in uniform with his response to Stephen Hill's question about whether any of the presidential candidates would "circumvent" the repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
He seems to be the only one that's still against DADT:
What's remarkable about Santorum's position on "don't ask, don't tell" -- which formally ended this past week -- is not necessarily his keenness to judge the post-DADT environment for formerly closeted soldiers. It's that, on this matter at least, he is increasingly the lone culture warrior in the GOP presidential field. Following the debate, no other candidate or campaign offered support for a reinstitution of the law.
Herman Cain said this:
On a personal level, Cain added: "I have no problem with [gays serving openly]. The first order of business should be to do their job. As long as they do their jobs I think people in the military will be fine with that. It is when it becomes a distraction and you have got to spend a lot of time creating special situations, this is what I disagree with."
“That brave gay soldier is doing something Rick Santorum has never done -- put his life on the line to defend our freedoms and our way of life,” the group said in a statement attributed to Christopher R. Barron, the group’s chairman of the board, and Jimmy LaSalvia, its executive director. “It is telling that Rick Santorum is so blinded by his anti-gay bigotry that he couldn't even bring himself to thank that gay soldier for his service. Stephen Hill is serving our country in Iraq, fighting a war Senator Santorum says he supports. How can Senator Santorum claim to support this war if he doesn't support the brave men and women who are fighting it?”
Santorum has tried to paint himself as the top supporter of the military in this race. He had to differentiate himself from the rest of the candidates. However, as he fired that gun, it appears the recoil has caused him to hit himself in the face. I still think he somewhat misspoke, but you have to watch what you say in the public setting and you can't be as aggressive as he was in trying to take a stand when you're not sure of your words.
When I first heard Rick Perry declare his candidacy, I was excited. It meant new blood in the race; someone different who could inject life into the GOP. The more I've seen of him, the more I am unimpressed with him as a person and as a leader.
I'm not the only one that think so: While he established himself as the frontrunner, those days were numbered as he quickly has lost ground as a result of the last two debates. I can't really explain it because he has a good enough record where he really has a chance. Time and time again he seems unprepared in the debates. He's getting hammered on Social Security. He's getting hammered on crony capitalism. He's getting hammered on immigration. If he had been prepared, he would withstand the attacks, but he's just taking the hit. He's campaign has taken a hit.
The most telling moment Thursday evening was a botched attack on top rival Mitt Romney for Romney’s move during his political career toward more conservative stances in a number of issues, an attack that obviously had been readied in advance.
But Perry blew the delivery, offering instead a muddled stew of lines about Romney’s positions on abortion and healthcare, leaving the audience at the Fox News/Google debate in Orlando, Fla., and the audience at home unsure where Romney stood now or Romney stood then. (Of course, Romney’s critics would maintain that has always been the case.) It allowed Romney to close his portion of the debate decisively, while making a case that Perry didn’t seem to have a grasp of the issues.
The lack of preparation has reflected poorly on him. It would be easy to compare him George W. Bush, but that might be unfair to Bush at this point. Perry is just weak:
Perry arguably let Santorum push him around on border issues, as well, where Perry’s expertise should be unchallenged. Instead, Santorum hammered Perry on providing college tuition aid to the children of illegal immigrants and mocked him on border security. In another answer, Perry misspoke, saying Medicaid when he meant Medicare.
May be debating is just not his thing. However, as a President, you need to be multidimensional. There's also the fact that Perry has repeatedly stated that he wants to have a conversation on the issues, yet in the debates, he has repeatedly shied away from such discussion.
Don't even get me started on that smile. But that has more with the "look," which when all is said and done isn't important if a man (or woman) is capable. However, if a man is capable, he most certainly look Presidential, right? It's the stupidest thing to judge a potential President on looks, but people do do it. But is this a Presidential look? The aura of that first speech is lost. This is no secret:
When former senator Rick Santorum started to push Perry on his illegal immigration record, Perry made the mistake of asking Santorum whether he had been to the border. Of course, the former two-term senator has. Lots of members of Congress have. (And you don’t ask questions like that unless you’ve got a pretty good idea about the answer.)
That was symptomatic of Perry’s problems Thursday night. While he tried to recover from the attacks on himself by leveling his own attacks on the other candidates — mostly Mitt Romney, of course — he showed himself to be pretty inept at the art of the attack.
Whether or not debate is an important part of being president, it will be an important part of the election. If he does get past the attacks from Romney, Bachmann, Santorum, and the rest of the GOP Presidential hopefuls, he will have to go toe-to-toe with Obama. Now, that might be easier considering Obama has struggled on issues which Perry has succeeded. However, Obama has already once been elected President. He can do it again.
Perry needs to step up his game, or step down from his candidacy.
So I've long lambasted the weakness of the United States education system. I've been particularly disappointed with the lack of science and math education. Today, I read an interesting op-ed by the former CEO of Lockheed Martin:
With all the talk of America's very real weaknesses in the STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering and math), you might be surprised to learn that the answer—according to the federal government's National Assessment of Educational Progress—is neither science nor math. And despite what might be suggested by the number of underwater home loans, high-school seniors actually fare best in economics.
Which leaves history as the answer, the subject in which students perform the most poorly. It's a result that puts American employers and America's freedoms in a worrisome spot.
Mr. Augustine goes onto say:
In my position as CEO of a firm employing over 80,000 engineers, I can testify that most were excellent engineers—but the factor that most distinguished those who advanced in the organization was the ability to think broadly and read and write clearly.
When we think about education reform, we should not limit our thinking to what aspects need to be improved, but rather, how to improve the whole. Being able to think is probably one of the biggest drags on students today. The skills you obtain from studying one subject can pay dividends to learning other subjects.
How do you improve the educational system though? Is there one way? Probably not. We live in a diverse country with diverse challenges. In Florida, there was a method that worked.
In an article praising a Bush, they say education should be left to the states:
“By federalizing education policy you create resistance at the classroom, school, school district -- and even the state level,” he told the Harvard Political Review earlier this year. “I think you’re getting more dynamic results by having the states play the policy role and holding local school districts accountable for actual learning.”
The state of Florida's educational system was not succeeding:
In 1998, Florida’s public educational system was ranked among the worst in the nation. Its high school graduation rate was an appalling 52 percent; 47 percent of its fourth-graders were functionally illiterate, according to nationally administered tests. To address this crisis, the state had adopted a rigorous set of criteria for each grade called the Sunshine State Standards, and established a system of tests, the Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test (FCAT), administered to fourth-, fifth-, eighth- and 10th-graders to see if students were living up to them.
What did Jeb Bush do? Reform, spend, improve:
Their first major legislative initiative, passed swiftly by the Florida legislature, was called the Florida A-Plus Plan. It’s primary features included the following four provisions: Making the FCAT an annual exercise so that each student is tested each year; assign letter grades, A through F, to every school in the state based on academic performance; requiring D and F schools to produce a detailed plan to improve performance -- and providing state money to help; and allowing students from chronically underperforming schools the option of transferring to any public school in their district, or an adjacent district, or even attending a private school at state expense.
And merit-based pay:
Bush and his team followed up in subsequent years with a plethora of other innovations. These included the always-controversial merit pay to retain the best teachers; changes in teacher certification procedures designed to attract instructors with a high grasp of the subject material (especially in math); ending “social promotions,” especially from third grade to fourth; and subsidizing PSAT tests for high school students from needy families. A third wave of policies expanded scholarships for needy kids, funded charter schools and “virtual” schools, and opened a number of pre-kindergartens programs across the state.
Bush saw success even in underrepresented minorities. This was a tremendous accomplishment.
Florida is a unique example, but it's not one that should be ignored. They did a lot of things I would agree with such as incentivizing schools to do better and to provide students and their families with options. For far too long, public education has been what is offered. It is time to let the people have the choice. This should paint a clearer picture to what works and what does not.
Mitt Romney continues to get attacked over his lackluster jobs record as governor. From a pure numbers perspective, he probably should be bashed. However, when you consider what he did compared to his predecessors and his successors, he looks favorabley compared to someone like Rick Perry:
Romney was right. Employment numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the number of jobs in Texas grew nearly 3 percent annually while Ann Richards was governor and about 5 percent per year under Bush. Over Perry's 11 years as governor, job growth has averaged less than 2 percent per year.
With the favorable jobs market of Texas, Perry's growth rate has lagged behind both Bush and Richards. What does that say about Perry? As governor, Romney was in charge of turning around Massachusetts. He did it with a democratic legislature, something that Perry hasn't had to deal with. He had to deal with a bad credit rating, which he helped improve. He had to deal with the democratic healthcare legislation, which now ironically bare his name, RomneyCare. All of the potential issues that a future President of the United States is going to deal with, Romney has already faced.
Despite challenges, Romney produced results. Were they the best results in the country? Absolutely not. But given the circumstances, Romney was an effective governor.
Ripping Obama and attacking the state of the nation. The visuals are moving. I would have gone for a more subtle jab: I would have done a take of the iconic Shepard Fairey print of Obama, except, of course, with the zero for his zero job growth in August.
So you're sitting at home, reading sports news, you see all these schools desperate to join all these conference, but you don't see the Big Ten mentioned at all. Instantly, you panic. What the hell is going on? Why are we sitting back and doing nothing? Why aren't we going after these schools?
Well, do we really need to?
From a Big Ten and Michigan standpoint, not really: The Big Ten has the three most popular teams in college football, so they can afford to wait as far as conference realignment goes. It doesn't make sense for them to go after schools left and right, when they already have a good base. Everyone says to go after Notre Dame and Texas, but if you're going to expand, it's going to be an even number of schools. Additionally, it's going to lead to more of a split if you do bring in more schools in terms of TV revenue. I don't think it makes sense for Notre Dame or Texas to come to the Big Ten at the moment, nor does it make sense for us to take them on.
If you really do want to expand, it's all about strategy. The crown jewel of college sports, despite the fact that it's not as big a college football market as one thinks is New York. Everyone wants into New York. So what about New York? The Big Ten already has 3 of the top 10 most popular teams in New York. I really think they'll only benefit if they bring in a Notre Dame or a Rutgers if they want to expand. Rutgers might not be worth it because the increase in subscriptions might be offset by the fact that there is another mouth to feed. Notre Dame really is the only one that makes sense from a competitive and financial perspective. The problem is that they won't want to come to the Big Ten if they come in because of their current deal with NBC.
They're not Michigan, they're not Ohio State, and they're not Penn State.
I don't think I want the Big Ten to expand otherwise. Brian Bennett of ESPN spells it out. It doesn't make sense for the Big Ten to take on Missouri or Kansas for the sake of expansion. They don't bring anything to the table in terms of competition or financial benefits, but they're AAU schools which fit in if there is expansion.
Honestly, the Big Ten is in good shape. They got a good school in Nebraska that actually brings something to the table. They might miss out on Texas and Notre Dame, but neither schools would want to fit into the Big Ten when you look at the Big Ten Network. With all the expansion, everyone wants the Big Ten to get in on it too, but I believe staying true and keeping things the way they are might be the best thing to do.
Right now, the Big Ten has a great TV deal and a great network that does well to give exposure to all the schools. They already have some great brand names under their moniker. There is no need to try and bring more mouths under their roof at the moment. Even with all of this expansion, the Big Ten will continue to thrive in its current state.
A couple months ago, Netflix took flack for raising their prices for their subscription services. While they took heat, the company raised prices to deal with the growing cost of increasing the content available for their customers. It was a necessary move to grow the business.
Yesterday, Netflix announced that it was separating its DVD-by-mail services and its Internet movie-streaming service:
In his overnight email to the company's 23 million domestic subscribers, Mr. Hastings said the DVD business will be renamed Qwikster, hived off into a separate subsidiary that will have its own billing system, website and list of movies.
Now, I think that the DVD business is becoming somewhat archaic as we move towards a more digital world with cloud computing becoming more prevalent. With that said, there is still a demand for it, and I don't see that separating the businesses is a smart idea. It would be, if the customers were mutually exclusive in terms of online streamers versus DVD renters. This does not appear to be the case.
The outrage was immediate, as more than 16,000 users responded on Netflix's blog:
"You are making things significantly worse for us," one customer wrote, in a screed that echoed many of the others. "Now not only will we have to pay a LOT more for your services, but we will also have to access two separate websites."
Netflix is taking a long-term view, and as a result, they are taking a short-term drubbing. This is taking place both from their customers and their investors. Let's look at their customers first:
But what sealed the deal was Sunday night's so-called apology -- your mea culpa for the price hike. But you don't rescind the price hike?! Even worse, you announce proudly that you're creating an entirely new service to handle the DVD mail business, Qwikster?
So now, I have to go to one site to see if a movie is streaming, and if not, go to another site to put it in my by-mail queue to wait for a hard disc.
It's clear you don't care about keeping me happy, like you once did. I don't feel so proud being caught with that little red envelope anymore.
Clearly, these decisions were driven by what the company sees for the business. While it does make long-term sense, I think they're underestimating the good will they had generated for the brand by being the people's DVD and online streaming company. Now they're in hot water. The investors are getting out: After a tremendous rally, that even my dad took note of and lamented not getting in on, the company has taken a huge hit over the last month. Even though the market as a whole has taken a hit, it certainly has not taken as big a hit as Netflix. The company has lost more than half of its shareholder equity in the last two months.
For me, the number one thing about business is knowing how customers are going to react to your business decisions. It is this understanding that shows that a company will succeed. You look at Apple and you see how a company with a strong understanding of its consumer has succeeded. Netflix has demonstrated an increasingly poor understanding of its consumer's needs and stands to suffer as a result.
While I strongly agree that the streaming business is the future, I think neglecting or complicating the DVD business is a poor decision. One of the main influences of technology has been to consolidate business activity. This is doing the exact opposite. While it may help Netflix tackle the content gap in the streaming business by separating the two businesses, this could have been executed much better. Additionally, I would have to question the timing, given the bad publicity that the price hikes garnered.
Time will tell whether Netflix will remain a strong company, but at the moment, you cannot like the direction it is going as a consumer and/or an investor.
So I've been ripping Obama for trying to use Keynesian measures to help us get out of this recession. The problem for me is that government spending will lead to government reliance. You don't have to look far to see the potential problem that may develop. Greece continues to have trouble getting their citizens off the government's teat:
But others entertain strong doubts about the willingness and ability of the Greek political class to implement the structural measures that will improve the performance of the Greek economy. "The present government has done absolutely nothing during the last 12 months to speed up privatizations, reduce the public sector or open up closed professions," Athanasios Papandropoulos, a leading economic analyst, told me recently in an interview. "In these 12 months it has not fired even one civil servant. The only thing it is doing is trying to tax the private sector out of existence. Why should we believe that they will do something different now?"
Government reliance has changed the expectancy of the citizens. They don't believe the government is going to change:
Structural reforms have been repeatedly announced by Greek officials during the past. Yet nothing has happened. Greece's plans tend to resemble Soviet Five Year Plans: They look good on paper but have absolutely no bearing on reality. Anyone in the government who tries to point this out is forced to resign. Economist Stella Balfousia, the head of the Greek Parliament budget office, had to tender her resignation after her office published a report contradicting the government's official forecasts on debt and deficit.
While I don't think the US is going to be Greece, I do think we need to limit the influence of the public sector. There are many roles the public sector can play, but being the primary provider of jobs is not one of them. That should be left to the private sector. This is why I've had such a problem with the plans that Obama has put out there. I don't want to see US start to stutter; I want to see the US continue to grow.
