I really don’t care if they stare at my naked body on the fancy x-ray machine, and at my age it probably isn’t going to shorten my life much to have a few more x-rays. I don’t know if I feel the same way about my wife, my daughter or my granddaughter though. I’m quite certain that NONE of us is going to be groped by these characters.
I hold a pilot’s license and a concealed weapon permit. I’m retired from the US Navy and my top secret clearance is quite recently expired. My wife was in the Pentagon when it was attacked on September 11, 2001. Yet, if I buy a ticket on a commercial airline the government has decided that being delayed and inconvenienced isn’t enough. No, I have to be x-rayed and groped as well.
How many terrorists have they caught with all these new security measures? I suspect you already know. How many billions of dollars of our money have they wasted on this foolishness? I’ll bet you don’t know that. Neither do I.
While I was on active duty we did lots of studies on terrorism and determined that there is no possible way to prevent an attack by a single terrorist or small group of terrorists who are willing to die. We can take reasonable precautions to protect ourselves and our property, but the key word is “reasonable”. The TSA thing has long since gone beyond reasonable. If there were some way to make it completely impossible for a terrorist to get access to a commercial airliner (and there is NOT) it would be quite simple for the terrorist to attack a cargo plane, a charter plane, a private plane or --- a MILITARY plane! None of those require even a metal detector, much less a body scanner and “pat down” to gain access. And that’s only planes. When it comes to weapons delivery, I would think that a truck, bus or train would be a much better system.
Meanwhile, who are we fighting? Surely not the terrorists, they’ve already won. They won when we gave up our freedoms in the interest of safety. How safe do you want to be? What’s the value of living a few more years if we have to live them in fear? I don’t know about you, but I’ve had enough of this security nonsense. We’ve just shown in mass at the polls that we are fed up with this more and more government. Is no one listening?
I have two suggestions. First, let your congressman and senator know how you feel. Second, use greyhound or Amtrak or your own personal vehicle. Look into charter flights if you must fly. The time savings from not dealing with security may offset the additional costs.
That’s the way I see it.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
I've had enough
I really don’t care if they stare at my naked body on the fancy x-ray machine, and at my age it probably isn’t going to shorten my life much to have a few more x-rays. I don’t know if I feel the same way about my wife, my daughter or my granddaughter though. I’m quite certain that NONE of us is going to be groped by these characters.
I hold a pilot’s license and a concealed weapon permit. I’m retired from the US Navy and my top secret clearance is quite recently expired. My wife was in the Pentagon when it was attacked on September 11, 2001. Yet, if I buy a ticket on a commercial airline the government has decided that being delayed and inconvenienced isn’t enough. No, I have to be x-rayed and groped as well.
How many terrorists have they caught with all these new security measures? I suspect you already know. How many billions of dollars of our money have they wasted on this foolishness? I’ll bet you don’t know that. Neither do I.
While I was on active duty we did lots of studies on terrorism and determined that there is no possible way to prevent an attack by a single terrorist or small group of terrorists who are willing to die. We can take reasonable precautions to protect ourselves and our property, but the key word is “reasonable”. The TSA thing has long since gone beyond reasonable. If there were some way to make it completely impossible for a terrorist to get access to a commercial airliner (and there is NOT) it would be quite simple for the terrorist to attack a cargo plane, a charter plane, a private plane or --- a MILITARY plane! None of those require even a metal detector, much less a body scanner and “pat down” to gain access. And that’s only planes. When it comes to weapons delivery, I would think that a truck, bus or train would be a much better system.
Meanwhile, who are we fighting? Surely not the terrorists, they’ve already won. They won when we gave up our freedoms in the interest of safety. How safe do you want to be? What’s the value of living a few more years if we have to live them in fear? I don’t know about you, but I’ve had enough of this security nonsense. We’ve just shown in mass at the polls that we are fed up with this more and more government. Is no one listening?
I have two suggestions. First, let your congressman and senator know how you feel. Second, use greyhound or Amtrak or your own personal vehicle. Look into charter flights if you must fly. The time savings from not dealing with security may offset the additional costs.
That’s the way I see it.
I hold a pilot’s license and a concealed weapon permit. I’m retired from the US Navy and my top secret clearance is quite recently expired. My wife was in the Pentagon when it was attacked on September 11, 2001. Yet, if I buy a ticket on a commercial airline the government has decided that being delayed and inconvenienced isn’t enough. No, I have to be x-rayed and groped as well.
How many terrorists have they caught with all these new security measures? I suspect you already know. How many billions of dollars of our money have they wasted on this foolishness? I’ll bet you don’t know that. Neither do I.
While I was on active duty we did lots of studies on terrorism and determined that there is no possible way to prevent an attack by a single terrorist or small group of terrorists who are willing to die. We can take reasonable precautions to protect ourselves and our property, but the key word is “reasonable”. The TSA thing has long since gone beyond reasonable. If there were some way to make it completely impossible for a terrorist to get access to a commercial airliner (and there is NOT) it would be quite simple for the terrorist to attack a cargo plane, a charter plane, a private plane or --- a MILITARY plane! None of those require even a metal detector, much less a body scanner and “pat down” to gain access. And that’s only planes. When it comes to weapons delivery, I would think that a truck, bus or train would be a much better system.
Meanwhile, who are we fighting? Surely not the terrorists, they’ve already won. They won when we gave up our freedoms in the interest of safety. How safe do you want to be? What’s the value of living a few more years if we have to live them in fear? I don’t know about you, but I’ve had enough of this security nonsense. We’ve just shown in mass at the polls that we are fed up with this more and more government. Is no one listening?
I have two suggestions. First, let your congressman and senator know how you feel. Second, use greyhound or Amtrak or your own personal vehicle. Look into charter flights if you must fly. The time savings from not dealing with security may offset the additional costs.
That’s the way I see it.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
More on Health Care
Health Care Reform???
I see from the morning paper that Obama has another plan. I hope somebody somewhere understands this thing, it’s way over my head . Let’s examine it point by point, though. My source is the Jacksonville Times Union February 23, 2010.
It says to start with that the bill would cover 31 million uninsured Americans – that’s about 10% of the population.
The “insurance mandate” says if you don’t buy insurance you pay a fine. Can you believe that?? However, if you make less than what they incorrectly call the “tax-filing threshold” you are exempt. They are calling $45,295 the tax filing threshold for a family of four. That’s actually the amount where you start to pay in instead of collecting from the public coffers. And by the way, a lot more than 10% of the population falls in that category.
Market reforms? Insurance is in the business of risk management. Essentially, they forecast how much individuals who fit particular risk categories are likely to spend on health care in a long term and collect that money in advance in premiums. Obviously if you are a young person in excellent health you are a lower risk than an old guy like me and that is reflected in your premiums. Now under the new government plan, insurance companies would have to charge everyone the same thing and they would have to cover any medical condition including pre-existing. It sure seems to me that everyone would pay the highest premiums that are out there. Of course, many people would have to drop their coverage and pay the fine instead.
Now let’s talk about Medicaid. That’s to be expanded to cover people with 133% of the FEDERAL poverty level. The government would pay 100% of the program through 2017 after which time they could blame the cost on the party in power at that time. The interesting thing about this point is that it’s a FEDERAL poverty level. They’re calling it $29,327 for a family of four. I’m thinking that in New York City or anywhere in California that’s a lot less money than it is in a small town in the south.
Taxes on insurance? Here’s a good one. Under this plan, if you already have a good health care policy you will have to pay tax on it. It was supposed to go into effect in 2013, but the new plan moves it back to 2018 in response to the screaming from the labor unions who generally have the best health care plans. I guess the idea is that the Republicans will be in power by 2018 and they can blame the plan on them.
Employer responsibility – If I have a handle on this one, it says that if you are an employer with more than 50 employees and don’t have a health care plan and the government subsidizes employees coverage then you must pay $2000 per employee to the government. Whew, I don’t get that one at all.
Subsidies – As I understand it, this is another government handout. If you make up to 4 times the federal poverty level ($88000 for a family of four) then the government provides a “generous subsidy” for your health insurance. Now remember that people in the $80k area are taxpayers. They provide the money that the government is going to give back to them. I really have to wonder who thought this thing up.
Now there’s even more “stuff” in this bill and I’m not addressing all of it because it makes no sense and is very unlikely to pass in its current form. I simply want folks to notice what is being done here. It’s easy to ignore the whole thing because it’s so complicated that no one understands it – and that’s EXACTLY WHAT THEY POLITICANS WANT YOU TO DO! Historically, once a law is passed it is extremely difficult to get rid of it and put Humpty back together again. Step up and be heard. Let your lawmakers know what YOU want. More and more people are starting to do just that and it’s having an effect. Otherwise this ridiculous bill would have already passed in an even worse form.
That’s what I think, how about you?
I see from the morning paper that Obama has another plan. I hope somebody somewhere understands this thing, it’s way over my head . Let’s examine it point by point, though. My source is the Jacksonville Times Union February 23, 2010.
It says to start with that the bill would cover 31 million uninsured Americans – that’s about 10% of the population.
The “insurance mandate” says if you don’t buy insurance you pay a fine. Can you believe that?? However, if you make less than what they incorrectly call the “tax-filing threshold” you are exempt. They are calling $45,295 the tax filing threshold for a family of four. That’s actually the amount where you start to pay in instead of collecting from the public coffers. And by the way, a lot more than 10% of the population falls in that category.
Market reforms? Insurance is in the business of risk management. Essentially, they forecast how much individuals who fit particular risk categories are likely to spend on health care in a long term and collect that money in advance in premiums. Obviously if you are a young person in excellent health you are a lower risk than an old guy like me and that is reflected in your premiums. Now under the new government plan, insurance companies would have to charge everyone the same thing and they would have to cover any medical condition including pre-existing. It sure seems to me that everyone would pay the highest premiums that are out there. Of course, many people would have to drop their coverage and pay the fine instead.
Now let’s talk about Medicaid. That’s to be expanded to cover people with 133% of the FEDERAL poverty level. The government would pay 100% of the program through 2017 after which time they could blame the cost on the party in power at that time. The interesting thing about this point is that it’s a FEDERAL poverty level. They’re calling it $29,327 for a family of four. I’m thinking that in New York City or anywhere in California that’s a lot less money than it is in a small town in the south.
Taxes on insurance? Here’s a good one. Under this plan, if you already have a good health care policy you will have to pay tax on it. It was supposed to go into effect in 2013, but the new plan moves it back to 2018 in response to the screaming from the labor unions who generally have the best health care plans. I guess the idea is that the Republicans will be in power by 2018 and they can blame the plan on them.
Employer responsibility – If I have a handle on this one, it says that if you are an employer with more than 50 employees and don’t have a health care plan and the government subsidizes employees coverage then you must pay $2000 per employee to the government. Whew, I don’t get that one at all.
Subsidies – As I understand it, this is another government handout. If you make up to 4 times the federal poverty level ($88000 for a family of four) then the government provides a “generous subsidy” for your health insurance. Now remember that people in the $80k area are taxpayers. They provide the money that the government is going to give back to them. I really have to wonder who thought this thing up.
Now there’s even more “stuff” in this bill and I’m not addressing all of it because it makes no sense and is very unlikely to pass in its current form. I simply want folks to notice what is being done here. It’s easy to ignore the whole thing because it’s so complicated that no one understands it – and that’s EXACTLY WHAT THEY POLITICANS WANT YOU TO DO! Historically, once a law is passed it is extremely difficult to get rid of it and put Humpty back together again. Step up and be heard. Let your lawmakers know what YOU want. More and more people are starting to do just that and it’s having an effect. Otherwise this ridiculous bill would have already passed in an even worse form.
That’s what I think, how about you?
Thursday, February 4, 2010
So you wanna fix healthcare?
Okay, here’s a short message for our Congressmen and Senators since I know they have a short attention span. You want to fix healthcare, well you need to know what’s wrong. My wife had an MRI last week. The Lab billed $4733. The insurance company actually paid $330 per their agreement with the lab.
So who would actually pay $4733? After a lot of headscratching, I think it would be someone who just lost their job and didn’t buy continuing insurance but who did own their home. In that situation the medical place could place a lien on the home of the patient. Otherwise, for people who don’t have insurance they just write $330, but $4733 as a loss on their tax return.
Now it shouldn’t be too hard to write a law that says medical facilities have to charge everyone the same rate regardless of what insurance they have. Come to think of it, it sounds kinda American, doesn't it?
So who would actually pay $4733? After a lot of headscratching, I think it would be someone who just lost their job and didn’t buy continuing insurance but who did own their home. In that situation the medical place could place a lien on the home of the patient. Otherwise, for people who don’t have insurance they just write $330, but $4733 as a loss on their tax return.
Now it shouldn’t be too hard to write a law that says medical facilities have to charge everyone the same rate regardless of what insurance they have. Come to think of it, it sounds kinda American, doesn't it?
Thursday, January 22, 2009
I try not to post things I haven't substantiated in detail, but this one came across my desk today and bears watching. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1 This is a news show that supposedly has been taken off youtube in the US but is still up in Canada. It seems popular lately to blame the Fannie Mae problem on the Bush regime. I've thought that ridiculous all along, and this little 4 minute video offers excellent perspective. No one is innocent in Washington, but this at least puts the majority of blame where it should rightfully fall I believe.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Who's Gonna Pay?
If you're an old timer like me you probably grew up thinking that everyone paid income taxes. I know I always did, even when I was just barely scraping by if at all. As the years and decades went by, there were lots of changes to the tax code. I remember thinking that college tuition should be deductible when I was trying to pay that and feed my family. Back then it wasn't. It is now. Probably that's an improvement. Let's talk about the other “credits” though.
We all know that this country has a “graduated” income tax. That means that the wealthier tax payer pays a much higher share of the burden. Now most people would think that if you make twice as much money you pay twice as much taxes and that's probably fair. For instance, if you have three children and you make $107,498 you pay $9886 in taxes. Seems fair, doesn't it?
Let's see now, if over half of the households in the USA don't pay any taxes then it's a pretty safe bet that over half the voters don't pay any. Perhaps this is relevant to some of the voting patterns we are seeing lately. It has been a long standing tenet of democracy that every man gets one and only one vote. Perhaps it's time to consider the logic here. This is approaching the scenario of two wolves and a chicken voting on what's for dinner. Now you can hardly blame a man for voting for what's in his best interest. If you could vote to give yourself $10k in free money, wouldn't you do it? It's up to our elected officials to exercise common sense in fiscal issues. I'm afraid we can not count on them these days.
So what's the solution? I don't know, do you?
We all know that this country has a “graduated” income tax. That means that the wealthier tax payer pays a much higher share of the burden. Now most people would think that if you make twice as much money you pay twice as much taxes and that's probably fair. For instance, if you have three children and you make $107,498 you pay $9886 in taxes. Seems fair, doesn't it?
Suppose you only make half as much, that would be $53,749 – still a respectable income here in Florida. So you should pay half the taxes, right? That would be $4943 in taxes. Guess what. If you make $53,749 and you are married with 3 children you don't pay ANYTHING AT ALL!! In fact, you get $4 in free money from the IRS! Now $50k isn't wealthy I suppose, but it seems enough that you should be paying some tax, doesn't it?
In 2007, the census bureau tells us that the median family income in the US was $50,233.00. So the average American family doesn't pay any tax at all? Yes, that's a bit over simplified. If you have less than 3 children and you make the average income of $50k you will pay a little tax. Maybe. All the numbers I'm quoting here consider ONLY Earned Income Credit and Child Tax Credit. These are all standard deduction. If you have any kind of deductions or other credits like child care or education you pay less taxes or can make more money without paying any taxes at all.
Let's see now, if over half of the households in the USA don't pay any taxes then it's a pretty safe bet that over half the voters don't pay any. Perhaps this is relevant to some of the voting patterns we are seeing lately. It has been a long standing tenet of democracy that every man gets one and only one vote. Perhaps it's time to consider the logic here. This is approaching the scenario of two wolves and a chicken voting on what's for dinner. Now you can hardly blame a man for voting for what's in his best interest. If you could vote to give yourself $10k in free money, wouldn't you do it? It's up to our elected officials to exercise common sense in fiscal issues. I'm afraid we can not count on them these days.
So what's the solution? I don't know, do you?
Monday, December 8, 2008
GM Bailout, the golden goose?
GM Bailout
I see that congress it about to charge us $15billion to be sure the highest paid workers in America can keep their level of earnings. The concept is that if we don't give them money GM and Chrysler will have to declare bankruptcy. Now I am certainly not an advocate of bankruptcy in general, but let's consider the situation. If GM goes into bankruptcy then they will be rid of the ruinous obligations that currently prevents them from competing in the marketplace. Now as for who this hurts, the investors have already taken a bath in the market with the precipitous drop in GM stock prices. They'll lose more, but not that much more. The main loser will be the unions and their overpaid members. The fact of the matter is that they have killed the golden goose with ridiculous contracts. Toyota pays it's workers about $45 per hour including benefits and GM pays $75 or so. Hmmmm. http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/images/wm2135_chart1.gif
The unions have been robbing us for years through shoddy merchandise at excessive prices and now they want to rob us again. Why on earth should our elected representatives be considering such a thing? It's all about votes and money. The unions have lots of money from years of robbing us and now they use that money against us to try and steal more from us. It seems obvious that a particular job, especially a simple assembly line job, has some specific value. Not whatever you can extort out of management, it has a real dollar value. When a company pays more than the job is worth, it's just a matter of time. Normally this process would be self-regulating. If you pay too much for labor and you can't raise prices for your product because others compete at lower prices, then eventually your bad business model forces you out of business. The problem comes in when government interferes with this natural process. Let's use our heads for a change and keep the government out of this one.
By the way, I drive a GM car and a Chrysler car. I have an elderly aunt who lives on GM pensions and benefits. I'm not unsympathetic, I'm just a realist.
That's how I see it, how about you?
I see that congress it about to charge us $15billion to be sure the highest paid workers in America can keep their level of earnings. The concept is that if we don't give them money GM and Chrysler will have to declare bankruptcy. Now I am certainly not an advocate of bankruptcy in general, but let's consider the situation. If GM goes into bankruptcy then they will be rid of the ruinous obligations that currently prevents them from competing in the marketplace. Now as for who this hurts, the investors have already taken a bath in the market with the precipitous drop in GM stock prices. They'll lose more, but not that much more. The main loser will be the unions and their overpaid members. The fact of the matter is that they have killed the golden goose with ridiculous contracts. Toyota pays it's workers about $45 per hour including benefits and GM pays $75 or so. Hmmmm. http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/images/wm2135_chart1.gif
The unions have been robbing us for years through shoddy merchandise at excessive prices and now they want to rob us again. Why on earth should our elected representatives be considering such a thing? It's all about votes and money. The unions have lots of money from years of robbing us and now they use that money against us to try and steal more from us. It seems obvious that a particular job, especially a simple assembly line job, has some specific value. Not whatever you can extort out of management, it has a real dollar value. When a company pays more than the job is worth, it's just a matter of time. Normally this process would be self-regulating. If you pay too much for labor and you can't raise prices for your product because others compete at lower prices, then eventually your bad business model forces you out of business. The problem comes in when government interferes with this natural process. Let's use our heads for a change and keep the government out of this one.
By the way, I drive a GM car and a Chrysler car. I have an elderly aunt who lives on GM pensions and benefits. I'm not unsympathetic, I'm just a realist.
That's how I see it, how about you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)