Dear Dave,
I have a very large amount of student loan debt. Where would that go in your Baby Steps plan?
Jade

Dear Jade,
Baby Step 2 is where you pay off all debt except for your house. The fact that it’s a large amount of student loan debt doesn’t change anything.

Hopefully, with your very large amount of student loan debt, you also have a very large income. Believe it or not, there are some really sad situations out there where people have gone $200,000 into debt for a four-year degree in a field where they make $50,000 a year. That kind of thinking and behavior is ridiculous, but it’s out there.

Whatever you do, Jade, don’t treat this student loan debt as if it were a mortgage. In other words, don’t let it hang around for years and years and years. You’ve got to get focused and intense about paying off this mess and getting on with your life.

Remember, your income is your largest wealth-building tool. You can’t save and plan for the future when all your money is flying out the door to pay back debt!
—Dave

Dave Ramsey is America’s trusted voice on money and business. He has authored five New York Times best-selling books: Financial Peace, More Than Enough, The Total Money Makeover, EntreLeadership and Smart Money Smart Kids. The Dave Ramsey Show is heard by more than 8 million listeners each week on more than 500 radio stations. Follow Dave on Twitter at @DaveRamsey and on the web at daveramsey.com.

China Central Television exposed an education scandal and Chinese education officials are scurrying to investigate. It started with a phrase that appeared written inside the bathroom stalls at some high schools in China’s central Henan Province. Essentially, the message read: “To have a good test-taker take the gao kao test for you, call [phone number].”

The gao kao is the life-determining test given at the end of high school the second weekend of June. For students at the bottom of their class, this offer to have a “ghostwriter” take your test may be your only chance to get into college and maybe get a desk job.

But Chinese education authorities already have stringent safeguards in place to ensure the identity of test takers. The residence card or “hukuo” determines where a student can take the test. The government-issued universal identity card includes a photograph. And all Chinese students have fingerprint records on file; fingerprints are taken and compared as students enter the testing hall. Henan Province officials had already pulled scores on 127 students where fingerprints did not match.

This was in addition to electronic wanding of students as they entered, total video surveillance of the test takers, closing off roads around the school, and continuous radio scanning to detect use of any electronic communication devices. So how could cheaters succeed?

It was on the evening news. All of the channels were abuzz with the CCTV investigative reporting. A student had notified the channel of the note scribbled in the bathroom stalls. Reporters took photographs. The station then sent its own fake students—young-looking reporters—as potential customers for the cheating service. They wore tiny cameras that recorded all of the arrangements. For a steep fee, the ”ghostwriter”service would send in bright young-looking college students who superficially resembled the student. And there on camera, you could see how the surrogates used peel-off fingerprints from the actual student to fool the fingerprint scanner! It was straight out of the latest spy novels, and it worked!

Following this exposé on the TV news, education officials and the public security bureau rapidly followed up. As I boarded my plane to return to the United States, the Air China hostess politely handed me a copy of the June 20 China Daily. They reported that twenty-three suspects had been detained, including students, parents, surrogate imposters, and teachers who had in some instances bribed exam monitors. More arrests were anticipated in Henan’s Tongxu and Qixian counties, and in the historical city of Kaifeng.

“Once confirmed, those students will have a score of zero for the exam,” reported an education officer. Another education official in Zhengzhou stated that obviously the fingerprint system was not foolproof “…which means the supervision measure is not efficient.”

Testing in Imperial China goes back 2000 years and cheating was a capital crime—for both the student and the test supervisor! No one will be executed today. But this is one of the most serious crimes that can be committed in China. This episode was also a case that showed the expanding role of the press in investigative reporting. Such reporting was also made easier and more respected under this last year of crackdown on corruption by China’s President Xi Jinping. At many levels of activity, it has been obvious this last year that there is far more care being taken to document expenditures. And there are far more cases of officials being punished for misbehavior, mismanagement and corruption.

This episode in China is no greater than the recent American cases where U.S. teachers cheated by changing test scores under pressure to making adequate yearly progress under No Child Left Behind.

But next June, I suspect that there will be education and security officers inspecting the walls of school bathroom stalls across China.

Now that gardens across Kansas are bearing vegetables, it’s time to taste, enjoy and appreciate the fruits or our labor.

It seems like just a few short weeks ago folks walked to the machine shop, shed or garage and plucked a spade out of one of the dark corners and headed for the garden plot. Now that our home-grown produce is ready, it’s a real treat to pick armloads of radishes, potatoes, tomatoes and cucumbers.

The tomatoes my mother grew remain the best I’ve ever eaten. Hot days coupled with cool nights, low humidity and 180 degrees of sunlight ensured these tomatoes tasted terrific. The wonderful, rich sandy loam soil of northwestern Kansas where I grew up played a part as well.

Every winter Mom started each tomato plant from seeds from her mother’s garden – talk about heirloom tomatoes. Talk about flavor.

While texture, variety and acidity are all paramount, for me the litmus test of a terrific tomato is the amount of juice within. It’s also the amount of juice left in the serving bowl once the tomatoes are gone. As kids, we’d wrestle every meal to see who drank the juice out of the bowl.

In the late ‘50s and ‘60s, fresh produce wasn’t as plentiful as today. Families grew many of the foods they ate. Some couldn’t afford to go to the store and buy fresh fruits and vegetables.

Today, while most people can afford to buy all their produce, some would still rather grow their own.

One of the main reason people choose to do so is because home-grown fruits and vegetables taste better when their picked fresh off the vine. There’s also nothing more satisfying that to walk out to your own garden, gather a handful of onions or radishes and head for the kitchen

Another thing folks are discovering is how good foods taste raw. If you don’t believe me, just bite into a fresh carrot, radish or slice up a cool, refreshing cucumber and slip it into your mouth. The proof is in the tasting.

Some of us were born with a sweet tooth. I’m one.

Fresh fruit, ice cream and chocolates are my favorites. If you’ve ever picked strawberries, and sprinkled them on a heaping bowl of vanilla ice cream, you know what I’m talking about. Sometime popping a few fresh strawberries ripe from the vine into your mouth is even better.

When I was a kid, Dad always planted sweet corn. We called them roasting ears. Corn pulled fresh from the stalk, steamed or grilled and spread thick with butter – hey someone bring me a napkin please, I’m drooling.

For those of us concerned about saving energy, eating our fruits and vegetables fresh out of the garden could be another alternative. Once you acquire a taste for fresh produce, it’s nearly impossible to go back to cooking the bejesus out of your fruits and veggies.

So the next time you’re out working in your garden this summer and sweat begins to drip down your face, remember all those wonderful, fresh berries, peppers, radishes and tomatoes you’ll soon eat on your own table. Harvesting the fruits of your own labor will be worth it.

John Schlageck, a Hoxie native, is a leading commentator on agriculture and rural Kansas.

Freedom of Speech has lost one of its most eloquent voices.

Freedom of Religion is today without one of its truest believers.

Freedom of the Press has one less compelling writer — and one of its most exceptional editors.

Freedom of Assembly has one less person to stand with others — 50 years after he risked his life as a young man in defense of those marching peaceably for justice.

And the Right to Petition peaceably for change has one less champion to call out to those in power for positive change.

John Seigenthaler, 86, led The Tennessean newspaper in his hometown of Nashville, Tenn., was the first editorial director of USA Today, and was the founder of the Newseum Institute’s First Amendment Center.

Seigenthaler died July 11 after being hospitalized briefly. More than 4,000 people lined up for the visitation at the First Amendment Center on July 13, and his funeral was conducted on July 14.

During John’s 40-plus year tenure as a journalist, he more than lived up to the old charge of that profession to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” Even in his later years, when he left daily newspaper work for his beloved First Amendment Center, his voice and his passion for justice raged on.

Whether it was lobbying for long-delayed college diplomas for now-aged former students denied graduation because of their civil rights work, or parole and then freedom, rather than the death penalty, for a woman he felt was unjustly sentenced — he worked, advised, strategized and inspired others to demand fairness and action.

He helped integrate Nashville churches by assigning a black reporter for the first time to do The Tennessean’s weekly report on Sunday sermons — just one of the many ways he took a larger-than-life role as editor in opposing bigotry, and pursuing claims of corruption, cheating, and back-room dealing in local and state government.

History notes that Seigenthaler was knocked unconscious in Montgomery, Ala., while attempting to rescue two Freedom Riders from a Klan-led mob, while serving as a personal representative of President John F. Kennedy and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy.

His friendship with the Kennedys led to the only real departure from journalism, in the early Sixties during JFK’s campaign and later as a top aide to RFK. For decades he led the selection committees for the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation’s Profile in Courage Award and the RFK Center for Justice and Human Rights’ Robert F. Kennedy Book Award.

As host of “A Word on Words,” one of public broadcasting’s longest-running programs, he interviewed hundreds of authors — and may have terrorized more than a few by having actually read the books he wanted to discuss.

A yellow Post-it-Note-filled desk and credenza, jammed with notes, papers, books-to-be-read, and letters dominated his office at the Center — with walls filled with photos that held the journalism-First Amendment-family triad that filled his years.

Rising high above him on the wall behind his desk chair is a large, faux copy of a painting of the signing by the nation’s founders of the Declaration of Independence, framed and presented by his Center colleagues. Visitors often did a double take when they realized the historically incorrect painting had one more inconsistency — John’s face had been artfully painted-in where the painting portrayed Thomas Jefferson. As he entered his 80s, Seigenthaler joked that he felt old enough to have been around for the signing.

But age was not that kind of barrier to Seigenthaler, known for having several projects in the air at one time — and for a meeting and travel schedule that would exhaust those half his age. Whether debating the finer points of First Amendment law or relishing in the ins and outs of Nashville political life or researching books or preparing for TV programs, Seigenthaler was the embodiment of the concept that supports the First Amendment: The “marketplace of ideas.”

John Seigenthaler lived a life dedicated to encouraging the greatest possible number of his fellow citizens to participate in that marketplace and to using their First Amendment freedoms to the fullest. Each year, he’d review the results of the annual State of the First Amendment national survey, showing that most Americans can’t name all five freedoms in the First Amendment — and redouble his efforts to raise the score.

Just recently, Nashville named a downtown walking bridge across the Cumberland River in Seigenthaler’s name — to recognize his work in seeking equality for all, but also to note an incident in which 50 years ago as a young reporter he grasped the clothing of a man attempting to jump from the bridge railing — holding him until police rushed up to assist.

No doubt many words will be spoken of John’s many roles as editor, publisher, founder, author, TV host, lecturer, educator and more. But I think he’d be very happy if we remembered him with just five: Religion. Press. Speech. Assembly. Petition.

And while the customary end for a news story was the proofreader’s mark “-30-” … I think the more appropriate one for John is (based on the number of words in his beloved First Amendment) is this: “-45-”

Gene Policinski is chief operating officer of the Washingon-based Newseum Institute and senior vice president of the Institute’s First Amendment Center. [email protected]

A recent New York Times column by Paul Krugman titled “Charlatans, Cranks and Kansas” is a scolding diatribe about Kansas tax reform that’s loaded with politic opinions but devoid of economics.

 

Krugman takes the position that tax reform is a failure because Kansas is not experiencing the type of economic activity that Governor Brownback said would happen.  That type of logic is commonplace in politics but is merely a non sequitur (a statement that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said, according to Merriam-Webster).  The problem is one of over-promising early returns.  It is far too early to judge the impact of tax reform on the Kansas economy, and an errant ‘promise’ has no relationship to whether tax reform ‘works.’

It is fair to criticize Governor Brownback for positioning tax reform as “a shot of adrenalin,” as that implies a very immediate and pronounced change.  Tax reform will have a positive economic effect on Kansas but it will take several years to unfold, especially considering what is happening in the national economy and the ground to be made up.  The superior economic performance of states with lower tax burdens, however, is well-documented.

The disparate performance of low-burden / high-burden and states that do or do not tax income skews the national average and creates an artificially high target for trailing states such as Kansas.  It is more realistic to compare Kansas to its peer group of income-taxing states or high state-and-local tax burden states; once those groups are passed, the national average and low-burden states become the target.

Krugman also failed to mention that Kansas trailing the national economy is a long-standing situation; indeed, it was a driving force behind tax reform.  Private sector GDP grew 61.1% between 1998 and 2008 nationwide but only 55.6% in Kansas.  Private sector jobs increased by 7.9% nationwide but only by 5.3% in Kansas.  State with low tax burdens had net gains in domestic migration; states with high tax burdens (including Kansas) lost population due to domestic migration.

If trailing the national average defines failure, Krugman should have excoriated the tax-and-spend policies of Bill Graves, Kathleen Sebelius and Mark Parkinson.  Indeed, he could even make the case that Brownback’s policies are better because his national-average comparisons are somewhat better.  Krugman isn’t making intellectually honest arguments; he’s trying to justify his opinion that low taxes are bad.

The root problem in Kansas…today and in at least the past fifteen years…is that the majority of legislators in both parties and every governor have not had the courage to force government to operate efficiently.  One cannot reduce taxes without also making appropriate spending adjustments…not by cutting services, but by employing a Better Service, Better Price mentality.

Dave Trabert is president of Kansas Policy Institute. He is a frequent speaker to business, legislative and civic groups and also does research and writes on fiscal policy and education issues.

Anyone else a little curious about what happens when maybe 17,000 or so Kansans show up to vote in the Aug. 5 primary election and are told that they don’t really need to bother with most of the ballot?

Huh?

Yes, there are still about 17,000 Kansans who are in “suspense” and that means they haven’t proven to the satisfaction of the Kansas Legislature and governor they are sure-enough Americans.

So, after a last-ditch effort by the American Civil Liberties Union last week in Shawnee County Court, Kansas’ new voting law is still the law of the state. That means for voters who have moved within the state, or maybe moved to the state, and who haven’t proven they are official U.S. citizens by producing a birth certificate or passport or naturalization documents, they can just vote on federal offices.

Which means most of their ballot won’t be counted, at least for those state offices like governor or attorney general or secretary of state or even state treasurer. Oh, and members of the Legislature who deal with Kansas law? Nope, votes for those lawmakers won’t count either. That might move a primary election or two.

That’s the law, so far, and it’ll be good, or at least in effect, for the primary election.

What may make that time you spend in line waiting to sign in and get your ballot interesting — if someone in front of you is in “suspense.”

Those “suspense” voters’ ballots will go into an envelope and be specially handled through the process. Somewhere in the back room or maybe at the courthouse, those “suspense” voters who don’t show up within about a week of election day with that proof of U.S. citizenship will have their non-federal office votes ignored in ringing up the final tally.

Anyone thinking what’s going to happen face-to-face when the poll attendants tell someone who has been a voter for years, and has moved or otherwise had to re-register, that most of his/her votes won’t be counted?

We’re thinking that the discussion in the generally quiet and respectful voting place might change in a hurry. Probably a little more serious discussion than when you send a drink back to the bar because it was made with vodka rather than the gin you ordered. Probably a little less serious than when a cop asks you to stand on one foot and touch your nose.

You see, for federal voting registration, you just pledge—subject to perjury—that you’re an American. For Kansas voting registration, you’re some sorta foreigner meddling with state elections until you prove you’re not.

But…it’s not like this is some sort of last-minute shenanigan. Those potential voters have been written to and telephoned for months to bring in proof of citizenship, and you have to figure if those people really want to vote in all the elections, they might have responded. If you have, say, your birth certificate on the nightstand, you can take a picture of it with your cellphone and e-mail it in.

There are likely some who just don’t have proof of citizenship handy, and there are likely some who just don’t think that they should have to prove it. When was the last time you had to prove you weren’t the guy/gal who robbed the gas station?

Figure that depending on who talks to their legislators about it, the proof of citizenship business might be replaced with a legally binding certification of citizenship—subject to prosecution for perjury if you’re lying. Or, maybe not. While it might make primary voting more interesting than usual, this whole deal probably isn’t over yet…

Syndicated by Hawver News Co. of Topeka, Martin Hawver is publisher of Hawver’s Capitol Report. To learn more about this nonpartisan statewide political news service, visit www.hawvernews.com.

Dear Dave,
I have job offers from two tech companies. One is in San Antonio and pays $55,000 a year, while the other is in Silicon Valley making $100,000 a year. My friends are advising me to move to California, but I feel like I’d have more money in my budget if I moved to San Antonio. What do you think?
Aaron

Dear Aaron,
The good news about Silicon Valley is you’d be around a ton of really smart people in your industry. I mean, it’s the epicenter of the tech world, right? You’ll learn a ton and have lots of opportunities, so there’s definitely an upside.

The problem is that the Silicon Valley area is one of the most expensive places to live in the entire country. The real estate prices and cost of living are ridiculous! Still, if it weren’t for the cost of living argument, it would be a no-brainer for me. Then, it wouldn’t really be so much about the income and prices as it would be about the career opportunity.

Still, you have to consider the economic factors involved here. With that in mind, it’s not an exaggeration to say you might actually put more money in your pocket at $55,000 in San Antonio than you would $100,000 in Silicon Valley. That’s entirely possible!

I think things are going to come out pretty even — economically speaking — once you adjust for the cost of living. I’m a huge fan of Texas. It’s a great business market and tax situation down there. But really, in my mind the question comes down to your personal comfort level and quality of life. And that’s something you’ll have to answer for yourself!
—Dave

Dave Ramsey is America’s trusted voice on money and business. He has authored five New York Times best-selling books: Financial Peace, More Than Enough, The Total Money Makeover, EntreLeadership and Smart Money Smart Kids. The Dave Ramsey Show is heard by more than 8 million listeners each week on more than 500 radio stations. Follow Dave on Twitter at @DaveRamsey and on the web at daveramsey.com.

How would you react if one of your neighbors announced that while he obviously benefits from having clean water, highways, Medicare, police protection, parks, schools, and other public services, he was no longer going to pay his share of the taxes that make them available?

And what if this neighbor also said he was renouncing his U.S. citizenship to become a citizen of Switzerland because he could pay less in taxes there? Not that he was actually moving to that cold country, mind you.

No, no, he’d still be living right here in the good ol’ USA, benefitting from all those public services that taxpayers like you provide.

Surely, you think, this has to be a joke. Well, meet Gregory Wasson of Long Grove, Ill., who has announced all of the above.

While this man isn’t personally your neighbor, the corporation he heads might be, which has stores in hundreds of neighborhoods all across the country. Wasson is CEO of Walgreen Co., America’s biggest drugstore chain.

But Wasson no longer wants Walgreen to be American, so he’s planning to reincorporate it in Switzerland.

Why? To skirt about $800 million a year in corporate taxes that the drugstore chain owes America. Of course, its stores won’t move to Switzerland. Wasson fully intends to keep extracting profits from our neighborhoods and for Walgreen to keep benefiting from all the public services that this nation provides, from police to highways.

Oh, one more thing: About a fourth of the company’s annual income is derived from — guess who? The U.S. government.

Yes, the very government that Wasson’s company no longer wants to help support. The unpatriotic outfit drew nearly $17 billion of its revenue last year from Medicare and Medicaid payments provided by Uncle Sam.

If Walgreen doesn’t want to support public programs like these, the programs shouldn’t support Walgreen.

OtherWords.org columnist Jim Hightower is a radio commentator, writer and public speaker.

Outrage over the Supreme Court’s decision in the Hobby Lobby case reached fever pitch this week as congressional Democrats prepare to introduce legislation to reverse the ruling.

“Your health care decisions are not your boss’s business,” Senator Patty Murray, D-Wash., told the New York Times. “Since the Supreme Court decided it will not protect women’s access to health care, I will.”

Of course, any attempt to reverse Hobby Lobby will fail in the House of Representatives. So Democrats are looking to the midterm elections — already sending fundraising appeals headlined “Supreme Court decides that corporate rights trump women’s rights.”

Before going off that deep end, let’s all take a deep breath – and take a closer look at what the high court did and did not do.

I would argue that the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores is neither the all-out assault on women’s rights alleged by some on the Left — nor the major expansion of religious freedom trumpeted by many on the Right.

Instead, the Hobby Lobby ruling is a narrowly tailored attempt to balance the conscience claims of religious owners of closely held businesses against the government’s interest in ensuring that employees of those businesses receive health coverage, including full access to contraception services.

True, the Court’s finding that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) protects closely held corporations breaks some new ground.

“Protecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby,” argues Justice Samuel Alito in the majority opinion, “protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those companies.”

In a strongly worded dissent joined by three other justices, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg argues that religious owners of businesses like Hobby Lobby must comply with the contraception mandate. Recognizing closely held corporations as “persons” protected by RFRA, says the dissent, allows religious employers to impose their beliefs on employees — and opens the door to endless lawsuits over a parade of claims for religious exemptions.

But, as Justice Alito takes pains to explain, the Hobby Lobby decision “is concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate.” In most other instances, the government will have compelling interests such as health and safety that will trump religious claims for exemption when no less restrictive alternative is available.

What tips the scale in favor of Hobby Lobby in this case, in the view of the Court’s majority, is the fact that the government has already provided an accommodation for nonprofit organizations with religious objections to the contraceptive mandate.

Writing for the majority, Justice Alito acknowledges that the government may have a compelling interest in full health care coverage for women. But if the government can accomplish that interest and simultaneously protect religious conscience — as it has done with religious nonprofits — then the government must make the accommodation.

That’s exactly what’s going to happen. In the wake of Hobby Lobby, the Obama administration will create a workaround for closely held corporations with religious objections to some forms of contraception — modeled on the one already in place for religious nonprofits (in which, for example, the insurer excludes contraceptive coverage from the employer’s plan and provides separate payments for contraceptive services).

The result will be a win-win: Religious owners will be protected — women employees will be fully covered.

This outcome, I believe, best upholds American principles and ideals. Striking a balance between religious claims of conscience and laws designed to serve the common good is a balancing act as old as the Republic.

From the founding period when Quakers were exempted from military service to more recent accommodations for Amish families to withdraw their children from school at age 14, adult Jehovah’s Witnesses to refuse blood transfusions, Native Americans to use peyote in religious ceremonies (to name but a few), the United States has long been one of the rare nations in the world to take claims of religious conscience seriously.

It’s sometimes complicated and often messy — but protecting religious freedom is what makes America a haven for the cause of conscience.

Charles C. Haynes is director of the Religious Freedom Center of the Washington-based Newseum Institute. [email protected]

By JORDAN HILDEBRAND
Kansas Wheat

Eric Sperber, representative of Cornerstone Ag LLC in Colby, said that the area was at the halfway point for this year’s harvest. His facility has already been receiving wheat for a week, but he hopes that with cooperating weather farmers will be done within the next week.

He reported the area’s yields are highly varied this year. Some fields are ranging from 5-10 bushels an acre while others have reaped in about 60 bushels an acre. However, he reports that the overall average will be about 35 bushels an acre.

The test weights have dropped from 62 pounds per bushel to around 58-59 pounds per bushel because of the rains. Sperber has reported consistent field insect kernel damage, but overall dockage for the area is down this year.

This harvest is shaping up to be an improvement for Colby farmers. “I think we will be up 300-400% this year in comparison to last year. I’m already up 200%. But last year wasn’t hard to beat.”

Bill Burton, a representative of Midland Marketing in Hays, said that their 11 locations have taken in around 4 million bushels of wheat. This year they will be taking in a little less than half a normal crop, Burton estimates. The yields in the Hays area are averaging about 25 bushels an acre and the test weights are in the 58-59 pounds per bushel range. Protein contents have averaged around 13.5%. Burton reports that there are no major dockage issues in the area.

Theron Haresnape, a farmer from Lebanon in Smith County, said that he currently has about 300 acres left and will hopefully be done with two solid days of cutting. His yields are averaging out at around 25 bushels an acre. His test weights for most of his fields were at 62 pounds per bushel, but fell about 4 pounds after the rain. However, his fields closer to the Nebraska border have not seen the test weight drop because they weren’t quite ripe by the time the rains poured. His Everest and SY Wolf varieties have both been very consistent. Haresnape said that this year’s yields will be down from last year’s.

The 2014 Harvest Report is brought to you by Kansas Wheat Commission, Kansas Association of Wheat Growers and Kansas Grain and Feed Association.