Menu

........................................AVAILABLE FOR SEMINARS OR SPEECHES................................

Go to 'Contact Keith' for topics

Keith's Blog

Ernie Chambers and his Dysfunctionality

April 3, 2015

The Purpose for Term Limits

April 10, 2015

The premise for term limits is fundamental to the proper function of our United States Government.

Anyone who opposes the concept of term limits is disagreeing with the purpose of our American Revolution.  We do not want to be lead by a king, we want to be managed according to the way the owners of the country agreed to, the U.S. Constitution.

Government is the biggest single business in any state or this country.  This huge business is owned by "We the people..." who hire managers to run this business responsibly.

The management positions in our Government have titles like president, senator and congressman.  They are not leaders.  They are the managers that "We the people" hire to provide security, infrastructure and make rules known as laws.  This system of government built by our forefathers, who were geniuses, was designed in a way that any idiot can run.  It is not more complicated than that. 

The objective of these managers is to do their job and then 'get out of the way' and not leave a mess.  Most of these managers think they ARE leaders and insult us by thinking we can't get along with out them.  The fact is they are leaving a mess and it is a form of job security.  Like the bookkeeper who has all the passwords, so they can't fire her.

The best way to dispose of these inept proceduralists is term limits.  Three terms for Congressman, two terms for Senators and Presidents and Governors

Thank you for reading my opinion and I will do everything I can to promote term limits.

 

Editorial about Ernie Chambers Nebraska citizens have a unique responsibility in the governance of our state by the fact we have only a Senate in our Unicameral Legislature. Our House of Representatives consists of the citizens our state. That means we, the citizens, must be engaged in the legislative process and speak directly to all our senators when pressing issues arise. We must let our Senators know what must be done to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. If these words are compromised in any way by a member of Our Legislature we have an obligation to voice our concern to our Senators. When Senator Chambers says he would "kill a cop if he had a gun" and "police have a license to kill" is bordering on treason and is sowing the seeds of anarchy. This language can not be tolerate by any elected official in the state or country and he must be impeached. This is not free speech, it is 'yelling fire is a crowded theater" and undermines our system of law and order. If we do not express our outrage at these remarks, we are agreeing with these statements. If our Senators do not act to impeach, censor or force him to resign, they are also agreeing with these statements. This is no time for political correctness. Please call each senator to express your opinion and fulfill your obligation to act as a member of Nebraska's House of Representatives.

Nebraska State Legislature 2015-2016

Sen. Roy Baker District 30 Lincoln 402-471-2620

Sen. Dave Bloomfield District 17 Hoskins 402-471-2716

Sen. Kate Bolz District 29 Lincoln 402-471-2734

Sen. Lydia Brasch District 16 Bancroft 402-471-2728

Sen. Kathy Campbell District 25 Lincoln 402-471-2731

Sen. Ernie Chambers District 11 Omaha 402-471-2612

Sen. Colby Coash District 27 Lincoln 402-471-2632

Sen. Tanya Cook District 13 Omaha 402-471-2727

Sen. Joni Craighead District 6 Omaha 402-471-2714

Sen. Sue Crawford District 45 Bellevue 402-471-2615

Sen. Al Davis District 43 Hyannis 402-471-2628

Sen. Laura Ebke District 32 Crete 402-471-2711

Sen. Curt Friesen District 34 Henderson 402-471-2630

Sen. Tommy Garrett District 3 Bellevue 402-471-2627

Sen. Mike Gloor District 35 Grand Island 402-471-2617

Sen. Mike Groene District 42 North Platte 402-471-2729

Sen. Ken Haar District 21 Malcolm 402-471-2673

Sen. Galen Hadley District 37 Kearney 402-471-2726

Sen. Matt Hansen District 26 Lincoln 402-471-2610

Sen. Burke Harr District 8 Omaha 402-471-2722

Sen. Robert Hilkemann District 4 Omaha 402-471-2621

Sen. Sara Howard District 9 Omaha 402-471-2723

Sen. Dan Hughes District 44 Venango 402-471-2805

Sen. Jerry Johnson District 23 Wahoo 402-471-2719

Sen. Bill Kintner District 2 Papillion 402-471-2613

Sen. Rick Kolowski District 31 Omaha 402-471-2327

Sen. Mark Kolterman District 24 Seward 402-471-2756

Sen. Bob Krist District 10 Omaha 402-471-2718

Sen. John Kuehn District 38 Heartwell 402-471-2732

Sen. Tyson Larson District 40 O'Neill 402-471-2801

Sen. Brett Lindstrom District 18 Omaha 402-471-2618

Sen. John McCollister District 20 Omaha 402-471-2622

Sen. Beau McCoy District 39 Omaha 402-471-2885

Sen. Heath Mello District 5 Omaha 402-471-2710

Sen. Adam Morfeld District 46 Lincoln 402-471-2720

Sen. John Murante District 49 Gretna 402-471-2725

Sen. Jeremy Nordquist District 7 Omaha 402-471-2721

Sen. Patty Pansing Brooks District 28 Lincoln 402-471-2633

Sen. Merv Riepe District 12 Ralston 402-471-2623

Sen. Jim Scheer District 19 Norfolk 402-471-2929

Sen. Ken Schilz District 47 Ogallala 402-471-2616

Sen. David Schnoor District 15 Scribner 402-471-2625

Sen. Paul Schumacher District 22 Columbus 402-471-2715

Sen. Les Seiler District 33 Hastings 402-471-2712

Sen. Jim Smith Disttict 14 Papillion 402-471-2730

Sen. John Stinner District 48 Gering 402-471-2802

Sen. Kate Sullivan District 41 Cedar Rapids 402-471-2631

Sen. Dan Watermeier District 1 Syracuse 402-471-2733

Sen. Matt Williams District 36 Gothenburg 402-471-2642

Leadership defined

April 3, 2015

Leadership

Leadership is like obscenity, I can’t define it but I know it when I see it!  It is an adjective given to Presidents, Generals, CEO’s, congressmen and Popes.  It is given by society to anyone who wins the consent of the voters to perform a necessary function in a civilized society.  It is often undeserving for the recipient. 

‘Leader’ is not used to describe the skill set of a shepherd with his flock, the driver of the pace car in a race or the drum major marching in front of a parade.  As obvious as this is, this is what many of our politicians call leadership today.  They will listen to the complaints of the voters then stand in front of the crowd, saying what they want to hear, and then call them self a leader.  Another description is “leading from behind” or following the polls.  A populous leader is simply the majorette at the front of a parade.

The truly great leaders of our civilization are few.  Washington, Lincoln and Jesus Christ are the ones most described as truly great leaders.  These men had a full and complete understanding of what they were doing and why.  They lead by example and they knew where they were going.  They acted with the understanding their example must live far beyond their physical presence on this earth.  They all, except for Lincoln, did not want to be leaders.  Their objective was to make the world a place for future generation to enjoy by following their example. They were geniuses building a system of government that any idiot could run.  

In business and in government, the true objective is to simply manage the system for the continued long term mission of the entity.  In business, it is sustainable profits.  In government it is also sustainable profits, but that profit is the domestic tranquility of the society which is difficult (not impossible) to measure. 

The real bottom line is:  “If there is no margin, there is no mission!”  Simply stated, if there is not some gain or improvement from the energy and resources invested, it will definitely fail in the long term.  We can’t get anything for nothing! 

The task of our politicians is to manage, simply use the tools (our constitution) to provide domestic tranquility so each citizen can achieve their personal pursuits, generation after generation. 

This is why business experience is so vital for any government servant.  You can’t lead if you don’t know where you are going! All solutions become apparent after it is too late to change.  The best leaders see the answer first and react while there is still time, because of experience.

 

blog post

April 3, 2015

Position Paper on Taxes

And the system of application

May 18, 2014

by

Keith Kube

The tax system in this Nation is inherently backwards and the root of many of the problems we face today.  It penalizes success and reward inefficiencies and unproductive activities.

The tax code today finds all the areas in the economy where money is being generated and ‘fines’ them for doing a good job.  This causes four steps to happen:

  1. The taxed entity will look for ways to cut that tax cost.
  2. Change to an ‘abnormal business practice’.
  3. Taxes accumulate to a central government where lobbyists and congress salivate over how to use it ‘to their political advantage’.
  4. Resulting in more bureaucracy to enforce laws on ways to spend, trying to the solve symptoms  of society, not the problems.

There are 5 basic problems in our society;

  1. Economy
  2. National security
  3. Environment
  4. Education
  5. Welfare

There are numerous symptoms resulting from these 5 basic problems:

  1. Unemployment
  2. Poor health
  3. Poverty
  4. Crime
  5. Corruption
  6. Waste
  7. Unsecure boarders
  8. Decaying infrastructure
  9. Poor educational results
  10. Others to numerous to mention

The true purpose of any tax system must be to encourage activity that solves the problems listed above, not to cause a central government to continue to ‘throw our money at the symptoms’.  The gridlock we have is because they accumulate money and then argue over how to spend it.

The new result would be:

  1. Smaller central government receiving as little as possible in tax revenue.
  2. The tax payer would be incentivized through the tax code to solve the problems.
  3. Money would not make the ‘round trip’, taken from the citizens then redistributed.
  4. Fewer lobbyist to influence spending because the money is not in a central location.
  5. Fewer agencies making regulations, instead of monitoring efficacy.

Problems are solved by everyone doing their part, continually.  Not by one entity dictating to everyone what they must do, resulting in resentment and indifference.

The change to the tax code would be relatively simple.  Currently, each section of the code starts with how much money was made, than a chart tells how much to send to the IRS. The revised code would still start at the same place, but money spent to address a problem would reduce the amount of tax paid.   The current bureaucratic activity would monitor the activity for compliance.  The private sector would now do that activity resulting in a reduction in taxes paid.

 

 

Problem Solving in a Democracy

June 13, 2014

Problem Solving In a Democracy

Perfecting the Question

For any problem to be solved, there is a fundamental principle that must be accepted. This principle in universal in both business and government as well as in life.

That principle is: There is only one right answer to ANY question!

This principle is fundamental to the use of all computers. If there is no agreement on the formulas or parameters programmed into the software, the results will not be useful, much less acceptable. It is both "garbage in results in garbage out" plus the formulas and Values used as input need to in accordance with the participants for the results to be useful. The approach to all problem solving requires a full and basic understanding of the problem being addressed. Simply: If the problem is fully and exactly defined it is practically solved . If these parameters are not defined and agreed upon by all participants, any answer will meet with objections because the solution will probably have unacceptable items in the answer if not address initially.

Computers originated in a world of absolutes. Everyone agreed on the mathematics used and therefore trusted the results. As computers evolved and the parameters gradually became more subjective and less absolute. For example, "do you like red or blue?" If one is not chosen to be more acceptable, the answer will meet with resistance. The next step would involve a series of subjective preferences. "Do you like big or small?" for example. Is the size more important than the color? The parameters must be ranked in order of importance as well as defining what is big or small much less what is red or blue. As one can see this analysis become daunting for humans but not for a computer.

This approach was the foundation that gave us the true 'World Jeopardy Champion'. It was not Ken Jennings or Brad Rutter, but the Watson Computer built by IBM. This machine beat both, handedly. This can arguably be the most important human accomplishment in the history of civilization. It could literally replace the function of government and is used to some extent in business today. Since the beginning of civilization, governments have been trying to do the impossible task of problem solving with solutions that would be acceptable to a democratic society by hand, without using the power of computer analysis. The computer is now used only to acquire data for the analysis but not to give an answer. Watson's operation was using ALL the information in the world to satisfy the words in the question. It would then rank the most logical answers base on probably of meeting all the specifics parameters of the question. This concept is surprising simple and logical when we envision how we all now solve problem in our head. The human limitation is emotional bias and the inability to factor in all the preferences of the society looking for an answer.

The reason why monarchs and dictators evolved before democracies is simple. It worked great. The ability to declare an answer to a problem was confined to a handful of advisers with the leader's desires well understood.....and they got things done by demanding it! But as the concept of democracy evolved the ability to demand was lost, and the debate started with everyone one wanting to protect their own self interest as well as preserving a functional society. Fundamental values are built into our genetics and appear in every culture and society from the beginning of civilization and are expressed in all religions of the world. These are found in Natural Law, the Ten Commandments or teaching in the Bible, Torah or Quran.

The list is:

1. Honesty- Everyone wants us all to be honest. It eliminates suspicion of others and engenders trust and dependability. All laws contain words that are to be effective and trusted. If society believes there is a devious alternative or self service agenda involved, it is not honest.

2. Fairness -To have harmony in any society, any hardship from a law must not be selective or distributed unequally. If it is perceive to be unfair, it will be ignored or circumvented in some way and breeds anarchy.

3. Integrity-Integrity is a concept that causes us to do the right thing when no one is looking or will notice. When lacking, it causes us to lock our doors and is the reason we have prisons. All prisoners did something they thought they would get away with. If complete integrity existed our prisons would be empty and locksmiths would be out of business. Politician who make laws that exempt themselves or act in a manner that would be embarrassing if discovered are examples.

4. Sustainability or longevity-Government is a mechanism used to give some assurance that the society will survive and support a standard that is livable for future generations.

Any law that does not provide a way of funding violates fairness, is not sustainable and completely unacceptable if society wants our future generations to survive. If a law is not sustainable, it is a violation of honesty and integrity and must be stopped. Principles and Their Compromise Now the human element must be considered in analysis. We all possess traits and feelings that may differ with other members of society. Some are self serving and other altruistic. No one with a basic moral compass would disagree with the four fundamental values of fairness, honesty, integrity and longevity. But, we all have preferences that we would like to see in any law. The best law is no law but since we all possess the "human condition" it is necessary to make laws. This is where compromise starts and the part where The Watson Computer comes into play.

Benjamin Franklin said he would never compromise his fundamental values, but he would compromise on his preferences or, better said, things he would like to see. He realized not everyone can get everything they want an still have a harmonious society. The implementation of this methodology into a Democratic Republic form of government, is the basic reason for the two party system in the United States. The thinking behind our party system is those with similar preferences will join the group that professes similar principles to their personal choices. In actual fact, the list between various parties are more or less the same with the only difference being the ranking of those preferences.

Logic Tree for Democratic Problem

Solving List of Core Values not subject to Compromise

Honesty

Fairness

Integrity

Longevity

If yes to all, continue. If no, stop! The solution is unacceptable.

Principles subject to Compromise

Low-----Taxes------High

(>2%) Slow growth-----Economy-----Fast Growth (< 2%)

(< 5%) Lower------Employment------Higher (>5%)

Lower Graduation rate-----Education----Higher graduation rate

less clean-----Environment------more clean

Lower-----Security----Higher

More-----Privacy----Less

ETC

In the logic tree of any computer program, if a law or position violates a core value, the analysis stops. Additional data, in each areas of compromise, is needed for a computer program to give a solution . The parameters for each issue must be defined, measurable and agreed to for the analysis to continue. Once the values for each issue are established, this list must also be prioritized in order of importance for the analysis to proceed. The approach is not get everything we want, but what is the least we would accept in each area to reach an acceptable solution. As difficult as this seems, it is considerably easier than working on an answer, 'floating a solution' for review and criticism, only to have it rejected if a part of the solution is not acceptable to some smaller segment. Every solution will have its' critics, but if acceptable limits or standards are established, the solution will more likely be acceptable. In actual fact all problem solving and debate regarding business, social, domestic or international issues uses this approach with the solution a result a result of 'attrition' and/or fatigue, not logic.

The need to experience this procedure is inescapable with the only limitation of a computer analysis is that the answer will come too quickly and easily to be believed and/or trusted. The other conclusion from this analysis is the approach, manual or computer, is the only way we deal with any societal issues. Once the initial step of getting through the acceptance of all the core value issues, the second step, the preference process, may be contentious, but peaceful.

The only one reason to ever to go to war. It is when the approach stalls in the core value phase. If there is no agreement on what is Fair, Honest, Integral or Sustainable the only alternative is forcing the loser to comply. After the war the process will then continue to the preference phase, hopefully resulting in harmony in the management of the society for future generations.

Comments

There are currently no blog comments.