I am sure that the White House Public Relations experts were in conference for hours (maybe more) trying to figure out how to put a positive spin when President Obama entered the racial foray of his friend, Dr. Henry Louis Gates Jr., when he spoke on national television stating that the police “acted stupidly.”
The first point that I do want to make is that no matter who the person is, if they have provided satisfactory evidence that they are in their own home, then the police should have backed off right then and there.
No question.
That said, I do not think that it is the President’s place to say what he did on camera…to the nation…in the way that he said it.
There was backlash.
Many newscasters commented negatively about President Obama’s choice of words.
And, of course, when there is negative press, WH PR has to get into high gear to counter the effect.
The solution: invite the two parties to the White House…for a beer.
A beer.
Now, I do like the fact that, here in the USA, we do not place our elected officials up on too-high a pedestal. After all, many of them have come from the rank and file of good ole Main Street USA.
But I cringe when I start hearing news reports about President Obama inviting people over for a beer.
To this Main Streeter it just seems a bit much.
Is that supposed to make me like the President more?
If so, sorry it did not work.
Why? I think he erred in getting involved in the way that he did in the first place. And a staged media event did not change my mind.
Even more surprising, I guess, is the fact that, when all was said and done the parties came away agreeing to disagree.
Wow.
Mind-blowing.
What a triumph!
Not.
I read reports about how Obama accomplished this and that with the meeting and I am not sure that is the case.
While there are, admittedly, those who do have (and exhibit) racial bias in the USA, the open, on-camera, play that was performed at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (photo-op, folks!) probably did not sway those individuals towards being more racially tolerant, let alone accept someone who is not of their color as one of their own.
Do people honestly think that a racially prejudiced person was swayed by this act of two blacks and two whites having a beer?
I think not. Perhaps it even made it worse with those folks.
For me, I would rather not have had some media spin (more than likely generated by WH PR) with the four participants and their sharing a beer.
It just did not seem … right, to me.
Actions always speak louder than words, or staged PR events (especially ones specifically designed to handle damage control).
Let us see President Obama move forward in a 100% unilateral direction for the Nation, with no prejudice towards race, religion, etc.
THAT is what may change the mind of haters.
Over For Now,
Main Street One
Friday, July 31, 2009
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
The preacher said all my sins is warshed away, including that Piggly Wiggly I knocked over in Yazoo.
In case you missed this great video: "Mammas, Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to Be Pastors."
Monday, July 27, 2009
It's Not What You Know . . .
Democratic Senators Kent Conrad and Chris Dodd are back under fire for their Countrywide real estate loans.
According to AP both senators deny any wrongdoing, saying that they had no idea that they were receiving preferential treatment from the lender.
Countrywide's Robert Feinberg, however, disagrees.
Feinberg claims both senators were aware of their special treatment, such as being charged less points for the loans, claiming two houses as primary residences at the same time (which is illegal), along with other spiff.
As a note, if the senators did not see that they were receiving these benefits it makes me wonder if they read any part of their loan and disclosure documents and, if not, that begs they question of, well, you get the picture.
Actually, AP says that Dodd requested Countrywide documents in 2008 "to learn details of his mortgages." Wouldn’t Senator Dodd have received copies of those documents at the close of escrow. Need more information on that one.
But, we must remember that here in America people are innocent until proven guilty.
Though, from what has been presented thus far it is not looking real good for the senators.
Conrad, chair of the Senate Budget Committee, and Dodd, chair of the Banking Committee could face serious consequences.
Of course, if found guilty, they would probably still receive their healthy government (Main Street USA-sponsored) pension, while the typical person on the street is still struggling to stay afloat financially, losing more jobs, falling behind on the mortgage payments, getting hit by credit card companies with outrageous interest rates and/or lowered credit limits, etc., etc., etc.
Talk about a double or triple standard.
Over For Now,
Main Street One
According to AP both senators deny any wrongdoing, saying that they had no idea that they were receiving preferential treatment from the lender.
Countrywide's Robert Feinberg, however, disagrees.
Feinberg claims both senators were aware of their special treatment, such as being charged less points for the loans, claiming two houses as primary residences at the same time (which is illegal), along with other spiff.
As a note, if the senators did not see that they were receiving these benefits it makes me wonder if they read any part of their loan and disclosure documents and, if not, that begs they question of, well, you get the picture.
Actually, AP says that Dodd requested Countrywide documents in 2008 "to learn details of his mortgages." Wouldn’t Senator Dodd have received copies of those documents at the close of escrow. Need more information on that one.
But, we must remember that here in America people are innocent until proven guilty.
Though, from what has been presented thus far it is not looking real good for the senators.
Conrad, chair of the Senate Budget Committee, and Dodd, chair of the Banking Committee could face serious consequences.
Of course, if found guilty, they would probably still receive their healthy government (Main Street USA-sponsored) pension, while the typical person on the street is still struggling to stay afloat financially, losing more jobs, falling behind on the mortgage payments, getting hit by credit card companies with outrageous interest rates and/or lowered credit limits, etc., etc., etc.
Talk about a double or triple standard.
Over For Now,
Main Street One
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Nobody takes a picture of something they want to forget.
Friday, July 24, 2009
New Jersey: Another Reminder
With the recent arrest of 44 people, including elected officials and even rabbis, added to more than 130 other New Jersey public officials who have either been convicted of, or plead guilty to, a variety of corruption charges in the new millennium, that state showcases the ever-growing problem Main Street USA faces with white collar crime, particularly in the political arena.
We the people elect those who are supposed to be our voice, represent us and look out for us, but with the decay of our political system that is occurring through persons of obvious questionable character where do we turn to find people who possess the moral character and have ethical values that we can trust?
Unfortunately, it appears more and more that the saying “Everyone has their price” is true.
There have been those convicted of accepting bribes in office, generally to reward, through taxpayer money, people or companies giving them the money. Others are paid to turn their backs. And on and on and on.
For these characters it appears that greed is the motivating factor, although there is probably the unquenchable want or need of power that also plays a part.
After Governor Sanford confessed to adultery (which I still contend is a much lesser charge than the dereliction of duty he exhibited by flying off to South America where no one could find him or even knew where he was) I happened to read an article about politicians and how they may end up in this way.
In a nutshell, it is claimed to be ego.
Elected officials generally possess such a huge ego that they need gratification at the highest levels. And, some of them choose sexual trysts as an outlet.
Greed. Power. Ego.
There is, seemingly, no end to the types of corruption and unethical behavior that humans can become involved.
So I ask again, how do we know that the ones we vote for will not end up in this way?
Probably there is no sure way to tell.
But one thing is sure.
The penalties for those public servants who decide to go down that path need to be much more gruesome and which will, hopefully, send a message to all others to 1) cease and desist what you are doing before you are caught and turn state’s evidence over to accept a lesser penalty and 2) do not even think of partaking in anything remotely shady or you will find yourself behind bars with no pension, no safety net, no leniency.
Over For Now,
Main Street One
We the people elect those who are supposed to be our voice, represent us and look out for us, but with the decay of our political system that is occurring through persons of obvious questionable character where do we turn to find people who possess the moral character and have ethical values that we can trust?
Unfortunately, it appears more and more that the saying “Everyone has their price” is true.
There have been those convicted of accepting bribes in office, generally to reward, through taxpayer money, people or companies giving them the money. Others are paid to turn their backs. And on and on and on.
For these characters it appears that greed is the motivating factor, although there is probably the unquenchable want or need of power that also plays a part.
After Governor Sanford confessed to adultery (which I still contend is a much lesser charge than the dereliction of duty he exhibited by flying off to South America where no one could find him or even knew where he was) I happened to read an article about politicians and how they may end up in this way.
In a nutshell, it is claimed to be ego.
Elected officials generally possess such a huge ego that they need gratification at the highest levels. And, some of them choose sexual trysts as an outlet.
Greed. Power. Ego.
There is, seemingly, no end to the types of corruption and unethical behavior that humans can become involved.
So I ask again, how do we know that the ones we vote for will not end up in this way?
Probably there is no sure way to tell.
But one thing is sure.
The penalties for those public servants who decide to go down that path need to be much more gruesome and which will, hopefully, send a message to all others to 1) cease and desist what you are doing before you are caught and turn state’s evidence over to accept a lesser penalty and 2) do not even think of partaking in anything remotely shady or you will find yourself behind bars with no pension, no safety net, no leniency.
Over For Now,
Main Street One
Have you ever seen a grown man naked?
Are all "Rated R" movies created equal?To me there can be a world of difference at times and some PG-13 movies are more troublesome than some Rated R.
Talking about television and movies, John Piper share's a great insight.
"I have a high tolerance for violence, high tolerance for bad language, and zero tolerance for nudity. There is a reason for these differences. The violence is make-believe. They don’t really mean those bad words. But that lady is really naked, and I am really watching."
(full article; cf. Warning: This Bible passage is Rated R by Robert Hall)
Thursday, July 23, 2009
The Economy And Healthcare
I am not quite sure why passing and implementing a one trillion dollar-plus healthcare reform package is necessary for our nation's economic recovery as healthcare was NOT what brought the economy down.
Healthcare, as pointed out by President Obama, is 17.6% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Everything I examine regarding the GDP and what makes up the GDP combine healthcare and social assistance, so that statement is a little misleading – and incorrect.
Let us take a glimpse of the GDP.
The US Department of Labor pegged the US GPD just under $14.2 Trillion for 2008.
In reviewing the DOL spreadsheet the sector that makes up the largest percentage of GDP is real estate (including sales, rental, leasing) at $1.783 Trillion, just over 12.5%. Running a close second is, you guessed it, government at $1.741 Trillion, which would qualify for the definition of "big government," the kind Patrick Henry warned us about. Manufacturing comes in third place at $1.638 Trillion.
The figure for healthcare and social assistance is just over one trillion dollars, making it about 7% of GDP (not 17.6%), coming is just behind Professional and Technical Services and Finance and Insurance.
Perhaps President Obama's advisors lumped some of the insurance sector into their healthcare equation to come up with 17.6%, but even if you added ALL finance and insurance to healthcare and social assistance it still falls short of that 17.6% figure.
That 17.6% needs to be clarified as right now it appears to be extremely misleading to Main Street USA. And, as many people know, you can make statistics say anything you want if you work at it hard enough.
Also, as most people are aware, debt is not calculated (or even considered) in the GDP figure and, as government spending and indebtedness is very much part of this healthcare reform, adding potentially hundreds of billions annually would definitely increase the GDP and debt concurrently.
But that makes it an extreme tradeoff for, at this point, with every dollar of government healthcare expense that gets counted in the GDP more than likely another dollar would be added to the national debt.
If, as the president says, "the stars truly are aligned" to pass healthcare reform this year, why is there such tremendous debate on the plan? To me, when the stars are aligned that means everything is picture perfect and it is smooth sailing.
This monstrous financial albatross being presented, containing earmarks and pork rind, is not what Main Street USA needs at present.
And President Obama keeps pointing out that people will support it when they compare it with the "cost of doing nothing."
I, for one, am not emphatically stating that we should do absolutely nothing.
I am saying that it needs to be reasonable.
One trillion dollars (of debt) is NOT a reasonable cost. And that figure only works if President Obama’s goals are met, which, right now, are anything but aligned with reality. The proposal needs to be based on sound fiscal budgeting and expectations, not just goals that would be nice to meet.
Why cannot the House and Senate propose something straightforward with no excess baggage that produces a product at a reasonable cost?
Because politics is all about scratching backs.
This senator needs a few billion the next couple of years and he will support the bill. Add that in and claim it will reduce obesity. And that senator needs money so add something for his parks and recreation departments to further physical education. And on and on.
As I write this I wonder which is worse; the special interest and lobbying groups that spend billions of dollars annually to influence legislation and spending or the special interests of our own elected officials with their unquenchable need for pork (all of which, of course, is for the good of their constituents).
Over For Now,
Main Street One
Healthcare, as pointed out by President Obama, is 17.6% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Everything I examine regarding the GDP and what makes up the GDP combine healthcare and social assistance, so that statement is a little misleading – and incorrect.
Let us take a glimpse of the GDP.
The US Department of Labor pegged the US GPD just under $14.2 Trillion for 2008.
In reviewing the DOL spreadsheet the sector that makes up the largest percentage of GDP is real estate (including sales, rental, leasing) at $1.783 Trillion, just over 12.5%. Running a close second is, you guessed it, government at $1.741 Trillion, which would qualify for the definition of "big government," the kind Patrick Henry warned us about. Manufacturing comes in third place at $1.638 Trillion.
The figure for healthcare and social assistance is just over one trillion dollars, making it about 7% of GDP (not 17.6%), coming is just behind Professional and Technical Services and Finance and Insurance.
Perhaps President Obama's advisors lumped some of the insurance sector into their healthcare equation to come up with 17.6%, but even if you added ALL finance and insurance to healthcare and social assistance it still falls short of that 17.6% figure.
That 17.6% needs to be clarified as right now it appears to be extremely misleading to Main Street USA. And, as many people know, you can make statistics say anything you want if you work at it hard enough.
Also, as most people are aware, debt is not calculated (or even considered) in the GDP figure and, as government spending and indebtedness is very much part of this healthcare reform, adding potentially hundreds of billions annually would definitely increase the GDP and debt concurrently.
But that makes it an extreme tradeoff for, at this point, with every dollar of government healthcare expense that gets counted in the GDP more than likely another dollar would be added to the national debt.
If, as the president says, "the stars truly are aligned" to pass healthcare reform this year, why is there such tremendous debate on the plan? To me, when the stars are aligned that means everything is picture perfect and it is smooth sailing.
This monstrous financial albatross being presented, containing earmarks and pork rind, is not what Main Street USA needs at present.
And President Obama keeps pointing out that people will support it when they compare it with the "cost of doing nothing."
I, for one, am not emphatically stating that we should do absolutely nothing.
I am saying that it needs to be reasonable.
One trillion dollars (of debt) is NOT a reasonable cost. And that figure only works if President Obama’s goals are met, which, right now, are anything but aligned with reality. The proposal needs to be based on sound fiscal budgeting and expectations, not just goals that would be nice to meet.
Why cannot the House and Senate propose something straightforward with no excess baggage that produces a product at a reasonable cost?
Because politics is all about scratching backs.
This senator needs a few billion the next couple of years and he will support the bill. Add that in and claim it will reduce obesity. And that senator needs money so add something for his parks and recreation departments to further physical education. And on and on.
As I write this I wonder which is worse; the special interest and lobbying groups that spend billions of dollars annually to influence legislation and spending or the special interests of our own elected officials with their unquenchable need for pork (all of which, of course, is for the good of their constituents).
Over For Now,
Main Street One
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Coffee is for closers only.
What makes a person evangelistic?What makes a church evangelistic?
Is evangelism a process or a result?
I think many would label a person or a church evangelistic if it got results. Am I right? Would you?
I submit to you that's false, particularly because it credits the person with that which only God can do (cf. John 6:44).
5 What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. 7 So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. 8 He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor.We plant seeds. We water seeds. We are evangelistic.
-1 Corinthians 3:5-8, ESV (emphasis mine)
But ... God causes the growth by opening hearts to respond to our message of the Gospel (e.g., Acts 16:14), we then rejoice with the angels in heaven because that sinner has repented (Luke 15:10).
It's less about you and I "doing it right," meaning a slick presentation and all the right words to say, but all about God using the power of the true Gospel as it comes through the lips of His impotent people (cf. Rom 1:16).
"Successful witnessing is sharing Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit and leaving the results to God."What makes a person evangelistic? I'm thinking ... A person who shares the Gospel is evangelistic. That person should also ...
-first heard in Campus Crusade for Christ
- Prepare by knowing the Gospel well.
- Pray for opportunities to evangelize.
- Pray for lost friends and family to be receptive and
- Pray for God to change hearts of those hearing the Gospel.
- Provide time to spend with person being evangelized, demonstrating care and the gravity of the discussion.
- Pray for those with whom you've planted seeds that they would be watered (by the involvement of himself/herself or others) and would come to fruition (as the Spirit regenerates that person to respond in faith).
- Encourage its members to be evangelistic, so they realize their responsibility.
- Encourages interaction with non-Christians by avoiding overloading weekly schedules.
- Equip its members through repetition and discipleship to know the Gospel.
- Exemplifies evangelistic priority by its leadership.
- Empowers people, not programs, to plant and water seeds.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
"This Isn't About Politics." Really?
Famous last words, "This isn't about me. This isn't about politics…"
If this isn’t about politics, as President Obama said regarding his massive health care reform demand, what is it about?
No, it is not really about a "health care system that is breaking America’s families," as our leader claims, either.
How can I say that?
Simple. Because, as currently being considered by both the House and the Senate, the cost of the reform will, indeed, break America’s families.
To the tune of one trillion dollars, conservatively, because the financial projections are based, quite simply, on the White House goals of attainment, not actual and calculated economic projections.
One thing I do not understand, Mr. President, is why the US Government, as part of this proposed health care reform, has to be a provider of health services? Why would I want the government to decide the best course of action for what ails me, instead of my doctor? Why can't Tort Reform be part of this change?
And for a candidate who quite vocally opposed pork in legislative bills and called for change in politics, why do we see, in the proposed bill, earmarks that will provide, for example, billions of dollars for walking paths, streetlights, jungle gyms, and even farmers' markets?
Supposedly, as the argument goes, this is to strengthen our health infrastructure.
The version put forth by the House has a $1.6 billion per year "cap" on the projects. This will, supposedly, save us money by reducing obesity and other related health problems.
I would really like to see the study that shows that this will occur.
A spokesperson for Senator Ted Kennedy, Anthony Coley, stated, "If improving the lighting in a playground or clearing a walking path or a bike path or restoring a park are determined as needed by a community to create more opportunities for physical activity, we should not prohibit this from happening."
Ok, don't prohibit it. But why does Main Street USA have to pay for it?
My main argument to this is: if a particular community wishes to do add those items then why can't that community figure out a way to get it done? Why does all of Main Street USA have to contribute to what would end up being added to some communities, while the vast majority of other American cities would not see a dime of this expenditure.
Let's face it America, all these porkers do is provide billions for various states and districts to ensure the votes of specific House or Senate members.
And, yes, that IS politics.
Yet, President Obama stated, to the nation, that, "This isn't about me. This isn't about politics."
And, aligned with the above topic, though slightly different, was President Obama's gaffe regarding the proposal he is attempting to push through.
In a nationally televised address, he stated, "The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings and inefficiencies to our health care system." (Emphasis added.)
Was that a Freudian slip?
"…inefficiencies to our health care system."
A science dictionary defines that form of a slip as: "An error in speech that reveals repressed thoughts or feelings." A medical dictionary says: "A verbal mistake that is thought to reveal an unconscious belief, thought, or emotion."
I leave that to your own imagination and conclusions.
Over For Now,
Main Street One
If this isn’t about politics, as President Obama said regarding his massive health care reform demand, what is it about?
No, it is not really about a "health care system that is breaking America’s families," as our leader claims, either.
How can I say that?
Simple. Because, as currently being considered by both the House and the Senate, the cost of the reform will, indeed, break America’s families.
To the tune of one trillion dollars, conservatively, because the financial projections are based, quite simply, on the White House goals of attainment, not actual and calculated economic projections.
One thing I do not understand, Mr. President, is why the US Government, as part of this proposed health care reform, has to be a provider of health services? Why would I want the government to decide the best course of action for what ails me, instead of my doctor? Why can't Tort Reform be part of this change?
And for a candidate who quite vocally opposed pork in legislative bills and called for change in politics, why do we see, in the proposed bill, earmarks that will provide, for example, billions of dollars for walking paths, streetlights, jungle gyms, and even farmers' markets?
Supposedly, as the argument goes, this is to strengthen our health infrastructure.
The version put forth by the House has a $1.6 billion per year "cap" on the projects. This will, supposedly, save us money by reducing obesity and other related health problems.
I would really like to see the study that shows that this will occur.
A spokesperson for Senator Ted Kennedy, Anthony Coley, stated, "If improving the lighting in a playground or clearing a walking path or a bike path or restoring a park are determined as needed by a community to create more opportunities for physical activity, we should not prohibit this from happening."
Ok, don't prohibit it. But why does Main Street USA have to pay for it?
My main argument to this is: if a particular community wishes to do add those items then why can't that community figure out a way to get it done? Why does all of Main Street USA have to contribute to what would end up being added to some communities, while the vast majority of other American cities would not see a dime of this expenditure.
Let's face it America, all these porkers do is provide billions for various states and districts to ensure the votes of specific House or Senate members.
And, yes, that IS politics.
Yet, President Obama stated, to the nation, that, "This isn't about me. This isn't about politics."
And, aligned with the above topic, though slightly different, was President Obama's gaffe regarding the proposal he is attempting to push through.
In a nationally televised address, he stated, "The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings and inefficiencies to our health care system." (Emphasis added.)
Was that a Freudian slip?
"…inefficiencies to our health care system."
A science dictionary defines that form of a slip as: "An error in speech that reveals repressed thoughts or feelings." A medical dictionary says: "A verbal mistake that is thought to reveal an unconscious belief, thought, or emotion."
I leave that to your own imagination and conclusions.
Over For Now,
Main Street One
Monday, July 20, 2009
Do you want the moon? Just say the word and I'll throw a lasso around it and pull it down for you.
Watching the Cardinals & the disAstros reminded me that 40 years ago humans walked on the moon. Thanks to Lance for reminding me of my favorite Brian Regan bit.
This was/is glorious AND so true! What if the lunar landing happened today, rather than in 1969? What would the media coverage look like?
This was/is glorious AND so true! What if the lunar landing happened today, rather than in 1969? What would the media coverage look like?
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Threats And Bribes And TV Ads
As President Barack Obama and his staunchest of Democratic allies in the House and Senate have seen what had appeared to be near-guaranteed support for health care reform and cap and trade begin to wither in recent weeks, it appears that the six-month old Administration is not above threats and/or bribes.
There have been reports that Republicans, who have been quite vocal in criticizing the $787 Billion economic stimulus package, are being "asked" if their states or districts would rather not receive any federal funding.
If that is not a supremely overt threat to "get in line" or "shut up," I do not know what one would call it.
Even Democrats are feeling the heat of growing White House anger. Obama's group, Organizing For America, is running TV ads in favor of health care reform in the states of more moderate Democrats who have backed away from their earlier support.
Ever wonder how much money this ad campaign is costing in an effort to swing about seven votes their way?
Inquiring minds want to know.
With the honeymoon over, President Obama is now sitting directly in the face of oncoming traffic.
Why the big push to ensure that health care reform is passed this year without fail?
Is it all just for show so that Democrats running for office in 2010 can point and say, "see what we did for YOU, the voter," before Main Street USA really has a chance to see: 1) if it starts working as touted and 2) how much it will actually cost?
The best suggestion regarding health care reform is to lower the ego a bit and get some REAL projections, both revenue and expense, that will not cost Main Street USA one trillion plus dollars, and allow the House and Senate the time they need to create such an animal…if in fact it can be done without breaking the bank, even further than it already is.
And, you just have to love Dan Pfeiffer, White House Deputy Communications Director, who said, referring to his boss' battles in the trenches, "No one gets rich betting against Barack Obama."
Does that mean, Dan, that if the cajoling and arm-twisting and TV ads work that Main Street USA goes even more broke than it already is?
Over For Now,
Main Street One
"Most bad government has grown out of too much government." - Thomas Jefferson
There have been reports that Republicans, who have been quite vocal in criticizing the $787 Billion economic stimulus package, are being "asked" if their states or districts would rather not receive any federal funding.
If that is not a supremely overt threat to "get in line" or "shut up," I do not know what one would call it.
Even Democrats are feeling the heat of growing White House anger. Obama's group, Organizing For America, is running TV ads in favor of health care reform in the states of more moderate Democrats who have backed away from their earlier support.
Ever wonder how much money this ad campaign is costing in an effort to swing about seven votes their way?
Inquiring minds want to know.
With the honeymoon over, President Obama is now sitting directly in the face of oncoming traffic.
Why the big push to ensure that health care reform is passed this year without fail?
Is it all just for show so that Democrats running for office in 2010 can point and say, "see what we did for YOU, the voter," before Main Street USA really has a chance to see: 1) if it starts working as touted and 2) how much it will actually cost?
The best suggestion regarding health care reform is to lower the ego a bit and get some REAL projections, both revenue and expense, that will not cost Main Street USA one trillion plus dollars, and allow the House and Senate the time they need to create such an animal…if in fact it can be done without breaking the bank, even further than it already is.
And, you just have to love Dan Pfeiffer, White House Deputy Communications Director, who said, referring to his boss' battles in the trenches, "No one gets rich betting against Barack Obama."
Does that mean, Dan, that if the cajoling and arm-twisting and TV ads work that Main Street USA goes even more broke than it already is?
Over For Now,
Main Street One
"Most bad government has grown out of too much government." - Thomas Jefferson
Where Does Our Money Go ? ? ?
Main Street USA pays for a substantial amount of goods and services to our federal, state and local agencies (herein referred to as government) through taxes of one sort or another. A few of the taxes, fees and surcharges I can think of off the top of my head are: federal and state income taxes, corporate tax, inheritance/estate tax, property tax, sales tax, consumption taxes, poll tax, retirement tax, transfer tax, cigarette tax, hotel occupany tax, utility tax, beer and liquor excise tax, airfare excise tax...
It starts at the top where we elect officials and then they create (and Main Street USA funds), these goods and services we need that they deem should be in the public and not private sector.
That is how government grows.
And grows.
And grows.
With the financial stress that our country is in, I decided to look around and see where our money goes. In perusing several sites on the web I ended up looking at what public employees (those that get paid by Main Street USA) earn.
Here is a sampling of tidbits that I discovered:
The Associate Dean NRE at the U of Massachusetts earned $613,065.44 during 2008 (the highest paid state employee). Of the top 100 paid state employees in MA, all earning in excess of $225,000, 98 of them are in the field of education.
The top government employee in Clark County, NV, is the Director of Aviation with total earnings of $266,562.85. Meanwhile a Psychiatric Nurse for the State of Nevada had a salary of $76,820.08 yet earned $98,652.68 in overtime for total compensation of $182,196.63.
The President/CEO of the Tennessee Education Lottery System had a salary for 2008 of $410,811 and earned incentives of $44,444 for a total take of $455,254.
In Arkansas, the Head Football Coach for U of A Fayetteville will receive, in 2009, $1,900.000, while the Director of Athletics will make $450,000.
The Delaware Technical & Community College President makes $360,000 plus $90,000 in bonuses.
In Virginia, for the fiscal year 2008-09, about 500 local government and school division employees receive annual salaries and other compensation of $100,000 or more per year. The Henrico County Manager tops the VA list at $261,166.
The President of the University of North Carolina earned $477,148, while a Professor and Senior Associate Vice Chancellor at East Carolina University made a whopping $1,019,601.
The Mayor of Miami earns $150.000.
In New York, the VP Hospital Affairs at State University of New York has an annual salary of $723,010, while a Professor at SUNY has a 10-month calendar salary of $695,810. In fact, 24 of the top 25 NYS top earners are from SUNY, each earning in excess of $375,000.
In Texas the Chief Investment Officer of the Teacher Retirement System had a 2007 salary of $530,595.24, topping the list of state employees, while coming in a distant second was a psychiatrist for Health Services who made $354,901.12. As a note 20 of the top 30 paid positions in Texas (all earning in excess of $200,000) are psychiatrists.
In New Jersey, there are 4,517 state employees earning in excess of $100,000 during 2009.
In Illinois, the Nile West High School District Superintendent earned $411,511, while the Head Football Coach at the University of Illinois – Champaign earned just shy of one mil, $958,324 and Chicago superintendent of police, chief emergency officer, earned $309,996.
The Maricopa County Manager in AZ earns $216,382.
The Director of the PA School Employee’s Retirement Fund earns $261,542, while the Governor earns $174,435.
And of course our POTUS makes $400,000 plus the WH, Camp David, Air Force One, Marine One, etc., etc.
I did more looking at California than any other state, as that state has some incredibly bad budget problems.
In 2004, the Oakland Webmaster had a salary of $85,000 but with overtime made over $187,000.
The UCLA Chancellor earns at least $416,000 as reported in 2006 when he was hired. There are 27,000 undergraduate and 11,500 graduate students at UCLA. Meanwhile, the President at CSU Sonoma, with 8,900 students, earns $357,607.
The Superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District earns $300,000 (plus a $3,000 monthly housing allowance)
An officer of the California Highway Patrol earned over $182,000 in 2006, with $108,000 of that total in overtime, while the Captain of the CHP currently earns $291,761.
A Department of Corrections physician and surgeon at San Quentin earns $517,025 (much of that in overtime).
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Chief Executive Officer received a little more than $350,000 in salary and benefits in 2004 while a total of 114 employees earned over $100,000.
The General Manager of Bay Area Rapid Transit in Oakland received a base of $334,857 and other compensation of $40,865 for a total of $334,857.
The General Manager of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, earns more than $320,000.
The Head Coach of Intercollegiate Athletics at UC Berkeley has an incredible salary of $2,342,315.00, while the head Coach at UCLA earns $2,058.475 (and their top professor rakes in $1,776,404).
It might surprise people how many Professors and Coaches in the UC system earn in excess of $500,000 each year. (In addition to salaries in UC, the total pay includes overtime, bonuses, housing allowances, relocation allowances, administrative stipends, revenue sharing and more than a dozen other types of cash compensation.)
The former Chief Investment Officer for the California Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS), earned $678,665, including $269,483 in performance bonuses.
In California, 5,115 retired government workers receive pensions in excess of $100,000 from CalPERS. Tops is a retiree from Vernon with a retirement of $499,674.84 per year.
The lists, obviously go on and on and on…
Where am I headed with this…I am not sure.
What I do know is the government employees, who are paid, in one way or another, by Main Street USA, are paid well. And, in some cases, they are compensated overly well for the job that they perform, compared to the private sector. PLUS, they have better benefits and pension plans than probably most all of the workers in the private sector.
On top of that there is a disparity of responsibility and pay.
I will take one for instance, from California, which I would think is probably typical for other states. I did not use the pay for any coaches in this example, as it is a comparative of management responsibility.
The CEO of Los Angeles County was hired for a salary of $310,000 in 2007. The LA County budget is $22.8 Billion. The county is home to about one-fourth of all California residents, over 9.8 million, per estimates from the US Census Bureau.
Compare that to the Governor’s office, where the annual salary is $206,500, though the Governator does not accept it. The estimated population is between 36.5 million (US Census Bureau) and 38.2 (CA estimate) with an estimated budget (for what that is worth right now) of $134 Billion.
Not sure why the County CEO earns fifty percent more than the Governor. But so do most University Presidents and many School District Superintendents, not to mention these millionaire Professors.
Suffice it to say that Main Street USA certainly has allowed the creation of BIG GOVERNMENT.
Please keep in mind the words of Patrick Henry: "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
Over For Now,
Main Street One
Sources:
Arkansasonline.com
Azcentral.com
Bostonherald.com
CaliforniaPensionReform.com
ChicagoSunTimes.com
Citizensagainstgovernmentwaste.com
Delaware online
LosAngelesTimes.com
Miamihearld.com
Newsobserver.com
Oakland Tribune
Renogazetteournal.com
Richmondtimesdispatch.com
Sacbee.com
Sfgate.com
Tennessean.com
Texaswatchdog.org
Timesunion.com
Transparentnevada.com
Triangle.com
Usarchive.org
It starts at the top where we elect officials and then they create (and Main Street USA funds), these goods and services we need that they deem should be in the public and not private sector.
That is how government grows.
And grows.
And grows.
With the financial stress that our country is in, I decided to look around and see where our money goes. In perusing several sites on the web I ended up looking at what public employees (those that get paid by Main Street USA) earn.
Here is a sampling of tidbits that I discovered:
The Associate Dean NRE at the U of Massachusetts earned $613,065.44 during 2008 (the highest paid state employee). Of the top 100 paid state employees in MA, all earning in excess of $225,000, 98 of them are in the field of education.
The top government employee in Clark County, NV, is the Director of Aviation with total earnings of $266,562.85. Meanwhile a Psychiatric Nurse for the State of Nevada had a salary of $76,820.08 yet earned $98,652.68 in overtime for total compensation of $182,196.63.
The President/CEO of the Tennessee Education Lottery System had a salary for 2008 of $410,811 and earned incentives of $44,444 for a total take of $455,254.
In Arkansas, the Head Football Coach for U of A Fayetteville will receive, in 2009, $1,900.000, while the Director of Athletics will make $450,000.
The Delaware Technical & Community College President makes $360,000 plus $90,000 in bonuses.
In Virginia, for the fiscal year 2008-09, about 500 local government and school division employees receive annual salaries and other compensation of $100,000 or more per year. The Henrico County Manager tops the VA list at $261,166.
The President of the University of North Carolina earned $477,148, while a Professor and Senior Associate Vice Chancellor at East Carolina University made a whopping $1,019,601.
The Mayor of Miami earns $150.000.
In New York, the VP Hospital Affairs at State University of New York has an annual salary of $723,010, while a Professor at SUNY has a 10-month calendar salary of $695,810. In fact, 24 of the top 25 NYS top earners are from SUNY, each earning in excess of $375,000.
In Texas the Chief Investment Officer of the Teacher Retirement System had a 2007 salary of $530,595.24, topping the list of state employees, while coming in a distant second was a psychiatrist for Health Services who made $354,901.12. As a note 20 of the top 30 paid positions in Texas (all earning in excess of $200,000) are psychiatrists.
In New Jersey, there are 4,517 state employees earning in excess of $100,000 during 2009.
In Illinois, the Nile West High School District Superintendent earned $411,511, while the Head Football Coach at the University of Illinois – Champaign earned just shy of one mil, $958,324 and Chicago superintendent of police, chief emergency officer, earned $309,996.
The Maricopa County Manager in AZ earns $216,382.
The Director of the PA School Employee’s Retirement Fund earns $261,542, while the Governor earns $174,435.
And of course our POTUS makes $400,000 plus the WH, Camp David, Air Force One, Marine One, etc., etc.
I did more looking at California than any other state, as that state has some incredibly bad budget problems.
In 2004, the Oakland Webmaster had a salary of $85,000 but with overtime made over $187,000.
The UCLA Chancellor earns at least $416,000 as reported in 2006 when he was hired. There are 27,000 undergraduate and 11,500 graduate students at UCLA. Meanwhile, the President at CSU Sonoma, with 8,900 students, earns $357,607.
The Superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District earns $300,000 (plus a $3,000 monthly housing allowance)
An officer of the California Highway Patrol earned over $182,000 in 2006, with $108,000 of that total in overtime, while the Captain of the CHP currently earns $291,761.
A Department of Corrections physician and surgeon at San Quentin earns $517,025 (much of that in overtime).
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Chief Executive Officer received a little more than $350,000 in salary and benefits in 2004 while a total of 114 employees earned over $100,000.
The General Manager of Bay Area Rapid Transit in Oakland received a base of $334,857 and other compensation of $40,865 for a total of $334,857.
The General Manager of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, earns more than $320,000.
The Head Coach of Intercollegiate Athletics at UC Berkeley has an incredible salary of $2,342,315.00, while the head Coach at UCLA earns $2,058.475 (and their top professor rakes in $1,776,404).
It might surprise people how many Professors and Coaches in the UC system earn in excess of $500,000 each year. (In addition to salaries in UC, the total pay includes overtime, bonuses, housing allowances, relocation allowances, administrative stipends, revenue sharing and more than a dozen other types of cash compensation.)
The former Chief Investment Officer for the California Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS), earned $678,665, including $269,483 in performance bonuses.
In California, 5,115 retired government workers receive pensions in excess of $100,000 from CalPERS. Tops is a retiree from Vernon with a retirement of $499,674.84 per year.
The lists, obviously go on and on and on…
Where am I headed with this…I am not sure.
What I do know is the government employees, who are paid, in one way or another, by Main Street USA, are paid well. And, in some cases, they are compensated overly well for the job that they perform, compared to the private sector. PLUS, they have better benefits and pension plans than probably most all of the workers in the private sector.
On top of that there is a disparity of responsibility and pay.
I will take one for instance, from California, which I would think is probably typical for other states. I did not use the pay for any coaches in this example, as it is a comparative of management responsibility.
The CEO of Los Angeles County was hired for a salary of $310,000 in 2007. The LA County budget is $22.8 Billion. The county is home to about one-fourth of all California residents, over 9.8 million, per estimates from the US Census Bureau.
Compare that to the Governor’s office, where the annual salary is $206,500, though the Governator does not accept it. The estimated population is between 36.5 million (US Census Bureau) and 38.2 (CA estimate) with an estimated budget (for what that is worth right now) of $134 Billion.
Not sure why the County CEO earns fifty percent more than the Governor. But so do most University Presidents and many School District Superintendents, not to mention these millionaire Professors.
Suffice it to say that Main Street USA certainly has allowed the creation of BIG GOVERNMENT.
Please keep in mind the words of Patrick Henry: "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
Over For Now,
Main Street One
Sources:
Arkansasonline.com
Azcentral.com
Bostonherald.com
CaliforniaPensionReform.com
ChicagoSunTimes.com
Citizensagainstgovernmentwaste.com
Delaware online
LosAngelesTimes.com
Miamihearld.com
Newsobserver.com
Oakland Tribune
Renogazetteournal.com
Richmondtimesdispatch.com
Sacbee.com
Sfgate.com
Tennessean.com
Texaswatchdog.org
Timesunion.com
Transparentnevada.com
Triangle.com
Usarchive.org
Friday, July 17, 2009
Too Much Push, Too Much Government
A day after the chief budgeter of the USA, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf, stated, “costs over the long run would keep rising at an unsustainable pace,” President Obama presses Congress even more than before.
He is urging deeper cuts.
The problem with that is just because Congress, in an attempt to please and appease President Obama, “cuts” some additional costs does NOT mean that the costs will come in at those lower figures.
History has surely taught us that.
As AP reports it, "What we want to do is force the Congress to make sure that they are acting" on recommendations to hold down Medicare and Medicaid spending, the president said, rather than allowing reports to sit unused on a shelf.
Force the Congress? The Prez is playing hardball.
I, for one, do not appreciate any president using that language. A much better choice of words would be, “What we want to do is convince Congress…” Much more statesman-like. As Thomas Jefferson said, “A politician looks forward only to the next election. A statesman looks forward to the next generation.”
President Obama further states that without health reform that Main Street USA will see “premiums going up at astronomical rates.”
Perhaps. I am not sure what exact information he has to in order to predict "astronomical" increases. Maybe that’s just a scare tactic to ensure passage.
The Executive and Legislative Branches might also try Tort Reform as many have been calling for in an attempt to help curb costs.
Maybe we do need health care reform. But, why, Mr. President, can’t it be done in a more rational manner with projections that are as accurate as possible, as opposed to slamming something through just to say you got it done?
The US Government does not need to be and should not be in business. The Government, by way of the US taxpayers, are owners of banks, insurance companies, automobile manufacturers. Is there any end in sight?
How much bigger can we make our government?
Another quote by Thomas Jefferson, which I believe to be quite true, is, “Most bad government has grown out of too much government.”
Be on guard, Main Street USA…bigger, when it comes to government, is not better.
Thus, I will close with one more Jefferson quote, “Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.”
Over For Now,
Main Street One
He is urging deeper cuts.
The problem with that is just because Congress, in an attempt to please and appease President Obama, “cuts” some additional costs does NOT mean that the costs will come in at those lower figures.
History has surely taught us that.
As AP reports it, "What we want to do is force the Congress to make sure that they are acting" on recommendations to hold down Medicare and Medicaid spending, the president said, rather than allowing reports to sit unused on a shelf.
Force the Congress? The Prez is playing hardball.
I, for one, do not appreciate any president using that language. A much better choice of words would be, “What we want to do is convince Congress…” Much more statesman-like. As Thomas Jefferson said, “A politician looks forward only to the next election. A statesman looks forward to the next generation.”
President Obama further states that without health reform that Main Street USA will see “premiums going up at astronomical rates.”
Perhaps. I am not sure what exact information he has to in order to predict "astronomical" increases. Maybe that’s just a scare tactic to ensure passage.
The Executive and Legislative Branches might also try Tort Reform as many have been calling for in an attempt to help curb costs.
Maybe we do need health care reform. But, why, Mr. President, can’t it be done in a more rational manner with projections that are as accurate as possible, as opposed to slamming something through just to say you got it done?
The US Government does not need to be and should not be in business. The Government, by way of the US taxpayers, are owners of banks, insurance companies, automobile manufacturers. Is there any end in sight?
How much bigger can we make our government?
Another quote by Thomas Jefferson, which I believe to be quite true, is, “Most bad government has grown out of too much government.”
Be on guard, Main Street USA…bigger, when it comes to government, is not better.
Thus, I will close with one more Jefferson quote, “Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.”
Over For Now,
Main Street One
Quotes Of Note
“Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.”
Thomas Jefferson
“The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone."
James Madison
“They say women talk too much. If you have worked in Congress you know that the filibuster was invented by men.”
Clare Booth Luce
“Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them.”
Frederick Douglass
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
Albert Einstein
“George Washington is the only president who didn't blame the previous administration for his troubles.”
Author Unknown
“Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”
Daniel Webster
“Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.”
Alexander Hamilton
“Most bad government has grown out of too much government.”
Thomas Jefferson
“Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”
Thomas Paine
“A government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth."
Abraham Lincoln
“The people are the government, administering it by their agents; they are the government, the sovereign power.”
Andrew Jackson
“Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.”
Ronald Reagan
“The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.”
Benjamin Franklin
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
Martin Luther King
“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”
John Adams
“Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people, by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
James Madison
“Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions.”
Ulysses S. Grant
“Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it.”
William Penn
“The reason there are so few female politicians is that it is too much trouble to put makeup on two faces.”
Maureen Murphy
“Patriotism means supporting your country all of the time, and your government when it deserves it.”
Mark Twain
“I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”
Winston Churchill
“A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.”
George Bernard Shaw
“Mothers all want their sons to grow up to be president, but they don't want them to become politicians in the process.”
John F. Kennedy
“When a man assumes a public trust he should consider himself a public property."
Thomas Jefferson
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Declaration of Independence
Thomas Jefferson
“The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone."
James Madison
“They say women talk too much. If you have worked in Congress you know that the filibuster was invented by men.”
Clare Booth Luce
“Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them.”
Frederick Douglass
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
Albert Einstein
“George Washington is the only president who didn't blame the previous administration for his troubles.”
Author Unknown
“Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”
Daniel Webster
“Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.”
Alexander Hamilton
“Most bad government has grown out of too much government.”
Thomas Jefferson
“Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”
Thomas Paine
“A government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth."
Abraham Lincoln
“The people are the government, administering it by their agents; they are the government, the sovereign power.”
Andrew Jackson
“Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.”
Ronald Reagan
“The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.”
Benjamin Franklin
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
Martin Luther King
“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”
John Adams
“Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people, by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
James Madison
“Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions.”
Ulysses S. Grant
“Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it.”
William Penn
“The reason there are so few female politicians is that it is too much trouble to put makeup on two faces.”
Maureen Murphy
“Patriotism means supporting your country all of the time, and your government when it deserves it.”
Mark Twain
“I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”
Winston Churchill
“A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.”
George Bernard Shaw
“Mothers all want their sons to grow up to be president, but they don't want them to become politicians in the process.”
John F. Kennedy
“When a man assumes a public trust he should consider himself a public property."
Thomas Jefferson
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Declaration of Independence
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Social Security and Big Business
I do not think that anyone is very happy that the Social Security Administration spent some $700,000 on an Arizona get-away, in their words, a motivational management conference.
To me, this type of mindless expenditure for a bankrupt section of the US Government only makes me want to know MORE about other areas of our public arena and their “costs” of doing business in the best interest of Main Street USA.
The Executive Branch has definitely been spending more money than any other administration for being so young. I think that President Obama has appointed more new positions, more new envoys, more new advisors, more new czars than any of his predecessors. (I may be wrong, and, if so, please let me know.)
Along with each of these new positions are attached “budgets” so that they may be able to operate. That would include offices, staff, travel, etc., etc.
Now, more than ever, I want to see Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, make good on her expense transparency statement and allow Main Street USA see how each and every member of the House spends what they are allocated.
The US Senate must do likewise.
Our United States Government is, indeed, becoming much much bigger.
And the proposed health reform will only multiply that, considerably.
One of the most pressing problems facing this monstrous growth is oversight.
Thus, more than just being able to view and dissect these expenses, I believe that our officials need to be fully accountable to the American people for what they spend.
If an expense is deemed elaborate or frivolous or, shall I say, not in the best interests of Main Street USA, the person responsible should be required to pay back every cent of the expense.
And any repeat offenders should be booted from the Hill and lose their precious pension, be they Democrat, Republican or Independent.
If the US Government can and does demand such from the private sector, then the opposite must be true, for Abraham Lincoln summed it up best by declaring that this is a government “of the people, by the people, for the people.”
And that means in the best interests of Main Street USA, not the elected/appointed officials on Capitol Hill.
I can only hope that President Barack Obama holds his chiefs accountable “to the people” for what many consider lavish spending in these uncertain times. And he should be starting with the Social Security Commissioner.
Over for Now,
Main Street One
To me, this type of mindless expenditure for a bankrupt section of the US Government only makes me want to know MORE about other areas of our public arena and their “costs” of doing business in the best interest of Main Street USA.
The Executive Branch has definitely been spending more money than any other administration for being so young. I think that President Obama has appointed more new positions, more new envoys, more new advisors, more new czars than any of his predecessors. (I may be wrong, and, if so, please let me know.)
Along with each of these new positions are attached “budgets” so that they may be able to operate. That would include offices, staff, travel, etc., etc.
Now, more than ever, I want to see Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, make good on her expense transparency statement and allow Main Street USA see how each and every member of the House spends what they are allocated.
The US Senate must do likewise.
Our United States Government is, indeed, becoming much much bigger.
And the proposed health reform will only multiply that, considerably.
One of the most pressing problems facing this monstrous growth is oversight.
Thus, more than just being able to view and dissect these expenses, I believe that our officials need to be fully accountable to the American people for what they spend.
If an expense is deemed elaborate or frivolous or, shall I say, not in the best interests of Main Street USA, the person responsible should be required to pay back every cent of the expense.
And any repeat offenders should be booted from the Hill and lose their precious pension, be they Democrat, Republican or Independent.
If the US Government can and does demand such from the private sector, then the opposite must be true, for Abraham Lincoln summed it up best by declaring that this is a government “of the people, by the people, for the people.”
And that means in the best interests of Main Street USA, not the elected/appointed officials on Capitol Hill.
I can only hope that President Barack Obama holds his chiefs accountable “to the people” for what many consider lavish spending in these uncertain times. And he should be starting with the Social Security Commissioner.
Over for Now,
Main Street One
I'm sorry. It's just that I've never seen people celebrate mediocrity the way you do.
We continue with our series based on The 10 Dumbest Things Christians Do, by Mark Atteberry. The following are some notes from the Sunday school lesson (taught by Cody Dixon) at Providence Church.DUMB MOVE #8: Settling for Mediocrity
“When we hear the word excellence, we think of God, the Bible, and all sorts of secular businesses, celebrities, and sports teams, but, apparently, we don’t think of the church.”
Sadly, when it comes to church, people often feel at liberty to slack off and not give their best, to not strive for excellence.
3 Reasons Excellence Matters:
1. God loves excellence.
God is consumed with His glory and does everything to the end of His glory, creation, salvation, governing providence, etc. Nothing is done half-baked.
2. The Bible commands excellence. (cf. Col 3:23-24; 1 Cor 10:31)
3. People respond to excellence.
“Everyone talks about how expensive Disney is, but people just keep paying the money no matter how high the prices get because they know they’re getting the best.”
“… we’ll probably get one chance to make a good impression.”
What does excellence require?
“Excellence is intentional. It happens when people make a conscious choice to meet its requirements.”
1. Excellence requires courage.
… to challenge the status quo.
2. Excellence requires giftedness.
“One of the greatest obstacles to excellence in the church is the mismanagement of God’s gifts.”
- Some people are ignorant of their gifts.
- Some people know their gifts but refuse to serve in those areas.
- Some people know their gifts are lacking but insist on serving in those areas anyway.
3. Excellence requires money.
- Fact #1: Quality costs more, but generally pays for itself in the long run.
- Fact #2: Quality equipment and resources will be a blessing to your servants.
- Fact #3: High quality always makes a great first impression.
- Fact #4: A commitment to quality says something about your love for the Lord.
“The bottom line is that a lack of preparation and planning in the Lord’s work is the straightest road to mediocrity.”
5. Excellence requires perseverance.
Excellence is not easily achieved and is the fruit of prolonged efforts.
Discussion Questions:
- When speaking of excellence, why would church not be one of the first things Christians would think of?
- “Name some areas where you feel your church demonstrates excellence. Are there some areas where you feel improvement is needed? What, specifically, could you do to improve the quality of those areas?”
- Why do people often put forth less effort where church is concerned (e.g., punctuality, reliability, follow through on commitments, diligence, etc.) than in other areas of their lives (e.g., job, sports activities, clubs, physical family functions, etc.)? Doesn’t the Lord and His Bride deserve better?
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Famous Quotes & Broken Promises
President Barack Obama, during his campaign, pledged the following:
"No family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s."
Oops.
The House, with increased and substantial prodding by President Obama to pass their version of a health care reform bill, have, it appears, decided to raise over $540 Billion by adding a “surcharge” to higher income earners over the next decade.
That’s called, I think, a “two-fer.”
I would not be willing to rely on government projections to be met.
Thus, I will be betting right now that the second increase is a certainty.
As an added note, thought I would remind people what headline grabbers have to say about health care reform:
House Ways and Means Chairman, Democrat Charles Rangel, calls this “innovative bill” a “uniquely American solution.”
Over For Now,
Main Street One
"No family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s."
Oops.
The House, with increased and substantial prodding by President Obama to pass their version of a health care reform bill, have, it appears, decided to raise over $540 Billion by adding a “surcharge” to higher income earners over the next decade.
And these tax payers will be paying, potentially, much more than during the 1990's.
Interesting that the House apparently have a backup plan built into the proposal.
That’s called, I think, a “two-fer.”
I would not be willing to rely on government projections to be met.
Thus, I will be betting right now that the second increase is a certainty.
As an added note, thought I would remind people what headline grabbers have to say about health care reform:
House Ways and Means Chairman, Democrat Charles Rangel, calls this “innovative bill” a “uniquely American solution.”
Over For Now,
Main Street One
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Fumo: Only Fifty-Five Months ? ? ?
Former Pennsylvania Democrat State Senator Vincent Fumo, who was found guilty of 137 counts of fraud, obstructing justice and tax violations, received only a fraction of the prison time that was anticipated.
And many people are not happy about it.
Pat Meehan, former U.S. Attorney, was quoted on nbcphiladelphia.com as saying, "The original [sentencing] guidelines were calculated at 22-26 years and a four and a half year sentence just seems remarkably out of kilter with all of it."
Out of kilter? Understatement.
It seems that Fumo’s medical problems may have helped rescue him from a lengthy sentence, as he takes several medications. (See my earlier post about what can happen when a person has to take several meds.)
It also has been mentioned that his years of public service entered into the lighter jail-time.
Regardless, Fumo was guilt of 137 COUNTS and I do not believe that any Main Streeter who was found guilty of that kind of criminality, even if they had medical issues similar to Fumo, and even if they had a sterling reputation otherwise in the private sector, could have gotten off this lightly.
Another note. Fumo’s attorneys had argued that if their 65 year-old client were to receive a sentence of over 20 years that it would essentially be life imprisonment. (So?)
That didn’t seem to matter much with Bernard Madoff who received a 150-year sentence, which is a more-than-life sentence but not a death sentence. (His attorney argued that no more than 20 years would be sufficient punishment, due to his age, 71.)
Realistically, there is not much comparison between the crimes Madoff committed and those of Fumo. But the point is for Madoff, age had absolutely no bearing. For Fumo it did (coupled with his sterling public service, before he went corrupt, I suppose.)
Interesting note: Fumo succeeded Democrat Buddy Cianfrani in 1978 when Cianfrani was convicted of racketeering, bribery and obstruction of justice.
While Fumo may have received some time, it was not enough to fit the crime.
Over For Now,
Main Street One
And many people are not happy about it.
Pat Meehan, former U.S. Attorney, was quoted on nbcphiladelphia.com as saying, "The original [sentencing] guidelines were calculated at 22-26 years and a four and a half year sentence just seems remarkably out of kilter with all of it."
Out of kilter? Understatement.
It seems that Fumo’s medical problems may have helped rescue him from a lengthy sentence, as he takes several medications. (See my earlier post about what can happen when a person has to take several meds.)
It also has been mentioned that his years of public service entered into the lighter jail-time.
Regardless, Fumo was guilt of 137 COUNTS and I do not believe that any Main Streeter who was found guilty of that kind of criminality, even if they had medical issues similar to Fumo, and even if they had a sterling reputation otherwise in the private sector, could have gotten off this lightly.
Another note. Fumo’s attorneys had argued that if their 65 year-old client were to receive a sentence of over 20 years that it would essentially be life imprisonment. (So?)
That didn’t seem to matter much with Bernard Madoff who received a 150-year sentence, which is a more-than-life sentence but not a death sentence. (His attorney argued that no more than 20 years would be sufficient punishment, due to his age, 71.)
Realistically, there is not much comparison between the crimes Madoff committed and those of Fumo. But the point is for Madoff, age had absolutely no bearing. For Fumo it did (coupled with his sterling public service, before he went corrupt, I suppose.)
Interesting note: Fumo succeeded Democrat Buddy Cianfrani in 1978 when Cianfrani was convicted of racketeering, bribery and obstruction of justice.
While Fumo may have received some time, it was not enough to fit the crime.
Over For Now,
Main Street One
Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son.
I came across this question about a month ago:"Which would you rather have in your church, legalists or alcoholics?"
For discussion purposes, I'm defining legalist in the following manner:
"A legalist [in the realm of the biblical Christian] is one who elevates human rules/laws to the point where they are equated to or trump God's laws, considering violation of those human precepts to be sinful when done by others."In other words, it's calling something sin that the Bible does not, particularly in the lives of others. I have no problem, for example, with a person making a rule for himself/herself to help prevent sin, but it becomes legalism when others are held to that rule as well. For example, it may be wise to say, "To avoid being drunk, I will never drink."
That being said, we return to the original question:
"Which would you rather have in your church, legalists or alcoholics?"
There's no doubt in my mind. I would rather have alcoholics in my church and for the following reasons:
- Alcoholics tend to know their struggles, knowing drunkeness to be sinful. Legalists not only don't see their legalism as sinful behavior, but they actually see it as righteous. They take pride in their ability to perform according to those human standards, creating a pride and arrogance that are hard to combat.
- Alcoholics tend to know what it's like to struggle with sin and they are more compassionate and encouraging to others in the church who struggle with sin. The legalists tend to be the least compassionate and encouraging people you'll meet in church, loving you only when you're meeting their standards of behavior.
As you probably assume, I do not regard the consumption of alcohol as sinful in and of itself, whether it be in a cough medicine, vinegar, or beverage alcohol. However, I am convinced the Bible condemns drunkenness.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Washington DC Jobs & Unemployment
According to Indeed.com, as of today, there are 133 jobs available for every 1,000 people in Washington, DC. That is 13.3%.
And, per WTOP.com, as posted June 20, 2009, the unemployment rate in our nation’s capital jumped to 10.7% in May.
That means there are more jobs available than people out of work.
Indeed.com does not define if the 1,000-people number is for those over age 16, which is how unemployment is calculated, or per capita. If not, then that means that for those over 16, the percentage would be higher than 13.3%, as the US Census Bureau states that 19.3% of the DC population is under 18. Perhaps that would mean that 16% to 17% are under 16, bringing the jobs available percentage to about 16% for people over 16.
One point that WTOP.com does bring up in their article is that many of the jobs that are available in DC require more than a high school diploma and that many of the people living directly in DC (not in nearly Maryland or Virginia) that may be unemployed generally do not possess a college degree and have typically been working in the harder hit areas of the job market, construction and retail.
That said, I would hope that employers in DC might re-think whether or not a college degree is absolutely necessary for some of the positions that they are offering. There are some incredibly talented (and intelligent) people who do not possess such paper. We’ve all heard about the really big ones: Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Michael Dell, Stephen Spielberg. And there are many, many more.
This is not a blog promoting that people should not attain a degree. It is simply pointing out that it does not make much sense to have 10.7% unemployment in Washington DC with, what appears to be, more than ample employment opportunities available.
John Lennon said, “Give Peace A Chance.”
I am saying, “Give People A Chance.”
You may be very surprised.
Over For Now,
Main Street One
And, per WTOP.com, as posted June 20, 2009, the unemployment rate in our nation’s capital jumped to 10.7% in May.
That means there are more jobs available than people out of work.
Indeed.com does not define if the 1,000-people number is for those over age 16, which is how unemployment is calculated, or per capita. If not, then that means that for those over 16, the percentage would be higher than 13.3%, as the US Census Bureau states that 19.3% of the DC population is under 18. Perhaps that would mean that 16% to 17% are under 16, bringing the jobs available percentage to about 16% for people over 16.
One point that WTOP.com does bring up in their article is that many of the jobs that are available in DC require more than a high school diploma and that many of the people living directly in DC (not in nearly Maryland or Virginia) that may be unemployed generally do not possess a college degree and have typically been working in the harder hit areas of the job market, construction and retail.
That said, I would hope that employers in DC might re-think whether or not a college degree is absolutely necessary for some of the positions that they are offering. There are some incredibly talented (and intelligent) people who do not possess such paper. We’ve all heard about the really big ones: Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Michael Dell, Stephen Spielberg. And there are many, many more.
This is not a blog promoting that people should not attain a degree. It is simply pointing out that it does not make much sense to have 10.7% unemployment in Washington DC with, what appears to be, more than ample employment opportunities available.
John Lennon said, “Give Peace A Chance.”
I am saying, “Give People A Chance.”
You may be very surprised.
Over For Now,
Main Street One
Education: Pre-K through Higher Ed
"President Obama soon will be announcing a plan to substantially boost funding for the nation's community colleges, with an aim of helping more workers get the job-training they need in the coming decade," the Chicago Tribune reported on June 17, 2009.
Then President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers announced that jobs in both the healthcare industry and the environmental field have been growing at rates faster than others in the economy and reform would be necessary to ensure workers have the skills needed for these jobs.
While funding to better our community colleges may be warranted, there is still the underlying issue of current (and historical) student literacy and dropout rates.
A 2006 report by Civic Enterprises in association with Peter D. Hart Research Associates for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation states that the high school drop out rate is nearly 33% and closer to 50% for African Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans. There are similar studies with nearly identical figures, including that of Time magazine, which ran a front cover proclaiming that the US is “Drop-Out Nation.”
In some areas, it is even far worse. The Manhattan Institute calculated that the drop out rate in Milwaukee was 66% while the Cleveland City School District hit an astonishing 71%.
Studies typically find that illiteracy and the inability to calculate basic math are primary reasons why students drop out of school.
There is also mention of increased funding for Early Head Start which, I believe, is much more needed than funding for higher education, at least proportionately, due to the fact that a) there are such high dropout rates and b) many students who do graduate still need remediation in order to do their college assignments.
The Mackinac Center for Public Policy states that the national cost for remedial education is approximately $16.6 Billion annually. It would certainly be nice to put that money to use in another area of education (or save it).
So, while I agree that each of the various areas of education need to be addressed, it seems that Main Street USA must be primarily focused on students currently in K-12 and working to ensure that these students possess the reading and math skills needed for college, then setting sights on Early Head Start and community college reform.
Over For Now,
Main Street One
Then President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers announced that jobs in both the healthcare industry and the environmental field have been growing at rates faster than others in the economy and reform would be necessary to ensure workers have the skills needed for these jobs.
While funding to better our community colleges may be warranted, there is still the underlying issue of current (and historical) student literacy and dropout rates.
A 2006 report by Civic Enterprises in association with Peter D. Hart Research Associates for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation states that the high school drop out rate is nearly 33% and closer to 50% for African Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans. There are similar studies with nearly identical figures, including that of Time magazine, which ran a front cover proclaiming that the US is “Drop-Out Nation.”
In some areas, it is even far worse. The Manhattan Institute calculated that the drop out rate in Milwaukee was 66% while the Cleveland City School District hit an astonishing 71%.
Studies typically find that illiteracy and the inability to calculate basic math are primary reasons why students drop out of school.
There is also mention of increased funding for Early Head Start which, I believe, is much more needed than funding for higher education, at least proportionately, due to the fact that a) there are such high dropout rates and b) many students who do graduate still need remediation in order to do their college assignments.
The Mackinac Center for Public Policy states that the national cost for remedial education is approximately $16.6 Billion annually. It would certainly be nice to put that money to use in another area of education (or save it).
So, while I agree that each of the various areas of education need to be addressed, it seems that Main Street USA must be primarily focused on students currently in K-12 and working to ensure that these students possess the reading and math skills needed for college, then setting sights on Early Head Start and community college reform.
Over For Now,
Main Street One
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Incorrect/Incomplete Economic Data ? ? ?
Please, someone, tell me how our elected officials could have proposed and passed the $787 Billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (“Economic Stimulus” package) with incorrect or incomplete economic data?
Seems a bit unreal that the White House Administration admits that the most massive spending bill in history was designed (and implemented) with incorrect or incomplete data and not much has been said or written about that specifically.
Perhaps it really isn't the data but faulty projections derived from the data.
Maybe both.
Regardless, all elected officials have a fiduciary responsibility (both legally and ethically) to Main Street USA. And, Appointees bear the same.
That responsibility cannot be executed with incomplete or inaccurate data. Nor with inaccurate projections.
Regardless of where anyone wants to point the blame for our current economic plight (and I, for one, believe that both parties and many people and companies were involved), the actions taken in an attempt to halt the decline and reverse the direction need to be the absolute best that can be done.
And I do not want to hear a quip that this plan was implemented “with the best available information.”
We have at our fingertips whatever information we seek. And at the Presidential level, I would say it is bigger, faster, better, etc.
To be perfectly honest, I am not ready just yet to label President Obama’s huge spending bill a flop, as the Republican Party seems to be doing right now, according to reports, including Associated Press.
That said, the President’s overseas correction of Vice President Biden’s gaffe and the Administration's admission is making me start to wonder what will really be accomplished when the plan is in full force.
Then I would also like to inquire why we are operating with incorrect/inaccurate economic information and, since that admission was just made known, how long have the President and the Administration been aware of this issue?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Over For Now,
Main Street One
Seems a bit unreal that the White House Administration admits that the most massive spending bill in history was designed (and implemented) with incorrect or incomplete data and not much has been said or written about that specifically.
Perhaps it really isn't the data but faulty projections derived from the data.
Maybe both.
Regardless, all elected officials have a fiduciary responsibility (both legally and ethically) to Main Street USA. And, Appointees bear the same.
That responsibility cannot be executed with incomplete or inaccurate data. Nor with inaccurate projections.
Regardless of where anyone wants to point the blame for our current economic plight (and I, for one, believe that both parties and many people and companies were involved), the actions taken in an attempt to halt the decline and reverse the direction need to be the absolute best that can be done.
And I do not want to hear a quip that this plan was implemented “with the best available information.”
We have at our fingertips whatever information we seek. And at the Presidential level, I would say it is bigger, faster, better, etc.
To be perfectly honest, I am not ready just yet to label President Obama’s huge spending bill a flop, as the Republican Party seems to be doing right now, according to reports, including Associated Press.
That said, the President’s overseas correction of Vice President Biden’s gaffe and the Administration's admission is making me start to wonder what will really be accomplished when the plan is in full force.
Then I would also like to inquire why we are operating with incorrect/inaccurate economic information and, since that admission was just made known, how long have the President and the Administration been aware of this issue?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Over For Now,
Main Street One
Saturday, July 11, 2009
One Trillion Dollars, Illustrated (sort of)
We have all heard the news about the proposed national health care reform.
Conservative estimates put the price tag at $1 Trillion, assuming, of course, that the revenue and expense projections are correct.
What exactly is One Trillion Dollars?
Numerically that is: $ 1, 000, 000, 000, 000.
One Trillion is 1,000 times more than One Billion.
One Trillion is also One Million times One Million.
Just how long would it take a person to spend One Trillion Dollars if you spent One Million Dollars per day?
You know, picture yourself buying a One Million Dollar home every day.
It would take One Million Days, or 2,739.73 years, to spend One Trillion Dollars at that rate.
Make no mistake, One Trillion Dollars is a huge sum of money.
So, let’s stop our number calculating with national health care reform and not even consider the overall current national debt, which treasurydirect.gov puts at $11, 545, 275, 000, 000 as of June 30, 2009.
Over For Now,
Main Street One
Conservative estimates put the price tag at $1 Trillion, assuming, of course, that the revenue and expense projections are correct.
What exactly is One Trillion Dollars?
Numerically that is: $ 1, 000, 000, 000, 000.
One Trillion is 1,000 times more than One Billion.
One Trillion is also One Million times One Million.
Just how long would it take a person to spend One Trillion Dollars if you spent One Million Dollars per day?
You know, picture yourself buying a One Million Dollar home every day.
It would take One Million Days, or 2,739.73 years, to spend One Trillion Dollars at that rate.
Make no mistake, One Trillion Dollars is a huge sum of money.
So, let’s stop our number calculating with national health care reform and not even consider the overall current national debt, which treasurydirect.gov puts at $11, 545, 275, 000, 000 as of June 30, 2009.
Over For Now,
Main Street One
Friday, July 10, 2009
Whom Do You Trust? Whom Can You Trust?
Unfortunately we live in a time of widespread corruption, misuse of power, as well as both lesser and more serious crimes against people and/or society at large.
One of the more unforgivable transgressions, to me (aside from murder), is a politician’s betrayal of the public trust. Here we have a person voted into office by Main Street USA to do a job, and to do it to the best of his or her abilities. And they are compensated well for their work and the benefits, well, those will be the subject of another blog.
This one is about trust.
I do not know of any public official swearing-in ceremony where doing their best includes corruption or bribery or even taking leave for many days with no method of contact.
As an example, Randall “Duke” Cunningham, pled guilty of accepting at least $2.4 million in bribes.
Two million four hundred thousand dollars in bribes.
That is the equivalent of someone working for $60,000 per year for 40 years!
Bribes are, of course, illegal. For Duke, the payoffs came from defense contractors and he did plead guilty.
I believe that a publicly elected official taking money from an organization to gain favor is nothing less than Treason. That is why Duke should not receive his Congressional pension. Last I heard, that is not the case. Elected officials guilty of bribery are still eligible to collect a pension.
One reason is that our government officials have a more limited view of treason than do I. The typical application of that word relating to an elected person is a violation of allegiance to the state or of attempting to overthrow the state or selling secrets of the state.
Those have to do with the state, not the public trust, which is interesting because the public elected the person, not the state. To me, a violation or betrayal of the public trust is clearly a treasonous activity.
So why is Duke eligible to collect pension?
It seems as though our elected officials may believe that they are not necessarily above the law, but above some of the laws. Then again, they are the ones who write the laws…
Why is it that Wall Street and Main Street are expected to follow all of the rules and regulations that are imposed and, if not, face the consequences. And, not that I condone AIG executives receiving lavish bonuses (because I do not), what really is the difference between an AIG exec receiving a bonus and Duke who pled guilty to bribery but remains eligible to receive public funds?
Before I leave Duke’s example there is one other thing I did not understand about the judgment and his sentencing. Duke received $2.4 million in bribes but only had to pay $1.8 million in restitution. That makes it appear as if Duke was able to keep $600,000 of illegally gained money (whether he had spent it or not). What a bonus! (for lack of a better word.)
The above is serious abuse by an elected individual to receive illegal monetary rewards. Duke is but one example. There have been others.
Then there is the better-than-thou type. From all that I have read, Governor Mark Sanford (SC) was a harsh critic, voting to impeach President Clinton from office for lying about having sex with Monica Lewinsky. Sanford said "...what he did in this matter was reprehensible."
Fast forward to June 2009 and Gov Sanford goes AWOL. His aides tell media that they think he went hiking in the Appalachian Trail. As we all now know, he had been in Argentina with another woman.
How is it that Sanford could be so adamant about Clinton being impeached but he feels he should be able to maintain his office?
The apparent difference is that Sanford admitted his affair and Clinton first lied about his. True, that is a difference. However, Sanford was, even worse, AWOL. His duty and responsibility to the state of South Carolina comes first. And, if he is not able to be reached when gone, proper transition of power should have been granted to the Lt. Governor. Anything less is purely dereliction of duty.
In the military, the maximum penalty is a bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of pay and six months confinement duty. Because he did come clean for the affair, but was absent without official leave, perhaps Sanford should not pay the maximum penalty but I do not think that he should retain public office. Nor should he be allowed to collect a pension. He was AWOL.
Corruption charges, dereliction of duty and other acts that violate the public trust should not be rewarded. They should be punished. They should not stay in office. They should not collect pensions. They should be fully and totally accountable to Main Street USA, to the people who elected them.
Perhaps by enforcing appropriate penalties our elected officials will be more honest with Main Street USA and with themselves and can start to earn back the Trust they have lost.
Over For Now,
Main Street One
One of the more unforgivable transgressions, to me (aside from murder), is a politician’s betrayal of the public trust. Here we have a person voted into office by Main Street USA to do a job, and to do it to the best of his or her abilities. And they are compensated well for their work and the benefits, well, those will be the subject of another blog.
This one is about trust.
I do not know of any public official swearing-in ceremony where doing their best includes corruption or bribery or even taking leave for many days with no method of contact.
As an example, Randall “Duke” Cunningham, pled guilty of accepting at least $2.4 million in bribes.
Two million four hundred thousand dollars in bribes.
That is the equivalent of someone working for $60,000 per year for 40 years!
Bribes are, of course, illegal. For Duke, the payoffs came from defense contractors and he did plead guilty.
I believe that a publicly elected official taking money from an organization to gain favor is nothing less than Treason. That is why Duke should not receive his Congressional pension. Last I heard, that is not the case. Elected officials guilty of bribery are still eligible to collect a pension.
One reason is that our government officials have a more limited view of treason than do I. The typical application of that word relating to an elected person is a violation of allegiance to the state or of attempting to overthrow the state or selling secrets of the state.
Those have to do with the state, not the public trust, which is interesting because the public elected the person, not the state. To me, a violation or betrayal of the public trust is clearly a treasonous activity.
So why is Duke eligible to collect pension?
It seems as though our elected officials may believe that they are not necessarily above the law, but above some of the laws. Then again, they are the ones who write the laws…
Why is it that Wall Street and Main Street are expected to follow all of the rules and regulations that are imposed and, if not, face the consequences. And, not that I condone AIG executives receiving lavish bonuses (because I do not), what really is the difference between an AIG exec receiving a bonus and Duke who pled guilty to bribery but remains eligible to receive public funds?
Before I leave Duke’s example there is one other thing I did not understand about the judgment and his sentencing. Duke received $2.4 million in bribes but only had to pay $1.8 million in restitution. That makes it appear as if Duke was able to keep $600,000 of illegally gained money (whether he had spent it or not). What a bonus! (for lack of a better word.)
The above is serious abuse by an elected individual to receive illegal monetary rewards. Duke is but one example. There have been others.
Then there is the better-than-thou type. From all that I have read, Governor Mark Sanford (SC) was a harsh critic, voting to impeach President Clinton from office for lying about having sex with Monica Lewinsky. Sanford said "...what he did in this matter was reprehensible."
Fast forward to June 2009 and Gov Sanford goes AWOL. His aides tell media that they think he went hiking in the Appalachian Trail. As we all now know, he had been in Argentina with another woman.
How is it that Sanford could be so adamant about Clinton being impeached but he feels he should be able to maintain his office?
The apparent difference is that Sanford admitted his affair and Clinton first lied about his. True, that is a difference. However, Sanford was, even worse, AWOL. His duty and responsibility to the state of South Carolina comes first. And, if he is not able to be reached when gone, proper transition of power should have been granted to the Lt. Governor. Anything less is purely dereliction of duty.
In the military, the maximum penalty is a bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of pay and six months confinement duty. Because he did come clean for the affair, but was absent without official leave, perhaps Sanford should not pay the maximum penalty but I do not think that he should retain public office. Nor should he be allowed to collect a pension. He was AWOL.
Corruption charges, dereliction of duty and other acts that violate the public trust should not be rewarded. They should be punished. They should not stay in office. They should not collect pensions. They should be fully and totally accountable to Main Street USA, to the people who elected them.
Perhaps by enforcing appropriate penalties our elected officials will be more honest with Main Street USA and with themselves and can start to earn back the Trust they have lost.
Over For Now,
Main Street One
Levi Who ? ? ? Not Strauss . . .
A possible book deal?
Pursuing a movie deal?
I find it pretty unbelievable.
When I start typing the word Levi in my Yahoo! Search the auto-fill lists Levi jeans, then Levi Strauss and then Levi Johnston as possible selections.
Levi who?
The Levi who became a household name during the Obama-McCain campaign, of course.
As reported by the Association Press, Levi Johnston, the former fiancé of Bristol Palin and father of their child, who was absolutely and completely unknown one year ago (outside of family and friends in Alaska, of course) is conceivably on his way to riches.
His pathway? He held a news conference from his attorney’s office announcing to the world his opinion of why Governor Palin tendered her resignation last week.
What better way brand a name for yourself (and possibly show publishers and movie producers that you can attract an audience) than by using someone who is national news as a catapult.
In response to the announcement, an email from a Palin family spokesperson to AP stated Johnston was “working on a piece fiction.” So, it may be that this young man’s written work will not be a tell-all of his relationship with Bristol and the Palin family. Then again, the email to AP may have been worded that way for a reason.
These days it seems that, aside from winning a lottery, the quickest way to fame and fortune is to become involved in a scandal of one kind or another (sex or drugs being the most captivating and lucrative) involving a national figure, be it a politician, a celebrity, an athlete, to name but a few. (I am sure there are a few people who come to mind immediately...)
And, one thing is for sure, it is no longer just 15 minutes of fame, as the old expression stated, that a person captures. With the Internet and social networks of all shapes and sizes the limelight could possibly go on indefinitely feeding the fire and fanning the flames, making a book and/or movie deal all that much closer to reality.
Over For Now,
Main Street One
Pursuing a movie deal?
I find it pretty unbelievable.
When I start typing the word Levi in my Yahoo! Search the auto-fill lists Levi jeans, then Levi Strauss and then Levi Johnston as possible selections.
Levi who?
The Levi who became a household name during the Obama-McCain campaign, of course.
As reported by the Association Press, Levi Johnston, the former fiancé of Bristol Palin and father of their child, who was absolutely and completely unknown one year ago (outside of family and friends in Alaska, of course) is conceivably on his way to riches.
His pathway? He held a news conference from his attorney’s office announcing to the world his opinion of why Governor Palin tendered her resignation last week.
What better way brand a name for yourself (and possibly show publishers and movie producers that you can attract an audience) than by using someone who is national news as a catapult.
In response to the announcement, an email from a Palin family spokesperson to AP stated Johnston was “working on a piece fiction.” So, it may be that this young man’s written work will not be a tell-all of his relationship with Bristol and the Palin family. Then again, the email to AP may have been worded that way for a reason.
These days it seems that, aside from winning a lottery, the quickest way to fame and fortune is to become involved in a scandal of one kind or another (sex or drugs being the most captivating and lucrative) involving a national figure, be it a politician, a celebrity, an athlete, to name but a few. (I am sure there are a few people who come to mind immediately...)
And, one thing is for sure, it is no longer just 15 minutes of fame, as the old expression stated, that a person captures. With the Internet and social networks of all shapes and sizes the limelight could possibly go on indefinitely feeding the fire and fanning the flames, making a book and/or movie deal all that much closer to reality.
Over For Now,
Main Street One
They think he's a righteous dude.
John Calvin (i.e., Jean Cauvin) was born 10 July 1509.If not for sin, he would have celebrated his 500th birthday today. Of course, if not for sin, we would have never had his great teaching concerning justification by faith alone.
If you've never read his Institutes of the Christian Religion, you might be surprised to know that's not some polemic for T.U.L.I.P., but a very nice treatment of Christianity in general. In it's beginning we learn that "the sum of human wisdom consists of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves."
That's always stuck with me. The more I know of the holiness of God, the more I know of my need and dependence on a gracious God who is at the same time forgiving and sin avenging.
Happy Birthday to my favorite Frenchie.
P.S. Check out Ligonier Ministries' special today only: Calvin: A Heart for Devotion, Doctrine, & Doxology for a donation of any amount. This one day offer can be ordered online or by calling 1-800-435-4343.
The book is a collection of authors (e.g., Jerry Bridges, John MacArthur, Sinclair Ferguson, Jay Adams, and Tom Ascol) writing about Calvin's life & theology. John Piper has high praise for the authors: "To my knowledge, there never has been a collection of authors of any edited volume under whose ministry I would rather sit than these."
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Even More Discord Among The Troops
Despite Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi promising President Obama that health care reform would be on his desk in the White House before the House adjourns for their August break, a group of conservative Democrats, the Blue Dog Coalition, seem to be a major roadblock to her commitment.
It is interesting that with each new story that is released a little bit more information finally comes forward.
This morning I asked in my blog how much money would be raised by taxing those individuals who earn $200,000 (couples, $250,000) and, lo and behold, a number comes forth: $100 Billion. Great, one answer down. That’s $10 Billion a year if the projections are accurate and hold up over time.
Then again, I could not help but laugh when I read that some Democrats actually want the Government to compete with private businesses in the sale of insurance. But it is not that funny. In fact, that one really frightens me.
Are we to believe that our Government, which does not have a great track record in meeting budget obligations, should be allowed to compete in the open marketplace for products and services? What’s next, will we have a proposal for a chain of Uncle Sam’s Gas Station/Convenience Stores?
At least Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) voices one of the main concerns that I have repeatedly stated, there are not enough cost containment measures included in the current legislation.
Let’s face it, if there are not enough factors to control costs and if the revenue estimates are shy of the projections what will result is an absolute calamity.
But wait, according to news reports, “officials” have other brilliant suggestions.
One of the ideas would be to levy “fees” on insurance companies or perhaps the drug industry. Do our elected officials not understand that if the cost of a product or service goes up, whatever the reason, the cost of that product or service increases to protect the bottom line.
That fact is not only something taught in college in a very basic business class, but, as an example, I learned that specific point when I was 16 working in a Texaco station. When the cost increased from a distributor on a tire or an oil filter, we adjusted our retail prices accordingly to maintain a certain markup percentage.
That is standard operating procedure for any business.
Another idea is to allow states to issue health care bonds. With the economic problems many states are currently facing at present, with no signs of relief readily in sight, is this where investors will want to risk their hard-earned money? Doubtful.
Of course, they would probably be “government insured,” meaning that Main Street USA will ultimately pay if the state cannot.
That seems to be the sticking point in all of this.
Whether it be through direct or product and service taxes or by way of increased prices paid for goods and services due to company costs increasing, Main Street USA will ultimately be paying for every penny of the $1-plus Trillion health care system.
Regardless of how our representatives try to paint the picture, that is how it really turns out.
I have to keep reminding myself of what Patrick Henry believed: "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
And, right now, there is not enough restraint.
At least there are some Democrats and Republicans who seem to be asking the hard questions on this nationalized health care issue. And there are no good answers coming forth.
Over For Now,
Main Street One
It is interesting that with each new story that is released a little bit more information finally comes forward.
This morning I asked in my blog how much money would be raised by taxing those individuals who earn $200,000 (couples, $250,000) and, lo and behold, a number comes forth: $100 Billion. Great, one answer down. That’s $10 Billion a year if the projections are accurate and hold up over time.
Then again, I could not help but laugh when I read that some Democrats actually want the Government to compete with private businesses in the sale of insurance. But it is not that funny. In fact, that one really frightens me.
Are we to believe that our Government, which does not have a great track record in meeting budget obligations, should be allowed to compete in the open marketplace for products and services? What’s next, will we have a proposal for a chain of Uncle Sam’s Gas Station/Convenience Stores?
At least Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) voices one of the main concerns that I have repeatedly stated, there are not enough cost containment measures included in the current legislation.
Let’s face it, if there are not enough factors to control costs and if the revenue estimates are shy of the projections what will result is an absolute calamity.
But wait, according to news reports, “officials” have other brilliant suggestions.
One of the ideas would be to levy “fees” on insurance companies or perhaps the drug industry. Do our elected officials not understand that if the cost of a product or service goes up, whatever the reason, the cost of that product or service increases to protect the bottom line.
That fact is not only something taught in college in a very basic business class, but, as an example, I learned that specific point when I was 16 working in a Texaco station. When the cost increased from a distributor on a tire or an oil filter, we adjusted our retail prices accordingly to maintain a certain markup percentage.
That is standard operating procedure for any business.
Another idea is to allow states to issue health care bonds. With the economic problems many states are currently facing at present, with no signs of relief readily in sight, is this where investors will want to risk their hard-earned money? Doubtful.
Of course, they would probably be “government insured,” meaning that Main Street USA will ultimately pay if the state cannot.
That seems to be the sticking point in all of this.
Whether it be through direct or product and service taxes or by way of increased prices paid for goods and services due to company costs increasing, Main Street USA will ultimately be paying for every penny of the $1-plus Trillion health care system.
Regardless of how our representatives try to paint the picture, that is how it really turns out.
I have to keep reminding myself of what Patrick Henry believed: "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
And, right now, there is not enough restraint.
At least there are some Democrats and Republicans who seem to be asking the hard questions on this nationalized health care issue. And there are no good answers coming forth.
Over For Now,
Main Street One
Still A Bit Confusing . . .
The actual funding needed for the national health care system is still a bit confusing.
There are quite a few articles on the subject with various bits and pieces of how the financial aspect is supposed to play out, but almost everything I read just raises more questions.
For instance, AP reports that House Democrats are working on a bill that will tax individuals earning over $200,000 annually and couples making in excess of $250,000. This is obviously an attempt to keep President Obama's promise not to tax Main Street USA.
The article also attributes to the House Ways and Means Chairman, Charles Rangel, a comment that this is part of making up the estimated $600 Billion still needed to fund nationalized health insurance for the 50 million uninsured.
However, there has been no mention yet on just how much of that $600 Billion needed will come from the additional income tax on these people.
In that same article, and others, there is also talk of taxing sugared soft drinks. I am not sure if this will deter people from buying these but taxing items people buy is just a slightly different way from taxing us directly. The difference is that if you decide not to buy sugary drinks, you don’t pay the tax. It would be interesting to see what amount of tax revenue the House expects to raise from this action. And, did they take into account, depending on the size of the tax, what impact that would have on sales of these drinks.
Now, here is one I like. Eliminating the current tax break drug companies receive for advertising. I must ask why drug companies (which, as I pointed out in a previous post, earn some of the highest Net Profits of any industry) have a tax break for advertising in the first place. All I can say about that right now is the drug companies must have some very excellent and, more than likely, exquisitely compensated lobbyists.
Think about it, Main Street USA. Why on Earth would the government grant an advertising tax break to the pharmaceutical industry?
That is beyond mind-boggling.
The one point, though, is that the House should have a fairly accurate number that is expected to come from that. I, for one, would like to see what kind of tax breaks these companies have been enjoying, and for how long.
So, please, House members, enlighten us on how much the drug companies have been benefitting from an advertising tax break, because all that means is that whatever they have saved in these breaks has, ultimately, been paid for by good ole Main Street USA through some other form of taxation to make up that shortfall in revenue.
The potential drawback to cutting the tax break is that, in order to keep their bottom line as high as possible, the drug companies will undoubtedly have to raise the prices of their product.
Did the House calculate that increase into their equation?
Probably not.
The House also talks about hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Hundreds of billions. And they need to make up a $600 Billion shortfall on a estimated Trillion Dollar cost.
What exactly will be the effect to Main Street USA by cutting “hundreds of billions” from Medicare and Medicaid?
Is part of that the reduction in those payments to hospitals now paid for treating uninsured and low-income families discussed in my earlier post? If it is, okay, but won’t the hospitals be making a trade off by being paid by the federal government (i.e., Main Street USA) when these people are covered by nationalized insurance?
As I said, the more I hear, without full disclosure of what comes from where and what goes to where, the more confused I get and the more questions I have. Does anyone have a balance sheet of all the financial plusses and minuses for review and comment?
It is certainly going to be very interesting to see exactly how this plays out.
Over For Now,
Main Street One
There are quite a few articles on the subject with various bits and pieces of how the financial aspect is supposed to play out, but almost everything I read just raises more questions.
For instance, AP reports that House Democrats are working on a bill that will tax individuals earning over $200,000 annually and couples making in excess of $250,000. This is obviously an attempt to keep President Obama's promise not to tax Main Street USA.
The article also attributes to the House Ways and Means Chairman, Charles Rangel, a comment that this is part of making up the estimated $600 Billion still needed to fund nationalized health insurance for the 50 million uninsured.
However, there has been no mention yet on just how much of that $600 Billion needed will come from the additional income tax on these people.
In that same article, and others, there is also talk of taxing sugared soft drinks. I am not sure if this will deter people from buying these but taxing items people buy is just a slightly different way from taxing us directly. The difference is that if you decide not to buy sugary drinks, you don’t pay the tax. It would be interesting to see what amount of tax revenue the House expects to raise from this action. And, did they take into account, depending on the size of the tax, what impact that would have on sales of these drinks.
Now, here is one I like. Eliminating the current tax break drug companies receive for advertising. I must ask why drug companies (which, as I pointed out in a previous post, earn some of the highest Net Profits of any industry) have a tax break for advertising in the first place. All I can say about that right now is the drug companies must have some very excellent and, more than likely, exquisitely compensated lobbyists.
Think about it, Main Street USA. Why on Earth would the government grant an advertising tax break to the pharmaceutical industry?
That is beyond mind-boggling.
The one point, though, is that the House should have a fairly accurate number that is expected to come from that. I, for one, would like to see what kind of tax breaks these companies have been enjoying, and for how long.
So, please, House members, enlighten us on how much the drug companies have been benefitting from an advertising tax break, because all that means is that whatever they have saved in these breaks has, ultimately, been paid for by good ole Main Street USA through some other form of taxation to make up that shortfall in revenue.
The potential drawback to cutting the tax break is that, in order to keep their bottom line as high as possible, the drug companies will undoubtedly have to raise the prices of their product.
Did the House calculate that increase into their equation?
Probably not.
The House also talks about hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Hundreds of billions. And they need to make up a $600 Billion shortfall on a estimated Trillion Dollar cost.
What exactly will be the effect to Main Street USA by cutting “hundreds of billions” from Medicare and Medicaid?
Is part of that the reduction in those payments to hospitals now paid for treating uninsured and low-income families discussed in my earlier post? If it is, okay, but won’t the hospitals be making a trade off by being paid by the federal government (i.e., Main Street USA) when these people are covered by nationalized insurance?
As I said, the more I hear, without full disclosure of what comes from where and what goes to where, the more confused I get and the more questions I have. Does anyone have a balance sheet of all the financial plusses and minuses for review and comment?
It is certainly going to be very interesting to see exactly how this plays out.
Over For Now,
Main Street One
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Giving Up $155 Billion?
It is hard for me to comprehend that hospitals are willingly going to “give up” over $155 Billion in future Medicare and Medicaid payments as is right now being reported all over the web.
Granted this is over a span of several years, but given that the health care proposal is hundreds of pages long I wonder if anyone really, with 100% certainty, knows every little financial detail involved in nationalizing health care.
So, let’s take a quick look at this $155 Billion hospitals are “giving up.”
As reported, there would be a reduction of federal payments of between $40 and $50 Billion that hospitals would normally receive for treating low income and uninsured individuals. But from what I read, that does not start until 2015. Hmmm.
And, is that really a loss if this national health care coverage plan is intended to provide care for currently uninsured individuals? Does that mean that hospitals “give up” $40 Billion here to receive an equal amount there? And, on top of that, start receiving it earlier? I think more information and, certainly, clarification is needed and required.
Then there is anticipated to be $100 Billion in “savings” that comes from “slowing down” increases in Medicare payments to hospitals.
Not having all of that paperwork here in front of me I am not sure exactly how that works, other than surmising there must be some sort of built-in annual increase in Medicare payments that is going to be slowly reduced in size.
Of course, if that purported savings of $100 Billion is stretched out over a decade or so it really does not seem to be that much of a savings, although it is between 5% and 10% of what the projected national health care system will cost Main Street USA.
Of the other hand, government budgets, unfortunately, do not have a sterling reputation for coming in at what is projected.
However, and this may be a huge however, if the public health insurance plan (as currently envisioned by the Finance Committee) passes, it will allow higher future hospital reimbursement rates from Medicare and Medicaid.
Wait a minute . . .
Are the higher reimbursement rates essentially a trade-off for this $100 Billion?
If so, why are these provisions even in the legislation?
Why is it that Congress cannot write and enact less complicated and cumbersome legislation?
Do they think they are getting paid by each and every word that they write? That was quite snide, I will admit. But, I do not, for the life of me, understand why Congress must write volumes and volumes of pages, books really, to become law. That said, back to my original point.
Are we (Main Street USA) really going to save anything by asking hospitals to “give up” $155 Billion when it seems that we may be handing them an equivalent amount in another way. (Note: I have not read what the fine print says about all these financial dealings.)
Or, is this some kind of Public Relations ploy to make it seem like hospitals are taking some sort of burden off of Main Street USA and that the administration is negotiating really hard on our behalf.
At this point, only time will tell.
Over For Now,
Main Street One
Granted this is over a span of several years, but given that the health care proposal is hundreds of pages long I wonder if anyone really, with 100% certainty, knows every little financial detail involved in nationalizing health care.
So, let’s take a quick look at this $155 Billion hospitals are “giving up.”
As reported, there would be a reduction of federal payments of between $40 and $50 Billion that hospitals would normally receive for treating low income and uninsured individuals. But from what I read, that does not start until 2015. Hmmm.
And, is that really a loss if this national health care coverage plan is intended to provide care for currently uninsured individuals? Does that mean that hospitals “give up” $40 Billion here to receive an equal amount there? And, on top of that, start receiving it earlier? I think more information and, certainly, clarification is needed and required.
Then there is anticipated to be $100 Billion in “savings” that comes from “slowing down” increases in Medicare payments to hospitals.
Not having all of that paperwork here in front of me I am not sure exactly how that works, other than surmising there must be some sort of built-in annual increase in Medicare payments that is going to be slowly reduced in size.
Of course, if that purported savings of $100 Billion is stretched out over a decade or so it really does not seem to be that much of a savings, although it is between 5% and 10% of what the projected national health care system will cost Main Street USA.
Of the other hand, government budgets, unfortunately, do not have a sterling reputation for coming in at what is projected.
However, and this may be a huge however, if the public health insurance plan (as currently envisioned by the Finance Committee) passes, it will allow higher future hospital reimbursement rates from Medicare and Medicaid.
Wait a minute . . .
Are the higher reimbursement rates essentially a trade-off for this $100 Billion?
If so, why are these provisions even in the legislation?
Why is it that Congress cannot write and enact less complicated and cumbersome legislation?
Do they think they are getting paid by each and every word that they write? That was quite snide, I will admit. But, I do not, for the life of me, understand why Congress must write volumes and volumes of pages, books really, to become law. That said, back to my original point.
Are we (Main Street USA) really going to save anything by asking hospitals to “give up” $155 Billion when it seems that we may be handing them an equivalent amount in another way. (Note: I have not read what the fine print says about all these financial dealings.)
Or, is this some kind of Public Relations ploy to make it seem like hospitals are taking some sort of burden off of Main Street USA and that the administration is negotiating really hard on our behalf.
At this point, only time will tell.
Over For Now,
Main Street One
Just Take This Pill . . . (we need the money)
There has been a lot written the past several years about over prescribing drugs to people, especially seniors, in America. I have to throw my hat in the ring.
This is personal, as it deals with my step-father of 30 years. (I earlier mentioned in a post that my biological father was killed in an accident when I was 20. Mom re-married 7 years later.)
Pop, as we called my step-dad, passed away just over a year ago, on July 4, 2008.
He was, without a doubt, over prescribed. And, I am certain, that this caused his death. It also added profits to the drug companies (more on that in just a bit).
At one time, Pop had been advised by physicians to take as many as 12 different drugs during the course of his day. And he did it. Without any questions. Without any regard to what may be occurring in, and to, his body. And, unfortunately, without telling any of us.
I defy anyone, anyone at all, to tell me (and the world) what the consequences might be to have that many different drugs in a body at the same time.
It would be extremely hard (I say impossible) for any drug company scientist or researcher or any pharmacist, despite their years of study and training, to predict all of the possible side effects one drug might cause in a body. Why? Because there are over six and a half billion people on Earth and that means there could be that many different reactions, as every person’s body is just a little bit different.
Thus, if it is hard to predict everything that one drug could do, how could anyone possibly believe that they could, in good conscience, prescribe two, four, eight, or twelve completely different drugs to one individual?
Pop’s final two or three years were the worst. He started a serious decline in motor functions, bodily control, experienced dizziness, lightheadedness, and more, all of which ultimately combined to lead him to death before his time.
Undoubtedly the main culprits, through direct observation (once we found out), were antidepressants, antipsychotics and anti-anxiety pills, which my sister and I do not, to this day, believe that he needed.
Almost all of the time, Pop had already started taking one of the new wonder pills his doctor advised before we discovered he was taking it.
And, yes, his family doctor and the specialists he had visited, knew his history and the drugs he had been taking at the time. At least they had all the paperwork citing such. Did they review it? I certainly hope so.
Generally, within a day or two of beginning with an additional anti-pill (a week at most), Pop would experience one or more of the commonly advertised side effects.
Then, due to his by-then-weakened body state, he would fall and injure his body. One time he broke his right hip and off he went to the hospital. Next, he got dizzy sitting on the toilet and slipped off only to fracture a rib. Another time he experienced vertigo and banged into the doorframe and cracked his collar bone. The final saga began with another fall where he broke his other hip.
After that last fall, he went to the hospital, then to extended nursing care and finally back to his assisted living facility before finally passing.
Each of those accidents occurred following his taking yet another anti-pill “to make him better.”
During this time Pop also started losing weight. He was not a big man. He was below average height for a man and slender. I think that anyone without excess body fat to lose who experiences a 35% loss in their weight will eventually fall to serious consequences.
Shortly after Pop passed away CNN ran a story about over prescribing seniors with drugs, sharing similar stories of other people.
Then there was a news story about Eli Lilly and their, what I call, payoffs to doctors.
Lilly explains that the gifts and the consulting and speech money they pay are made to compensate a doctor for time away from practice for doing such. That may be true enough. However, critics of this compensation practice (which has probably been going on for decades) feel that treatments recommended by these doctors are more than likely influenced by these payments. I would have to agree.
While Wall Street companies (i.e., the financial market, et al) pay their executives rather lavish salaries, bonuses and other forms of compensation, drug company executives also score extremely well.
And, while drug company execs make tens of millions in salaries and bonuses and even more in stock options, the net profit of these pill pushers is astronomical.
Let’s take, as a comparison, oil companies.
For 2007, according to a Congressional Research Service report, the oil industry earned $1.5 trillion (78% by the big five) and had a net profit of $155 billion (75% for the big five). Those figures are, indeed, very large. Taking it one step further, these numbers equate to approximately an 8% net profit, which is not much higher than reported by the US Census Bureau a decade earlier, with much lower gas prices.
By comparison, the pharmaceutical industry, for 2007, raked in $606 billion in revenue. The drug companies are pretty consistent in earning above 15% in net profits. That is about twice as much as the oil industry and several times more than the manufacturing industry (usually around 4%) and retail (closer to 2% or 3%).
As an added note, Pfizer Company had sales of over 48 billion dollars in 2006 and had an almost 40% net profit, over $19 billion.
I do believe that a 40% NET PROFIT is completely out of hand.
Even Wal-Mart, with worldwide sales of nearly $405 billion, made a paltry, by comparison, 3% net profit (or slightly over $13 billion).
And, we in Main Street USA wonder why health care costs so much. (I covered some of that reason in an earlier post.)
If people want to talk about who is really only in business for the money look no further.
It is the same companies that are producing the anti-pills that have widely advertised (forced on them by the FDA) side effects such as: sexual dysfunction, anxiety, insomnia, confusion, hostility, extreme agitation, suicidal thoughts, and more. One that I know of even has to state sudden accidental death.
And would not those possible side effects become more pronounced if combined with some other drug, or combination of drugs?
While I am not a chemist, to me it makes perfectly logical sense to conclude that when a person ingests several foreign chemicals (i.e., not naturally found in his/her body) that there could be severe complications.
That is why there currently are class action law suits against some of the pharmaceutical companies.
What I know for certain is that Pop started his decline with increased drug prescriptions, many of which did have adverse affects and caused bodily harm/injury, ultimately leading to his demise. Rest In Peace, Pop.
Over For Now,
Main Street One
This is personal, as it deals with my step-father of 30 years. (I earlier mentioned in a post that my biological father was killed in an accident when I was 20. Mom re-married 7 years later.)
Pop, as we called my step-dad, passed away just over a year ago, on July 4, 2008.
He was, without a doubt, over prescribed. And, I am certain, that this caused his death. It also added profits to the drug companies (more on that in just a bit).
At one time, Pop had been advised by physicians to take as many as 12 different drugs during the course of his day. And he did it. Without any questions. Without any regard to what may be occurring in, and to, his body. And, unfortunately, without telling any of us.
I defy anyone, anyone at all, to tell me (and the world) what the consequences might be to have that many different drugs in a body at the same time.
It would be extremely hard (I say impossible) for any drug company scientist or researcher or any pharmacist, despite their years of study and training, to predict all of the possible side effects one drug might cause in a body. Why? Because there are over six and a half billion people on Earth and that means there could be that many different reactions, as every person’s body is just a little bit different.
Thus, if it is hard to predict everything that one drug could do, how could anyone possibly believe that they could, in good conscience, prescribe two, four, eight, or twelve completely different drugs to one individual?
Pop’s final two or three years were the worst. He started a serious decline in motor functions, bodily control, experienced dizziness, lightheadedness, and more, all of which ultimately combined to lead him to death before his time.
Undoubtedly the main culprits, through direct observation (once we found out), were antidepressants, antipsychotics and anti-anxiety pills, which my sister and I do not, to this day, believe that he needed.
Almost all of the time, Pop had already started taking one of the new wonder pills his doctor advised before we discovered he was taking it.
And, yes, his family doctor and the specialists he had visited, knew his history and the drugs he had been taking at the time. At least they had all the paperwork citing such. Did they review it? I certainly hope so.
Generally, within a day or two of beginning with an additional anti-pill (a week at most), Pop would experience one or more of the commonly advertised side effects.
Then, due to his by-then-weakened body state, he would fall and injure his body. One time he broke his right hip and off he went to the hospital. Next, he got dizzy sitting on the toilet and slipped off only to fracture a rib. Another time he experienced vertigo and banged into the doorframe and cracked his collar bone. The final saga began with another fall where he broke his other hip.
After that last fall, he went to the hospital, then to extended nursing care and finally back to his assisted living facility before finally passing.
Each of those accidents occurred following his taking yet another anti-pill “to make him better.”
During this time Pop also started losing weight. He was not a big man. He was below average height for a man and slender. I think that anyone without excess body fat to lose who experiences a 35% loss in their weight will eventually fall to serious consequences.
Shortly after Pop passed away CNN ran a story about over prescribing seniors with drugs, sharing similar stories of other people.
Then there was a news story about Eli Lilly and their, what I call, payoffs to doctors.
Lilly explains that the gifts and the consulting and speech money they pay are made to compensate a doctor for time away from practice for doing such. That may be true enough. However, critics of this compensation practice (which has probably been going on for decades) feel that treatments recommended by these doctors are more than likely influenced by these payments. I would have to agree.
While Wall Street companies (i.e., the financial market, et al) pay their executives rather lavish salaries, bonuses and other forms of compensation, drug company executives also score extremely well.
And, while drug company execs make tens of millions in salaries and bonuses and even more in stock options, the net profit of these pill pushers is astronomical.
Let’s take, as a comparison, oil companies.
For 2007, according to a Congressional Research Service report, the oil industry earned $1.5 trillion (78% by the big five) and had a net profit of $155 billion (75% for the big five). Those figures are, indeed, very large. Taking it one step further, these numbers equate to approximately an 8% net profit, which is not much higher than reported by the US Census Bureau a decade earlier, with much lower gas prices.
By comparison, the pharmaceutical industry, for 2007, raked in $606 billion in revenue. The drug companies are pretty consistent in earning above 15% in net profits. That is about twice as much as the oil industry and several times more than the manufacturing industry (usually around 4%) and retail (closer to 2% or 3%).
As an added note, Pfizer Company had sales of over 48 billion dollars in 2006 and had an almost 40% net profit, over $19 billion.
I do believe that a 40% NET PROFIT is completely out of hand.
Even Wal-Mart, with worldwide sales of nearly $405 billion, made a paltry, by comparison, 3% net profit (or slightly over $13 billion).
And, we in Main Street USA wonder why health care costs so much. (I covered some of that reason in an earlier post.)
If people want to talk about who is really only in business for the money look no further.
It is the same companies that are producing the anti-pills that have widely advertised (forced on them by the FDA) side effects such as: sexual dysfunction, anxiety, insomnia, confusion, hostility, extreme agitation, suicidal thoughts, and more. One that I know of even has to state sudden accidental death.
And would not those possible side effects become more pronounced if combined with some other drug, or combination of drugs?
While I am not a chemist, to me it makes perfectly logical sense to conclude that when a person ingests several foreign chemicals (i.e., not naturally found in his/her body) that there could be severe complications.
That is why there currently are class action law suits against some of the pharmaceutical companies.
What I know for certain is that Pop started his decline with increased drug prescriptions, many of which did have adverse affects and caused bodily harm/injury, ultimately leading to his demise. Rest In Peace, Pop.
Over For Now,
Main Street One
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)