The 2009 Officual National Debt
Those who have stated the Official Debt of 2009 is $1.4 Trillion must have failed math. A simple first grader given the time can calculate the difference between two numbers. The two numbers I refer to is the total debt reported by the US Treasury Department on September 30, 2008 and September 30, 2009.
It does not take a rocket scientist or college graduate to calculate the difference between two values. In fact, it does not take even a high school graduate. In fact this math is taught in first grade.
The national debt on September 30, 2008 stood at $10,024,724,896,912 ($10.024 Trillion).
The national debt on September 30, 2009 stood at $11,909,829,003,512 ($11.909 Trillion).
Total 2009 deficit of $1,885,104,106,599 ($1.9 Trillion)
Historical Debt - http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm
Daily debt history to the penny - http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
Trust but Verify, obviously something the news media does not do.
Social Security Sucks!!!
Today the SSA states Social Security’s Old Age Survivor’s Benefit Program will run a $10 Billion negative cash flow instead of the $80 billion surplus. However, this is a spin on a bad situation. The only reason why they report it as a negative $10 billion is that $80 billion in interest is being used to pay benefits this year. The actual difference between payroll tax and benefits paid is $90 billion in the red.
Under ideal circumstances (which SS has never had);
- 100% of benefits would be paid using the trust fund
- 100% of all payroll taxes would be invested to pay future benefits
- 100% of current beneficiary cohorts’ interest on their payroll taxes would be used to pay current beneficiaries
- 100% of current non beneficiary cohorts’ interest on their payroll taxes would not be used to pay current beneficiaries, but accumulated compounding yearly until the cohorts retired.
So how bad off is Social Security? Before the recession, total liabilities of SS-OASI were over $23 Trillion. SS-OASI had just over $2.5 Trillion in securities. (Special US Treasuries, payable on demand). This means the unfunded portion is over $20 trillion. This is based on earning 5% a year on the trust fund. Given that inflation is lower, we still need 3% return on the trust fund.
In 2009 SS-OASI should have collected $690 Billion from the treasury in interest plus another $500 billion from payroll taxes. In simple terms under the SSA math, SS-OASI should have had a surplus of close to $700 Billion. So the net actuarial deficit for SS-OASI for 2009 is $710 Billion give or take a few billion.
Our kids are so hosed!
Healthcare Reform v Free Speech
Tuesday Night I heard that Health and Human Services issued a ruling to insurance providers to stop misleading Medicare beneficiaries. The dispute is over the Healthcare Reform act where some companies are saying “Benefits could be cut.” It does not say they will be. Based on the Baucus bill, there is little way for Medicare to stay solvent unless expenses are cut. How do you cut expenses or the growth if you do not cut benefits?
Apparently it is just fine for President Obama and members of congress to say their reform bill does not include tax increases, but is this not misleading the public when you say you are going to levy a fine if you do not have health insurance? The fine has been dropped from $3,800 a family to $1,900.
Political free speech is what made this country great. Now our own government is attempting to squelch free speech. How stupid do they think we are? I find it despicable that a judge issued a temporary injunction to stop the insurance companies from sending information to beneficiaries.
Hey, maybe this is not a bad idea. We could get an injunction on the government from sending us SSA wage and benefit statements stating what our benefits will be in the future. We might even be able to site this in political debates and adds as well. Maybe we can stop politicians from lying?
Automobile v Health Insurance
President Obama is comparing the mandatory requirement for automobile insurance with that of Healthcare insurance. He sees no difference. However, there is a big difference. In many states, such as Indiana, an automobile must be insured with a minimum amount of LIABILITY insurance to be registered. There is no requirement for collision insurance.
Collision insurance insures you against a loss if you are the at fault driver. If you run off the road, rear end another car, you are insured. However, if you wave collision insurance coverage, you are insuring yourself against a loss.
Liability insurance covers the person you injure or the property you damage. Collision insurance which is not mandatory in any state insures you, the driver, against yourself. If you choose to not buy Collision insurance, you hurt no one but yourself if you have a loss. Health insurance is to protect you against a loss. If you choose not to have healthcare you hurt only yourself. However, in our country hospitals and providers treat anyone including those who do not have health insurance or who cannot pay. Maybe providers should carry uninsured coverage to protect themselves from a loss?
Healthcare insurance is no different than collision insurance, but is nothing like liability insurance. To mandate healthcare insurance may seem like a good idea, but you may make more people/families destitute and impoverished by mandating it. Sure they are covered by healthcare for potential sickness, but in the mean time food, shelter and clothing may take second seat and actually cause a worse outcome.
In any survival situation, the first thing you do is seek shelter, then water, then food. Few people will last two weeks without water, shelter or food. However, millions have gone years without ever seeing a doctor. What we need to do is stop allowing providers or the government from mandating treatment for all without regard to paying for. It may sound heartless, but is it the responsibility of the government to take from one to give to another without regard for ability to pay?
Indiana Court strikres down the Voter ID Law
An Indiana Court struck down the Voter ID Law even after the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled it was constitutional. The problem that I tried to identify years ago when this was being proposed was that it violated some people’s individual rights. I know personally two people who are denied Indiana Driver’s licenses and State ID’s because they do not have a social security number. I also identified to the state of Indiana that the Voter Registration law does not require a Social Security Number and that it could not require it under Federal Statute.
The state attempted to circumvent Federal Statutes concerning the SSN by requiring a State issued ID. A U.S. Passport is a valid photo ID for voting, but it costs over $100 to obtain. The U.S. State Department cannot require the person have a SSN to obtain a U.S. Passport. If the state were to require a SSN they would be imposing a hardship on people who do not have a SSN.
A year later I was told that absentee ballots could be sent without the photo ID to the voter’s address under certain circumstances; health reason, out of the state at the time of the election and military. When I said this did not cover all circumstances I was told the county does not verify the request is valid, but simply sends the absentee ballot out. In other words lie to get an absentee ballot.
William Sherman Smith used valid names and SSN’s to obtain 149 different Indiana Driver’s licenses. The Social Security Online Verification System verified the name and SSN matched, but cannot identify if a driver’s license had already been issued and Indiana’s BMV could only verify if a driver’s license had been issued using that SSN. As long as you had someone’s SSN and name who had not obtained an Indiana ID or driver’s license (use out of state ID’s), the Indiana BMV issued these types of identifications without question.
Indiana began using photo recognition programs and found numerous people like William Sherman Smith who had obtained multiple ID’s. So how well did asking for a SSN work? It did diddly squat for fighting Identity Theft, while infringing on the RIGHTS of U.S. Citizens.
What is the answer? How many times will a person performing a repetitious task make an error? From my experience and what others have found, people will make an error 5% of the time. Therefore, requiring a SSN and utilizing this one ID, that has no method of being traced to the particular person presenting it as ID, will result in errors of 5%. Now what happens when you ask for more than one ID that must be verified? With each subsequent person looking at the information, there is less chance the error will go unnoticed. We know that photo recognition worked better than using the SSN. However, photo recognition is not fool proof and can be manipulated fairly easily. When you fill out the voter registration card, they should take a photo of you and issue a voter ID card. Every time you move, you need to obtain a new card. Voter registration already assigns a unique number to the individual. How hard is it to track the replacement, issue and movement of a person if a unique secure number is used?
We are chasing a ghost. With each advance in technology, the identity thieves or voter fraudsters will use future technology to continue to steal and violate laws. Criminals have been around since day one. We are treating everyone now as a potential criminal instead of a citizen.
Whe cares enough?
I had a call from a person who reads the Fort Wayne Politics blog. He wanted to know if I was the William Larsen who posts there. We have a lot in common and agree on many things. He asked if I knew of a federal law, statue or prohibition that prevented the U.S. Government from competing with private enterprise. For example, could the government open gas stations and sell gas to the public for a profit? Could they open up grocery stores to compete with Kroger?
I was taught in my class on U.S. Government that they could not compete with private companies. It was prohibited from owning equities/companies and competing with private busniess. The question then arose, how could government offer public insurance if it was prohibited from owning and competing against companies? This is an excellent question. I like to think that I question the validity of many things government does. It is my right and civil responsibility to question the Government. It is the only way we keep tabs on what they do and to expose wrongs.
In the past year the government has bailed out banks taken ownership in banks, insurance companies, mortgage companies and even two of the big three automobile companies. I would think everyone of these actions would violate some law, statute or regulations. However, I like many others have taken for granted they could not do so, but I have never actually verified the existence of this. My question is who cares enough to challenge this? We are beginning down a slippery slope. Is there a means to stop this before it is too late?
After a quick search on the subject I found 20 §437.32 Equipment
(3) Notwithstanding the encouragement in §437.25(a) to earn program income, the grantee or subgrantee may not use equipment acquired with grant funds to provide services for a fee to compete unfairly with private companies that provide equivalent services, unless specifically permitted or contemplated by Federal statute.
Though this does not deal with subject directly, it would lead me to believe that there is in fact some statute that prevents government ownership from competing with private companies. I did find a Supreme Court Case that leads me to believe the court would not strike down Public supported Health Insurance.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
UNITED HAULERS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al.,
PETITIONERS v. ONEIDA-HERKIMER SOLID
WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY et al.
“Flow control” ordinances require trash haulers to deliver solid waste to a particular waste processing facility. In C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Clarkstown (1994) , this Court struck down under the Commerce Clause a flow control ordinance that forced haulers to deliver waste to a particular private processing facility. In this case, we face flow control ordinances quite similar to the one invalidated in Carbone. The only salient difference is that the laws at issue here require haulers to bring waste to facilities owned and operated by a state-created public benefit corporation. We find this difference constitutionally significant. Disposing of trash has been a traditional government activity for years, and laws that favor the government in such areas—but treat every private business, whether in-state or out-of-state, exactly the same—do not discriminate against interstate commerce for purposes of the Commerce Clause. Applying the Commerce Clause test reserved for regulations that do not discriminate against interstate commerce, we uphold these ordinances because any incidental burden they may have on interstate commerce does not outweigh the benefits they confer on the citizens of Oneida and Herkimer Counties."A - The Commerce Clause provides that “Congress shall have Power … [t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States.” Although the Constitution does not in terms limit the power of States to regulate commerce, we have long interpreted the Commerce Clause as an implicit restraint on state authority, even in the absence of a conflicting federal statute.B - To determine whether a law violates this so-called “dormant” aspect of the Commerce Clause, we first ask whether it discriminates on its face against interstate commerce. In this context, “ ‘discrimination’ simply means differential treatment of in-state and out-of-state economic interests that benefits the former and burdens the latter.” Discriminatory laws motivated by “simple economic protectionism” are subject to a “virtually per se rule of invalidity,” which can only be overcome by a showing that the State has no other means to advance a legitimate local purpose....C - The flow control ordinances in this case benefit a clearly public facility, while treating all private companies exactly the same. Because the question is now squarely presented on the facts of the case before us, we decide that such flow control ordinances do not discriminate against interstate commerce for purposes of the dormant Commerce Clause.Compelling reasons justify treating these laws differently from laws favoring particular private businesses over their competitors. “Conceptually, of course, any notion of discrimination assumes a comparison of substantially similar entities.” But States and municipalities are not private businesses—far from it. Unlike private enterprise, government is vested with the responsibility of protecting the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. These important responsibilities set state and local government apart from a typical private business.Given these differences, it does not make sense to regard laws favoring local government and laws favoring private industry with equal skepticism. As our local processing cases demonstrate, when a law favors in-state business over out-of-state competition, rigorous scrutiny is appropriate because the law is often the product of “simple economic protectionism.” Laws favoring local government, by contrast, may be directed toward any number of legitimate goals unrelated to protectionism. Here the flow control ordinances enable the Counties to pursue particular policies with respect to the handling and treatment of waste generated in the Counties, while allocating the costs of those policies on citizens and businesses according to the volume of waste they generate.Finally, it bears mentioning that the most palpable harm imposed by the ordinances—more expensive trash removal—is likely to fall upon the very people who voted for the laws. Our dormant Commerce Clause cases often find discrimination when a State shifts the costs of regulation to other States, because when “the burden of state regulation falls on interests outside the state, it is unlikely to be alleviated by the operation of those political restraints normally exerted when interests within the state are affected.”
Here, the citizens and businesses of the Counties bear the costs of the ordinances. There is no reason to step in and hand local businesses a victory they could not obtain through the political process....Finally, it bears mentioning that the most palpable harm imposed by the ordinances—more expensive trash removal—is likely to fall upon the very people who voted for the laws. Our dormant Commerce Clause cases often find discrimination when a State shifts the costs of regulation to other States, because when “the burden of state regulation falls on interests outside the state, it is unlikely to be alleviated by the operation of those political restraints normally exerted when interests within the state are affected.” Here, the citizens and businesses of the Counties bear the costs of the ordinances. There is no reason to step in and hand local businesses a victory they could not obtain through the political process.Justice Alito, with whom Justice Stevens and Justice Kennedy join, dissenting.This Court long ago recognized that the Commerce Clause can be violated by a law that discriminates in favor of a state-owned monopoly. In the 1890’s, South Carolina enacted laws giving a state agency the exclusive right to operate facilities selling alcoholic beverages within that State, and these laws were challenged under the Commerce Clause in Scott v. Donald (1897)....Thus, were it not for the Twenty-first Amendment, laws creating state-owned liquor monopolies—which many States maintain today—would be deemed discriminatory under the dormant Commerce Clause. There is, of course, no comparable provision in the Constitution authorizing States to discriminate against out-of-state providers of waste processing and disposal services, either by means of a government-owned monopoly or otherwise.Nor has this Court ever suggested that discriminatory legislation favoring a state-owned enterprise is entitled to favorable treatment. To be sure, state-owned entities are accorded special status under the market-participant doctrine. But that doctrine is not applicable here.Under the market-participant doctrine, a State is permitted to exercise “ ‘independent discretion as to parties with whom [it] will deal.’ ” The doctrine thus allows States to engage in certain otherwise-discriminatory practices (e.g., selling exclusively to, or buying exclusively from, the State’s own residents), so long as the State is “acting as a market participant, rather than as a market regulator.”Respondents are doing exactly what the market-participant doctrine says they cannot: While acting as market participants by operating a fee-for-service business enterprise in an area in which there is an established interstate market, respondents are also regulating that market in a discriminatory manner and claiming that their special governmental status somehow insulates them from a dormant Commerce Clause challenge....The dormant Commerce Clause has long been understood to prohibit the kind of discriminatory legislation upheld by the Court in this case...............................................
It seems to me the U.S. Supreme Court would be divided on whether U.S. Government could compete with private insurance companies in providing healthcare to the public. On one hand the Court says the "state" can regulate as long as they are equitable upon all private parties (treat them the same). On the other hand it implies it would not be acceptable saying the "state" would not be insulated from a dormant Commerce Clause challenge.
My take is as long as the "federal" government discriminates equally and causes all insurance companies and employers equal harm, the "federal" government can survive a challenge to the Healthcare Reform proposed by Obama. The way the court sees it, is we as a people get what we vote for. We have the power to stop this with our RIGHT TO VOTE.
Can anyone provide information on the subject?
Social Security – Who would have guessed?
The Social Security Administration has finally placed on their website information on multiple different “fixes” for Social Security’s solvency over the next 75 years.
They look at seven different areas:
- COLA - Cost of living adjustment
- Taxation of Benefits
- Payroll Tax
- New Enrollies
- New Investment Vehicles for Trust fund
- Change the full retirement age
- Change the Benefit Formula
Each one of these catagories have multiple variations. There are both charts and tables identifying a year by year projection. The tables I believe are more useful since they provide an actual value. There are two values to pay particular attention to:
- Annual Balance (revenues minus expenses)
- Trust Fund Ratio
SSA looks at a solvency period over 75 years. Doing this has several flaws:
- It includes all revenues from all cohorts Those who turn 65 after the 75 year solvency period have their contributions consumed by those who receive benefits during the 75 yea period. The solvency period ends in 2084. With a full retirement age now at 67 for those born after 1970, this means any person who is born after 2017 will pay into Social Security, have their contributions used to pay current beneficiaries only to relive the same problem we have today.
- It only includes those liabilities that must be paid within the 75 year period. Those born after 2017 earn credits yearly toward Social Security Benefits, but they do not accrue a liability and is therefore not included in the evaluation. In simple terms those who retire prior 2063 are fully evaluated (though they may not be able to pay benefits). Those who retire between 2063 and 2084 are evaluated partially. For example; for those born in 2016, they represent just one full year of liabilities instead of 21 to 22 years.
What is very obvious is that no matter how many different ways SSA looks at the problem, there is not one solution that makes Social Security Solvent. The trust fund ratio decreases quickly and goes to zero in all cases. A zero trust fund ratio means the trust fund is exhausted. In addition the annual social security balance goes negative in all situations. This means expenses exceed revenues.
What the different scenarios point out vividly is the magnitude of the problem. Even raising the pay roll tax in two increments over a decades does not solve the problem long term. This is referred to the cliff effect. The 75 solvency period is a moving target. If today we look at 75 years into the future, then we are looking out till 2084. In 2010 they are looking at 2085 and in 2011 they are looking at 2086. This means if we decide to do anything, we fall off the cliff the year after the solvency period ends. It is like starting a whole new social security program with a full compliment of beneficiaries and no trust fund.
Is there a way to get a truer idea of the problem, yes? The SSA has done the difficult task of creating the algorithum and collecting the data needed for the calculation. However, they have failed to exclude the revenues from those who are working, but who are too young to receive benefits during the 75 year evaluation period. If they did this, you could calculate the unfunded liability very closely. In addition, you would not have too look out 75 years, but simply 25 years.
They have the data, they simply need to refine the parameters of who is included. They know by SSN applications who was born when. They get yearly information on wages earned subjected to the SS-OASI tax. This is not rocket science, just plain simple high school math.
Why won't they do this? IF they did this, the payroll tax would have to go to over 18.5% from 10.6% today. This is a very signficant hike and would most likely meet more challenge than Healthcare Reform. Therefore, it is better for them (worse for the worker) to take baby steps and bait us into paying a little bit more, cutting benefits, raising retirement age and changing the benefit formula. In this way they lead us to the ulimate outcome where we pay 4 times more for a benefit than it is worth and they (politicians) never have to face the public.
It is the frog who jumps into a pot of cold water that is slowly heating up.
I used the word fix because that is what it is. It is like any addict. Social Security needs a fix and takes what it needs without asking, thinking or realizing the consequences. Can you stop your craving for Social Security? Who can you just say no to Social Security?
National Healthcare: The chains that will bind all
What is the definition of a RIGHT? A right is anything that does not require a sacrifice from another person or places a burden on another person to fulfill. Is Healthcare a right, no? It requires sacrifice by others and places a burden on others for it to take place.
Is healthcare a moral obligation? If it is a moral obligation, then what are food, shelter and water? Are these moral obligations and if so are they more important or imminent than healthcare? What we have never created as a nation is a set of priorities. We have many programs that are failures such as Medicaid, Medicare, Fannie May, Freddie Mac, the U.S. Treasury, Federal Pension Guaranty program, Social Security and more.
Now the nation is debating healthcare, another program. The first question that should be asked is, is this a function of government? If it is, then we should look at Medicare, Medicaid and Veterans Healthcare as teachable lessons. Both Medicare and Medicaid have shifted trillions of dollars of costs from a few to everyone else. The payroll tax of Medicare is inadequate and the trust fund will be exhausted in 2017, then what? What about those born after 1952? Do we raise the payroll tax even more; do we charge those born prior to 1952 a higher premium to recoup what congress failed to charge them?
As a parent I am responsible for my families well being FIRST! My first priority is to take care and provide for my family FIRST. However, the government believes my first priority is to support Medicare and Medicaid and takes without asking dollars out of my paycheck. I then compete against those on Medicare and Medicaid for healthcare using my own dollars! Because Medicare and Medicaid cost shift, I pay more for my healthcare. In addition I compete against employer subsidized healthcare insurance when they negotiate rates nearly as low as Medicare again shifting cost to all others.
Government has artificially stimulated the healthcare industry: pharmaceuticals, medical implants, technology, procedures, diagnostics and more. Individuals who work in the healthcare industry are engineers, janitors, maintenance, data processors, nurses, doctors, specialists and more. They are neighbors, parents, brothers and sisters. They all provide labor and as such want raises like everyone else. Healthcare is labor intensive and there is no force multiplier, a doctor treats one person at a time. This makes healthcare costs rise at wage rates, not inflation. In addition the US has primarily private hospital rooms instead of four to a room increasing costs by 300% and decreasing efficiency. The US has the highest ratio of MRI, CT, diagnostic equipment, hospital rooms than any other country. The US System is based on “waiting for a patient to arrive” rather than other countries based on “patients waiting to be treated.” The US has lower utilization rates, yet this technology must be paid for, resulting in higher per service costs.
Medicare began with good intentions. Medicaid began with good intentions. Social Security was begun with good intentions, yet good intentions have never produced a single government program that did not become costly.
The U.S. has not had budget surplus since 1957. Every single stimulus package, tax reduction or fix to government programs that borrowed money to do so has never been repaid. In fact the interest paid on these borrowed funds was in fact borrowed, compounding the problem.
Employers are allowed to provide health insurance to employees in lieu of paying higher wages. This is nothing more than a tax subsidy. The government does this with IRA’s, education credits, charitable deductions, child tax credits, mortgage interest and 401-k’s. The government has been so good at doling out special tax breaks to groups that everyone has a hand out. Who is paying the cost of all these hand outs, the economy? We all want lower taxes and more benefits. The only question is how much are you willing to pay for a new program, or should I say how much are you willing to saddle your children with?
The solution is simple. No healthcare provider can charge different entities, that it sees, different prices for the exact same service (CPT code). This would eliminate the cost shifting of Medicare, Medicaid and insurance (both private and company sponsored) to all others.
The definition of insurance is where a group of people pool resources together where the risk of occurrence is low, yet the loss could be great if it occurred. Insurance does not work when the risk of a loss is great. The risk that people go to the doctors for flue, vaccinations, broken bones and other ailments are frequent. Do you really want to pay an extra fee to cover the cost of administration in paying for these? The simple truth is healthcare costs money and each of us needs to face the fact we are responsible for the basic costs. With that said, the deductible should be about $2,000 per person. This provides incentive not to over use the system, reduced processing and puts controlling cost in the hands of the consumer. It would also provide catastrophic coverage for the low risk occurrences that if they did happen could bankrupt you.
Who Caused the Healthcare Crisis?
Who caused the Healthcare Crisis? If we go back to the days before insurance, who paid for Healthcare? Prior to the 50’s few had Health insurance. Wage freezes were enacted by congress and signed into law by the president. This was done to curtail inflation. This was an artificial means of controlling inflation. Employers were allowed to offer Health insurance to employee’s tax free as an inducement to work for a company. Pre tax Health insurance is much better than after tax Health insurance.
This caused a decrease in Federal Tax Revenues as taxable income became pre tax benefits. In 1965 Medicare came along and placed a burden on workers. Though small at the time, Medicare could only grow in size and cost. During the 70’s Medicare’s growth was no fast that to save this “efficient” and “great” program from bankruptcy, congress passed legislation that defined Medicare reimbursement rates. These rates have gone from 100% in 1965 to a low of 70% today.
The reduction in reimbursement had to be paid by someone; otherwise the provider would go out of business. The provider than created two tiered pricing: Medicare and private. When Medicaid was passed, a third tier pricing was added. The result was escalating costs. Employers were paying more and so a new market was created, Health Plan Administration. These plans allowed companies to pull their collective size and negotiate with providers for lower rates. This created another pricing level within our healthcare system.
Is it appropriate for a provider to have different pricing levels based on quantity? Yes, when they can save money, increase efficiency and quality based on economy of size. However, when it comes to healthcare, economy of size is a very small component of the cost. A provider sees and treats one patient at a time. Though the more patients he sees increases utilization of staff, material purchases and consumable, it does little for overall efficiency of providing healthcare.
The cause of our healthcare problem is congress. They created the different pricing tiers, removed consumers from evaluating and choosing providers and now want the American people to let them do the same across the nation.
They tax 100% of our economy today. What happens when they are allowed to run 16% of economy?
What happens when they are allowed to run 16% of economy? Can anyone name one government agency that works?
- Social Security
- Medicare
- Post Office
- Security and Exchange Commission
- U.S. House of Representatives
- U.S. Senate
President Obama’s speech
President Obama’s speech last night highlighted many different things.
The United States is one of the wealthiest countries in the world.
If this is true, why do we have deficits? Why do we have an $11.7 Trillion debt? Why can’t people pay for their own Healthcare?
If Medicare spending is not slowed, then it will consume the entire federal budget.
If Medicare is such a well run program with lower administration rates, then why do studies identify fraud in the hundreds of billions a year? Do they not add fraud to the administration costs? Maybe if they added more oversight (higher administration costs) they would have less fraud, comparable to private insurance.
The U.S. is the only industrialized country without national Health coverage.
This sounds like a lemie statement or keeping up with the Jones’s. Should we copy what others do? Should we give into peer pressure?
Medicare is a success.
If it is such a success, why is it devouring the Federal Budget?
Pre- existing conditions are not covered by private insurance because of higher risk.
Insurance is based on risk. The higher the risk potential, the higher the premium. Oil tankers pay a high premium traveling through the Hormuze Strait. Insurance can be obtained for just about any type of loss. The problem is the cost will be appropriate for the risk. A national Healthcare program that covers all without regard for risk must cover this increased cost. Obama has not said what the premium will be. He has failed to identify the cost to each person and using spin leaves it up to the individual to interpret. Each individual's interpretation will be different. Does your interpretation match with President Obama's?
What is a RIGHT?
What is the definition of a RIGHT? A right is anything that does not require a sacrifice from another person or places a burden on another person to fulfill. Is Healthcare a right, no? It requires sacrifice by others and places a burden on others for it to take place.
Cash for Clunkers Allowed by we are stupid!
Congressmen authorized the treasury to spend $1 billion to subsidize buyers of a particular makes of cars from $3,500 to $4,500. The clunkers are to be scrapped/destroyed. The idea is to remove low fuel economy cars from the market. What did it do? From the data thus far, most of the cars are SUV’s, people paid cash for them and the cars were not totally junk. In essence we gave money to those who had money to replace a car they no longer wanted for a car they did. On top of this, we borrowed money to give to these few select out of 310 million and will forever have to finance this $1 billion we did not have. A better idea would have been to take and sort through the clunkers and have an exchange for clunker program where you take a really bad clunker and exchange it for a more efficient clunker for those who cannot afford to anything.
I was and still am against the Cash for Clunker sale. It took future sales and brought them forward. The people who would have been in the market for a new car within the next year just bought new cars and their clunker, which were not as bad as true clunkers go were scrapped. Now those with true clunkers who trade up their really environmental foul polluting clunkers have two options: keep their fowl clunkers or buy a new car. The problem is they cannot afford a new car and the clunker they would have traded up to is now destroyed. On top of this six of the top ten selling new cars bought under Cash for Clunkers were foreign cars. We have a trade deficit and we just made it worse.
Now the Obama Administration has signed onto another $2 billion Cash for Clunkers. Can we have a program, Cash to get rid of Elected Idiots? These are the very same idiots who brought us Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, FDIC, Pension Guarantee Company, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and trillion dollar deficits. They now want to give everyone government mandated Healthcare.
Professor Gates V Officer Crowley
For over two weeks the media has focused on Professor Gates and Officer Crowley. There are two sides? Which do you side with?
911 OPERATOR: All right, tell me exactly what happened?
FEMALE WITNESS CALLER: Um, I don't know what's happening. I just had an older woman standing here and she had noticed two gentlemen trying to get in a house at that number, 17 Ware Street. And they kind of had to barge in and they broke the screen door and they finally got in. When I had looked, I went further, closer to the house a little bit after the gentlemen were already in the house. I noticed two suitcases. So, I'm not sure if this is two individuals who actually work there, I mean, who live there.
911 OPERATOR: Were they white, black or Hispanic?
FEMALE WITNESS CALLER: Umm, well there were two larger men, one looked kind of Hispanic but I'm not really sure. And the other one entered and I didn't see what he looked like at all. I just saw it from a distance and this older woman was worried thinking someone's breaking in someone's house, they've been barging in. And she interrupted me and that's when I had noticed otherwise I probably wouldn't have noticed it at all, to be honest with you. So, I was just calling 'cause she was a concerned neighbor, I guess.
Officer Crowley: “A (inaudible) gentleman says he resides here, but uncooperative. Uh keep the car’s coming.”
“The arresting officer alleges that Gates shouted at him and threatened to speak to his "mama." He then arrested Gates for disorderly conduct.” The police report identifies there were seven individuals on the seen.
Officer Crowley’s Probable Cause - “When I left the residance, I noted that there were several Cambridge and Harvard Univeristy police officers assembled on the sidewalk in front of the residense. Additionally, the caller, Ms. Walen and at least seven unidentified passer-by were looking in the direction of Gates, who had followed me outside of the residence.”
Was it Gates who was attracting the attention of passerby's or was it the multiple police cars in front of his residence that was attracting attention? Could anyone actually hear Mr. Gates? Did Mr. Gates have a right to verbally respond to Crowley, yes?
Professor Gates presented his Harvard ID as identification. Some like Pat White think this is not enough. The question I wish to raise is what identification do you need to have in the U.S.? Neither my grandmother nor grandfather who lived in Providence ever had a driver’s license and state ID’s were never issued, but they did have library cards. So how would a person truly identify themselves and that they live there? Yet, Crowley took his ID and called Harvard Campus.
A police officer can request your presence outside your home or ask you questions, but he does not have authority to force you to identify yourself or come out of your home without probable cause. All you need to do is ask them to leave. If they do not leave, then ask if you are free to go, if the police say no, then you are now being detained and the officer must acknowledge and abide by your civil rights, (Miranda warnings) if he intends to ask you any questions.
The police violated Mr. Gates constitutional rights. The police tapes verbally identify that Sgt. Crowley after he had identified the person as the home owner told dispatch to keep the cars coming.
The police, under the cover of an invalid law, do not have "unfettered discretion to arrest individuals for words or conduct that annoy or offend them." See City of Houston, Tex., supra at 465. Nor can they ignore or unreasonably apply a valid law in order to arrest someone who annoys or offends them. These are clearly established constitutional principles, and no reasonable police officer could have believed to the contrary. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).
If Gates was disturbing the peace, then the charge should have been disturbing the peace, not disorderly conduct.
Crowley should have excused himself from the residence once he identified Mr. Gates. Furthermore, the caller said there were suitcases on the front porch. How many people seeing suitcases on the front porch or inside the house was there without permission during lunch time? How many break and entering occur during lunch in broad daylight with people walking on the side walk? Mr. Crowley should have apologized for the intrusion and left the premise.
The Massachusetts statute on Disorderly conduct excludes political speech from the statute because of the First Amendment. Alleging racial bias, as Gates was doing, and protesting arrest both represent core political speech. Was Gates unwise, rude, yelling and obnoxious, possibly? But did Gates commit a crime? Do you place handcuffs on a person for questioning the police in your home? Gates asked officer Crowley for his name and badge number, but officer Crowley refused according to Professor Gates. Officer Crowley states he told him several times.
Professor Gates then asked officer Crowley for the names and badge numbers of all officers on his property, again it was refused. Gates was arrested for saying something rude towards a police officer on his property. The police sole role in this matter was to determine if a crime had been committed.
I have heard people say the teachable moment was lost when the mother didn’t teach Gates the lesson that every responsible parent teaches their kids and that is if you have an issue with a copy, it is yes sir, no sir and you keep your damn mouth shut.
Police departments across the country support the police department. Lawyers and judges support Professor Gates. Who is right? In this country we have separation of powers; Judicial, executive and legislated branches. In this particular case, courts have routinely ruled against police officers. The district prosecutor dismissed charges shortly after Gates was arrested. Does this indicate the police acted wrongly for if Gates did break the law, why not prosecute him? This case is a good case that highlights the problem people have with police abuse of power? Police have the authority to arrest people, but can only do it if they have probable cause a crime has been committed.
The real question here that needs to be answered is “was a crime committed?”
I listen to the Pat White show often because he presents good topics, but on this topic I take issue. Pat White an Air Force veteran like any other person who served his country took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. Did Pat's oath end when he left the military? He like I served our country, we took the same oath as millions of others and I would imagine he was instructed in what is and is not a lawful order. My oath to my country has not ended. I will continue to question the authority of police, politicians and government agencies. I do this because I have a moral obligation to my children to ensure the Constitution and our rights are not trampled and disappear over time.
We say we do not live in a police state, but why then do people feel you do not have the right to question the police? They believe the only correct answer is “yes sir - no sir” and you never ask for their names and badge numbers. In this country we have constitutional protected rights, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to assembly, the right to redress grievances of the government and freedom of religion. This first amendment right gives every one of us the right and constitutional authority to question the state when they extend by implication a statute beyond its plain and literal meaning given it by our elected representatives and signed into law by the executive branch.
Pat White contends law enforcement does not have to identify them. I checked Massachusetts law on this issue. “Yes. Massachusetts law requires police officers to carry identification cards and present them upon request. Officers are also required to wear a "badge, tag, or label" with their name and/or identifying number. The law is aimed at precisely the situation in question-suspects who feel their rights are being violated.
Massachusetts Officer ID law
Officer Crowley’s report
Healthcare Debate and some Facts
Healthcare in the United States by some respects is in a crisis. When you speak to people, they say it has gotten too expensive. They point to 50 million uninsured and an increase in bankruptcies. I attended a forum at St. Mary’s Wednesday evening and listened to several commenters’. There was a 30 minute video clip that was shown. It was done by a person traveling the globe researching other countries healthcare systems.
The US is ranked 37th in the world in terms of providing healthcare. Two criteria repeatedly indentified were a higher infant mortality and lower life expectancy. Several countries rated higher were identified, but were not quantified as to just how much better they were. I swam competitively years ago swam the Huntington Mile a year ago. My older brother swam as well, but in a different heat. He beat me by less than 0.06 seconds. There was no actual finish line, just an imaginary line of sight. Yes, I was second, but does that really make me that much slower than my brother? When the US is ranked 37th, what exactly is 36th? Were they a year longer in life expectancy or was it a day or fractional day. The US has the highest diet of red meat in the world as well as drinking soda. We also rank towards the bottom in exercise and have a high drug risk. Crime is also a bit higher which will life expectancy. Too me ranked 37th is no reason to investigate healthcare, it is a red herring.
The video looked at England, Germany, Switzerland, Japan and Taiwan. All had different variations of a universal plan. All have one common theme to theme; the government sets the price of all providers. In England they set the salary of every doctor. They work 10 to 14 hours a day and make half what a doctor in the US makes. Emergency care is rated good while elective care is rated poor. They have higher taxes and no provider is allowed to make a profit. Administrators are not allowed to make a profit. This means everyone who works in the healthcare industry works for the government. Waiting lists exist with waits of up to seven months. The cost is to each person is about $50 each just for the general practitioner who has 1,800 patients. Lastly, they tend to attract lonely people more. That’s right because healthcare is free; many people tend to go just to speak with someone.
Japan has 130 million people and spends 8% of GDP on healthcare. They have a longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality rates, but also eat more fish, less meat and is attributed to lifestyle, not healthcare. 80% of all hospitals are private, citizens have are three times more likely to seek healthcare than anywhere in the world. A hospital room with 4 people costs $10 a day while a private room is $80. 50% of all hospitals in Japan are in financial deficit. Doctors bare the brunt of costs with a doctor’s visit reimbursed at 450 yen or $4. Again the Government dictates what every procedure costs. Every provider is paid the same for the same procedure.
Germany uses the Bismarck model. 90% of the country in enrolled in national system with 10% opting for private coverage. Everyone pays a premium based on income. A worker making $60,000 pays $600 a month. The insurance premium rises with income. There is a 15 Euro co-pay. Again insurance companies and providers are not allowed to make a profit. Administrative costs run 6%, doctors make $80,000 a year and work longer hours. Doctors went on strike for higher wages for one day recently
Taiwan began their healthcare system in 1980. They looked at over ten countries and took what they thought was the best of each. No one can opt out and there is one collector. There is no waiting or referrals. They use information technology giving every citizen a smart card. The government keeps tabs on who uses healthcare – if you use it more than 20 times, you get a visit. This program costs 6.2% of GDP, yet it does not cover all the costs. The government instead of raising the taxes has been borrowing money to cover the 1.8% of GDP shortfall. Actual costs are closer to 8% GDP.
Switzerland has 8 million citizens. Medical insurance is required and voted in by a very slim majority. Insurance companies are not allowed to make a profit, no cherry picking of insured and view healthcare as a “Human Right.” All procedures have a standard price. Their system costs 5.5% of GDP. Drug companies make just 1/3 of the profits they did prior to the mandatory healthcare program. The premium is $750 a month and is the second most costly program in the world with the US the most costly. There is significant pressure to raise the premiums to cover costs.
There are three basic concepts to Universal healthcare;
Insurance companies cannot make a profit
All must be insured
Government sets the reimbursement rate providers are paid for each service provided and no provider may make a profit.
The closest system in the United States to any of these countries programs is Medicare.
In the United States, there is a proposal for universal coverage. To pay for this there is an incremental tax based on income. All employers will pay 4.75% of wages into the insurance pool. The bottom 95% of employees will pay 3.3% of wages into the insurance pool. Those making more than $1 million a year will pay 10% into the insurance pool while those in the top 5% income level, but less than $1 million a year will pay 5%.
In simple terms 95% will pay 8.05%, 4.8% will pay 9.75% while 0.2% of workers will pay 14.75%. On top of this will be the existing 2.9% Medicare tax. Based on income alone, the cost to the workers is 10.95% of wages. Again, many will say the employer pays 1.45% of the Medicare tax and they will pay 4.75% for the universal insurance cost as well. However, we all know that the companies will just add this additional cost of doing business onto everything they sell and in the end we as consumers end up paying for it either in lower wages or higher prices.
I did a back of the envelope calculation using 2008 reported $7.2 Trillion in wages. Based on 10.95% healthcare insurance on $7.2 Trillion raises just $788.4 Billion. I am not sure who came up with this proposal but the total cost of healthcare in 2007 was $2.6 Trillion. Unless those proposing this tax rate believe current healthcare providers will take a 70% cut in wages, this is not going to work. In addition, 10.95% of wages is not the same thing as 10.95% of GDP. This is comparable to 6% GDP.
What I am more interested in is trend and root cause, not overall dollar cost per capita. I have looked at data for different age groups
· All Ages
· Under age 65
· 0-18
· 19-64
· 19-44
· 45-54
· 55-64
· Age 65 and older
· 65-74
· 75-84
· 85 and older
I have looked at individual categories
· Hospital
· Physician & Clinical Services
· Prescription Drugs
· Nursing Home
· Dental Care
· Other Professional
· Other Personal Health Care
· Home Health Care
· Nondurables
· Durables
Is there any type of trend over time, yes? It is a fact that both Medicare and Medicaid shift costs to all other payees regardless of if they are covered by employer insurance, individual insurance or uninsured. It is also a fact that the baby boom or what I refer to as the Baby Bust began in 1963. There was also an explosion in technology beginning after the inception of Medicare. We have three large causes to our increase in healthcare costs and our government has not been totally honest with the American People.
1. The advent of Medicare and Medicaid has funded the technology boom we have in healthcare. It provided dedicated “customers.” This is similar to mandating the use of ethanol in gasoline. It creates a demand, regardless of efficiency, cost effectivness or need. In the case of Medicare, it provided funds to those who could come up with a better diagnostic, test, procedure, drug and treatment.
2. The baby bust or the end of the baby boom lowered the population growth rate to nearly zero. This in affect stopped the dilution of the population age. A birth rate that increased population artificially lowered the over all age of the population. A birth rate that yields a zero population growth causes the average age of the population to increase and over a period of about 85 years stabilizes. The change in the population age after this point in time is caused by increased in life expectancy only.
3. It Is a fact the younger you are, the lower the healthcare costs. For those age 0 to 44, the increase in healthcare costs has been about 6.8% a year over 12 years. For those 45 to 54 the increase has been 10.2%. As one ages the cost per year increases dramatically.
| Personal Health Care Expenditures (billions) |
| Amount | Average Annual Growth |
| 1987 | 1996 | 1987 | 1996 | 1987 | 1996 |
| All Ages | $443.4 | $911.2 | $1,065.0 | 8.30% | 5.30% | 7.60% |
| Under age 65 | $285.7 | $570.0 | $678.4 | 8.00% | 6.00% | 7.50% |
| 0-18 | $57.9 | $115.2 | $131.0 | 7.90% | 4.40% | 7.00% |
| 19-64 | $227.8 | $454.9 | $547.4 | 8.00% | 6.40% | 7.60% |
| 19-44 | $127.0 | $241.5 | $278.4 | 7.40% | 4.90% | 6.80% |
| 45-54 | $42.3 | $105.8 | $135.8 | 10.70% | 8.70% | 10.20% |
| 55-64 | $58.5 | $107.5 | $133.2 | 7.00% | 7.40% | 7.10% |
| Age 65 and older | $157.7 | $341.1 | $386.5 | 9.00% | 4.30% | 7.80% |
| 65-74 | $70.1 | $135.8 | $149.5 | 7.60% | 3.30% | 6.50% |
| 75-84 | $56.1 | $128.9 | $148.4 | 9.70% | 4.80% | 8.40% |
| 85 and older | $31.5 | $76.4 | $88.6 | 10.30% | 5.10% | 9.00% |
| Per Capita Personal Health Care Expenditures (dollars) |
| Amount | Average Annual Growth |
| 1987 | 1996 | 1999 | 1987-96 | 1996-99 | 1987-99 |
| All Ages | $1,799.0 | $3,373.0 | $3,834.0 | 7.20% | 4.40% | 6.50% |
| Under age 65 | $1,319.0 | $2,416.0 | $2,793.0 | 7.00% | 4.90% | 6.50% |
| 0-18 | $809.0 | $1,480.0 | $1,646.0 | 6.90% | 3.60% | 6.10% |
| 19-64 | $1,570.0 | $2,878.0 | $3,352.0 | 7.00% | 5.20% | 6.50% |
| 19-44 | $1,278.0 | $2,339.0 | $2,706.0 | 7.00% | 5.00% | 6.50% |
| 45-54 | $1,790.0 | $3,200.0 | $3,713.0 | 6.70% | 5.10% | 6.30% |
| 55-64 | $2,650.0 | $4,944.0 | $5,590.0 | 7.20% | 4.20% | 6.40% |
| Age 65 and older | $5,288.0 | $9,958.0 | $11,089.0 | 7.30% | 3.70% | 6.40% |
| 65-74 | $4,021.0 | $7,235.0 | $8,167.0 | 6.70% | 4.10% | 6.10% |
| 75-84 | $5,964.0 | $11,265.0 | $12,244.0 | 7.30% | 2.80% | 6.20% |
| 85 and older | $10,548.0 | $18,921.0 | $20,001.0 | 6.70% | 1.90% | 5.50% |
4. Looking at two different tables, one of overall expenditures and one dealing with per capita costs, one would think the growth in cost of per capita would match that of expenditures, but it does not. The cost per capita has held relatively steady over 12 years at 6.5% or less, yet the expenditure growth is 50% greater. The reason is the compounding affect of inflation, aging and cost shifting.
5. Cost shifting can be indentified easily by comparing the two tables. The growth in expenditures and per capita for those under age 45 correspond well. However, when you look at the growth in expenditure and per capita for those age 65 and over, they do not. They differ greatly. When you look at shear numbers and weighted averages, you find that the reimbursement rate of Medicare and Medicaid in the range of 60 to 70% will cause the other age groups to see a cost shift of about 20%. Those over age 65 expend 37% of total healthcare dollars, yet represent just 13% of the population. This is a 3:1 leveraging affect.
Historical National Health Expenditure Data
Ethanol, when will we learn?
Ethanol is being squeezed. After years of increased corn acreage, this year’s acreage is reduced, why? It may come as a shock to many, but corn requires rotation. Too many years of corn, ravages the soil. It is time for the soil to take a rest and grow something else. It also does not help that other crops have risen in price (soy beans) and the cost analysis does not support growing corn.
How did ethanol affect the economy? It created a lot of jobs in construction. Hundreds of ethanol plants were built. It boosted the price of corn from $2 to over $7 a bushel. The price is around $4.50 and most likely will head higher. Do to the wet spring farmers have not planted as much of their crop yet compared to last year.
The competitiveness of ethanol is dependant the price of corn, oil and other plants. The demand for corn is still high. Nearly 1/3 of all corn grown is used in ethanol production. Meat prices are still about 25 to 30% higher than normal. Prior to ethanol, 90% of all corn was used for feed. If ethanol were to go away, the price of meat would drop dramatically.
The price of oil is rising, but is still less than half of what it was last summer. For ethanol to be competitive, the price difference between gasoline and ethanol needs to be more than the tax credit given ethanol, or 45 cents. The only way for ethanol to be competitive is for oil to rise and corn prices remain constant. This is nearly impossible when ethanol capacity is over 14 billion gallons. For plants to be profitable, they need to run at design capacity. To run at design capacity they need a lot more corn. Shifting corn to ethanol results in demand outstripping production leading to higher corn prices for all users such as beef, pork and chicken producers and ethanol plants, corn syrup used is soda. This leads to higher inflation.
Ethanol producers are attempting to create demand for their product through government legislation on the national level. They want to raise the ethanol content in gasoline to 15% from 10%. This could effectively double the demand by law, not consumers. The result would be devastating to grocery prices. I would imagine PETA would welcome this as American Families would be able to afford less meat.
Obama has earmarked $787 million under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for advanced biofuels research and development (biorefineries). Our own U.S.D.A. is providing $1 billion as well. Our tax dollars being used to compete against us for our food to feed our families. Does not make sense.
Ethanol is advertised as being cleaner burning than gasoline. Some are attempting to asses ethanol production with a carbon type tax. This would be for the lower corn exports to countries that now use it to cut down trees to grow their own food. In all the debate about cleaner energy, there is no talk about the energy used to make the corn, transport the corn, distill the corn or to transport the ethanol. In Indiana 85% of our electricity comes from burning coal. The CO2 from burning coal is many times that of gasoline. The diesel used in farm operations is also dirtier than gasoline. Many will say that natural gas is used to produce ethanol, but then that creates an artificial demand for natural gas, increasing price resulting in a shift from natural gas to coal.
The capital cost of building an Ethanol plant is between $0.80 and $1.50 per gallon of ethanol. With corn at $4.50 a bushel, gasoline at $2.29 it would be darn near impossible to sell ethanol at a profit. This has led many to go bankrupt. These plants were sold to other at a steep discount. Those who bought the bankrupt plants have a new cost basis as low as $0.40. These costs are the private investment costs and do not include the public cost such as roads, tax abatements, direct state and federal tax incentives for construction.
A study commissioned by the Renewable Fuels Association commissioned from John Urbanchuk of LECG LLC found ethanol displaced 321 million barrels of imported crude-oil, and generated $21 billion in revenues. Does this sound good? How much corn was not exported? How much federal revenues were paid directly to ethanol producers for ethanol? The tax credits cost the US taxpayer over $3 Billion and the lost corn export was over $29 Billion. The numbers show that Ethanol is an economically bad deal. It may have reduced the importation of oil, but it eliminated the export of corn.
You would think that ethanol producers have learned their lesson. However, there are nearly 20 plants under construction with over 125 plants planned. Ethanol producers are betting they can convince our elected representatives to increase the national ethanol content in gasoline from 10% to 15%. As Americans need to stop this! We need to just say no to Ethanol from agricultural products. We need to stop all tax subsidies for ethanol production and allow ethanol producers to compete in the open market on their own.
Social Security - Trust fund empty by 2037
Social Security reported that the SS-OASI trust fund will be depleted in 2037. What they do not tell you is that a 1984 statute passed by congress to keep Social Security from gobbling up the general budget prohibits any general revenue taxes from being used to pay Social Security benefits. Another part of this legislation specifies that the trust fund cannot be drawn down below 20% of any given years expenses. This mean if SS-OASI’s expenses in 2037 were $2 Trillion, the trust fund minimum must be $200 Billion.
When this happens the trustees are required to promptly submit a report to Congress identifying the necessary changes to maintain the SS-OASI trust fund at a minimum of 20% of projected yearly expenses. In the absence of no changes, across the board cuts take place. The first cut I see is the elimination of COLA sometime in 2032 to 2033 followed by across the board cuts in social security benefits. The cuts will be small at first about 3% a year. By 2045 the initial benefit will be 20% of promised benefits. By 2055 the initial benefit will be 28% of promised benefits. Keep in mind that COLA will have been eliminated some time prior to this.
How many know that when the CPI is less than I think 1%, that COLA’s cease for three years? The CPI for this year could be negative. The expectation is that for the next three years, there will be no COLA for Social Security.
Since the trustees have projected the SS-OASI trust fund balanced to be zero sometime in 2037, where is this prompt report to congress identifying the changes needed?
Senator Lugar, Ethanol and 5th grade math.
Dick Lugar supports Ethanol. In Saturday’s Journal Gazette he is quoted as saying that 9.2 billion gallons of Ethanol last year prevented the outflow of $32 Billion from the US. Ethanol saved us 325 million barrels of imported oil. Is this really true?
Let us kick some numbers around. 9.2 billion gallons of ethanol saved 25 million barrels of oil. This means Ethanol equated to gasoline is 28.3 gallons of gas out of every barrel. The rest of the oil is too thick and is used for other products. The average price of these 325 million barrels was $98.46. The price of corn was just over $6.30 a bushel. The ethanol process gets just over 2 gallons of ethanol from a bushel of corn. This means that 9.2 Billion gallons consumed 4.6 Billion bushels of corn. At $6.30 per bushel, the US lost $29 billion in agricultural exports. The Taxpayer also subsidized 51 cents a gallon for ethanol production costing the taxpayer $4.692 Billion. On top of this the American family saw their grocery bill sore in 2008 due to artificial stimulation of corn, causing a shift from wheat, beans and other agricultural crops to corn.
Senator Lugar says Ethanol prevented $32 Billion from leaving the US, but it increased the deficit by $4.692 billion which was funded by foreign investors (outflow) and prevented $29 billion in exported corn. For a net outflow of $33.692 Billion. I think Senator Lugar needs to go back to school and study 5th grade math again. Many wonder why the last budget surplus was in 1957, well this type of Senatorial math may provide the answer.
Fire Hydrants creating a fire under City Council Seats
The Fort Wayne City Council is now investigating the how the fire hydrant funding is done. Currently it is paid for out of property taxes. Aboite is not on city water and pays Aqua Source who maintains the fire hydrants. Aboite residents are crying paying maintenance of fire hydrants that do not benefit them. The concept is to place it on the water bill as a service fee.
Taxes hide the cost of too many costs. Placing it on the water bill identifies it every month. It also eliminates any future problem for annexations. As soon as you get city water, you pay for up keep of the fire hydrants. This is a great case for fees versus taxes.
Sheriff’s Merit Board votes to screw taxpayers
The sheriff’s department has requested the County Council approve $366,000 for pension increases. Apparently a retired sheriff has filed suit alleging he is entitled to a higher retirement benefit because Allen County pays less than other counties. This lump sum would pay RETROACTIVELY BACK TO 1995 and add a few hundred dollars a month to retirees. First question, are all counties required to pay the same pension? Second question, does the state set the sheriff’s department pensions for employees?
How many would like to bring suit against their employers when the find out their pensions are not as good as others? This sounds like the “equivalent” pay for different occupations where the identify positions that should be paid the same, even though they do totally different tasks, demand for their skills may be totally different, yet they are perceived to be as equally important.
If they want to pay higher pensions, then they need to increase because of legislation. Retroactive means those who received the benefit of the sheriff's department did not pay for their benefits, but left it for a later generation to pay for. Allen County Council needs to vote this down.
Healthcare
I saw today that Obama wants to tackle healthcare again. The solution to our budget is to reduce healthcare spending. Does this mean that doctors will be reimbursed less shifting the cost to everyone else (we already pay the Medicare tax)? Maybe they are going to cut benefits. We all loved it when we were young playing a game when someone decides to change the rules to benefit them. Medicare started in 1965 and 44 years later after numerous fixes still needs a transplant.
It was also reported that the Fed’s are going after companies defrauding the taxpayer of $60 Billion in Medicare payments a year. Obama wants to cut $17 billion from all departments with half coming from defense. $60 Billion from Medicare is a huge chunk of the Medicare budget each year. I think we need to bring back public punishments.
Louisiana Loves the Bailout for Katrian and more.
This morning on Good Morning America they were interviewing the Governor or maybe it was a mayor in Louisiana. He was saying the state was not accepting some of the bailout money for unemployment. Had the state agreed to the unemployment help, the state would have to change the rules on who could receive benefits. Currently his state denies benefits to those who are not willing to work. The money would have helped pay these costs for three years, but at the end the state would be obligated.
They went on to speak about how well the economy was doing. Lots of construction paid for by Federal and State money. Too bad they did not replace Federal and State with Taxpayers. He stated it was stimulating the economy. What happens when the money needs to be paid back? Oh, they do not plan to pay it back, just continue to roll it over and let future generations forever pay interest on the debt that benefited someone else. I call this artificially stimulating the economy beyond what the economy could do on its own. There is a price, but no one seems to want to recognize this.
Few to no moms read my blog
Well I wrote on what I considered to be a controversial subject two days ago on the value of the mom. I guess I know who my readers are, thanks guys.
Few to no moms read my blog
Well I wrote on what I considered to be a controversial subject two days ago on the value of the mom. I guess I know who my readers are, thanks guys.
IRS - Irrational Screwballs Survive
Have you ever had a problem with the IRS? If not consider yourself fortunate. I receive a notice from the IRS each tax year around May or June saying they have changed my tax return. The notice states if I disagree with the change, to call them or write them within 60 days. I have found calling them does little good and there is no record of the communication. Therefore, I write and send is United States Post Office Certified Return Receipt.
It has never failed, but within 30 days they send a notice they have not heard from me. The “within 60 days” must really be within 30 days, but they have not fixed the form letter. I write again sending a copy of the United States Post Office Certified Return Receipt and a copy of the first reply again by United States Post Office Certified Return Receipt.
Then around August I get a third notice again stating I have not responded. I write again sending a copy of the United States Post Office Certified Return Receipt and a copy of the first reply again by United States Post Office Certified Return Receipt.
Then the IRS goes silent. You have no idea what they are doing. Six months go by and you send them an inquiry into your first response. Within a month I receive a notice stating that because of the huge number of inquires, they have not completed their investigation and that I will hear from them in 30 days. It has now been seven years and I have communicated more than 40 times concerning it and they still state I have not responded.
I called the IRS and finally was told the following. The IRS does not keep a copy of the correspondence I send the IRS. If the IRS kept a copy of all correspondences, they would run out of room. If this was not so serious, it would be comical.
In 2005 the IRS made a mistake and went through all the administrative procedures like a broken clock. I do not think they intended to go that far, but they did and it left me no alternative than to take them to court. Within months of filing the IRS tried to get the case dismissed. No longer was the IRS in control of documents, but the Court was. The court was great; they work like a fine clock with deadlines. The IRS filed a motion to dismiss the case because they had found they had used the wrong procedure and had abated any increase in taxes. I tried to keep the case alive, but with no taxes owed, the Court dismissed the case.
The IRS then used what they thought was the correct procedure to access an increase in taxes and we ended back in court. I submitted my pretrial memorandum, legal basis and facts to the Court. On February 11, 2008 in Indianapolis I was ready for bear. I was ready to try my case without an attorney. The judge called the docket, I stepped forward and was prepared, right was right. The first thing out of the IRS’s mouth is that “we conceded.” I was not going to get to present my case, show how the IRS has harassed a US Citizen or get closure. The IRS was pleading a Writ of Mandamus, basically telling the court it did not have authority to order the IRS to do something the IRS was required to do by statute, but was not doing. To this day, I just laugh and cry over this contradiction of words. The IRS is required by statute passed by our elected representatives to do something and they tell the court it does not have authority to order the IRS to comply with law.
The IRS did not want a record of this case for others to use. It was an open and shut case. The IRS was clearly wrong. There was no doubt. The judge asked me if I understood what the IRS was doing and I replied yes. I then asked the judge if I could make a statement for the record. He looked at me and said, yes, I would like to hear it. In ten minutes I presented the facts, legal basis and made the IRS look pretty silly. The judge turned to the IRS and said “I will write an order if I can or letter of opinion.”
You would think that my problems with the IRS would be over. They are starting all over for the same reason. This time I won’t be in Tax Court, but the Federal Court System that does have jurisdiction. The IRS is out of control.
What are stay-at-home moms worth?
Today it was reported that stay-at-home mom’s are worth $100,000 a year for the tasks they perform. The tasks include keeping track of finances, grocery shopping, taking care of the house, driving kids to activities and more. I would like to say that mom’s are great, but who chose to be a mom? Ok, this may have come across as chauvinistic, but come on, $100,000? Who could afford to pay this? Is not the position worth only what the market can pay?
Let’s look at the task of keeping track of the finances. Does this mean I get to blame the mom for the market drop or the in value in my investments? Maybe mom should be working outside the home in the finance world and I stay at home? If mom could make $100,000, I would stay at home and do everything she does.
Let’s take a look at grocery shopping. Oh wait; I already do all the grocery shopping. It takes me less than 2 hours a week. What is my time worth, $50 an hour would be $100 a week and $5,200 a year. But if it was worth $50 an hour, I am sure I could pay some teenager $10 an hour to do my grocery shopping so I could pocket that $40 an hour and keep $4,160 a year. Oh, wait, I this was my time off and I have no billable hours at $50, so it would actually cost me $1,040 to have someone shop for me, or I could save $1,040 by doing the shopping myself.
Taking care of the house could be done by hiring a maid at $15 an hour. I know co-workers who have a person come in three times a week to clean up. They say they are there two hours, three days a week at a cost of $90 a week or $4,680 max a year.
As for being the chauffer taking kids to activities, how much is this worth. A taxi does the same thing and runs about 50 to 75 cents a mile (I am only guessing, it has been a long time since I took a taxi). How far does mom drive a day chauffeuring kids? At 40 miles, you have too many kids and activities, but that comes out to less than $40 a day, it comes to $14,600.
Maybe it is the cooking that is so costly. I eat a lot of leftovers so I just do not see cooking as being that compensatable. The whole purpose of doing something yourself over hiring someone to do it, is you can do it cheaper and save money or you cannot afford to have someone do it.
I agree that mom’s do a lot, but what is dads worth? Dads generally fix things around the house; this had lead to the Honey-Do-List. Dad’s take care of the cars, the lawn and do the heavy lifting. If dads owe moms $100,000 a year then what do moms owe dads? You know what; it comes down to a team effort. Pitching in doing what each is best at and using their skills to get the job done.
Whoever comes up with trash like what are moms worth, do nothing. If being a mom is a chore, then maybe mom should not be a mom to begin with.
Air Force Scares The People
Air Force One made a flight over New York yesterday. In fact the flight was fairly low. It was done as a photo opportunity with two fighter jets in tow. The people of Manhattan who saw this, decided to leave the buildings thinking of 911. How concerned would you be if you saw this?
Is this a case of government gone amok? When does a federal agency have the right to violate regulations or law? I tend to look for this type of thing and maybe that is why I question the government when they do something that is not right. Some say this is going off the deep end, but where do you draw the line? If no one ever questions the government, then the line is always moving, taking more of our rights.
Was this bad judgment, yes? Will those who made the bad judgment face any type of penalty, no?
Duke Energy: Clean Coal Technology
Duke Energy’s CEO was interviewed on 60 minutes Sunday Night. Duke operates over 25 coal fired plants. The CEO stated Duke has not invested one cent in clean coal technology. The one plant that supposedly is operating would cost over $4 billion to implement the clean coal technology per coal fired plant. I believe there are over 400 coal fired plants in the US. The CEO wants to partner with the Federal Government (US taxpayer) in implementing Clean Coal technology. The company envisions keeping coal and transforming the plants to clean coal by 2050. Duke is breaking ground on two coal fired plants now.
Instead of spending trillions on clean coal technology and getting no value added in terms of cost from the electricity, I say let’s spend the $trillions on wind power which is cheaper than dirty coal now. How inefficient does wind power have to be to be more costly than clean coal?
Duke CEO brought up Yucca Mountain and the thirty years to get it to where it is today only to have Obama shut its door. Nuclear power is doable, but there is no place to store the wasted which means it is dead in the water. Even if there were storage sites available, it is twice the cost of wind power. Clean Coal Technology will double the cost of building a coal fired plant. Stop subsidizing coal and let the best energy source win!
Wind Power
Wind power made the news recently. As many who know me, know that I am a big proponent of wind power. Indiana is the fastest growing state in wind power. But this is because Indiana has little to begin with. By the end of 2009, Indiana could have 800 megawatts produced from wind power. This is about half the capacity of a nuclear power plant and about what a coal fired plant’s capacity.
Clean coal received $3.8 Billion from the stimulus bill. This is throwing $3.8 billion down the tubes. The feasibility prototype plant was canceled because the cost exceeded $2 billion and they still had no idea how to accomplish the task. You see, clean coal is a theory only. There is no working plant yet. The time line for the original plant was ten years. In ten years we could have great than 35% if not more of our electrical needs coming from wind. Wind power is known and proven technology and there is no need for billions of development costs.
Now if we can only stop the Governor from subsidizing coal we will begin to stop using a dirty 18th century conversion process to make electricity.
New Stadium
The New Baseball Stadium had very good attendance opening night, but by the third game it had dropped to less than half that of opening night. Many say the stadium looks great. I am sure it does. It cost $35 million. The stadium at the coliseum was paid for, had great parking, good access and held nearly as many people as the new one.
Some are complaining about parking in that some walked twelve blocks. Yes this is a problem. As people walk further away, you end up with congestion at cross walks making left and right turns difficult backing up cars. I am sure this will improve slightly, but being down town, it is limited to the speed limit and stop lights further away.
People who know me would call me conservative. I drive cars until they are no longer useful. That being said, the old stadium was still very much useful. Will the new stadium attract enough business to pay for itself? I do not think so for the basic reason that the city at most could only get 7% in sales tax collections and it has to share this with the state. To collect enough sales tax revenues to pay $35 million is a lot of sales, $500 million. This will not happen in one year so add in interest and the amount of sales you need is over $1 Billion.
The new stadium I hear now employs 200 people. This helps to cover the couple of hundred who lost their jobs when the old stadium closed and the businesses that closed to make room for the new stadium. Does anyone have a tally on the net jobs from this project?
I certainly hope this new stadium will make money, but I am not holding my breath. How many things has the city invested in that actually made money?
SWAC residents vote to increase their tax
SWAC residents voted to pay more in taxes. Less than 25% of those who could vote did. The number of employees in SWAC number over 1500. Many of them have spouses who would vote as well. How many workers actually get to vote where you work when it comes to keeping your job or raising your company’s revenues?
