A Health Care Prescription

We would all like to see our health care costs decline. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, employer funded health plans have more than doubled in cost since 2000. Keith Hennessey does a good job of explaining how technology is driving the increase in health care costs in Part 3 of a series of posts on Third Party Payments for health care. Please feel free to read Part 1 and Part 2 as well. I recently heard another analogy to explain rising health care costs. Thirty years ago, if you tweaked your knee, you were given a cane. Cost? Maybe $10? Today there are many other options, from physical therapy to arthroscopic surgery to knee replacement. Cost? While not priceless, I would venture to guess that the cost is a bit more than the cane. And let's be honest about this, as I am sure that nearly anyone that has had a knee replacement will tell you, it is well worth the price.

Let me start by stating that I am inclined to support the Republican proposals for health care reform than I am the Democrats. We should give individuals the same tax breaks for purchasing health insurance as we currently give businesses,. If individuals owned their own policies, concerns about pre-existing conditions would become a thing or the past. We should remove any restrictions on purchasing insurance across state lines. States should no more determine what is covered by an insurance policy than should the federal government. and then there is tort reform We have forgotten that doctors are human. They make mistakes. There is a difference, however, between a mistake and negligence, and we, as a society, have forgotten this.

I have long been a big fan of purchasing insurance for catastrophic medical care, and paying for normal medical costs as they come. When you purchase homeowners insurance, does it cover painting? And if it did, don't you think that we would all repaint our homes much more often, increasing demand for house painters, and thus driving up the price? Homeowners insurance, like just about every other type of insurance policy sold, is a catastrophic policy. Health insurance is about the only insurance policy that we expect to cover day-to-day maintenance, similar to a warranty on the purchase of an automobile.

So, if this is indeed a better model for health insurance, how is it that we could properly incentivize it so that more people would choose this option?

One idea that I have had recently, is to give people a tax credit for a percentage of their out-of-pocket, non-premium/co-payment, medical expenses. What would happen if we said that people could get, say, 25% of their out-of-pocket medical expenses returned to them at tax time? One thing that they would be likely to realize is how small a portion of a normal office visit their insurance company pays. From experience, there was a time (not too long ago) when I was uninsured. When I needed to see the doctor, it cost $50 for the visit. Now that I am covered, I have to pay a $35 co-pay. (If you do the math, that isn't too far from my hypothetical 25%.)

The key to making something like this work, of course, is having some sort of health savings account. People need to make sure that they have the money put aside to pay for their day to day medical expenses themselves. The common, day-to-day medical expenses of most people are not overwhelming. What starts to get expensive are extended stays in the hospital, chronic care, and some of the newer drugs. When you go to the doctor and need an antibiotic, that doesn't cost much - I've paid for it myself, as mentioned previously, and it was $50 for the office visit, and another $20 to fill my prescription. It is important to remember that, if we were only too need the same sort of medical treatment that was available 25 years ago, it would cost about the same as it did 25 years ago, or maybe even a little less. If there was a simple solution, such as my suggestion of a tax-credit for a portion of your out-of-pocket medical expenses, that would move more people into this kind of model, I think this would be a move in the right direction.

I welcome any and all comments.

Truth or Consequences

December 18^th saw the publication of two articles, Climate E-mails Don't Alter the Evidence, by Michael Mann in the Washington Post, and How to Manufacture Climate Consensus, by Patrick Michaels in the Wall Street Journal. Both of these articles discuss the implications of the hacked/stolen emails from the East Anglia Climate Research Unit commonly referred to as Climategate.

Mr. Mann contends that, although he doesn't condone many of the actions described in the emails, the emails themselves do not change the evidence of anthropogenic global warming. He further argues that the emails themselves are being "mined" and that excerpts are being taken out of context, and distorted.

Mr. Michaels, on the other hand, makes a case that a more serious problem is evidenced in the East Anglia emails, that of the suppression of contrary viewpoints. It should be pointed out that Michaels, himself, is not a skeptic of anthropogenic global warming, but that he has written articles that question it's magnitude. For this, he says, he has found it increasingly difficult to be published in peer-reviewed journals.

The International Panel on Climate Change, as well as the United States Environmental Protection Agency, has used a compendium of peer-reviewed articles as a basis for its findings on global warming. If this data is compromised, the entire basis of their decisions is undermined.

The basis of Science is the search for Truth, no matter how uncomfortable it makes us feel, or how it may undermine some of our core beliefs. The reason that scientific discovery has advanced at such a rapid pace over the past several centuries is that it has been based on the free interchange of ideas, which are continually submitted to rigorous examination and scrutiny. Any undermining of this free interchange of ideas, is no different than the Church censoring Galileo for having the temerity to suggest that the Earth travels around the Sun, rather than vice-versa.

An Open Question for Keith Olbermann

I remember the good old days, back when Keith Olbermann was just a local sportscaster. Back then, we didn't have to endure his nearly constant stream of ad-hominem attacks on those that he differs with. At the end of a twelve minute diatribe on December 17th, 2009, in which he attacked everyone from Max Baucus to Barack Obama, Olbermann let something slip. Watch this clip, and see if you catch it.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Did you catch it? Keith Olbermann is self-insured. By choice. Now I ask you, if health insurance is so important, if the future of this country is tied to reform of the entire Health Care Industry, and especially the insurance industry, why doesn't Keith Olbermann, who seems relatively well educated, own it? More importantly, if Mr. Olbermann doesn't own it for himself, why does he think that it is so important that it should be forced on everybody else?

The answer, of course, is that, barring catastrophe, it is cheaper for Olbermann to contract for his own medical care than it is to do so through an insurance policy. I have said this for some time. An insurance company has considerable overhead in addition to paying your medical bills. They have to pay all of their employees, as well as attorneys and investigators. They have infrastructure that has to be bought and maintained. There are court costs. Oh yeah, it would be nice to turn a profit as well. All this is on top of paying medical expenses.

So, Mr. Olbermann, it would seem that you are among the ranks of that blight upon society, the uninsured. But if it is so important not only that everyone has access to health care, but health insurance, why, Mr. Olbermann, do you not own it?

A Modest Trillion Dollar House

What we're buying here... is not a mansion. We're buying a modest home. But it's got a great foundation. The key to this is that this modest home, we can put additions onto it in the future. But if we don't have the starter home, we're never going to be able to put those additions on. The time is now. I plead with all of my progressive friends, now is the time to get over this hurdle.

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-IA

There really isn't much else to say here. If you are concerned about the costs associated with the Health Care Bills in either the House or the Senate, but are leaning in favor of them because they are better than nothing, do not delude yourself. This is just a starter home. This $1 trillion is merely a down payment. The real cost has not been revealed... yet.

Fuzzy Logic

Anybody who says that they are concerned about deficit, concerned about debt, concerned about loading up taxes on future generations, you have to be supportive of this health care bill because if we don't do this, nobody argues with the fact that health care costs are going to consume the entire federal budget.

President Barak Obama

I have a question, Mr. President. How is it that, in order to keep health care costs from "consum[ing] the entire federal budget," we have to increase federal health care obligations by approximately $1 trillion over the next 10 years? Only in Washington is it possible to say that I am going broke because I am not spending enough money.

Obama Knows Best

"Those Were the Days"
by Lee Adams and Charles Strouse

Boy the way Glenn Miller played. Songs that made the hit parade.
Guys like us we had it made. Those were the days.
Didn't need no welfare state. Everybody pulled his weight.
Gee our old La Salle ran great. Those were the days.
And you know who you were then, girls were girls and men were men.
Mister we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again.
People seemed to be content. Fifty dollars paid the rent.
Freaks were in a circus tent. Those were the days.
Take a little Sunday spin, go to watch the Dodgers win.
Have yourself a dandy day that cost you under a fin.
Hair was short and skirts were long. Kate Smith really sold a song.
I don't know just what went wrong. Those were the days.

"Those Were the Days" is the quintessential theme song of conservatives, or at least the charicature of conservatives. Conservatives have long been depicted as yearning for a simpler age of years long past - a time when "girls were girls and men were men." If one were to put a decade to that simpler time, it would probably be the 1950's. It is ironic, then, that the first year of the Obama administration can be summed up with a reference to an iconic television series from the 1950's, "Father Knows Best." Or, in this case, Obama knows best.

Health care is a good example of this. We are being asked to forget the fact that health insurance companies are in the business of providing health care to people, and they are pretty good at it. In order to be successful, a health insurance company has to provide a service (health care) that people want and are willing to pay for, and they have to turn a profit for their shareholders. Charge too much for the service, and people will take their business elsewhere, causing profits to dry up. Charge too little, and you won't cover costs, and again, no profits. Insurance companies have armies of bean counters, armed with actuarial tables, whose sole purpose is to identify what the proper cost of health insurance should be. Enter the Obama Administration, because they know best. They know that the health care industry is broken, and that if only we had a little competition, competition with the full faith and credit of the United States of America behind it, competition that didn't care if it turned a profit or not, then we could get even better health care and pay less for it. Heck, just take a look at Medicare, they can cut 500,000,000 from Medicare right off the bat, so you can only imagine what they could do with the rest of the industry. Trust us. Obama knows best.

Then there is the matter of how we should handle suspected terrorists captured on the battlefield. What have we learned in the past 10 months? Enhanced interrogation, such as waterboarding, is torture, and, contrary to the findings of CIA, does not provide reliable intelligence. Guantanamo Bay's internment facility is a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. And terrorists such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed should be tried in civilian courts, in New York City of all places, rather than military tribunals. We are told, by Attorney General Holder, that this gives us the best chance of a conviction, which is interesting in light of reports from former US Attorney Andrew McCarthy that KSM was ready to confess, plead guilty, and accept execution. Yet again, Obama knows best.

Perhaps the best example, however, is Afghanistan. Afghanistan, remember, is the good war. The war we should have been fighting the entire time, rather than this diversion in Iraq. So, what happens when General McChrystal, whom President Obama appointed to the post, requests a minimum of 40,000 additional troops? We don't know yet, because no decision has been made. Forget the fact that General Patreaus, now in charge of Central Command, as well as the Chairman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff have backed McChrystal up. President Obama needs more time to evaluate the request. Recently, it was floated that the President would be sending additional troops to Afghanistan, in numbers close to, but not quite at, the minimum levels requested. If this were true, where did these "appropriate" troop increases come from? With whom would the President be consulting, and if they are better able to assess the needs on the ground than Generals McChrystal and Patreaus, why aren't they the ones in command? But no... what am I saying??? Obama knows best.

Remembering the Thrill

In the past 15-20 years, Michael Jackson had become a caricature of himself. Whenever his name was mentioned on the evening news, you were waiting for the other shoe to drop. It seemed as if there was an endless supply of those other shoes (or should I say, in his case, other gloves?).

On June 25, 2009, all that changed. On June 25, we forgot, or at least pushed aside, all the other stuff that seemed to swirl around him like a whirlwind. We remember only the brilliance of his artistry.

In the pantheon of the "gods of rock" there are three artists/groups that rise above all others. Elvis Presley. The Beatles. Michael Jackson. Can any of us "mere mortals" proclaim that any one of the three was any greater than the rest?

Of course, as friends have pointed out... Michael owned the Beatles Catalog. And he married Elvis' daughter.

From Mohammed to the Streets of Iran

You can tell a lot about people by what they get angry about.

When a Danish newspaper published cartoons of Mohammad, the "Muslim Street" was unleashed on the world. There were demonstrations throughout the Arab world. There were death threats made.

In the past week, there was an election in Iran. The results were announced before there was time for the paper ballots to be counted. Iranians took to the streets, to the rooftops, to show their discontent, and were brutally beaten down by the regime. The "Muslim Street" is largely silent.

This is not, in any way, intended to be a criticism of Islam itself. There are a great many people who practice Islam in a way that both elevates themselves and the religion. That being said, when people are more upset about cartoons than the butchery of innocent people, well, that says something about something, doesn't it?

Premium Insurance

I have really been impressed with Keith Hennessey's blog. I just finished reading his three-part series on Third-Party Health Care. In the third installment, Hennessey came close to an argument that I have been making for years. Hennessey's argument: That third-party insurance acts as an incentive for the health care industry to pursue any and all technological advances, regardless of cost. This is because we demand it, and we demand it because out insurance policy covers the increased cost.

Hennessey is right about this, but he doesn't go far enough. Not only are we willing to pay any price for technology, we are willing to pay any price for anything. If your co-payment is $15, do you really care if the actual cost of your doctor visit is $50, $100, $150, or even $1000? And if your employer is paying the vast majority of your premium, do you really even care if your premium goes up? Sure, we all gripe about it when our contributions are increased, but we never see, and are therefore, in the end, accept.

A personal anecdote: Some time ago, my portion of the deductible for my employer paid health plan was over $600/mo. That meant that, had I opted for it, it would have cost me over $7,200/yr. - I opted out. For over two years, I was among the uninsured. During that time, I did need to see a doctor - once. It cost me $50 for the office visit, and another $20 for a prescription. Over the time that I went without insurance, I saved in excess of $14,000. Was I lucky? Perhaps. But I don't feel so much like I beat the odds as I feel that I didn't crap out. In the same situation, I'd do it again.

I'm not an economist, and I've never slept at a Holiday Inn Express, so take this with salt to taste, but let me explain my reasoning. Insurance companies are for-profit corporations. They need to show a profit to their shareholders. A simple (or simplistic, if you prefer) look at their expense sheet would reveal expenses of medical costs, infrastructure, agents, insurance adjusters, investigators, lawyers, and lobbyists (I am sure I am missing something). Against that is their income, your premiums. Their balance sheet needs to balance and still have profits to distribute to their shareholders. If you consider the exorbitant costs associated with major illness/injury, and the relative few of us that suffer from them, and I estimate that 95% of us pay more in premiums over our lifetimes than we receive in benefits.

Questions Before the Court

President Barack Obama will soon be able to nominate his first Supreme Court Justice, thanks to the announced resignation of Justice David Souter. I don't hold out any hope that President Obama's nominee will be someone that would fall on my short list of candidates, but "being qualified" is not synonymous with "agrees with me".

I was listening to Hugh Hewitt's radio show, and he asked John Eastman (Dean of Chapman University School of Law) what kind of questions Republicans should ask of the President's nominee. Eastman responded with a question that Alan Simpson asked a nominee of Jimmy Carter to the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals some 30 years ago. His question, which I am sure I am paraphrasing, was, "If there was a conflict between the law and your personal feelings, which would you use as the basis of your decision?" The nominee's response was that he would use his own feelings. In my mind, that would be disqualifying. The job of a judge is to rule on the law, not on their own personal feelings or opinions.

A good example of this is California Supreme Court Justice Carol Corrigan. Justice Corrigan is personally in favor of same-sex marriage. In this column, by Dan Weintraub, she says that, if it were on the ballot, she would probably vote for it. Even though Justice Corrigan is personally in favor of same-sex marriage, she wrote the dissent in the California Supreme Court's 4-3 decision in 2008 that overturned the state's ban on it. I don't know what Justice Corrigan's politics are in general, or what judicial philosophy she adheres to, but when I next get a chance to vote on confirming her for another term on the court, she has my vote.

Here's another question that I would like to hear asked, "In the absence of a ratified treaty, can the decision of a foreign court be used as precedent in U.S. courts?" An answer in the affirmative on this question would again, to me, be disqualifying. Only United States law should be binding in U.S. courts. To make U.S. law subservient to the law of a foreign court would be to weaken our status as a sovereign state. An answer in the negative could prompt additional questions, such as, "under what conditions can the ruling of a foreign court be cited in an opinion?"

Another line of questioning that should be pursued, especially in light of President Obama's stated goal of a justice with "empathy," is, "What role should empathy play in the decisions of the court?" For an excellent explanation of how empathy could undermine the rule of law, please read this article by Thomas Sowell.

Appoint enough Supreme Court justices with "empathy" for particular groups and you would have, for all practical purposes, repealed the 14^th Amendment, which guarantees "equal protection of the laws" for all Americans.

There is also at least a question as to whether President Obama is in favor of the courts tackling issues of economic redistribution. This being the case, any prospective nominee should be questioned on this topic as well. As the President said in the same 2001 interview where ye discussed economic redistribution, the Constitution is primarily about negative rights, things that the government cannot do. It does not speak at all about what the government must do for you. I would argue that the 10^th amendment anything that must be done is one of the rights that is reserved to the people. But I am not a legal scholar, nor do I play one on TV, so please remember that there is only one thing that is free in life, and that is bad advice. Please note that I don't charge for my legal opinions.

So, these are some of the questions that I would like to see asked of any prospective nominee to the Supreme Court, or to any Federal bench for that matter. Whether the nominee is a Latina woman (yes, I know that is redundant), or a Jewish man, or Asian, or Native American makes no difference to me. After a while, there have been so many "firsts" that even being the first of some group becomes a bit humdrum. I am interested, though, in other lines of questions that others might think are relevant.

Life Flu By

An elementary school in my children's district was closed today, and will be for a week, due to a possible case of the swine flu. I'm not sure that this is really justified, as we don't do this during flu season (and I haven't seen any indication that this strain is any more virulent than normal). What I'd like to point out, though is this. President Obama has stated that he has been advised that closing the border would be "akin to closing the barn door after the horses are out." Presumably, this is because the flu has already made its way to the United States. If that is the case, wouldn't the same logic apply to school closures? The horses are already out, or perhaps the better colloquialism would be that the barbarians are already inside the gates. If we need to close schools in order to minimize the spread of the H1N1 virus, shouldn't we at least try to close the border? If we don't need to close the border, however, why the heck are we closing schools?

I tend to think that we will find that this is no more or less serious than any other flu, which causes 30,000+ deaths in the Unites States each year - mainly the very young and very old. I could be wrong, but until we see something different about this H1N1 strain, we should treat it like every other flu. If you're sick, stay home - but that's always the case, we just dont' do it enough. This doesn't seem to be enough to disrupt our lives over.

Holy Stimulus, Batman!

Rep. John Campbell, a Republican representing California's 48th District, is introducing his own stimulus proposal. His idea, or rather, the idea of one of his constituents, is a Capital Gains Tax Holiday for 2009. Under his plan, any assets that are bought in 2009 would be free from capital gains tax when they are sold at some time in the future.

There is much to commend this proposal. First, it specifically targets stimulus, not just by having the government writing a check, but by encouraging the private sector to start making transactions. It also doesn't cost us a dime right now. In fact, as Rep. Campbell points out in this interview on CNBC, it is possible that tax revenues in fiscal 2009 would increase due to this proposal, because those selling assets may end up incurring taxes on their capital gains. Another advantage is that any cost that may be incurred by this would be spread out over an untold number of years. There wouldn't be a large hit to any single fiscal year like the trillion dollars plus that we are borrowing to stimulate the economy now.

It should be pointed out that this is the sort of action that the Congress should be looking to implement. This proposal stands on its own, and doesn't rely on being part of a larger omnibus bill in order to ensure passage. Think about the "stimulus" package that just passed. If it was voted on, line item by line item, how many of the line items would pass? And, of those that would pass, how many of them could demonstrate any amount of stimulus over and above the mere fact that the money supply was being increased?

This proposal by Rep. Campbell may not have legs. I certainly will not be holding my breath for its passage. He should be commended, however, for proposing an innovative idea that has a chance to be stimulative without increasing our current debt obligations.

I've Been Shown

He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you But to do justly, To love mercy, And to walk humbly with your God?
Micah 6:8

I shared this verse with my confirmation class this past Sunday, and was then reflecting on it later in the day, and had a sort of epiphany. This single verse is a microcosm of the Trinity. What does the Lord require of us? To do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God.

Justice is the law, as it comes to us through the Old Testament. God the Father - the lawgiver. Being a Christian may free us from the judgement of the law, but it does not free us from following the law. Jesus himself stated that he did not come to do away with the law but to fulfill it. It is our responsibility as Christians to act justly, in accordance with God's Law.

Loving mercy is the essence of Christ. The very fact that we sinners have been given the gift of salvation is the ultimate act of mercy. We, too, need to show the same mercy, or kindness, in our lives.

Walk humbly with God. Before Jesus' assention, he promised that he would send them a companion, the Holy Spirit. As two people walking together are companions, so also is God the Holy Spirit our companion as we walk the road of life. The key, though, is to walk humbly. We must guard against being to self-assured, too arrogant, in our walk of life.

There is another way of looking at this. Doing justly - Old Testament. Loving mercy - Gospels. Walking humbly with God - New Testament.

Of Boards and Budgets

As mentioned in my previous post, last night, February 17^th, I attended the bi-weekly meeting of our School Board and spoke on behalf of our Elementary Band program. The vote to eliminate it from last year’s budget had already been made in the previous meeting. No action was scheduled for this meeting, and none was taken. But it did give me some insight on precisely what precipitated this decision, and others.

We were informed, and reminded on numerous occasions, that the School Board is required by law to provide semi-annual reports that demonstrate the district’s financial solvency for the next three years. As many of you undoubtedly know by now, the State of California is having trouble with its own budget, and because of this, the district has to prepare this report based on what it considers to be the worst-case scenario. To add to this, any certificated employee that is going to be laid off must be given notification of this by March 15^th. That’s right, beware the Ides of March.

Ultimately, the Board had to eliminate $5.9 million from the current, 2008-09, budget. They also have $12.6 million to eliminate from next year’s budget. Those are some significant numbers, and I certainly do not envy any of the decisions that they have to make. Fortunately, there is hope that, as soon as the state budget is passed, we will have a better idea of what the actual budget figures are, as well as what additional flexibility there may be in how the district spends money (more on flexibility later). The other thing that gave me hope is that, at the end of the meeting, the School Board President went back to the Elementary Band issue, and asked to be provided with data on the correlation between music and test scores. Although the question wasn’t directed to me, I had provided much of that “testimony”, and had a copy of my remarks with links to the websites that I used to compile my evidence, so I volunteered it. As we all know, test scores are everything to districts, which is why I moved away from anecdotal evidence about the more intangible benefits of a musical education and focused on the correlation between music and academic performance, especially as it related to test scores. With all this considered, I am guardedly optimistic that, in the end, the Elementary Band program will not fall victim to the budgetary axe.

I haven’t made it a habit to attend School Board meetings, but this wasn’t my first, either. One thing that I have heard on more than one occasion is that only a small portion of the district’s budget is discretionary. The problem that I have with that is that the stuff that ends up being discretionary has a tendency to be the stuff that directly affects the classroom, whether it is teacher pay, class size, extra-curricular activities, or specialized programs. Although I have no reason to doubt what portions of the budget are discretionary and which are not, the cynic in me wonders if this isn’t part of the overall plan – that by cutting programs that people are most passionate about it makes it more likely that they will be able to pass tax increases, special levies, or other revenue increases.

Here’s an idea. Why don’t we treat all these regulations that relate to school budgets and spending more like the Code of the Brethren from Pirates of the Caribbean, “the code is more what you’d call guidelines than actual rules.” Maybe we don’t want to go all the way to guidelines, but we should have a simple way of petitioning for waiver. Better yet, the regulations should never be constraints on spending, but guidelines and requirements on the level of service to be provided. At that point, individual districts would be allowed great leeway in how they complied with these regulations.

I would like to thank everyone that sent me their stories, suggestions, sources and support. I can't tell you how much help it was, nor how much it means to me.

My Comments to the School Board in Support of Elementary Band

Following are my the remarks that I plan to make to the Jurupa Unified School District School Board in support of continued funding of a band program at the elementary school level. I may be spitting in the wind, the decision has probably already been carved into the marble that is next year's budget, but I need to say something. I would like to thank all those that have offered words of encouragement, support, and their suggestions and sources. I am certain that I could not have come up with this research without you.
------------------------------
I would like to begin my remarks this evening by reminding the board of how the No Child Left Behind act defines “core curriculum.” The term ‘core curriculum’ means English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography. Education in the arts, education in music, is not merely an enrichment program, but instead an integral part of core curriculum. Please know that when you eliminate elementary band, you have eliminated all band for many students, some of whom would have gone on to be musicians in middle and high school. For those who remain, you have diminished the quality of their musical experience.

I asked some of my former “band buddies” what they got out of being in band, and, as expected, they related experiences that went beyond music. They talked of how it taught them that they could be both competitive and cooperative at the same time. It taught them self-reliance, discipline, and focus. Applying themselves to learning a musical instrument taught them techniques that helped them learn in other academic areas as well. Music has helped others with social skills, giving them a sense of belonging and being a part of a group. So many of the same benefits that kids get out of athletics are also garnered from being a part of a band. But whereas there are so many ways for children to experience athletics, band is the only way that many children are going to gain experiences such as these.

“The plural of anecdote is not data,” however, so let me give you some data. We are often told that musical training helps students in mathematics. As a case in point, there was a group of second grade students who were given piano lessons for four months in addition to training with some new math educational software. The students that received training in both piano and the math software scored 27% higher than those that used the math software alone. But music seems to help in all areas of learning. In a study of undergraduates applying to medical school, Lewis Thomas found that 66% of music majors were admitted, compared to only 44% of biochemistry students. Another study of 7,500 college students found that music majors scored higher in reading than any other major. Would you believe that music actually increases a child’s IQ? At least one study indicates that it does. In it, children were given lessons in either keyboard, voice, drama or no lessons at all. The students who received keyboard or voice lessons saw their IQs increase more dramatically than those who received either drama or no lessons – generally across all subtests, indices, and academic subjects. In Rhode Island, first grade classes containing students who had underachieved in kindergarten received ongoing music and visual arts training in addition to their regular curriculum. After seven months, these students had caught up with their piers in reading, and surpassed them by 22% in math. In the second year of the program they increased these gains.

Are you ready for the speed round? Children with musical training have significantly better verbal memory. A Stanford University study in 2004 showed that mastery of an instrument improves how we process spoken language. Schools that have music programs have significantly higher graduation rates (17% higher), as well as lower dropout rates. Students in high-quality music programs score higher on standardized tests – 22% higher in English and 20% higher in Math. According to the College Board, students with experience in musical performance scored 57 points higher on the verbal portion of the SAT, and 43 points higher on the math. Those of us with a memory of Woodstock might find this next part difficult to believe, but, students who participated in band or orchestra reported the lowest lifetime and current use of all substances (alcohol, tobacco, illicit drugs).

It would seem to me that we should not be looking into cutting any portion of our music program, we should instead be looking to expand it. When I was in elementary school, we had a music teacher visit each class at least once or twice a week. When was the last time that happened? Remember, even No Child Left Behind recognizes that education in the arts is ‘core curriculum,’ and yet we are now eliminating one of the last vestiges of music from the elementary school curriculum. Let me leave you with a thought from someone that I went to high school with – he didn’t recall the source. "You put emphasis on teaching children to read and write but if you take away the arts you leave them very little to read and write about." I don't know how much, in dollars and cents, you will save by eliminating the Elementary Bands, but I have a pretty good idea of what these kids are going to lose.

What Are You Training For?

Athletes exercise self-control in all things; they do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable one. So I do not run aimlessly, nor do I box as though beating the air; but I punish my body and enslave it, so that after proclaiming to others I myself should not be disqualified.
1 Corinthians 9:25-27

When I heard this passage today, it really took me back. Looking at me now it is probably hard to believe, but my Junior year of High School, I ran cross-country. As much as running up and down hills in the Southern California desert from August through November isn't the most pleasant thing in the world, I enjoyed it. It wasn't my best experience running, however. That would have been the previous summer, when I ran for pleasure in northern Minnesota. There was something special about running through the woods, along the lake shore, or down country roads.

The following spring, having just concluded the cross-country season, it was only natural that I would try out for the track team. I didn't last a month. I may not have lasted much more than a week or so. There was something about running around a track over and over again that drove me absolutely bonkers. I just couldn't take it - I felt like I wasn't getting anywhere. I am convinced that the term "running around in circles" was coined by a frustrated track athlete.

Anyway, this is where my mind went when I heard this passage this morning. For me, running around the track was aimless. There was no purpose in it. At least when I ran cross-country, I felt like I was going somewhere. When I was running in Minnesota, every step was its own mini journey - each step had its own purpose.

This is what I ultimately got out of this passage. We need purpose. Not necessarily just a purpose that we see at the end of the road. We need purpose every step of the way. It is difficult to see the end of the road, the ultimate purpose of our lives. By finding lots of little purposes along the way, we can make the entire journey have purpose, every step of the way.

Rule 157

One can argue the merits of FASB Rule 157, which institutes fair-value, or mark-to-market, accounting principals to financial institutions. On the one hand, it is probably true that accounting practices have not accurately portrayed the strength/weakness of many financial institutions. It is also possible that this change is largely responsible for the insolvency of the financial markets. What cannot be argued is that, on November 15th, 2007, Rule 157 took effect, and within a matter of 6-12 months our nation was in what President Obama has called the "our greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression."

So what is it that Rule 157 changed? It changed the way that Mortgage Backed Securities are valued on the books of these financial institutions. As of the November 15th, 2007, financial institutions had to report the value of these Mortgage Backed Securities based on their value if they were to be sold right now. Is there anyone out there that is looking to sell their house right now, for any reason other than necessity? No? I didn't think so. Why not? Because home values have gone in the tank. If we were to sell now, we would be locking in our losses, and no one wants to do that.

This is the climate into which Rule 157 was introduced. At regular intervals, quarterly, I believe, Mortgage Backed Securities have to be revalued base on their value if they were to be sold on that date, regardless of whether or not, in reality, they were going to be sold on that date. We all know that there are a lot of properties that have been foreclosed on, and that this is one of the contributing factors to the precipitous decline in home values. There are also a good number of homes that people continue to make their mortgage payments on where the notes are worth more than than the homes' current value. They are "upside-down".

Here's a question for you. As long as the note is ultimately paid in full, do you think that a bank cares if the mortgage is upside-down or not? Of course not. It is only when the note is not repaid, and the collateral is seized, that it makes any difference what the value of the property is. Even then, if the bank decided to hold the property, it is entirely possible that, in time, the value of the property would increase so that it was worth more than the remaining value of the note. Rule 157 doesn't care about any of these things. Under Rule 157, every quarter, these Mortgage Backed Securities are revalued, and the institutions that hold them have to write off any of the losses against their books.

As I stated earlier, you can certainly argue that this is a better method of accounting. The problem is that it is a change in accounting practices. What business, any business, wants more than anything is stability, and this change that was instituted by Rule 157 caused instability in the marketplace. How could it not? These mortgages and Mortgage Backed Securities were issued under one set of rules, with one set of assumptions, and then those rules were changed. The value of their assets was reduced, and the value of their liabilities was increased.

But the damage didn't stop there. With fewer assets and greater liabilities, banks no longer had as much capital to do their business, and the business of a bank is to make loans. Less capital meant that banks no longer had the ability to make as many loans as they used to. The credit market started to contract. As the credit market contracted, businesses could no longer get loans for capital expenditures, which further weakened the economy. Company after company started cutting costs, reducing capital expenditures, laying off employees.

This is where we are today. The crisis has gotten into our national psyche. People that are fortunate enough to remain employed are afraid that they may not be employed tomorrow. They are reducing their spending, which only exacerbates an already weakened economy. The downward spiral continues.

Rule 157 isn't the sole cause of the current financial crisis, and I am certain that someone with more economic background could quibble with my interpretation of the sequence of events. Unfortunately, repealing or modifying Rule 157 probably would not be enough to bring us out of our downward spiral. In retrospect, however, the change in accounting practices was a blow that an already wobbly economy could not take. Whether you think that the rule was an improvement or not, the fact is that, twelve months after its institution, we are in a world of hurt.

IOU Interest

By now, I have resigned myself to the fact that I will not be receiving the tax refund that I am owed from the State of California any time soon. I will instead be receiving an IOU. It's bad enough that the state gets to borrow money from me without my permission, but to top it off, I don't expect to be paid interest on it. I want interest! And I don't mean T-Bill interest, or State Bond interest or Bank Account interest. I want Credit Card interest! 18.9%! It is one thing to get a lower interest rate when you choose to put your money in that investment, but when someone, in this case the state, is able to borrow money from you without your permission, the lender should be entitled to the maximum interest rate allowed by law.

Money Transfers

I'm just wondering, how much does it cost for a county to collect taxes, send them to the state, and wait for the state to send money back to the county. I would think that there would be some savings in the county holding back the money that it would normally get from the state, and only sending the state the difference. It may not be a big savings, but a billion here and a billion there and pretty soon we're talking about real money.

Knowledge Puffs

Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. - 1 Corinthians 8:1

I don't remember hearing this verse before. Maybe it is a different translation (New Revised Standard Version) than I have heard before. Regardless, there is a sort of simple elegance to it. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.

I can really see how it is that knowledge puffs up. Knowledge is something that we can earn on our own. Study, apply yourself, and you can obtain knowledge. Because we earn our knowledge, it gives us a certain sense of self importance. So many of us take great pride in how much we know, but outside of how much it might help us in our careers, what good is it? This is especially true if it leads to pride. Think about it, unless your name is Ken Jennings (the guy that won $1.5 million on Jeopardy), how many of us are going to be remembered for how much we know?

Love is different. I don't know that it is possible to make yourself love more. Where knowledge is all about ourselves, love is all about other people. That's where so much of the building up takes place. When you love, you build up other people, and they in turn build you up.

Both puffing and building will cause something to grow in size. When I think of something being puffed up, I immediately think of a balloon. A balloon inflates, it expands, but it is full of nothing but hot air. All it takes is a pin prick, and it is gone. Building something, on the other hand, takes time and effort. It grows slowly. But it is solid. A structure that is built well, on a firm foundation, can withstand quite a bit of force, and it can last. How long have the pyramids or the Great Wall of China been standing?

This verse was part of one of the readings in church this past Sunday (Feb 1), and, in a case of the Lord working in mysterious ways (OK maybe not really mysterious), I was able to work it into the lesson that I had for my 7^th grade confirmation class. The theme of confirmation for the 7^th graders is church history, and this week we were discussing the Counter Reformation, the 30 Years War, and the Inquisition. Pleasant stuff, huh? Earlier, the kids were so glad when we were through with the persecutions that the early church faced, and I could tell that they were disheartened to see so many of the same things happening again, only this time it was Christians doing it to other Christians. I pointed out to them that what we were talking about may have happened in the 1500s, but we aren't far removed from people writing books explaining what to do if your child married a Catholic. We talked about the difference between something being puffed up and built up, about how love emanates from God, but knowledge emanates from man. And then we talked about how it was knowledge, or at least what people believed to be knowledge, was at the root of much of what we were discussing. Wars were fought because one group thought that the knew better than everybody else. The inquisition was based greatly on the premise of I'm right, you're wrong.

There is one final point that I would like to make. Knowledge stands alone. Love stands with others. Like the old adage says, "United we stand, divided we fall." When we base our lives on knowledge, we are standing alone, and easily toppled. When we base our lives on love, by its nature, we are building up others, and they are in turn building us up. When tough times come, we have others to lean on, and that makes us all stronger. Knowledge puffs up. Love builds up. On which foundation will you base your life?

One Small Step....

"Soon my Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, will announce a new strategy for reviving our financial system that gets credit flowing to businesses and families. We'll help lower mortgage costs and extend loans to small businesses so they can create jobs. We'll ensure that CEOs are not draining funds that should be advancing our recovery. And we will insist on unprecedented transparency, rigorous oversight, and clear accountability -- so taxpayers know how their money is being spent and whether it is achieving results." - Barack Obama, in his weekly address, January 1, 2009

I have mentioned several times in private conversations in the past week, that we should be looking at increasing the availability of small business loan guarantees as a part of any economic stimulus package. I was therefore encouraged when I heard President Obama mention that, as a part of a (hopefully) soon to be announced strategy, there would be an increase in loans to small businesses.

We are told that small businesses are the biggest job producers in the country so often that it has become something of a mantra. If this is true, then this should certainly be an area of focus for economic stimulus. Not only does it create jobs, but these would be loans and at least have the possibility of being repaid. There was a book that I read in the mid 90s, Unlimited Wealth, by Paul Zane Pilzer, that made an argument that layoffs were, in the long run, good for the economy. His reasoning was that the company laying people off would be at least nearly as productive, but with less overhead, and that a percentage of those that found themselves out of work would not find work, but would instead make work - they would start their own businesses, hire people, and the economy would expand.

I am not trying to make quite the same argument here. I think it is difficult to say that unemployment on the scale that we are currently seeing it is good, even in the long run. What I am saying is that it is not enough to merely pump money into the economy. It is important for us to pump money into the economy in ways that are going to be the most effective, and the key to that effectiveness is the velocity of money.

Money's velocity is essentially a measure of how quickly money changes hands. It is important because it acts something like a multiplier. Let's say that the government gives someone a stimulus check in the amount of $1,000. This individual isn't sure what to do with the money, but they cash the check and keep the money in their wallet until, some months later, he buys a computer for $1,000. The owner of the computer store puts that money in his safe, where it sits for another couple of months, until he remembers it is there, and he deposits it in his bank account. Assuming that this is where the trail ends, and the money only changed hands twice during the year, there are two people that have seen their income increase by $1,000. For their $1,000 investment, the government saw the economy grow by $2,000, and the money's velocity would be 2/yr. If, on the other hand the person that received the money immediately spent it, and the money ended up changing hands 100 times in a year, that investment of $1,000 would result in an increase of $100,000. If we are going to be spending money to try to get ourselves out of our current economic downturn, we need to identify where we can put it where it will work the hardest, and move the fastest. My suspicion is that small business, and especially new small businesses, is one of those places that we can get the most bang out of our buck.

As the saying goes, however, "the devil is in the details." It will be interesting to see the specifics of the Obama plan when they are released. I am hopeful that the administration will not use the stimulus in order to do a little "social engineering," and use it to fund businesses that they deem to be "worthy." If they can resist this temptation, this can be a powerful tool in stabilizing our economy. It can start to expand the economy, which will increase the tax base, and (because these would be loans, or loan guarantees) at least some of this money would be repaid (some businesses, of course, would not be successful, and will default on their loans).

Thoughts on Obama's First Interview

Barack Obama has given his first interview since becoming President, to Hisham Melham of Al Arabiya TV. Upon reading the transcript, I found that it contained potentially revealing insights into his world view. Of course, this could merely be a case of politician playing to his audience, but if it is not....

"But I also believe that there are Israelis who recognize that it is important to achieve peace."

Isn't that insightful? I know, it's hard to believe, but there actually may be some Israelis who might want peace. How many times has Israel been to the negotiating table? How many times have they signed cease-fires, or peace accords? How many times have they shown restraint in the face of a constant barrage of missiles and suicide-bombers? How long has Israel been at peace with Egypt, after the Camp David peace accords were signed? In the face of all this evidence, President Obama is somehow able to phrase it like it is some new revelation that there are Israelis that think it is important to achieve peace. The fact that he didn't even use the word most is also telling. Although he didn't quantify it, the impression that this statement leaves is that there are some Israelis that want peace, but that, in reality, their aren't that many. They certainly couldn't be in the majority. The truth is actually the opposite. Sure, there is probably a fringe minority in Israel that doesn't want peace, but the vast majority of Israelis yearn for it. They yearn for it so badly that, in the face of cease-fire after cease-fire that is broken, in the face of treaty after treaty that is circumvented, still they come back to the negotiating table, attempting to make peace with their neighbors.

"My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record, as you say, America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that. And that I think is going to be an important task."

Here's a question - what has changed in the last 30 years? What events have transpired since the Carter administration that might have jeopardized the "respect and partnership" that used to exist between America and the Muslim world? I can certainly name a few. The Iranian Hostage Crisis. The bombing of the Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon. Two Intifadas. Saddam Hussein's overrunning of Iraq, and the subsequent Gulf War. Two bombings of the World Trade Center in New York (including 9/11). The USS Cole bombing. Nightclub bombings from Germany to Indonesia. Afghanistan. Iraq. If there has been a change in the past 30 years, that change has come, or at least has been initiated by, elements in the Muslim world. President Obama's remarks, while not being explicit, leave the impression that it is America that is somehow responsible for this change. If you go back more than 30 years, you would find that America's role in the region was far from idyllic. The ouster of the Iranian Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, in 1953 is certainly not a high point on the American resume. Let's face it, the United States has had a history of supporting authoritarian regimes in the region in order to protect its economic interests. This, if anything, has diminished in the past 30 years.

"Now, the Iranian people are a great people, and Persian civilization is a great civilization. Iran has acted in ways that's not conducive to peace and prosperity in the region: their threats against Israel; their pursuit of a nuclear weapon which could potentially set off an arms race in the region that would make everybody less safe; their support of terrorist organizations in the past – none of these things have been helpful."

It is hard to argue against most of what the President says here. He artfully praises the Iranian people and Persian civilization. He rightly identifies their threats against Israel and the dangers inherent in their nuclear program as not being conducive to peace. He then, however, mentions "their support of terrorist organizations in the past." (Emphasis mine.) Forgive me, but this doesn't pass the laugh test. Is Hezbollah not a terrorist organization, or does Iran no longer support it? I suppose, however, that I am just not properly parsing President Obama's words. The fact that Iran supported terrorist organizations in the past does not negate the possibility that they continue to support those same organizations in the present. The impression left by his words, once again, is different.

If these three statements truly reflect our new President's world view, we could be in for a long 4-8 years. Barack Obama is so many things that George W. Bush is not. He is both eloquent and charismatic. While President Bush's words grated against my ears, I love to listen to President Obama's soaring rhetoric. But this man who comes to the Presidency with a scant four years separating him from the Illinois Assembly may also be naive, and in the tangled web of Middle Eastern politics, that could prove to be a dangerous thing.

A State of Bondage

California is broke. The largest state in the Union can't pay all of its employees, its vendors, or us, the taxpayers. It's hard to imagine that California, which, if it were a country, would be the 7th largest economy in the world, could get itself into such a mess. Obviously, there are a number of contributing factors to the predicament that California finds itself in - anything from employee contracts, to pension fund liabilities, to required spending thresholds. Another, however, is the state's increasing reliance on bond measures to finance project, especially public works projects.

It wasn't always this way. There was a time when California was forward thinking, looking ahead at projected population growth, and allocating funds to improve the infrastructure necessary to support its burgeoning citizenry. In the 50's and 60's, California's roads and schools were the envy of the country. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case. Anyone living in the Golden State today can attest to the fact California has now lost its race to keep the infrastructure ahead of its population growth.

As of December 1, 2008, California has on its books, $56,944,224,000 in existing bond obligations, with the approval from voters to issue nearly the same amount ($56,823,816,000) in additional bond issues. This does not include any of the myriad of bond measures that passed on the November ballot. Fortunately, the ability to issue bonds does not require that they be issued, so there is hope that the state will not use the entirety of its line-of-credit. Since 1960, the state has been authorized by voters to issue $141,362,000,000 in general obligation bonds. Approximately 2/3 of the debt has been issued, with about 60% of that amount still outstanding.

This year, estimates have California running some $42 billion in the red. Between the housing slump and the sagging economy, state revenue is down. In the middle of a national fiscal emergency, California voters approved another $9.95 billion for a high speed train between Northern and Southern California, $990 million for Children's Hospitals, and $900 million for aid to Veterans.

Don't get me wrong, these may all be good things, bond issues are always for good things like schools, roads, libraries, police, fire and the like. Hey, who is against those things - certainly not me. The problem is, money is fungible. Does anyone think that if a school bond is not passed, there will not be any money for school improvements? What happens is, because a new source of funds has been found for improving schools, the money that would have gone for schools can be moved to other projects. This is key. When you vote for a bond measure, you are not just voting on the projects that the bond is used for, you are also voting for all the other projects that will be funded with the money that would normally have been allocated to that project.

There's evidence for this, too. In 2002, we passed the Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2002 (K-12) , which authorized $11.4 billion in bonds, with $1.5 billion of this amount yet to be issued. Then, in 2004, we passed the Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2004 (K-12) , which authorized another $10 billion in new bonds. We have issued $7 billion of this, with another $3 billion available. One might think that was enough, but, in 2006, we passed the, you've got it, Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2006 (K-12) - another $7.3 billion, again with $3 billion unissued. This is not an outlier, either. There were New Prison Construction Bond Acts in 1986, 1990 and 1992; Veterans Bond Acts in 1982, 1984, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1994 and 2000; California Safe Drinking Water Bond Laws in 1976, 1984, 1986 and 1988, Clean Water Bond Laws in 1970, 1974 and 1984, a Clean Water and Water Conservation Bond Law in 1978 and a Clean Water and Water Reclamation Bond Law in 1988. I could go on. Why would we need the ability to borrow millions upon billions of dollars, year after year, in consecutive election cycles? Perhaps because the real reason was to free up dollars for other projects.

There's another problem, too - Prop. 13. Prop. 13 isn't going anywhere, nor should it. The problem is in the juxtaposition of the requirements of Prop. 13 and the requirements to pass a bond measure. Because it takes a 2/3 majority to increase taxes, it is much more difficult to increase revenue through a tax increase than it is to increase revenue, through debt, by passing a bond measure. But here's the thing about debt - it reduces your capacity for future expenditures because of the interest you have to pay in addition to the principal. Sure, because of inflation, we pay back our debt in dollars that are worth less than the ones we borrowed, but that merely reduces the cost, it doesn't eliminate it. And if this recession worsens, we could end up in a deflationary period, where we would potentially pay debt in dollars worth more than the ones that we borrowed.

I propose that we pass a new initiative in California, a companion to Prop. 13, that would bring the requirements to pass a bond measure more in line with what it takes to raise taxes. My preference would be to make the requirements the same - a 2/3 majority, but I would settle for 60%. In the case of the three initiatives mentioned above, only one of the three would have passed the 60% threshold. The Veterans Bond Act of 2008 passed with 63% of the vote. The High-Speed Train measure received 52.5% of the vote, while the Children's Hospital Bond Act received 55.1%.

How many of us can go to the store and buy without looking at the opportunity costs inherent in a budget? Within any budget, there are choices to be made, if you purchase one thing, it means that you don't have the funds to purchase something else. When we vote on bond measures, we don't have enough information. We don't see everything that is on the table. All we see are schools and roads and clean water, and we think to ourselves, "yeah, we need that." This is the job that we pay our elected representatives to do for us, and we usurp their responsibility at our own peril.

B(c)S - Part II

There is a fundamental flaw in the way that we determine the teams that vie for the BCS National Championship. The problem is that, as long as you are limited to choosing only the top two teams. Unless you have two, and only two, teams from the major conferences that go undefeated, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to narrow the field to two teams.

The problem is not just that the top teams rarely play each other, it's that they don't even play many common opponents, unless they happen to be in the same conference. Prior to bowl season, Florida, Texas, USC and Utah played a grand total of two common opponents. Utah and USC both played Oregon State, while Florida and Texas both defeated Arkansas. Not until the bowl games had been played did we see how Texas and USC matched up against Ohio State, Utah and Florida against Alabama, and Florida and Texas against Oklahoma.

Because there is not enough meaningful data to be able to the best team(s), there is a tendency to rank the conferences that belong to, instead. This is how we ended up with Oklahoma v. Florida. By most accounts, the Big XII and the SEC were considered to be the two best conferences in the country. Oklahoma and Florida were the champions of those two conferences. It didn't matter that Utah was undefeated, or that Texas beat Oklahoma, or that USC might have a better loss when compared to Florida. It sounds reasonable, doesn't it? The BCS Championship was ultimately what many people have been asking for, a "plus-1" game. It is just based on the regular season, without taking the bowl games into account.

The problem with this is that, just as we don't have enough information to determine which is the best team, we also don't have enough information to determine which is the best conference. Nine out of the twelve games that a team plays are against teams in their own conference (ten of thirteen for conferences with a championship game). That means that three-quarters of the data by which we evaluate conference strength is based on the conference playing with itself. Going into the bowl season, who would have picked the PAC 10 to go 5-0 in bowl games? Does that make the PAC 10 the best conference in the country? No, but neither are they the weak step-sister to the SEC and the Big XII as they were made out to be.

Many have suggested that the way to solve this is to play one more game after all of the bowl games - a "plus-1" scenario. Yet, this year, a "plus-1" would solve nothing. Any teams that were not invited to play in the plus-1 game would still have a legitimate claim that they should have been. Maybe the "plus-1" scenario would help settle a debate in some years, but in other years it would merely extend it. This year was a great example of a year that the "plus-1" would be insufficient.

The argument against a playoff system is that it would diminish the importance of the bowl games. I would suggest, however, that the bowl games be the starting point of a "plus-2" scenario. This would allow the BCS affiliated bowl games to retain not only their importance, but also their traditional match-ups. Under this scenario, we would return to eight teams that would play in the four BCS affiliated bowl games, all of which would be played no later than January 2. The eight teams would be, first, the winners of the six BCS conferences - the SEC, ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big XII and PAC 10 - followed by two "wild-card" teams. As is currently the case, the top ranked non-BCS conference team would receive an automatic wild-card bid, provided it finished in the top eight of the final BCS standings, otherwise, it should be the top two remaining teams. Winning your conference should mean something. If you can't win your conference, you take your chances - maybe you are in, maybe you're not. This year, Texas might have had a legitimate beef, tying for the Big XII South title, but missing out on the Big XII championship game because of the three-way tiebreaker rules set out by the Big XII. Based on this, the eight playoff teams this year would be Florida (SEC), Oklahoma (Big XII), Virginia Tech (ACC), Cincinnati (Big East), Penn State (Big 10), USC (PAC 10), and wild-cards Texas (Big XII) and Utah (MWC). As mentioned previously, the Orange, Sugar, Fiesta and Rose Bowls could retain their traditional affiliations, which could have resulted in the following match-ups:

Rose Bowl
USC v. Penn State

Fiesta Bowl
Oklahoma v. Utah

Orange Bowl
Virgina Tech v. Texas

Sugar Bowl
Florida v. Cincinnati

Okay, I admit it, I manipulated these match-ups to ensure that the same four teams that are in the national championship discussion could win and move on. Were these the match-ups, who knows what might have happened, but who wouldn't be excited to see match-ups of USC v. Utah and Florida v. Texas next Saturday, with the winners contending for the championship the following week.

Would this system be perfect? Certainly not. Alabama ended the year ranked fourth in the nation, yet would not have a chance to contend for a championship. As noted above, if you don't win your conference, you take your chances. It could just as easily have been Texas ranked fourth and Alabama third, leaving Texas on the outside looking it. Or Oregon State could have won the PAC 10 with a 9-3 overall record, and USC, ranked fifth, would have had to sit on the sidelines. Wouldn't it be better, though, to be arguing over who the seventh and eighth teams should be, rather than the first and second? And enough of this nonsense about "every game being an elimination game." If that were really true, Utah would have gotten their shot, as they didn't lose a game, and therefore should not have been eliminated from contention.

Think, also, about the additional revenue that would be generated by having not one, but three additional games (the two national semi-finals, and the one national championship games). These games could be played at the sites of the existing BCS games. Instead of getting an extra game once every four years, as is currently the case, each site would get an additional game three out of every four games. Add to that the additional revenue generated by the advertising during the games, additional sponsorship, and there would be enough money to make it worthwhile. Two more weeks of college football, a playoff system that embraces the the existing bowl structure, and a Football Bowl Subdivision championship played the week before the Superbowl. That sounds like College Football Nirvana.

B(c)S - Part I

Last night, the Florida Gators defeated the Oklahoma Sooners, and have been declared the national champions of Division I college football. The final gun signalled the start of the annual debate about which team was really the best in college football this year. Every year, the awarding of the BCS Championship Trophy does more to start this debate than end it, as it was designed to do. This year, there are four teams (Florida, Utah, USC and Texas) that can make legitimate arguments that they should be considered "national champions."
Florida is the team that will go down in the record books as the 2008-09 National Champions. They won the BCS National Championship game. They ended the year on top of both the AP Poll and the ESPN/USA Today Coaches Poll. They were champions of the Southeastern Conference, and beat the champion of the Big XII conference, arguably the two top conferences in the nation this year. But still, there is that one blemish on their resume. One loss, at home, to Ole Miss. And so there are questions.
USC seems to be in this position every year. Every year they put up one bad game, and it haunts them. This year, the stinker occurred in Corvallis, against a pretty good Oregon State team. In the end, they were able to make it close, losing to the team that would end the year as either the 18th (AP) or 19th (USA Today) ranked team in the country. How does that loss compare to Florida's loss to Ole Miss, which ended the year ranked either 14th (AP) or 15th (USA Today) - a loss that occurred on their home field? Yet Florida was invited to the BCS Championship game as the #2 team in the country, while USC was ranked #5 and played Penn State in the Rose Bowl. USC plays in the PAC 10, which is often characterized as USC and the 9 Dwarfs. But the PAC 10 finished with four teams (USC, Oregon, Oregon State and California) ranked in the top 25 of the USA Today poll (Cal was 26th in the AP poll), while the juggernaut known as the SEC finished with... four teams in the top 25 (Florida, Alabama, Georgia and Ole Miss). Maybe, then, it was the strength of schedule that put Florida over the top? Florida played five games against teams that ended the year in the top 25 of the USA Today poll, Ole Miss, Georgia, Florida State, Alabama and Oklahoma, going 4-1 against that competition. USC, on the other hand, played Ohio State, Oregon State, Oregon, California and Penn State - five teams from the end of year poll, and went 4-1 against that competition. Oh, and the PAC 10 went 5-0 in Bowl games (yes, one of those was Oregon State's 3-0 win over Pittsburgh).
Of the 1 loss teams left out of the BCS Championship game, Texas has, perhaps, the best loss on their resume. Their one loss came at the hands of Texas Tech, who ended the year as the 12th ranked team in the country according to both the AP and USA Today. Not only that, but Texas Tech had to pull off one of the most memorable plays in recent memory in order to secure the victory. Texas is also the only team in the end-of-year top 5 that can boast a victory over one of the two teams that played for the National Championship. Rest assured, we will see signs proclaiming the final score of 45-35 when the Red River Rivalry resumes in 2009. But is a Texas team that struggled to beat Ohio State, 24-21, the equal of a USC team that beat Ohio State 35-3?
Utah has a pretty good argument that they are the real National Champions. They were the only team to go undefeated, 13-0. They stood against all comers, and remained unblemished. In their final game, they beat Alabama, a team that spent five weeks atop the polls, a team that took Florida to the limit. After their first 3 possessions, they were ahead, 21-0. Alabama did manage to cut the lead to 21-17, but then Utah scored the final 10 points for a final score of 31-17. Oh, and that Oregon State team that beat USC in Corvallis? Utah beat them, too - 31-28. It isn't like they played a slouch of a schedule, either, as Utah went 4-0 against the end-of-year top 25.
In the end, there should be only one, but we are left not with one, but four teams, each with a legitimate claim to the title. The uncertainty leaves us dissatisfied. Even the most ardent fan feels it, the doubt, the uncertainty, the not knowing what would have been, what could have been. Such things were meant to be decided on the field, not by some sort of computer simulation or popularity contest. Even the Gators, who are speaking with the bravado of those flush with victory, have doubt. What if it had been USC, Utah, or Texas that had stalked the opposing sideline? Would the outcome have been the same? But there is no knowing what might have been, so here we are, at the same crossroads we have faced countless times before. Lost. Confused. Empty. Unsatisfied.