I have considered every aspect of this bill and although I think that right now it will not pay for itself, in the very near future it has a strong chance of paying for itself and even resulting in a surplus to go towards the national debt.  The vast majority of provisions in the bill will no doubt be costly, after all the intention is to ensure that everyone has adequate health care.  It isn’t cheap to insure 300 million people.  In reality, a large chunk of those 300 million will be paying for their own health care plus a little more to help cover the less fortunate, so I think that part will be a wash.  The part that really worried me was the administrative costs.  Yes, the bill proposes all kinds of things to ensure this program is administered as efficiently as possible.  Those of us who actually work in the government sector know better.  Few, if any government run programs are run efficiently.  I guess much of that is subjective, efficiency can be a fairly elusive concept to nail down. The bill we have made into law recently creates dozens of new federal agencies and will require hiring over 15,000 new IRS employees to manage certain monitoring and collection functions. I have not been able to find an estimate of just how many new federal employees will be hired so I am just going to guess and say its about one cubic butt load. For those readers unfamiliar with that term, I assure it is very large.

Those pesky admin costs really had me not liking this bill until I was reminded today of the Tanning Tax. Wow, this is what really put me over for this bill. I hadn’t thought much of the Tanning Tax recently since I had completely written it off as stupid and inconsequential when it was first proposed. I personally thought that the “Botox” Tax was a much better idea as a revenue generator since it would levy a tax on all elective plastic surgery. Living in Southern California, I can tell that this would result in a ton of annual money. No matter what the rate, these people will not give up their plastic surgery! Unfortunately, the “Botox” Tax was not included in the final bill. Apparently the plastic surgeons have a better lobbying group than the tanning salon owners. No big surprise there really. We still have the Tanning Tax though, and its inclusion is really the key to making this whole thing work. Will a ten percent tax on each and every tanning session pay for all the admin costs in this bill? Oh, hell no! But it doesn’t have to. And that is the real beauty of it all.

The justification for the Tanning Tax is fairly simple. People who use tanning booths are more likely to get skin cancer and thus should have to pay some extra fee in order to help defray the costs of treating those cancers later in life. To be honest, I have no idea how much a typical tanning session costs. I live in Southern California and drive a convertible, so I pretty much get my daily Vitamin D for free. Lets assume for this scenario though that the tax will amount to $2.00 per visit. If a person were to tan once a week for 30 years, that would generate $3,120 (not adjusted for inflation) in taxes. Now I am also not familiar with how much it costs to treat skin cancer after 30 years of UV exposure, but I think its likely more than the tax will generate. However, since these people will now be taking advantage of their brand new super whamodyne health care packages and seeing the doctor much more often, most of these cancers will be detected early enough that they can be excised right there in the doctor’s office for a mere pittance! That leaves the rest of that tax money to go towards paying the admin costs! A recent study shows that as many as 30 million people a year use tanning salons. Even cutting the total in half to account for people who only use them seasonally, this tax provides over $700 million a year! That will pay for a veritable army of admin types.

And it doesn’t end there. Once people realize what great revenue generator the Tanning Tax is, it will be easy to add in new taxes to pay for all those other risky behaviors. Tired of paying for other peoples weight related health problems? There’s a tax for that! Want to make sure Uncle Fred pays his fair share for laying around on the couch eating chips all day and then needing a coronary bypass? There’s a tax for that! How about stupid drivers that cut you off on the freeway? They are most likely going to use up more emergency medical care than you. There’s a tax for that! Studies show that unhappy people get sick more often than happy people. So you better turn that frown upside down buddy because there’s a tax for that to! The amount of money that we can generate using this amazing process is virtually limitless. How about skydivers? They like to claim that compared to the number of jumps per year, their accident rate is actually very low. That may be true, but if that chute doesn’t open and Mr. Jumpoutofaperfectlygoodplane happens to survive, he is going to be in the hospital for a long time. And besides, it just looks dangerous. YOU ARE JUMPING OUT OF A FREAKING PLANE FOR GOD’S SAKE!

Of course we have to work out all the details of exactly how to assess and collect these taxes, how much the rate will be, and a few other minor details but in the end it should be obvious that it is all paid for and we will still have funds left over. By my calculations (which I am performed in my bathroom with the lights off so nobody could see, and no I am not going to share the numbers with you) we will completely erase the national debt within 3 years. Yes, that’s right three short years. Damn I am excited. Being a liberal is so much more rewarding than hanging out with those stupid redneck tea-partiers.

So I am on your side now guys! Just as long as you are going to let me wear my gun to the next coffee party. What’s that? Oh, you’re uncomfortable around armed people… Well never mind then, it was a nice thought though.

Share on Facebook

In the 70′s the SO2 concentrations in coal burning plant exhaust was sufficient to produce detrimental effects on both the populace and the environment in the form of Acid Rain.  There were several attempts to find ways to solve this but no legislation could move forward because the cost to industry was considered far to high.  Several economists, using different economic models went through many variations on methods and means to achieve the noble goal of the end of acid rain.  All of these models included some form of restriction on emissions, enforceable by the EPA, but it wasn’t until one of these economists considered a secondary economy of transportable credits that could be traded between emitters that they came upon a model that was economically feasible.  Thus Cap & Trade was born.  This economic model was put into fashion by a bipartisan group that agreed on the problem, and decided to find a feasible solution.  And in 1990 G.H.W. Bush signed the amendments to the Clean Air Act of 1970 into law, capping SO2 emissions and creating a barter system that rewarded efficient companies and innovators that could find ways to reduce their emissions, and leaving the majority of the burden of the price tag on those companies that could not change.  Of course some portion of this increase in the cost of doing business would be passed on to the consumer but since the goal was noble and everyone essentially agreed that the problem needed to be fixed everyone was willing to accept the additional costs and move forward.  And it was very successful (when the EPA effectively enforced it) and acid rain has been drastically reduced.  NOx emissions were next, and also very effective.

Now we get to the current debate.  The GOP has been fighting hard against these controls being applied to CO2 emissions, and that is the real issue.  They are actually arguing that controls on CO2 are too costly, why you ask, because they don’t believe that man made CO2 has the harmful effects that the IPCC or most of the rest of the world has agreed upon by consensus.   That’s right, they do not believe in Climate Change, and this is why they oppose Cap & Trade.  It is not that the Cap & Trade policy is bad, it has been proven as an effective tool in reducing emissions, providing incentives to innovate and change, and at the least effective cost to the consumers/tax payers and industry as a whole.  Some members of the GOP will still say that they don’t believe but since the media mocks them and tries to show them as radical conservatives or loons, most no longer are willing to step out from the herd like that.  So they argue against bills or measures that would actually make strides towards reducing carbon in the atmosphere, and avoid the subject as to what their real motivation is.  If they bought into climate change, they would be applauding the application of Cap & Trade as the most effective means that can be provided at the least cost.

Whether you believe in climate change or not is not the issue.  It is the manner in which these people that represent us that matters.  The GOP has effectively blocked this legislation, and though, not officially, this bill is dead.  CO2 will continue to be unregulated which is the GOPs real intent.  The threat to put it under EPA jurisdiction is just that, a threat.  The EPA cannot act unilaterally and declare something controllable without an expected back lash, and subsequent lawsuits.  It is just a matter of time until this happens.

Chris

Share on Facebook

 The arguements against gay marriage usually fall along one of three points:

The basis of marriage is about procreation:  This is false, many people get married and not only don’t have children, but they have no intention in having children.  Should these marriages be negated?  Should any woman be allowed to marry after menopause?  If a guy has a vasectomoy while married should he be automatically divorced because of this?  These are the absurd questions that can crop up when we use this as the primary basis for marriage, which, incidentally, is currently the only arguement being used to defend Proposition 8 out there on the left coast.

The basis of morality:  This puts the institution of marriage more soundly in the realm of a religious institution and not a legal one.  Religion and philosophy are the foundation of moral teachings and the State has no place in the defining of morals.  If a gay person wants to get married they should petition their church, not the State.  This is where civil unions come in as a tool of the State, but I will get to this piece of legal documentation later.

The basis of harming the existing institution of marriage:  This is my favorite arguement used and the worst of the bunch.  There is nothing that cheapens or weakens my marriage other than the decisions my wife and I make, any argument otherwise is absurd.  And there is very little anyone can do to convince me that anything harms the institution of marriage like divorce does.  This single act of breaking your vows and throwing out the promises that make up the union of marriage is what harms it, not two other people getting married, regardless of sexual orientation.  Until the religious right can make it so hard to get divorced that people stop and think before getting married I won’t be convinced that they are interested in protecting the institution of marriage.

The arguements for gay marriage are simple, but they are as fruitless as the opposition to them.  Gay people want to be accepted for who they are.  This is a desire that almost all people want and it is both understandable and a fair request.  The problem that they run into is that too many people believe that the acts that they commit as a part of their lifestyle are grievous or mortal sins and therefore they believe that they cannot accept the person as they are or they will be seen as condoning the behavior.  Of course people of the G.L.B.T. community do not like the fact that a portion of the population, regardless of how big this portion is, thinks they are evil, corrupt, lost, or just plain wrong for being who they are.  The compromise has been to offer Civil Unions in place of marriage certificates or licenses.  The G.L.B.T. community disagrees with this on the principle that it reduces them to a second class citizen and they are “equal but separate” adding to the concept that this is a civil rights issue.   Every one of the legal protections afforded by this piece of paper are already accessible in the current system but it requires a few extra hoops and comes at a slightly higher price, which is a penalty for a lifestyle, again pushing this in the direction of the arguement that this is a civil rights issue. 

The proper compromise is simple, the State should only issue Civil Union licenses or certificates, period.   No more Marriage Licenses!   A wedding is a religious ceremony and a marriage is a partnership, two separate things.  But because the average American does not separate these two things they can no longer accept the idea that the legal protections provided by this certification of their partnership has nothing to do with the arguements listed above regarding morality or anything else.  If any two people want to form a personal, legal bond then this should be allowed, it says nothing in regards to the actual nature of the relationship nor the acts that they perform in the privacy of their homes.   Of course once you enter into any partnership, if you choose to leave it you have to go through other legal hoops to disolve the legal partnership you have created, but that is a different discussion.  This solution is fair and will provide equal treatment for all, and it will still provide the State with a small revenue stream.  For the time being, members of the G.L.B.T. community will still be treated as second class citizens in one way shape or form, as do almost any minority population, that is human nature and is not likely to change just because you cram it down your oppositions throat.

Share on Facebook

Since Veteran’s Day also leads us into the Holiday season, I thought it might be appropriate to re-post a poem I first read many years ago.  I have always loved this poem since it not only expresses the sentiments of most civilians but also explains how we verterans really feel about serving.  After nearly 20 years of service, I am eternally greatful to thos who have allowed me to serve this country and have made it all worthwhile.  And now for the poem. If you haven’t seen this before, you may want to have a tissue handy.  To the best of my knowledge, the original author is unknown but is reportedly a marine who was stationed in Okinawa at the time and only requests that the poem be sent to as many people as possible.

Happy Veteran’s Day!

TWAS THE NIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS,
HE LIVED ALL ALONE,
IN A ONE BEDROOM HOUSE MADE OF
PLASTER AND STONE.

I HAD COME DOWN THE CHIMNEY
WITH PRESENTS TO GIVE,
AND TO SEE JUST WHO
IN THIS HOME DID LIVE.

I LOOKED ALL ABOUT,
A STRANGE SIGHT I DID SEE,
NO TINSEL, NO PRESENTS,
NOT EVEN A TREE.

NO STOCKING BY MANTLE,
JUST BOOTS FILLED WITH SAND,
ON THE WALL HUNG PICTURES
OF FAR DISTANT LANDS.

WITH MEDALS AND BADGES,
AWARDS OF ALL KINDS,
A SOBER THOUGHT
CAME THROUGH MY MIND.

FOR THIS HOUSE WAS DIFFERENT,
IT WAS DARK AND DREARY,
I FOUND THE HOME OF A SOLDIER,
ONCE I COULD SEE CLEARLY.

THE SOLDIER LAY SLEEPING,
SILENT, ALONE,
CURLED UP ON THE FLOOR
IN THIS ONE BEDROOM HOME.

THE FACE WAS SO GENTLE,
THE ROOM IN SUCH DISORDER,
NOT HOW I PICTURED
A UNITED STATES SOLDIER.

WAS THIS THE HERO
OF WHOM I’D JUST READ?
CURLED UP ON A PONCHO,
THE FLOOR FOR A BED?

I REALIZED THE FAMILIES
THAT I SAW THIS NIGHT,
OWED THEIR LIVES TO THESE SOLDIERS
WHO WERE WILLING TO FIGHT.

SOON ROUND THE WORLD,
THE CHILDREN WOULD PLAY,
AND GROWNUPS WOULD CELEBRATE
A BRIGHT CHRISTMAS DAY.

THEY ALL ENJOYED FREEDOM
EACH MONTH OF THE YEAR,
BECAUSE OF THE SOLDIERS,
LIKE THE ONE LYING HERE.

I COULDN’T HELP WONDER
HOW MANY LAY ALONE,
ON A COLD CHRISTMAS EVE
IN A LAND FAR FROM HOME.

THE VERY THOUGHT
BROUGHT A TEAR TO MY EYE,
I DROPPED TO MY KNEES
AND STARTED TO CRY.

THE SOLDIER AWAKENED
AND I HEARD A ROUGH VOICE,
“SANTA DON’T CRY,
THIS LIFE IS MY CHOICE;

I FIGHT FOR FREEDOM,
I DON’T ASK FOR MORE,
MY LIFE IS MY GOD,
MY COUNTRY, MY CORPS.”

THE SOLDIER ROLLED OVER
AND DRIFTED TO SLEEP,
I COULDN’T CONTROL IT,
I CONTINUED TO WEEP.

I KEPT WATCH FOR HOURS,
SO SILENT AND STILL
AND WE BOTH SHIVERED
FROM THE COLD NIGHT’S CHILL.

I DIDN’T WANT TO LEAVE
ON THAT COLD, DARK, NIGHT,
THIS GUARDIAN OF HONOR
SO WILLING TO FIGHT.

THEN THE SOLDIER ROLLED OVER,
WITH A VOICE SOFT AND PURE,
WHISPERED, “CARRY ON SANTA,
IT’S CHRISTMAS DAY, ALL IS SECURE.

ONE LOOK AT MY WATCH,
AND I KNEW HE WAS RIGHT.
“MERRY CHRISTMAS MY FRIEND,
AND TO ALL A GOOD NIGHT.

Share on Facebook

While I do not feel that the enemy is “infiltrating” our military, the possibility is there.  The fact that this man was able to rise to the rank of Major shows that we are perhaps not doing as much screening as we should and in the right places.  Those of us who have held a security clearance know that the screening process for thes clearances is fairly thorough, but not until you get up to the higher clearance levels.  There is no indication that Nidal Hassan ever had any type of clearance and as a psychiatrist I would not necessarily expect him to.  So what processes are in place to ensure that a muslim-american with these types of religous beliefs does not slip through the cracks again?  And should our men and women in uniform trust those muslim-americans they currently serve with?

This could have been much worse.  Had Nidal Hassan been something other than a psyciatrist, he could have caused far more damage than he did.  Of course, he would have gone through more screening to get access to that kind of firepower so maybe the system would have prevented him.  We will never know.  But can we even screem out people based on religous beliefs?  I believe under current law, we cannot.  I think we need to take a harder look at just how much “political correctness” is going to end up costing us in the future.

Rich

Share on Facebook

Isn’t “assault” already illegal?

Yes, yes it is.

If you want to increase the punishment then increase the maximum assault/murder/whatever penalty under the law.  Any Judge or jury in the united states has the right to determine the punishment of the crime as defined in the law.  The whole, “not punishable by more than… etc” part.  If the Judge or jury feels the crime was more abhorrent for whatever reason, than he/she/they have the right to sentence the maximum jail time.  This new law serves absolutely no purpose.  This is just one in a series of “feel good” legislative bills passed for no other reason than, well, to make people “feel good.”  There is no easier way to feel good than to identify a group of people (must be a small, rather sadly looked-upon group) draft up some legislation, which is identical to laws that already exist, pass it, pat each other on the back, and congratulate each other on making people “feel good.”

Politicians could be accomplishing something practical, helpful, or at the very least not spending so much money, but no, next year’s election is rapidly approaching and the realization that nothing has been accomplished is right behind.  So here is the legislation which they can point to when asked what they did the advance the rights of minority groups, “Well, we made it MORE illegal to assault people based on gender.”

More illegal.

I’ll say it again (even though its my quote).  More illegal.

All crimes are illegal.  But some crimes are more illegal than others…

I know I’ve heard that somewhere.  But never mind.  This is the kind of utter nonsense and waste that comes out of Washington D.C. that quasi-democrats like myself really hate.  HAT-I guess I better not use that word, speech hasn’t been free for quite some time and I don’t want to find myself in jail.  There are many things in the world that bother me: religious intolerance, famine, disease, poverty, marginalization of human life, but the three things that REALLY bother me, and I hope bother most Americans, are Redundancy, Rhetoric, and Waste.

We see right through you, Washington, don’t think for one second that you’re off the hook.  You want my vote?  Earn it.  And dangling a piece of “feel good” nonsense in front of my face isn’t going to do it.

-Matthew

Share on Facebook

According to the AFL-CIO, in 2008 the average compensation package for a S&P 500 CEO was $10.9 million.  A short look at each company shows a wide range around this average from only a few million upwards of more than 20 million.  I will be the first to admit that $20 million is a huge sum no matter what job you are doing.  Before we go crying off to big brother though, maybe we should take a look at just how much that really is and where all that money comes from.

In 2007, the CEO of Boeing Aircraft made about $14 million.  That same year, Boeing made about $4 billion in total profits.  I’ll let you do the math, but as a percentage of company profits, $14 million is not very much.  This is only one example, but I am sure the same holds true for most other Fortune 500 companies.  A company that makes a lot of money can afford to pay the big bucks to the guy with all the responsibility.  Now, setting aside the whole total CEO pay issue, lets look at what those CEO’s make compared to their employees.  After all, if a company is making enough to pay the CEO the big bucks, then the average employee pay should go up as well right?  Well, not necessarily true as it turns out and this is where the real injustice is in my opinion.

In 1965, the average CEO of a large company made about 24 times what the average worker earned.  By 2007, CEO pay had risen to 275 times that of an average worker.  Over the last 40 years, we have seen the emergence of a class of top level managers who demand, and get far more in compensation than they rightfully deserve.  Right or wrong, this is where we have found ourselves and I believe we can emerge from the other end looking much better without government intervention.  More and more shareholder groups are starting to hold CEO’s accountable and reducing benefits packages.  Keep in mind that the largest increases in CEO pay have taken place over the last ten years as this class of managers matured and took root.  Most of these high paid execs are in their 60′s and likely will not be working much longer.  Maybe if we cut their pay a little we can entice them to go ahead and retire and get out of the way.

Rich

Share on Facebook

In this I agree, but it goes far beyond gun control.  Left and right both use tragedies and accidents to further their agendas.  This is opportunistic and has been going on in some way shape or form since the Agricultural Revolution thousands of years ago.  This is an issue of human nature, those we agree with can do no wrong until they go off message, and those we oppose can’t seem to get anything right, no matter how much we may agree with them.

Gun control just happens to be the issue of the day, situations such as the shootings at Columbine and Virginia Tech had arguments on both sides.  Those that want stricter gun laws cited the types of guns used, the ease of access and the overly violent video games that ‘desensitize’ today’s youth  to the violence demonstrated.  Those that oppose gun laws cried about restrictions against possession of guns and lack of concealed-carry permits by staff and teachers that could have resolved the situation more quickly or may have deterred the violence in the first place.

Both sides choose extremes when the actual resolution needs to be somewhere in the middle.  Both sides are opportunistic and will weigh in on articles such as the one Rich started from, but both will continue to miss the mark.  The second Amendment states: ” A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  This is the most hotly contested part of the Constitution but its origin comes from Section 13 of the Virginia Declaration of Rights 1776, originally drafted by George Mason, which states: “That a well-regulated militia, or composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”   For one reason or another the drafters of the Bill of Rights left out much of the language, and they made few statements as to why.  George Mason’s thinking is clear in that those trained with arms should be allowed to carry guns, a Militia would be a step up, but private citizens should still be allowed to protect themselves and provide for the common defense of their State.

Rich is right in that those that fail to recognize social norms should not be reduced to ‘crazy’ or ‘nut job’ because they are exercising their rights.  But the argument lacking in his statement ignores the common sense restrictions that should be put into law.  Licensing should include mandatory demonstrations of competency and training, and restrictions against assault rifles and any weapon that can be configured for fully automatic operation should be denied the public, but hunting weapons and handguns have a very valid purposes within our society.    The strongest opposition to these policies should be the strongest proponent for responsible gun ownership and practical legislation but the NRA has argued that this is a ‘slippery slope’ to hand away all gun rights and I am sick of that position.  This is the position of everyone that cannot think of a cogent argument that is based upon substance…fear of what may come.  Get off your high horse and see the world that we live in, there is no legitimate justification for assault rifles in the hands of a private citizen, nor is there any valid argument to suggest that required training for a  license shouldn’t be implemented.  We require it for anyone operating a motor vehicle which has more uses than killing something or someone. (Guns don’t really have any other purpose, we can claim they do, but at their core, their design is to do just that, kill.)

But lets be clear here, the majority of gun related violence comes from those that obtain weapons illegally, and the incidents of domestic violence that end in gunfire would still be played out with similar ends, with or without a handgun, those situations just don’t get sensationalized.  Many of us recognize the potential harm that a gun represents, we can also recognize the inherent usefulness in these tools in regards to hunting and home defense, but at some point we need to acknowledge that there are some people that should not have guns, and there are some guns that no one but those trained and working in an organized unit, be it police or military, should have.  Until we can all acknowledge that we cannot move forward and make any real strides that will guarantee the rights protected by the Constitution while providing us with common sense policies designed to protect the public from those that would do wrong.

Chris

Share on Facebook

Share on Facebook