Non-Government Solutions to Healthcare: Possible?

Just a little while ago, a friend of mine posted a new blog entry on his Geeky Political Musings site that threw out some free-market solutions for reforming our health care system in this country. Currently, as you know, the President and Congress have their own idea(s) about how this should be done and have crafted nearly 2000 pages of legislation in order to handle the reform. I'm with most Americans in that I want reform, but not that kind of reform.

Here's his post, "Geeky Political Musings: We can't do ObamaCare, but we SHOULD do something", but I'll take each one of his ideas and offer my thoughts on them below, and then follow up with some other ideas I have or have heard. I am not necessarily in total favor of any of them, and no one idea will be the end-all be-all solution. My goal here is to take these ideas, allow them to be critiqued in the open, and refine them into potential solutions that could be enacted in the ultimate goal of reform. Let's not mince words here: ALL AMERICANS should want their fellow Americans to enjoy the best health they can. NO AMERICAN wants their fellow American to go without proper health treatment or to have to make a decision like, "Should I get this test done or should I eat next week?" So if we all have those basic underlying goals, and we can come up with ways that the free-market can solve the problems without excessive government intervention, then why shouldn't we investigate their soundness?

Ok, here are his proposals:

Remove the restrictions on health care insurers that prevent them from selling out of state policies. This has been touted by many, and should lead to more competition, and the ability for people to purchase health care from many other sources.

I think this is an excellent proposal. There are many examples of people that live practically next to each other, but in different states, that have to pay drastically different health insurance premiums. Why is that? It's because there is no competition between the two states' insurance providers. Think about it: if neighbor A in New York could purchase the same insurance as neighbor B in Connecticut, the insurance providers in New York would necessarily have to reduce their premiums to remain competitive. This, as Tim said, is just common sense. Incidentally, this is how it works for automobile insurance, and it works quite well.

Stop insurers from denying people based on pre-existing conditions. However, this is a two-way street. Why did the original insurance carrier all of a sudden dump someone who was in dire need of care? If they dumped them because of their condition, the should be liable to pay a premium to their new carrier. Too many people have paid long and hard into insurance policies only to have the rug yanked out from underneath them as they developed a life threatening condition.

On this one we differ a bit, but by his own admittance he's unformfortable with his own idea as well. For me, I'm uncomfortable forcing a private business to cover someone they would not ordinarily cover. However, I'm OK with them coming up with their own plans to spread the liability among those with conditions, thus allowing them to cover those people with minimum risk to the company. Look, they know that they will lose money on someone with a pre-existing condition, and in the end they are running a business. If you're against paying for those people as a taxpayer then you should be against forcing a business to pay for them. Without creative solutions in the insurance company (which they are capable of making on their own), every other 'well' customer is going to be impacted by every 'known-unwell' customer.

Tim brings up an obvious problem with how health insurance is handled today - if a person was to develop a condition during the year, then when they renew their insurance at the end of the year, their rates would either skyrocket or they would just be refused coverage. This is unfortunate and is a side-effect of how the system is structured. I think that a simple tweak to the structure would help in this, and is already used successfully in life insurance. Why don't they just make the terms longer? Think about it - if you buy a 20 year term life insurance plan, but then take up smoking or drinking, enter a high-risk line of work, or any other number of factors that would necessarily increase your rates at that point, it doesn't matter because you're locked in to set rates for a period of time. I think the same thing could work for health insurance. I will say that one key difference between life and health insurance is that your need for life insurance typically goes down as you age (since your debt typically goes down), but your need for health insurance typically goes up. This is where something like catastrophic insurance would come in (more on that later).

Tort reform. Yes, some lawsuits are legitimate. However many are not. Our doctors and hospitals are drowning in the costs of their own insurance protecting against lawsuits. We need to punish those who are in the practice of frivolous lawsuits.

I agree with this, and its unfortunate that there is no mention of tort reform in any of the legislation being proposed today. It is ESSENTIAL to put as many barriers as possible to frivolous lawsuits in place in order to reduce the fear doctors have of being sued. The result is that they have to pay loads of money in liability insurance, they overprescribe medication and tests 'just to be safe', and scumbags work the system because they know that the doctor's insurance will pay out rather than fight the suit since it's cheaper.

I think a simple solution here would be to simply make the loser pay. If the loser was going to pay all court costs for the winner, then the insurance company has a reason to fight a frivolous charge if they feel the doctor is in the right. If they win, the loser will pay their court costs and they are out no money. If they lose, then at least the judge or jury felt they were in the wrong. Everybody wins (except scumbags). Scumbags would be less eager to sue if they knew the insurance company had an incentive to fight back.

Tax breaks for employers based upon the total number of employees they employ that are also insured.This could be percentage based. I believe this would not only help employers give employees insurance, but may help them hire more workers.

Technically, this is already done. Health insurance benefits that come from your employer are not taxable.

Employers should be liable to carry a persons insurance exactly the same as it was during their employ for a prorated amount of time, or until they find a new job if that employee is laid off. For each year of employ the employer should be responsible to carry that persons insurance for 1 month. Fully covered by the employer. This cost will be offset by tax breaks. This should help people who get laid off until they can get back on their feet. If the employee finds a new job with health care then the employer can at that time cancel the coverage.

These might be nice steps, but I prefer a different tack. I would like employers to remove health insurance as a benefit altogether. I would prefer the employer to take the money they are paying for your health insurance and instead just increase your pay by that amount. They only gain by this by reducing paperwork on their end and hassle in dealing with a group provider, and the burden is placed on you to find the best health care plan for your family or place in life, which is where it should be. How many employees are trapped by their employer offered healthcare that may not offer the benefits they want/need?

Now, in addition to my comments on Tim's suggestions, I have some others that I've either come up with or have heard others mention.

• Health insurance is (or should be) a very customized thing. When you open a program to any number of people that have any number of conditions or end up getting into any number of situations requiring healthcare, you necessarily reduce the effectiveness for each person that does not have the condition or does not get into a situation. What if there was an insurance plan out there that offered some basic plans, but you could add certain benefits a la carte? Say you have a child with speech problems; why not add the Speech Therapy package? What if you have asthma? Better add the Respiratory Illness package.



• How about a plan similar to automobile insurance? You pay a little each month and you have to weigh each time you ding your car if you want to get it fixed for free (and have your rates rise) or deal with it (and your rates remain the same). That puts the power of decision in your hands, requiring you to be responsible for yourself. People don't typically drive their car recklessly unless they're OK with not getting it fixed. People DO live recklessly (unhealthy diet, no exercise), and most are secure in the knowledge that their health insurance will cover them if something turns up bad.
  
  One of the things I don't like about how we purchase health insurance is that we essentially are pre-purchasing healthcare. It's not solely 'insurance' that we rely on in cases of tragedy, but instead it's a bucket that we routinely put money in so that we don't have to pull money out when we go to the doctor. When you go to the doctor and they say, "You should probably run these tests," (probably because they don't want to get sued) you don't hesitate because it's not coming out of your pocket. The doctor knows it and in everybody's mind, nobody gets hurt. The doctor is safer from prosecution, the insurance company is making loads already off of you and others, and you get 'free' healthcare. Technically you've already paid, but the direct association is lost, so you don't care.
  
  Here's an experiment for you: next time you go to a doctor, tell them you're paying in cash. I guarantee you they will offer the same services to you at a cheaper rate than they would bill your insurance provider. It might still be a large sum, but it will be FAR cheaper than your insurance is charged. It will also be cheaper than they would end up receiving from your insurance provider in the end. When a doctor accepts cash from you, that removes so many headaches from their billing department that the lost hassle more than makes up for the lost revenue. Many doctors are switching to 'private-pay' (i.e. cash) only for this very reason.



• A doctor in New York has a few practices open across his area and in all of them they offer a healthcare plan that is truly unique. It costs $79 per month (think: gym membership) and patients can come in at any time. They do pay a modest visit charge per visit, but other than that, their healthcare is free. It's not just visits that are free, but also basic tests and preventative care as well. His business is flourishing and patients love the system. If such a system were employed nationwide by many doctors, and the patients secured catastrophic insurance to cover major illnesses/tragedies, then they could rest easy knowing they were covered.



• I heard this one on the radio the other day, and it seems very reasonable. How about offering tax deductions for doctors that treat unable-to-pay patients? If a patient comes in and needs care, the doctor can elect to charge cash, charge insurance, or do the service(s) for free. If they do so for free, they can deduct what they would have charged in cash. This would free up people from worrying about having enough money to see a doctor, and it would probably encourage doctors to shift to a more 'non-profit' role. This would, in turn, put pressure on insurance companies to act fast in order to increase their usefulness. This, in turn, would probably open more doors for people to get covered, which would in turn cause more doctors and patients to utilize their service, and...well, that's the free market at work, baby.



• I also like Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). These are essentially a savings account that you can direct payroll funds into in order to have a stash of money specifically keyed for paying your health expenses. You will typically utilize very little of this when you're young, and will need more as you age. Likewise, you will earn more as you age and thus contribute more. On top of this, it will have been earning interest your entire life. Anybody who has even remedial knowledge of how compounding interest works can immediately see the potential benefits of such a plan. Their obvious problem is that they are effectively closed to non-income or even low-income people, but using components of some of the other proposals mentioned above would help there. As I said in the beginning, there is no one solution for everyone, which is yet another reason why a universal health care plan can't work; at least not fairly or efficiently.

President Obama mentioned a story a few weeks ago during a press conference. He said, "This is about the middle-class college graduate from Maryland whose health insurance expired when he changed jobs, and woke up from the emergency surgery that he required with $10,000 worth of debt." Sounds like a sad story, doesn't it? It should, because it is. But let's look at this scenario: the man is in between jobs and is not covered. He has an emergency and ends up owing $10,000. So?!? HE'S ALIVE. I guarantee you that if he were to have been asked on the operating table, "Look, son, I am 100% sure you will die if we don't operate, but because you're uninsured, you'll owe the hospital $10,000. Your call.", he would have ABSOLUTELY said to go ahead. Who wouldn't?!? He's not going to say, "Uh, gee...well, I wanted to really get a new apartment next month, and I've been checking out this sweet car down at the lot for the past week. Hmm..." NO! So he owes $10,000? Does that suck? Yes! Do sucky things happen to otherwise non-sucky people? Yes! Should every other sucky and non-sucky person have to foot the bill for every sucky thing that happens to someone else? Your call.

Look, I know there are free-market solutions to our health care problems. I know we can find a way to help everyone out that wants to help themselves. I know that we don't (and shouldn't) have to depend on the government to solve our problems for us.

I'll leave you with one final thought. Yesterday, in a town hall meeting, President Obama himself released the single most damaging statement against a direct government involvement in healthcare (like a public option). When defending against a common attack that a government option would eventually crowd out and eliminate private insurance, he said, "My answer is that if the private insurance companies are providing a good bargain, and if the public option has to be self-sustaining…then I think private insurers should be able to compete. They do it all the time. I mean, if you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? No, they are. It's the Post Office that's always having problems."

Wow. So the two possible scenarios here are 1) it's like every other government program ever enacted and offers no substantial competition to private insurance because it's ineptly run and managed and consistently is over-budget, or 2) it's very successful and effective as designed, so private insurance goes the way of the dodo.

Sign me up.

You Gotta Give It To Republicans

I'm no natural fan of either party based on their representation in Washington, though I certainly align myself with more conservative principles, which is generally aligned with Republican stated values/goals. I say stated because they've tended to drift from that path considerably over past years.

That being said, they have just played a deft move regarding Cash for Clunkers (or CARS). As you may or may not know, the program is being reviewed in the Senate for continued funding. They're looking to expand it by 2 billion and it looked yesterday like it was full steam ahead. However, a new amendment proposed by Tom Harkin (D-IA) is throwing it for a loop. Ironically enough, it is playing right into the Republicans' hands. Let me explain.

Harkin's amendment wants to limit participation in the program to those earning $50,000 or less; basically making the program a low-income handout. In ordinary world, Republicans would oppose based on conservative principles and Democrats would approve based on social justice principles. However, in this case it's exactly the opposite. Republicans are totally in favor of this, but Democrats are opposed to it because they don't want any amendments. Amendments at this point would mean a new vote in the House, and the House is adjourned for August. They won't be back for weeks. If the Dems throw their weight behind this, it will pass and they will have to suspend the program until the House can re-adjourn and vote. They don't want that, so they have to oppose the amendment in order to keep the program alive *now* rather than *later*. However, by doing that, the Republicans are the champions of the poor and the Democrats come off looking like they don't care about the poor.

I don't know who came up with this plan, but it's frickin' brilliant, politically speaking. I doubt Harkin is in on it because he has always been for the program, even months ago, and even then was talking about it being able to help the poor. However he is against rushed votes and regrets TARP and the like. It doesn't really matter, and while I don't approve of political games at the expense of citizens, I don't feel any citizen is being maligned by continuance of this program. Perhaps cooler heads can prevail after a month of recess.

Weekly Whiskey Tango Foxtrot - Vol. IV

No time to do this one justice, but I did just receive the most retarded thing I've ever seen in the ol' Inbox a few minutes ago. It's crazy enough to carry this WWTF all by itself.


W....T....F?!?

Read all about it here.

(Another) Open Letter to My Representative

Time for another round of contacting the powers that be. Please take the time to read, and if you agree, copy and change accordingly, then send to your own representative. They are trying to get a vote together by Friday. Time is short if you want to let them know how you feel.

You can write them here.


Congressman -

I have come to understand that you and your colleagues will likely be voting on HR 2454 (the "Climate Change" bill). I would like to express my wish that you vote "NO" on the passing of this bill when given the opportunity. Over the past several months I have seen several pieces of information come to light only to be quickly buried by major media outlets. It is seeming more and more like this is a highly politically charged bill being rushed through to a vote with very little regard for honest debate. Again, I strongly urge you to consider your vote when it presents itself, or, if you are so inclined, push for more exposure to these other views so that you and your colleagues can execute a more informed vote, and not a simple 'party-line' vote.

The latest piece of news has come out today and centers around certain EPA emails that were sent in March of this year. I'm including the link to the emails, but the essence is that one of their researchers wanted to submit new evidence that did not support Endangerment. This researcher was essentially silenced and his information was not passed on for consideration. It is now coming to light and I encourage you to at least view the emails in question.

You can find them at:
http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/Endangerment%20Comments%206-23-09.pdf

I wanted to also enumerate some of the other exposed information which has led me to infer that the House is simply not doing their due diligence in voting on this bill.

- The primary sponsor of the bill, Henry Waxman, was unable to answer basic questions about his own bill.

- The Democratic Majority hired a speed-reader to read through the bill - an utter MOCKERY of our legislative system.

- UK's Lord Christopher Monckton was first invited to debate with Al Gore in April, but was then barred from the debate after landing in the U.S.

- More than 700 scientists have signed on to a Senate report disputing claims that man is primarily responsible for global warming. As an aside - this is over 13 times the number of scientists who authored the IPCC 2007 report; the major report cited by those claim the opposite, and a primary source document for this bill.

- Senator Barrasso revealed a 9-page White House internal memo that showed that the EPA's Endangerment decision was primarily political and not scientifically based.

- There is a real risk that businesses will move offshore as a direct result of this bill and continue to emit the same levels of carbon that they do today. It implies that Congress is apparently OK with the carbon emission as long as it doesn't occur on our land. I remind you that the claim is 'global' climate change, not American climate change.

- In Sections 425-427, it is spelled out that workers who are displaced will receive THREE years of compensation, plus healthcare coverage, job search funds, and moving assistance. That is the single best severance package that I've ever heard of. One almost *hopes* that his job is displaced because of this bill.

- 'Fuzzy math' was used to imply that the average American household's cost for this bill would be 800/year. I say 'fuzzy' because this calculation assumes that the 'average American household' will benefit from other government services paid for by money raised from credit auctioning. In essence, the Republicans are more correct with their $3900/year estimate because the household will still be put out by that amount; they'll just be receiving other 'benefits' for it. Energy companies *will* pass on these costs to consumers; anyone who thinks otherwise is simply mistaken. Furthermore, due to the credits outlined in sections 431 and 432 to low income families, this will disproportionately affect the middle class.

- Carbon dioxide *is* a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases *do* trap heat. These are scientific facts and are not in dispute. However, did you know that most environmental reports only take into account those greenhouse gases that humans primarily contribute to (namely, CO2 and Methane)? They always seem to omit the one greenhouse gas for which we have practically zero control over: water vapor. As a matter of fact, when taken into account, human contribution to greenhouse gas emissions drops from 5.5% to about 0.28% when you factor in water vapor! Don't you think that's rather significant? With regards to just CO2, man-made contributions are only 0.117% of the entire Earth's greenhouse effect, i.e. INSIGNIFICANT.

You get the picture. Where is the upfront and public discussion about these (and more I didn't mention) items?

Taxing coal companies and forcing us out of SUVs is *not* going to have a significant effect on the global climate, though I would hate for you to come to the conclusion these facts support after you've already cast your vote to the contrary. What it will have a significant effect on is the average American's energy expenditures and the American job market.

You're probably going to be asked to vote on this bill this week. Again, I urge you to consider these pieces of information when deciding how to vote. Look, nobody is saying we don't want clean air. Nobody is saying we should intentionally destroy our planet. What I *am* saying is that this bill seems as though it's being rushed through the system, and any voice of opposition or public discourse about the bill seems to vanish almost as soon as it comes up. If you have considered the items I mentioned, please let me know your thoughts, your intended vote, and how you have arrived at your decision.

Thank you very much for listening.

How About I Call You Rude, Instead?

Senator Barbara Boxer (D - CA)is now on my feces list. A few days ago she was in a hearing with Brigadier General Michael Walsh when she asked him a question. In his reply, he called her "ma'am". At that point she rudely interjected with:

"Do me a favor; could you say 'senator' instead of 'ma'am'? It's just a thing, I worked so hard to get that title, so I'd appreciate it, yes, thank you."

ARE YOU FRICKING SERIOUS!?!? It seems Mrs. Senator Boxer has got her panties boxers in a wad. What a -

...well you finish the sentence.

If you haven't clicked on the link above - go ahead so you can see for yourself.

Look, I've never met a decent person that was so wrapped up in their title that they would actually interrupt someone talking to them with a snide request like that. I've talked with CEOs, Presidents of companies, senior executives, and even politicians, and NONE of them have EVER stopped me mid-sentence if I said "Sir" or "Ma'am". Maybe over in California they don't consider "ma'am" a sign of respect, but that's nothing to hold against this BRIGADIER GENERAL. I just can't believe the absolute nerve she had to act this rude! How full of herself is she?!?

Apparently a lot.

Sometimes, of course, 'titles' are important and should always be demanded. How about Dad/dy and Mom/my? I think those should be used by children for the duration of their lives. As for non-parents, children should always use "Mr." and "Mrs/Miss/Ms" (for those senior to you, whether in age or rank) unless that person has told them they don't need to. For myself, I still call older adults that I knew in my childhood with those titles, and I always will. You may think this one is generally a Southern thing, but the "sir" and "ma'am" should always be appended as well when answering.

Maybe it's just me.

Look, you may live somewhere where "sir" or "ma'am" are not used, and you may not have been raised to say them, but I ask you this: can you honestly deny that hearing them is at least just a teeny weeny bit more respectful sounding than just "Yeah" or even "Yes"? If you can deny that, then I think you need to lighten up. It is a universal sign of respect, and this Senator decided to assert her high-and-mightiness by denouncing this general's respectful address and demanding to be referred to as "Senator".

You know, I don't recall her addressing him as "Brigadier General" when she asked her question. I mean, if we're going to be so respectful to each other and pay attention to the hard work employed in earning titles and everything, should the door swing both ways? I'm pretty sure he worked just a little bit harder in earning his title.

Just sayin'.

Travelocity: How Gay

I was just perusing the interweb and decided to go to Travelocity to see if any cheap summer vacation deals were on there. We're looking to go somewhere sunny, and I've had good luck in the past getting deals on that site. Imagine my surprise (shock? bewilderment? confusion?) when I saw the following screen:

(Click to enlarge)

Top four desination themes: Mountain, Romance, All Inclusive, and...Gay Travel? "Gay Travel" is a top four destination theme?!? Couldn't that technically be lumped under "Romance" or are gay people not romantic? I think the LGBT community should complain about this here - either Travelocity is claiming gay couples can't be romantic, or maybe they're singling out only single gay people (pun most definitely intended), or they are just simply patronizing you. You think they would put "Hetero Travel" on there?

It's like they're saying, "Go to the mountains and enjoy the view while hiking on trails, or go on a romantic getaway and get closer to that special someone, or, apparently if you're gay, go somewhere and, uhh, just be gay?" Yep, if you're gay you can't go to the mountains or anywhere else. They've got a special category just for you.

I just don't get it. How about, oh I don't know, "Fishing", "Hiking", "Sailing", etc. Those are pretty basic 'themed' vacations.

Oh, one more thing... (which happens to be what I was looking for...)

HOW ABOUT THE FRICKING BEACH?!? IT'S THE FRICKING SUMMER!!! PEOPLE GO TO THE FRICKING BEACH IN THE FRICKING SUMMER!!!

Maybe it's just me?

(Semi) Weekly Whiskey Tango Foxtrot - Vol. III

Ok, ok. So I'm too busy apparently to do a WWTF. So it's been a while. So what? You made it ok...sheesh.

OMG. San Francisco (that bastion of progressiveness) has now deemed it unlawful to throw away food scraps. Under penalty of fine, the unfortunate citizens of that fair town will be forced to separate their trash into 3 groups, 1 for recycling, 1 for food, and 1 for plain ol' trash. The idiocy was complete when I read "Food scraps sent to a landfill decompose fast and turn into methane gas, a potent greenhouse gas". I'm sorry, first the problem was throwing things away that never decomposed; now it's a problem that they decompose too rapidly? Look, if you want to compost, by all means. I'm thrifty enough that I was considering it sometime this year. But a law that forces you to do it is just crossing the line. Let me clarify - a federal law forcing you to do it would be crossing the line; San Fran can have fun with that. It's just another reason to keep it at the bottom of my 'most desirable cities to live in' list.

Oh - and if you're sooooo worried about our effect on the levels of greenhouse gases, take the time to look at a perspective that's always overlooked by the zealots. This link lists greenhouse gas numbers along with human contributions, but includes the Earth's most significant greenhouse gas: water-vapor. Omitting that from reports can change the numbers by as much as 2000%. Seems kinda significant, don't you think?

[sigh] A judge in...waitaminit...San Francisco?!? What a coincidence! Anyway, a judge over there has determined that a convicted terrorist can actually sue one of the lawyers that drafted the legal memos/documents that OK'd the use of the so-called EITs (enhanced interrogation techniques). I had a big blog article all planned out on this whole torture thing but never got around to it. I thought it had died out, but I guess now the embers are being stoked again. This isn't about justifying torture or not, it's about the law. Is he an American citizen? Yes. HOWEVER, the second he was declared an enemy combatant by the state, which he was, he loses any privledges that may have afforded him. He was essentially taken from the field of battle. It was never a police matter; it was always a military matter, and therefore not subject to the same kind of scrutiny that civil matters are.

Iran had their presidential election and it was more of the same, apparently. It wasn't really close, but many are complaining of rigging. They must have learned a thing or two from Florida 2000, since they've apparently arrested the loser. Wouldn't want to be taken to court or anything...

Paul Krugman decided to blame conservatives, most specifically Fox News show hosts, for the recent attack at the Holocause Museum in DC. Idiot. The best line? "Now, for the most part, the likes of Fox News and the R.N.C. haven’t directly incited violence..." So I suppose, in the non-most parts, there have actually been show hosts and RNC peeps that have directly incited violence, hmm? Gee, I didn't really see that show...

Finally, Glenn Beck's Common Sense was released this week. Get it. Read it. Think about it.

Racism Is Alive And Well

When I heard about this story I just couldn't believe it. In this day and age I can't believe that there's an instance of racism as blatant as this. You may have heard about it but for those who haven't I summarize: There's a police district in Little Rock, Arkansas that recently had a large number of slots to fill in the "upper" roles of captain and lieutenant. The higher ups decided to conduct a test to determine the most qualified people because, after all, wouldn't you want the most qualified people in that field leading the task of protecting citizens?

Of course you would.

To that end, they rigorously planned this test out so that it would be racially neutral. They didn't want to disparage anyone, so they even went to the trouble of hiring an outside firm that specialized in creating politically correct tests (to the tune of about $100,000).

When the results finally came in, the white test-takers did very poorly, while the Hispanic and black recruits excelled. Many of them had worked long hours, quit second jobs, even dealt with learning disabilities in order to pass this test. When the powers-that-be got word of the test results, they decided to throw them out to avoid lawsuits. Unfortunately for them, it produced exactly the same outcome. The odd twist of irony is that the council who decided to throw out the results was comprised of 3 blacks and 1 Hispanic; the only groups that performed well enough on the tests to be promoted.

Now black and Hispanic policemen are suing, saying the results were thrown out simply because they are black. They played by the rules, they studied hard and scored high enough to make the promotion cut, yet that promotion was denied simply because of the color of their skin.

Like I said before - can you believe this is happening in this day and age? I mean, in the past affirmative action and social engineering has been utilized to "equalize the playing field", but this is ridiculous. The council's defense is that they are not promoting anyone based on the test score, so they are not discriminating; they're simply throwing the scores out. To make matters worse, this happened a few years ago, and since then they have been rotating people in and out of those positions in order to be fair, thus placing in some cases the non-qualified whites into those positions just for the sake of equality.

Sufficiently riled up?

Ok; I have a confession to make...the above story is not true. Well, at least not entirely true. They weren't policemen, they were firemen. It wasn't in Little Rock, it was in New Haven, Connecticut. And finally, it wasn't blacks who excelled on the test while whites failed miserably, it was the other way around.

Still think it's a travesty? The sad truth of our nation is that if the above situation would have happened that way, there is no way they would have held back the recruits from their rightful promotion. As a matter of fact, I would venture to say the NAACP and other minority organizations that have chimed in on this case would have touted the fact that the most successful test-takers were non-whites. It would have been entirely acceptable to promote deserving minorities, but deserving majorities? Not a chance.

I understand there is political pressure (at every level) to promote people evenly distributed among the various races, or at least proportional to the numbers available in each race, but this is not some job that requires little skill. This is a job that directly affects peoples' lives. It affects the lives of the firemen and of the people they're trying to save. I guarantee you one thing: If my house was burning down, I wouldn't care who or what came through my door to save my children or try and save my property.

I bet the vast majority of Americans feel the same way.

So why did they do it? Well, in this case it was a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. The minority groups were threatening to sue if the tests were not thrown out and the ones who passed were threatening to sue if they did. Despite the political backlash, the council showed bad judgment. Thankfully, this case has finally wound its way to the Supreme Court, who should be layout out a verdict any day now.

If you'd like to read about this case and its history, this website is very thorough.

What Are They Thinking?

The Credit CARD (Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure) Act of 2009; what a clever name! I wonder how much the guy in Congress who has the unofficial title of Bill-Namer gets paid? Whatever it is, it's not enough. Anyway, it's only a few closed-door meetings and a President's signature away from becoming a legislative reality. But this is a good thing, right? Senator Harry Reid felt pride because the Congress "stood up for consumers and stood up to abusive credit card companies". Senator John Kerry chimed in that Americans were "[getting] whacked with unfair credit card fees". So we should all thank Congress, right? Everybody wins, right?

Hardly. Nothing Congress ever does allows everybody to win. It's an impossible goal. For someone to win, another has to lose. That's the nature of the world, though there's a chunk of the population that honestly feels that nobody should ever lose. Unless of course, you're talking about the evil corporations. Of course they should lose.

Many of these provisions have me thinking: Are these really things that need to be into a law? Look, if you've ever gotten a credit card, you know you get all this verbiage that you never read. Somewhere buried in there is something that looks like this (pulled from an online Citi application, 5/19/09):

First they specify the variable rate specifications:
--Your APRs may vary each billing period.
--The purchase and balance transfer APR equals the Prime Rate plus 9.99%.
--The cash advance APR equals the Prime Rate plus 16.99% (never lower than 21.99%).
--The default APR equals the greater of (1) the Prime Rate plus up to 23.99% or (2) up to 29.99%.

Then, in the footnotes they clarify it:
How do we calculate variable rates?
For each billing period we use the Prime Rate published in The Wall Street Journal two business days before the Statement/Closing Date.
When can we change the rates, fees, and terms of your card agreement?
We will not voluntarily increase your rates and fees or change other terms of your card agreement until your card expires, typically in two years. At that time, we will review your credit history and general market conditions. If we decide to make changes after our review, you will receive advance notice and a right to opt out. If you opt out, we will close your account. You can then pay the remaining balance under the old rates, fees, and terms. Of course this paragraph does not apply to the automatic default APR and Prime Rate changes. It also does not apply to changes required by law, our regulators, or our network providers.

Does that sound unfair to you? Is it their fault that you didn't read it? I know I never read them, but I don't hold them liable for my laziness. President Obama said last week, "You should not have to worry that when you sign up for a credit card, you're signing away all your rights. You shouldn't need a magnifying glass or a law degree to read the fine print that sometimes doesn't even appear to be written in English." Excuse me? Exactly which rights were infringed by those rules? And a law degree? Is our educational system that bad that it is assumed a law degree is required to understand what I just pasted above? On second thought, don't answer that.

Let's take a look at some of the key provisions of the bill:

• Credit companies can no longer raise interest rates on existing balances until after those balances are 60 days past due.
  
  
  Why 60? It sounds so arbritrary. Why not 30? 90? 120? It's just a number, and you're not going to solve anything. You will still have people not pay. TODAY most may pay by 60 days (I don't know this; just trying to think of why they picked 60), but if the deadline is 60, then most will probably pay by 90. Then what? Just keep pushing it out? Eventually, don't we all have to just realize the cutoff is there, it's detailed in the agreement, and call it a day? You can't push it out because people don't read.


• Consumers will be notified 45 days in advance of any rate increase.
  
  
  Again - another arbritrary date.
  


• Statements will be forced to be mailed 21 days before the payment due date.
  
  
  Uh...how exactly is this supposed to help, and why is this being legislated again? Look, consumers, if you are using a credit card, you do realize that at some point you'll be required to pay the debt off, right? They're going to come knocking at around the same time every month for at least a portion of the debt. I'm not really sure how legislating that you find out so early suddenly offers the consumer more protection. This is an unnecessary clause.
  Actually, you know what? I just thought of a potentially ever-so-slightly-harmful side-effect of this. I already get my Discover statement via email around 29 days BEFORE it's due. It basically comes right after it closes for the previous month. I then promptly forget about it because, after all, it's not even due for another month. For ME, this legislation is potentially harmful. My point is that any legislation will hurt some and help others. Those that are lazy and forgetful, who don't set up reminders and stay on top of debts will be harmed because they will be notified too soon and it will fall off their radar. Those who are diligent will take the opportunity and set up the payment ahead of time, regardless of when they are notified. Net effect: NOTHING.
  


• It will be harder for companies to issue credit cards to people under 21.
  
  
  Yet another case of the government acting like parents. Look, this is and should be a business decision of the credit card companies. They probably shouldn't even hassle themselves with 18-21 year olds. They should jack up rates on them and in general make it difficult for them to obtain their product. They should consider that age group a high credit risk and treat them as such. Wait a minute - if they did that, then...[gasp]...they'd be implementing a form of age discrimination! Why isn't the government stepping in and forcing them to reduce restrictions! Oh yeah, it's because the government wants to absolve anybody, even those legally considered an adult in practically all other matters, of personal responsibility. How about a pro-active attempt to curb financial ignorance? How about an introduction of financial education into our American primary/secondary education system? Instead of accepting stupidity, why don't we work to avoid it in the first place? The government shouldn't be a parent (though they try), but it's in the country's best interest to have a financially educated public.
  


• Rates can't be increased in the first year, with two main exceptions: 1) variable interest rate increase, and 2) promotional rate period end. In line with that, all promotional periods must be at least 6 months.
  
  
  Great. Now we have the government specifying how long a sale or discount can last for a business. Imagine a government stipulation that stores be obligated to offer last week's sale prices up to 3 days after the sale ended? In effect, increasing the length of sale? That's essentially what they're doing. Why should the government come in and specify business practices? THIS IS MARKETING! They didn't lie, they didn't cheat. As a matter of fact, they didn't even have to offer a promotional period at all - they do so in order to entice customers to use their card rather than others.
  

The list goes on and on, covering gift card expirations, etc., and even going so far as to specify the date time of day deadline for bill payment! Really? The time of day??

It's not all bad, and some of these things will benefit the average consumer. Unfortunately, most of the effects of this will be negative for exactly the wrong people. If you divide borrowers into two categories, those who pay and those who don't, then those who don't pay are subject to fees, penalties, rate increases, credit problems, etc. (Yes, I realize that some(most?) who don't pay have just fallen on hard times with job loss, etc. and physically can't pay. They didn't necessarily do anything wrong at all. With this in mind, businesses can choose to have a heart and handle accordingly or be a hardliner and collect. It's a business decision; likewise it's our decision as a consumer to choose a hardliner credit card company or not.) This is a fact of life. If you do what you should and when you should do it (i.e. pay on time), then you shouldn't be unnecessarily penalized. When these rules go into effect, the credit card companies will not sit idly by and watch their profits dwindle with an, "Aw, shucks." NO. They're going to find some way to keep the revenues coming in, and if they're not allowed to "pick on" the bad payers, then they'll be forced to raise fees/rates across the board to cover the balance. This will likely reduce usage by good payers, which will cause their customer base to become lopsided toward the bad payer side. Now call me crazy, but I don't think that's good for business.

My final thought on this is simple: This is yet another case of the government stepping in where they don't belong, in the interest of "the people". When will we stop this bailout mentality that it's not OK to fail? This will have unintended side-effects, and only time will tell what those are. Do I think that the credit card companies should be restrained and should act ethically in regards to business practices? ABSOLUTELY. Do I think the government should create laws in order to control business direction? NO. I would much rather see a public effort toward the credit card companies to force them to band together and create an agency/group/board/something that would set industry standards they would all abide by. As a consumer it is our right to protect ourselves, and we shouldn't depend on the government to protect us from us.

Me On The Glenn Beck Show - 5.19.09

I called into the Glenn Beck Radio Show this morning and (after staying on hold for about an hour) finally got on. If you've never called into a radio show (and I've only called into a few), you can sit on hold for quite a while. It's ok though, because you get to listen to the show through your phone...

Anyway, here's my question and his answer. If any clever state legislators (not just Georgia) are out there and have an idea for how to have control of the money that goes to Washington from the state (more specifically how to avoid having it go to support a failing state), please do so!

$900,000 To Prove A Point? Priceless.

We learn today of yet another colossal failure in the world of global warming climate change initiatives. (forgot the name change...) Students at the Lawrence Technological University and DTE (Detroit power company) came together to create a work of art. Actually, if you were going to look at it as a work of art alone, then it wouldn't be so laughable. However, this house was supposed to be a full-fledged demonstration about how a "green" house could perform. It is entirely solar powered and has no electric or gas hookups. Seven months ago, it was unveiled to the public at large as a glimpse into the future of our lives; or at least a proposed future if we would all just go green.

You could go see it today and marvel at its wondrous achievements, but you wouldn't be allowed to go inside. You see, some idiot forgot to flip the breaker during the winter that would have powered a heater and, as (un)luck would have it, the pipes froze and burst, causing $16,000 in damage. I should note the other 'official' story is that the heater drew too much power and the batteries drained which caused the system to back down. So, for now, the house is closed to avoid human safety issues. (rotted floors kinda suck when you walk on them...) So far, nobody is forking over the repair costs. I guess $900K is ok to spend, but $16K is just pushing it too far!

In a way, the official story is even more disturbing. If that's true then how can they expect to be taken seriously when the water pipe heaters drew too much power with absolutely zero other drain from people living in it?!? This thing was designed to support a home office and an electric car. If it can't even support water heaters...FAIL.

But let's just say, for a moment, that this was simply human error (which it was either way; either an idiot or a poor designer). Let's say the idea is sound and we'd really have something useful here had the pipes not burst. I don't know of anyone that would argue that such a house could be built. I mean, any person with a bit of sense would know that if you throw enough solar panels at something, you can power it. That has never really been the critical blocking point for widespread adoption of solar power. So, from that perspective, the house proved absolutely nothing by simply claiming to be "grid-free".

In order to be a true public-shifting piece of work, you have to factor in cost, marketability, ease of construction, and a slew of other factors. You can't just say, "Guess what? This house is grid free and it's the wave of the future! Jump on board!" People like me (and most of America) will tell you to have fun with that house; we'll buy a normal house that costs 1/5th the amount this one did.

Oh - you didn't catch that? Yeah, this beauty cost NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS. Cha-ching! What do you mean you don't have a million bucks to drop into a house?!? Don't you care about the environment!?!?!

It gets better.

The average American home is about 2400 sq. ft. So you would think that any rational person/organization that was trying to make a point would at least build a house that was somewhere in that neighborhood. Wanna know how big (small) this house is? 800 sq. ft.

EIGHT HUNDRED.

I'm sorry, but if you've got 900K to drop into a dwelling, it ought to hold more than a chair and table. This is just another indication that the green movement 'pioneers' are just plain out of touch with common America.

Now, in Troy at least, they're out of house and home too. Though, really, those words are stretching it a bit, don't you think?

The Problem With Gay Marriage Isn't The Gay Part

Gay marriage is a huge, polarizing issue.  The crux of the issue isn't homosexuality, oddly enough.  It's the anachronous, illogical entanglement of church and state concerns in the institution of marriage as we know it.  Marriage, as a concept, has different implications depending upon the context in which it's being discussed.  It has religious aspects as in the joining of two souls under God and it has the legal implications of binding many of the responsibilities of two people in a sort of contractual joining of two individuals under the State.  One's credit affects the other, the burden of debts are shared, insurance coverage spans between them, etc.  These are two very different facets of the institution which would be extremely complicated to manage simultaneously in the best of circumstances.  When the fact that one is a religious matter while one is a state matter are considered, that alone is enough to warrant a separation of the two into separate arrangements entirely, to say nothing of the practical complications that arrise due to their comingling.

Upon separating the two aspects of marriage as per one of the founding principles of our nation, the problem then becomes somewhat easier to discuss and manage.  

If the legal facet of marriage is reduced to a contractual comingling of responsibilities and benefits as currently connoted by the institution of marriage, the emotional and moral offenses incurred by those who resist the concept of gay marriage so strongly, would seem to be removed.  Even if homosexuality is not condoned by a person's religion, what would they care if two people would like to share responsibility for each other's debt?  I'm sure they would still condemn the lifestyle as a whole, but legalities of the situation would no longer be encumbered by the moralities of it.  As an aside, under this new separate model, there doesn't seem to be a logical defense for outlawing polygamy.  Who cares if 10 people want to all be responsible for each other.  The concept would need its own nomenclature, a la Civil Union, and would have to be executed by an agent of the government, Justice of the Peace, County Clerk, whathaveyou.

Marriage then, would be a purely religious concept having no legal implications.  It would be carried out by a religious agent.

People who currently object on religious grounds would have no basis to object when discussing the legal implications and now that the religious piece would be its own separate concern, homosexuals would have no basis to object.  

Weekly Whiskey Tango Foxtrot - Vol. II

Sorry, but I was out of town on vacation last week, so this one actually covers two weeks. Lucky you!

New York decided to impose a so-called Millionaire's Tax that somehow not-so-surprisingly affects a lot more people than just those that make a million bucks. The tax increases start for those making $200,000 ($300,000/couple). This officially keeps New York as the highest taxing state, with California on their heels. Reports say actual rich people like Trump and Limbaugh are moving out of town to avoid the new taxes.

Glenn Beck started selling a Dashboard Obama...uh...if I don't agree with Obama, then I'm not buying one of these, and if I did agree with him, I wouldn't buy one of these...so who's the intended buyer here...?

Once again, Congress has passed a law that has unintended consequences. This was done last year, but just went into effect recently. You'll remember Congress passing a law that banned/recalled any products designed for or sold to children that contained lead. Well, children's sized dirt bikes and mini-ATVs contain lead, so... Well, you get the picture. You know, if your kid is caught sucking on one of the battery terminals, eating a brake handle, or swallowing a tire stem (some of the offending items), then your child is going to need a lot more than a law to protect them from the world. The worst part is that this may in fact increase child mortality because parents will likely purchase more powerful models in order to be able to get their kid a bike/ATV. Models they have no business riding, which is why the less powerful child models were created in the first place...

Obama decided to release certain memos that detailed the interrogation techniques utilized by the Bush administration against terrorists. It is noteworthy that he did so in the interest of transparency, yet did not feel the urge to release any memos that detailed the results of those interrogations. So he shows us memos that detail techniques we already knew about, but won't show us memos about results we already knew about. Hmmm....

Some tool named Derek Piazza, who's a professor at the College of Alameda, decided late in 2007 to throw a hissy-fit and try and get two students suspended from their school for praying for a sick teacher. Apparently, he considered it to be "disruptive behavior". Look, I've never seen anyone praying that actually disrupted anything. Thankfully, the students have filed suit, and I wholeheartedly agree with them. They are only asking for a public apology and only enough money to cover legal expenses. If this guy has enough time to get all bent out of shape over someone praying for a fellow teacher to get well, then he is obviously not using his time wisely enough for his job and should be let go. C'mon, Mr. Piazza, do something productive with your life!

Janine Garofalo decided to make an ass out of herself, and I say more power to her. It just further serves to alienate her and her ideas (and indirectly the people who feel the same way). In case you missed it, she declared that all attendants of the tea parties that occured on Tax Day were racist rednecks who were upset that America elected a black president. She even went so far to bring eugenics into the mix, stating that conservatives have a brain defect that cause them to think...conservatively. What an idiot. You know, I'm not sure how long they're going to keep up this ridiculous "this is because Obama is black" thing for anybody that criticizes the president. Being a black president (even the first black president) does not automatically buy you the "Get out of Public Critique" Community Chest card in the game of Americopoly.

CNN's Susan Roesgen "reported" on the Chicago Tax Day Tea Party that it was "anti-government, anti-Democrat, and...not really family viewing". She obviously had an agenda and went on to prove that she (and the left in general) really have no idea what these tea parties are about. She actually even became a sort of salesman when she brought up the $400 tax credit (woo-frickin-hoo) and the billions coming to Illinois as part of the stimulus bill. What she doesn't get is that those payouts are part of the reason those people are there.

Brown University will be celebrating 'Fall Weekend' instead of Columbus Day this year. Apparently, the university feels that because Columbus was such a meanie to Native Americans, he doesn't jive with Brown's values they try to emphasize. Oh that's swell; so now we have to worry about celebrating any holiday at all that honors a person who doesn't subscribe to values present today, regardless of whether or not those values existed then. Mistreating Native Americans did not define his life, and is obviously not the reason we have Columbus Day.

Good grief. Apparently Obama decided that the monogram "IHS", a common Christogram for Jesus, was too offensive, controversial, or whatever for a recent speech he gave at Georgetown University. The White House had the university cover up the monogram because it was going to be visible behind the president during his speech. Oh, the horror.

The Representative Replies

If you'll remember a few weeks ago, I sent a letter to my U.S. Representative that represents my district. To my surprise, I actually got a letter back! Now, I'm not naive to think that he specifically took note of my letter and decided to reply back, but I do feel that my letter must have been one of many that voiced a common concern regarding the AIG bonus legislation. There must have been so many that he (or at least his staff) felt the need to respond to the criticism.

An even bigger surprise was that he actually agreed with me.

His letter was two pages long, but the nut of it was on the first page. Here's what he wrote, with emphasis mine.

Thanks for contacting me in opposition to H.R. 1586, the AIG bonuses legislation that I now call the "take-it-back-with-a-tax" solution. With hindsight, I should have not voted for this bill.

As you probably know, the AIG bill was brought up hurriedly because of the public outcry over the bonuses. It had broad, bipartisan support. The vast majority of the House voted for it, both Democrats and Republicans. Most Members understood the bill was meant to recover outrageous sums paid with the help of US taxpayers to the very AIG traders who were responsible for AIG's incredible financial mess. And although I recognized possible constitutional problems, I thought we should leave these for the courts to decide because mounting public anger over coddling Wall Street was eroding the ability of Congress to properly meet the huge financial challenges facing the country.

Democratic governments both lead and follow their electorates. Congress might have done a bit more leading on this one. At the least, we might have slowed the rush to judgment.

He then goes on to say how he now understands the situation was a bit more complicated than initially thought. He understands that the stimulus bill they passed contained verbiage specifically allowing these types of bonuses. He understands that most of the targets of this bill have no blame for AIG's financial mess. In fact, he said, "They are no more guilty than anyone else working on Wall Street for outsized pay."

In other words, he admitted that it was wrong for them to rush to a decision in this matter without fully weighing their options or repercussions. While I am glad that he fully admitted their error (after all, they are only human), I was a bit disappointed at his almost casual reference to ignoring what he thought to be a breach of constitutionality. I didn't appreciate him having the attitude that, 'Oh well, we've got to do something, and even though I know this goes against the Constitution, the courts can figure it out in the end.'

I also didn't like that they knowingly and intentionally wrote this law to directly attack a specific group of people. That is regrettable, and won't be forgotten soon. However, in regards to that, he had my favorite line of the entire letter:

[This bill's] take-it-back-with-a-tax solution should die in the Senate and be relegated to the dust bins, just further evidence that the Senate is adult supervision for the House.

Indeed.

I'm not going to harp on it any more this time, but I will wait and see what comes down the pipe. If another senseless bill gets passed with similar attitudes (act-first-to-look-busy), then I will bring it back up. For now, I will assume the lesson is noted and learned and he will try to do better in the future, appreciative that in the end his viewpoint steered toward a more rational and reasonable direction.

One Lump Or Two?

Well, tomorrow is Tax Day. The day when some of us have to grudgingly write a check to the government(s) to atone for a lack of taxation the prior year. It's also the day when thousands of Americans across the country will get out of their comfy chairs and attend various Tax Day Tea Parties. My wife and I will be two of them, and will be attending the one in Atlanta.

Over the past few weeks, as this movement has gathered steam, I've noticed the decidedly absent reporting of these events by pretty much every major media outlet. Of course, as one would expect, Fox News has been covering them heavily. Several of their talk show hosts will actually be attending a Tea Party themselves. I think the other outlets basically decided to ignore the whole concept hoping it would go away.

Well, it didn't.

So, without being able to avoid the issue any longer, they have increased their reporting of the protests over the past week or so.

Boy have they ever.

The only problem is that they just don't seem to get it. Part of that is the fault of the attendees themselves, displaying signs at the Tea Parties held earlier this year. These were sporadic and disjointed, lacking the full cohesiveness of the movement's events tomorrow. Most of these had attendees holding signs blasting Obama specifically, blaming Democrats for everything bad, or some other misguided notion they felt compelled to shout. I think it's because of these actions that the major media outlets and the left in general have dismissed these rallys as right-wing events designed to target Obama and his party, mostly as a way to vent their frustration at losing the election last November.

What a ridiculous notion.

Don't get me wrong; those people will still be there, and those voices will still be shouting. However, over the past weeks as this has grown into a full-fledged movement, the message has been clarified and solidified. Just as the media outlets finally decide to cover it, they cling to the exact wrong things, misunderstanding the message these protests are supposed to send.

If you're still on the fence, not knowing what to think, allow me to educate you.

These protests, while they are on Tax Day, are not primarily about taxes. April 15th was chosen for several reasons, most of which revolve around spending, not taxation specifically. The problem is that the government can only get money from three places: taxes, debt, or printing. All three present very negative outcomes for the average citizen, the taxes hit home the most. Besides, April 15th seemed to be a good date on the calendar that sat far enough in the future for the movement to have enough time to get coordinated and focused.

The left (and other media outlets) just do not get it. They claim this is about taxes and are quick to point out that, uh oh, no taxes have technically been raised yet. They also jump to the conclusion that this is solely about Obama and the perceived notion that the people in the right are just sore losers, just itching at the chance to complain about the current administration any time they can.

This is NOT about those things. This is about us, the People, protesting what we believe is an injustice, just as the people from the Boston Tea Party felt the British taxes were an injustice. This is about not wanting our children to have to cover debts that we are incurring and have been incurring for nearly a decade. This is about knowing that the only way the government is going to get out of this debt (if such a thing is even possible) is by raising taxes to unholy levels or by printing as much money as they can get away with. This is about a Congress that takes it upon themselves to selectively punish corporate executives (i.e. AIG bonus recipients) that followed the letter of their law, while ignoring other execs that did the same thing (Fannie/Freddie bonuses). This is about suffering through the last six months of goverment bailouts of companies deemed 'too big to fail', without letting the market sort it out. This is about a government that graciously bails out the auto companies with money it doesn't have, then dictates to those companies how they should run their business. This is about a federal government who grows larger and larger while making the state goverments' roles in their own affairs smaller and smaller. This is about Congressmen who continue to inject earmarks and unnecessary spending into every bill they write. This is about a government who signals they will print money to pay for programs because nobody will lend it any more money, thus devaluing our currency bit by bit. This is about BOTH parties straying from the values that made our country so unique in the beginning. This is about officials who think that The Constitution is a dated document and should be ignored because the conditions of that past day no longer exist, rather than seek to amend it as was originally intended.

This is not about taxes.

This is about just how far we've gotten from where our Founding Fathers wanted us to be.

This is Step 1 of the effort to get us there again.

Weekly Whiskey Tango Foxtrot - Vol. I

This is the first of what will hopefully be a weekly blog post on things throughout the week that just made me think, WTF?!? Maybe it'll do the same for you.

Apparently, it has now been decided it'll be cool to publicly show porn on a public university campus. BYOT, I'd imagine.

The tobacco tax passed back in January went into effect this week, raising federal taxes on cigarettes from $0.39 to $1.01, chewing tobacco from $0.195/lb to $0.50/lb, and, get this, loose tobacco from $1.10/lb to almost TWENTY FIVE DOLLARS/lb. ($24.78/lb). Now, I'm a huge opponent of tobacco in every form, but HOLY CRAP. That cigarette tax is the single largest increase ever, and is more than ALL prior increases combined! The kicker is that these taxes are designed to pay for SCHIP - which is a federal program that provides funds for child health insurance (uninsured children). As an aside - this is designed to cover kids whose family makes too much for Medicaid, but are still uninsured. So what's the point of having a Medicaid limit then? Anyway, what's ridiculous about this is that funding for SCHIP was expanded and these taxes are designed to cover that expansion...only the real effect will be that smoking will decrease but the spending most definitely will not, so rest assured that we'll see another tax on something else to cover the shortfalls in the projected revenues. So much for that promise that "nobody under $250,000 would see one penny of tax increase." Maybe they didn't know that most smokers are in that bracket...?

There was [GASP] another Obama nominee reported to have tax...er...problems. Thankfully, the Senate panel overseeing her hearing avoided the issue altogether. I mean, after all, once you find out a couple nominees have tax problems, what's the big deal with one more?

Obama gave the Queen an iPod. AN IPOD. Oh, how American! Man, he's on a roll with the gift-giving thing. The only thing he hasn't yet given is a subscription to Netflix and pack of hot dogs.

An ever-so-slight error in a White House fact has now been debunked and corrected. Apparently, 90% of guns used to commit crimes in Mexico do NOT come from the U.S. In truth, it's only 90% of the guns that are possibly U.S. in origin are actually U.S. guns. The fact is that only 17% of guns used in Mexico to commit crimes actually come from the U.S. Gee, that's, like, WAY off. Oops.

The U.S. House passed the Pay for Performance Act of 2009, yet another in a string of efforts to dictate American executive salaries rather than letting the business handle it. Look, putting a criminal like Ken Lay behind bars for breaking the law is completely acceptable and is why we have laws to begin with, but having a government body determine whether or not an executive should be paid X or Y is just ridiculous. Are they greedy? Yes! Do they get paid too much? That's up to the shareholders! Sports athletes get paid a lot too - are we going to dictate their salaries by government decree too?

Hmm...what else happened?

Oh yeah.

The U.S. Government did what, until recently, would have been unthinkable. They actually fired a private sector CEO. This, as I said yesterday, takes us one step closer to fascism. Deal with the devil, and you're gonna get burned. GM and Chrysler should never have accepted Government bailout money, and I applaud Ford for not taking any (so far).

Fascism, Here We Come

The other day, Obama fired the CEO of GM. Yep, a sitting president actually dictated that a public company's head would step down. Did GM ask for this? You bet. The day they decided to deal with the devil, they should have known that they'd get burned. The Government is giving the money, but dictating exactly how it can be used. Alone, that concept isn't all that far-fetched; after all, if somebody wanted money from me, then I would want to know what they were going to do with it. I wouldn't force them to spend one way or another, but I would certainly withhold funds if they were going to do something I didn't agree with.

The difference between me and the government is that I can't just create money out of thin air. If I could, then I could go around and give people tons of money just to do with it what I wanted them to do with it. If I could print money, then I could go to the struggling automakers and say, "Look, I can help you out, but I want you to start making nothing but hybrids". (Just wait...)

Do you see how immoral this is? The Government can make as much money as it needs to in order to establish and direct its agenda. So what if the majority of Americans don't buy Hybrids, the Government can now force you to buy them. So what if the financial sector is a mess and people were profiting by selling nothing but prettied-up crappy mortgages? With unlimited money anything can be directed fixed.

The U.S. Government is acting like a loan shark and counterfeiter rolled into one. Oh, sure, it's real money; it's just that it is backed by NOTHING. Plus, it has the not-so-cool side effect of reducing the value of the pre-existing dollars (i.e. inflation).

On top of the GM deal, Chrysler is being forced to merge with Fiat in order to also keep receiving funds. As my title suggests, it's just two more steps closer to fascism.

No, I'm not comparing Obama to Hitler and Mussolini. If you look around, you'll see that the word 'fascism' has come to be identified primarily with those two, when in fact it merely provided the building blocks for their radical viewpoints and agendas. You don't have to be a radical nationalist (Mussolini) to be a fascist, and you certainly don't have to be racist (Hitler) to support a fascist state. The definition of fascism is:

A governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc.)"

Doesn't sound so dissimilar to our direction now, does it? I'm NOT saying we're there...yet. I'm saying that with moves like the GM firing, we move a little closer toward that end.

Read these statements, and see if you spot any parallels between them and the voiced viewpoints of some of our elected officials:

We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunities for employment and earning a living.

The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and for the good of all.

Therefore, we demand:...an end to the power of the financial interests.

We demand profit sharing in big business.

We demand a broad extension of care for the aged.

We demand...the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of the national, state and municipal governments.

In order to make possible to every capable and industrious [citizen] the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our entire system of public education...We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents...

The government must undertake the improvement of public health -- by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth.

[We] combat the...materialistic spirit within and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of The Common Good Before the Individual Good .

Sound familiar? I'll bet you've heard some of these very things over the years in our country. The thing is that these are not new concepts, though the source for these statements might surprise you.

They come directly from the Nazi party platform, adopted in 1920.

There's no doubt that Hitler was an evil man promoting evil actions. There's also no doubt that Obama is NOT an evil man like Hitler. However, there are striking similarities between the values and principles of the fascist movement in 1920 and the values and principles of some of our people and politicians today.

I'm sure our founding fathers are reeling from dizziness after having rolled over in their graves countless times over the past decades as we slowly eroded their own values and principles away.

Tesla's Waiting For What?!?

I just read an article about the upcoming Tesla Model S sedan. It looks awesome and as I was reading it I was excited about the possibilities, despite the initial cost still being kind of high (unless you were going to buy an expensive sedan anyway). Anyway, what got me was this:

He also indicated that Tesla believes that it is close to receiving $350 million in loans from the U.S. Department of Energy to build a plant in California that would manufacture the Model S.

Whiskey tango foxtrot? The Department of Energy? Why? If this product is so destined to make a mint (as its founders obviously think it will), and will change the landscape of American (and world) automobiles, then why aren't investors lining up to drop down the dough to get this thing started? Why does the government have to come in here and essentially create a market where, apparently, there isn't one desired?

You can't tell me that there aren't enough 'green' richies out there that wouldn't love to have everyone driving electric cars. Why can't they invest in this company?

I'm left to assume that either: 1)There in fact ISN'T a market for this car, 2)Their marketing plan isn't sound and has potential investors nervous, or 3)It's just easy to get government money for anything green, and they figure it's the path of least resistance.

This same type of scenario came up in the comments of my comment on government-supported basic research, and I still am subscribing to the Field of Dreams analogy. If you can sell it, they'll come with money. It's not that complicated.

Then again, maybe neither is getting money from the Dept. of Energy.

Hannan Strikes A Chord

By now, in conservative circles at least, you've probably heard of Daniel Hannan who flat out scolded Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the UK a few days ago. It's all over YouTube, and he's recently become immensely popular in the world despite being an unknown over here in the US. However, despite the distance of the Atlantic Ocean physically separating him from us, his message resonates tremendously here at home. Take a look when you get a chance and see if you don't agree with him. This kind of blasting doesn't happen too often from our own elected officials...perhaps it should.

However, mark my words: Sometime today, over the weekend, or next week, the left-wing political machine will go on the attack on this guy. He's risen too far too fast with TV appearances, the YouTube videos, and blogs galore for them to sit idly while his viewpoints go unopposed. It won't be worthwhile debate, though; no, it'll be the same kind of attacks that Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin, and others underwent (and are undergoing). They'll find out something about an affair, a money problem, or some other nonsense and will blast it in the regular media in order to get this guy discredited and to distract you from his message. If it has substance then that's one thing, but if it's like any of the others in the past, then it's all a smokescreen.

I bet they're already working on it.

American Idol Would Have Been Way Better Than This

Man, what a snooze-fest. Then again, most of these are, so can't fault him for that.

One little itsy bitsy comment though did stand out to me. The question was whether or not he would accept a budget from the Senate that didn't include his middle class tax rebates and Cap-and-Trade system in it. He didn't really provide a simple answer (not suprised at that - what politician does?), but what stood out to me though was when he said:

I expect that there's serious efforts at health care reform, and that we are driving down costs for families and businesses, and ultimately for the federal and state governments that are going to be broke if we continue on the current path.

(emphasis mine)

So let me see if I have this straight. The current plan is not working and will go broke at some point in the future. The country is technically broke now overall, and if you continue with this budget we'll be even more broke and our money will be worth less. So you're saying that you'd rather be broker-than-broke NOW, rather than broker-than-broke IN THE FUTURE??

I mean, we are 100% guaranteed to have to print money in order to pay for these programs (the health care is just one of them, but is the one highlighted in the quote above) because there's not enough money around. So he's trying to convince us that it's better to devalue our currency and definitely be broke now with the hope that it will pay off in the long run.

Hmm; guaranteed brokeness now vs. waiting to see if there's a better idea to, I dunno, maybe AVOID the whole broke situation?!?.

If the Medicare/Medicaid Trusts were going to die in a week or two, then maybe there'd be some justification for pulling out all stops and getting crazy with the currency. But it's not. Current estimates are that Medicare will go broke sometime around 2018. I'm not saying we should do nothing; I'm saying that it's not urgent we do THIS now.

Ok, I fibbed - there was one other comment that irked me. Here was the question posed:

At both of your town hall meetings in California last week, you said, quote, "I didn't run for president to pass on our problems to the next generation." But under your budget, the debt will increase $7 trillion over the next 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office says $9.3 trillion. And today on Capitol Hill, some Republicans called your budget, with all the spending on health care, education and environment, the most irresponsible budget in American history.

Isn't that kind of debt exactly what you were talking about when you said passing on our problems to the next generation?

To which he replied:

First of all, I suspect that some of those Republican critics have a short memory, because as I recall, I'm inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit, annual deficit, from them.

Hogwash. Let's remember, Mr. Short Term Memory, that for the last two years of Bush's 2nd term the Democrats controlled Congress. Now don't misunderstand; while Congress was under Republican control, they were rabid spenders and went against conservative spending policies. Recently, however, Republicans seem to have recently had an epiphany about what sort of fiscal values they're supposed to have and have begun to take a stand. Now, whether it's because of determination to be the biggest obstacle they can be or because it's genuine is irrelevant to me. (for the record, I believe it is not genuine...'genuine' and 'politics' don't really work well together...) For now though, they're on my side (most of them).

However, let's pretend the actual deficit inherited was zero. It's still going to be almost $2 trillion by year's end!! With those kind of numbers, who cares what the deficit was when he "inherited" it!?!

C'mon!

Money Grows On Trees

Well, technically money is made from paper, so...I suppose there is an indirect truth to that title. However, the government would have you believe that it literally grows on trees, and all we have to do is 'harvest' (print) more.

Again, technically, they're right. They can print until the cows come home and it will increase the available money supply. They've done it before, and will likely do it again; probably more this year.

To clarify, they have not yet created this money. Last Wednesday, however, they announced their intent to do so. This, predictably, created a huge spike in gold prices. Gold, as I'm sure you're aware, is typically used as a hedge against inflation, which is exactly what will occur as the Fed pumps out more money.

Let me summarize what they're talking about doing, and then I want you to ask yourself if you think it's right.

Generally, the government raises money primarily through taxes, but more funds are needed, it raises funds by selling U.S. Treasury bonds. The problem is that the rest of the world is very hesitant in purchasing more of our bonds because they lack faith in our Dollar. So if the government can't find buyers for the Treasuries, guess who it sells them to?

ITSELF.

Yep, essentially, the Federal Reserve purchases the Treasuries, then prints money in order to pay for them. They literally create money out of thin air. The government gets the money it 'needed', and the Fed gets a big I.O.U from the government in the form of the Treasuries.

This is insane!

Obama is so determined to pass his agenda (the ginormous budget) that he's essentially forcing the Fed to print the money to pay for it. Do you understand that? There is NOT enough money to pay for this budget, so the solution is to create money and get something for nothing. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and that applies to our government as well.

It would be one thing if I just disagreed with how the money is to be spent (which I do), and we actually HAD the money. Then the argument could be about more substance and debating liberal vs. conservative agendas. However they're forcing the issue even when funds are non-existent, so it doesn't even matter what philosophy you follow.

It's like this: imagine if you really want to buy something that you think will, in the end, turn a profit AND perform a charitable service to the community. Cool deal, huh? Now let's pretend that you're flat broke. No; not just broke, but "on-the-verge-of-bankruptcy" broke. The only way to purchase this thing is to rack up every credit card you have and then go get more and rack them up too. Would any sane person advise you to do this? Would any bank lend you the money based on your belief? NO, but that's exactly what Obama is doing; only their credit limit is essentially unlimited since they (unlike you) have a really nifty printing press down in the basement somewhere...

More can be said about this issue, and I was going to elaborate, but I found this article yesterday that says it for me. No need in repeating it here. Please read it and think about it. We're heading down a road that's never been traveled, and, like the old Frost poem, it's probably going to make all the difference.

An Open Letter to My Representative

I just wrote a letter to my district's U.S. Representative here in Georgia, and I wanted to post it here. Obviously I don't expect a reply - they must get thousands of these every day. Still, I felt compelled to do it, and feel better for it. The full text is below.

I wanted to take a short moment to express my dissatisfaction of your vote yesterday in H.R. 1586. While I do not agree, on a personal level, that the executives in question should be receiving bonuses, I do not think the U.S. Government (i.e. YOU) should be using legislation to punish someone for following the letter of the law. As you heard time and again on the floor yesterday, the only reason these bonuses were even being paid was because of the verbiage in the stimulus bill passed weeks ago. I never once heard a valid response from the Democratic side in response to these charges, whether from Frank or anyone else.

It frustrated me to see that Georgia was split specifically down the party line, with Democrats (including you) voting Aye and Republicans voting Nay. Do I need to remind you that you're not being kept there to represent your party; you are there to represent US.

Your vote may or may not be representative of the population at large, but if so it is because they are angry, hurt, and in general misinformed about how things like this come to pass. You can't legislate things like this with knee-jerk reactions to raw emotions. This bill lasted all of a day from conception to voting. We pay you to exhibit levelheadedness and in general be non-reactionary to things that come up day-to-day.

I would have preferred that you, as a body, came out and said "You know what? We messed up, folks. We were a bit too hasty with that bill, and we fully admit that we weren't able to correctly process it in a manner that suited its complexities. We know you feel it is not fair for these bonuses to go out, and that is a sentiment we share. However, in lieu of treading on our Constitution, we have to abide by the law. We can not, and will not, craft legislation in order to punish someone for doing what we told them they could do. We should have caught it, but we didn't. We're sorry."

A pipe dream of mine would be for you to continue:
"Furthermore, in an effort to amend for our carelessness, we are voluntarily reducing our salaries by a collective amount of $165 million in order to make up for the bonus money we let get away. This is to be effective immediately. You can rest assured we will do our very best to make sure something like this never happens again."

Would that have been too hard?

Please feel free to use any of the above text in sending your own letter if you wish. (You may need to remove the Georgia part if you're not from here...) Here is the URL for writing your representative:

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

Here They Go...

It's official. Mob rule has won over the hearts of Congress. People demand justice without knowing all the facts, and Congress answers by attempting to pass a resolution to fix their last boo-boo. Here's the link.

[Update: Not sure what happened, but there was a newer, shinier bill that they actually voted on. Here it is.]

From what I understand, Congress is set to vote on a resolution (HR1572 HR1586). It's not yet on their site, but don't worry; I'm sure it'll be there for 5 days for us to review. Oh wait..they're VOTING today...got it.

Anyway, the purpose is "To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a 90 percent tax on bonuses paid by business that receive TARP assistance." Eh? What's that? They're going to revise the 1986 code to include TARP verbiage?? TARP didn't even exist until last Fall!!

[Update: The newer bill's text is actually To impose an additional tax on bonuses received from certain TARP recipients]

Let's review (from perspective of Congress):

AIG is in trouble - oh crap - let's save them (buy them).

Done.

Uh oh! Stimulus needed! But let's rethink that bailout stuff from last year. Y'know, not allow bonuses or extra stuff until they pay us back (the People will love that...)

Done.

Well, on second thought, let's not be too hasty. We'll say it only applies to bonuses after...uh...say...Feb 11.

Done.

Crap!! They're mad at those bonuses we protected! What do we do? Oh yeah, we're THE FRICKIN U.S. GOVERNMENT!! We can do anything! Let's get mad too! Let's tax the hell out of them! Say...100%? 1000%? Nah - we'll let them keep a bit. We'll say 90%. Besides, the state and local governments will probably take care of the other 10%. (Thank you, Mr. Rangel)

Done.

Hundred bucks says they're not "done".

Ooops - I mean 10 bucks, after taxes.

AI n't it G rand?

By now you've probably heard about the $165 million in bonuses that AIG is set up to give out to its executives. When I first heard the news Monday morning I was livid. How could these executives accept these bonuses in the face of the fact that had they not been bailed out by the government, they wouldn't even be around to GET the bonuses. Had the government not stepped in and basically taken over the company, the executives in question would have long since been forced to find other work and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Thank God the government stepped in. Otherwise I'd have nothing to write about.

So, as I said, I was livid. I'm sure you were too. We have a right to be - this is an outrage. Like in the movie Network, we're "mad as hell, and we're not gonna take it anymore!" Only, in this case, I think we're mad at the wrong people. And the administration and Congress are only too eager to let us direct our anger at those execs. Who we should really be mad at is the folks in Washington who are squarely to blame for this debacle. How, you say? I'm glad you asked.

Do you remember the stimulus bill from a few weeks ago? I had a lot to say about that. You'll remember how it flew through the halls of Congress without any one member reading the whole thing. Little Easter eggs were bound to come out as time goes on, and as it happens, a couple of those directly relate to AIG bonuses. Yep, if you take a look at the stimulus bill, then scroll all the way down the bottom (kinda neat how it's just tucked there at the end, huh?), you will see `SEC. 111. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE. Once you get on that page, look at (b)/(3)/(D)(i), you'll see the following text:

[The Secretary shall require each TARP recipient to meet appropriate standards...including] A prohibition on such TARP recipient paying or accruing any bonus, retention award, or incentive compensation during the period in which any obligation arising from financial assistance provided under the TARP remains outstanding...

To translate: Any recipient of the government bailout funds can't pay out bonuses as long as their loans are still outstanding. AIG obviously received these funds, so score 1 for the government right? I mean, Holy &#@%! The big G actually got one right - this is a bona fide restriction that says you can't pay out bonuses while you're on our dime. Perfect!

If only the document ended there. Sadly, keep reading... (section iii a few paragraphs later...)

The prohibition required under clause (i) shall not be construed to prohibit any bonus payment required to be paid pursuant to a written employment contract executed on or before February 11, 2009, as such valid employment contracts are determined by the Secretary or the designee of the Secretary.

(emphasis mine)

Excuse me, but whiskey tango foxtrot? This statement just single-handedly AUTHORIZED every bonus that was stated in a contract before Feb. 11. You guessed it...that would be inclusive of the AIG bonuses in question. And guess who put it in there. Guess who was responsible for putting this little escape clause in there? Chris Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman. Mr. I Think the Government Should Tax 100% of the Bonuses himself. Oh, to hear Dodd's aides tell it, he had no clue about the AIG bonuses at the time that he put that amendment in there. Sure. Not only have these bonuses been on the books since last year, but Dodd was the highest paid recipient of AIG political contributions in 2008. You do the math.

AIG tells Congress and the public at large that they were contractually obligated to pay these bonuses. In effect, they'd be subject to lawsuits if they didn't pay out the money. Yet despite this, the government seems to think that it has the authority to come in an declare a contract null and void to suit its own political purposes. It's very popular to be against big business and seeming excess among corporate executives, especially those who obviously failed in their tasks. Like I said, before yesterday everybody in Washington was ready to tear down AIG over these bonuses. However, no matter how popular it may be to come in and void these contracts, in doing so the government would be directly violating the Constitution, which explicitly protects contracts. Think of the precedents that this would set. If the government can come in and change/modify/cancel a contract because it currently suits its needs/desires, then what is a contract? Why bother establishing one? Bankruptcy laws were specifically designed to circumvent contractual obligations, since "bankrupt" basically means "we can't fulfill our contracts". Bankruptcy: wow, wouldn't that be a novel idea - getting around these contracts by allowing AIG to fail! Now why didn't they do that?!

Well, they didn't; and since they're painted into a corner between public outrage and political viability, they're grasping at straws. One suggestion (as mentioned earlier) was to tax the bonuses at 100%. Are you kidding me? 100%? Can you even imagine how the verbiage would have to be on that kind of resolution? As if they'd write a law to cover a specific instance of a specific company paying specific executives a specific bonus for a specific purpose with specific money. Great idea.

Now, don't misunderstand me; I would be happy if these execs weren't being paid a dime in bonuses, but unless there is a rational, legal, and Constitution-backed methodology for preventing such payouts, then the feds need to just back off. It sucks, it's frustrating to us nobodies, and it's unfair, but it's the law. And they're the ones who wrote it a few weeks ago. Good job, Dodd. I'd hate to be you in 2010...

One final question on this issue. Where the heck were these Washington nitwits declaring outrage when AIG was fulfilling their other contracts? I'm not talking about millions either...try that times a thousand. I'm talking BILLIONS. What? You didn't know? Oh sure, AIG has been steadily funneling money to other institutions all over the world - to the tune of around $44 billion to American companies and $62 billion overseas. (!!!) Did you catch that? Over $100 billion, distributed from our government, through AIG, to these other institutions. I bet you didn't know your tax dollars were going to Europe did you? As Glenn Beck said yesterday, it's like a huge elaborate money laundering scheme. Think not? Who owns AIG again? Oh yeah, the federal government. So who was ultimately responsible for these monies being distributed to these institutions? Bingo.

And despite all this, they have the audacity to bitch and moan about 0.16% of that amount??? The cynic in me sees these shenanigans as a smokescreen to misdirect us, the American people, from the real travesty here. The travesty that we even bailed this company out to begin with. You know, the AIG company as a whole wasn't that bad of a bad company; in fact, their insurance division was actually profitable. It's just this one division or two that has caused the problems. If we would have split them off we would have had a potentially viable company there.

Next up we can all start complaining about the bonuses Lehman Brothers is going to pay out to its execs next week. What's that? Oh yeah. They were allowed to fail, so we're NOT talking about them, now are we?