There is a lot in the news about the new TSA procedures. Apparently, if you don't want naked photos taken of you using undisclosed amounts of radiation by a new scanner, your other choice is to have a TSA agent fondle your junk looking for bombs and non-metalic firearms.
Someone somewhere decided to see how much we are willing to be intimidated in order to have the "privilege" of acting upon a contract between an individual and an airline.
There is a simple solution. Listen up TSA:
To enter a port on the water to do work, since some post 9/11 point, you need a TWIC card. This is the Transportation Worker Identification Credential. This lets you get through the fence and load the boats, unload the boats, work on the computers, gas up the boats, etc. A TWIC card costs about $100 and gets you fingerprinted, background checked, and a cool hologram ID card.
What we need in the airports is a similar card. Picture a card with a difficult-to-copy embedded chip that has to be scanned and visually verified when you get to the airport. This card allows you to go through the short line at the airport. No radiation shot, no emptying your pockets, and no taking away of your nail clippers and shampoo. This card would cost $100/year and requires a full background check. Law enforcement officers and the military should get one for free, and be encouraged to carry a firearm on their flights. We could all be safer and terrorists would be better behaved, if a portion of passengers were armed Law Enforcement Officers (LEO's).
If you accumulate enough miles with your favorite airline, perhaps the airline would pay the fees for your flight card. The civilian card probably shouldn't include the firearm option, but allowing frequent fliers to carry shampoo, drinking water, and small folding pocketknives would NOT hurt the real security of any flights.
The 9/11 terrorists would have been stymied with a background check. The expired student visas and the Al Keida ties should have/could have raised red flags. With 90% of flyers going through the "quick" line, the 5 guys with box cutters paying cash to go from Boston to LA might have helped someone think about something a little more. Arming the pilots would have stopped the hijacking to begin with anyway, but that is another story.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Monday, November 08, 2010
Charley Reese
Charley Reese is retiring. His last column is this one. I know many will miss this southern gentleman..
He had a great run and we are all better off for it.
Farewell, Mr. Reese, and thank you.
Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years.
This is about as clear and easy to understand as it can be. The article below is completely neutral, not anti republican or democrat Charlie Reese, a retired reporter for the Orlando Sentinal, has hit the nail directly on the head, defining clearly who it is that in the final analysis must assume responsibility for the judgments made that impact each one of us every day. It's a short but good read. Worth the time. Worth remembering!
545 vs. 300,000,000
545 PEOPLE --By Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them..
Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes,WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits..... The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red ..
If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it's because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan...
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power..
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.
Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees...
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
What you do with this article now that you have read it......... Is up to you. This might be funny if it weren't so true.
Be sure to read all the way to the end:
Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table,
At which he's fed.
Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.
Tax his work,
Tax his pay,
He works for
peanuts anyway!
Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.
Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.
Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.
Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries
Tax his tears.
Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ass.
Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.
When he screams and hollers;
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore.
Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid...
Put these words
Upon his tomb,
Taxes drove me
to my doom...'
When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax..
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Sales Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY? Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
He had a great run and we are all better off for it.
Farewell, Mr. Reese, and thank you.
Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years.
This is about as clear and easy to understand as it can be. The article below is completely neutral, not anti republican or democrat Charlie Reese, a retired reporter for the Orlando Sentinal, has hit the nail directly on the head, defining clearly who it is that in the final analysis must assume responsibility for the judgments made that impact each one of us every day. It's a short but good read. Worth the time. Worth remembering!
545 vs. 300,000,000
545 PEOPLE --By Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them..
Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes,WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits..... The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red ..
If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it's because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan...
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power..
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.
Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees...
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
What you do with this article now that you have read it......... Is up to you. This might be funny if it weren't so true.
Be sure to read all the way to the end:
Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table,
At which he's fed.
Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.
Tax his work,
Tax his pay,
He works for
peanuts anyway!
Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.
Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.
Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.
Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries
Tax his tears.
Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ass.
Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.
When he screams and hollers;
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore.
Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid...
Put these words
Upon his tomb,
Taxes drove me
to my doom...'
When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax..
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Sales Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY? Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
If the government was in charge of ....
Lets suppose for a minute that the big government guys got their way in things, and we all, regardless of our income, were entitled to drive a car.
Right now, I pay over $350/mo for a car payment, and what seems like a random amount of money every few months for car insurance. Lets suppose that it is $100/mo. I don't care if you can save me 15% on that. I don't want an email or phone call from you. This blog entry is not a solicitation to sell me car insurance.
On top of that I give the gas station owner another $200 or more each month. Every week or so, a $50 tank of gas is needed to keep me going.
Now all of these things are needed. I have to get to the store to spend my wife's paycheck. I need to take my wife to work, and pick her up and bring her home. I also drive my happy self around and pretend to fix computers and networks.
Lets suppose that the government comes to the conclusion that I need all of these things, and you do too. If you figure all of those costs listed above, I am probably average in the amount of driving I do, and how much I pay for cars, insurance and gas. Throw in tires, oil, car washes and air fresheners, and I am shelling out around $600 per month to keep me mobile. If the "powers that be" were running things, I suppose that I would be presented with the option to get all of these things paid for for a small car tax. I suppose politicians would pitch it in such a way that the guys making $200k/yr would pay more than us poor slobs, and the poorest wouldn't have to pay anything. We would all have the option to get a new car every 3 or 4 years, unlimited gasoline, and all the maintenance we need. Of course, the federal transportation system wouldn't cover "elective" maintenance, like racing stripes, 4 wheel drive, or turbo chargers, but we would all be treated fairly. And, if we want to keep our existing car, we can.
I think that I would contend that after a short time on this system, it would really suck for everyone involved, except for the people who cannot afford cars now. Even for them, I doubt that it would ever live up to what they had been promised.
For the rest of us, I suspect that the quality of government supplied cars [read low bidder] will be as nice as what we drive now. It would be a short amount of time, I suspect, that we would be limited to 10 gallons per week (or month) of gasoline before its all said and done. I also expect that instead of a new car every 3 years would turn into a slightly used car every 7 or 8 years, and the waiting list to get my bald tires replaced would be awful.
If socializing cars won't work, what makes us think that socialized medicine would work? Its a little late to bring it up now, I suppose, but its still a ridiculous situation.
Right now, I pay over $350/mo for a car payment, and what seems like a random amount of money every few months for car insurance. Lets suppose that it is $100/mo. I don't care if you can save me 15% on that. I don't want an email or phone call from you. This blog entry is not a solicitation to sell me car insurance.
On top of that I give the gas station owner another $200 or more each month. Every week or so, a $50 tank of gas is needed to keep me going.
Now all of these things are needed. I have to get to the store to spend my wife's paycheck. I need to take my wife to work, and pick her up and bring her home. I also drive my happy self around and pretend to fix computers and networks.
Lets suppose that the government comes to the conclusion that I need all of these things, and you do too. If you figure all of those costs listed above, I am probably average in the amount of driving I do, and how much I pay for cars, insurance and gas. Throw in tires, oil, car washes and air fresheners, and I am shelling out around $600 per month to keep me mobile. If the "powers that be" were running things, I suppose that I would be presented with the option to get all of these things paid for for a small car tax. I suppose politicians would pitch it in such a way that the guys making $200k/yr would pay more than us poor slobs, and the poorest wouldn't have to pay anything. We would all have the option to get a new car every 3 or 4 years, unlimited gasoline, and all the maintenance we need. Of course, the federal transportation system wouldn't cover "elective" maintenance, like racing stripes, 4 wheel drive, or turbo chargers, but we would all be treated fairly. And, if we want to keep our existing car, we can.
I think that I would contend that after a short time on this system, it would really suck for everyone involved, except for the people who cannot afford cars now. Even for them, I doubt that it would ever live up to what they had been promised.
For the rest of us, I suspect that the quality of government supplied cars [read low bidder] will be as nice as what we drive now. It would be a short amount of time, I suspect, that we would be limited to 10 gallons per week (or month) of gasoline before its all said and done. I also expect that instead of a new car every 3 years would turn into a slightly used car every 7 or 8 years, and the waiting list to get my bald tires replaced would be awful.
If socializing cars won't work, what makes us think that socialized medicine would work? Its a little late to bring it up now, I suppose, but its still a ridiculous situation.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Panic. Confidence. The Government. The real solution.
When the unemployment rate started going up a few years ago, a plan was put into place to extend unemployment benefits under an EMERGENCY plan. Since then a lot of people have gone onto unemployment and have stayed on it longer than any time in recent history.
An oil well explosion has caused millions of barrels of crude to spew all over the Gulf of Mexico. Its been over a month, and we don't have the hole stopped up. People are panicked.
Illegal aliens are running into the border states faster than ever. A state law that mirrors federal law, but allows for a STATE level conviction, and STATE funding to enforce has been called racist. It was only needed because the federal agents are under funded and not motivated to enforce the existing federal laws. With no effective way to stop the illegal aliens from coming in, delivering drugs, committing crimes and taking jobs, there are people who are panicked.
The country of Greece is going through a financial collapse, and is effectively bankrupt, not able to fund the interest payments on their nation's debt. This is killing the value of the Euro, making everyone in the European Union panic.
A few years ago, some people in Washington decided that every unemployed crackhead needed a mortgage, so they gave it to them, whether they had any chance of ever paying it back. Now that the values of those houses is dropping, and the Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMs) are maturing, there are a lot of people panicked and abandoning those homes. This drives the real estate values down, and the interest up. The mutual funds based on those mortgages have lost investors, lost value, and are effectively worthless. A LOT of people had their retirements tied up in what seemed like a safe investment (real estate backed mutual funds) and are now panicking.
Panic is the opposite of confidence. Panic is generally bad. It means that people don't invest. They don't hire. They don't make purchases. They sit on what money they have and try not to spend it any faster than they have to. The auto manufacturing companies are feeling this. The real estate developers are feeling this. The politicians are feeling this. Panic is a big problem.
There is a growing segment of the population who think that confidence (and effectively every other solution) comes from the government. The opposite is closer to the truth. When the government tells you that you cannot find a job, and "here is a check as long as you don't succeed in finding a job" it kills your confidence. When the government says "here is $4500 to get rid of your paid-for car to get into a car loan" it kills your confidence, and people's confidence in the auto industry's abilities to sell cars. The government has been paying us to buy cars, houses, appliances, window screens, insulation, and all kinds of stuff that we may or may not need, but they are effectively telling us "you cannot do this on your own, so we will help you." This doesn't help build confidence.
When you were 16 to 20 years old and you saved up and bought your first car, you felt confident. You had something to be proud of. If your parents shelled out the money, and bought it for you, it wasn't nearly such an accomplishment. If the car you bought was a piece of junk compared to your "rich friend's" gift cars, you still had the satisfaction of knowing that you earned it yourself. If your first car was from your parents and your second car was paid for by your sweat, you had a different attitude about the second car. You know what I am referring to.
The oil spill was not from a lack of regulations and taxes. The government want to fix it by putting on more regulations and taxes. No one wanted the explosion to happen. Checks upon checks upon checks were in place to insure that it wouldn't happen. Sometimes equipment just fails. The people in charge of that are doing everything they can to fix it. We don't need the government to shake their finger at them and tell them to hurry up. The best engineers in the world are working on a solution. The leak will be stopped, and the cleanup will happen. More regulations won't hurry this process up, or prevent future failures.
The mortgage companies never wanted to make those loans to those undereducated and underfunded individuals. Without pressure from the Clinton (and Bush) administrations, those loans would have never been made. More regulations would not have prevented that mess. In fact, if the government would have stayed out of it, and let the free market decide who would get loans, and what they would pay for loans, then unqualified buyers would have stayed in their apartments until they could save for a down payment. They would have pride of ownership, and the confidence to pay the mortgage.
We have a lot of people out there working to end the free market system and regulate everything. They come up with bail out schemes, and use phrases like "too big to fail". I assure you that there is no such thing. If GM was losing as much money as it was for as long as it was, then its value would make the company a lot smaller than what we "the taxpayers" paid for it.
In the olden days, when the government didn't try to save every failing business, millionaires (or billionaires or investment groups) would step up and buy "troubled assets" for pennies on the dollar. They would take over management, cut the fat, and make the companies profitable again.
This process, even if it included bankruptcy, was part of the natural process of business. Kind of like a tree falling in the woods. In one way, its a failure, since its the dying of an organism, but as the wood decomposes, and becomes a habitat for many other things that live on dead trees, and the nutrients go back into the soil. If the government ran the forest management like they do these things, we would have every rotten tree propped up with some kind of framework keeping it from falling over. When companies fail, bargains happen. Assets go onto the auction block. Some companies are saved, and others go away.
If the government wants to instill confidence, they would stay out of it. Let the banks that cannot make it work sell out to the banks that can make it work. Let the unemployed $100k executives get off of the dole and start taking $40k sales jobs. Take the unemployed $50k guys and give them $30k border patrol jobs. It will be better than leaving them on the couch watching the news and making them more depressed.
Let the BP, Transocean, and Haliburton engineers do their jobs, and focus their efforts on the things that the government was chartered to do: Protect our borders, enforce our laws, and stop the expanding threats to our freedoms. When North Korea (a Communist Dictatorship and sworn enemy of Freedom) bombs a ship belonging to South Korea (our ally) then tells the world that they had better not retaliate, its kind of our responsibility to step up and do something.
An oil well explosion has caused millions of barrels of crude to spew all over the Gulf of Mexico. Its been over a month, and we don't have the hole stopped up. People are panicked.
Illegal aliens are running into the border states faster than ever. A state law that mirrors federal law, but allows for a STATE level conviction, and STATE funding to enforce has been called racist. It was only needed because the federal agents are under funded and not motivated to enforce the existing federal laws. With no effective way to stop the illegal aliens from coming in, delivering drugs, committing crimes and taking jobs, there are people who are panicked.
The country of Greece is going through a financial collapse, and is effectively bankrupt, not able to fund the interest payments on their nation's debt. This is killing the value of the Euro, making everyone in the European Union panic.
A few years ago, some people in Washington decided that every unemployed crackhead needed a mortgage, so they gave it to them, whether they had any chance of ever paying it back. Now that the values of those houses is dropping, and the Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMs) are maturing, there are a lot of people panicked and abandoning those homes. This drives the real estate values down, and the interest up. The mutual funds based on those mortgages have lost investors, lost value, and are effectively worthless. A LOT of people had their retirements tied up in what seemed like a safe investment (real estate backed mutual funds) and are now panicking.
Panic is the opposite of confidence. Panic is generally bad. It means that people don't invest. They don't hire. They don't make purchases. They sit on what money they have and try not to spend it any faster than they have to. The auto manufacturing companies are feeling this. The real estate developers are feeling this. The politicians are feeling this. Panic is a big problem.
There is a growing segment of the population who think that confidence (and effectively every other solution) comes from the government. The opposite is closer to the truth. When the government tells you that you cannot find a job, and "here is a check as long as you don't succeed in finding a job" it kills your confidence. When the government says "here is $4500 to get rid of your paid-for car to get into a car loan" it kills your confidence, and people's confidence in the auto industry's abilities to sell cars. The government has been paying us to buy cars, houses, appliances, window screens, insulation, and all kinds of stuff that we may or may not need, but they are effectively telling us "you cannot do this on your own, so we will help you." This doesn't help build confidence.
When you were 16 to 20 years old and you saved up and bought your first car, you felt confident. You had something to be proud of. If your parents shelled out the money, and bought it for you, it wasn't nearly such an accomplishment. If the car you bought was a piece of junk compared to your "rich friend's" gift cars, you still had the satisfaction of knowing that you earned it yourself. If your first car was from your parents and your second car was paid for by your sweat, you had a different attitude about the second car. You know what I am referring to.
The oil spill was not from a lack of regulations and taxes. The government want to fix it by putting on more regulations and taxes. No one wanted the explosion to happen. Checks upon checks upon checks were in place to insure that it wouldn't happen. Sometimes equipment just fails. The people in charge of that are doing everything they can to fix it. We don't need the government to shake their finger at them and tell them to hurry up. The best engineers in the world are working on a solution. The leak will be stopped, and the cleanup will happen. More regulations won't hurry this process up, or prevent future failures.
The mortgage companies never wanted to make those loans to those undereducated and underfunded individuals. Without pressure from the Clinton (and Bush) administrations, those loans would have never been made. More regulations would not have prevented that mess. In fact, if the government would have stayed out of it, and let the free market decide who would get loans, and what they would pay for loans, then unqualified buyers would have stayed in their apartments until they could save for a down payment. They would have pride of ownership, and the confidence to pay the mortgage.
We have a lot of people out there working to end the free market system and regulate everything. They come up with bail out schemes, and use phrases like "too big to fail". I assure you that there is no such thing. If GM was losing as much money as it was for as long as it was, then its value would make the company a lot smaller than what we "the taxpayers" paid for it.
In the olden days, when the government didn't try to save every failing business, millionaires (or billionaires or investment groups) would step up and buy "troubled assets" for pennies on the dollar. They would take over management, cut the fat, and make the companies profitable again.
This process, even if it included bankruptcy, was part of the natural process of business. Kind of like a tree falling in the woods. In one way, its a failure, since its the dying of an organism, but as the wood decomposes, and becomes a habitat for many other things that live on dead trees, and the nutrients go back into the soil. If the government ran the forest management like they do these things, we would have every rotten tree propped up with some kind of framework keeping it from falling over. When companies fail, bargains happen. Assets go onto the auction block. Some companies are saved, and others go away.
If the government wants to instill confidence, they would stay out of it. Let the banks that cannot make it work sell out to the banks that can make it work. Let the unemployed $100k executives get off of the dole and start taking $40k sales jobs. Take the unemployed $50k guys and give them $30k border patrol jobs. It will be better than leaving them on the couch watching the news and making them more depressed.
Let the BP, Transocean, and Haliburton engineers do their jobs, and focus their efforts on the things that the government was chartered to do: Protect our borders, enforce our laws, and stop the expanding threats to our freedoms. When North Korea (a Communist Dictatorship and sworn enemy of Freedom) bombs a ship belonging to South Korea (our ally) then tells the world that they had better not retaliate, its kind of our responsibility to step up and do something.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Social Security
I didn't originate this, but:
About Social Security
About Social Security
Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts!!!
Our Social Security
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
Completely voluntary,
No longer Voluntary
2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
Incomes into the Program,
Now 7.65% on the first $106,800
1.45% (the Medicare portion of the 7.65% rate) has no annual income limit!! If you are a basketball player earning $20 million a year, your Medicare tax alone is $290,000.
3.) That the money the participants elected to put
Into the Program would be deductible from
Their income for tax purposes each year,
No longer tax deductible
4.) That the money the participants put into the
Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the
General operating fund, and therefore, would
Only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,
Under Johnson the money was moved to
The General Fund and Spent
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees
Would never be taxed as income.
Under Clinton & Gore
Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
Now receiving a Social Security check every month --
And then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
The money we paid to the Federal government to 'put
Away -- you may be interested in the following:
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the
General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
Controlled House and Senate.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -----
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
Q: Which Political Party decided to start
Giving
Annuity payments to immigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
A: That's right!
Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
Began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
Even though they never paid a dime into it!
------------ -- ------------ --------- ----- ------------ --------- ---------
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of
Awareness will be planted and maybe changes will
Evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully
Sure of what isn't so.
But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?
Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.
AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!
Friday, February 26, 2010
Free healthcare.
Universal Healthcare Bill.
Healthcare for everyone. Sounds pretty good. How can anyone vote against it? It reminds me of the "clean air bill" or "clean water bill" or something like that. Anyone who doesn't support the clean air bill can be vilified to look like they DON'T WANT CLEAN AIR. It is a silly assumption, since the clean air bill, like most of these great sounding bills, like the "healthcare for everyone" bill is a new taxation vehicle.
Politicians only have 1 job: get re-elected. To get re-elected, they have two possible messages.
Message 1: "The Government will take care of you cradle to grave"
or
Message 2: "The Government will allow you to succeed and keep what you make."
You cannot really offer both. Legislation that is percolating right now is worded in such a way as to penalize all of those evil millionaire business owners with over 50 employees, by requiring them to offer a federally approved health insurance plan, or tax them so much that the new frozen yogurt machine for the break room will never get here.
In case no one bothered checking, most employees are in companies of 100 or fewer employees. Hurting small business hurts America. Same holds true for large businesses. These taxes and regulations all keep us "working class" from having the things we really want... frozen yogurt machines. or raises, or retirement plan matches, or profit sharing, or whatever the boss wants to give us.
The only thing that has ever helped any of us really succeed has been competition. With multiple grocery stores, I can get my milk, eggs, and bread at an honest price.
With multiple restaurants, I can get a burrito for $1 at the taco joint, a $19.00 prime rib at the high-end steak house, or all-I-can-eat pizza at the pizza buffet for $6. If you listen to the cheerleaders for socialized health care, the new system they are proposing will give us the equivalent of a $0.99 all-you-can-eat prime rib buffet.
If I opened a tax-subsidized restaurant, I could open a restaurant like that, where everyone eats for free (or $0.99), and everyone would come see me and put every other restaurant out of business. (note the theme here - government subsidy is bad for business)
If, after a period of time, this fantasy restaurant had to be self sustaining, it would have to either evolve to a $0.99 factory-second, irregular hot dog buffet, [byob] where you bring your own buns, or it would turn the other route, where you get one decent steak for $10. Either of those business models could be profitable, and you might eat the irregular wieners during the week, and steak on payday if both of these restaurants were near your home or office.
Insurance and government subsidies make EVERYTHING higher. Take your wrecked car to the body shop, and tell him insurance is paying for it. Your estimate have a number on it close to what the insurance company is willing to pay. Then tell him to get it looking "decent" as "cheap as possible" since you are paying for it out of pocket. That estimate will usually be a little (or even a lot) cheaper. That estimator will also know that there are a dozen more body shops who will bid on the job. That's called competition.
The same rules apply to health care. If the government is supporting Dr. Jones medical practice, where anyone can get all of the procedures they want as long as they have a free Platinum Obamacard, then Dr. Smith across the street won't get much business, if he doesn't participate in that plan. Eventually, all doctors will end up taking government funded health care, like they do now with Medicaid/medicare, and they will all basically offer the same mediocre level of care, only succeeding if they can cut costs or defraud the system. If we expand programs that we have, then what we have will only get worse. Doctors offices and Hospitals will charge the maximum amount that the insurance and medicare will pay. Actually they charge more, then discount it for them. The jacked up "undiscounted" price is what they write off if nobody pays.
Has anyone looked at the reality of other government funded universal health care? Mexico has it. Why are illegal aliens visiting OUR hospitals? I don't know any Americans who sneak across the border to visit Mexican hospitals. With total price caps, the only way to improve profits is to lower quality.
If every qualifying citizen on Medicaire (or private insurance) got an annual rebate check for the 10 cents of every dollar that was spent under $10000 on them, then there would be second thoughts about going to the doctor, the hospital, etc. There would also be a forced price war among health care providers. Currently most people don't care how much a $500 lab costs. If they can shop it around and take their blood sample to the $100 lab, its worth an extra $40 at the end of the year on their bonus. This will also generate competition between insurance companies. Maybe one will offer $0.15/dollar savings, or maybe one will raise the limit to $15000.
Its only a gimick, but it would encourage people to pay attention to what things cost, and when it matters to the customer, it will matter to the provider.
If we leave it up to the government to fix this problem, we will all end up with hotdogs for lunch every day, when all anyone really wanted was a side salad, or a chance to have an occasional cheeseburger.
Another case in point: My kid's schools serve a tray lunch for $2.00. They also offer snack bar service where they sell food a la cart. Last year, I put as much money in the kid's accounts as they used. Then, the school offered me the opportunity to see on the web page that my teenage daughter was drinking 2 or 3 $1/pint milks with her lunch, that often ran $4 to $7 total. Since it didn't matter to her, she just ate and spent, and bought her friends ice creams.
This year, I started giving them $10 every Monday. If they take their lunch every day, they can put $10/week in the bank. If they run out of money at the snack bar on Monday, they have to take their lunch tuesday to Friday. Yes, I know I am paying for the sack lunches and the $10/wk, but I am spending less that when they have no incentive, and my kids are not chomping on as many $1.50 rice crispy treats from the snack bar. If the insurance companies and the medicare offered a 10% rebate on unused benefits, a lot of us would be shopping around for our health care needs.
Healthcare for everyone. Sounds pretty good. How can anyone vote against it? It reminds me of the "clean air bill" or "clean water bill" or something like that. Anyone who doesn't support the clean air bill can be vilified to look like they DON'T WANT CLEAN AIR. It is a silly assumption, since the clean air bill, like most of these great sounding bills, like the "healthcare for everyone" bill is a new taxation vehicle.
Politicians only have 1 job: get re-elected. To get re-elected, they have two possible messages.
Message 1: "The Government will take care of you cradle to grave"
or
Message 2: "The Government will allow you to succeed and keep what you make."
You cannot really offer both. Legislation that is percolating right now is worded in such a way as to penalize all of those evil millionaire business owners with over 50 employees, by requiring them to offer a federally approved health insurance plan, or tax them so much that the new frozen yogurt machine for the break room will never get here.
In case no one bothered checking, most employees are in companies of 100 or fewer employees. Hurting small business hurts America. Same holds true for large businesses. These taxes and regulations all keep us "working class" from having the things we really want... frozen yogurt machines. or raises, or retirement plan matches, or profit sharing, or whatever the boss wants to give us.
The only thing that has ever helped any of us really succeed has been competition. With multiple grocery stores, I can get my milk, eggs, and bread at an honest price.
With multiple restaurants, I can get a burrito for $1 at the taco joint, a $19.00 prime rib at the high-end steak house, or all-I-can-eat pizza at the pizza buffet for $6. If you listen to the cheerleaders for socialized health care, the new system they are proposing will give us the equivalent of a $0.99 all-you-can-eat prime rib buffet.
If I opened a tax-subsidized restaurant, I could open a restaurant like that, where everyone eats for free (or $0.99), and everyone would come see me and put every other restaurant out of business. (note the theme here - government subsidy is bad for business)
If, after a period of time, this fantasy restaurant had to be self sustaining, it would have to either evolve to a $0.99 factory-second, irregular hot dog buffet, [byob] where you bring your own buns, or it would turn the other route, where you get one decent steak for $10. Either of those business models could be profitable, and you might eat the irregular wieners during the week, and steak on payday if both of these restaurants were near your home or office.
Insurance and government subsidies make EVERYTHING higher. Take your wrecked car to the body shop, and tell him insurance is paying for it. Your estimate have a number on it close to what the insurance company is willing to pay. Then tell him to get it looking "decent" as "cheap as possible" since you are paying for it out of pocket. That estimate will usually be a little (or even a lot) cheaper. That estimator will also know that there are a dozen more body shops who will bid on the job. That's called competition.
The same rules apply to health care. If the government is supporting Dr. Jones medical practice, where anyone can get all of the procedures they want as long as they have a free Platinum Obamacard, then Dr. Smith across the street won't get much business, if he doesn't participate in that plan. Eventually, all doctors will end up taking government funded health care, like they do now with Medicaid/medicare, and they will all basically offer the same mediocre level of care, only succeeding if they can cut costs or defraud the system. If we expand programs that we have, then what we have will only get worse. Doctors offices and Hospitals will charge the maximum amount that the insurance and medicare will pay. Actually they charge more, then discount it for them. The jacked up "undiscounted" price is what they write off if nobody pays.
Has anyone looked at the reality of other government funded universal health care? Mexico has it. Why are illegal aliens visiting OUR hospitals? I don't know any Americans who sneak across the border to visit Mexican hospitals. With total price caps, the only way to improve profits is to lower quality.
If every qualifying citizen on Medicaire (or private insurance) got an annual rebate check for the 10 cents of every dollar that was spent under $10000 on them, then there would be second thoughts about going to the doctor, the hospital, etc. There would also be a forced price war among health care providers. Currently most people don't care how much a $500 lab costs. If they can shop it around and take their blood sample to the $100 lab, its worth an extra $40 at the end of the year on their bonus. This will also generate competition between insurance companies. Maybe one will offer $0.15/dollar savings, or maybe one will raise the limit to $15000.
Its only a gimick, but it would encourage people to pay attention to what things cost, and when it matters to the customer, it will matter to the provider.
If we leave it up to the government to fix this problem, we will all end up with hotdogs for lunch every day, when all anyone really wanted was a side salad, or a chance to have an occasional cheeseburger.
Another case in point: My kid's schools serve a tray lunch for $2.00. They also offer snack bar service where they sell food a la cart. Last year, I put as much money in the kid's accounts as they used. Then, the school offered me the opportunity to see on the web page that my teenage daughter was drinking 2 or 3 $1/pint milks with her lunch, that often ran $4 to $7 total. Since it didn't matter to her, she just ate and spent, and bought her friends ice creams.
This year, I started giving them $10 every Monday. If they take their lunch every day, they can put $10/week in the bank. If they run out of money at the snack bar on Monday, they have to take their lunch tuesday to Friday. Yes, I know I am paying for the sack lunches and the $10/wk, but I am spending less that when they have no incentive, and my kids are not chomping on as many $1.50 rice crispy treats from the snack bar. If the insurance companies and the medicare offered a 10% rebate on unused benefits, a lot of us would be shopping around for our health care needs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
