Do You Need Math to get into Heaven?

Clearly, nothing is more important than math. The cartoon above is all the proof of this statement that is needed.

(In case you can't read the caption, St. Peter is asking the potential Heaven candidate, "Now the last thing you have to do to get into Heaven is to answer this question: Two trains left Chicago traveling 40 mph in opposite directions and ...").

So, yes, a reasonable knowledge of mathematics is needed to get into Heaven. So as a courtesy to my beloved readers, I have decided to show you how to do such math, so that you will not have to go to “that other place” just because you forgot your Algebra II.

NOTE: don’t stop reading now! This article is written for math-phobics, and anyone else who has not used Algebra since the last century.

So let’s get to it. Here’s the math problem we’re going to solve. Even I didn’t like these kinds of problems when I first studied Algebra. This should encourage you to continue reading.

“Boston and New York City are about 200 miles apart. A train leaves Boston for New York at a speed of 40 mph. Another train leaves New York for Boston at a speed of 60 mph. How long will it take for them to meet?”

(If they are on the same track, they’ll do a bit more than “meet”, but we are a peaceful people, so let’s leave it at that.)

Of course, you can whip out your calculator and keep guessing until you get the answer. Actually, mathematicians and scientists do a lot of guessing, so there is nothing wrong with this. But here we want to use Algebra, because it is such a nice word. In case you didn’t know, Algebra comes from an Arabic word meaning Unknown.

So where to start on this problem? I’d draw a simple picture, just to postpone actually having to solve the problem.

             -------> 40 mph                 60 mph <-------

Boston o-----------------------------------------------------o New York

                                     200 miles


Leonardo da Vinci could not have drawn a better picture.

There is one big secret to solving algebraic equations: let a variable (usually a letter of the alphabet) represent the unknown value you are trying to find. In this case, it is the time it takes for them to meet. Let’s write this down.

Let T = the time it takes for the two trains to meet.

And another realization is that the time each train travels before they meet is the same, so we only need this one variable for time.

One other piece of knowledge needed is one you all know, D = RT, which stands for Distance = Rate x Time. Yes, you know this and use it all the time. If I said a car was traveling at 50 mph for 3 hours, and asked how far it went, you’d multiply these numbers (the rate or speed of the car and the time it traveled) to get 150 miles.

Here’s the most fun part, and the hardest as well. Both trains travel at different rates, so we need to apply this equation for each train.  So:

Let DB = the distance the train from Boston travels before it meets the New York Train.

Let DN = the distance the train from New York travels before it meets the Boston Train.

Applying the D = RT formula to both trains, we get:

DB = 40T (Note that since T is the same for both trains, we don’t need to indicate its origination point.)  And we get:

DN = 60T

Now what?  We'll if you look back at the problem, you'll notice that we didn't use one of hte facts given there, namely that the distance from Boston to New York is 200 miles. Writing this algebraically:

DB + DN = 200

Now we replace each of these distances with the right hand side of the two equations above:

40T + 60T = 200

Alright, you’ll have to remember a little Algebra to simplify this equation. Since I’m hungry, I’ll use a food analogy. If you had 40 apples and 60 apples, you’d have 100 apples. (If you hungry now and need to go eat, please do so but come back.  And don't forget your New Year's resolution to lose weight this year.)

Therefore, 40T + 60T = 100T. So we put this on the left side of the above equation to get:

100T = 200

My more intelligent readers will immediately realize that T = 2 hours, and there you have it!

Of course, we must check our work. We would never think about not checking our work!

If the train leaving Boston traveled for 2 hours at 40 mph, it would travel 80 miles. If the train leaving New York traveled for 2 hours at 60 mph, it would travel for 120 miles. Since 80 miles + 120 miles = 200 miles, which is the distance between the cities, our answer checks.

So now, gentle reader, there are no math obstacles for you getting into Heaven. St. Peter will be quite proud of you.

By the way, here’s one last equation for you:

Math = Heaven

Trust me on this.

______________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.

______________________________________

Did you know that President Obama is Black?

On Sundays in the Dallas Morning News, there is a section called, “Sounding Off”, that has brief comments by those who live in the Dallas area about a particular topic. The topic is chosen by one of the Dallas Morning News editors, and those of us that are contributors to the Sounding Off section get an email from the editor whenever he is interested in getting our opinions about a given topic.

Today, I got an email requesting two or three sentences about the topic, “What is the great untold story about your community in 2009 and how would it surprise people?”

I actually didn’t quite answer that exact question, but here is what I did submit:

“One great story in 2009 is how easy it has been for us to accept a Black president. I, and many people I know, disagree with many of President Obama’s policies, but his race hasn’t ever come up in my discussions with others. We are getting closer to Rev. Martin Luther King’s vision of judging a person for who they are rather than by the color of their skin.”

This is pretty cool actually. Obviously, there are still bigots out there, but there have to be fewer now than there were, say, 30 years ago. When Kennedy ran for president in 1960, many people thought he couldn’t get elected because he was Catholic.

I would like for us to take this one step further. When discussing policies that affect us, let’s not bring up any labels that serve to divide us. For instance, for a particular policy, does it really matter if the person who is giving their opinion is a conservative or a liberal, a leftist or a rightist, or a Republican or a Democrat?

It’s not that those things don’t matter, but they have nothing to do with whether their thinking about a particular policy is something that you may or may not agree with. In other words, it is best to judge someone’s policy ideas based upon your principles and not about irrelevancies such as the person’s skin color or political affiliation. This is much less divisive, and tends to keep a discussion based upon the merit of the ideas presented.

For instance, consider these policy positions that I have:

1) I think that the private use of drugs by adults ought not to be illegal. (I’m not advocating that people take drugs, I’m just advocating that they not be illegal).

2) I think abortion is almost always bad, but don’t think it should be illegal.

3) I think that we should have the strongest military in the world.

4) I think that we should bring our troops home from all foreign countries.

5) I think having nuclear weapons has been a tremendous deterrent to war, and it would foolish to get rid of all of them.

6) I think that the evidence shows that the Earth is warming slightly but that we have little evidence as to how much humanity is contributing to it. Furthermore, limiting carbon dioxide emissions will have a negligible effect on however much global warming is occurring. (If the Earth does start warming to an unacceptable extent, there are much cheaper and more effective ways of dealing with it).

7) I think that one of best ways to increase the prosperity of Americans and eventually the world is to build lots of nuclear power plants. We would shortly have clean, safe and inexpensive energy, and would have time to properly develop other sources of energy, such as solar power.

I didn’t bring these ideas up here to convince anyone about them, but rather to show how some of them would be considered conservative, some liberal, etc. It doesn’t matter to me what labels a person gives them, and I don’t consider any such labels when thinking about my positions. I only consider my principles. Isn’t that a good thing?

______________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.
______________________________________

Government Job Creation and My Bad Math Skills

Someone tell me if I’m doing the math wrong.

In the 12/3/2009 business section of the Dallas Morning News, there’s an article about a White House summit to create jobs. The good news is that, according to the article, President Obama “returned last week from Asia vowing a renewed emphasis on the role of free trade in job creation.” He’s doing this in a number of ways, including attempting to get better free-trade pacts with Asian countries. And there are other things he wants to do to increase our exports, all of which are good. The article also claims that nearly one-fourth of the manufacturing jobs in Texas depend on exports, so clearly this would be helpful to Texas.

This all makes me happy.

How has the government been doing so far in creating jobs? The article says that unemployment is at 10.2%, “despite the $787 billion stimulus package. The White House argues that the stimulus has created or saved about 1 million jobs, but more must be done. “

Here’s where I need your math help. When I divided $787 billion by $1 million in my head (where is my calculator when I need one?), I get $787,000 spent in stimulus funds per job created or saved.

Obviously, my math skills are diminishing, along with those of the climatologists who can’t understand why their climate models aren’t making correct predictions. Maybe it’s a world-wide phenomenon caused by too much of that extremely-toxic carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

In the unlikely event that my math is correct, how many jobs do you think that you could create with $787,000? I’ll bet it’s more than one.

No, I’m sure my math is wrong. I just wish I knew where.

Sincerely,

Your Math-Impaired Blogger

______________________________________


Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.

______________________________________

Government Based Upon Natural Law - (Part 8) - Foreign Trade, Foreign Relations, and Foreign Aid

"I saw that you could not separate the idea of commerce from the idea of war and peace. You could not have serious war anywhere in the world and expect commerce to go on as before. And I saw that wars were often caused by economic rivalry. I thereupon came to believe that if we could increase commercial exchanges among nations over lowered trade and tariff barriers and remove international obstacles to trade, we would go a long way toward eliminating war itself."

Cordell Hull, former Secretary of State, in his memoirs after observing two world wars

Foreign Relations

We should have cordial relations with all countries who act peacefully. No peaceful country ought to be afraid that the United States will ever attempt to conquer it or forcibly take away its natural resources.

To countries or groups that have ill intentions toward us, our firm message should be: It would be a grave mistake to attack us, because you will end up suffering more than we will. “Speak softly and carry a big stick” was not bad advice from Teddy Roosevelt.

We ought not to preach to other countries about how they should behave, or what their economic or political systems should be. This has frequently led to them resenting us, rather than appreciating our good intentions. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund attempt to do this, and we should have nothing to do with them.

Rather, we should be humble and set a good example for other countries to follow. What this means politically is that our government should protect our right to be free to live our lives as we deem best, as long as we don’t interfere with the right of others to do the same. What this means individually is that each of us ought to love our Creator and love others, by treating others as children of our Creator, and by using our talents to help make the world a better place.

As mentioned in a previous part, we should not have our military stationed in any other countries, unless we are at war. This has created enmity and dependency, as well costing taxpayers a great deal of money. It may help to create temporary stability in a given region, but is this truly our business?

Foreign Trade

Allow free trade with all nations. Free trade, not aid, is the best way to help other nations to become more prosperous.

Benjamin Franklin said, “No nation was ever ruined by trade.”

George Washington, the Father of our nation said, “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, and to have with them as little political connection as possible.”

And Jefferson said, “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations but entangling alliances with none.”

It would be well to heed these three of the most influential men in the history of our country.

Furthermore, free trade with foreign nations possibly offers one of the best solutions to avoiding war. We went to war with Japan over 60 years ago. Within a few decades, we were buying a great deal of goods from Japan, who then became dependent on trade with us. Do you think that they would consider going to war with us now, even if they thought they could win?

Similarly, China’s economy is closely tied to ours, and they are very desirous of us having a robust economy, so that theirs can thrive. Thus, the more trade we have with other countries, the more we reduce the risk of war with them, and the more prosperous they and we become. It is truly a win-win scenario.

Also, there is no reason to not have trade with Cuba. Cuba has not threatened the United States since the Cuban Missile Crisis in the 1960s. We may not like some of their domestic policies, but that is none of our business. Cubans and Americans would benefit from trade between our nations.

Trade protectionism does not have a history of working well for our country. For instance, in 1930, the year after the stock-market crash, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act imposed an effective tax rate of 60% on more than 3,200 products and materials imported into the U.S., quadrupling previous tariff rates. Although the tariff act was passed after the stock-market crash of 1929, many economic historians consider the political discussion leading up to the passing of the act as a factor in causing the crash and/or the recession that began in late 1929, and its eventual passage as a factor in deepening the Great Depression. Unemployment was at 7.8% in 1930 when the Smoot-Hawley tariff was passed, but it jumped to 16.3% in 1931, 24.9% in 1932, and 25.1% in 1933.

Another important point is that when people of good will trade with each other, they naturally get to know each other. And they frequently find out that these “foreigners” usually have the same values that we do. For instance, they also want the best for their families and for their country. So free trade has the side effect of producing friendships that might not normally be made.

However, free trade cannot occur if countries subsidize their industries. For instance, the U.S. subsidizes farming (often run by large corporations and often at the behest of a strong Farm Lobby), which makes it harder for poor nations to export food to us, leaving them and us poorer. It has been proven that there is always a net benefit when we are allowed to buy and trade with those who make the best product for the best price, wherever they happen to be in the world. And the best way to make this happen is to allow individuals and companies to buy or trade with whomever they wish. This is not a guarantee, but there is no better way to achieve prosperity for all humans. Beside, freedom is the American way.

Congress can and should restrict the trade of goods or services that could harm national security, such as the sale of weaponry to countries that are hostile to us. Also, any imported goods would have to meet the same health and safety standards as domestically made items. For instance, any cars we import must meet the same standards as domestically made cars. Inspections of such goods, which should be made by our government, should be paid for by the company who is selling them. Otherwise, Congress should not restrict trade with other countries.

Developing countries are welcome to ask foreign companies, such as those in the U.S. and elsewhere, to start companies in their country. This may benefit the developing country by attracting the talent and resources needed in order to grow economically. Of course, this would always be up to the home country.

Foreign Aid

The U.S. ought not to subsidize other nations, or provide continuous foreign aid to any nation. However, the U.S. may provide temporary humanitarian aid to a nation or nations due to natural disasters or other such events.

Continual foreign aid contributes to corruption and to dependency. It also can create enmity toward our country in that other countries may wonder why their country is not getting any of our money. And, not infrequently, this money is used to purchase weapons, and buy power, rather than help the people for whom it is intended.

It may also prolong conflicts, as I believe it has done in the Middle East.

This is not meant to be a restriction on individuals or organizations, who may give time and money to whomever they wish (again with the restriction that no goods or services may be provided to individuals, groups, or countries that could harm our national security.) ______________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.
______________________________________

Are you Thankful for your Bathroom?

For this 2009 Thanksgiving, I thought I'd remind us to give thanks for things we don't usually remember to give thanks for.

Things for which we Should Express our Gratitude

Last night I went to the bathroom to take a shower. You won't believe this, but our shower has hot and cold running water, and the amount of water coming through the showerhead can be adjusted! How great is that? Less than a century ago, most people in the United States could not claim this. Most would have to go to back to an outhouse, not a bathroom. And once-a-week baths, shared by all family members were the norm.

Anyone want to go back a hundred years again and lose half the children that are born to a woman before that child is five?

Anyone want to go back to using horses as our main mode of transportation? Don't forget to clean up the manure, and shoo away the flies it attracts, and to close your nose while doing it.

Anyone want to go back before there was heat and air conditioning, sanitation, toilets, vaccines, or modern medicine?

Anyone want to give up their cell phones, computers, jets, GPS, and other technological marvels that make our lives so much simpler to communicate with anyone, anywhere almost for free?

Anyone want to go back before the 1990's when the World Wide Web came to prominence, bringing mankind's knowledge to anyone who had an Internet connection?

Every year, scientists are finding out how special our Universe is, and how special our Earth is – if a few things had been off by just a little life would not even exist. For instance, if the strength of gravity were off just a little, our Universe would not be fit for life. The Universe and Earth are more beautiful than anyone even 50 years ago could have imagined. Anyone want to take a chance and jump to another planet in another Universe at random? You go first.

Anyone want to go back and live during a world war? Due to our technology, our presidents, and our military, we have not been in a world war for over 60 years.

Anyone in the United States want to go back to a time before there was freedom of thought, freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom of trade, or freedom of association?

Anyone want to go back before the days of the Hubble Telescope and the awe-inspiring images it has sent to us?

Anyone want to go back to before people of all skin colors, and religious backgrounds could get the jobs they were qualified for, could get to sit in the same restaurants, and could get elected to be the President of the United States?

Expressing our Gratitude Every Day

It hard for all of us to remember to be thankful for the many gifts bestowed up on us by our Creator and His Creation, and by the inventions of His children. Here is prayer I learned from a friend, now deceased, that I try to say every day:

"Dear God, thank you for the love, beauty, health, peace and prosperity manifesting in my life. Please guide me in the furtherance of Your work."

And after my evening prayers, I try to remember to say the following:

"I send out love, peace, and goodwill to all of God's children."


A Side Benefit of being Grateful

The more we express gratitude for all that we have, the better we feel about ourselves and the healthier we are, physically, emotionally and spiritually.

And our “attitude of gratitude” is contagious. Others around us respond to it. Imagine a world in which we all express gratitude daily. Our world would be transformed overnight. How thankful would we be for that!

____________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.
______________________________________

Government Based Upon Natural Law - (Part 5) - Border Security and Immigration Policy

Border and Port Security
A primary responsibility of the federal government is to secure our borders, and our borders are clearly not currently secure. Every effort should be made to secure them so that it would be virtually impossible to enter our country illegally. Our borders need not necessarily have a literal fence. Rather, we may be able to use technology in conjunction with the border patrol and/or military to monitor our borders.

Our ports should be secured using the troops that we bring home from overseas. In particular, incoming cargo should be checked for nuclear devices or other weapons that pose threats to our national security.

Immigration Policy

1) Immigration is very important to the U.S. Our immigration policy should welcome many of the best people from all over the world who wish to immigrate to the United States.

Each potential immigrant should be subject to a background check and a medical exam, and we should attempt to discern whether or not the potential immigrant has abilities that are needed by our country. We should also attempt to discern whether this individual believes in the value of properly raising and educating his or her children, as well as his or her belief in the brotherhood of mankind. Also, knowledge of the English language should be required before an immigrant becomes a permanent resident or a citizen. (A person in the U.S. that does not speak English is a considerable disadvantage to himself and to our country.)

Our goal should be to allow into our country only those immigrants who will become exemplary U.S. citizens.

2) There are many illegal immigrants currently in the U.S.; it would be untenable to deport all of these illegal immigrants. Thus, the first priority should be to secure our borders, before attempting to deal with those illegal immigrants already here.

While we are doing this, we can start issuing tamper-proof ID cards with biometric information to all of our current and future immigrants, as well as our citizens. These IDs would be used as we now use driver’s licenses, which are now the de facto ID cards. This would make it easier for the government to keep track of our immigrants. One secondary benefit is that it would make life easier for our legal immigrants. For example, individuals here on a student visa could use their ID card to easily prove their legal status to a university. Also, having such IDs gives the U.S. a better way to determine who is eligible for certain benefits, such as educational subsidies, health-care subsidies, and the previously-mentioned Natural-Resource Tax Dividend, as well as such things as improving airport security. Congress should pass laws that are explicit about when such IDs may be used, and that also state that these IDs cannot be used for any other purpose.

3) Current illegal immigrants who substantially violate our laws should be deported, after serving any incarceration time.

4) Once our borders are secure and the ID cards are in place, those illegal immigrants that have been here a reasonable amount of time, and have beneficially contributed to our country, may be granted a legal status and eventually a permanent status (such as by being given a green card). However, they should not be granted citizenship, since this would be unfair to those immigrants who came or will come here legally. This would serve as an additional disincentive to coming here illegally. It would also make politicians less likely to quickly legalize illegal immigrants in order to get more votes.

The current wave of illegal immigrants has its most harmful effects on our schools and on our public health care resources. Our schools must now deal with large numbers of students who do not speak English. This is very stressful to our educational system and expensive for our schools to deal with.

Illegal immigration has put a tremendous strain on our health care resources. For instance, in the first three months of 2006 at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, 70% of all births were babies born to illegal immigrants, and Parkland now has more than 16,000 births recorded there each year. Furthermore, the out-of-wedlock birthrate among illegal immigrants is substantially higher than that of our citizens and our legal immigrants.

Securing our borders will do much to decrease the number of individuals who enter our country illegally.


___________________________________________


Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.

___________________________________________

A Million Here, a Zillion There…

Government Debt Made Simple

Have you been scrupulously paying your way out of debt using one of those "Get out of Debt Now" programs? Or maybe you're already debt free. I'm sorry to say this, but you are so wrong. You may be personally out of debt but your beloved federal government has been taking you in the opposite direction.

Let's start with some government debt and deficit numbers, numbers so big that they are almost meaningless. But just for you, I'll reduce these numbers to what they would mean for an average family, so that you can get appropriately incensed. Frankly, most newspaper and magazine articles just stick with the big numbers, and we the people can only wonder what a trillion dollars means, and whether or not a zillion dollars is more or less than a trillion dollars. (Just for the record, a "zillion" is not real, but it is only slightly less not real than a trillion).

So bear with me for giving you the big numbers and I'll soon get to some numbers one can actually understand. You can even skip the next section if you start to get a headache.

Here are the Big Numbers

The National Debt as of November, 2009 is about $12 trillion. The federal government expects the National Debt to be $14 trillion for the fiscal year 2010. Just for perspective, four years ago in 2006, the National Debt was about $9 trillion.

Federal spending for fiscal 2009 was around $4 trillion. (Or was that $4 zillion?) The 2009 deficit was about $1.8 trillion. This means that the federal government spent $1.8 trillion more than it took in during the 2009 fiscal year.

Interest paid during the 2009 fiscal year on the National Debt was $380 billion, about 9% of the entire federal budget. No debt was paid off, but plenty of debt was added.

During the month of October, 2009 (the start of the 2010 fiscal year), the federal government spent $178 billion more than it received in taxes – the $178 billion was "only" the deficit spending, just for that one month. The federal government actually spent over $330 billion in October. Don't try this at home.

Over a year, this would amount to over $2 trillion in deficit spending. And that is the actual deficit estimate expected by the federal government for 2010. This will increase our National Debt to $14 trillion, and the interest we will pay on that will be about $440 billion.

Here are the Same Numbers Given on a Per-Family Basis

To put this in perspective, I'm going to rewrite the information given above on a per-family basis, so that it is understandable to us humans. It isn't hard to do once you know that there are about 110 million households in the U.S. If you had a headache, now is the time to start reading again. Your headache will get worse.

The National Debt as of November, 2009 is about $109,000 per family. (Never doubt my math skills). The federal government expects the National Debt to be $128,000 per family for the fiscal year 2010. Just for perspective, four years ago in 2006, the National Debt was about $82,000 per family. Shame on you for increasing your debt so quickly.

Federal spending for fiscal 2009 was around $36,000 per family. The 2009 deficit was about $16,300 per family. This means that the federal government spent $16,300 per family more than it took in during the 2009 fiscal year.

Interest paid during the 2009 fiscal year on the National Debt was about $3,500 per family, about 9% of the entire federal budget. No debt was paid off, but plenty of debt was added.

During the month of October, 2009 (the start of the 2010 fiscal year), the federal government spent $1,600 per family more than it received in taxes – the $1,600 per family was "only" the deficit spending, just for that one month. The federal government actually spent over $3,000 per family in October. Go ahead and try this at home for a few months and let me know how it turns out.

Over a year, this would amount to over $19,000 per family in deficit spending. And that is the actual deficit estimate expected by the federal government for 2010. This will increase our National Debt to $128,000 per family, and the interest we will pay on that will be about $4,400 per family.

Did You Have Any Idea That We Were in This Much Debt?

Did you know that your family accumulated an additional $16,700 debt in 2009? And that your family's total debt as a result of federal spending will be $128,000 within a year? And that you'll be paying $4,400 just to pay the interest on that debt?

Not to worry, it's easy to solve this problem. Each family just needs to give the federal government an additional $128,000 next year.

I'm sending my money in tomorrow.

Enjoy Your New Debt

This debt is not like student loans that accumulate while a student is getting an education, and then are paid off when the student gets a job. This debt has grown during every presidential administration since 1969 and has dramatically increased over the last few years. Each year it takes up a larger fraction of federal spending, and shows no sign of letting up. (I won't scare you by telling you how much more debt will be added just to keep up with our Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid obligations.  You wouldn't believe it anyway.)

Solutions to Our National Debt Problems

Actually, there are no realistic political solutions. As most of you know, our politicians do not have the courage to face up to this, because any solutions they come up with will be unpopular with a large number of groups, and this will decrease their chances of getting elected (or re-elected), which is the most important consideration for many politicians. For instance, we'd certainly have to increase the minimum age needed to get full Social Security benefits and/or decrease the amount of the benefit. I wouldn't be happy about this myself, but them's the bitter truth. (Why isn't my grammar checker working?)

But I'm not a politician, thankfully, so here are some realistic solutions that can and should, but won't be done:

1) Pass a balanced budget amendment.  (To be realistic, it could go into effect in, say, 15 years, just to give the government time to rein in spending). After that, no more debt would be accumulated. Texas and many other states have such amendments, and it has suffered less through the current recession than most of the rest of the country.

2) Allow federal spending to increase only at the rate of inflation, and population growth. Tax receipts will normally increase faster than this, so we could then start paying down the National Debt.

I could list lots of other items here, but if we do these, you and I would be happy campers (or at least I would). Think anyone could get elected to the presidency with those two items on their platform? Neither do I.

_____________________________________


Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.

____________________________