The Only Thing Worse Than Beating A Dead Horse is Betting On One

Recently the Kentucky General Assembly voted not to allow slot machines and other gaming to accompany horse racing. This was a bad move in my opinion.

Kentucky has a proud heritage of horse breeding and horse racing. I can remember going to races at Keeneland Downs in Lexington, Kentucky and seeing the immaculate grounds at Church Hill Downs in Louisville, Kentucky. The Kentucky Derby is one of the most watched cultural-sporting events in the U.S.

However, the General Assembly's decision to not allow gaming at race tracks is hurting the purse winnings in Kentucky's horse racing and the overall talent that races in Kentucky. Our Kentucky tradition is under fire from neighboring states that allow facilities to offer horse racing as well as casinos.

Our neighboring states, most notably, Indiana and Pennsylvania, have what are called "racinos" (horse racing and casinos combined in one central location). These racinos divert winnings from their casinos to their horse races in order to offer better purses for the riders and horse owners. When horse owners, breeders, and experienced riders catch wind of these bigger purses, they leave Kentucky and follow the money. Kentucky horse racing officials have already began reporting losses from the migration of breeders and riders to other states.

Plain and simple, Indiana racinos attract business from Kentucky and Ohio is theatening to take some more business from us too if they open up their own racinos. These are dollars that help our state economy. The General Assembly is allowing these funds, the funds that Kentucky needs right now during the economic collapse, to go to our neighboring states. Instead of these dollars being reinvested in Kentucky, they travel across the Ohio river and are reinvested in Indiana or in whichever state these dollars are spent. Could you imagine if these dollars stayed here in Kentucky? How many jobs would they create? How much tax revenue would they generate to the state of Kentucky?

By allowing racinos in the state, Kentucky can better compete with Indiana and Ohio. Indiana is already beginning to fear the actions that neighboring states will take regarding gaming as their state revenue depends heavily on their government-sanctioned casinos. Indiana has long said that the state's loss of gaming revenue from state competition is not a matter of "if it will happen" but "when it will happen". Their prophecy is coming true as both Kentucky and Ohio have considered allowing racino legislation.

Most people who are opposed to allowing expanded gaming at horse racing facilities argue that gambling is regressive (disproportionately affects the poor) and that including gaming at such harrowed places like Keeneland and Church Hill Downs will compromise the beauty of these places.

In regards to the first argument, I personally don't feel that government should take a paternalistic approach to making laws. That is to say that government should not act like a parent and decide what is best for it's citizens. I have always appreciated the tenets of Social Darwinism (not to be confused with Darwinism); only the most resourceful survive in this world. In my opinion, if you are foolish enough to go out and gamble away all of your paycheck or wager and lose your house on a game of roulette or black jack, that is your decision and you should have to pay the consequences, not myself or anyone else for that matter.

I know that opens a Pandora's box of responses, especially if the actions of said addicted gambler also affect members his or her family. In this situation, I do not think those family members should be punished equally for the actions of the addicted gambler, otherwise warranting some form of assistance.

If people are concerned about the beauty of these historic racing sites, there are ways to provide gaming and horse racing at one location, but still not compromise these buildings. Establishing casinos on site (but not attached to) of these historic places will provide casinos near the horse racing action and at the same time leave the racing facilities fully intact and without alteration. And besides, at least gambling will save these historic horse racing sites by drawing back those breeders, owners, and riders that left in the first place.

I take pride in my Kentucky heritage, especially around Derby time. When people think "Kentucky", they think bourbon, basketball, and thorough-bred horses. Bourbon has remained unchanged since it was first created in Bourbon County, Kentucky in the 18th Century. With the addition of Coach John Calipari to the Kentucky basketball program, Kentucky basketball is back on track to being the dynasty it once was. With the addition of gambling at horse racing sites, Kentucky can work to preserve it's proud heritage of horse racing and take back what our neighboring states have stolen from us; our thorough-breds, our breeders, our riders, and our money. This is not an issue of gambling, this is an issue of Kentucky Pride.

Playing Catch-Up

Since it's been so long since I've had the time to write, I thought I would briefly touch on some of the more important events that have taken place since my last column.

Sarah Palin is offering her services to any candidate who believes in the following; (1) limited government, (2) energy Independence, (3) strong national defense, and (4) budget restraint. School board elections may never be the same. Honestly, given her toxicity on the campaign trail, I honestly can't see her being hired by anyone in the near future. Don't get me wrong, she's a very noble woman, but I believe the overall sentiment is that she was a political experiment from the McCain campaign and would today hurt a campaign more than she would help it (depending on your constituency). I respect her and her achievements, but resigning from the state of Alaska (where the people love her) in order to play a national role for the GOP was just a bad strategy on her part. I doubt she will have any influence in helping the GOP win back some seats in Congress during the 2010 midterm election.

Speaking of GOP leaders, there are none. Dick Cheney, maybe, but since he has been characterized as such a mysterious and evil man in the media, I would hardly consider him a leader for the party. Besides that, with the exception of his occasional rants about something the Democrats are doing, he is largely surreptitious and has already publicly stated he is not interested in holding office again.

And if people think Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the GOP, then please, wake up. Smell the coffee. Pull your heard out of your hind-quarters. This man is so radical and impractical in his thoughts and speech, he stands as much chance of leading the GOP as he does leading a mule to water. Rush, if you're reading, I know you have to kill a lot of time on your talk show, but do you have to always make such incendiary remarks as to ignite the entire Democratic party and even parts of your own party against you?

And then there is South Carolina's Governor, Mark Sanford. He was one of the best prospects the GOP had for a real leadership position, if not a 2012 run against President Obama. And then we all got to read (or hear) his love letters to his Argentinian mistress he described as his "sole mate". (Note: Intentionally spelled "sole mate" because he told his staff he was going hiking in the Appalachian Mountains and then turned up in Argentina.) So much for the party of family values. However, kudos to Governor Sanford to admit the affair publicly (even though he was caught) but we didn't need all the details he provided us. Simply put, he should just know when to shut up so as to not bore everyone with details.

So GOP leadership is few and in-between. But there has been talk of at least one last current politician who is in the running for the leadership position. Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana has a clean record when it comes to his personal life, has a state that has had a balanced budget (even this year during the economic collapse), won reelection this past November in a landslide victory during an election year when Democrats performed very well, and has demonstrated excellent executive budgeting. He was the director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bush and was given the nickname "The Blade" due to his tendencies to slash budgets.

But there's just one problem. He too has stated he will not run for the Presidency. However, he has began taking more of a leadership role for the party by speaking out against policies and laws introduced by President Obama and implemented by the Democratic controlled Congress. At least someone is starting to take on a leadership role, and who knows, maybe he will rethink the whole Presidency thing in the next year or two.

And now onto different things. Judge Sotomayor is currently undergoing her confirmation hearings to replace Justice Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. These judges are required to act impartially when deciding on cases before the Court. There are no other courts to appeal to and the Supreme Court has been stereotyped as making law from the bench. Essentially, the rulings that are made on the court become precedent and subsequently law (at least until they are overturned later). This being the case, we should be trying to focus on appointing justices that are the definition of impartial, but President Obama stated he selected Sotomayor because she favors minorities, not because she is a minority herself (or a woman for that matter). This is further evidenced by her decision to uphold the New Haven, Connecticut case where promotions were denied to white firefighters because the promotion exam did not score enough promotions for minorities.

I know there are Justices on the court who decide cases based on their own political ideology (Justice Scalia, most notably). But if President Obama is the hope and change the nation needs, should he resort to the same practices previous Presidents have used? Shouldn't he be trying to place truly impartial judges on the highest court in the land? Had President Obama just said he selected Sotomayor to sit in Justice Ginsburg's spot in order to retain diversity on the Supreme court, I would have been 100% okay with that. Instead the whole comment about favoring minorities, in my mind, has discredited any impartiality Sotomayor might have previously had.

Lastly, President Obama is ready to veto his own defense spending bill. Why? He wants to stop additional acquisitions of the F-22 Raptor fighter planes. His reasoning behind the request; F-22's require 30 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight time. President Obama has finally begun using some fiscal prudence, except he's exercising it on our defense. Now, here's what's wrong with this logic; the F-16's are an aging fleet. They require about as much, if not more, maintenance and money for their flight time because they are 30+ years old. Also, the F-16's just do not have the capabilities the F-22's have. The F-22's are made to meet the war fighter needs of today, not during the Cold War. War fighting has changed quite a lot since then.

I understand President Obama has only asked that no additional planes be manufactured in his plan, but the F-22's just became operational in the mid 2000's. We don't yet have enough to sustain replacing the aged fleet of the F-16's. Essentially, the Department of Defense needs these planes. Cutting production on these planes will also cost Lockheed Martin and Boeing thousands of jobs as they have assembly plants that make F-22 parts in 40 of the 50 states. Granted, I know this will probably not pass Congress, but President Obama's logic is again flawed here. The last thing we should be doing is negatively impacting our military and cutting jobs.

Taxed Beyond Belief

President Obama announced plans this week to make national health care available to American families. He has worked with the House Democrats to begin crafting a bill that would finance the costs of his plan. The price tag on this plan is an estimated $1 Trillion to $1.6 Trillion dollars over 10 years.

How does he plan on financing his plan? Increases in taxes. During his campaign, he promised he would only increase taxes on the wealthiest families in the U.S.; but not even the proposed 2% income tax on individuals earning more than $200,000 and families earning more than $250,000 alone will pay for his plan. The House Democrats have been throwing around additional revenue sources including (1) collecting a 10 cent per can soft drink tax, (2) collecting a 3% new employer payroll tax on health care expenditures, (3) collecting taxes on employer-provided benefits above specified levels, (4) increasing payroll taxes for Medicare and Medicaid, and (5) implementing a 1.5% national sales tax.

Aren't we taxed beyond belief already? The proposed taxes will affect everyone. Let me say that again; everyone, not just the wealthy. This bill will take more money out of everyone's pocket before the money is ever deposited into your account (with an increase in the Medicare and Medicaid tax) and then will take more money out of your pocket if you have to pay an additional 1.5% on everything you buy.

My wife does like her diet sodas. Should I really have to pay an additional 10 cents for each can of Diet Coke that we buy? That's an additional $2.40 per case. But I wont pay all of the tax. The tax will have the intended consequence of decreasing the amount of soft drinks people consume. So according to economics, this tax will decrease demand for soft drinks, which will also decrease the retail price of soft drinks in order to maintain pre-tax demand. Essentially, the consumer and the producer (Coca-Cola for example) of the product will both "eat" part of the tax. It's just another way to hurt business in America.

I assume with Middlesboro having it's own Coca-Cola plant, this will definitely have a negative impact on the local economy. I mean, how many baseball teams has Coca-Cola sponsored for the youth of the area? Countless. How much money have they reinvested in the community? Tons. So now with this potential additional tax on Coca-Cola's primary product, what will happen with their philanthropy in the area? Will it just decrease their overall charitable giving or will Coca-Cola no longer be able to afford to continue their philanthropy? What impact will this have on schools that rely on vending contracts with soft-drink companies to supplement their operating budget? A negative one, I assure you.

The tax on employer provided benefits will have a similar effect. Implementing a tax on employer-provided benefits (something that has never been done) will help to increase the costs of employer provided health care. Employers will not eat this tax, but rather pass cost increases to employees through higher health care premiums. This is a tax on those who were able to find a good job that included fringe benefits.

My biggest complaint with this plan is that President Obama and the Democratic party are planning on overhauling the total health care system to ensure those individuals who fit in the gap (between those covered by Medicaid and Medicare and those with employer provided benefits) have health insurance coverage. This is a very noble idea, but I think the President can utilize currently existing health care options to fill this gap.

There has already been talk in the Senate Finance Committee of making federal subsidies available to help families who are up to 300% above the federal poverty level purchase health insurance (an attempt to garner Republican support).

In my opinion, a brilliant alternative would be to provide federal incentives for states to work in conjunction with the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services to expand Medicaid coverage to those who fall somewhere in the gap (even up to 300 or 400% of the federal poverty level). Some states have already taken this initiative and moved close to the 300% FPL benchmark. Providing incentives for states to take this route will allow states to provide additional coverage through preexisting programs and help minimize any administrative costs for a completely new federal program. Costs would further be minimized for a national health care program when you include the states that already offer an expanded Medicaid program.

And a quick note about the program; much like the way private or employer-provider insurance companies operate, any expanded Medicaid program is normally partially financed with user fees and copays that are determined on a sliding-scale (or income-based) basis. This would also target the users of an expanded health care program rather than forcing non-users to fund the program. Further, states normally fund their expanded Medicaid programs by diverting Tobacco Master Settlement Aggreement dollars and implementing increases in sin taxes. This further helps to target those most likely to use the health care system.

And much like President Obama has been advocating, providing coverage to those without health care will help reduce the health care system's overall costs (specifically unpaid trips to the emergency room for basic health care needs).

We can't teach people how to better manage their money and provide for essentials first, but at least with an option like this we can make it easier for those with limited income to obtain coverage, reduce the costs of health care, and at the same time minimize the total costs to the American tax payers.

Saving or Creating False Results

It was announced this week that President Obama would expedite stimulus spending to help our economy. However, the President has already began touting that his stimulus spending and actions have "saved or created" 150,000 US jobs.

This has become the President's catch phrase for what his stimulus is doing for America. In his most recent address this week, the President plans to expedite stimulus spending to "save or create" an additional 600,000 jobs in addition to the 150,000 mentioned above. That's 750,000 estimated jobs! President Obama's goal for the recovery plan is to "save or create three to four million jobs over the next two years". What an ambitious leader!

So that's the news we've been hearing from the media this past week. "Save and Create" has captured the hearts and minds of the American people and President Obama has emerged as the FDR of today's generation.

Except he hasn't. This standard, "save and create" is fiction. There is simply no way to measure how many jobs have been "saved" from stimulus spending. No one measures jobs saved; not the Labor Department, not the Treasury, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Greg Mankiw, a former Bush economic advisor, calls this term a "non-measurable metric". Here's why: You can measure job growth or losses between two points in time.

Tell me, how would you even begin to measure how many jobs have been saved? You can't. No one can. Not even the scholars know why the President has decided to use this term, well, all the scholars that are rooted in fact and metrics. Even the New York Times, one of the most blatantly liberal newspapers, has noted that Obama's claims are "...based on macroeconomic estimates, not an actual counting of jobs".

The political scientists of the world think it's an act of political genius. President Obama has managed to create a metric where he cannot be wrong. And the worst part is, the media has yet to question it. The reason why? They swoon on every comment he makes and take it as the Liberal Gospel. So much for acting as a watchdog on government, right?

Even members of his own party are disturbed by his metrics. During a March hearing of the Senate Finance Committee, Chairman Max Baucus (D-Montana) challenged Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the formula. He was quoted as saying, "If the economy loses two million jobs over the next few years, you can say... it would've lost 5.5 million jobs... You've given yourself complete leverage where you cannot be wrong, because you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct."

How does this work? Let me give you an example. Here is where we are at today. Since the passing of the stimulus, we have lost nearly 1.6 million jobs and unemployment hit 9.4% (but Obama told us that passing the stimulus would result in unemployment not exceeding 8%). So given how bad this period was, President Obama has instead spun the situation and claimed he has "saved or created" 150,000 jobs. Pretty good spin in my opinion. But I don't want to get too dizzy. That was just a small one. If we end up hitting 15% unemployment and lose 2.5 million jobs, will the President insist that had it not been for his actions, we would have surely lost 7 million jobs, thus saving 4.5 million American jobs? He can; using this measure at least.

Something is wrong when the President is using a formula that is pure fiction. It presents a double-standard because had former President Bush used the same measure, he would have surely been hounded by the media. Tony Fratto, a successful and well respected communication analyst who worked for the Bush administration has even stated, "You would think that any self-respecting White House press corps would show some of the same skepticism toward President Obama's jobs claims that they did toward President Bush's tax cuts", but this has not been the case.

I remember studying the liberal media in college and thinking to myself, 'Surely it's not that bad'. Well I was wrong. I thank my lucky stars that there are conservative media outlets available out there because the press is supposed to act as a government watchdog. When the liberal media is too busy swooning over the President, some things (the things that often matter) are left to slip through the cracks. Whether or not you dislike a particular media outlet (or all media outlets) that are slanted opposite of your political ideology, they serve as a vital component of our government. I would be a fool to think they are always righteous in their pursuits because sometimes they can also take things a little too far or not perform as they should.

Chrysler-Gate

GM and Chrysler have been the two automotive companies that have come under heavy government scrutiny since receiving bailout money. The companies are running out of time to offer a restructuring plan to the Obama administration. The two seem destined for government controlled bankruptcy and closings.

Since March, President Obama has said that these companies would not be "wards of the state", but would be forced to stand on their own. But getting this far has cost the American taxpayers close to $28 Million. Needless to say, the federal government has invested quite a deal into the restructuring of GM and Chrysler and would have over 70% control of the company.

The President seems to be making a lot of decisions about the future and direction of these two companies. President Obama has already asked the CEO of GM to step down, whereas Chrysler's CEO volunteered to step down. President Obama has asked the restructured GM and Chrysler to implement tougher fuel standards.

Capitalism allows businesses to be free from government control and allows for survival of the fittest (only those companies that are profitable will continue to exist, whereas inefficient companies will close down). By coddling these companies, President Obama and President Bush have violated the basic rules of capitalism. If these companies were that inefficient, they should have been allowed to close regardless of how many workers would have been affected. Their closings would have allowed other businesses to capture more of the market share and employ workers displaced by the closings of GM and Chrysler when the economy rebounded.

Our founding fathers put in place a very elaborate political system because they knew that absolute power corrupts, absolutely. President Obama's Automotive Task Force, heading the Chrysler restructuring, has engaged in some less-than-honorable practices of patronage.

There are an estimated 789 dealerships that are set to close by June 9th which will result in approximately 38,000 jobs lost. This during a time when President Obama has been trying to create jobs to alleviate the high unemployment (which, as of Thursday, unemployment benefit requests dramatically decreased; a welcomed sign of the recession's end).

Chrysler President, Jim Press, has said that the decision on which dealerships to close and which would remain open "really wasn't Chrysler's" as the company is under pressure from President Obama's Automotive Task Force. Many of the closing dealers have been reported to donate large amounts of money to the Republican party. One particular dealer "conveniently" having his dealership closed is U.S. Representative Vern Buchanan (R-FL), whereas Mack McLarty (former Clinton White House Chief of Staff) and Robert Johnson (founder of Black Entertainment Television), both strong Democratic supporters, have been allowed to keep their dealerships.

U.S. Representative Aaron Shock (R-IL) has called for an investigation into the Obama Administration's methodology in determining which dealerships stay open and which close.

There is also a strong correlation between dealership closings and the congressional voting districts that President Obama did not carry in the 2008 Presidential election. Texas and West Virginia are getting hit hard, whereas the Republican districts in Florida are also seeing some of their dealerships close. The blue states Obama carried during the 2008 election seem to be receiving the better end of the deal.

There is no doubt in my mind that Chrysler needs to close some dealerships, but if the report from Chrysler President Jim Press is true, then the Obama Administration has unethically began closing dealerships in areas that are traditionally Republican. He may have done so out of spite for these Republican districts or to increase the unemployed that can benefit from some of his programs, helping him fair better in the 2012 election.

To me, this is the primary reason to keep the government out of business, no matter what the cost. When the President's friends start to make out better than enemies, the whole market is at a disadvantage (regardless of who is in office). And once again, President Obama, you have managed to show us that you are more of the same, and the promise of "Hope" and "Change" was just a ruse. The liberal media has yet to catch onto this story, and I doubt they ever will.

So, you heard it here first. I beat Fox News to it. And I know I'm going to catch flack for it on the online edition, but that's okay. I have always found it amazing how people will write such negative and nasty things online when they get to use an anonymous screen-name to hide their identities. I'm just reporting the truth, whether or not you want to hear it.

Remembering Memorial Day

For many Americans, Memorial Day is first long weekends of the summer. Friends and families will gather to celebrate with a barbeque. People may take camping trips. Others may elect to use the extra day for a home-improvement project. In Bell County, Memorial Day also coincides with the time-honored tradition of the Kentucky Mountain Laurel Festival.

But lets not get wrapped up in all the celebrations and forget the reason we celebrate Memorial Day; to honor fallen war heroes. This has not ever been a issue in Bell County. People in Bell County have some of the strongest, if not the strongest overall, sense of patriotism I have ever known. This day is, and rightfully should be, sacred to all Americans.

The sentiment I have knowing the sacrifice of my forefathers, relatives, and loved ones can be overwhelming at times. I have sense of pride to know people who have served their country honorably and faithfully. I feel reverence and admiration when I see their names engraved on a stone dedicated to the sacrifice of the few, for the many. Those names, seemingly just inscriptions, are the names of mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, husbands, wives, cousins, aunts, uncles, and friends.

Memorial Day was originally named Decoration Day, because mourners decorated soldiers' graves from the Civil War. Approximately 5,000 mourners, including orphans and widows, placed flowers and flags on the 20,000 Union and Confederate war heroes' graves buried in Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia. To show their respect, supporters gathered, recited poems, sang hymns and marched.

However, since the Civil War, there have been many wars since this time. We are still currently at war. There are victims everyday.

No matter your view on war, it is important to honor those soldiers who have paid the ultimate price and honor those who continue to defend us to this day. There have been several occassions where I have seen a man or woman in uniform and I thanked them for their service. Their sacrifice is unlike any other.

So before we light up our grills, get dressed up for the Queen's Coronation, start that do-it-yourself home improvement project, or take our tents out to the camp grounds, let us remember those who died to protect our freedom.

Find a soldier and thank him or her for their service. If you know someone who has been experienced the loss of a loved one serving in the military, offer your condolences and thank them for the sacrifice of their loved one. Mail a simple thank you note to someone serving overseas. They'll appreciate it more than you might think.

And above all else, thank you, veterans for your service and your sacrifice. It will not go unnoticed or unappreciated.

Once You Stop Learning, You Start Dying

This is a follow up to the article, "A Penny Saved is a Government Oversight".



One reader questioned if I thought that people chose to be poor. I took some extra time to think about this while I was traveling over the week. A good car ride allows my thoughts to ferment to fruition.



I arrived at the following conclusion: Not everyone chooses to live in poverty. This, albeit simple, conclusion is the product of knowing there are disadvantaged individuals from birth and will never prosper by the American standard of "success". But it's this definition of "disadvantaged" that will prove to be the line in the sand.



When I think of someone who is disadvantaged and lives in poverty, I think of those who are unable to gain employment and independently sustain living. Most often these individuals are disabled, whether from birth or by accident. My definition of the disadvantaged are the people who are disadvantaged through no fault of their own and have subsequently suffered economically as a result of that disadvantage.



In contrast, there are individuals who are poor yet lack any physical disadvantages discussed above. If you were to compare the individuals without a physical disadvantage (both poor and rich), I believe you would find that the main difference between these groups is not the amount of income they have, but the choices they made that led them to where they are now.



Every day we are faced with a plethora of choices. Some small, some monumentally life changing. Sometimes we make bad decisions, but hopefully we make good decisions most of the time. But making too many bad decisions can lead to our undoing.



It is my belief that regardless of our socio-economic status at birth, we can all achieve success. That is the essence behind the American dream; it is the appeal that has made America the leading nation in immigration. Our forefathers came to America because America is the land of opportunity; the place where a person can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps to achieve success. To sum up; anyone can succeed, but success is determined by hard work and the decisions we make everyday.



Inherently, those who have succeeded make it easier to pass that success onto their offspring. Those who come from families where success has not been established will find it harder, but it is still possible to achieve.



Now I can fluff on this column from here on out and tell you that success is measured by your own personal drive and say other feel good things that will excite you for a total of 5 minutes. But I won't do that. I won't act like those "get-rich-quick" schemes on late night television. The truth I want to give all the readers is that every decision you make affects where you will be for the rest of your life.



We can choose premarital sex when we're young, and increase your chances of a pregnancy. Having an additional mouth to feed makes it more difficult to achieve successl; if you don't have very supportive parents you have to take whatever job you can get to put food on the table.



We can choose drugs that can ultimately lead to deadly consequences or the missed opportunity at a good career. It's hard to think straight if you're brain is fried from severe drug use. It's hard to land a good job if you have a criminal record.



We can choose to look for a job where we currently live or we can uproot and locate someplace where there are good jobs. It's hard to get a good job in Bell County when there are none and it's hard to uproot and leave friends and family behind. Sometime's it's necessary though to succeed. I feel bad when I see someone working a dead end job, especially when it's the only job they can get in Bell County. But that may be the key; it's the only job they can get in Bell County, not elsewhere. To use an old expression; "It's easier to bring Muhammed to the Mountain than the Mountain to Muhammed".



But the biggest factor in determining one's success is education. Hands down. We can choose to slide by in our education. We can choose to accept a C or a D as acceptable and do just enough to ensure we graduate from high school and never go any farther. It's extremely hard to get a job in today's economy without a higher education and this is the primary reason college enrollment has dramatically increased during the recession. The better the education you have, the more irreplacable you are in the workforce. The education we receive/have will directly influence our income and subsequently, our success.



We've heard this from guidance counselors, teachers, and if we're lucky enough, our parent(s). I was lucky enough to have a father and a mother that pushed me to excel in the classroom and always reminded me that my success was linked to my academics.

I understand there are people who just naturally understand course material in school and there are others that don't. But if I didn't understand the material at first, I took the extra time to learn it. I had to spend a lot of extra time on Chemistry, World Civilizations, and History but I was still successful in those courses.

If we choose to do the work, we learn the material. When we learn the material, we do better on exams. When we do better on exams, we make better overall grades. When we make better overall grades, we increase our chances of being accepted to a good university. When we get graduate from a good university, we increase our chances of getting a good paying job. Today anyone can attend college if you have the necessary grades. There are numerous financing options available. Scholarships may be decreasing in supply (Pell Grants, KEES money), but anyone can get a student loan and the return on investment from that student loan is priceless.



I think part of the problem today is the devaluation of education. This devaluation existed when I was in school and exists still today. Those who were considered "smarter" were teased by classmates, thereby helping to ingrain the idea that education is undesirable. As an example, African American males tease each other for academic accomplishments and in order to win favor with their peers, will intentionally stop learning material. At some point, these individuals hit a point of no return as they are too far gone to catch up.



So our choices directly impact the success that we have in our lives. To say otherwise is ignorance. People do not consciously wake up one morning and say to themselves, "I think I want to be poor for the rest of my life". I never suggested that. But poor decisions yield poor results. So be it as it may, the best path to success is to make the best decisions possible to secure your future success; but start first with your education. Outside of that, those daily decisions are up to you.