In a September 16, 2010, article from The Wall Street Journal (link below) there are some staggering - and frightening - figures discussed.
Obstacle to Deficit Cutting: A Nation on Entitlements
For instance, in discussing government benefits to individuals (of any and all types and kinds):
"Payments to individuals -- a budget category that includes all federal benefit programs plus retirement benefits for federal workers -- will cost $2.4 trillion this year, up 79%, adjusted for inflation, from a decade earlier when the economy was stronger. That represents 64.3% of all federal outlays, the highest percentage in the 70 years the government has been measuring it. The figure was 46.7% in 1990 and 26.2% in 1960."
The 64.3% figure of all federal outlays is huge, especially considering how much money flows through the federal government.
One thing to keep in mind, this is only at the federal level, not state or municipal.
A few other disturbing facts:
"Nearly half of all Americans live in a household in which someone receives government benefits, more than at any time in history.
"At the same time, the fraction of American households not paying federal income taxes has also grown -- to an estimated 45% in 2010, from 39% five years ago, according to the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research organization.
"A little more than half don't earn enough to be taxed; the rest take so many credits and deductions they don't owe anything. Most still get hit with Medicare and Social Security payroll taxes, but 13% of all U.S. households pay neither federal income nor payroll taxes."
The math is not good.
As pointed out by the WSJ, the U.S. entitlement programs began in 1935. They have grown since, sometimes slowly, other times by would would seem leaps and bounds.
It is very worthwhile for all members of Main Street USA to read and pass along this article.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts
Friday, September 17, 2010
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Happy Birthday, America! Politicians, Wake Up!
Two-hundred, thirty-four years ago, our Founding Fathers together signed a document declaring that a people are free to determine their government and that, in fact, government is only allowed by the will of the people.
"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."
One very key ingredient in the quest for freedom was to break away from an oppressive government in order to establish one which derives its power from the people.
To wit: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
The word consent was fittingly and justly utilized by these astute men.
Though not a perfect foundation, as women were not afforded these same rights and all men (people) were not treated as equals as some were, rather, still enslaved.
However, their perception of government was remarkable.
These very learned men knew, through study of history, what a government must and must not do and should and should not do in order to survive.
And so, these 13 individual states united together to establish and form a democracy giving only certain powers to the federal government while keeping anything not specifically granted it to the states and to the people.
As the decades progressed, however, the federal government has grown to the point that individual liberty and the rights of states and citizens have been eroded and become limited. That is exactly what they did not want and, in fact, warned against.
America is still a truly great nation.
However, it is a nation where the will of the people is not followed. It is one where special interest groups wield unusual power over decisions affecting every person living in Main Street USA. It is one where back room deals in the hallowed halls of Capitol Hill decide the most crucial of actions and where billions upon billions of dollars are added to legislation to capture votes.
If pork and earmarks are needed to garner the necessary number of votes in order to pass then must not the legislation be flawed?
The taxpaying citizens of these United States of America desire a "more perfect union," not a larger federal government where their voice is no longer heard.
In order to achieve this end our elected public servants (not public rulers as some have tried to become) would be wise to re-study the very documents that were written and are the foundation for this nation and to then act as statesmen, not as politicos whose main objective is to become re-elected.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
"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."
One very key ingredient in the quest for freedom was to break away from an oppressive government in order to establish one which derives its power from the people.
To wit: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
The word consent was fittingly and justly utilized by these astute men.
Though not a perfect foundation, as women were not afforded these same rights and all men (people) were not treated as equals as some were, rather, still enslaved.
However, their perception of government was remarkable.
These very learned men knew, through study of history, what a government must and must not do and should and should not do in order to survive.
And so, these 13 individual states united together to establish and form a democracy giving only certain powers to the federal government while keeping anything not specifically granted it to the states and to the people.
As the decades progressed, however, the federal government has grown to the point that individual liberty and the rights of states and citizens have been eroded and become limited. That is exactly what they did not want and, in fact, warned against.
America is still a truly great nation.
However, it is a nation where the will of the people is not followed. It is one where special interest groups wield unusual power over decisions affecting every person living in Main Street USA. It is one where back room deals in the hallowed halls of Capitol Hill decide the most crucial of actions and where billions upon billions of dollars are added to legislation to capture votes.
If pork and earmarks are needed to garner the necessary number of votes in order to pass then must not the legislation be flawed?
The taxpaying citizens of these United States of America desire a "more perfect union," not a larger federal government where their voice is no longer heard.
In order to achieve this end our elected public servants (not public rulers as some have tried to become) would be wise to re-study the very documents that were written and are the foundation for this nation and to then act as statesmen, not as politicos whose main objective is to become re-elected.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Friday, February 26, 2010
Frivolous Lawsuits (ie Tort Reform)
The more I ponder President Obama's words at yesterday's Health Care Summit regarding frivolous lawsuit legislation being handed over to the states, the more it makes less sense to me.
Truth be told, zero sense.
Especially if one of the driving forces behind effective national healthcare reform is to lower costs to Main Street USA.
The insurance business is one of the riskiest businesses around.
Think about it. A company takes what is, in reality, a small amount of money from each of many people and ends up paying out money to cover whatever is insured.
In the health field, that particular cost is incredibly compounded by frivolous lawsuits and tort awards that are way out of line.
In order to protect themselves, and stay in business, insurance companies charge higher premiums.
There are major flaws with trying to pawn this area off to the states.
In the first place, consider the fact that not every state may enact any legislation at all. And, because it is being left up to the states, the laws themselves will vary (probably greatly) and provide different levels of protection.
Unless, of course, it is mandated that all states enact legislation. And, if that ends up being the case, why not do it at the national level?
Possibly the biggest factor, however, is that if a plaintiff does not like the award received in their judgment, even if it was at the uppermost limit a state allowed, it would be appealed. First to the state Supreme Court and, ultimately, to the US Supreme Court, where a decision would be made.
And that decision would affect all states.
Thus, all that would be accomplished by pushing this particular area of responsibility and legislation to the states is clogging the courts with appeals that eventually end up in our highest court in the land for a decision.
As a note, that would, of course, be after each state spent countless hours, days, weeks - i.e., taxpayer dollars - in order to craft and pass legislation. Yet, another cost for Main Street USA to carry.
Therefore, all of this means, in the end, that there would be more burdensome costs for the good ole middle class. (And this is a hidden cost, not covered in either the House or Senate healthcare reform legislation.)
Another item to consider is that many elected (and appointed) representatives on Capitol Hill totally vilify the insurance companies as greedy, making too much money off of the middle class, etc., etc.
Think about this for a minute...how much money does an attorney make who wins a frivolous lawsuit or a suit that awards monetary damages in the hundreds of millions to someone?
A bundle, to be sure.
As an example, perhaps the attorney is working on a 30 or 40 percent retainer and the award comes in at $100 million. The plaintiff gets $60 or $70 million and the attorney walks away with a cool $30 or $40 million.
The lawyer will defend this and speak of all the time and costs involved that he/she must pay out of their portion of the settlement. But how many of those attorneys have to worry about health insurance, making their mortgage payment, putting food on the table? How many of them live in million-dollar-plus homes and drive cars that the vast majority of Main Street USA can only dream about?
It is still this Main Streeter's opinion that this issue is being relegated to the states because attorneys and law firms are some of the biggest contributors to campaigns and spend millions of dollars lobbying.
Thus, by not tackling Tort Reform at the Federal level our elected public servants are irresponsible in this area.
America does not need bigger, expanding government. America needs fair and equitable government representing the best interests of the People.
For Healthcare Reform, that starts with Tort Reform and putting an end to frivolous lawsuits and outlandish settlements at the Federal, not State, level. And not attempting to rid the country of insurance companies so that we end up with socialized medicine.
If that happens, what is next? Uncle Sam's Gas Stations?
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Truth be told, zero sense.
Especially if one of the driving forces behind effective national healthcare reform is to lower costs to Main Street USA.
The insurance business is one of the riskiest businesses around.
Think about it. A company takes what is, in reality, a small amount of money from each of many people and ends up paying out money to cover whatever is insured.
In the health field, that particular cost is incredibly compounded by frivolous lawsuits and tort awards that are way out of line.
In order to protect themselves, and stay in business, insurance companies charge higher premiums.
There are major flaws with trying to pawn this area off to the states.
In the first place, consider the fact that not every state may enact any legislation at all. And, because it is being left up to the states, the laws themselves will vary (probably greatly) and provide different levels of protection.
Unless, of course, it is mandated that all states enact legislation. And, if that ends up being the case, why not do it at the national level?
Possibly the biggest factor, however, is that if a plaintiff does not like the award received in their judgment, even if it was at the uppermost limit a state allowed, it would be appealed. First to the state Supreme Court and, ultimately, to the US Supreme Court, where a decision would be made.
And that decision would affect all states.
Thus, all that would be accomplished by pushing this particular area of responsibility and legislation to the states is clogging the courts with appeals that eventually end up in our highest court in the land for a decision.
As a note, that would, of course, be after each state spent countless hours, days, weeks - i.e., taxpayer dollars - in order to craft and pass legislation. Yet, another cost for Main Street USA to carry.
Therefore, all of this means, in the end, that there would be more burdensome costs for the good ole middle class. (And this is a hidden cost, not covered in either the House or Senate healthcare reform legislation.)
Another item to consider is that many elected (and appointed) representatives on Capitol Hill totally vilify the insurance companies as greedy, making too much money off of the middle class, etc., etc.
Think about this for a minute...how much money does an attorney make who wins a frivolous lawsuit or a suit that awards monetary damages in the hundreds of millions to someone?
A bundle, to be sure.
As an example, perhaps the attorney is working on a 30 or 40 percent retainer and the award comes in at $100 million. The plaintiff gets $60 or $70 million and the attorney walks away with a cool $30 or $40 million.
The lawyer will defend this and speak of all the time and costs involved that he/she must pay out of their portion of the settlement. But how many of those attorneys have to worry about health insurance, making their mortgage payment, putting food on the table? How many of them live in million-dollar-plus homes and drive cars that the vast majority of Main Street USA can only dream about?
It is still this Main Streeter's opinion that this issue is being relegated to the states because attorneys and law firms are some of the biggest contributors to campaigns and spend millions of dollars lobbying.
Thus, by not tackling Tort Reform at the Federal level our elected public servants are irresponsible in this area.
America does not need bigger, expanding government. America needs fair and equitable government representing the best interests of the People.
For Healthcare Reform, that starts with Tort Reform and putting an end to frivolous lawsuits and outlandish settlements at the Federal, not State, level. And not attempting to rid the country of insurance companies so that we end up with socialized medicine.
If that happens, what is next? Uncle Sam's Gas Stations?
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Friday, February 19, 2010
Americans Are Dissatisfied With Government
According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll surveying 1,004 randomly selected citizens on February 11, 2010, "two-thirds of Americans are either dissatisfied or downright angry about the way the federal government is working."
The poll further revealed, per the article appearing in the Washington Post, that, "on average, the public estimates that 53 cents of every tax dollar they send to Washington is wasted."
The level of dissatisfaction by Main Street USA with our government (and, hence, the elected officials "leading" us) is at its highest level in 14 years.
Of significant note is that eight in 10 people who identify themselves as conservative Republicans hold negative views about the way our government is currently working, while just shy of six in 10 (59%) of the people who called themselves liberal Democrats responded they were "enthusiastic or satisfied about the role government was playing."
In order to have the total poll results at 67% negative that leaves the middle ground, the moderate Democrats, Republicans and Independents, as the group of citizens who tipped, and kept, the dissatisfied balance at a "super-majority-plus."
As stated earlier, it would be nice if our elected officials, from President Obama, to Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid, as well as each and every member of Congress, listened to what America has to say.
Main Street USA does not want, or need, a super-size government that regulates every little thing or decides that a government-run activity can do something better than the private sector.
The most recent examples are state-run pension plans, now one trillion dollars in debt. And, that is not from the 2008 economic collapse.
The super-majority-plus of taxpayers does not desire a government that does not spend within its budget with no thought of the future consequences and has, in reality, absolutely no accountability.
That an elected representative may get voted out of office due to voters being upset with their actions is not really accountability. Afterall, that deposed member of Congress will still reap the rewards of handsome retirement pay and benefits (courtesy of Main Street USA).
A person who uses credit to the maximum, and more, pays the piper in the end, either in the form of excessively high interest rates with loans and cards never being paid in full, or ends up having to file bankruptcy.
And, based on months of polling American citizens, it is not a desire that the federal government be our healthcare provider. Period.
So, why is Washington trying to ram this down our throats?
Whose agenda is it that this occur?
The US Government, in the immortal words of President Abraham Lincoln, is supposed to be of the people, by the people, for the people.
Does today's leadership, despite Main Street USA flatly stating that we do not want government-run healthcare, feel that American Citizens do not know what is in our own best interest? That only those who sit on Capitol Hill know what is good and best for its voting public (i.e., taxpayers)?
Wake Up Everybody!
The people have spoken.
Many times.
Start listening to your constituency.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
The poll further revealed, per the article appearing in the Washington Post, that, "on average, the public estimates that 53 cents of every tax dollar they send to Washington is wasted."
The level of dissatisfaction by Main Street USA with our government (and, hence, the elected officials "leading" us) is at its highest level in 14 years.
Of significant note is that eight in 10 people who identify themselves as conservative Republicans hold negative views about the way our government is currently working, while just shy of six in 10 (59%) of the people who called themselves liberal Democrats responded they were "enthusiastic or satisfied about the role government was playing."
In order to have the total poll results at 67% negative that leaves the middle ground, the moderate Democrats, Republicans and Independents, as the group of citizens who tipped, and kept, the dissatisfied balance at a "super-majority-plus."
As stated earlier, it would be nice if our elected officials, from President Obama, to Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid, as well as each and every member of Congress, listened to what America has to say.
Main Street USA does not want, or need, a super-size government that regulates every little thing or decides that a government-run activity can do something better than the private sector.
The most recent examples are state-run pension plans, now one trillion dollars in debt. And, that is not from the 2008 economic collapse.
The super-majority-plus of taxpayers does not desire a government that does not spend within its budget with no thought of the future consequences and has, in reality, absolutely no accountability.
That an elected representative may get voted out of office due to voters being upset with their actions is not really accountability. Afterall, that deposed member of Congress will still reap the rewards of handsome retirement pay and benefits (courtesy of Main Street USA).
A person who uses credit to the maximum, and more, pays the piper in the end, either in the form of excessively high interest rates with loans and cards never being paid in full, or ends up having to file bankruptcy.
And, based on months of polling American citizens, it is not a desire that the federal government be our healthcare provider. Period.
So, why is Washington trying to ram this down our throats?
Whose agenda is it that this occur?
The US Government, in the immortal words of President Abraham Lincoln, is supposed to be of the people, by the people, for the people.
Does today's leadership, despite Main Street USA flatly stating that we do not want government-run healthcare, feel that American Citizens do not know what is in our own best interest? That only those who sit on Capitol Hill know what is good and best for its voting public (i.e., taxpayers)?
Wake Up Everybody!
The people have spoken.
Many times.
Start listening to your constituency.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Compromise or Bribery ? ? ?
As reported by CQPolitics:
"Reid and his aides have been relatively open about the deals he struck with individual Democrats.
"You will find a number of states are treated differently than other states, Reid said Dec. 19. That's what legislation is all about. It's compromise."
Interesting that the dictionary defines Legislation as "the act of making or enacting laws" and that Compromise is "a settlement of differences by mutual concessions."
I was not aware that "mutual concessions" included giving away billions of taxpayer dollars to buy the support and votes of a few.
Further to the point, the concession Mr. Reid gave up was . . . exactly what?
Sorry, sounds more like bribery to this taxpayer.
To set the record straight, a Bribe (that word used in the headline) is "anything given or serving to persuade or induce."
And Senator Harry Reid did just that, he persuaded some his party members with additional taxpayer dollars for their states that not all states will receive.
As a note, that is also not a mutual concession.
Perhaps Main Street USA should be glad that there were not more Senate Democrat hold-outs...who knows what the final pricetag would be on this earmarked piece of legislation.
More food for thought.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
"Reid and his aides have been relatively open about the deals he struck with individual Democrats.
"You will find a number of states are treated differently than other states, Reid said Dec. 19. That's what legislation is all about. It's compromise."
Interesting that the dictionary defines Legislation as "the act of making or enacting laws" and that Compromise is "a settlement of differences by mutual concessions."
I was not aware that "mutual concessions" included giving away billions of taxpayer dollars to buy the support and votes of a few.
Further to the point, the concession Mr. Reid gave up was . . . exactly what?
Sorry, sounds more like bribery to this taxpayer.
To set the record straight, a Bribe (that word used in the headline) is "anything given or serving to persuade or induce."
And Senator Harry Reid did just that, he persuaded some his party members with additional taxpayer dollars for their states that not all states will receive.
As a note, that is also not a mutual concession.
Perhaps Main Street USA should be glad that there were not more Senate Democrat hold-outs...who knows what the final pricetag would be on this earmarked piece of legislation.
More food for thought.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Sunday, December 20, 2009
What Happened to Promises of No Pork?
During his campaign, President Obama promised legislation in his administration would not contain pork, or earmarks.
However, in order to capture what the Senate feels are their 60 votes needed to pass national healthcare reform, there is definitely excess baggage contained in the bill.
Consider that Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson ended up with at least an additional $45 million for his state as part of the payoff for his vote.
One wonders what each Senate vote cost residents of Main Street USA.
And there is bad news for people who like to frequent tanning salons. A tax of 10% will be added to each visit with the reasoning that utilizing those machines increases the risk of cancer. (Thus, not a sin tax like booze, but a health tax.)
That leaves unanswered the question of how many other convenience or consumption or other taxes are in the bill.
Earlier there was discussion of taxing the purchase of sugary drinks. Did that stay in the bill?
And what other taxes, in the guise of other words, will befall each and every citizen in one way or another?
It would also be nice to see what segments of our society make up this 30 million people who will now be able to acquire health insurance.
As stated in an earlier post, the number of those who could not actually afford healthcare insurance was closer to the 10 million mark, with the balance made up of people who could but decided, for their own reasons, not to do so.
They will, evidently, now be forced to acquire it or face fines and penalties.
While there are many millions of people who are against this legislation, but not necessarily totally against healthcare reform, one still has to wonder how, with the thousands of pages written of the actual bill and the various proposed amendments (one of which was 767 pages long), that tort reform is still not in the equation.
Attorney and law firm lobbyists must carry some incredible weight within the walls of Washington.
And, what does the fine print say about the government's ability to add taxes that are not now in the bill if projected revenues fall short and estimated expenses are higher than anticipated?
Citizens of the USA, if this passes, get ready for increased government intervention into your lives, higher personal taxes, consumption taxes on who-knows-what and incredibly massive deficits.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
However, in order to capture what the Senate feels are their 60 votes needed to pass national healthcare reform, there is definitely excess baggage contained in the bill.
Consider that Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson ended up with at least an additional $45 million for his state as part of the payoff for his vote.
One wonders what each Senate vote cost residents of Main Street USA.
And there is bad news for people who like to frequent tanning salons. A tax of 10% will be added to each visit with the reasoning that utilizing those machines increases the risk of cancer. (Thus, not a sin tax like booze, but a health tax.)
That leaves unanswered the question of how many other convenience or consumption or other taxes are in the bill.
Earlier there was discussion of taxing the purchase of sugary drinks. Did that stay in the bill?
And what other taxes, in the guise of other words, will befall each and every citizen in one way or another?
It would also be nice to see what segments of our society make up this 30 million people who will now be able to acquire health insurance.
As stated in an earlier post, the number of those who could not actually afford healthcare insurance was closer to the 10 million mark, with the balance made up of people who could but decided, for their own reasons, not to do so.
They will, evidently, now be forced to acquire it or face fines and penalties.
While there are many millions of people who are against this legislation, but not necessarily totally against healthcare reform, one still has to wonder how, with the thousands of pages written of the actual bill and the various proposed amendments (one of which was 767 pages long), that tort reform is still not in the equation.
Attorney and law firm lobbyists must carry some incredible weight within the walls of Washington.
And, what does the fine print say about the government's ability to add taxes that are not now in the bill if projected revenues fall short and estimated expenses are higher than anticipated?
Citizens of the USA, if this passes, get ready for increased government intervention into your lives, higher personal taxes, consumption taxes on who-knows-what and incredibly massive deficits.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Sunday, July 19, 2009
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
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
Thursday, July 9, 2009
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)