School administrations: Outmoded!?

Have you noticed that money we pay in taxes to public schools seems to not go anywhere near the teachers or the students?  It makes me question what we are paying taxes for in the first place.  We got these Superintendents in some places making in excess of $300,000 dollars a year.  I mean come on.  If you see the documentaries "Waiting for Superman" and "The Cartel" you can see why I am questioning the very existence of school administrations in the internet age.  So what would a modern school using internet technology for governance look like?

Ok, here is the hypothetical 21st school governance model.  Schools will be run by their principals and vice principals.  They are supported by secretaries who handle accounting, budgeting, human resources, and procurement.  Accounting, budgeting and procurement secretaries will work together to insure that all school supplies are stocked and maintained with money being given to teachers if necessary so that they can secure the supplies they need for their classrooms.  Human resources will handle monitoring of sick days, logging clock ins/outs, and provide for the hiring of all school personnel including teachers, and payment of janitors for jobs students cannot handle (students will clean their own classrooms so that they have a vested interest in a clean learning environment).  Students will even serve each other lunch in shifts so as to not interfere with classes with them cooking for fellow students (for children of younger ages or those who need monitoring lunch personnel will be hired by the school and paid by them just like with janitors).  Teachers will act as career/guidance counselors to students and be the primary source of discipline over students, with principals/vice principals taking over if the child is beyond the teacher's ability.  The school basically runs itself with these key members in each school (some positions being combined if it makes more economic sense and does not interfere with children's education).  

However, you may be asking, "what about our tax dollars?"  "Where and how is that monitored?"  Simple, County level government officials will collect taxes on behalf of the schools and give them the money, but the county government will have complete oversight over how that money is spent, and all school spending will be public knowledge in addition to all school personnel's salaries.  Additionally, the county government will also perform the background checks on school personnel and has the ability to veto the hiring or firing of any school official.  Not to mention, the teachers’ salaries, and the school principals vice principals and secretaries salaries will be handled by the county government, not the school itself.  The schools themselves will be able to hire out contractors to fix school buildings and equipment that is beyond that of janitors or students themselves, but the county has the right to interfere if they suspect that the school is not getting a fair deal.  Also, any leftover tax dollars that the school does not spend in a given year can go into extracurricular activities for students, additional special classes like shop class, or photography, or even special field trips.

Now, school education standards and classes will be created on a case by case basis.  The schools personnel, its principal/vice principal and secretaries, the country government and the State government will develop these standards.  At no time will teachers ever be told how to teach, but instead on what to teach. As such, what classes provided to students will be dictated by the State government, county governments will be responsible for funding these classes and adding additional subjects/classes they feel students will need to know and the equipment needed to teach them. The schools and their personnel will decide how those classes are to be taught, as the teachers who will teach the subject will be the ones developing the curriculum themselves (this includes tests and quizzes).

Conclusion:  The idea is to give the schools the autonomy they need to succeed on their own.  They only really need the teachers, the secretaries overseeing specific aspects of the school, and the principal and vice principal guiding them and ensuring everything runs smoothly.  Basically, the administration is integrated into the schools themselves by allowing them to essentially run themselves, but with appropriate over watch from county level governments.  I don't know if I am forgetting anything, but if I am, those roles can easily be taken on by the schools themselves, the county government, or even the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) if the school needs/wants to do fund raisers or provide for special events.  Schools can even gain additional revenue from showing movies in their auditoriums and other special events like school plays with students taking on roles like ticket taker and other jobs so that they can get a taste of working experience.  I am sick of these school superintendents and the school boards being nothing but paper tigers and wastes of space and money.  It is time for a change, and the aforementioned is one possibility.

Selling Debt

Did you know that banks and other institutions actually sell peoples debt?  Some of you are thinking, what the heck is this guy talking about.  Well apparently banks group bad loans together with some good ones and then sell them off to other business or people to collect the money instead.  In short, banks do not want to deal with people they know will probably never pay back their loan and then sell the debt to someone else to recoup some of their losses.  

The people who buy the debt do not buy it at its full amount, as some people can buy someone’s debt for as little as $50.  I guess the debt that banks sell are ones they made most of their money back on and the sale of that debt makes up for the remaining loss.  However, the person who owes money still owes the full amount they have to pay, but this time to the new owner of their debt.  So you get a loan from Bank of America, then they sell it to Citibank.  You now owe the full amount of what you were loaned to Citibank and not bank of America.  An issue arises where you could be still sending checks to your debts original owner, which they will gladly take, but it will still not pay down your loan as you now legally owe it to someone else.  As such people have inadvertently become delinquent on debt payments ruining their credit scores and preventing them from taking out new loans or lines of credit (I think the term Zombie loan is used to describe this situation).  The icing on the cake is that many States do not require a license for people to buy a person’s debt and thus becoming the equivalent of a loan shark.  

What can be done?  John Oliver of "Last Week Tonight" actually bought a bunch of people’s debt and forgave it.  As such, you could even potentially buy a person’s debt and then say they no longer owe anything anymore.  Another is a business that negotiates with the current debts owner and the debtor.  In this case the business agrees to buy the debt from the current owner.  From there the business now owns the debt, but rather than collecting, they charge a fee to the debtor equal to what they paid to buy the debtors debt plus an additional amount of money so that they can make a profit.

Other problems with this system are that people are not always properly notified of the transfer of ownership of their debt.  As such, the people who buy the debt typically notify their new debtors, but the original owner sometimes doesn't do so.  Therefor people discard the notification as spam mail or fraud.  You can figure out what problems occur from there.  But this can be solved if the original owner of the debt (the seller) notifies the debtor of their debts new owner.  This could help to alleviate some of the confusion people have when paying back their loans.

Final Thought:  So we got a business model and a charity model to forgive peoples debt.  We can help people in debt in a way that many probably did not think possible before.  It is amazing how selling debt, something that helped contribute to the financial crisis that ushered in President Obama can now be used to help end debt crisis for millions of individuals and businesses suffering from punishing debt.

Brexit repercussions.

Now to the impact of Britons exit from the EU.  Obviously if you watched the news then you saw that the stock market tanked.  So our 401k's, stocks and anything that relies on the stock market lost a lot of money.  So oops, British citizens just screwed a lot of people.  

With the British pound no longer supporting the Euro, Americas money just gained value.  In short, Americas Dollar can buy nearly any foreign goods on the cheap.  However, this makes American produced goods more expensive as they now will need more American money to produce.  As you can see the value of money is not fixed and can causes prices to fluctuate massively and alter the dynamics of international trade.  Something a single vote just made happen.  

Another major impact is that President Obama has stated in his reactionary speech that he will put preference on trading with the rest of the EU and its larger economic block and its trade rules rather than trade with Britain.  Economically it makes sense as the EU and its trade rules give America and other countries access to trade with 26 nations rather than Britain which is a smaller market.  

Additionally, Scotland and Northern Ireland are going to be holding their own referendums to become independent from the rest of Britain.  With more than 60% of Scotland voting to stay in the European Union it seems likely that Scotland will leave Britain behind and then rejoin the EU as an independent country.  Northern Ireland on the other hand may reunite with the rest of Ireland and thus be part of the EU once again as well or join as an independent State as well.  This leaves England and Whales as the only remaining members of Britain save a few foreign territories.  

And finally, David Cameron, the Prime Minister of Great Britain has resigned.  He pinned his leadership on the outcome of this election and he lost.  Now Great Britain, or what soon will remain of it, will get a new leader and thus world relationships will change as the men and women set to potentially take power in Britain are much more conservative and nationalistic.  It would not be surprising if Britain turns toward Russia, another country embracing its nationalism, as it seems the rest of the world is marginalizing Britain in the wake of this vote (my opinion).

Final Thought:  This is going to be interesting.  If Britain can eject themselves from the EU, then so can others.  But, at the same time it means there is a power vacuum in Europe and other nations may try to seize some power.  Also, other countries in Europe have issues with national identity which may cause countries like Belgium and Spain to break up into smaller countries as they embrace regional nationalism.  Some analysts believe that this nationalistic fervor is a reaction to Islamic nationalism.  But I disagree.  I think it is deeply rooted in age old identities that have been smoldering for years.  As to whether this leads to the EU's collapse or not cannot be determined, or it could instead lead to it solidifying instead and making it that much stronger.

Brexit!!!

So the British have left the European Union.  Their nationalism has taken hold and said no more to open boarders that leave them vulnerable to terrorist incursions.  No more to subjecting themselves to other European nation’s political agendas.  And most importantly they embraced their pride as British citizens.

Note this vote was close.  Super close.  So much so in fact that the losing side wants to hold an additional referendum because they feel that the 50% plus one majority is not enough to make this decision.  However, the vote was fair and square and the losing side is just being a spoiled sport.  

I personally think this vote needed to happen.  Britain was always independent from the EU because they kept the British pound as opposed to switching to the Euro.  They supported the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq during the Bush Administration whereas the rest of Europe either sat back, gave token consent or denounced America.  Britain is still a world player and it is flexing its conservative roots.  Basically, they never needed the EU, but as to whether the EU needs them remains to be seen.

Final Thought:  The EU has been expanding and changing itself since after WWII.  It started as a means to prevent future wars in Europe and then expanded into a faceless bureaucratic monstrosity that barely has any semblance to democratic ideals.  British citizens didn't want that and thus they are out (my analysis).  See you tomorrow for my analysis on the Britain's exit.

Eliminating the Payroll tax!

The payroll tax is a tax all Americans in the U.S. pay.  This particular tax is a name for the two taxes that are used to pay for Social Security and Medicare part A.  So how could they get rid of this tax like so many Presidential Candidates in the current 2016 election have promised?  

Basically, candidates like Ted Cruz, Trump and former candidate Rubio would integrate it into the regular tax scheme.  Basically, you would be taxed at the current tax rate with no payroll tax being taken out.  This allows you to keep more money in your paycheck and apparently could mean the elimination of tax returns as the payroll tax is taken out first and causes issues math wise with the IRS.  But what about actually contributing to Social Security and Medicare part A?  Well, the IRS would take a percentage of what you pay to the government in taxes and pass it on to Social Security and Medicare part A.   This is much easier to do as you are still contributing by you paying taxes with just the exception that the IRS takes the money out of the total amount you pay in taxes rather it being two separate (three technically) taxes.

However, if the Candidates really wanted to do the right thing, they would eliminate the income tax with the payroll tax and switch to a national sales tax.  We would get to keep all our money, but we get taxed when we buy stuff.  The more you pay for something the higher amount of taxes you pay per year.  Under this system, just like the income tax system, a portion of what you pay in taxes will go toward Social Security and Medicare part A.  The only difference is that you don't have to file for income taxes any more, and illegals, criminals, foreign visitors and others all contribute to Social Security and Medicare thus adding more money to the system.  

Conclusion:  Obviously I want the income tax gone, but I'll settle for just the payroll tax going away for now.  Reason being is that Social Security and Medicare will still get funded, and it saves time and effort with respect to filing taxes.  Eliminating taxes is a good thing as it frees people up monetarily so they can buy the things they need (or want).  Still, I think a sales tax makes more sense, but this is just my take on the issue and why I'll be voting Republican in the United States 2016 Presidential election. 

Monuments to evil: What do we do about them

I was reading the Economist and there was an article about old Confederate monuments and monuments to Southern heroes who are by all respects and purposes racists.  With the Confederate flag controversy and its removal from government land, should such monuments be removed as well?

The answer is not clear cut.  Some can be removed and some should never be removed.  The Economist writer believed that such monuments should have a plaque added that performs an educational function to inform people of our country's past and to serve as a reminder to future generations that we should not commit such atrocities and evil ever again.  Basically these monuments to segregation, slavery and massacres are artifacts and thus can become a learning tool.  

Another idea was to place monuments that countered the original message of the current monuments next to them or replace them altogether as a memoriam to the victims and people's defiance to racism and evil.  This is also a nice idea that people can get behind, but I don't like the idea of just replacing the "evil" monument with a new one.  Instead I would like a museum to be made to house these removed monuments when applicable or mock ups of the originals along with other artifacts of our country's racist past to serve as a reminder of what evil looks like so we can say never again.  These museums can be called "Facing History Museums" where we look at massacres, slavery, segregation and discrimination of all peoples in the United States.  As such, a section on Native Americans, Black Slavery, and Internment of the Japanese in WWII among others, and the 1960s discrimination and our nation overcoming these evils one by one will be included.   We can use these museums and monuments to say we have made mistakes and we want to embrace them so we never make them again rather than try to hide them.  

Conclusion:  I like the ideas of the plaques and of the alternate monuments that were suggested by the article.  However, under no circumstance should a monument be destroyed if it is possible to move it instead.  A museum with these removed monuments to Indian massacres, racism against Asians and more should be created or one per State in the major cities so that people can access the information there.  Even small halls in America's Natural History Museums could work and have artifacts dedicated to educating the public on the darkest parts of our history.  We have to say never again, and we can do this through education.

Drug costs

I seem to always come back to this issue.  Heck I work in a pharmacy and some of the prices for prescription drugs are outrageous.  But I will continue to revisit the issue as drug prices do not need to be this high.

Drugs cost a lot due to a number of things.  You have the obvious shipping and handling costs, liability insurance if something goes wrong, and of course profit motivation so that the companies that make these drugs can stay in business.  Then there is federal regulations which does testing, dictates how drugs are shipped and handled, and basically controls every aspect of production to sale to the person with a prescription.  Actually, the federal regulations in my opinion increase the cost the most because you have things like generic Flonase (the allergy nasal spray) costing $200 for the original prescription version, but the OTC version (which is exactly the same drug) costs $26.  That is a major contrast.  It went down to just $26 just by the regulations by the federal government being eased up because the drug is no longer a prescription item.  So if the drug Flonase is just as safe as an OTC with its regulations as it is as a prescription drug and its more numerous regulations, does that mean that we can reduce, or even taper down federal regulations from year to year that do not add to the maintenance of the quality and safety of a drug.  That alone would reduce drug costs.  Another method that deals with the regulation problem and saves money is by accepting drugs from other countries with equivalent or superior safety regulations.  This would save money for drug companies to get their drugs to the market faster if the drug is approved in Britain or Sweden first as the United States (last I heard in 2007) has the most numerous regulations in the world which adds onto the cost of everything.  Or we can just make a bunch of drugs OTC's and save a lot of time and hassle.

With regulations reduced or adjusted to meet real world safety standards for new drugs, and potentially adjusted for drugs on the market for a specified number of years, costs will go down dramatically.  But this is not enough.  Patent laws are one of the biggest issues we face with respect to drug costs.  Most U.S. drug patent laws give drug companies a 10 year window of ownership of a certain drug formula with the potential for renewal.  However, almost seven years of that 10 is all research and development for that drug of which over 70% of those potential drugs never making it to market.  So when a drug finally goes on the market after 7 years of development the drug company has to make up the costs for all the money invested into the drugs cost and all the failed drugs too.  As such, by removing this 10 year monopoly on a drug formula we actually slow development, but at the same time free up time constraints on the drug company.  This means the drug will go to market at the same time as the patent kicks in, meaning the drug company will now have ten years to make up the enormous costs rather than three, thereby distributing the cost over time. 

Another way to make drugs cheaper is to eliminate labor costs or even the production of drugs at the drug company’s factories all together.  This can be done by 3D printer technology.  Already approved in the United States for certain drugs, 3D printers eliminate 90% of the labor costs at the drug factories themselves.  To eliminate manufacture of drugs at the factories, the drug company can license pharmacies equipped with 3D printers to make the drugs there in house.  Thus the cost of materials, and labor shift to the pharmacies which means drug companies do not have to worry about labor or shipping costs which reduces the costs to produce the drugs as a whole and potentially reallocating the saved money for research and development costs.

Final Thought:  Some of the regulations on drugs also apply to medical devices and products.  Therefore, eliminating costs or reducing the things that artificially increase costs aid in making medicine cheaper for all.