Sunday, February 27, 2011
Friday, February 25, 2011
All ye! All ye! In come free!
Democrat congressional representatives who have run away from their jobs to hide in other states, in hopes of avoiding a vote on contentious legislation, should lose their jobs.
When I managed people in business I had a rule. No show, no call, presumed quit. If they abandon their elected offices, and ignore the oath of office they pledged, they deserve to lose their jobs.
Indiana and Wisconsin currently have runaway legislators. In both cases they have run to avoid legislation they do not like. Inidiana has changed its pay policy, forcing those legislators to appear in person to collect paychecks, instead of getting the usual direct deposit. That will have some impact soon enough, but they should go further.
Running and hiding in the face of adversity is not a positive quality we like in our elected officials. Where's your dignity, man? Id' rather see fist fights in chambers than see your backside disappearing over the horizon.
I suppose that making mands for your return is even worse though. Drop certain bills from the agenda and you'll come back. Pretty please with a cherry on top!
Grow a pair wll you? You got elected. You toook the oath of office. You have a job to do. Just do it!
When I managed people in business I had a rule. No show, no call, presumed quit. If they abandon their elected offices, and ignore the oath of office they pledged, they deserve to lose their jobs.
Indiana and Wisconsin currently have runaway legislators. In both cases they have run to avoid legislation they do not like. Inidiana has changed its pay policy, forcing those legislators to appear in person to collect paychecks, instead of getting the usual direct deposit. That will have some impact soon enough, but they should go further.
Running and hiding in the face of adversity is not a positive quality we like in our elected officials. Where's your dignity, man? Id' rather see fist fights in chambers than see your backside disappearing over the horizon.
I suppose that making mands for your return is even worse though. Drop certain bills from the agenda and you'll come back. Pretty please with a cherry on top!
Grow a pair wll you? You got elected. You toook the oath of office. You have a job to do. Just do it!
Al Sharpton Offended by Truth
Today a billboard advertisement was taken down. Rev. Al Sharpton, and others, expressed their displeasure with the ad which featured a young African-American girl and the slogan “The most dangerous place for African-Americans is in the womb”.
The message is to bring attention to the fact that blacks represent 13% of the population, yet received 36% of abortions nationwide. In New York, 60% of black pregnancies end in abortion. If a black fetus has a 60% chance of being aborted in the city of New York, then the womb certainly is one of the most dangerous places.
"The billboard was offensive, especially during Black History Month," the Rev. Al Sharpton said.
Really, Al? This abortion rate is part of black history. And those aborted babies have no future either.
“This is an atrocity," said Darcey Merritt, 42, who is African-American and a professor of social work at New York University. "If a little person of color walks by and sees this, what message does that give about his or her mother, about other black people and their worth?" Merritt said. "This is dangerous."
First Mr. Merritt, that child walking by is alive, not having been aborted. Second, it tells the truth. The truth will set you free as they say.
The mother of the child pictured in the ad said she was “shocked” and wants an apology from them for being blind-sided like that. She had her three children photographed at a modeling agency two years ago, and knew the photos would become 'stock' images. “I was devastated they portrayed her that way” she said.
Mom, they portrayed her alive, and beautiful, which she is.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Farmers' Marketing
Farm subsidies from the federal government have been paid to farmers since the 1920's. They really became prevalent in the 1930's during the depression and the 'dust bowl' days. At the time they served a useful purpose. Most farms were very small, inefficient compared to today's standards, and there were many of them.
In the 1930's about 25% of the US population lived on 6,000,000 small farms. By 1997, 2% of the population livd on farms, and 157,000 farms accounted for 72% of farm sales. Farms consolidated into bigger and fewer farms. Technology meant that a much smaller percentage of the population was required to get the fields planted and harvested.
The subsidies gave farmers extra money for their crops, and garenteed a price floor. In essence, farmers made more money, and prices never dropped below a specific price. One 2009 report shows that 62 cents of every dollar the farmer took in came from subsidies, totalling $180 billion.
Corn is now subsidized to get farmers to grow it for corn ethanol, a replacement for gasoline. Rp. Jim Jordan, (R-OH) says the government subsidizes it, protects it with tariffs, and mandates its use, and still it cannot thrive in a rigged market.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 mandates that billions of gallons of ethanol be blended into vehicle fuel each year, guaranteeing demand, but US corn ethanol subsidies are between $5.5 billion and $7.3 billion per year.
Many economists argue that these subsidies keep commodity prices artificially low, promoting poverty in less developing countries. Farmers in those countries cannot compete in the market with food produced at lower subsidized costs in richer countries.
Other critics argue that subsidies and tariffs protecting sugar have created more food ad lower prices that are less healthy to eat. Corn syrup replaced cane sugar as a sweetener of many foods which are higher in sugar and fats.
The last argument is that mega-farms receive most of the subsidies, providing more to companies that don't need it, and less to smaller farms that would need it more.
In the 1930's about 25% of the US population lived on 6,000,000 small farms. By 1997, 2% of the population livd on farms, and 157,000 farms accounted for 72% of farm sales. Farms consolidated into bigger and fewer farms. Technology meant that a much smaller percentage of the population was required to get the fields planted and harvested.
The subsidies gave farmers extra money for their crops, and garenteed a price floor. In essence, farmers made more money, and prices never dropped below a specific price. One 2009 report shows that 62 cents of every dollar the farmer took in came from subsidies, totalling $180 billion.
Corn is now subsidized to get farmers to grow it for corn ethanol, a replacement for gasoline. Rp. Jim Jordan, (R-OH) says the government subsidizes it, protects it with tariffs, and mandates its use, and still it cannot thrive in a rigged market.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 mandates that billions of gallons of ethanol be blended into vehicle fuel each year, guaranteeing demand, but US corn ethanol subsidies are between $5.5 billion and $7.3 billion per year.
Many economists argue that these subsidies keep commodity prices artificially low, promoting poverty in less developing countries. Farmers in those countries cannot compete in the market with food produced at lower subsidized costs in richer countries.
Other critics argue that subsidies and tariffs protecting sugar have created more food ad lower prices that are less healthy to eat. Corn syrup replaced cane sugar as a sweetener of many foods which are higher in sugar and fats.
The last argument is that mega-farms receive most of the subsidies, providing more to companies that don't need it, and less to smaller farms that would need it more.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Check Please?
The issues with labor unions contributing to democrats, or corporations contributing to republicans, is something that many think needs to be fixed. McCain-Feingold was a piece of legislation that as supposed to have dealt with the issues of campaign financing. It fails in that goal. I have another suggestion.
Only registered voters should be allowed to contribute to political campaigns for elected office. Afterall, only registered voters can vote. Seems simple right?
Labor unions donate to political campaigns and expect favorable decisions when collective bargaining agreements are being hammered out. Corporations donate with the expectations of favorable taxation and regulation. Politicians who accept those donations often oblige, thus endearing themselves to the donors, and the cycle continues.
The result of such arrangements is public employee pensions which are unreasonable and unsustainable, or tens of thousands of pages of tax and regulatory documents which a team of lawyers stumble over and through. And we are all caught up in this.
This week we have seen teachers in Wisconsin call in sick, only to appear at rally's opposing the proposed legislation trying to insert financial sanity into the operations. Teachers, expectedly advocating on behalf of their students and education in general, cheat those same students out of education because schools were forced to close while teach argue for their own retirement benefits.
Limiting campaign contributions to voters, people, and not corporations, political action committees, labor unions or the like, would put the voice of the people back into politics. It would make politicians beholding to the people of their district or state. It would restore "by the people" to the nations business.
Only registered voters should be allowed to contribute to political campaigns for elected office. Afterall, only registered voters can vote. Seems simple right?
Labor unions donate to political campaigns and expect favorable decisions when collective bargaining agreements are being hammered out. Corporations donate with the expectations of favorable taxation and regulation. Politicians who accept those donations often oblige, thus endearing themselves to the donors, and the cycle continues.
The result of such arrangements is public employee pensions which are unreasonable and unsustainable, or tens of thousands of pages of tax and regulatory documents which a team of lawyers stumble over and through. And we are all caught up in this.
This week we have seen teachers in Wisconsin call in sick, only to appear at rally's opposing the proposed legislation trying to insert financial sanity into the operations. Teachers, expectedly advocating on behalf of their students and education in general, cheat those same students out of education because schools were forced to close while teach argue for their own retirement benefits.
Limiting campaign contributions to voters, people, and not corporations, political action committees, labor unions or the like, would put the voice of the people back into politics. It would make politicians beholding to the people of their district or state. It would restore "by the people" to the nations business.
The Teacher's Pet
I've been thinking about this week's protests in Wisconsin, primarily by teachers, but including other public employee groups also. I've also noticed many people posting on Facebook their support for the teachers. Some those supporting teachers are claiming that we are attacking, assaulting, and even worse to teachers, and that the state is anti-education. In reality this has little to do with teaching and education, and everything to do with the fiscal state of affairs around this country.
Many public employee unions have collective bargaining agreements (CBA) that provide benefits that often exceed anything private sector employees are getting. Over the past few decades these unions have negotiated deals which were very good for their members, but very bad for the citizens paying the bill.
A law in Ohio permits the unions to make a proposal for benefits, and the state and either accept it, or go immediately to binding arbitration. No chance to negotiate by the state. Of course the arbitrator could rule in favor of the state, but that rarely, if ever, happens. That is not acting in good faith, but holding a proverbial gun to the head of tax payers.
The bottom line is this. There isn't enough money to meet these obligations. Sorry but true. It's not a matter of what is deserved, but a matter of what is right under the current set of financial circumstances. Consessions! Most Americans are making consessions, including cutting expense, reduced salary, and even unemployment.
The really bad part of this is that the poeple who initially negotiated these deals should have, or perhaps did, know that it was not sustainable. But putting the bill off for many years and another generation seemed quite painless at the time. Unfortunately, teachers, and other unionized groups, are having to pay the piper now.
Many public employee unions have collective bargaining agreements (CBA) that provide benefits that often exceed anything private sector employees are getting. Over the past few decades these unions have negotiated deals which were very good for their members, but very bad for the citizens paying the bill.
A law in Ohio permits the unions to make a proposal for benefits, and the state and either accept it, or go immediately to binding arbitration. No chance to negotiate by the state. Of course the arbitrator could rule in favor of the state, but that rarely, if ever, happens. That is not acting in good faith, but holding a proverbial gun to the head of tax payers.
The bottom line is this. There isn't enough money to meet these obligations. Sorry but true. It's not a matter of what is deserved, but a matter of what is right under the current set of financial circumstances. Consessions! Most Americans are making consessions, including cutting expense, reduced salary, and even unemployment.
The really bad part of this is that the poeple who initially negotiated these deals should have, or perhaps did, know that it was not sustainable. But putting the bill off for many years and another generation seemed quite painless at the time. Unfortunately, teachers, and other unionized groups, are having to pay the piper now.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Look for the Union Label
Have unions outlived their usefulness? Quite possibly. Mr. Hayward describes the purpose and tactics of unions in maintaining their control over the work force, primarily in the public sector. Events unfolding in Wisconsin, and Ohio, this week are living examples of this dynamic.
The Nature of Unions - HUMAN EVENTS
The Nature of Unions - HUMAN EVENTS
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Gotta Light?
Smoking bans infringe upon your liberty. Don't get me wrong, I dislike cigarette smoking and believe it to be a disgusting habit. It's unhealthy, dirty, smelley, and people leave partially smoked cigaratte butts all over the place, particularly along the traffic islands near stop lights. I hate it.
However, as long as smoking is legal, people who choose to should be permitted to smoke. There is no reputable scientific study that indicates second hand smoke is a hazzard, not one. So why do so many say it is so? Not liking smoking isn't enough reason to ban it, and tobacco companies still make a lot of money and contribute to political campaigns in large amounts.
So what to do? License it the same as we license drinking establishments. If you want to serve alcohol in your bar/restaurant, you need a liquor license. So why not a smoking license? Then allow business owners to decide if they want to buy a lciense or not, and advertise accordingly.
The number of people who smoke is decreasing all the time according to surveys. So the niche created by smoking licenses would be small. Most business would still choose not to allow smoking, but some would opt for it. Customers will choose where they wish to go.
Out door smoking bans are simply ridiculous. Given that motor vehicles, factories and many other sources emit gases and fumes much worse than tobacco smoke, why bother with this? Simple.
A small group of people in this land want to eliminate tobacco smoking completely. They began with bans on certain airline flights, and have progresses to all public buildings in entire states and cities.
However, as long as smoking is legal, people who choose to should be permitted to smoke. There is no reputable scientific study that indicates second hand smoke is a hazzard, not one. So why do so many say it is so? Not liking smoking isn't enough reason to ban it, and tobacco companies still make a lot of money and contribute to political campaigns in large amounts.
So what to do? License it the same as we license drinking establishments. If you want to serve alcohol in your bar/restaurant, you need a liquor license. So why not a smoking license? Then allow business owners to decide if they want to buy a lciense or not, and advertise accordingly.
The number of people who smoke is decreasing all the time according to surveys. So the niche created by smoking licenses would be small. Most business would still choose not to allow smoking, but some would opt for it. Customers will choose where they wish to go.
Out door smoking bans are simply ridiculous. Given that motor vehicles, factories and many other sources emit gases and fumes much worse than tobacco smoke, why bother with this? Simple.
A small group of people in this land want to eliminate tobacco smoking completely. They began with bans on certain airline flights, and have progresses to all public buildings in entire states and cities.
You Can’t Have your Cake and Pay For It Too
Imagine the federal budget was scaled down to your family. Here is what your financial picture would look like if you prorated all the federal budget numbers to an income of $60,000 per year.
Your income = $60,000 (roughly 1/15th of the total debt)
Your total bebt = $408,571
Your annual expenses = $105,714
Your budget deficit for this year = $45,714 (you must borrow this money to pay your bills)
New total debt = $454,285
Could you and your family survive this? For how long? Would you be planning to build a vacation home (hi speed railway) this year? Heck, wouldn’t you cancel the cable service, music lessons, dining out, or even get rid of the 2nd car?
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Health Insured Puppets
Healthcare and health insurance are two distinctly different things. Healthcare is the care provided patients for their health. Health insurance is how the patient affords and pays for that care. Our healthcare system is the finest in the world, though not without problems. Our health insurance system is atrocious.
Eighty years ago laws were passed that allowed employers to provide health insurance to their employees and take tax deductions for that cost. Thus began our system of third party payer, which is the root of all that is wrong with our system today.
I have a simple solution.
First, legislate the tax deduction for employers away, and mandate a payroll increase for all employees on the company plan. This formula for how much to increase payroll is negotiable, but must be equivalent to the actual cost to the employer.
Second, allow anyone to purchase insurance from any provider. Providers must be granted access to buyers all 50 states.
The cost of any insurance policy is roughly based on three factors: what is covered to what extent, risk factors of the insured and deductable or co-pay. Sounds like car insurance, homeowner insurance, business insurance, and any other form of insurance. Health insurance is really no different on its face.
What gets covered under any policy is determined by what risk is acceptable and at what cost to either party. One case might be the following. A 25 year old in good health may opt to purchase catastrophic care with a high deductible, and pay for routine doctor visits and pharmacy costs out of pocket, in exchange for a lower premium. A 55 year with diabetes would likely opt for more complete coverage, and a lower deductible in favor or higher premiums.
Who among us thinks about what this doctor charges versus any other doctor? None of us do, because we're not paying for the service, the insurance company is. And we're not paying for the insurance, our employers are. For the most part anyway. Is that how it works when you need body work on your car? Not at all. You'll go get estimates form3 different body shops and pick the one you think suits you best. Who is paying for that insurance? You are.
We act differently when we're footing the bill. We act more responsibly when we have something to lose. But when your employer picks the policy and the costs, what do you care? You go to the doctor and if eh orders a test and says go to a certain specialist or lab for it, you do. You do not ask about costs and services provided. You follow blindly along with the doc.
What the Affordable Care Act (ACA) did was mandate higher levels of coverage in the form of pre-existing conditions, adult dependents to age 26, no limit payouts over a lifetime, while mandating same or lower premiums. Economists will tell you every time that this formula is a disaster waiting to happen.
The ACA does nothing to lower cost of health care or health insurance. What it will do is put insurance companies out of business. We still need to get creative with how to pay for coverage of for people who cannot afford the minimum necessary. This is a start and I don't have all the answers, but I trust in American ingenuity to find solutions. And when I say American ingenuity, I don't mean the government.
Rep. Paul Broun, M.D. (R-GA) has another idea. Click here.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
The Inconvenient Truth
Have you ever heard of the North Atlantic Oscillation? It is a phenomenon that explains the winter weather we have in North America. It also causes problems for those global warming alarmists.
Did his lips move when he said that?
Does President Obama really expect us to buy the company line on his budget proposal? I find it impossible to believe that we can have a budget with a $1.6T deficit, and expect to not add to the debt. But that is what he is telling us.
This quote from the press conference today spreads the lie: "And that’s what we’ve done with this year’s budget. When I took office, I pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term. Our budget meets that pledge and puts us on a path to pay for what we spend by the middle of the decade. " Barrack Obama
This quote from the press conference today spreads the lie: "And that’s what we’ve done with this year’s budget. When I took office, I pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term. Our budget meets that pledge and puts us on a path to pay for what we spend by the middle of the decade. " Barrack Obama
All aboard! Or maybe not.
Hi Speed Trains
President Obama is proposing spending large sums pf money to provide high speed rail access to 80% of Americans. Here are some things to consider about this proposal.
1. Acquiring enough land to build high speed rail lines to 80% of Americans will take hundreds of billions of dollars. One example is a 2800 mile track from LA to NY would require 68,000 acres of land. A ribbon of right-of-way 2800 miles long by 200 feet wide. I estimate the need for 200 feet based on 3 tracks, one each for east and west and another backup for time when tracks are in need of repair or otherwise in use or blocked. This assumes 200 feet is enough for trains to pass safely in opposite directions at 110 MPH.
2. In Asia and Europe high speed trains travel at 120MPH on upgraded tracks, and 160MPH on new track. According to the Federal Railroad Assoc. high speed in the USA means 110MPH. Our trains will travel slower than in other parts of the world. So much for competing in the global marketplace.
3. One study published in the NYTimes in 2010 estimated the cost of high speed rail at $40Million per track mile. That includes land, track, right of way, trains, and support infrastructure.
4. The federal government currently subsidizes AmTrak to the tune of $40 per passenger ticket. This subsidy is required becasue the quasi-government agency cannot operate at a profit. What makes us think high speed rail won;t require the same kind of subsidies? Even European and Asian high speed rail systems are subsidized by their governments.
5. President Truman signed the legislation that built the interstate highways all across our country. We decided long ago that we prefer cars for travel. We are not Europe. We abandoned railways long ago for all but cargo. That's not to say we cannot switch, but at what cost and how long will it take to retrain ourselves?
6. At $40 million per track mile in this economy, can we even consider affording this venture? If it made sense financially, some private enterprise would have already started to build it.
7. All throughout our history there have been great advancements in transportation including steamboats, railroads, cruise liners, tankers and jet planes. None of these were the result of federal government investment. Railroads crossed this country financed by private investment.
8. High speed track design calls for no grade-level crossings. Grade level crossings make the track unsafe for high speed trains, so crossings would need to be below grade (tunnels) or above (overpasses). This contributes to the high per mile cost.
Announcing high speed rail as a goal to work toward is fine and dandy, but let's make sure we consider the implications of that decision before we take that giant leap.
President Obama is proposing spending large sums pf money to provide high speed rail access to 80% of Americans. Here are some things to consider about this proposal.
1. Acquiring enough land to build high speed rail lines to 80% of Americans will take hundreds of billions of dollars. One example is a 2800 mile track from LA to NY would require 68,000 acres of land. A ribbon of right-of-way 2800 miles long by 200 feet wide. I estimate the need for 200 feet based on 3 tracks, one each for east and west and another backup for time when tracks are in need of repair or otherwise in use or blocked. This assumes 200 feet is enough for trains to pass safely in opposite directions at 110 MPH.
2. In Asia and Europe high speed trains travel at 120MPH on upgraded tracks, and 160MPH on new track. According to the Federal Railroad Assoc. high speed in the USA means 110MPH. Our trains will travel slower than in other parts of the world. So much for competing in the global marketplace.
3. One study published in the NYTimes in 2010 estimated the cost of high speed rail at $40Million per track mile. That includes land, track, right of way, trains, and support infrastructure.
4. The federal government currently subsidizes AmTrak to the tune of $40 per passenger ticket. This subsidy is required becasue the quasi-government agency cannot operate at a profit. What makes us think high speed rail won;t require the same kind of subsidies? Even European and Asian high speed rail systems are subsidized by their governments.
5. President Truman signed the legislation that built the interstate highways all across our country. We decided long ago that we prefer cars for travel. We are not Europe. We abandoned railways long ago for all but cargo. That's not to say we cannot switch, but at what cost and how long will it take to retrain ourselves?
6. At $40 million per track mile in this economy, can we even consider affording this venture? If it made sense financially, some private enterprise would have already started to build it.
7. All throughout our history there have been great advancements in transportation including steamboats, railroads, cruise liners, tankers and jet planes. None of these were the result of federal government investment. Railroads crossed this country financed by private investment.
8. High speed track design calls for no grade-level crossings. Grade level crossings make the track unsafe for high speed trains, so crossings would need to be below grade (tunnels) or above (overpasses). This contributes to the high per mile cost.
Announcing high speed rail as a goal to work toward is fine and dandy, but let's make sure we consider the implications of that decision before we take that giant leap.
Just started blogging
I am a 53 year old, conservative male. I will be blogging about politics, the economy, education and various other topics I find interesting. I will try to be informative and provocative. I hope you enjoy my wirtings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)