Global Warming Models Called Into Question By New Study

From Investors.com (Nov. 25):

Climate: The left's proposed solutions for the world's ills are based on the idea that carbon dioxide is a climate-heating poison that must be scrubbed from the global economy at all cost. Yet another study shows this is foolish.

The study in the journal Science found that global temperatures appear to be far less sensitive to the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere than originally estimated.

The study's findings are simple and devastating. "This implies that the effect of CO₂ on climate is less than previously thought," said Oregon State University's Andreas Schmittner, the study's main author. [read more]

That scientist of the study sounds like one of those “global warming deniers.” At least that’s what the environmental extremists would call him.  The study in the journal Science  is an abstract. You have to pay for the rest of the study or go to the author’s website and read the pdf version. A word of warning: The study is very technical. You would have to have a masters in meteorology to understand most of it. Even the title of the study (as usual) is wordy: “Climate Sensitivity Estimated From Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum.” Really? Could the authors shortened it up a little?

Let’s face it the only global warming we get is caused by the sun. It’s called summer.

The Agendas of the 1930s Fascists

According to Thomas Sowell’s 2009 book Intellectuals and Society here was the agenda of the Nazis and Mussolini’s Italy:

1. Government control of wages and hours of work.
2. Higher taxes on the wealthy.
3. Government-set limits on profits.
4. Government care for the elderly.
5. A decreased emphasis on the role of religion and the family in personal or social decisions.
6. Government taking on the role of changing the nature of people, usually beginning in early childhood.

And the Left and the Nazis have nothing in common? Really? Did you know that the evil German guy with the mustache back in the 1930’s once belonged to the Communist party for a short time? He considered Communism not as an adversary but as a competitor. You know like two countries are economic competitors. Or two sports teams as competitors.

There was a pact between Germany and the Soviet Union when WWII first started. The German gov’t  broke the pact because it’s evil ruler wanted to have all the power to himself. The selfish bastard! Didn’t he know that the nice Soviet Union wanted to dominate the world too? Geez. This pact is something Russia would like to forget. The war might have ended differently if Germany hadn’t broken the pact.

All the bullet points in the agenda were part of the old Soviet Union and are still espoused by the Left today. Point 4 is social security and Medicare. Point 6 is right out of Marxism when Marx talked about creating a “New Man.”

When you come down to it, the common denominator among  fascism, socialism, and communism is less individual freedom until eventually you have tyranny.

The State as Organ Harvester

From WND.com (Nov. 15):

Officials running a federal program that is considering redefining death are going to be seeking further public comment after members of the Christian Medical Association raised alarms about several problems, including what they believe would be an open door to pressure families to donate organs before their loved one has died.

The proposal could move the federal government closer into alignment with what has been proposed by longtime Barack Obama adviser Cass Sunstein.

Obama's "regulatory czar" was revealed in 2009 to have pushed strongly for the removal of organs from those who did not give their consent to becoming an organ donor.

In his book, "Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness," Sunstein and co-author Richard Thaler presented the possibility of the "routine removal" of organs because "the state owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hopeless conditions, and it can remove their organs without asking anyone's permission." [read more]

Under Obamacare this is perfectly logical in a twisted way. When the State owns your body it owns your organs. Therefore it doesn’t need permission from anybody to harvest them even if it has good intentions.  Your “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” not mention your rights are now controlled by the State.

Here is something else to think about. If the State owns your body what happens to any “do not resuscitate” orders? Are they now mandatory? Especially if the State doesn’t want to cover your medical bills anymore and wants your organs. It might allow DNRs for the “important” people or the elites though.

The Judeo-Christian Philosophy and The Free-Market

Here’s how the Judeo-Christian philosophy influenced the free-market:

1. The Judeo-Christian respect for manual labor, summed up in a number of biblical injunctions. One example: When God warns Noah of the coming flood and tells him he will be saved, it is not God who saves him. “Build thee an ark of gopher wood,” he says, and Noah builds an ark to divine specifications.   
2. The Judeo-Christian subordination of nature to man. This is a sharp departure from widespread animistic belief and practices that saw something of the divine in every tree and stream (hence naiads and dryads). Ecologists today might think these animistic beliefs preferable to what replaced them, but no one was listening to pagan nature wor­shippers in Christian Europe. 
3. The Judeo-Christian sense of linear time. Other societies thought of time as cyclical, returning to earlier stages and starting over again. Linear time is progressive or regressive, moving on to better things or declining from some earlier, happier state. For Europeans in our period  the progressive view prevailed. 
4. In the last analysis, however, I would stress the market. Enterprise was free in  Europe [of the past]. Innovation worked and paid, and rulers and vested interests were limited in their ability to prevent or discourage innova­tion. Success bred imitation and emulation; also a sense of power that would in the long run raise men almost to the level of gods. The old legends remained—the expulsion from the Garden, Icarus who flew too high, Prometheus in chains—to warn against hubris. (The very no­tion of hubris—cosmic insolence—is testimony to some men’s preten­sions and the efforts of others to curb them.)

Source: The Wealth and Poverty of Nations. Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor. (1998) by David S. Landes.

As for the first point, if the gov’t gave Noah specs to build the arc, the arc would have sunk or worse fell apart. The gov’t would have given Noah the materials for the ark at a cost of $100,000,000,000 or more. Heck, if big gov’t would have warned Noah of the flood it probably would not have come.

Referring to the 2nd point, the enviro-fascists are lot more like the pagans back then—worshiping mother nature than God.

Ancient China and the Free-Market

David S. Landes talks in his book The Wealth and Poverty of Nations. Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor (1998) why sinologists say ancient China did not reach its economic potential:

• The absence of a free market and institutionalized property rights.  The Chinese state was always interfering with private enterprise—taking over lucrative activities, prohibiting others, manipulating prices, exacting bribes curtailing private enrichment. Bad government strangled initiative, increased the cost of transactions, diverted talent from commerce and industry.
• The quasi-confinement of women to the home made it impossible, for example, to exploit textile machinery profitably in a factory setting.
• Sinologist Etienne Balazs would stress the larger context. He sees China’s abortive technology as part of a larger pattern of totalitarian control. The author quotes Mr. Balazs saying: “The ingenuity and inventiveness of the Chinese, which have
  given so much to mankind—silk, tea, porcelain, paper, printing, and more—would no doubt have enriched China further and probably brought it to the threshold of modern industry, had it not been for this stifling state control…. It is a regime of paper work and harassment….. It is the State [my emphasis] that kills technological progress in China.”

In my humble opinion, is the State in any country that can kill technological progress. The State doesn’t understand technology and/or business when it tries to control the economy. Since the State will probably never understand technology and economics it would be better off to leave hands off. But since the State contains people who are usually controlling  and arrogant (a nasty combination) this probably will never happen unless you get legislatures who are not power hungry and who are humble. Good luck with that.
The Chinese gov’t now is not much better. They have now what they call “state capitalism.” This is just another name for national socialism. If this sounds familiar think back to Germany in the 1930’s. You know the evil guy with the mustache who we’re not supposed to mention in polite company anymore. Yea, that guy. He created national socialism. It’s not a new idea.

The Four Roles of Leadership

In his book The 8th Habit. From Effectiveness to Greatness. (2004), Stephen R. Covey describes the four roles of leadership which are:

1. Modeling. Inspires trust without expecting it. (Personal moral authority)
2. Pathfinding. Creates order without demanding it. (Visionary moral authority)
3. Aligning. Nourishes both vision and empowerment without proclaiming them. (Institutional moral authority)
4. Empowering. Unleashes human potential without externally motivating it. (Cultural moral authority)

What’s interesting is President Ronald Reagan had everyone of those roles. Why? Because he believed that man can rule himself. Which is what the four roles are about. People choose to follow the vision and therefore order is created (role # 2).  If the vision is morally good for the country they will believe and follow it.

The progressives like Obama will never have those roles because they believe that man cannot rule himself and therefore cannot be trusted to make choices for themselves. Because of that belief people have to be treated like a children or worse like sheep. The Ruling Class will expect trust (after all they are the elite), demand order, proclaim a vision, and try to motivate people. But if the vision is false all that will be to no avail.

The Downward Spiral of Codependency

What happens when you manage people like things? They stop believing that leadership can become a choice. Most people think of leadership as a position and therefore, don’t see themselves as leaders. Making personal leadership (influence) a choice is like the freedom to play the piano. It is a freedom that has to be earned-only then can leadership become a choice.

Until then, people think that only those in positions of authority should decide what must be done. They have consented perhaps unconsciously, to being controlled like a thing. Even if they perceive a need, they don't take the initiative to act. They wait to be told what to do by the person with the formal title, and then they respond as directed. Consequently, they blame the formal leader when things go wrong and give him or her the credit when things go well. And they are thanked for their 'cooperation and support."

This widespread reluctance to take initiative, to act independently, only fuels formal leader' imperative to direct or manage their subordinates. This, they believe, is what they must do in order to get followers to act. And this cycle quickly escalates into codependency. Each party's weakness reinforces and ultimately justifies the other's behavior. The more a manager (bishop, church leader) controls, the more he/she evokes behaviors that necessitate greater control or managing. The codependent culture that develops is eventually institutionalized to the point that no one takes responsibility. Over time, both leaders and followers confirm their roles in an unconscious pact. They disempower themselves by believing that others must change before their own circumstances can improve. The same cycle reappears in families between parents and children (neighborhoods, church congregations, school clubs, etc.).

Source: The 8th Habit. From Effectiveness to Greatness. (2004) by Stephen R. Covey.

I agree with what Mr. Covey said. Not only does this happen in neighborhoods and churches, but can happen with gov’t too. The Ruling Class (RC) creates social security which tells people they don’t have to save for their old age. The RC creates welfare so people don’t have to look after their families. And when gov’t can’t afford programs like these (like in Greece) people riot because there is very little personal responsibility left.

When a leader treats his subordinates or constituents like children that’s what they will become in the end. And maybe that’s what the leader wants too. That’s the whole point of Mr. Covey’s essay.

Government as Venture Capitalist

Since the Obama administration wants to act like venture capitalist I wanted to learn more about these venture capitalists. So, I did a little research on the subject.

First, what is a venture capitalist? Investopedia.com defines a venture capitalist (VC) as “an investor who either provides capital to startup ventures or supports small companies that wish to expand but do not have access to public funding.” The entry continues by saying “venture capitalists usually expect higher [my emphasis] returns for the additional risks [my emphasis] taken.” In other words a VC is not investing in the company so much to help the company but to make money themselves. Otherwise they wouldn’t be risking their own money. When gov’t invests in a company it’s different. Gov’t isn’t in the business to make a profit. They invest in a company to create jobs. And since Washington can print money there is not much risk for them to invest in a company like Solyndra. Whatever they lose they can make up by raising taxes.

When you are investing in a startup or small company who wishes to expand there’s a risk involved. With a established small company there is fewer risks than with a startup. That’s just basic reasoning. A smart VC looks at the management of the company. He or she wants to know if the management can run a business that generates high return for its investors. The VC also wants a list of experienced, qualified people who will play central roles in the company's development. As the article where I got this info says: “they [the VCs] prefer to invest in a bad idea led by accomplished management than a great business plan supported by a team of inexperienced managers.”

Also, a VC wants a market size that is $1 billion or more in revenues. Because of this VCs want a detailed market size analysis as part of the company’s business plan.

Thirdly, VCs want a company that produces a great product and can compete with other businesses similar to themselves. They look for a company that solves a problem that no-one else has solved in the market place. They look for a company that can make product or do a service that no-one can do without. And if they find a business that is a near monopoly all the better.

Finally, the VC has to be aware of any risks the company has. Like for example:

• Could regulatory or legal issues pop up?
• Is this the right product for today or 10 years from today? 
• Is there enough money in the fund to fully meet the opportunity?
• Is there an eventual exit from the investment and a chance to see a return?

Keep in mind it is the VC’s money he is investing. He doesn’t want to make reckless investment and lose it all.

If you ever watch the reality show Shark Tank all five of those “sharks” on the show are VCs. Just about everything I described above, the sharks ask about people coming to them for money they want for their business. What’s funny is that most entrepreneurs on the show ask for a lot of money from the sharks but at a low rate of return. The sharks almost always tell these people you are not giving me enough return for the risk involved. What’s the moral of the story? The sharks just want to make money. Period. It’s that simple.

The reason the Obama administration make lousy VCs is because they have no business experience. They don’t even have a business mind-set and never will get one. Everything I described above they probably think is mean, cruel, and exploitive. Making money just for the sake of making money. That’s just plain greed to them. And the VCs are taking advantage of the small business owner.

Like I said, since the money the gov’t is risking  isn’t really their own and they can always get more from taxes do you think they are going to research a company and ask the right questions? Why should they when there is no incentive for them to do that. And if they think investing in a business so it can create jobs is a noble deed whether or not the business is prosperous or not just compounds the problems. Yes, a business hiring people is great. But if it goes out of business (and fires everyone) because of bad management or just not enough customers then that is worse. So much about being noble. 

One last note. In his blog The Venture Capitalist Aptitude Test, Guy Kawasaki describes a test that a wannabe VC can take to see if he can succeed as a VC. First, if you have work background in engineering and/or sales that’s a plus. Obama doesn’t. If you are in managing consulting, or are a investment banker, an account or have an MBA that counts against you. Well, Obama thinks he is an investment banker. Or is at least acting like one. The author explains more in his blog about why having a background in engineering and sales is a good thing to have. Basically, you have to know about what you are investing in. Also, remember this: The two occupations most important to any business is engineering and marketing. That is, for a business to succeed it has to make a product (or a service) and sell it. Otherwise, the business fails. 

Then the author goes into first-hand experiences like “worked at a failed startup, so that you understand three things: first, how hard it is to achieve success; second, that the world doesn’t owe you a thing; and third, what it’s like to be fired or laid off.”

Finally, he talks about having necessary knowledge about a business to be a successful VC.

If you could sum up this interesting article it would be this: Know your product or service you want to invest in and know how a successful business works. If you don’t have either knowledge then you better think twice about being a venture capitalist.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

These rights are overall pretty good like for example Article 17. Some of the rights mirror what’s in the Constitution: Articles 11, 18 through 20. These rights come from the United Nations. But there are some articles I question like:

Article 23: The right to work and form unions.

Article 24: Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25: Right to a standard of living.

Article 26: Right to free education.

Article 27:

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 29: Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

Articles 23 through 26 looked it was influenced by communists and/or socialists.

Is Article 27 needed (especially the first part)? I mean Article 20 should take care of that. Part 2 is talking about intellectual property rights. I am currently reading an e-book (The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind (2008) by James Boyle) on that topic. It is really a complex subject to grasp.

What is Article 29 about? “Duties to the community”? That would make Ayn Rand spin in her grave. Sounds like the “it takes a village” nonsense. That smacks of socialism.

Jon Huntsman’s American Jobs Plan

1. Tax Reform.
   • Individual Taxes.
     • “Zero Plan”. Rates of 8%, 14% and 23%.
     • Eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).
   • Corporate Taxes.
     • Reduce the Corporate Rate from 35% to 25%.
     • Shift from a Worldwide System of Taxation to a Territorial System.
     • Implement a Tax Holiday for Repatriation of Corporate Profits.
   • Eliminate the Taxes on Capital Gains and Dividends.
2. Regulatory Reform.
   • Repeal President Obama's Unconstitutional and Unaffordable Health Care Plan.
   • Repeal Dodd-Frank.
   • Streamline the Food and Drug Administration's Approval Process.
   • Enact Comprehensive Patent Reform.
   • Repeal Sarbanes/Oxley.
   • End the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Gross Regulatory Overreach.
     • Roll-back Ozone Standard Revision.
     • Roll-back Joint Fuel-Efficiency Rules.
   • Expedite the Environmental Permitting Process.
   • Gov. Huntsman will immediately instruct the NLRB to stop pursuing this politically-motivated attack on free enterprise, and if they fail to do so, he will replace them.
   • As President, Gov. Huntsman will demand the Commodities Future Trading Commission undertake serious cost-benefit analysis before implementing any regulations.
   • Privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
   • Mandate Cost-Benefit Fundamentals at Agencies.
3. Energy Independence.
   • We must expedite the review and approval of safe and environmentally-sound energy projects, including the development of North American oil and gas reserves; oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska; shale gas and oil in the U.S.; and Canadian oil sands.
   • We must eliminate subsidies and regulations that support foreign oil and inhibit clean, domestic alternatives such as natural gas, biofuels and coal-to-liquid fuel.
4. Trade.
   • The United States should take the lead in initiating free trade agreements with Japan, India and Taiwan, among others. We must begin to send a message to the world that we will once again lead on trade liberalization.
   • Support the Doha Development Round of World Trade Organization Negotiations.
   • Lead in Reaching a Successful Conclusion of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Not too bad a plan. The three-tier zero plan sounds progressive too me. Although, less progressive than what we have now. Since it is three-tier I suppose the rates correspond to the lower-class, middle-class and upper-class. Getting rid of the AMT is a good idea. I like reducing the corporate tax and getting rid of capital gain taxes and dividend taxes, although the corporate tax could be lower like 15%.

Interesting idea to reform patent regulations. First candidate to suggest that.

He does have a foreign policy. Huntsman supports Israel and considers Iran a threat.

The Myth of Crime Prevention

In trying to scare the public about the Republicans not supporting Obama’s “jobs” bill, this what the VP said:

“It’s not temporary [the administration’s stimulus] when that 911 call comes in and a woman’s being raped, if a cop shows up in time to prevent the rape. It’s not temporary to that woman.”

So, the basic formula is this: Any policeman can stop any crime from happening to any victim. Like that CBS drama series “Person of Interest.” Except in that show the two men preventing crime are not policemen. One is a genius computer programmer that wrote a program that monitors everyone and the other is an ex-Green Beret and CIA agent.  Or like the movie “Minority Report”.  Then again the show and the movie are fictional.

It’s a myth that Biden is trying to create. Then again he may believe it. Very rarely can police force can stop a first crime. Or else there would be no crime at all right? This is not a knock against law enforcement. It’s just a matter of logistics.  Especially, if the crime is a crime of passion, a crime of opportunity or even a serial crime like in Biden’s example a serial rapist the police probably won’t catch the criminal the first time. Even a premeditated crime is hard to stop unless the perpetrator tries to hire someone to do his dirty work and ends up talking to a policeman. Or if there are more than one criminal (like in a planned bank robbery) and one of the criminals tells on another.

Even if the police department was next door to the woman being raped there would be a delay before the police would show up. The truth of the matter is you really have to defend yourself because the police cannot be everywhere. Nor can they read minds. If the woman is being raped in Biden’s example by the time she calls 911 then the crime has already been done. The police couldn’t stop the crime when they get there. All they can do is arrest the rapist if he is still around. Or arrest him later on if and when they find him.

Oh, by the way, what Biden meant by “temporary” was police departments only get subsided one time for a year.

Mitt Romney’s Plan for Jobs and Economic Growth

1. FIVE BILLS FOR DAY ONE
   • The American Competitiveness Act- Reduces the corporate income tax rate to 25 percent.
   • The Open Markets Act- Implements the Colombia, Panama, and South Korea Free Trade Agreements
   • The Domestic Energy Act- Directs the Department of the Interior to undertake a comprehensive survey of American energy reserves in partnership with exploration companies and initiates leasing in all areas currently approved for exploration
   • The Retraining Reform Act- Consolidates the sprawl of federal retraining programs and returns funding and  responsibility for these programs to the states
   • The Down Payment on Fiscal Sanity Act- Immediately cuts non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent, reducing the annual federal budget by $20 billion
2. FIVE EXECUTIVE ORDERS FOR DAY ONE
   • An Order to Pave the Way to End Obamacare- directs the Secretary of HHS & all relevant federal officials to let states to design their own health care solutions.
   • An Order to Cut Red Tape- directs all agencies to immediately initiate  the elimination of Obama-era regulations, and then caps annual increases in regulatory costs at zero dollars.  
   • An Order to Boost Domestic Energy Production- directs the Dept. of Interior to implement a process of for rapid issuance of drilling permits.
   • An Order to Sanction China for Unfair Trade Practices- directs the Dept. of the Treasury to list China as a currency manipulator in its biannual report and directs the Department of Commerce to assess countervailing duties on Chinese imports if China doesn’t move to float its currency.
   • An Order to Empower American Businesses and Workers- reverses the executive orders issued by Obama that tilt the playing field in favor of organized labor.
3. TAX POLICY.
   • Individual taxes.
     • Maintain marginal rates at current levels.
     • Further reduce taxes on savings and investments.
     • Eliminate the death tax.
     • Long-term goal: pursue a flatter, fairer, simpler structure.
   • Corporate taxes.
     • Lower the corporate tax rate to 25%.
     • Transition to a “territorial” tax system in which income is taxed only in the country where it is earned.
4. REGULATORY POLICY.
   • Repeal and replace Obamacare and Dodd-Frank.
   • Review and eliminate Obama-era regulations.
   • Cap new regulatory costs at zero dollars.
   • Require Congress to approve all major regulations.
   • Reform legal liability system.
5. TRADE POLICY.
   • Expanded markets.
     • Implement pending Free Trade agreements.
     • Conclude Trans-Pacific Partnership and pursue additional agreements.
     • Create Reagan Economic Zones.
   • Confronting China.
     • Improve enforcement at the border.
     • Pursue and protect legal rights.
     • Impose targeted tariffs or economic sanctions.
     • Designate China a currency manipulator & impose countervailing duties.
     • Insist on reciprocal government procurement.
6. ENERGY POLICY.
   • Significant regulatory reform.
     • Streamline and fast-track permitting processes.
     • Overhaul outdated legislation.
     • Reform nuclear regulation.
   • Increase production.
     • Inventory our nation’s resources.
     • Explore & develop our oil reserves.
     • Partner with our neighbors.
     • Extract shale gas.
   • Research and development.
     • Focus on basic research.
     • Design long-term funding sources free from politics.
7. LABOR POLICY.
   • Defend the free-enterprise system. Romney will appoint to the NLRB experienced individuals with a respect for the law and an even-handed approach to labor relations.
   • Guarantee workers free choice. He opposes “Card Check.” Romney will submit to Congress legislation, similar to the Secret Ballot Protection Act, that would require the use of the secret ballot in all union elections regardless of the preference of the union, employees, or employer.
   • Protect free speech. Mitt Romney will send Congress a bill prohibiting the use of mandatory union dues for political purposes.
   • Respect the rule of law.
8. HUMAN CAPITAL POLICY.
• Retraining workers.
  • Consolidate redundant programs.
  • Give authority to the states.
  • Create Personal Reemployment Accounts. Each eligible participant would have control over an account that contained funds to be put toward retraining.
  • Encourage private-sector participation.
• Attracting the best and the brightest.
• Raise visa caps for highly skilled workers.
• Retain graduates of our universities. Romney will also work to establish a policy that staples a green card to the diploma of every eligible student visa holder who graduates from one of our universities with an advanced degree in math, science, or engineering.
9. FISCAL POLICY.
• Cut, cap and balance. Romney will immediately move to cut spending and cap
  it at 20 percent of GDP. As spending comes under control, he will pursue further cuts that would allow caps to be set even lower so as to guarantee future fiscal stability.
• Enact entitlement reform. One option that should not be on the table is raising the payroll tax or expanding the base of income to which the tax is applied. Romney will push for the conversion of Medicaid to a block grant administered by the states.
• Reduce the federal workforce. Romney will not only halt this growth, but work to cut the current size of the federal workforce by 10 percent through attrition.
• Undertake fundamental restructuring.
• Pursue a balanced budget amendment.

Got to say this about Romney’s plan—it sure is comprehensive. Don’t think he left anything out. As for his executive orders all he needed to do is issue an executive order to exempt everyone from Obamacare (before Obamacare is reversed—as a backup plan) and to reverse all of Obama’s executive orders. I don’t believe any of them were good. You have to be careful about issuing executive orders. If you do too many it makes you look like a dictator and not a president. Especially if you are not letting Congress do their job. Then again some presidents may not care what they look like to the American people.

Not a bad plan. Not sure about the Human Capital policy. The Personal Reemployment Accounts sound like Bush’s Health Savings Account. Being educated is good if there are good jobs out there where you can use your education. Otherwise you are just educated and unemployed. Additionally, if you help out the highly educated foreigners that will just increase competition for Americans already looking for work. Nice for the employers, but not so nice for the job seekers. Don’t get me wrong. I am not against immigrants coming to America legally, but it seems to me they are already being hired and don’t really need much help. Presidential candidates should focus on growing the economy first. Everything else will follow.