Government

A Looming Crisis — & a Call for Solutions

May 6th, 2013 // 3:51 pm @ Oliver DeMille

Most Americans have no ideas it is coming. But it is just around the corner.

It’s one of those technical changes that only wonks pay attention to, so few people realize how big this will be.

In fact, it’s a serious crisis in the making. And unlike the Y2K scare in 1999, this crisis is a sure thing.

What is it?

Well, put simply, this coming January, many companies will be required to extend Obamacare health care to their employees.

The costs of this are significant, and will force many small and larger businesses to make some very tough choices.

The result will be a lot of layoffs, downsizing, reduced pay, and outsourcing.

Service will suffer, and response times will plummet.

Most families and individuals plan on a yearly basis, running January 1 to December 31, so they may not know how that a lot of businesses run on a fiscal year—from April 1 to April 1, July 1 to July 1, or October 1 to October 1.

This is very important, because we just witnessed the first big round of businesses (whose fiscal year is April to April) factoring in the costs of the January 2014 Obamacare requirements.

The number of layoffs and cuts is a serious concern.

But those who run April to April have only had to factor in three months of Obamacare costs so far, so the damage has been minimal.

It’s going to get increasingly worse on July 1, and then by October 1 it will start having a major impact.

By the first of January, when everyone will have to pay the higher costs, the effect will be huge.

Again, because this is a numerical concern, most people aren’t paying attention. Here’s the crux of the problem:

• Our economy is already struggling with a weak recovery.
• The increasing tax and regulatory burden on business has dampened innovation.
• The schools seldom teach innovation or initiative—indeed they usually promote the opposite.
• International innovation is rising.
• Business is reticent to invest or spend, because the current environment in Washington is highly uncertain.
• Big business, which has a high surplus right now, is finding better political environments in other nations—so the money will naturally flow to where business is treated better.
• The Obamacare requirements are making business a lot more costly, and they mostly kick in this coming January.

A lot of businesses are scrambling.

For example, in the past few months I’ve received email from a number of friends who are business owners or who consult with small businesses—saying that their only choice is to either lay off a lot of employees or shut down their business.

One company, for example, is trying to prepare for next year, but has realized that the additional cost of Obamacare for their firm will be at least $18,000 a month.

This is a fairly small company, with close ties to its people.

The last thing it wants to do is lay off employees. But what to do? The costs are simply prohibitive.

Laying off is the obvious option; and after digging deeper, it may be the only option.

How would you counsel companies in this predicament? (Note that most companies are dealing with this right now.) What ideas do you have? I’m sincerely asking for input.

What can they do?

Thousands of companies are asking the same thing right now, and many others will do so before the end of 2013.

This is going to be a real shock to the economy.

A crisis is coming.

But back to the question. How can small companies that are already financially tight comply with the new regulations—without laying off or cutting salaries?

I’m hoping you see some real solutions.

The obvious one is to innovate—to expand sales into new markets and make a lot of extra cash.

The regulatory challenges of such a strategy are, alas, a serious problem. At least in the United States.

So, thinking like an owner, what would you do?

I know you don’t have financials or details in front of you for any one company facing this challenge, but take a stab at this problem anyway—because almost all businesses are doing the same thing right now. It’s the only realistic way to look at Obamacare, because it’s the way pretty much every business owner is looking at it.

Specifically: Costs are going up significantly, with no offsetting increases in income.

In fact, higher taxes and increased regulations make growth even more difficult.

In this environment, how can you absorb the Obamacare costs without laying off a bunch of employees?

Or letting them go and hiring all new people who are desperate for jobs and will work for much lower pay?

Or simply taking your business to Brazil or India or some other country where growth is actually rewarded?

Please send me your responses. What can be done?

***********************************

Oliver DeMille is the chairman of the Center for Social Leadership and co-creator of Thomas Jefferson Education.

He is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, and The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom.

Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.

Category : Blog &Economics &Entrepreneurship &Featured &Government &Leadership &Producers &Prosperity

The Latest Filibuster

March 11th, 2013 // 1:11 pm @ Oliver DeMille

A Giant Step for Mankind…

Okay, the subtitle of this article is a little overblown, but I heard something that I found just plain fascinating the other day.

In fact, it is something I haven’t heard for a long time.

I was researching in a university library, sitting at a table looking for data in a stack of scholarly journals, when I heard the most unlikely thing in such a place.

“Rand Paul’s filibuster is so cool,” a girl’s voice said. My mind was focused on tables of World Bank summaries of currency values in industrial nations, and there were a lot of voices as students walked past and talked.

Most of them talked about classes, romances or roommates, and I tuned out to their words as I researched.

But my ears perked up and my mind tuned in when I heard these words.

I looked up to see a college girl, probably late teens or early twenties walking with three friends. The others nodded in response to her words.

“Really?” I thought, “Somebody thinks a national Republican figure is cool?” When I’ve heard such words before, it was always reserved to President Obama.

I mean, Ronald Reagan gets his share of praise from the older crowd, but the college students I’ve overheard recently saying a politician is cool have all mentioned either Obama or Ron Paul.

But a Republican who really could win the nomination, this was something different.

As a writer, I like to read and research in libraries (‘cause that’s where the books are, to paraphrase Willy Horton), restaurants and other public areas.

People walk by talking about things, and often they say something that helps an author’s thought process.

I went back to my research, and I forgot about the incident until I went to lunch.

As I balanced my attention between a salad and a copies of the World Bank tables, I was shocked to hear a girl from the next table say, “Did you see the filibuster yesterday? Rand Paul is so cool.”

I turned my head, expecting to see the same group of students, but to my surprise a whole different group sat there nodding.

What has happened?

Is it possible that Republicans will come up with a cool candidate in 2016?

Maybe.

It’s a long way off, to be sure.

But the hippest candidate always wins, or at least has in every election since the technicolor media age began in earnest around 1980.

Howard Dean once said that the way to know who won a presidential debate is to turn off the sound and just watch their body language.

On an even bigger scale, just turn off the television and internet and ask college-age students which candidate is really cool.

Jeb Bush suggested recently that he might run, Time magazine called potential candidate Marco Rubio the Savior of the Republican party.

Or did it just ask us if Rubio might redeem a party that can’t seem to get the Latino vote vital to winning the White House.

The whole idea of electing a cool president is frustrating for many on the Right, who see this as shallow popularity contesting in what should be one of the most serious votes anyone makes in an election year.

Still, the cool test wins every time, whether or not it should.

One thing is for sure.

Hillary Clinton is considered way cool, so if Republicans have any desire to take back the presidency in 2016 they need to meet a high standard.

More Mr. Smith Goes to Washington filibusters may be ahead, but Senator Paul’s filibuster seems to have caught many young people’s attention because it was so sincere.

That’s hard to duplicate, but for now Rand Paul’s popularity in the college crowd is worth watching.

***********************************

Oliver DeMille is the chairman of the Center for Social Leadership and co-creator of Thomas Jefferson Education.

He is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, and The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom.

Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.

Category : Blog &Culture &Current Events &Featured &Government &Leadership &Politics

Emotion and Politics

February 18th, 2013 // 10:35 pm @ Oliver DeMille

In all the commentaries about the president’s 2013 State of the Union address and the responses by Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, one really stood out.[i]

Democratic thought-leader Van Jones said it outright: “Marco Rubio is dangerous for Democrats.”[ii]

Why?

Because he gets emotional about the issues, and, as Jones pointed out, genuine, authentic, caring emotion sways American voters.

The GOP has long acted as if all politics needs to be intellectual, and emotions are often treated as weakness or shallowness by the Right.

But the electorate loves emotion, and votes accordingly.

Put simply, if a top Republican can unite large segments of the populace behind authentic emotional passion, he or she will be a serious challenger in the 2016 election.

The last Republican candidate to elicit such raw emotion was Ronald Reagan.

Jones went on: “Marco Rubio is to the heart, what Paul Ryan is to the head…. [Rubio’s] ideas are extreme, the Tea Party loves this guy, but he is dangerous for Democrats because he can connect in a way that other people with those ideas cannot.”[iii]

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama appealed to both the mind and the heart, and so did Reagan.

Indeed, great presidents know how to effectively communicate in both realms.

The problem for the GOP in 2016 is simple: primary voters want something different than the general electorate.

While Republican primaries usually pick a nominee based on emotion, and then disappointed Republicans intellectually reason that they should vote for him because he is better than the liberal alternative, the better course would be to use intellect in the primaries and select a candidate that can win the general election by swaying the emotions of the general populace. While Democratic primaries tend to select candidates based on intellect (emphasizing who can win the White House), the general election emphasizes emotions.

This is a headache for a Republican party deeply divided between the following factions:

Tea Parties: “We’re broke, and going more broke. Fix the finances. America is in decline because our financial house is a mess—and getting rapidly worse. Freedom means small, limited government that lives within its means and unleashes the power of free enterprise.”

Fiscal Conservatives: “If we don’t get our fiscal house in order, we will continue to decline. But drop the angry tone. Let’s just fix the finances. Freedom demands wisdom.”

Social Conservatives: “It’s all about morals. If we don’t turn our hearts to God, we don’t deserve our freedoms or prosperity. We are in decline because our values are under attack. Freedom means moral strength.”

Compassionate Conservatives: “Government should be limited, fiscally strong, and attentive to real social needs. America is in decline because it is widely divided by classes and racial conflicts, and the solution is for government to wisely reform, cut spending, raise taxes where needed, and emphasize public-private cooperation to increase social justice. Freedom flourishes when government and the private sector work together.”

Neo-Conservatives: “Free markets are flourishing in the world, and the future of freedom has never been brighter. American isn’t in decline, we just need a solid conservative in the White House. Freedom means taking responsibility in the world.”

Ron Paul-Style Revolutionaries: “We’re way past reforming things. We need an outright revolution, and we need a great man or woman to lead it. Progress and decline are simply a matter of who leads us, and it’s time to get a great leader. Fix the finances, stop being the world’s policeman, and make America free and great again. Freedom is cool.”

There are also a number of Special-Interest Republicans who focus on one central theme (such as immigration, gun control, etc.) in their voting.

In the end, all of these groups will most likely support the Republican candidate, but during the primaries each will put forth its favorites.

This is the perhaps the biggest irony in American presidential politics: While Republican primary voters are generally very emotional, the Right usually turns intellectual during general elections.

The problem seems to be that the various factions of conservatives have a hard time getting passionate about supporting other kinds of Republicans.

They see the need to unite behind one candidate, but their support is mostly intellectual—not raw, gut emotion.

Democrats don’t seem to deal with the same challenge.

They are emotional (as well as intellectual) during the primaries, but they generally transfer their emotional support to the chosen candidate—regardless of who they supported in the primaries.

Intellect will be required for a candidate from either party to make it to the 2016 general election.[iv]

Once the two top candidates are selected, their biggest challenge will most likely be convincing Latino and independent voters that they care about their interests and needs.

No candidate is likely sway either group without a genuinely strong emotional appeal.

The GOP’s biggest benefit in 2016 might be President Obama.

If his administration continues its drive to the left—continued spending, taxing, borrowing, inflating the dollar, and regulating—most conservatives will be deeply emotional about politics after four more years.

If their frustration reaches a boiling point, we may witness a waking giant.

***********************************

Oliver DeMille is the chairman of the Center for Social Leadership and co-creator of Thomas Jefferson Education.

He is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, and The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom.

Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.

Category : Blog &Government &Independents &Leadership &Politics

The Republican Presidential Candidate of 2016

February 13th, 2013 // 3:02 pm @ Oliver DeMille

Conservatives keep saying two things in the aftermath of losing the 2012 presidential election to Barack Obama.

First, they talk a lot about the 2016 election, but there is no real front runner to be the Republican candidate.

In fact, the few people who are mentioned as possible nominees aren’t drumming up much excitement.

But the second idea that keeps floating around in conservative circles is a much worse problem for the Right.

This argument goes something like this: “Well, of course we lost the election. After all, the majority of people in America want the government to take care of them. They voted for Obama because he promised more government programs, and as long as the electorate acts this way conservatism isn’t going to win much in the years ahead.”

This narrative goes along with the widely-publicized comments by Mitt Romney about 47% of the people wanting a government handout.

Whether or not this got reported accurately—and in this media environment almost nothing does—the reality is that far too many on the Right see things this way.

This is the general mood among many conservatives right now: “The people want socialism, so America’s future is dim, and only some great, overwhelming event or leader will ever get things back on track.”

On the one hand, if this sense of overwhelm gets the House of Representatives to finally take a stand and just shut down the non-essential parts of the federal government, then it is all well worth it.

Until the House gets serious about stopping the White House and Senate from continuing its reign of debt, deficits, credit downgrades, more regulations and increased spending/borrowing, the decline of America will continue.

And by shutting down the non-essential government, the House will operate from a position of power.

But there is a bigger problem with the current sense of Republican malaise.

To put it bluntly, it is downright wrong.

Republicans don’t keep losing the presidential election because a majority of Americans want government programs.

This is an issue, but it isn’t the issue.

No, the Right doesn’t win the White House as often as the Left because it persists in believing that the electorate votes in presidents based mainly on the issues.

This is inaccurate.

In the television era, the majority votes for the coolest candidate, pure and simple.

Does anyone really think that Eisenhower, Nixon or Ford could have won the White House in our current media environment?

Well, maybe Eisenhower’s status of war hero would have been enough, and for the record, Ford never actually won at the top of the ticket.

But Carter never had a chance against Ronald Reagan.

In short, the coolest candidates win in our modern American political milieu.

And Republicans aren’t prone to lifting a candidate through the primaries and putting in a nominee based on electability–which now includes charismatic television effectiveness, or put simply, coolness—rather than the issues.

Democrats believe in the emotional appeal of candidacy, and they often put up the most appealing nominee.

For many, if not most, Republicans, this feels like a cop out, a sellout of what matters most (ideas) to what is most likely to win (emotional appeal).

This isn’t because Democrats are shallow, despite what some on the Right may say.

It is just that Democrats generally think it is possible to get a candidate that is both strong on the issues and also cool.

Republicans would like to do the same, where possible, but they ultimately tend to go with candidates on the issues.

Just the issues.

If the candidate is also cool—like Reagan or Arnold Schwarzenegger—so  much the better, but for most Republican primary voters the issues are the issues are the issues.

Election after election, the cool candidate wins.

Voters chose Reagan over Carter and later above Mondale, and they picked Bush over Dukakis.

Reagan was cool, and Bush benefited from just how cool Reagan was.

But if Clinton had been running in 1988, the first Bush would have lost.

Clinton was definitely cool, as both Bush and Dole found out.

Here is how the modern-era elections have turned out:

Cool Candidate          Result              Impact
Reagan                           Won                    2 Terms
Clinton                              Won                    2 Terms
Bush II                              Won                    2 Terms
Obama                              Won                    2 Terms

Lacking Cool                Result               Impact
Mondale                              Lost
Dukakis                               Lost
Bush I                                  Won                   1 Term
Dole                                      Lost
Gore                                     Lost
Kerry                                    Lost
McCain                                Lost
Romney                               Lost

In 2013, it might seem like Bush II doesn’t belong on the cool list. But just remember how intensely people supported him in 2000.

He was the frontrunner from the get-go, talked about for four years after 1996 as the next president (at least in Republican circles), the larger-than-life governor of Texas, the son of George and Barbara Bush, the next member of the dynasty.

And Al Gore was, well, he belonged on the list of candidates like Mondale, Dukakis and Dole.

Say whatever you want about any of these candidates and their political strengths or weaknesses, but a majority of voters thought they were boring.

On the same note, if Howard Dean had won the nomination he most likely would have won the election over Bush II—just apply the cool test.

Gingrich was the coolest leading Republican candidate in 2012, but he wasn’t as cool as Obama.

There is no way to verify this kind of historical “what if,” but today the Right is doing something just as ridiculous.

They are in denial, frustrated with the American voters, refusing to take responsibility for the fact that they need a real candidate.

Democrats already have their heir apparent, Hillary Clinton, and whether or not she eventually runs, the party is already laying the groundwork to win in 2016—their candidate will benefit from this, whoever it is.

Republicans have no such plan.

Their best hope right now is that Joe Biden is the next Democratic candidate (Biden has a lot of strengths, but in the modern television sense he isn’t cool, not like Reagan, Clinton, Bush II and Obama were cool.)

Republicans might luck out, for example if Rand Paul turns out to have the cool factor his father does combined with the party credentials primary voters look for, or if Marco Rubio can be more like Chris Christie or Christie can be more like Marco Rubio.

But right now, the 2016 Republican candidate for president is entirely unclear—which gives the clear advantage to Clinton II.

For Democrats, not having a real frontrunner yet wouldn’t be a problem.

Both Clinton and Obama came almost out of nowhere, for example.

But Republicans want someone who is known.

Even Reagan had to run twice before he won the presidency.

So, while it is possible that some new, exciting, cool conservative will arise in the next four years, it is highly unlikely.

The cast is probably set.

Republicans just have to decide who will win the lead role.

If they choose another candidate on the issues without giving much regard to coolness, they’ll lose again.

And again—until they figure out that the voters want a cool president.

For conservatives who consider this a frustrating, high-school approach to electing a president, you are probably right.

But until the Right puts up a presidential candidate that is both strong on the issues and cool, Republicans will keep losing.

***********************************

Oliver DeMille is the chairman of the Center for Social Leadership and co-creator of Thomas Jefferson Education.

He is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, and The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom.

Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.

Category : Blog &Culture &Current Events &Featured &Government &Politics

Two Types of Republicans and Rising Socialism in America

January 29th, 2013 // 7:33 pm @ Oliver DeMille

The future of America depends on the House of Representatives.

If it goes along with the Obama Administration’s plans, we’ll see major changes in the next four years, and the move toward socialistic policies will be as momentous as the swing to the right under Ronald Reagan.

The White House and Senate are committed to this course, and only the House stands in the way of a serious socializing of America.

There are two types of Republicans in the House, and as long as they are split the White House will probably keep winning.

On the one hand, the Legislative Republicans believe in government.

They are conservative in the sense that they want the government to make good policy and live within its means, but they believe in government and in passing laws to effect change.

More to the point, the Legislative Republicans are against many of the Administration’s policies, and they believe in stopping the White House agenda by getting involved in the legislation and amending it to make it more conservative.

On the face, this may seem like a good viewpoint.

But these representatives have little support for their amendments. Democrats typically vote against such amendments, and so do the other Republicans.

Because of this, such a strategy routinely fails.

The Legislative Republicans don’t get their amendments passed, so they simply end up splitting the vote and allowing the White House to win.

The second type, the Limited Government Republicans, don’t believe in more legislation.

They want smaller government, major spending cuts and wise fiscal choices concerning entitlements.

They want tax reductions and a balanced budget, because they believe good fiscal policy leads to immediate and lasting improvements in the economy.

The White House wins whenever it splits the votes of these two branches of the GOP.

Legislative Republicans argue that the problem comes from the Small Government Republicans who don’t support  amendments to White House proposals, amendments that would make the laws less hurtful to the economy.

These two camps show little likelihood of working together, and as a result the White House agenda keeps passing.

So who are the bad guys?

Those who try to work with the president but slow down his plans, or those who want to stop his agenda in its tracks?

In truth, the Legislative Republicans are living in a fantasy world.

Even if they were to gain the support of all Republicans in the House, they would amend various policies and pass them, only to see the White House bring more and more proposals that would undo the slowing effects of their amendments.

Those in the House who are standing strongly against big government policies are the hope of America.

We need the Legislative Republicans to join them.

It takes three presidential terms to really turn America around.

In third terms, two things happen: 1) policies really take hold, and 2) more Supreme Court appointments come.

For example, Reagan effectively got a third term by putting George Bush into office and continuing many of his main policies.

Clinton wasn’t able to do this because Al Gore lost in the 2000 election.

In the case of Barack Obama, there is a strong sense in the Administration that enough changes need to be made that real change occurs even if a third Democratic term doesn’t come.

President Obama is very popular personally, not so much for his policies but because of his person.

Republicans keep winning in Congress, for example. So the president may not have a third term Democratic follow-up after 2016.

As long as the Republicans are split, the White House can keep pushing its agenda and promote two term’s worth of policies during the next four years.

This seems to be their strategy.

The future of freedom right now depends on the House of Representatives, and it is time for the Legislative Republicans in the House to step back, realize what’s at stake, rethink their stance, and take a more direct stand for freedom.

Category : Blog &Current Events &Economics &Featured &Government &Leadership &Liberty &Politics