One of the big problems with both voters and politicians is their lack of the concept of "short and long". Don't follow me? That is the objective of this blog.
I used to teach Decision Theory at a major university and know a little about decision making. In prior blogs, I pointed out that a frequent error in decision making was "not considering all the alternatives". This blog will go one step farther. Before any decision can be made, you need a good definition and understanding of the objective. If you don't know what the purpose of your decision, there is no way that you can expect to come up with the right decision.
I am going to use Obama's DACA executive order as my example. Just before his second election, Obama issued his DACA order to satisfy his Latin American supporters so that they would turn out to vote for him. Obama was just looking at the "short term" affects of his order, not the "long term". The result was a massive influx of young Latin Americans flooding into the USA. They were much like "anchor babies" that would have long term "bad" affects. Had Obama been, at all, concerned about the "long term" affects, he might not have issued his order.
Remember when President Reagan signed the amnesty bill to try to cure our illegal immigration situation? What he did was to only look at the "short term" impact, not realizing that the "long term" impact would be to encourage future illegal immigrants to expect the same treatment. The amnesty actually made things worse in the "long term". You know that now.
On TV News today, Geraldo said that we should not deport the "dreamers" because it would not be fair to kids who were sent here by their parents from Latin America. What Geraldo was doing was exactly what all other politicians have been doing for years and that is just looking at the "short term". At all levels, we are going to have to start looking at the implications of our simple minded "short term" decisions. When kids drop out of school, isn't it clear that the decision has much more serious "long term" affects? How about getting knocked up out of wedlock? Is the "short term" thrill worth the "long term" impact?
I could go on and on with examples, but I think the above makes my point clear. The main difference between immature decisions and mature decisions is the balance between their "short term" and "long term" impact. What we need is more "maturity" at all levels of decision making!!
PS---If these "dreamers" are now so well educated and valuable too the USA's economy, they would be even more valuable to their Latin american homes countries. Isn't that a "long term" factor that should be taken into account? Would it be better to send our tax money to these same Latin American countries or to send back their own educated and trained citizens?
PS---Another thing that is talked about is the reason that parents sent their kids here. What do you think that was? Don't know? It was so they could send money back to the family! That is what the kids do from India and Mexico now. Remittances account for a very significant component of both India and Mexico's economies and it comes at the expense of the USA. They are not sending those kids here so that their kids will have a better life!
PS---If you want "more" bad behavior, reward it with amnesty. If you want "less" bad behavior, punish it. Darwin has been using this principle for millions of years and it has works everytime.
PS---Remember my basic objective? It is to raise the "median" family income. It is now about $50.000. If the average Dreamer does not make at least $50,000, they are making the USA poorer. It is not enough that they pay "some" taxes. If they don't earn at least $100.000, they don't pay their share of tax like most of the people in the USA now do not do. As I said above they should not send a penny back to Mexico either.
I used to teach Decision Theory at a major university and know a little about decision making. In prior blogs, I pointed out that a frequent error in decision making was "not considering all the alternatives". This blog will go one step farther. Before any decision can be made, you need a good definition and understanding of the objective. If you don't know what the purpose of your decision, there is no way that you can expect to come up with the right decision.
I am going to use Obama's DACA executive order as my example. Just before his second election, Obama issued his DACA order to satisfy his Latin American supporters so that they would turn out to vote for him. Obama was just looking at the "short term" affects of his order, not the "long term". The result was a massive influx of young Latin Americans flooding into the USA. They were much like "anchor babies" that would have long term "bad" affects. Had Obama been, at all, concerned about the "long term" affects, he might not have issued his order.
Remember when President Reagan signed the amnesty bill to try to cure our illegal immigration situation? What he did was to only look at the "short term" impact, not realizing that the "long term" impact would be to encourage future illegal immigrants to expect the same treatment. The amnesty actually made things worse in the "long term". You know that now.
On TV News today, Geraldo said that we should not deport the "dreamers" because it would not be fair to kids who were sent here by their parents from Latin America. What Geraldo was doing was exactly what all other politicians have been doing for years and that is just looking at the "short term". At all levels, we are going to have to start looking at the implications of our simple minded "short term" decisions. When kids drop out of school, isn't it clear that the decision has much more serious "long term" affects? How about getting knocked up out of wedlock? Is the "short term" thrill worth the "long term" impact?
I could go on and on with examples, but I think the above makes my point clear. The main difference between immature decisions and mature decisions is the balance between their "short term" and "long term" impact. What we need is more "maturity" at all levels of decision making!!
PS---If these "dreamers" are now so well educated and valuable too the USA's economy, they would be even more valuable to their Latin american homes countries. Isn't that a "long term" factor that should be taken into account? Would it be better to send our tax money to these same Latin American countries or to send back their own educated and trained citizens?
PS---Another thing that is talked about is the reason that parents sent their kids here. What do you think that was? Don't know? It was so they could send money back to the family! That is what the kids do from India and Mexico now. Remittances account for a very significant component of both India and Mexico's economies and it comes at the expense of the USA. They are not sending those kids here so that their kids will have a better life!
PS---If you want "more" bad behavior, reward it with amnesty. If you want "less" bad behavior, punish it. Darwin has been using this principle for millions of years and it has works everytime.
PS---Remember my basic objective? It is to raise the "median" family income. It is now about $50.000. If the average Dreamer does not make at least $50,000, they are making the USA poorer. It is not enough that they pay "some" taxes. If they don't earn at least $100.000, they don't pay their share of tax like most of the people in the USA now do not do. As I said above they should not send a penny back to Mexico either.
