As a federal employee, you probably think that my view on contractors is dim and that I don't think any of the work should be contracted out. You're wrong. Contracting out work has resulted in some amazing accomplishments. Before we get into the advantages, we should discuss the necessities: There are small and large businesses that specialize in particular areas. Said businesses provide specialized products and services that we all rely on. There are a myriad of goods AND services that contractors provide to the government, so it would be impossible to provide a list. Let's just say that the government couldn't possibly survive without contractors providing support.
This leads to some of the amazing achievements that have been realized because of contracting. If it wasn't for contracting, nuclear power would never have become a reality. The sound barrier may not have been broken. The helicopter wouldn't have developed as fast as it did, nor would the airplane. And the list goes on. If it wasn't for contractors like Bethlehem shipbuilding, it is unlikely the 16" guns that were mounted on WW II battleships would have been developed in time to play an important part in winning the war. The M-1 Garand, once called the "greatest battle implement ever devised" by George S. Patton, was developed by a government employee (John Garand). It was manufactured by a then-government owned facility (Springfield Armory). But that is a very rare exception to the fact that most of the innovation in the military came from contractors. The most well-remembered example is John Browning. Designer of several automatic weapons for the U.S., his .50 caliber machine gun has been in service with the U.S. military for over 50 years, and his 1911 .45 caliber pistol is still fielded by military and police almost 100 years since it's initial production
But the biggest achievement was space flight. Sure, the Soviets were the pioneers of unmanned satellites and orbiting humans. But NASA's achievements in the 1960s were the results of concerted efforts between contractors and the government. North American built the Command and Service module; Grumman built the Lunar module; Boeing, North American, and Douglas all built the stages that made up the Saturn V. Not to mention the too-long-to-list roster of other contractors that made space exploration a reality.
Does the government do some things better than contractors? Indeed. We enforce the laws, deliver the mail, and guard the nation. And quite frankly, it takes sworn personnel to accomplish that. I would advocate against privatizing those functions that are necessary to ensure a safe, secure nation where freedom is not a privilege but a basic human right.
But I am also smart enough to know that accomplishing this mission cannot be done without the support of expert contractors who share this desire. I submit that there is a definitive, crucial need for contractors. Without them, our government couldn't function.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Federal Pay Freeze
Okay. I'm a Democrat. I get it. We all have to accept that the budget situation and the deficit are becoming very critical. After years of unchecked spending during the Bush administration and a refusal to raise taxes, President Obama inherited the largest federal debt in history. Compounding matters, he also walked into an economy that was in almost as bad a shape as the one Franklin Delano Roosevelt inherited in 1933. Had the President paid more attention to the economy and jobs, he wouldn't have lost the House in the mid-terms. Now, he has to do the politically savvy thing and make sure that the incoming majority understands that he shares their concerns insofar as federal spending is concerned.
The most public way to do that is to address the salaries of his own employees (of which I am one). Ergo, he decided to freeze all civilian pay for the next two years as well as the locality adjustment for 2011. Of course, there are plenty of uninformed people out there that are cheering this move, as they truly believe that a government can run on auto-pilot. They don't understand what the rest of the planet has understood since the days of the Roman Republic: it takes a civil service comprised of educated professionals to run a government. The Chinese understood this so well that they started conducting civil service written examinations in the 6th century.
So it ticks me off to hear someone with a high school education point a finger at me and say that I am under-worked and overpaid. Suppose I told you that I busted my butt for 8 years in college and law school? What if I told you that I worked overnight at the Post Office for all 8 of those years? And then did an UNPAID internship in a federal agency my last semester of law school? Would you say I'm worth the base salary I make of just over $50,000.00? Because I live in Boston, I get a locality adjustment that adds $12,000.00 to my base salary. And without getting too specific about where I work, let's just say that when your boss screws you over on pay and overtime, I'm the first person you call.
But the REAL problem with the freeze is that it doesn't address the fundamental problem of the debt and the deficit. The plain fact is that when Bill Clinton left office, there was a budget surplus, and the national debt was being reduced so fast, that the national debt clock had to be unplugged, because it couldn't keep up. So the obvious question is why you would freeze the pay of a group that is likely to spend and contribute to the economic recovery with their disposable income?
This isn't to insinuate that the freeze won't help, but it's far from the solutions needed to turn around the economy. What really needs to happen are some very unpopular measures. First, the President needs to remind the American people that the debt was run up during the previous administration. The cost of the war and the largest increase in federal personnel in the history of the civil service took place when the Republicans had the House and the Senate and the White House. That is a fact that everyone is forgetting.
Second, real cost cutting has to take place, and not just in the civil service. This move will undoubtedly reduce the work force: if you are at retirement age and you were holding off so that your retirement may increase slightly over the next 2 years, you now have no incentive to stick around. So this measure will accomplish the goals the President wants to accomplish. Unfortunately, those moves are for the most part symbolic measures that won't accomplish real savings.
Third, the President needs to make people understand that the Republicans have zero interest in bipartisanship. They are only interested in taking the White House back. He needs to make sure the American people know that the bad guys are on the other side of the aisle.
The most public way to do that is to address the salaries of his own employees (of which I am one). Ergo, he decided to freeze all civilian pay for the next two years as well as the locality adjustment for 2011. Of course, there are plenty of uninformed people out there that are cheering this move, as they truly believe that a government can run on auto-pilot. They don't understand what the rest of the planet has understood since the days of the Roman Republic: it takes a civil service comprised of educated professionals to run a government. The Chinese understood this so well that they started conducting civil service written examinations in the 6th century.
So it ticks me off to hear someone with a high school education point a finger at me and say that I am under-worked and overpaid. Suppose I told you that I busted my butt for 8 years in college and law school? What if I told you that I worked overnight at the Post Office for all 8 of those years? And then did an UNPAID internship in a federal agency my last semester of law school? Would you say I'm worth the base salary I make of just over $50,000.00? Because I live in Boston, I get a locality adjustment that adds $12,000.00 to my base salary. And without getting too specific about where I work, let's just say that when your boss screws you over on pay and overtime, I'm the first person you call.
But the REAL problem with the freeze is that it doesn't address the fundamental problem of the debt and the deficit. The plain fact is that when Bill Clinton left office, there was a budget surplus, and the national debt was being reduced so fast, that the national debt clock had to be unplugged, because it couldn't keep up. So the obvious question is why you would freeze the pay of a group that is likely to spend and contribute to the economic recovery with their disposable income?
This isn't to insinuate that the freeze won't help, but it's far from the solutions needed to turn around the economy. What really needs to happen are some very unpopular measures. First, the President needs to remind the American people that the debt was run up during the previous administration. The cost of the war and the largest increase in federal personnel in the history of the civil service took place when the Republicans had the House and the Senate and the White House. That is a fact that everyone is forgetting.
Second, real cost cutting has to take place, and not just in the civil service. This move will undoubtedly reduce the work force: if you are at retirement age and you were holding off so that your retirement may increase slightly over the next 2 years, you now have no incentive to stick around. So this measure will accomplish the goals the President wants to accomplish. Unfortunately, those moves are for the most part symbolic measures that won't accomplish real savings.
Third, the President needs to make people understand that the Republicans have zero interest in bipartisanship. They are only interested in taking the White House back. He needs to make sure the American people know that the bad guys are on the other side of the aisle.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Federal Pay raises
I am getting so sick and tired of the knock that federal employees take from our private sector counterparts, that I decided it was time to sound off about it. Every year, USA today publishes a "survey" that says that the private sector is paid nearly 50% less than the federal workforce. Disregarding the flawed research for a minute, if the average salary of a private sector employee in a comparable federal occupation was really that much lower, Congress would have taken action long ago. Why? Because the federal government employs 2 million people, which is less than 1% of the population of the United States.
Of that 2 million, nearly y 70% posses a college degree, and the majority of those possess a masters or a law degree. There are also Medical Doctors and PhDs, as well as registered nurses. So it stands to reason that yes, those professionals would earn more money than a line worker or a convenience store clerk. And this is where the USA Today survey is flawed. If the USA Today had actually bothered to compare things like level of education, salaries for CEOs, CFOs, and other highly placed executives, Professors with tenure, lawyers, doctors, etc... the disparity disappears.
But hey, if they did that, they wouldn't sell papers. And we can't have that, can we?
Of that 2 million, nearly y 70% posses a college degree, and the majority of those possess a masters or a law degree. There are also Medical Doctors and PhDs, as well as registered nurses. So it stands to reason that yes, those professionals would earn more money than a line worker or a convenience store clerk. And this is where the USA Today survey is flawed. If the USA Today had actually bothered to compare things like level of education, salaries for CEOs, CFOs, and other highly placed executives, Professors with tenure, lawyers, doctors, etc... the disparity disappears.
But hey, if they did that, they wouldn't sell papers. And we can't have that, can we?
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Abolish the minimum wage?
Currently, two candidates for the U.S. Senate are advocating the abolition of the federally mandated minimum wage. Why? They argue that there is no need for the government to set a minimum wage for the unskilled workers of the country. They are both advancing flawed laogic to prove their resepective theories.
The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 was passed by President Frankiln Delano Roosevelt because there was a need to get more workers into the work force. One of the most important components of The Act, was to ensure that non-exempt workers were paid time and a half for all hours worked over 40 in a given week. Thus, an employer would be less likely to have one person do 90 hours of work in a week, and subsequently hire an additional employee to get the job done. This produced two important benefits:
First, it put more people to work, which in turn reduces the amount of people seeking government assistance.
Second, and more important, it provides more people with disposable income to spend on products and services from small businesses, which in turn allow those businesses to expand and employ more workers with more disposable income. In short, it enhances consumer spending opportunities and the quality of life for many.
So my question then is what do Miler and Raese have against the working class? Are they truly of the notion that the minimum wage is an evil thing? Or are they just dead set against anyone earning money?
The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 was passed by President Frankiln Delano Roosevelt because there was a need to get more workers into the work force. One of the most important components of The Act, was to ensure that non-exempt workers were paid time and a half for all hours worked over 40 in a given week. Thus, an employer would be less likely to have one person do 90 hours of work in a week, and subsequently hire an additional employee to get the job done. This produced two important benefits:
First, it put more people to work, which in turn reduces the amount of people seeking government assistance.
Second, and more important, it provides more people with disposable income to spend on products and services from small businesses, which in turn allow those businesses to expand and employ more workers with more disposable income. In short, it enhances consumer spending opportunities and the quality of life for many.
So my question then is what do Miler and Raese have against the working class? Are they truly of the notion that the minimum wage is an evil thing? Or are they just dead set against anyone earning money?
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Battlestar Galactica
SPOILER ALERT
I just realized that I never posted any thoughts on what was my favorite show of the last decade. So, with apologies for being late, here is the low down on one of the best shows ever...
I want to start off by admitting I was a latecomer to the show. I was never a fan of the original, which was a late 70s cheesefest featuring military pilots with disco haircuts and Lorne Greene as sort of a futuristic Moses, attempting to lead his people to the promised land. Because of that, I shrugged when the mini-series was advertised in late 2003. Boy was I wrong. I caught the Battlestar bug in the summer of 2007. I was on summer break from my second year of law school, and it was one of those rainy summer days in New England, where the temperature was 15 degrees below normal. I was working overnights and weekends at the Post Office, and it was a Thursday, one of my days off. I stopped at the video store, looking for a way to kill a few hours.
Perusing the T.V. section, I saw the DVD for the mini-series. Edward James Olmos and Mary McDonnell were on the cover, so I figured I'd gamble the four bucks. By the end of the weekend, I had seen all of the available DVDs, and was waiting for the sesaon 2.5 release, so I would be caught up in time for season 3.
The show was a very direct reflection of our society after 9/11. Indeed, as Executive Producer David Eick surmised after the show concluded it's run in 2009, "If we had tried to do this in 1995, when the economy was good, and there was no 'War on Terror', this would have been a completely different show."
The story starts off with a look at the 12 colonies of man, shortly before a genocidal attack by the Cylons. Cylons, we are told, are artificial life forms that were created to make life easier on the 12 colonies. 52 years prior to the events of the show, the Cylons revolted and a 12 year war was fought between them and their human creators. After the war, the Cylons left the 12 colonies. They evolved. And they are coming home for revenge. After a massive nuclear strike against the colonies, most of humanity is wipeed out, and the last 50,000 humans are on a journey aboard 70 ships looking for the fabled colony of Earth.
Along the way there is political intrigue and espionage, sabotage, and a wholesale change in the values that once made the colonies great. And in Season 3, everything you thought you knew about the war on terror is turned inside out.
To tell more would be to give too much away, but thankfully, in the age of the DVD, you can see the entire series from beginning to end. I highly recommend it. It was tightly written and shot very well. The acting is unparalleled for episodic television, and the direction was superb.
All in all, the best T.V. show of the last 10 years.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Obama a Muslim? No. But if he is...
... So what? I have become so sick and tired of the racist, yes I said it, RACIST scumbags on the far right who continually beat this dead horse about the President's racial background. He has been in office over a year and a half, and contrary to what the fear mongers would have you believe, Islam has not taken over the government. But more important is the question Colin Powell asked when he endorsed Obama's candidacy in 2008: Is there something wrong with a young Muslim boy or girl wanting to grow up and become President of the United States?
America is the most racially and ethnically diverse country in the world. The Europeans can chastise us all they want about being intolerant, but how many European leaders are from an ethnic minority? Our diversity is what made us as great as we are. We have a history of people making contributions and sacrifices that advanced us socially and militarily.
Mr. Powell in his endorsement told a story of a young soldier who gave his life in the Iraq war. The boy's gravestone bore the star and crescent of Islam. His name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan. I attached his picture for all to view and I say this to all of you racist pigs: you should be ashamed of yourselves. You should be ashamed because Mr. Khan was not the first Muslim to give his life for this country and he will most certainly not be the last.
By the way, the woman in the picture is his mother. Would any of you right wing a-holes care to express your views on Islam to her? I'm betting not because all of you are a bunch of cowards. And most of you don't have the GUTS to go down to the recruiting office and go do what Mr. Khan did so selflessly.
America is the most racially and ethnically diverse country in the world. The Europeans can chastise us all they want about being intolerant, but how many European leaders are from an ethnic minority? Our diversity is what made us as great as we are. We have a history of people making contributions and sacrifices that advanced us socially and militarily.
Mr. Powell in his endorsement told a story of a young soldier who gave his life in the Iraq war. The boy's gravestone bore the star and crescent of Islam. His name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan. I attached his picture for all to view and I say this to all of you racist pigs: you should be ashamed of yourselves. You should be ashamed because Mr. Khan was not the first Muslim to give his life for this country and he will most certainly not be the last.
By the way, the woman in the picture is his mother. Would any of you right wing a-holes care to express your views on Islam to her? I'm betting not because all of you are a bunch of cowards. And most of you don't have the GUTS to go down to the recruiting office and go do what Mr. Khan did so selflessly.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Scorpions to retire...
I was a long time fan of this legendary band from Germany. I was fortunate to be able to see them touring at their Zenith. That was on June 17th, 1984 at the Hampton Colisseum in Hampton Virginia. They were touring in support of the album "Love at First Sting." I can say unequivocally that they were worth every dime of the ticket price.
It was a general admission show. I wound up front row center. How I lived through it I will never know, but I remember it being the best concert I ever saw.
But like all good things, Scorpions are coming to an end. This is not unexpected. Nobody works forever. If there's positive news, it's that Scorpions have been touring and recording since the late '60s. Most bands are done after 10 years but these guys managed to keep it going for over 40 years.
All we can do now is say thanks.
It was a general admission show. I wound up front row center. How I lived through it I will never know, but I remember it being the best concert I ever saw.
But like all good things, Scorpions are coming to an end. This is not unexpected. Nobody works forever. If there's positive news, it's that Scorpions have been touring and recording since the late '60s. Most bands are done after 10 years but these guys managed to keep it going for over 40 years.
All we can do now is say thanks.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Another cheap shot at the Postal Service
So this "investigative" reporter in Colorado decides that letter carriers with suspended licenses would be a great topic for an undercover investigation. He in essence tells us that the Postal Service is assigning drivers to drive letter carriers around who have lost their licenses for DUI. Of course his thesis is all about waste. You can read his story here.
You would think a story about Postal Service waste would include a t least a passing reference to the 80 billion dollars the Service overpaid into the Civil Service Retirement System. But no, apparently taking shots at the workers makes for better ratings.
As someone who worked for the Service for 15 years, I can tell you that as with all large organizations, there are good and bad employees. I was fortunate to work in a facility where there were lots of dedicated employees who cared about there jobs and about the organization in which they served. Of course there were some bad employees, but I challenge you to find an organization with 600,000 employees and no employees with issues.
I also challenge the reporter who wrote that piece to take a look at the Service's upper management. I think he would have a few things to say about the way the service does its business.
You would think a story about Postal Service waste would include a t least a passing reference to the 80 billion dollars the Service overpaid into the Civil Service Retirement System. But no, apparently taking shots at the workers makes for better ratings.
As someone who worked for the Service for 15 years, I can tell you that as with all large organizations, there are good and bad employees. I was fortunate to work in a facility where there were lots of dedicated employees who cared about there jobs and about the organization in which they served. Of course there were some bad employees, but I challenge you to find an organization with 600,000 employees and no employees with issues.
I also challenge the reporter who wrote that piece to take a look at the Service's upper management. I think he would have a few things to say about the way the service does its business.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
24 Ending
The following took place between November6th, 2001 and May 24th, 2010.
The long running drama 24 is coming to an end this May after 8 seasons. You can read the Fox press release here.
I have a few thoughts on the show. I will admit that I didn't catch the 24 bug until 2006. When it first came on, I thought that Fox was taking advantage of the post 9/11 atmosphere (the show premiered on Nov. 6, 2001). So I steered clear of it. Later on I learned that Fox had in fact been filming it 6 months before the events of 9/11, and that the terrorists in the first season weren't even Muslims. They were Serbs.
In Summer of 2006, I was enjoying much needed time off from my first year of law school. I was over my brother's and saw that he had the first season on DVD. I asked if it was any good and he said it was O.K., so I started to watch it. Three weeks later, I had watched every season available on DVD. I haven't looked back since.
Like all T.V. shows, 24 reached its zenith a few years after it came on. I'm a firm believer in the precept that most T.V. shows stop being fresh after a hundred or so episodes. The same was true here. The best seasons were 1 through 5. After that, the luster started to wear off. How many times can we see Jack Bauer save the world? And how often can CTU be infiltrated by a mole before we start to wonder who is running the show over there? Not to mention the infinite changes in command. It seemed like every week, someone at CTU was being removed and replaced.
But in spite of its flaws, it was a fun show to watch. And for the first five years, it was gripping and tense. And it asked some questions that we thought about differently in the wake of 9/11. It appealed to Republicans and Democrats alike, with both Bill Clinton and Rush Limbaugh claiming to be fans. John McCain even had a walk on part in season 4.
And like it or not, it provoked your thoughts and it never was ambiguous about what some people will do to advance a political agenda, both friendly or otherwise. It was also controversial. Should our intelligence operatives use harsh interrogation if it means saving hundreds of thoousands of lives? Or is respect for the Constitution so important that innocent lives must be scrificed in the name of freedom and liberty? You can decide, but the point is that the show was almost a weekly behind the scenes look at the ongoing war on terror.
My personal favorite seasons were 2 and 4. Season 2 because the show was able to take advantage of being a hit and deliver a grest story and a fabulous production, as well as some writing that is the best I ever saw. Season 4 because the show was still fresh and edgy and introduced my favorite character, Bill Buchanan.
But, like all great shows, its time has come and gone. This one will be on my personal top ten list, along with Battlestar Galactica, That 70s Show, and Burn Notice.
To KeiferSutherland, Joel Surnow, Howard Gordon, Imagine Entertainment, Brian Grazer, and all of the cast and crew, I say Thank You for 8 years of great entertainment. Good Luck!
The long running drama 24 is coming to an end this May after 8 seasons. You can read the Fox press release here.
I have a few thoughts on the show. I will admit that I didn't catch the 24 bug until 2006. When it first came on, I thought that Fox was taking advantage of the post 9/11 atmosphere (the show premiered on Nov. 6, 2001). So I steered clear of it. Later on I learned that Fox had in fact been filming it 6 months before the events of 9/11, and that the terrorists in the first season weren't even Muslims. They were Serbs.
In Summer of 2006, I was enjoying much needed time off from my first year of law school. I was over my brother's and saw that he had the first season on DVD. I asked if it was any good and he said it was O.K., so I started to watch it. Three weeks later, I had watched every season available on DVD. I haven't looked back since.
Like all T.V. shows, 24 reached its zenith a few years after it came on. I'm a firm believer in the precept that most T.V. shows stop being fresh after a hundred or so episodes. The same was true here. The best seasons were 1 through 5. After that, the luster started to wear off. How many times can we see Jack Bauer save the world? And how often can CTU be infiltrated by a mole before we start to wonder who is running the show over there? Not to mention the infinite changes in command. It seemed like every week, someone at CTU was being removed and replaced.
But in spite of its flaws, it was a fun show to watch. And for the first five years, it was gripping and tense. And it asked some questions that we thought about differently in the wake of 9/11. It appealed to Republicans and Democrats alike, with both Bill Clinton and Rush Limbaugh claiming to be fans. John McCain even had a walk on part in season 4.
And like it or not, it provoked your thoughts and it never was ambiguous about what some people will do to advance a political agenda, both friendly or otherwise. It was also controversial. Should our intelligence operatives use harsh interrogation if it means saving hundreds of thoousands of lives? Or is respect for the Constitution so important that innocent lives must be scrificed in the name of freedom and liberty? You can decide, but the point is that the show was almost a weekly behind the scenes look at the ongoing war on terror.
My personal favorite seasons were 2 and 4. Season 2 because the show was able to take advantage of being a hit and deliver a grest story and a fabulous production, as well as some writing that is the best I ever saw. Season 4 because the show was still fresh and edgy and introduced my favorite character, Bill Buchanan.
But, like all great shows, its time has come and gone. This one will be on my personal top ten list, along with Battlestar Galactica, That 70s Show, and Burn Notice.
To KeiferSutherland, Joel Surnow, Howard Gordon, Imagine Entertainment, Brian Grazer, and all of the cast and crew, I say Thank You for 8 years of great entertainment. Good Luck!
Friday, March 26, 2010
The party of "Hell No"
So Sarah Palin, on the stump for John McCain in Arizona, tells us today that the Republican Party is the part of "Hell No." Her reference of course was to the current administration's efforts to increase health care benefits to millions of Americans who are either uninsured or under-insured. Palin's hypocisy on the issue of public spending is well documented. But in case you need a reminder, I have thre words for you: "Bridge to Nowhere."
You'll remember that the bridge was a proposed project that was to link Ketchikan, AK with Gravina Island. Palin was a big proponent of the bill while there were federal funds available to pay for the majority of the construction costs. However, when the federal funds were reduced, Palin decided that Alaska shouldn't have to foot the bill and decided that the current ferry service was adequate after all. Curiously, she kept the money that was already given to Alaska. I wonder why the Tea Party never talks about that?
The point is that the money that went to Alaska's bridge project came from the federal government, which came from taxpayers. The majority of those taxpayers will never visit Alaska, let alone live there. But the party of "Hell No" is really the party of "Hell Yes" when it comes to funds that will benefit them politically.
And lest we forget that the Republicans came into a federal budget surplus in 2001. The National Debt Clock was running backwards so fast 2000, that it was unplugged and covered with a curtain. After roughly 2 years of the "Hell No" party being in power, the clock resumed running in 2002, with a figure of 6.1 trillion dollars. It is now out of digits, because the national debt is at 10 trillion and counting. And the Republicans can't play the blame game here.
The FACT is that after 8 years of Bill Clinton, the country was doing well. A budge surplus for the first time in 40 years, and a reducing national debt. The GOP had the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court for 6 years.
From where I'm sitting, they did a pretty crappy job.
You'll remember that the bridge was a proposed project that was to link Ketchikan, AK with Gravina Island. Palin was a big proponent of the bill while there were federal funds available to pay for the majority of the construction costs. However, when the federal funds were reduced, Palin decided that Alaska shouldn't have to foot the bill and decided that the current ferry service was adequate after all. Curiously, she kept the money that was already given to Alaska. I wonder why the Tea Party never talks about that?
The point is that the money that went to Alaska's bridge project came from the federal government, which came from taxpayers. The majority of those taxpayers will never visit Alaska, let alone live there. But the party of "Hell No" is really the party of "Hell Yes" when it comes to funds that will benefit them politically.
And lest we forget that the Republicans came into a federal budget surplus in 2001. The National Debt Clock was running backwards so fast 2000, that it was unplugged and covered with a curtain. After roughly 2 years of the "Hell No" party being in power, the clock resumed running in 2002, with a figure of 6.1 trillion dollars. It is now out of digits, because the national debt is at 10 trillion and counting. And the Republicans can't play the blame game here.
The FACT is that after 8 years of Bill Clinton, the country was doing well. A budge surplus for the first time in 40 years, and a reducing national debt. The GOP had the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court for 6 years.
From where I'm sitting, they did a pretty crappy job.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Public Option
Health Care Reform-- The very words make insurance companies shudder. Let's face some cold hard facts:
1. Health Insurance Companies are businesses. Businesses are focused on selling goods or services and through that process realizing profits.
2. Government provided health care would cut into the profit margins of the insurers. That is a fact.
3. Health insurers are happy with the status quo, which is to collect premiums and be very stingy when it comes to handing out benefits.
So... Is there a solution? Yes.
The United States is the Land of Opportunity. Nothing stands in your way except air and opportunity. For every person out there who says that America is slanted against the people who are wage earners, there is a counter story of a person who came here with nothing and is now extremely successful. Hard work does pay off. It's that individualist spirit that played a large and vital part in building this nation.
But we are also a collection of people who know how to work together for the common good. A shining example is our space program. In 1958, NASA didn't exist. 11 years later we walked on the moon. Raytheon, Grumman, North American Aviation, Lockheed, and McDonnell-Douglas just to name a few got us there. That is just one instance of America's ability to do what it wants when it puts its mind to it.
So why can't we get it together when it comes to providing a basic social service such as health care? The answer depends on whether you consider health care a commodity, to be sold at a market price, or a right.
I consider health care to be a right. I don't think that a citizen of this country should have to choose between paying monthly bills such as rent and electricity, or going to the doctor.
I think that there should be a combination of ideas to provide quality affordable health coverage to all American citizens. Tax incentives to insurance companies to provide care to high risk patients combined with an option for those who can't otherwise find coverage to be able to buy in at a low price would go a long way to alleviating the problems we face on this issue.
To those who would scream "socialism" I would ask this:
If one of your loved ones became seriously infirmed and the only available solution was public assistance, would you turn it down based on you principles of "less government?" I would hope that your answer is a resounding "no."
1. Health Insurance Companies are businesses. Businesses are focused on selling goods or services and through that process realizing profits.
2. Government provided health care would cut into the profit margins of the insurers. That is a fact.
3. Health insurers are happy with the status quo, which is to collect premiums and be very stingy when it comes to handing out benefits.
So... Is there a solution? Yes.
The United States is the Land of Opportunity. Nothing stands in your way except air and opportunity. For every person out there who says that America is slanted against the people who are wage earners, there is a counter story of a person who came here with nothing and is now extremely successful. Hard work does pay off. It's that individualist spirit that played a large and vital part in building this nation.
But we are also a collection of people who know how to work together for the common good. A shining example is our space program. In 1958, NASA didn't exist. 11 years later we walked on the moon. Raytheon, Grumman, North American Aviation, Lockheed, and McDonnell-Douglas just to name a few got us there. That is just one instance of America's ability to do what it wants when it puts its mind to it.
So why can't we get it together when it comes to providing a basic social service such as health care? The answer depends on whether you consider health care a commodity, to be sold at a market price, or a right.
I consider health care to be a right. I don't think that a citizen of this country should have to choose between paying monthly bills such as rent and electricity, or going to the doctor.
I think that there should be a combination of ideas to provide quality affordable health coverage to all American citizens. Tax incentives to insurance companies to provide care to high risk patients combined with an option for those who can't otherwise find coverage to be able to buy in at a low price would go a long way to alleviating the problems we face on this issue.
To those who would scream "socialism" I would ask this:
If one of your loved ones became seriously infirmed and the only available solution was public assistance, would you turn it down based on you principles of "less government?" I would hope that your answer is a resounding "no."
Monday, February 22, 2010
Military drinking age
I think it's abnormal (to say the least) that we don't allow our service members the privilege of having a beer if they are under 21. I am firmly against this policy. I served in the Marines from 1982 to 1986. I went to the E-club and drank whenever I felt like it. Nothing bad happened.
I understand the argument: 18 year olds are not equipped with the necessary maturity level to drink. If this is the assertion, I think it should cut both ways. I think that we should raise the minimum service age to 21. This would eliminate the debate altogether, and the military would get recruits who are much more mature.
Of course, the military would argue against this. 18 yearolds fresh out of high school are much easier to train because they don't think laterally. The small minority that have critical thinking skills go to college, and if they do serve, it's usually as officers.
But the crux is this: we got no problems handing out crisply folded flags to the mothers and fathers of the fallen regardless of their age. So, we should not be allowed to have it both ways. Either we allow the kids to have a beer, or we tell them to wait til they're 21 before they get to serve their country.
I understand the argument: 18 year olds are not equipped with the necessary maturity level to drink. If this is the assertion, I think it should cut both ways. I think that we should raise the minimum service age to 21. This would eliminate the debate altogether, and the military would get recruits who are much more mature.
Of course, the military would argue against this. 18 yearolds fresh out of high school are much easier to train because they don't think laterally. The small minority that have critical thinking skills go to college, and if they do serve, it's usually as officers.
But the crux is this: we got no problems handing out crisply folded flags to the mothers and fathers of the fallen regardless of their age. So, we should not be allowed to have it both ways. Either we allow the kids to have a beer, or we tell them to wait til they're 21 before they get to serve their country.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Martha Coakley blew it!
The special election held on January 19th to fill the late Edward Kennedy's seat was called many things by the pundits. Depending on the political persuasion of the commentator, it was viewed as either a referendum on the Obama administration, or the opportunity for the voters to continue the agenda of the late Senator Kennedy.
The candidates were fairly easy to define. Martha Coakley and Scott Brown both are what many writers describe as socially liberal. Brown however is more conservative on fiscal issues. In essence, both were well suited for a campaign in a liberal state.
But the fact is that the Democratic party has a near monopoly on most of the higher offices state wide and all of the members of the congessional delegation (save Brown) are Democrats. Coakley's experience and her record of public service made her a heavy favorite and in fact she was up by 30 points in December. She should have won this seat without a doubt.
So what happened? In plain English words, she blew it. Coakley figured that just having a capital "D" next to her name would be all that she needed to win. When asked at one point why she wasn't campaigning harder, she disdainfully replied that she saw no point in "standing outside Fenway in the cold shaking hands." She relied instead on establishment Democrats, Labor leaders and other key personnel in the party to do the heavy lifting and get out the vote.
Contrast that to Brown who campaigned the way a candidate should campaign. He went out to meet the electorate. He stood outside Fenway in the cold and shook hands. He did what any candidate should do: he earned the votes by getting his message out, whereas Coakley figured that she just needed to show up on election day.
As a result, the voters of Massachusetts sent the first Republican to the Senate from the Commonwealth for the first time in almost 40 years.
A former Political Science professor of mine once said that if you are ever running a campaign and your candidate is ahead in the polls run like you're 5 points behind. Martha Coakley should have been campaigning from the day after the primary until the polls opened. Too bad she thought that all she had to do was show up.
In sum, this wasn't a referendum on the Obama administration, nor was it an electorate rejecting the policies of the Democratic party. This was a classic example of what happens when a politician makes the almost always fatal mistake of taking the electorate for granted.
The candidates were fairly easy to define. Martha Coakley and Scott Brown both are what many writers describe as socially liberal. Brown however is more conservative on fiscal issues. In essence, both were well suited for a campaign in a liberal state.
But the fact is that the Democratic party has a near monopoly on most of the higher offices state wide and all of the members of the congessional delegation (save Brown) are Democrats. Coakley's experience and her record of public service made her a heavy favorite and in fact she was up by 30 points in December. She should have won this seat without a doubt.
So what happened? In plain English words, she blew it. Coakley figured that just having a capital "D" next to her name would be all that she needed to win. When asked at one point why she wasn't campaigning harder, she disdainfully replied that she saw no point in "standing outside Fenway in the cold shaking hands." She relied instead on establishment Democrats, Labor leaders and other key personnel in the party to do the heavy lifting and get out the vote.
Contrast that to Brown who campaigned the way a candidate should campaign. He went out to meet the electorate. He stood outside Fenway in the cold and shook hands. He did what any candidate should do: he earned the votes by getting his message out, whereas Coakley figured that she just needed to show up on election day.
As a result, the voters of Massachusetts sent the first Republican to the Senate from the Commonwealth for the first time in almost 40 years.
A former Political Science professor of mine once said that if you are ever running a campaign and your candidate is ahead in the polls run like you're 5 points behind. Martha Coakley should have been campaigning from the day after the primary until the polls opened. Too bad she thought that all she had to do was show up.
In sum, this wasn't a referendum on the Obama administration, nor was it an electorate rejecting the policies of the Democratic party. This was a classic example of what happens when a politician makes the almost always fatal mistake of taking the electorate for granted.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Remote Car Starters
Okay. There are a lot of pros and cons to having one of these installed in your car/ truck/ SUV. I'm going to discuss the pros and why I think there are cons.
Pros:
In cold weather (like where I live), these are very convenient. I start my car from the warmth of my apartment 10 minutes before I leave. When I get out side, the Jeep is nice and warm, the engine is ready to go, which is essential in cold weather to reduce wear and tear, and the windshield is defrosted. Because winter can stretch into a 5 month season around here, a remote starter is very convenient.
In warm weather, I set the AC and start it 5 minutes before I leave. The cabin is nice and cool when I get outside. Granted, it's only hot and humid around here 6 weeks out of the year, but it's still nice to have the AC going when I get outside.
Cons:
Some people report that a remote starter screws up the cars electronics. I agree that one installed by a third party that doesn't know what they are doing can indeed screw up the cars electronic system. It could be as minor as seting off caution and warning alarms (I.E. Low Tire Pressure sensors) to the car not starting. To acoid this, have the starter installed by the dealer who sold you the car. Installs performed by a third party that have an adverse effect on the cars electronic systems my result in parts of the warranty being voided.
In sum? If you are going to have a remote starter installed, have it done by the dealer who sold you the car. You will pay mnore that having it done by a third party. The upside is that you're car's warranty will be in tact and the warranty will extend to cover your new remote starter. I had a few problems with mine after it was installed. I took it back to the dealer and they replaced it free. As a matter of convenience, I recommend that you have it installed before you take delivery.
Pros:
In cold weather (like where I live), these are very convenient. I start my car from the warmth of my apartment 10 minutes before I leave. When I get out side, the Jeep is nice and warm, the engine is ready to go, which is essential in cold weather to reduce wear and tear, and the windshield is defrosted. Because winter can stretch into a 5 month season around here, a remote starter is very convenient.
In warm weather, I set the AC and start it 5 minutes before I leave. The cabin is nice and cool when I get outside. Granted, it's only hot and humid around here 6 weeks out of the year, but it's still nice to have the AC going when I get outside.
Cons:
Some people report that a remote starter screws up the cars electronics. I agree that one installed by a third party that doesn't know what they are doing can indeed screw up the cars electronic system. It could be as minor as seting off caution and warning alarms (I.E. Low Tire Pressure sensors) to the car not starting. To acoid this, have the starter installed by the dealer who sold you the car. Installs performed by a third party that have an adverse effect on the cars electronic systems my result in parts of the warranty being voided.
In sum? If you are going to have a remote starter installed, have it done by the dealer who sold you the car. You will pay mnore that having it done by a third party. The upside is that you're car's warranty will be in tact and the warranty will extend to cover your new remote starter. I had a few problems with mine after it was installed. I took it back to the dealer and they replaced it free. As a matter of convenience, I recommend that you have it installed before you take delivery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)