I'm hunting jobs.
Today is the five month anniversary of the lay off. I wish I could say that I'm over it, but the reality is that it just stings a little less as each day passes.
I did find out some information confirming that they lied to me about the reason why. They told me they were reorganizing and eliminating my position. Well, if promoting another person from a lower tier into my position is reorganizing and eliminating, then I guess that is true. I did call my recruiter to see if heard anything, and he said they have been very tight lipped (unusually so) about the whole affair.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at that. I just genuinely want to know if it was something I did or failed to do that was my downfall. I mean, if I'm really that much of a screw up, I need to fix now.
Regardless, they have chosen to move on without me, and I continue to navigate the murky waters of the job market. To that end, the tale of the tape thus far is 63 to 65 job applications (depending on whether you count the two nebulous "hey, we might have something you would be interested in but it's not official yet" discussions I've had), 60 or 61 rejections, 6 in person interviews in front of flesh and blood hiring managers types, and one massive, pent up ball of stress and frustration.
The 4 or 5 positions still in the pipeline have decent potential if I can just get someone to pull the trigger and make me an offer. I have discovered that the job market has changed drastically in the last three, five and nine years since I was last actively seeking other employment. The biggest thing I've noticed is that companies are looking to bargain hunt with the salary ranges being discussed, and there are a lot more people competing for fewer jobs.
Thank you, Obamacare.
I'm not giving up. Just doing a little venting. However, I'm increasingly open to the idea of "dirty deeds done dirt cheap" as a job description and not just an AC/DC song.
Just sayin'.
Showing posts with label Economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economy. Show all posts
Monday, January 12, 2015
Friday, March 9, 2012
Serious Gas
As promised recently, it’s time that I get back to posting thought provoking content that doesn’t involve guns or M&M. One of the easiest of topics falling into the thought provoking categories is gasoline prices. This is a topic near and dear to my heart being the moron who bought his lovely and deserving wife a gas snorting behemoth SUV. So much for that extra salary money that came with the new job.
Sitting here typing this, I can look out my office window and see a gas station sign proclaiming that they will sell me a gallon of gas for the low, low price of $3.57 a gallon. Being the numbers geek that I am, I have a spreadsheet where I tracked gas prices (for budgeting purposes) over the last five or six years when I was commuting regularly. The lowest I’ve paid in that time frame was $1.45 per gallon at the end of 2008 and early in 2009. The most I paid was $3.94 a gallon in June of 2008.
So, what has the biggest impact on the cost of that gallon of gas you ask? Simply put, it is the cost of the barrel of oil from which the gas is refined. As of today, West Texas Intermediate crude oil is trading at $107.42 per barrel. There are 42 gallons in a barrel by the way, and I am also ignoring the price differences in the various grades of oil. It is my layperson’s understanding that a gallon of oil can be refined into approximately a gallon of gas with some other by products. So, for the purposes of this exercise, we will assume that there is a one to one oil to gas ratio. If that assumption is correct, a barrel of oil costing $100 translates into $2.38 towards the cost of that gallon of gas at the pump.
That’s just the cost of getting the oil out of the ground. You still have to transport the oil to the refinery, refine it, transport it to a retail location, market it, and pay your friendly, neighborhood gas station owner (not all or probably even a majority of stations are corporately owned). Oh, and let’s not forget the state and federal fingers in this pie.
The exact cost of refining is hard to pin down in a quick Google search, but one website I came across suggested that it accounts for 14% of the cost of a gallon of gas. This percentage fluctuates somewhat depending on refining capacity. You can pump all the oil in the world, and it won’t make much of a dent in the price of gas if there is no capacity to refine it. Supply and demand not only applies to the commodity itself but to the manufacturing process as well. Next time you want to get your blood boiling, take a look at when the last time it was that a new refinery was built in the United States. If I am not mistaken, it was 1976 (although one report indicates that a small refinery was built in Alaska in 1993). Environmentalists and government regulation have seen to it that new refineries don’t get built forcing companies to expand and refit existing refineries which hampers capacity quite a bit.
While we are on the subject of the government, you can thank them for another 13% or so (depending on where you live) towards the cost of your gallon of gas. The federal gas tax is 18.4 cents per gallon. State gas taxes vary from a low in Alaska of 8 cents a gallon to a high of 49.6 cents in Connecticut. Texas, where I live, falls in the middle/low end of the spectrum at 20 cents per gallon. The second lowest after Alaska is Wyoming at 14.5 cents a gallon. If you have a diesel, your federal fuel tax is 24.4 cents a gallon. I’m sure truckers everywhere appreciate that, and don’t think for a minute that cost doesn’t get passed along to you in hirer prices for manufactured goods and groceries.
Last, and least, is the combined cost of transport, distribution and marketing. That gallon of gas does not magically appear at your local station, and it is somewhat ironic that a small percentage of the cost of a gallon of gas is the cost of the diesel fuel it took to power the tanker truck to delivered the gas to the station from local storage tank farm.
The one person in this whole mess who is making the least off of this deal is the station owner. Generally, their mark up is between 3 and 10 cents a gallon. If you use a credit card which charges the retailer a percentage of the sale as a transaction fee, you’ve just cost him money not only on your sale but several others as well. That’s why most gas stations make most of their profits on cokes and candy.
Always at work in this process is the law of supply and demand. When the supply of oil exceeds demand, the commodity price generally falls and vice versa. Little things like Iran chest thumping in the Straits of Hormuz or Israel getting into it with anyone tends to make the oil investors skittish driving the price up a touch. A refinery explosion or a hurricane such as Katrina in 2005 that bullseyes a major petrochem area will significantly impact refining capacity which reduces the supply of the end product again impacting pricing in the same way that seasonal driving habits impact pricing through demand.
So, why do I bring this up? Have you listened to the presidential campaign rhetoric? Do any of you believe those horse thieves will be able to do ANYTHING about gas prices? Not bloody likely. Drill here, drill now is a great sound bite; but, without the refinery capacity to do something with it, it’s only hot air.
Now, pardon me while I go look at used car listings for a cheap, econ box to drive to work.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Anyone Still There?
Greetings from the disaster area known as my life. In fact, life as I have come accustomed to knowing it ends exactly one month from tomorrow which is when my law school classes start. Which my lovely bride reminded me of at 1:30 AM this morning. Thanks sweetheart. That was a wonderful thought to go to bed to.
You would think someone embarking upon three and a half to four years of life altering education would take this opportunity to relax and enjoy the next 32 days. You would be thinking about normal people. I'm not normal. You see, in addition to my normal duties as sole breadwinner, head chef and bottle washer here at the castle, there are several other things that have been intentionally added to the schedule by us or serendipitously dumped on us by that evil genius Murphy (bucket list item: locate and pee on said personage's grave).
So, let's give the readership a rundown of the end of life as I know it.
1) The power steering in my 2000 Nissan Maxima finally chose last month to give up the ghost completely. Other than the inconvenience of this occurring in the midst of the hottest summer in recent memory (it's been a glorious 100+ degrees here since mid June), I really can't complain. That car has been chugging along for over 310,000 and shows no signs of throwing in the towel anytime soon. If you've never looked at Nissans, I highly recommend them. The down side is that I have to scrounge at least $45into the budget for a power steering pressure line (at best) up to $225 for a new power steering pump and pressure line (at worst) not to mention finding time in an already hectic schedule to change out said components while trying not to die of heat stroke.
2) Our oldest remaining animal, Sasha (the big lab/shepherd mix who will turn 12 or 13 this fall...I can never remember unless I go back and look at her vet records) has been in declining health of late. We took her to the vet last week. He diagnosed her as having had a mild stroke, arthritis in the hind quarters and some neuropathy. He candidly told us she doesn't have a lot of time left. The only question is whether she can make some improvement from her current state (very weak, wobbly, etc.) to make further treatment beneficial and not just delaying the inevitable. It's really depressing so close on the heels of the demise of the Yakmaster, but such are the trials of those who open their hearts to animals.
3) We've made it official pretty much everywhere else to more or less encouraging response: The Queen and I have decided to start the process to adopt. I haven't spent much time in these pages on the lack of children in the Castle mainly because that's pretty darn personal, and I really had no clue as to how best to handle it. Suffice it to say, The Queen and I have been unable to have children of our own. The Queen's health has recovered to the point that we can actually consider taking care of children and not lose our ever lovin' minds which is a tremendous blessing. Part of the adoption process is required attendance in classes about fostering/adopting/parenting. We've been told to expect the process to take anywhere from six to eighteen months. We've decided to go the foster to adopt route for a number of reasons not the least of which is cost. Further updates as events warrant.
4) I still have to finish the projects around the Castle so that we can, in theory, put the house on the market to sell.
5) The market sucks right now. I mean really bad. We had a realtor do a market evaluation for us a couple of years ago when we first started thinking about selling the house. It was not great then by any stretch of the imagination, but a sale was possible if you weren't greedy. From what I've been able to gather via internet research on houses for sale in my area, things have gone from bad to worse. Price per square foot has dropped by about $5 to $10 in two years. That sound you hear: it's the equity in our house going down the drain. We'll be lucky to sell the house at a breakeven if we can sell it ourselves without a realtor. Anyone want a good deal on a house in a Dallas suburb? Anyone? Bueller?
6) The castle's AC started out the summer heat wave at a disadvantage. The system is just a tad too small for the castle's square footage (it's a 4 ton system when it should be 4.5 at a minimum and 5 would probably be better). As you can imagine, Murphy struck when the temps hit "slow roast". The lines and compressor froze up. A visit from our AC guy later, we had our freon charged up and hoped that was the end of it. Not so much. Shutting off airflow to one bedroom/bathroom and fiddling with the thermostat setting for several days, we finally have an AC system that will shut off sometime after 11:00 PM. It runs non-stop when the sun is out. And it's forecast to be over a hundred....until who knows when. My luck it'll be the end of August before Satan drops the temps back to "simmer".
7) We are in the process of "decluttering" the house. Until recently, The Queen's parents were living with us. My inlaws are wonderful people; but, with two adult couples living under the same roof, there is just too much stuff. Since the inlaws have more or less relocated permanently to my brother in law's house while they work on refurbishing the house they will be moving into on his property, The Queen and I are taking the opportunity to reclaim our space. Easier said than done. It doesn't quite look like we need an intervention from the crew of "Hoarders" yet, but I'm not ruling the possibility out.
Enough for now. Duty and work calls.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Underwhelmed
Please allow me to engage in a little political commentary for a moment while we await the response from Texas Wesleyan to my law school application. Political commentary was one of the reasons I originally intended to start blogging in the first place. Then I realized just how depressing it really is when you start analyzing the process to closely. It’s like learning how sausage is made.
Anyway, I pulled up Drudge Report this afternoon to reconnect briefly with what is happening out in the rest of the world since I’ve had my head stuck in the sand with computer issues at work and tying yellow ribbons around the oak tree in the front yard awaiting the return of my long lost law school application (can you tell I’m a bit fixated on the law school application decision thing? I’m sorry. This will pass.). I was greeted by a photo of Speaker of the House Boehner and the BOLD headline “WINNING”. Clicking on the link lead to an article that breathlessly reported on how Boehner “closed the deal” to avert a shutdown of the government at the last minute by getting agreement to a spending bill that cuts $38.5 billion dollars from the Federal government’s budget for the remainder of the year. Politico is calling it ‘a defining moment in his speakership” and that it “answered doubts from the conservative movement about whether he was a true believer.”
Now, I’ll be the first to admit that $38.5 billion is nothing to sneeze on an individual level. I could live extremely well for a very long time on that amount and never ever have to think about working again. On a national level, however, this is chump change. Allow me to put this number into perspective for you.
As of April 7, the national debt was $14.2624 trillion dollars representing a $653.4 billion increase since the beginning of FY 2010. Further, the Federal government’s fiscal year began on October 1, 2010. The proposed budget for FY 2010 as submitted by the president was $3.82 trillion of which only $2.17 trillion was covered by revenue leaving the highest budget deficit in history of $1.65 trillion (with approved credit from the Chinese apparently). This budget has not yet been passed by Congress even though it was submitted in February 2010. The government has been kept alive on seven “continuing resolutions” the last of which was passed on Friday with a supposed deal on a budget resolution with the much ballyhooed $38.5 billion in cuts to the budget. I say supposed because the mess still has to get passed the Democrat controlled Senate and be signed by the president. Harry Reid and the president are reported to be on board with this deal, but you can only trust a politician as far as their last vote.
I digress. I was trying to put this “deal” into perspective. $38.5 billion in cuts is $38.5 billion in deficit spending that won’t be added to the debt. Good on ya Mr. Boehner. Here’s your pat on the back. Now, get ready for the swift kick in the butt ‘cause here it comes. $38.5 billion dollars represents only 5.89% of the $653.4 billion the Federal government is ALREADY in the hole for FY 2010. When you factor in the projected, budgeted deficit for the entire FY 2010, you get a whopping 2.33% reduction in the overall hose job that you, me, every other American and everyone’s children and grandchildren are being stuck with until the end of time or when our creditors stop loaning us money (whichever comes first).
A 2.33% reduction is supposed to be a conservative “WIN!”?
WIN! my furry hide. This is business as usual. I am so underwhelmed.
Since it’s my Sabbath, please allow your humble Shepherd to quote the Bible for a moment. Proverbs 22:7 in the New King James Version reads: “The rich rules over the poor, And the borrower is servant to the lender.” The New International Version is even more harsh as it reads “slave” instead of “servant”. We are rapidly becoming slaves to those who own our national debt.
So, who owns us?
According to Financial Management Services “A Bureau of the United States Department of the Treasury”, the breakdown of our ownership is something like this as of the end of September 2010 when our national debt was a paltry $13.5616 trillion”
Federal Reserve and Intragovernmental Holdings: 5.3505 trillion
Depository Institutions: 337.5 billion
U.S. Savings Bonds: 188.7 billion
Private Pension Funds: 587.5 billion
State and Local Governments Pension Funds: 187.8 billion
Insurance Companies: 254.4 billion
Mutual Funds: 607.9 billion
State and Local Governments: 508.7 billion
Foreign and International: 4.2571 trillion
Other Investors: 1.2813 trillion
If you are still sober and still reading this, I’ll wait while you go get a beer or some other tasty adult beverage to calm your nerves. I know I need one.
Back with me? Okay, good. The number I want to focus on is the $4.2571 trillion in debt owned by foreign and international entities. That’s 31.39% of our national debt owned by individuals or governments who are, by definition, NOT AMERICANS. If the Unites States were a company, those foreign holders of our debt could righteously demand a seat (or several) on the board of directors. If we were a company instead of a nation, they’d be within spitting distance of having a controlling interest. Anyone want to take a guess as to why the United States has been conspicuously quiet on human rights in places like China? Anyone? Bueller?
Anyone want to take a guess as to how much more of our debt ANYONE is going to be willing to buy if we don’t start acting like we have a clue. How long can you run a deficit in your personal finances before Citibank or Chase or BOA finally cut you off? It’s about the moment you monthly minimum payments exceed the amount of money you make every month. Let’s think about how this plays out as a nation. According to the president’s FY 2010 budget, approximately $250.7 billion of the budget (about 6.85% of the total budget and 11.55% of revenue for those keeping track) is slated to be spent on interest payments. No payment on the principle amount. Just interest. And we are adding to the principle every single day.
Let’s take a peak into the future for a moment. We’ll have to make some assumptions to make the math easier. These assumptions will also lead to a “best case” scenario. Let’s assume that budget deficits continue running at about $1 trillion per year for the foreseeable future. We know our elected horse thieves are addicted to spending. It’s like crack, meth and heroin all rolled into one for them. So, we really can’t expect them to actually spend less money than they take in in revenue, and I’m actually giving them credit for having the intestinal and testicular fortitude to cut 1/3 from the current deficit levels. The current interest payments represent about 1.76% of the national debt. Setting aside the question of where I can find a mortgage lender offering that rate, let’s assume that the interest payment to principal ratio stay constant. Let’s also assume that the gross domestic product grows at a constant rate of $500 billion per year (it doesn’t), and let’s assume that total revenues remain constant at 15% of GDP (slightly higher than for 2010).
Year / GDP (trillion) / Revenue (tril.) / Debt (tril.) / Interest Payments (billion) / Int to Rev %
2011 / 14.66 / 2.17 / 14.262 / 250.7 / 11.55%
2012 / 15.16 / 2.274 / 15.262 / 274.9 / 12.09%
2013 / 15.66 / 2.349 / 16.262 / 286.2 / 12.18%
2014 / 16.16 / 2.424 / 17.262 / 303.8 / 12.53%
2015 / 16.66 / 2.499 / 18.262 / 321.4 / 12.86%
The trend doesn’t seem like much right now. Sticking with our assumptions though, in 30 years, interest payments on the debt will take up over 20% of the budget. In 60 years, almost half. However, remember, this is before the budget has to absorb “Obamacare” which will takeover approximately 20% of the economy depending on whose numbers you use and raise taxes and debt by as yet undetermined amounts. As I said, we are talking about a best case scenario here.
One word comes to mind: UNSUSTAINABLE.
Now, let’s get back to our boy Boehner here. I’m not going to waste my time busting his chops about whether or not he’s a conservative or not. He’s a lot more conservative than Nancy Pelosi. He’s also a politician playing the game by a set of rules that has no connection to reality as it applies to you and me.
I will say this though. A true, small government conservative would have put every last line item of the budget on the chopping block, opened up a copy of the Constitution, and sliced off every budget item that could not be constitutionally justified. He or she would never get reelected, but that’s what they’d do.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Riddle Me This Batman...
**Updated from the Comments**
I need help from you, my loyal readers and followers, to noodle through a question that’s been burning a hole in my brain for a while now. Normally, I try to bring you only fully formed and completely baked brain dribblings; however, this time, I have to bring you something only half baked ‘cause I was a liberal arts major in college and not an economist.
Here’s the basic question: how many unproductive people can an economy support before it collapses under its own weight?
Let me define that term “unproductive” here for a moment since that is the crux of what I want us to discuss here. By “unproductive”, I mean someone whose income is either non-existent or is derived from the taxes paid by those who do not derive their income from taxes.
I’ll give you a moment to let that settle in before hitting you with some numbers.
According to the best information I can find on the internet within the time constraints placed on my life by gainful employment, household tasks and loving my wife, there are approximately 309 million people in the United States right now. The actual number I found was 308.9 million; however, I figured I would round it off to the nearest million for the sake of simplicity. I’m not going to waste time quibbling about how many illegal aliens are in the country right now or whether or not they are included or excluded in that 309 million figure. Take the number for what it’s represented to be – the best information I could find. Births, deaths and border crossings change that figure every single day. Trying to say one number is better than another is a little like trying to pin jello to the wall.
Those 309 million people (more or less…your experience may vary) reportedly produce a gross domestic product (the total amount of goods and services produced by the US economy) of about $14.6 trillion of which the Federal Government takes in about $2.75 trillion in taxes (according to the IRS website’s 2008 figures which were the most recent available) before refunds.
The national debt is somewhere around $13.79 trillion dollars the last time I checked and is growing at a steady rate. To give you an idea of the rate, total US government spending for 2010 is budgeted to be around $3.72 trillion not including off budget spending (like the war in Afghanistan, etc). That makes for a budget deficit of at least $1.0 trillion; however, the government accounting office says it’s more like $1.56 trillion. Is it any wonder that President Obama’s hand selected debt commission warns of a “fiscal cancer”?
That’s not even the really scary part to me.
Now consider for the moment that the Federal Government directly employs approximately 2 million civilians and another 1.4 to 2.4 million military personnel. By the definition I gave above, these people should be considered unproductive as they derive their income to a greater or lesser extent from the taxes paid by the income of others derived from private sources. Yes, they are “employed and pay income taxes”; however, think for a moment about the true impact of the income taxes they pay. When a Federal employee gets a paycheck, he or she is being paid from the taxes paid by income derived from private sources since the government does not, for the most part, produce goods and services on a “for profit” basis. As a result, any “income tax” paid by a Federal employee is a de facto income adjustment since those “taxes” do not add anything new back into the pot.
So, how much does the Federal payroll account for in the budget? I was unable to find any meaningful number to answer that question. So, let’s make an assumption and go from there. Assume for the moment that the average Federal employee earns a salary of $75,000.00 per year not including benefits. Further, let’s use the low end figure of 3.4 million Federal employees. That nets you $255 billion in Federal payroll every year not including benefits. If we add in another $15,000.00 per employee for the alleged average of medical and dental benefits, you need to add another $42.5 billion to the payroll expense.
3.4 million Federal employees may not seem like much compared to the population. That’s a little over 1% of the population. $300 billion doesn’t seem like much when compared to the total budget. That is about 8%.
But what about all those people on Social Security or welfare?
As of 2007, there were about 49.9 million people receiving Social Security. Technically, these people are all on the Federal payroll, too; and, as baby boomers retire, that number is going to climb dramatically. Suddenly, instead of 1% of the population on the Federal payroll, it’s more like 17%. What does that do to payroll’s percentage against revenue?
I’ll let the co-chairman of President Obama’s own debt panel tell you:
If I’m reading that right, about 17% of the population takes up 100% of Federal revenues. That’s before we get into unemployment benefits or other welfare programs. That’s before we consider the impact of progressive tax policy which allows a significant percentage of the population pay no Federal income tax (some figures say as much as 45%).
None of the above takes into consideration state, county or city employees as it would be too time consuming to research. For instance, the state of Texas employed a little over 300,000 full time employees in 2009. There are 49 other states of varying size to research as well as territories like Puerto Rico and Guam which ding the Federal Budget to some extent. Another facet of the population not addressed here are children. Assume for the moment that half the population is under the minimum employable age. That gets us a total employable workforce of about 154 million. Take out the 53 or so million on the government payroll (including retirees) and that leaves about 100 million of us capable of footing the bill.
How long will it be before China says no more? I’m guessing sooner rather than later.
How long will it be before those people in the economy producing an income from private sources decide they don’t want to play anymore and stop producing? I know I’m sick of it already. God help us all if more than 50% of the population feels the same way.
If the top marginal tax rate is 39%, what is 39% of $0? That would be zero.
I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t think I am. If I am missing something, please let me know.
I need help from you, my loyal readers and followers, to noodle through a question that’s been burning a hole in my brain for a while now. Normally, I try to bring you only fully formed and completely baked brain dribblings; however, this time, I have to bring you something only half baked ‘cause I was a liberal arts major in college and not an economist.
Here’s the basic question: how many unproductive people can an economy support before it collapses under its own weight?
Let me define that term “unproductive” here for a moment since that is the crux of what I want us to discuss here. By “unproductive”, I mean someone whose income is either non-existent or is derived from the taxes paid by those who do not derive their income from taxes.
I’ll give you a moment to let that settle in before hitting you with some numbers.
According to the best information I can find on the internet within the time constraints placed on my life by gainful employment, household tasks and loving my wife, there are approximately 309 million people in the United States right now. The actual number I found was 308.9 million; however, I figured I would round it off to the nearest million for the sake of simplicity. I’m not going to waste time quibbling about how many illegal aliens are in the country right now or whether or not they are included or excluded in that 309 million figure. Take the number for what it’s represented to be – the best information I could find. Births, deaths and border crossings change that figure every single day. Trying to say one number is better than another is a little like trying to pin jello to the wall.
Those 309 million people (more or less…your experience may vary) reportedly produce a gross domestic product (the total amount of goods and services produced by the US economy) of about $14.6 trillion of which the Federal Government takes in about $2.75 trillion in taxes (according to the IRS website’s 2008 figures which were the most recent available) before refunds.
The national debt is somewhere around $13.79 trillion dollars the last time I checked and is growing at a steady rate. To give you an idea of the rate, total US government spending for 2010 is budgeted to be around $3.72 trillion not including off budget spending (like the war in Afghanistan, etc). That makes for a budget deficit of at least $1.0 trillion; however, the government accounting office says it’s more like $1.56 trillion. Is it any wonder that President Obama’s hand selected debt commission warns of a “fiscal cancer”?
That’s not even the really scary part to me.
Now consider for the moment that the Federal Government directly employs approximately 2 million civilians and another 1.4 to 2.4 million military personnel. By the definition I gave above, these people should be considered unproductive as they derive their income to a greater or lesser extent from the taxes paid by the income of others derived from private sources. Yes, they are “employed and pay income taxes”; however, think for a moment about the true impact of the income taxes they pay. When a Federal employee gets a paycheck, he or she is being paid from the taxes paid by income derived from private sources since the government does not, for the most part, produce goods and services on a “for profit” basis. As a result, any “income tax” paid by a Federal employee is a de facto income adjustment since those “taxes” do not add anything new back into the pot.
So, how much does the Federal payroll account for in the budget? I was unable to find any meaningful number to answer that question. So, let’s make an assumption and go from there. Assume for the moment that the average Federal employee earns a salary of $75,000.00 per year not including benefits. Further, let’s use the low end figure of 3.4 million Federal employees. That nets you $255 billion in Federal payroll every year not including benefits. If we add in another $15,000.00 per employee for the alleged average of medical and dental benefits, you need to add another $42.5 billion to the payroll expense.
3.4 million Federal employees may not seem like much compared to the population. That’s a little over 1% of the population. $300 billion doesn’t seem like much when compared to the total budget. That is about 8%.
But what about all those people on Social Security or welfare?
As of 2007, there were about 49.9 million people receiving Social Security. Technically, these people are all on the Federal payroll, too; and, as baby boomers retire, that number is going to climb dramatically. Suddenly, instead of 1% of the population on the Federal payroll, it’s more like 17%. What does that do to payroll’s percentage against revenue?
I’ll let the co-chairman of President Obama’s own debt panel tell you:
The commission leaders said that, at present, federal revenue is fully consumed by three programs: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. "The rest of the federal government, including fighting two wars, homeland security, education, art, culture, you name it, veterans -- the whole rest of the discretionary budget is being financed by China and other countries," [former Republican Senator from Wyoming Alan] Simpson said.
If I’m reading that right, about 17% of the population takes up 100% of Federal revenues. That’s before we get into unemployment benefits or other welfare programs. That’s before we consider the impact of progressive tax policy which allows a significant percentage of the population pay no Federal income tax (some figures say as much as 45%).
None of the above takes into consideration state, county or city employees as it would be too time consuming to research. For instance, the state of Texas employed a little over 300,000 full time employees in 2009. There are 49 other states of varying size to research as well as territories like Puerto Rico and Guam which ding the Federal Budget to some extent. Another facet of the population not addressed here are children. Assume for the moment that half the population is under the minimum employable age. That gets us a total employable workforce of about 154 million. Take out the 53 or so million on the government payroll (including retirees) and that leaves about 100 million of us capable of footing the bill.
How long will it be before China says no more? I’m guessing sooner rather than later.
How long will it be before those people in the economy producing an income from private sources decide they don’t want to play anymore and stop producing? I know I’m sick of it already. God help us all if more than 50% of the population feels the same way.
If the top marginal tax rate is 39%, what is 39% of $0? That would be zero.
I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t think I am. If I am missing something, please let me know.
Friday, January 15, 2010
How To Solve Society’s Problems and TANSTAAFL
My last couple of posts have generated some comment exchanges which, in hindsight, I would have liked to have been included in the original posts. So, there’s only one thing to be done about that, of course. Write a new post centered around those comments.
One might ponder why these topics didn’t make it into the original posts. One who engages in such pondering would immediately be branded as someone needing something much better to do with their time. I wish I could claim that I had contemplated these gems and decided against their inclusion out of some high minded, philosophical statement about something or other. However, the truth is so much more mundane. Specifically, there’s only so much time I have to commit to writing at any one time between my other commitments, and I have to make executive decisions declaring something “good enough” from time to time. On the other hand, had I incorporated these thoughts and threads into the originals, the posts would have gone close to 5000 words each which is a little more than most blog reading people want to digest in one sitting.
Let’s get started, then, fixing my earlier oversights and omissions.
In response to “A Modest Proposal”, Nathanael Rey of the blog “This is How It Feels” commented, in part:
Now, Nathanael and I are about as different as night and day in terms of lifestyle and experience; however, he honorably served his country in the army even though the army didn’t treat him honorably in return. For that service, I believe his opinions are worthy of respect. In response to him, I said, in part:
So, do we throw out the baby with the bath water because we can’t solve all of society’s problems? Do we give up trying to make a collective effort to live by a set of basic principles and priorities because they are unworkable and do not address or solve all the problems we face? If that’s the case, riddle me this Batman: when was the last time the United States’ byzantine and labyrinthine “progressive” tax code solved any of our nation’s problems. When has ANY of the 2000 plus page, tree killing, indecipherable, pork barrel project stuffed monstrosities enacted by Congress EVER done anything other than increase the size of government and line the pockets of the politically connected?
Further, in my opinion, it is BECAUSE we have tried to solve all our societal problems through creative legislation that we are broke as a nation. The point here is that any legislation not based on sound principles and priorities will CREATE more problems than it ever solves. We wanted cleaner air and water and safer food and drugs which are fantastic, laudable goals. So, Congress created the EPA and the FDA. Go read Philip K. Howard’s 1994 book, The Death of Common Sense, to see how well that’s worked out for us. I’ll summarize for you in two words: it hasn’t.
Better living through legislation and regulation is not the answer any more than better living through chemistry is. At least, not through the legislation and regulation coming out of our current system which lacks any kind of principle or priority not involving kickbacks, payoffs and outright larceny.
The founding fathers were wise to include language in the constitution limiting the power of the federal government. They understood the danger of an out of control government. They understood that most issues can and should be dealt with at a local level. Does your community have a homeless problem or a gang violence problem? Do those problems take precedence over your communities other priorities? That’s for the citizens closest to the problem to decide not for a distant federal bureaucracy to dictate. Should I, as a Texan, be forced to pay for California’s budget problems through my federal income taxes because they are too stupid to realize you can’t do everything your heart desires when I had no input into the decisions which led to those problems? What about my federal income taxes going to fund pork barrel projects in another state? I think not. That is the very essence of taxation without representation which led to the first American Revolution. Local problems require local solutions paid for by local funding.
National problems are, in my opinion, few and far between. National defense? Most definitely. Foreign diplomacy? Yep. International trade? Uh-huh. Interstate commerce. Yes. Immigration? Si, senor. Education? That’s a tough one. If the people of a certain city, county or state want to be so stupid they couldn’t pour piss out of a boot with instructions on the heel, they should have the right to be morons. We need a source of cheap labor to compete against China anyway. On the other hand, allowing a certain area to be fools hurts the rest of us. Is “No Child Left Behind” the answer? Not according to the teachers I’ve talked with. Ultimately, I think education should fall under the “promoting the general welfare” national priority. Just to be clear, I said PROMOTE, not DICTATE or PROVIDE.
Moving along now to another comment thread, in response to “Bad Bills and Basics”, GunDiva of the blog “Just Another Perfect Day…: commented as follows:
TANSTAAFL is really at the heart of what I am talking about here. Here’s another quick history lesson. The originator of the phrase TANSTAAFL is unknown; however, its first known usage was an El Paso, TX newspaper article in the 1930s. It is thought to relate back to a practice of American saloons in the 1800s of offering a “free lunch” with the purchase of drinks. Common sense dictates the lunch is really not free if you have to purchase something else to get it. A modern day equivalent of the “free lunch” concept would be the “free drinks” offered by casinos to gamblers. The bottom line is: You cain’t get somethin’ for nothin’. TANSTAAFL.
Everything has a cost whether it is monetary, personal, societal, moral, spiritual, temporal, etc. You/we have to pay, give up or do something in order to receive or do something else. Do you really want “universal health care”? Because that is what the ultra liberals in Congress would love to be able to enact. But, guess what? Doctors and nurses don’t work for free. MRI machines aren’t cheap and need electricity which isn’t free. Drugs? Definitely not free. Even those cheap little tongue depressors and extra long Qtips don’t miraculously pop into existence.
It’s been reported that the health care industry is approximately 1/5 of our total economy. If the GDP is $14.2 trillion dollars, that means health care accounts for about $2.84 trillion dollars worth of “free lunches”.
Oh, but wait, we’re supposed to realize huge cost savings by “reforming” health care which is a government euphemism for “we’re going to tell you what you have to do and fine you into oblivion if you don’t”. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that health care “reform” reduces costs by 50% across the board assuming that’s even possible. I know 50% is an arbitrary number picked out of thin air simply because our elected horse thieves are too slippery to commit to an estimate of potential cost savings when they have a hard time putting a price tag on how much their special deals and kickbacks are going to cost. Either way, I think most people would agree that a 50% cost savings represents a fair definition of “huge” savings. 50% of $2.84 trillion is still $1.42 trillion. How much does the IRS collect in taxes each year? Oh yeah, that’d be about $1.4 trillion. Now there’s a pill we can’t afford to swallow.
While we’re on the subject of cutting costs and budgets, I challenge anyone to try cutting your household expenses by 50% and tell me how that works out for you. Unless you are super wealthy, you cannot cut your expenses in half and maintain the same lifestyle. It can’t be done without making hard choices about who gets paid and who doesn’t or what things are necessities and which are luxuries. The same applies to our nation.
Now, last time I checked, America was supposed to be more or less a capitalist, free market economy. I know you can easily argue that any government regulation on the marketplace or economy moves us away from a truly free market economy, but that’s a whole ‘nother other can of worms (as mom would say) which I don’t have time to get into right now. So, in theory, goods and services as well as wages are determined in the marketplace. How is it possible to achieve 50%, or any percentage for that matter, health care cost savings without government interfering with the marketplace? You cain’t make a race horse out of that jack ass (I apologize. I spent some time in east Texas earlier this week. I promise I’ll be back to normal soon).
Do you want the government telling you how much you can charge for your goods or services? The pharmaceutical industry certainly doesn’t which is why they “helped” write the health care reform legislation. Do you want to invest a significant portion of your life educating yourself to be a doctor and have the government dictate that you can only charge $1 for your services (I know it’s not that extreme, but I am exaggerating on purpose)?
The constitution does not guarantee any person or company a “free lunch”. Nor does it provide any guarantees that future success will match past performance. The government has no business providing bailouts to any individual, group or company. We have to learn to stand or fall on our own two feet and live within our means. TANSTAAFL.
One might ponder why these topics didn’t make it into the original posts. One who engages in such pondering would immediately be branded as someone needing something much better to do with their time. I wish I could claim that I had contemplated these gems and decided against their inclusion out of some high minded, philosophical statement about something or other. However, the truth is so much more mundane. Specifically, there’s only so much time I have to commit to writing at any one time between my other commitments, and I have to make executive decisions declaring something “good enough” from time to time. On the other hand, had I incorporated these thoughts and threads into the originals, the posts would have gone close to 5000 words each which is a little more than most blog reading people want to digest in one sitting.
Let’s get started, then, fixing my earlier oversights and omissions.
In response to “A Modest Proposal”, Nathanael Rey of the blog “This is How It Feels” commented, in part:
Now here is my general consensus. I agree with these ideologies in theory, and as a general guideline for the government. However, I think one point that could sway this theory is the whole, "what if?" factor. As I said I think as a general guideline, this is a good political theory, but i think an important thing to remember is the fact that not everything is so cut and dry. There are countless extenuating circumstances where I think there are exceptions to the rules laid down here. However, I do agree with the overall theory... especially about military action being the exception, not the rule.
Also, i don't think this necessarily solves the problems that we are facing today... but I do think they would have served us very well as preventative measures to those problems.
Now, Nathanael and I are about as different as night and day in terms of lifestyle and experience; however, he honorably served his country in the army even though the army didn’t treat him honorably in return. For that service, I believe his opinions are worthy of respect. In response to him, I said, in part:
I agree with you that theory and reality rarely coincide in the real world. We've got a complex society with very complex problems. The point I am trying to get at is that, just as an individual has to set priorities (like your post about getting the apartment and the affect it would have on your lifestyle), we as a nation have to set some basic priorities through which we attempt to address those more complex problems. Just like you have to make a choice between paying rent and getting the pedicure, America has to learn to make the hard choices between necessities and luxuries. At some point, we have to collectively say "no, we can't afford that."It’s an undeniable fact we live in a complex society with complex problems, and Nathanael is right: not everything is so cut and dry. There are exceptions to every rule expect for the rule about exceptions for every rule to which there is no exception. The danger is when we start making the exceptions INTO the rules. When you start down that slippery slope, it becomes easy to say “just this once” or “we’ll deal with it later” or something equally intelligent. We’ve been saying that pretty consistently since the Civil War, and we are now standing in a cesspool of debt up to our collective eyeballs to prove it.
So, do we throw out the baby with the bath water because we can’t solve all of society’s problems? Do we give up trying to make a collective effort to live by a set of basic principles and priorities because they are unworkable and do not address or solve all the problems we face? If that’s the case, riddle me this Batman: when was the last time the United States’ byzantine and labyrinthine “progressive” tax code solved any of our nation’s problems. When has ANY of the 2000 plus page, tree killing, indecipherable, pork barrel project stuffed monstrosities enacted by Congress EVER done anything other than increase the size of government and line the pockets of the politically connected?
Further, in my opinion, it is BECAUSE we have tried to solve all our societal problems through creative legislation that we are broke as a nation. The point here is that any legislation not based on sound principles and priorities will CREATE more problems than it ever solves. We wanted cleaner air and water and safer food and drugs which are fantastic, laudable goals. So, Congress created the EPA and the FDA. Go read Philip K. Howard’s 1994 book, The Death of Common Sense, to see how well that’s worked out for us. I’ll summarize for you in two words: it hasn’t.
Better living through legislation and regulation is not the answer any more than better living through chemistry is. At least, not through the legislation and regulation coming out of our current system which lacks any kind of principle or priority not involving kickbacks, payoffs and outright larceny.
The founding fathers were wise to include language in the constitution limiting the power of the federal government. They understood the danger of an out of control government. They understood that most issues can and should be dealt with at a local level. Does your community have a homeless problem or a gang violence problem? Do those problems take precedence over your communities other priorities? That’s for the citizens closest to the problem to decide not for a distant federal bureaucracy to dictate. Should I, as a Texan, be forced to pay for California’s budget problems through my federal income taxes because they are too stupid to realize you can’t do everything your heart desires when I had no input into the decisions which led to those problems? What about my federal income taxes going to fund pork barrel projects in another state? I think not. That is the very essence of taxation without representation which led to the first American Revolution. Local problems require local solutions paid for by local funding.
National problems are, in my opinion, few and far between. National defense? Most definitely. Foreign diplomacy? Yep. International trade? Uh-huh. Interstate commerce. Yes. Immigration? Si, senor. Education? That’s a tough one. If the people of a certain city, county or state want to be so stupid they couldn’t pour piss out of a boot with instructions on the heel, they should have the right to be morons. We need a source of cheap labor to compete against China anyway. On the other hand, allowing a certain area to be fools hurts the rest of us. Is “No Child Left Behind” the answer? Not according to the teachers I’ve talked with. Ultimately, I think education should fall under the “promoting the general welfare” national priority. Just to be clear, I said PROMOTE, not DICTATE or PROVIDE.
Moving along now to another comment thread, in response to “Bad Bills and Basics”, GunDiva of the blog “Just Another Perfect Day…: commented as follows:
And another AMEN for Brother K! I've worked in medicine a long time. Medicine is not broken; we give great care to everyone. Insurance is broken. There are a lot of people out there who believe that Health Care Reform will result in "free" health care. Are you kidding? We'll be paying for it in the form of increased taxes. There ain't nothin' free about it. As Americans, we already bitch about how much of our paycheck goes to taxes. How 'bout when we start losing 50% of our paychecks to fund our "free" health care like they do in France? Or what about the "free" health care in Canada, whose government for a time shut down all emergency rooms and urgent care clinics from 7:00 pm until 7:00 am because of budget cuts. No thank you. I'll figure out how to pay my own medical bills, thankyouverymuch. I don't want some [abbreviated expletive deleted] Senator or Congressman deciding who, how, or when I seek medical care. [a derogatory reference to parentage deleted].In response, I said: “GunDiva, you obviously get it where many do not. To quote from the late, great Robert Heinlein "TANSTAAFL" - there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.”
TANSTAAFL is really at the heart of what I am talking about here. Here’s another quick history lesson. The originator of the phrase TANSTAAFL is unknown; however, its first known usage was an El Paso, TX newspaper article in the 1930s. It is thought to relate back to a practice of American saloons in the 1800s of offering a “free lunch” with the purchase of drinks. Common sense dictates the lunch is really not free if you have to purchase something else to get it. A modern day equivalent of the “free lunch” concept would be the “free drinks” offered by casinos to gamblers. The bottom line is: You cain’t get somethin’ for nothin’. TANSTAAFL.
Everything has a cost whether it is monetary, personal, societal, moral, spiritual, temporal, etc. You/we have to pay, give up or do something in order to receive or do something else. Do you really want “universal health care”? Because that is what the ultra liberals in Congress would love to be able to enact. But, guess what? Doctors and nurses don’t work for free. MRI machines aren’t cheap and need electricity which isn’t free. Drugs? Definitely not free. Even those cheap little tongue depressors and extra long Qtips don’t miraculously pop into existence.
It’s been reported that the health care industry is approximately 1/5 of our total economy. If the GDP is $14.2 trillion dollars, that means health care accounts for about $2.84 trillion dollars worth of “free lunches”.
Oh, but wait, we’re supposed to realize huge cost savings by “reforming” health care which is a government euphemism for “we’re going to tell you what you have to do and fine you into oblivion if you don’t”. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that health care “reform” reduces costs by 50% across the board assuming that’s even possible. I know 50% is an arbitrary number picked out of thin air simply because our elected horse thieves are too slippery to commit to an estimate of potential cost savings when they have a hard time putting a price tag on how much their special deals and kickbacks are going to cost. Either way, I think most people would agree that a 50% cost savings represents a fair definition of “huge” savings. 50% of $2.84 trillion is still $1.42 trillion. How much does the IRS collect in taxes each year? Oh yeah, that’d be about $1.4 trillion. Now there’s a pill we can’t afford to swallow.
While we’re on the subject of cutting costs and budgets, I challenge anyone to try cutting your household expenses by 50% and tell me how that works out for you. Unless you are super wealthy, you cannot cut your expenses in half and maintain the same lifestyle. It can’t be done without making hard choices about who gets paid and who doesn’t or what things are necessities and which are luxuries. The same applies to our nation.
Now, last time I checked, America was supposed to be more or less a capitalist, free market economy. I know you can easily argue that any government regulation on the marketplace or economy moves us away from a truly free market economy, but that’s a whole ‘nother other can of worms (as mom would say) which I don’t have time to get into right now. So, in theory, goods and services as well as wages are determined in the marketplace. How is it possible to achieve 50%, or any percentage for that matter, health care cost savings without government interfering with the marketplace? You cain’t make a race horse out of that jack ass (I apologize. I spent some time in east Texas earlier this week. I promise I’ll be back to normal soon).
Do you want the government telling you how much you can charge for your goods or services? The pharmaceutical industry certainly doesn’t which is why they “helped” write the health care reform legislation. Do you want to invest a significant portion of your life educating yourself to be a doctor and have the government dictate that you can only charge $1 for your services (I know it’s not that extreme, but I am exaggerating on purpose)?
The constitution does not guarantee any person or company a “free lunch”. Nor does it provide any guarantees that future success will match past performance. The government has no business providing bailouts to any individual, group or company. We have to learn to stand or fall on our own two feet and live within our means. TANSTAAFL.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Bad Bills and Basics
I promise I will get back to your somewhat regularly scheduled more light hearted programming soon, but this whole health care reform thing keeps burning a hole in my brain. If I don’t perform a quick cranial enema, I’ll be even worse cranky than I was when the dogs woke me up at a quarter to six this morning. Yesterday, it was the cat at 4:00 AM. Today, it was the dogs. My animals are conspiring to deprive me of sleep. Ungrateful little fur covered turds.
I was reading a little news this morning and came across an article in the Fremont Tribune (http://www.fremonttribune.com/articles/2010/01/07/news/local/doc4b44af1b90306516425283.txt) which carries an interview of Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson (astute readers of my previous post will note that I originally reported Sen. Nelson as being from Kansas…that has since been corrected…y’all are supposed to fact check me in the comments…quit sleeping on the job) regarding his support of the Health Care Reform Bill now pending reconciliation between the two houses of Congress.
One part of the article that has me all riled up again today is the following paragraph: “Nelson said by insisting on certain changes before casting his vote he ‘took a bad bill and made it better.’ He pointed out aspects of the Senate’s bill he said will benefit Nebraska, and called the ‘Cornhusker Kickback’ a ‘sideshow’ that’s gotten too much attention.”
I’ve told y’all in a previous post how The Queen’s and my minister counseled us prior to our wedding that a bad marriage is a whole lot worse than no marriage at all. The same concept applies here. Someone needs to tell Sen. Nelson and the rest of Congress that a bad bill is a whole lot worse than no bill at all. Why can’t we take a GOOD bill and make it a GREAT bill? How’s that for an original concept?
The other part of the article that has my grippies in a serious wad and relates directly back to what I was talking about yesterday is two words: “UNFUNDED MANDATE.” This was part of Sen. Nelson’s explanation for the whole “Cornhusker Kickback” thing. He explained that $100,000,000 price tag placed on the kickback by the Congressional Budget Office is just a budgetary placeholder put into the bill because the CBO did not have time to figure out what it was really going to cost since they don’t know how many states will opt in or out of Medicare thus giving our trusted horse thieves time to figure out what the real cost is going to be behind closed doors.
In other words, “We don’t know how much it’s going to cost or whether we can afford it or not, but we are going to do it anyway.”
Sen. Nelson went on to say: ““Several of us have been concerned about the funding of Medicaid because it’s an unfunded mandate from the federal government. The federal government pays a portion of it and the state pays the rest,” he said.”
See? There’s those two dirty little cuss words. He should wash his mouth out with soap. For those of you who haven’t thought it through yet, when Sen. Nelson says “the state pays the rest”, he is talking about you me and the rest of the population in the form of higher state taxes. An unfunded mandate is the Federal government’s way of ordering the states to pay for something the Federal government thinks we should all be doing but for which there is no money in the Federal budget to pay for it. So, they pawn it off on the state’s budgets. Ask California how that’s working out for them.
I don’t think that’s kosher. Not kosher by a long shot, and yet this garbage continues.
I get the fact that there are some people out there who will think the Health Care Reform Bill is great just the way it is; however, by all indications in the news media I’ve read and heard, those people are few and far between. Why? Because we are a nation of individuals who each have our own opinions on any given issue. To paraphrase a quote from Abraham Lincoln just slightly: You can [please] all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot [please] all the people all the time.
Someone needs to remind the American people and the government that money is a finite commodity subject to the same laws of supply and demand as any other commodity. It’s also a fiction, but that topic is for another post.
Like I said yesterday, we need to get back to basics and get our priorities straight. Food, clothing and shelter are the basics of survival for any individual and have been since the beginning of time. Everything else is a luxury. If you can afford to buy a big screen TV, knock yourself out. Don’t expect me or anyone else to buy one for you.
As a nation, the basics of survival are pretty much just the way our founding fathers laid it out in the Constitution: Justice, Domestic Tranquility, Common Defense, Promoting General Welfare and Securing Liberty. Everything else is a luxury. Don’t expect the rest of us to buy it for you with our money or our blood.
I was reading a little news this morning and came across an article in the Fremont Tribune (http://www.fremonttribune.com/articles/2010/01/07/news/local/doc4b44af1b90306516425283.txt) which carries an interview of Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson (astute readers of my previous post will note that I originally reported Sen. Nelson as being from Kansas…that has since been corrected…y’all are supposed to fact check me in the comments…quit sleeping on the job) regarding his support of the Health Care Reform Bill now pending reconciliation between the two houses of Congress.
One part of the article that has me all riled up again today is the following paragraph: “Nelson said by insisting on certain changes before casting his vote he ‘took a bad bill and made it better.’ He pointed out aspects of the Senate’s bill he said will benefit Nebraska, and called the ‘Cornhusker Kickback’ a ‘sideshow’ that’s gotten too much attention.”
I’ve told y’all in a previous post how The Queen’s and my minister counseled us prior to our wedding that a bad marriage is a whole lot worse than no marriage at all. The same concept applies here. Someone needs to tell Sen. Nelson and the rest of Congress that a bad bill is a whole lot worse than no bill at all. Why can’t we take a GOOD bill and make it a GREAT bill? How’s that for an original concept?
The other part of the article that has my grippies in a serious wad and relates directly back to what I was talking about yesterday is two words: “UNFUNDED MANDATE.” This was part of Sen. Nelson’s explanation for the whole “Cornhusker Kickback” thing. He explained that $100,000,000 price tag placed on the kickback by the Congressional Budget Office is just a budgetary placeholder put into the bill because the CBO did not have time to figure out what it was really going to cost since they don’t know how many states will opt in or out of Medicare thus giving our trusted horse thieves time to figure out what the real cost is going to be behind closed doors.
In other words, “We don’t know how much it’s going to cost or whether we can afford it or not, but we are going to do it anyway.”
Sen. Nelson went on to say: ““Several of us have been concerned about the funding of Medicaid because it’s an unfunded mandate from the federal government. The federal government pays a portion of it and the state pays the rest,” he said.”
See? There’s those two dirty little cuss words. He should wash his mouth out with soap. For those of you who haven’t thought it through yet, when Sen. Nelson says “the state pays the rest”, he is talking about you me and the rest of the population in the form of higher state taxes. An unfunded mandate is the Federal government’s way of ordering the states to pay for something the Federal government thinks we should all be doing but for which there is no money in the Federal budget to pay for it. So, they pawn it off on the state’s budgets. Ask California how that’s working out for them.
I don’t think that’s kosher. Not kosher by a long shot, and yet this garbage continues.
I get the fact that there are some people out there who will think the Health Care Reform Bill is great just the way it is; however, by all indications in the news media I’ve read and heard, those people are few and far between. Why? Because we are a nation of individuals who each have our own opinions on any given issue. To paraphrase a quote from Abraham Lincoln just slightly: You can [please] all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot [please] all the people all the time.
Someone needs to remind the American people and the government that money is a finite commodity subject to the same laws of supply and demand as any other commodity. It’s also a fiction, but that topic is for another post.
Like I said yesterday, we need to get back to basics and get our priorities straight. Food, clothing and shelter are the basics of survival for any individual and have been since the beginning of time. Everything else is a luxury. If you can afford to buy a big screen TV, knock yourself out. Don’t expect me or anyone else to buy one for you.
As a nation, the basics of survival are pretty much just the way our founding fathers laid it out in the Constitution: Justice, Domestic Tranquility, Common Defense, Promoting General Welfare and Securing Liberty. Everything else is a luxury. Don’t expect the rest of us to buy it for you with our money or our blood.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
A Modest Proposal
To borrow from Monty Python, “And now for something completely different…” something more or less serious. My apologies to Jonathan Swift for the title.
When I began this blog, I had every intention of making regular commentary on the follies and faux pas of elected officials and the self appointed as well as formally ordained guardians of my morality/eternal soul/bank account. Hence the name of the blog and the subtitle. While I have written a couple of posts taking shots at those paragons of virtue and guardians of the public trust, I have discovered that my writing muse leads more frequently in other directions. Like towards my wife and family. There’s nothing wrong with that…they are wonderful subjects which provide me with a wealth of material…it’s just not what I expected to happen. Life is full of little surprises I suppose.
That’s not to say I have nothing to say about the goings on in Washington these days. Despite the fact that I am apolitical in terms of party affiliation (I think both major parties are the spawn of Satan Hell bent on lining their own pockets at the expense of yours and mine), I maintain an interest in following politics as a spectator sport. Not unlike following my father’s adventures/misadventures in serial monogamy or watching NASCAR...there’s always another spectacular wreck waiting to happen.
As most Americans not already living under rocks, bridges or cardboard boxes are aware, Congressional leadership has been busy buying the supporting votes of hold outs such as Senator Nelson of Nebraska who were standing in the way of the massive health care reform bill’s passage. As usual, political principle in Washington has a price. The question I always come away with is: Can we afford to pay that price?
I did a quick Google search on our nation’s debt this morning and was unsurprised to discover the good ol’ U.S. of A. has been addicted to debt from the very beginning (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm). In defense of the founding fathers, they had to pay for the revolution somehow.
That brings to mind a quick story I heard told by one of my college history professors. Supposedly, in the 1960’s when JFK was president, French president Charles DeGaulle attempted to hand JFK a bill for the money owed to France dating back to the American Revolution. JFK supposedly reminded DeGaulle of America’s costs in dollars and lives spent liberating France in World War I and II. DeGaulle is reputed to have graciously suggested the two nations call it even. I have no idea if this is really true or not, but I sincerely hope it is.
Back to our main story here. If you take the time to go through the debt archives, you’ll notice that the United States has never been debt free. Not once. Not ever. The closest we ever came as a nation to being beholden to no one was in 1835 when our national debt was a paltry $33,733.05 which was less than 10% of the previous year’s $4,000,000 plus debt and almost pocket change compared from the previous high water mark set in 1816 at $127,334,933.74. If it were only that way today, President Obama could ask his good buddy George Soros to pay it off out of the investment interest he makes in a few days. I don’t even want to think about what the inflation adjusted amount of those debt figures are.
On another note, take a moment to look at what was going on in history during some of the years when we had our biggest increases in national debt. Between 1860 and 1865, we went from owing a measly $64 million to over 2 and a half billion. Civil war can be a tad expensive when you weren’t saving back from your last paycheck. Between 1916 and 1919, we jumped from over $3 and a half billion to not quite $27 and a half billion. There’s that war thing again. The Great Depression didn’t help any although it wasn’t until FDR took office that we really started spending money like crazy. World War II, Korea and the Cold War were pretty expensive. Growth of the debt since then has been pretty steady with no one administration or event having a dramatic effect on the debt. I guess once you get past $1 trillion, a few hundred billion here or there just don’t cause the stir they used to.
Today, as a nation, we now owe almost $12 trillion dollars. Let me repeat that $12,000,000,000,000.00. TWELVE TRILLION DOLLARS!!!! The entire gross domestic product for the United States is only about $14.2 trillion, and the IRS only collects about a tenth of that ($1.36 trillion in 2007).
What is going to happen when we tip the balance on that debt to income ratio past 1:1? Nothing good I’m sure. At a minimum, inflation, which is already creeping into our lives. I’m already spending a minimum of 25% more on groceries than I was a year ago because of price increases. I know for a fact my paycheck has not gone up that much. At worst...have you ever seen or heard of a foreclosure or repossession of a nation? In my opinion, our nation is on the verge of bankruptcy and it’s only going to get uglier when our creditors decide they want some or all of their money. At gun point probably.
At some point very soon, we, as a nation, will have to balance our checkbook and get our budgetary priorities straight. As an individual, I have to make sure I buy food and pay the mortgage and utilities before anything else. It’s hard to enjoy a big screen television when you don’t have a house to put it in. As a Christian, I would love for us as a nation to be able to provide a comfortable retirement for the elderly and disabled (which I am, in fact, helping to do for my wife’s 93 year old grandmother) and universal health care to all citizens. As a proud American, I would love for America to protect itself from all threats foreign and domestic…preferably on their turf and not ours. As a fiscal conservative though, my Christian charitable desires and my nationalistic fervor come up against the cold hard reality that we can’t afford to do that as a nation without borrowing ourselves into oblivion.
And don’t get me started on the entitlement mentality. You don’t want me going there. I've got all the sympathy in the world for the elderly and infirm; but, if you’ve got most of your limbs and a functioning brain, shut up and go get a job. Put the bong down and stop having kids you can’t afford to feed and clothe while you’re at it. Oops, I went there didn’t I?
What’s the solution here? May I humbly suggest we get back to our national roots and reestablish some sound priorities like the ones laid out in the Constitution? If you haven’t read it in a while, I’ll help you out with the preamble:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.
Let’s see here, in one paragraph we have a blueprint for national priorities that should take precedence over luxuries like providing “aid” to third world dictators:
1) Establish Justice
I recall a bumper sticker that reads: “No Justice, No Peace. Know Justice, Know Peace.” This is a great priority to start with. Without justice, there is no domestic tranquility. Or much of anything else for that matter. In the absence of justice, there is only chaos and anarchy. Go look at parts of Africa if you need any confirmation of that. Justice requires equal protection not only under the law but also in the making of laws. There is too much influence peddling involved in the American legislative process as it currently stands. Just take a quick look back at the past two years and who got bailouts and who didn’t. You will find a political connection in almost every case. Our elected officials and judges must be ethical and above monetary influence and partisan politics. We, as their constituents, have a responsibility to hold them to that standard.
2) Insure Domestic Tranquility
We’re talking about law enforcement here which is an outgrowth of justice. Once we have fair and reasonable laws, they need to be enforced. It’s as simple as that. Punishment needs to be swift and fair. Those who cannot or will not play by the rules need to be asked to leave. Permanently. Put ‘em down for a dirt nap if necessary.
3) Provide For The Common Defense
The original framers of the Constitution were talking about the common defense of the several states collectively to avoid the problem of having competing state militias. They most certainly were not talking about initiating foreign wars to protect the interests of multinational companies more or less based in the United States. Or at least who have political influence in the government. Or in which the Congressional Pension Fund is heavily invested.
As a college graduate with a history degree, you don’t have to study very deeply to figure out that isolationism just doesn’t work as a foreign policy intended to secure our national defense. However, that does not mean America has to sign on as the world’s police force or become Jehovah’s Witnesses spreading republican democracy door to door. I've got no problem with the American military going into Afghanistan for the sole purpose of digging Osama Bin Laden out of whatever cave or goat herd he is hiding in and putting an end to that particular festering wound in the American psyche. Having said that, military action should be the exception, not the rule, in which we engage with specific goals (not deadlines) to be achieved or targets to be eliminated. Once those goals/targets are taken care of, we need to get out of Dodge and come back home. We don’t need to continue wasting money, energy and lives trying to make some forgotten spot of dirt into a democratic paradise which its culture doesn’t understand and will never be able to maintain.
4) Promote the General Welfare
It seems like a minor point upon which to fixate, but the word is “PROMOTE” not “PROVIDE”. Providing for the general welfare is a luxury not a necessity. If we can’t afford to pay cash, we can’t afford to buy it. Period. And we don’t need to saddle ourselves with a bunch of unnecessary and costly regulations either. If you want clearer air, give incentives instead of penalties for reduced emissions. If you want universal health care that’s affordable, start by encouraging people to eliminate fraud and waste in the system we have. Nowhere in this priority should the word “bailout” ever be mentioned.
5) Secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity
In my humble opinion, this one has to do with our nation, both the government and the governed, using common sense and not attempting to do stupid stuff we can’t afford. To quote from the Bible and be all preachy for a moment, Proverbs 22:7 says: “The rich rules over the poor, And the borrower is servant to the lender.” Romans 13:8 says: “Owe no one anything except to love one another…” Do you ever wonder why debt is described in terms of “secured” and “unsecured”? Securing our liberty and prosperity means owing no one who could come and take it away from us. If we own it lock, stock and barrel, no one can lay claim to it.
I know I have a relatively small readership, but that doesn’t mean my feeble attempts at political reform lack value. That’s where, you, my loyal minions…I mean followers, come in. If you like what you read and agree with it (more or less), pass it on to others. Now, go forth and convert the masses my merry followers and readers.
When I began this blog, I had every intention of making regular commentary on the follies and faux pas of elected officials and the self appointed as well as formally ordained guardians of my morality/eternal soul/bank account. Hence the name of the blog and the subtitle. While I have written a couple of posts taking shots at those paragons of virtue and guardians of the public trust, I have discovered that my writing muse leads more frequently in other directions. Like towards my wife and family. There’s nothing wrong with that…they are wonderful subjects which provide me with a wealth of material…it’s just not what I expected to happen. Life is full of little surprises I suppose.
That’s not to say I have nothing to say about the goings on in Washington these days. Despite the fact that I am apolitical in terms of party affiliation (I think both major parties are the spawn of Satan Hell bent on lining their own pockets at the expense of yours and mine), I maintain an interest in following politics as a spectator sport. Not unlike following my father’s adventures/misadventures in serial monogamy or watching NASCAR...there’s always another spectacular wreck waiting to happen.
As most Americans not already living under rocks, bridges or cardboard boxes are aware, Congressional leadership has been busy buying the supporting votes of hold outs such as Senator Nelson of Nebraska who were standing in the way of the massive health care reform bill’s passage. As usual, political principle in Washington has a price. The question I always come away with is: Can we afford to pay that price?
I did a quick Google search on our nation’s debt this morning and was unsurprised to discover the good ol’ U.S. of A. has been addicted to debt from the very beginning (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm). In defense of the founding fathers, they had to pay for the revolution somehow.
That brings to mind a quick story I heard told by one of my college history professors. Supposedly, in the 1960’s when JFK was president, French president Charles DeGaulle attempted to hand JFK a bill for the money owed to France dating back to the American Revolution. JFK supposedly reminded DeGaulle of America’s costs in dollars and lives spent liberating France in World War I and II. DeGaulle is reputed to have graciously suggested the two nations call it even. I have no idea if this is really true or not, but I sincerely hope it is.
Back to our main story here. If you take the time to go through the debt archives, you’ll notice that the United States has never been debt free. Not once. Not ever. The closest we ever came as a nation to being beholden to no one was in 1835 when our national debt was a paltry $33,733.05 which was less than 10% of the previous year’s $4,000,000 plus debt and almost pocket change compared from the previous high water mark set in 1816 at $127,334,933.74. If it were only that way today, President Obama could ask his good buddy George Soros to pay it off out of the investment interest he makes in a few days. I don’t even want to think about what the inflation adjusted amount of those debt figures are.
On another note, take a moment to look at what was going on in history during some of the years when we had our biggest increases in national debt. Between 1860 and 1865, we went from owing a measly $64 million to over 2 and a half billion. Civil war can be a tad expensive when you weren’t saving back from your last paycheck. Between 1916 and 1919, we jumped from over $3 and a half billion to not quite $27 and a half billion. There’s that war thing again. The Great Depression didn’t help any although it wasn’t until FDR took office that we really started spending money like crazy. World War II, Korea and the Cold War were pretty expensive. Growth of the debt since then has been pretty steady with no one administration or event having a dramatic effect on the debt. I guess once you get past $1 trillion, a few hundred billion here or there just don’t cause the stir they used to.
Today, as a nation, we now owe almost $12 trillion dollars. Let me repeat that $12,000,000,000,000.00. TWELVE TRILLION DOLLARS!!!! The entire gross domestic product for the United States is only about $14.2 trillion, and the IRS only collects about a tenth of that ($1.36 trillion in 2007).
What is going to happen when we tip the balance on that debt to income ratio past 1:1? Nothing good I’m sure. At a minimum, inflation, which is already creeping into our lives. I’m already spending a minimum of 25% more on groceries than I was a year ago because of price increases. I know for a fact my paycheck has not gone up that much. At worst...have you ever seen or heard of a foreclosure or repossession of a nation? In my opinion, our nation is on the verge of bankruptcy and it’s only going to get uglier when our creditors decide they want some or all of their money. At gun point probably.
At some point very soon, we, as a nation, will have to balance our checkbook and get our budgetary priorities straight. As an individual, I have to make sure I buy food and pay the mortgage and utilities before anything else. It’s hard to enjoy a big screen television when you don’t have a house to put it in. As a Christian, I would love for us as a nation to be able to provide a comfortable retirement for the elderly and disabled (which I am, in fact, helping to do for my wife’s 93 year old grandmother) and universal health care to all citizens. As a proud American, I would love for America to protect itself from all threats foreign and domestic…preferably on their turf and not ours. As a fiscal conservative though, my Christian charitable desires and my nationalistic fervor come up against the cold hard reality that we can’t afford to do that as a nation without borrowing ourselves into oblivion.
And don’t get me started on the entitlement mentality. You don’t want me going there. I've got all the sympathy in the world for the elderly and infirm; but, if you’ve got most of your limbs and a functioning brain, shut up and go get a job. Put the bong down and stop having kids you can’t afford to feed and clothe while you’re at it. Oops, I went there didn’t I?
What’s the solution here? May I humbly suggest we get back to our national roots and reestablish some sound priorities like the ones laid out in the Constitution? If you haven’t read it in a while, I’ll help you out with the preamble:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.
Let’s see here, in one paragraph we have a blueprint for national priorities that should take precedence over luxuries like providing “aid” to third world dictators:
1) Establish Justice
I recall a bumper sticker that reads: “No Justice, No Peace. Know Justice, Know Peace.” This is a great priority to start with. Without justice, there is no domestic tranquility. Or much of anything else for that matter. In the absence of justice, there is only chaos and anarchy. Go look at parts of Africa if you need any confirmation of that. Justice requires equal protection not only under the law but also in the making of laws. There is too much influence peddling involved in the American legislative process as it currently stands. Just take a quick look back at the past two years and who got bailouts and who didn’t. You will find a political connection in almost every case. Our elected officials and judges must be ethical and above monetary influence and partisan politics. We, as their constituents, have a responsibility to hold them to that standard.
2) Insure Domestic Tranquility
We’re talking about law enforcement here which is an outgrowth of justice. Once we have fair and reasonable laws, they need to be enforced. It’s as simple as that. Punishment needs to be swift and fair. Those who cannot or will not play by the rules need to be asked to leave. Permanently. Put ‘em down for a dirt nap if necessary.
3) Provide For The Common Defense
The original framers of the Constitution were talking about the common defense of the several states collectively to avoid the problem of having competing state militias. They most certainly were not talking about initiating foreign wars to protect the interests of multinational companies more or less based in the United States. Or at least who have political influence in the government. Or in which the Congressional Pension Fund is heavily invested.
As a college graduate with a history degree, you don’t have to study very deeply to figure out that isolationism just doesn’t work as a foreign policy intended to secure our national defense. However, that does not mean America has to sign on as the world’s police force or become Jehovah’s Witnesses spreading republican democracy door to door. I've got no problem with the American military going into Afghanistan for the sole purpose of digging Osama Bin Laden out of whatever cave or goat herd he is hiding in and putting an end to that particular festering wound in the American psyche. Having said that, military action should be the exception, not the rule, in which we engage with specific goals (not deadlines) to be achieved or targets to be eliminated. Once those goals/targets are taken care of, we need to get out of Dodge and come back home. We don’t need to continue wasting money, energy and lives trying to make some forgotten spot of dirt into a democratic paradise which its culture doesn’t understand and will never be able to maintain.
4) Promote the General Welfare
It seems like a minor point upon which to fixate, but the word is “PROMOTE” not “PROVIDE”. Providing for the general welfare is a luxury not a necessity. If we can’t afford to pay cash, we can’t afford to buy it. Period. And we don’t need to saddle ourselves with a bunch of unnecessary and costly regulations either. If you want clearer air, give incentives instead of penalties for reduced emissions. If you want universal health care that’s affordable, start by encouraging people to eliminate fraud and waste in the system we have. Nowhere in this priority should the word “bailout” ever be mentioned.
5) Secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity
In my humble opinion, this one has to do with our nation, both the government and the governed, using common sense and not attempting to do stupid stuff we can’t afford. To quote from the Bible and be all preachy for a moment, Proverbs 22:7 says: “The rich rules over the poor, And the borrower is servant to the lender.” Romans 13:8 says: “Owe no one anything except to love one another…” Do you ever wonder why debt is described in terms of “secured” and “unsecured”? Securing our liberty and prosperity means owing no one who could come and take it away from us. If we own it lock, stock and barrel, no one can lay claim to it.
I know I have a relatively small readership, but that doesn’t mean my feeble attempts at political reform lack value. That’s where, you, my loyal minions…I mean followers, come in. If you like what you read and agree with it (more or less), pass it on to others. Now, go forth and convert the masses my merry followers and readers.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Yet Another Sign That The Economy is in the Toilet
I know that the country is in the midst of a recession/depression depending on which horse thief's doom and gloom report you happen to be listening to at any given moment, but there has to be a limit to the lengths to which companies will go to stimulate consumer spending.
Apparently not.
Not more than 30 minutes ago, on Saturday evening, August 22, the queen and I were vegetating in front of the TV when it happened. I'm glazing over while some commercial or other drones on about blah, blah, blah; and, out of the corner of my consciousness, I hear the words "we're bringing back the Christmas bonus sale".
??????
It's August! We haven't even gotten through the back to school sale ads yet much less the brief interlude of Halloween and Thanksgiving ads. Football season hasn't even properly begun yet. The Rangers have another month at least before the crater completely, and we are already hearing the C word in retail advertising.
I knew the economy was in a shambles when our elected horse thieves began bailing out one eyed, left handed, midget manicurists, but I had no idea things were this desperate. I suppose it could be worse, though. Like TV ads with Santa Claus lighting off fireworks for the Fourth of July followed in a year or two by a no holds barred, cage fight match up between St. Nick and St. Patrick in mid March.
You can spend your hard earned scratch how you like. You can be like some people I know who got suckered into trading a perfectly good, paid for car to get a brand spanking new car payment they couldn't afford thanks to the government's Cash for Fools Going Conspicuously Into Debt So We Can Bail Out The Auto Industry program. As for me, I'm betting my money on the drunken Irish guy in green.
Apparently not.
Not more than 30 minutes ago, on Saturday evening, August 22, the queen and I were vegetating in front of the TV when it happened. I'm glazing over while some commercial or other drones on about blah, blah, blah; and, out of the corner of my consciousness, I hear the words "we're bringing back the Christmas bonus sale".
??????
It's August! We haven't even gotten through the back to school sale ads yet much less the brief interlude of Halloween and Thanksgiving ads. Football season hasn't even properly begun yet. The Rangers have another month at least before the crater completely, and we are already hearing the C word in retail advertising.
I knew the economy was in a shambles when our elected horse thieves began bailing out one eyed, left handed, midget manicurists, but I had no idea things were this desperate. I suppose it could be worse, though. Like TV ads with Santa Claus lighting off fireworks for the Fourth of July followed in a year or two by a no holds barred, cage fight match up between St. Nick and St. Patrick in mid March.
You can spend your hard earned scratch how you like. You can be like some people I know who got suckered into trading a perfectly good, paid for car to get a brand spanking new car payment they couldn't afford thanks to the government's Cash for Fools Going Conspicuously Into Debt So We Can Bail Out The Auto Industry program. As for me, I'm betting my money on the drunken Irish guy in green.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)