Private Charities Part III: The Outcome Reason

What do Rita Mae Brown, Albert Einstein, and Narcotics Anonymous all have in common?


Answer: They have all been referenced as originators of the quote:

Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results.

Our federal government spends a record amount of money year after year while simultaneously seeing increased poverty rates. I am mystified by the repetitive act of taxing citizens to administer billions of dollars worth of public assistance programs with extremely lackluster results. When will we refuse to accept the status quo of poor outcomes?

If the inefficient use of resources is not a compelling reason to favor private charities, perhaps analyzing outcomes will strike a chord. The outcome reason I favor private charities is in part linked very closely to the economic reason as secondary to increased efficiency, I believe private charities are able to meet a greater number of needs with the same amount of resources.

Private charities exhibit greater freedom to tailor assistance to individuals and their particular situation compared to public assistance programs providing assistance geared towards a generic population in a one-size fits all manner.

Secondary to increased freedom, rather than throwing money at a failing situation, private charities are able to identify and address specific causes of why an individual is in need. Throwing money at failing situations is a soapbox of mine. Do we believe it is a good idea to invest our limited resources on failing systems? Isn't this backwards? Shouldn't we be striving to create an environment where successful entities and systems are rewarded and not failing ones? 

Currently there are financial incentives in place if an individual is content with a standard of living provided by wealth redistribution (welfare payments) to remain on government assistance rather than seek to get off. In addition, by the government basing the majority of assistance programs off of income, there is also an incentive for people to participate in tax evasion such as doing business only in cash payments. Such waste, fraud, and abuse of tax evasion and public assistance programs greatly frustrates me.

Your support or disapproval regarding throwing resources at failing entities and systems likely flows from your beliefs on how entities end up in need of assistance. If you believe individuals already have the knowledge, skills, and discipline to be successful, and are only in need of assistance due to unforeseeable circumstances, than simply throwing money at the situation is logical. However, if you believe those in need often (clearly not every time) require assistance due to lack of knowledge, skills, and discipline, then you will be more inclined to support teaching and mentoring as opposed to throwing money at a problem with a high potential to repeat itself. Again, one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting different results. I fear this is a flaw of our current system.

No significant learning occurs without a significant relationship. 

• Dr. James Comer

Dr. James Comer’s research has shown learning and lasting change takes hold more often when a significant relationship exists. I attempted to find Dr. James Comer’s or Ruby Payne’s definition of “significant relationship”, but was surprisingly unsuccessful. Listed below are links to Dr. James Comer and Ruby Payne’s research. If anyone finds how they define significant please email me! 

Sources

Dr. James Comer - Leave No Child Behind: Preparing Today's Youth for Tomorrow's World
Dr. James Comer - What I Learned In School: Reflections on Race, Child Development, and School Reform

Ruby Payne - A Framework for Understanding Poverty
Ruby Payne - Understanding Learning: the How, the Why, the What
Ruby Payne - Building Bridges Out of Poverty

Regardless of the definition, it is highly improbable the government fits the mold of Dr. Comer’s criteria. As private charities will have the freedom to implement the most effective methods of providing sustainable change, I believe better outcomes will be achieved due to the relational nature of private charities as compared to large, impersonal government interventions.

Although not as strongly, I believe private charities also have the unique potential to increase the passing on of knowledge, skills, and abilities to friends, family, and future generations. I believe those who have been given much tend to give much themselves. Thus, rather than the benefits of welfare ending with a cash payment to a recipient, I believe those who have been given the resources to no longer require assistance will have a higher probability of passing these skills on to friends, family, and their children and grandchildren. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

I believe private charities produce superior outcomes due to increased efficiency, greater freedom to implement entity specific assistance, addressing actual causes of need, and a greater passing on of knowledge, skills and abilities to friends, family, and future generations. Based on the graphs above, it appears the current welfare system is not working, and I believe it is insane to continuing perpetuating a failed system while simultaneously expecting different results.


Next Week’s Topic: Book Review I: End the Fed

Private Charities Part II: The Economic Reason

Federal Unemployment Assistance:	$373 billion
Medicare:	$484 billion
Other Health Services:	$324 billion ($255 billion to Medicaid)
Unemployment:	$109 billion
Other Income Assistance (TANF, earned income, child tax credits):	$161 billion
Housing Assistance:	$59.6 billion
Diability Payments:	$8.3 billion (amazing how $8.3 billion sounds small…)
Social Security:	$819 billion
World’s most expensive welfare system:	Priceless

Numbers pulled from:

• US Government Revenue - revenue link
• US Federal Budget – spending link

If you’ve never seen the MasterCard Priceless commercials, please check out the following videos. You can also check them out if like me, you think Peyton Manning is a great actor.

• Peyton Manning MasterCard Commercial #1
• Peyton Manning MasterCard Commercial #2
• Peyton Manning MasterCard Commercial #3

Federal government welfare payouts constitute $1.5 trillion (39.5% of budget) without social security, and $2.3 trillion (60.5%) with social security. In fiscal year 2012, the federal government collected $2.5 trillion in revenue. Thus with social security included, our entire budget is almost consumed just with welfare spending. Good thing our government can print money and sell debt to finance the additional $1.3 trillion in spending ($3.8 trillion total expenditures by US government in 2012).

To bring additional significance to these numbers, the most frequent government spending criticism I hear is foreign aid and military. Perhaps shockingly, these only account for $0.043 trillion (1.1%) and $0.75 trillion (19.7%) of the budget respectively. Total welfare spending almost doubles the amounts of these two budget items combined, and consistently fails to produce desirable outcomes.

Of the four advantages cited in part one of my private charities writings, I would like to expand upon economic reason. I admit the economic reason to favor private charities seems distant and cold. However, I want the most bang for my buck, and any inefficient use of limited resources is a major concern of mine. 

It is admittedly difficult to know the extent of inefficiency and estimates range from 30 to 85% of government funding assigned to public assistance programs reaches beneficiaries. Likely the true figure lies in middle, maybe ~55%. Inefficiencies occur for any number of reasons but include costs to: 

• Collect funding (IRS record keeping and audits) 
• Distribute these funds to various programs (Medicare/Medicaid, Unemployment, etc.)
• Distribute to beneficiaries (Verify beneficiary eligibility)
• Perform audits to prevent waste, abuse, and fraud
• Inefficiencies from beneficiaries receiving assistance that helps, but often is not what they actually need

• A medical analogy would be a child suffering from an ear infection receiving Tylenol or ibuprofen. While undoubtedly helpful, the child needs an antibiotic to relieve the primary cause of suffering rather than simply having his/her secondary symptoms managed.

References -
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Mises Institute
The Independent Institute
MediaMatters for America


Admittedly, private charities will also incur most, if not all of the above listed expenses. However, according to Charity Navigator, private charities often incur fewer of these expenses when compared to their public counterpart. Charity Navigator has found more than half of private charities pass through greater than 75% of the funding received to intended beneficiaries, with more than seventy percent of private charities passing through at least 65%. (Government programs may pass on ~55%)

I also believe private charities utilizing local citizens, as opposed to Washington D.C. bureaucrats potentially thousands of miles away, have a much greater understanding of the needs of their intended beneficiaries. Not only do local charities have a greater understanding of needs, but they are in a much better position to hold beneficiaries accountable and prevent the waste, fraud, and abuse of services.

Lastly, I believe a competitive environment continually increases the efficiency (and effectiveness) of almost all things (businesses, athletes, musicians, etc.). Unfortunately the government does not compete with private charities as their source of revenue is forced taxation and printing money. By removing forced support of government assistance programs, competition will be increased amongst charities, which I believe will translate into greater efficiency and effectiveness of all charities.

Of note, I have no problem with governments operating charities. I just want to see the playing field leveled. Rather than government charities relying on forced taxation, they should only be able to spend what their donors choose to give them. Thus, if one believes the government is the best charity to support, they can continue to donate their time, talents, and treasures. However, for those individuals who do not believe the government is in the best position, I can choose to support any number of other charitable organizations.

Therefore, the economic reason I favor private charities is due to the combination of increased efficiency, accountability, and competition coupled with decreased waste, fraud, and abuse.

Next Week's Topic: Book Review #1: End the Fed

Private Charities Part I: Overview

Do you have a favorite charity you enjoy supporting? If so, is it a well known, multinational charity such as the American Red Cross or Salvation Army whose aid may support relief efforts following a devastating earthquake in Haiti?

Or do you prefer a local charity whose funds may support your own community? Going a step further, do you prefer to simply help out your fellow citizens by directly giving them of your time, talents, and treasures rather than going through a charity acting as a middle man?

If you do support charities, are you cause-oriented? Medical research (ie. breast cancer), disabled veterans,  save the rain forest, save national parks, scholarships for prospective students, or human rights just to name a few.

One charity a majority of the nation supports is the federal government. About 39% of federal tax dollars go towards welfare programs (Basic Level of Care). Thus an individual making $40,000, who may pay ~$4,000 in federal taxes, will give ~$1500 to "government charity".

As outlined in my Roles of Government post, I do believe the federal government should be a “lender of last resort” in meeting the basic needs of its citizens. However, I believe privately managed charities (including friends/family) have many advantages compared to their main competitor: public assistance programs.

1. The Economic Reason
• I believe private charities exhibit greater efficiency and accountability.
2. The Outcome Reason
• I believe given the same number of resources, private charities can produce better outcomes.
3. The Freedom Reason
• I favor a small government (My Voting Issues) and preserving citizens’ freedom of how to best spend their time, talents, and treasures.
4. The Social Reason (generosity vs. force)
• I believe an assistance system built on generosity and personal relationships will build community and cohesiveness rather than a system built on force and impersonal handouts.

Although I see many advantages in moving towards a system more reliant on private charities (again, includes family/friends) utilizing generosity, rather than governmental welfare utilizing force, there are real fears and questions which warrant addressing:

1. Private charities will be overwhelmed by the massive needs of a community.
2. Poor communities may suffer the most due to lack of local capital.
3. Some, if not many, will donate nothing to private charities.

I challenge you to determine if, given the option, you would prefer to give of your time, talents, and treasures to government sponsored charities (food assistance, Medicaid, Medicare, WIC, housing assistance, etc.) or to another charity of your choosing (Red Cross, Salvation Army, Breast Cancer Society, Feeding America, Disabled Veterans). Secondly, I would challenge you to determine how you feel when you are forced to support a cause you don’t believe in, or believe could be solved more efficiently and/or effectively.

Next Week’s Topic: Private Charities Part II: The Economic Reason

Basic Needs Part I: Food Assistance

I understand people need assistance during certain seasons of life, and I support the wealthiest nation in the world ensuring adequate provision of its citizens most basic needs. However, I am disappointed, discouraged, and angered by the waste, fraud, and abuse of our country’s current public assistance programs. It is my main objective (MO) to design public assistance systems which:

1. Preserve the provision of basic needs, in this case our need for sustenance (food and water). 
2. Reduce the amount of public funding directed towards assistance programs.
3. Allow others to shoulder a greater amount of the resource (time, talent, treasures) burden.

As a disclaimer, I do not consider myself any better or worse than those who choose to accept public assistance, or than those who may abuse it. There are circumstances and price points where if the government offered me money, I would take it.


Outlined below are a handful of general principles I see as being beneficial in achieving my MO:

1) Food assistance will be an option available to every citizen.

It is a citizen’s choice to accept public assistance, no force will be involved. Also, a person’s income, nor any other criteria, will exclude a citizen from receiving food assistance.

2) Individuals will choose how much assistance ($) they need on a monthly basis.

A maximum monthly limit will be established based on family size.

3) Individuals will exchange freedoms for monetary assistance.

I am no dietitian,  however, as a general principle there will be severe restrictions on food items eligible for purchase. As Dave Ramsey recommends: live on rice and beans. Thus no New York Strip steaks, lobster, caviar, sugared beverages, etc.

 

4) Individuals will pay back into the system the amount they received plus a surcharge.

Although controversial, the concept of paying back into the system what an individual received is perhaps my favorite. I believe it places an emphasis on personal responsibility and establishes a disincentive to accept public assistance (as one will have to pay back in what they took out plus a surcharge).

I hope an example may aid in clarifying the above concept – all numbers subject to change :). Bob, over the course of the last 3 months, has chosen to accept $500 in food assistance secondary to company layoffs. Bob has now accepted new employment and is making $200 per month over the poverty line (to be calculated later). A surcharge of 10% ($50 – subject to change) will be added to Bob’s total assistance received ($500) to cover administrative costs and provide a disincentive for those who don’t need assistance to utilize the system. Thus Bob will be required to pay back a total of $550 ($500 + $50) into the food assistance system.

Bob will be allowed a 6 month grace period where he may choose to pay back any amount (including none) of the funds he owes ($550). After 6 months, the federal government will garnish 15% (subject to change) of Bob’s wages above the poverty line until the full $550 is paid. Assuming Bob chooses not to pay back any amount into the system in the 6 month grace period, the federal government would garnish $30 ($200 x 15%) of Bob's wages each month until it had received $550 ($550 / $30 = 19 months + 6 month grace period = 25 month total repayment period). 

5) A lifetime maximum benefit will be established.

After an individual reaches their maximum lifetime benefit, they will no longer be eligible to receive further benefits. At this point a secondary safety net option will still be available. As with the monthly limit, the lifetime limit will be adjusted based on household size.

Potential concerns:

1. Individuals may receive assistance, but never be above the poverty line, and thus never pay back into the system.
1. This is what we do now. No one is currently required to pay back what they have received. Therefore, my proposed system is no worse than our current system.
2. Children
1. Rightly so, there are many who are concerned about the well-being of our country’s children. An argument could be made with lifetime maximums established and less willingness to accept assistance, children have a higher risk of being neglected. Although not a perfect solution, I see such scenarios as a perfect opportunity for private charities and local governments to design programs specifically addressing children.

Revamping our country's food assistance program is a difficult topic for me to address succinctly and with a high degree of clarity. Unfortunately, I am not sure how to do better articulating my thoughts and would thus appreciate other's input as this is an issue we all need to work together to find a workable solution.

Next Week's Topic: Private Charities Part I: Overview

Fantasy Football Part 3: Mid Season Update

Week 7 of the NFL regular season is in the books. A quick review of where I wanted my fantasy football teams to be at the end of week 7 and after week 13:

Finish in the top half of all my leagues –

• Hawkeye: 3/8
• HoP: 3/10
• Warhawk: 2/12

> 60% win rate –

• 13-8 (61.9%)
• 5-2, 4-3, 4-3

Worst fear: Matthew Stafford and Chris Johnson failing to live up to expectations.

• I must say I saw this coming: Draft Recap

Bad beat: HoP injuries – Jimmy Graham, Greg Jennings, Cedric Benson, Ryan Williams, Rashad Jennings, Austin Collie, and Darius Heyward-Bey.

Best surprise: Despite lackluster performances of Stafford/CJ0k in my Hawkeye league and catching the injury bug in my HoP league, I still have a winning record in all 3 leagues.

Missed opportunity: Still haven’t pursued trading my plethora of Green Bay Packers...

Significant roster moves: Picked up Alfred Morris, Shonn Greene, and Alex Green off waivers in my HoP league.


Summary:
I feel very fortunate to be where I am record wise. For the amount of players I drafted (50), the vast majority have lived up to expectations. Exceptions include:

• Darren McFadden: If you told me he would be healthy for the first 7 games I would have thought he would be a top 5 RB, instead he is the 18th best RB.
• Philip Rivers: I was convinced last year’s turnovers were an anomaly. I have seen Rivers excel with lackluster receiving corps and no run game. Apparently Rivers has simply regressed. He is on pace to throw for under 4000 yards. He is currently the 24th ranked QB.

The Packers have survived perhaps the 4 best defenses in football: Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, and Houston. Their remaining schedule looks pretty :)

Not that I will ever know, but it pains me to think what kind of numbers Austin Collie could have put up this year. Donnie Avery and rookie T.Y. Hilton have been averaging double digit targets. It’s hard to know what Collie could have done, but I think we may have seen some big numbers...

I have not had a difficult time finding RBs. I planned on punting the RB position and scrapping by with injury replacements of which have been numerous.


Thoughts going forward:
I plan to hopefully trade Greg Jennings or Alex Green to lessen my dependence on the Green Bay Packers.

If I can stay .500 or above while Greg Jennings and Jimmy Graham recover from injury I should have a great looking team in my HoP league. I need Stafford, Rivers, and Chris Johnson to pickup their game to create an elite team in my Hawkeye league. As expected in my Warhawk, there is a lower level of competition and I should end up a solid team here as well.


I feel as if the majority of my blog has gone towards writing about fantasy football. For this I apologize as I am much more interested in political issues. Fortunately I plan to only have 2 more fantasy football posts during the next 10 weeks. I know my wife/editor will be thrilled :)


Next Week’s Topic: Basic Needs Part I: Food Assistance

Basic Level of Care

Referring back to my perceived Roles of Government post, it is my aim to go into more detail regarding the role of government in providing welfare assistance to its citizens. I intend to lay out a few general principles and later write more in depth about specific assistance topics. (In my naivety I am unsure what the politically correct term is for welfare/supplemental assistance/entitlement programs may be. Thus, hopefully as becomes more apparent throughout the post, I am not degrading individuals who qualify for government assistance. Again, less wrath, more grace :)

What I think –

1) The wealthiest nation in the world (and possibly history), should provide for the basic needs of its citizens.

What I currently disagree with are the systems of meeting these needs, and perhaps more significantly, what is defined as a need. Expanding upon the latter, I believe our most basic needs are food/water, shelter, clothing, and to a degree health care. Thus in part, I agree with the provision of food sustenance (food stamps, free/reduced school lunches), subsidized/federal housing (Section 8 Housing), clothing assistance, and nationalized health care.

Based on the data collected by GlobalRichList.com in the year 2000: 

A person working 2000 hours per year (50 working weeks x 40 hours per week, 2 weeks unpaid vacation) making minimum wage ($5.15) in 2000 would earn $10,300 per year and be in the 13.25% percentile of income earners in the entire world. Or stated another way, such an individual would earn a greater annual income than 86.75% of people worldwide.

I understand the cost of living in the United States is indeed higher, however I also believe a large part of this is self-inflicted based on what we define as a need. I acknowledge my statements about defining what a need is are vague, but in an effort to keep my post somewhat condensed, I will expand upon each individual need in future posts.

Update (3/1/14): Global Rich List has updated it's data to 2008. Based on 2008 data, a person working 40 hours a week with 2 unpaid weeks of vacation per year and making minimum wage ($7.25) would be in the top 8.66% income earners in the world.

2) Disincentives should exist for utilizing public assistance programs.

Currently the U.S. government is experiencing out of control spending: 4 straight years of 1+ trillion dollar deficits, national debt is now more than 100% of our gross domestic product (GDP), the federal government received $2.4 trillion in revenue and spent $3.6 trillion, 50% more than it brought in...

By a rough calculation of the 2012 Federal Budget, 37.7% of our federal budget goes towards Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment, food, and housing assistance programs. Add in social security and you get 57.7%. For comparison sake, defense spending accounts for 19.3%. With an aging population, many of these numbers are expected to continue expanding at even greater rates.

Other 2012 Federal Budget Links: USFederalBudget.us, Wikipedia Article

I believe in order for a government entity to offer supplemental assistance and contain/control costs, disincentives must exist for utilizing these programs. Currently my two favorite disincentives are the exchanging of freedom for assistance and the concept an individual will be responsible for paying back into the system what they have received. Examples include: 

• Accepting subsidized housing while exchanging the freedom of choosing where to live (currently practiced).
• Upon acquiring employment following a period of accepting unemployment assistance, an individual would begin to pay back into the unemployment system what they received (not currently practiced to my knowledge).

3) Public assistance is available to all citizens.

Your income does not determine your eligibility. What determines your eligibility is your citizenship (sorry illegal immigrants, more on you later though). My immediate feelings are this will rub people the wrong way. However, as I expand upon proposed disincentives for using public assistance in future posts, I hope I will achieve clarity by showing how assistance programs are available for those who need it, but not beneficial for those who are well off enough not to need them.

In addition to public assistance available to all citizens, there will also be private systems along side public systems. Thus individuals will be able to use a combination of public systems (Social Security) and private systems (401ks, pensions).

4) The federal government will provide a bare bones basic level of care and leave individual states the freedom to expand assistance programs with state tax dollars.

I favor giving individual states greater autonomy to determine the extent of a wide range of policies and provisions, including the degree of public assistance. States that are in favor of a more Cadillac coverage system will have the freedom to raise more funds (or cut other spending) to pay for their assistance programs compared to another state that elects to utilize only the federal assistance programs.

5) While efficient, I believe our society suffers by the government playing Robin Hood and essentially taking from some to give to others.

I acknowledge a government does need to tax its citizens in order to provide stability, protection, and fulfill other roles. However, there is a point where I feel the government begins to tell its citizens:  “You don’t know what’s best for you, so we the government have decided to take your money and spend it for you, because we are smarter and wiser."

This being stated, it is we the people who elect leaders, and therefore I believe we all suffer from a similar mindset. A mindset of we would rather elect leaders who will pass into law or tax policy our preferred agenda. Doing so is more efficient and less frustrating, however, I fear it only divides our country rather than create slow, sustainable progress.

Much like the recent Presidential Debates, I again acknowledge these concepts are currently vague. Rest assured, I will go into excruciating detail in future posts.

Next Week’s Topic: Fantasy Football Part 3: Season Update

Fantasy Football Part 2: Draft Recap

Run to the Hillis!, Cook’n up a Pack of Grahams, Here’s my number, Coll-ie maybe.

Every good draft analysis starts with a clever team name. Listed above are names specific to my teams this year, while listed below are just really good ones.

       Forgetting Brandon Marshall                           Burrested Development



  

                      I'm bringing Hasselbeck                                        Henne Given Sunday  



A couple more for good measure :)  - Jersey Leshoure, Wacco for Flaco

In case you aren't familiar with the player names: Click Here

Brandon Marshall - Chicago Bears WR
Plaxico Burress - Former New York Giants and New York Jets WR
Matt Hasselbeck - Tennesse Titans QB
Chad Henne - Jacksonville Jaguars
Mikel Leshoure - Detroit Lions RB
Joe Flacco - Baltimore Ravens QB

I wanted to follow up my previous post on my draft day plan with documenting the outcomes and thoughts of my draft results.


House of Prayer Draft Grades -
Overall: A-
Individual Draft Picks: B+
Team: B+/A- (depending on trades and Benson)

Individual Draft Picks: B+
Flaws -

• Forgot RB roster cap
• No real damage to team
• Forgot IR spots
• Some damage – Mendenhall, Matthews
• Poor research on Pittsburgh backfield
• Thought Jonathon Dwyer was out indefinitely with foot injury from last year
• Green-Ellis was still on the board
• Forgot Nate Washington
• Would have taken Jared Cook anyways
• Not really a flaw but didn't have the opportunity to grab any draft steals

Strenths -

• Good value at most every pick (exception being Rounds 1 and 2 where it is difficult to get good value, can really only lose value)
• Plan executed to perfection, planned on going QB-TE (graham)-RB (DMC, Murray)-WR-WR-RB-WR(switched these two due to being able to wait on RBs)-then value
• I got every later round player I wanted given the roster spot limitations
• Feel as if Jennings and Nelson fell to me
• Only one regret, would draft everything else the same today
• I don’t like Redman, I didn’t realize Dwyer was so close to being back, would have taken Law Firm (Green-Ellis)

Team: B+/A- (insert picture of GB Packers logo)
Flaws -

• 4 GB packers: Rodgers, Jennings, Nelson, Benson
• RB2 may be a little shaky, this was expected though

Strengths -

• Good balance of risky and reliable players
• Very strong at WR

Miscellaneous –

• Toughest Pick: Round 5 – Jordy Nelson
• Favorite Pick: Round 11 – Cedric Benson
• This could really give my team a huge boost if Benson is starter
• Starks with turf toe
• Biggest Upside: Round 14 – Jared Cook
• If Cook, in a contract year, with a rookie QB, can explode to become the 3rd best TE behind Graham and Gronk, I will be able to trade Graham for a great player
• Biggest Regret: Round 6 – Isaac Redman
• Should have taken Law Firm :/

Draft Steals –

• Ryan Matthews, Michael Vick, Roddy White

Good Value:

• Forte, Eli Manning, Donald Brown, DMC, Jennings, Benson, Mendenhall (IR spot), Chris Johnson, Law Firm, Steven Jackson

Hawkeye Draft Grades –

Overall: A

Individual Draft Picks: A-

Team: A-

Individual Draft Picks: A-

Flaws -

• Got stuck with 8th draft position, my one fear heading into the draft...
• Missed Kevin Smith, should have taken him instead of Nate Washington
• Had a real freak out moment in Round 10. Couldn't decide between Hillis or Willis.
• Made the right choice, but didn’t know until after I took Hillis :/

Strengths -

• Plan went to perfection. I think I took every player/position in my plan.
• Ended up with some good value picks in a very tough draft with Bush, Harvin, and Rashad Jennings

Team: A-

My Picks

• Chris Johnson (8)
• Matthew Stafford (9)
• Roddy White (24)
• Brandon Marshall (25)
• Rivers (40) - Although no real value, felt really good about getting Rivers here
• Harvin (41) - Some value, also some risk
• Bush (56) - I feel Bush has some value here
• Pettigrew (79) - Being on the end probably hurt me here as I really wanted Pettigrew, but didn’t think he would make it back to me in 16 picks. Thus a little bit of a reach, but I still think I got good value here.
• Floyd (89) - Vincent Brown out for first half of the season
• When this guy is health he can play. I expect to have him for ~8 games this year and he could be big those 8 games.
• Jennings (105) – see above
• Daniel Thomas (120) - Handcuff to Bush
• Collie (121) - He unfortunately just got a concussion but I had to grab him here, just way too much upside in a ppr league. This guy has a crazy high ceiling.

Flaws -

• Bench seems a little weak
• Although I assume with 10 starting roster spots and only 7 bench spots it’s going to seem weak
• A little weak on RBs
• I basically need MJD to quit and then I should be good 
• Although not really a flaw due to my terrible draft position (8), I am carrying more risk than I would prefer (Stafford, Chris Johnson, Reggie Bush)
• I typically like my risky picks to come later in the draft, not 3 in the first 60 overall picks…

Stengths -

• Extremely happy with my starting lineup
• If my weakest link is Peyton Hillis, who may go for 1000+ all purpose yards and double digit TDs, I should be set.

Miscellaneous –

• Toughest Pick: Round 10 – Peyton Hillis
• Favorite Pick: Round 6 – Percy Harvin
• The man had 1300 all purpose yards last year with 87 receptions
• He had 100 combined targets + rushing attempts the last 9 games of the season, the most of any player. 
• Second Place
  
  Wes Welker - 74 total targets + rushing attempts

Biggest Upside: Round 14 – Rashad Jennings

• Currently the Jags #1 RB

Biggest Regret: Round 13 – Nate Washington

• Not that I don’t like Nate Washington, just wish I would have grabbed Kevin Smith instead

Immediate afterthoughts -

• Ended up with my most feared draft position: 8 :/
• My season basically rests on how well Stafford and Chris Johnson perform
• Didn’t feel as if I had to reach very much even on the end of the draft, missed out on a couple players but overall felt pretty good
• RBs are definitely weak, was hoping to pick up Donald Brown or Jonathon Stewart but missed both
• Really happy where I got Rashad Jennings, I think he may be starting
• As expected, no real draft steals due to high caliber of players

In depth analysis thoughts –

• As expected, very few chances to gain value, can really only lose value
• Extremely happy I went Hillis over Willis
• Decker as WR thus try to avoid having QB/WR and RB on same team
• I am still really high on Hillis, goal line back that catches balls and will split carries pretty evenly with Charles
• Reaches
• Romo (16)
• Gates (28)
• Cutler (45)
• Value picks
• Jennings (35)
• Lots of people down on him this year…
• Harvin (41)
• Last of the WRs I was really happy with
• Bush (56)
• McGahee (79)
• Stewart (98)
• Rashad Jennings (105)
• Anyone else think MJD won’t start the first 4 games?
• Kevin Smith (114)
• Starting RB that will catch a lot of balls, not sure how he made it here

For completeness sake, I am playing in a third league (Warhawks). It is a 12 man keeper league (2 keepers) where 8 teams make the playoffs and has a low to mid level of competition with lower participation than the two leagues above.

Click here for my team.

Draft Grades –
Overall: A
Individual Draft Picks: A-
Team: A-


Quick plan overview: I traded Arian Foster for Calvin Johnson and thus ended up keeping Calvin and Forte. Plan was to grab injured players (Ryan Matthews, Jason Witten) if available as I am not worried about making the playoffs. 

Hindsight: Underestimated level of competition. I thought I could wait to pickup some WRs I was targeting (Darius Heyward-Bey, Reggie Wayne, Lance Moore) and load up on some RBs, but ended up getting squeezed on WRs :/.

Taken as a whole, I consider my 2012 drafting of being consistent with my expectations. With the exception of valuing Isaac Redman far too high (I was basing my ranking on the assumption Jonathan Dwyer would be out a few weeks in the regular season), I felt I performed an adequate amount of research to formulate a strong draft plan. Following the creation of my various draft plans, I believe they were executed almost to perfection, again with only one exception: I underestimated the level of competition in the Warhawk league resulting in me have poor WRs on my bench.

My goal of the 2012 fantasy football is to win > 60% of my matchups and finish in the top half of each league. This will result in a record of 23-16 among my leagues with a projected ending regular season record of 8-5, 8-5, and 7-6.

I hope you have enjoyed reading my post-draft analysis of fantasy football. I plan to provide an update in ~4 weeks with my current record and any significant roster moves.


Next week’s topic: Basic level of care

My Voting Issues

What are you passionate about? What, if no longer allowed, would propel you to action? The United States spends ~$55 billion on alcohol each year. What would you do if the government outlawed the consumption of alcohol? Would you invest your own time, energy, and resources to overturn such a ruling?

Do you agree the federal government should protect its children’s safety, whether from foreign or domestic threats regardless of a parent’s or child’s consent?

The most popular sport in America is football. If you answered yes to the question of children’s safety, the government should prohibit many children’s sporting events, especially football. Furthermore, what if the government outlawed the game of football entirely? Again, would you invest your own time, energy, and resources to overturn such a ruling?

Your answers to these questions will likely reflect how you prioritize your voting issues. Here are my voting issues ranked in order of most to least important, all subject to change of course :)

1. Small government/freedom
• Often, the bigger a government, the less freedom its citizens have
2. Fiscal Responsibility/National Debt
• Includes balancing of budget, highly correlated with economic principles and small government
3. Tax Policy
• Who do we tax? How much do we tax? What do we tax?
4. Economic principles
• How, if at all, can the federal government create a positive economic environment?
5. Illegal immigration
6. Foreign policy

Why Voting Issues?
Might it make more sense to:

1. Determine what we believe about individual issues
2. Rank issues in order of individual importance
3. Vote for candidates/political parties based on order of issue importance, understanding that unless you yourself are running for office, there is a small chance any candidate will share your views on all political issues

Rather than:

1. Pick a candidate or political party to support
2. Adopt party (or candidate) lines on all political issues

In my limited experience, the majority of voters are single issue voters. For example, if a single issue voter ranks abortion as their highest priority, they will side with any candidate who share’s their preference on abortion regardless of the candidate's (or political party’s) stance on numerous other issues.

Thus, simply speaking about candidates and/or political parties is a poor representation of how a majority of voters feel about peripheral issues. This showcases the benefits of simply talking about issues rather than candidates/political parties.

Personal Example

Borrowing a line from one of my good friends, I consider myself a fiscal conservative and social moderate.  I prefer a small government, but have only minor interest in social issues (abortion, gay marriage, stem cells, etc.). If a discussion was limited simply to political parties, I would be considered a conservative on fiscal issues and tend to be liberal with social issues.

Additionally, I believe in many instances, narrowing one’s focus to a single issue as compared to whole political party stances, most of us, myself included, are less likely to take offense. Therefore an environment more favorable to discussion and open communication may be achieved by limiting the topic to a single issue.

It is my hope you will take the time to thoughtfully consider your beliefs on a variety of issues. As before, I encourage (and would greatly appreciate) you to email me your list of voting issues from most to least important. Please use the subject heading: My Voting Issues. 

Next week’s topic: Fantasy Football Part 2: Draft Analysis

The Role of Government

It is the year 1776. Amid widespread financial, political, and religious suppression, you have been given the task of designing a form of government for a nation of 2.5 million citizens consisting of numerous different races, ethnicities, religions, languages, and cultures.

What would life look like for the citizens of your country under the government you construct? Would you have a minimalist approach? Would you choose to have high taxes, but offer numerous free services (health care, education, job skills, food, shelter, ect.)? Would you place yourself as a warlord to extract the maximum amount of resources from your citizens to maximize revenue for you and a select handful of your closest friends/family?

Saddam Hussein: 1937 - 2006

I encourage you to submit your ideas to republicofruss@gmail.com. A list of various forms of government may be found here: Forms of Government (Wikipedia).

I also highly recommend the Netflix Instant Streaming series: America: The Story of Us. I am no historian, and I am certain there are inaccuracies, biases, and omissions of key historical events, however, the series gave me a broader understanding of how our country has been shaped by historical events. The clip below is from the series.

My beliefs on what roles a government should fulfill shape my opinions on a variety of issues. Listed below are the functions I believe a country’s primary (or federal), state, and local governments should entail. As a disclaimer, the list may be incomplete and changed in the future as I research current and potential government functions/systems. I will highlight my rational for each function in numerous ensuing blog posts, thus you will again be left with a cliffhanger :)

Functions of Government:

Federal –
1) Protection a.k.a. Homeland Security from foreign threats
2) Legal System

The legal system can be broken down into:

• Legislative system – oversees the proposal, ratification, and approval of laws
• Judicial system – essentially our courts system today. Judges will hear cases and appeals and determine verdicts based off of pre-existing laws passed by the legislative system
• Law Enforcement – method of enforcing the laws approved by the legislative system and carrying out the verdicts of the judicial system

3) Macro-regulation

• Standardized currency
• Less certain of this now (02/2014)
• Pollution Controls
• Many more

4) Welfare System

• Basic level of care
• Will be defined extensively later
• Includes a minimal amount of food, shelter, clothing, and health care
• Retirement system
• I would support a voluntary retirement system, however my views are straying away from a forced retirement system such as Social Security (02/2014)

5) Large scale disaster preparation and response

• Funding allocated to assist state governments when a disaster overwhelms local and state resources.

Hurricane Katrina 2005

6) Taxation

• Government must collect resources from it's citizens to carry out functions listed above.

State and Local -

• State governments can do anything not prohibited by the federal government. State governments will have their own legislative, judicial, and law enforcement components as well as forms of taxation..
• Vague I know :) - I simply want to give power and greater freedom to individual states in governmental decisions which will affect the citizens in their jurisdiction.
• Example
  
  A good example is whether or not to legalize marijuana. This is an issue I would much rather see left up to individual states who can decide for themselves. Those individuals who are strongly against the legalization of marijuana can move to states where it is illegal, and those individuals who are strongly for its legalization can move to states where it has been deemed legal.
• Local governments have the same freedom and restrictions as state governments, only they find themselves under the authority of both the federal and their respective state government. 

With the various roles I see a government needing to fulfill, a method to accomplish them is needed. Answering the question I posed in the beginning, I would choose to construct a republic. A republic being defined as a government where the citizens of a country elect representatives by popular vote within their designated jurisdiction. These elected officials will in turn represent their citizens in a governing body. The United States currently uses this system and it is one I agree with.

In regards to the level of governmental involvement in the lives of citizens, I believe two of our nation's founding fathers articulate my views far superior than I am able to, especially considering the pressures they faced in forming a new nation:

“A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity. “ - Thomas Jefferson
	Thomas Jefferson 1743 - 1826

Patrick Henry 1736 - 1799 “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government." - Patrick Henry

Jefferson's, Henry's, and other founding father's words on limiting government and achieving a balance of powers powerfully resounds with my limited experience as a citizen under the authority of the United States government. In the ensuing posts I will attempt to further expand upon the broad roles listed above.


Next Week's Topic: My Voting Issues