Was reading my local rag just now, the Daily Times (not a bad paper for a Gannetted paper, although I read it almost exclusively online) and saw somebody just whining about mean old Bush giving money to all his fatcat Republican cronies on Wall Street, where "15 traders were just indicted" (I paraphrase) for some sort of irregularity. This if Social Security is "privatized".
You know, I don't give a rip about 15 "vulture" traders, I bet if I found 1,000 people of any profession, at least 15 would be liars, cheats, and swindlers (and get caught doing it). Just as an example, they nailed two players on our minor league ballteam for steroids (or related drugs). That's 2 of 25, or 8%...of 1,000, that's 80 cheats.
I love the scare tactics this guy invokes. There's the obligitory paean to "radical" Republicans "destroying Social Security".
Well, I say destroy it and give me the money back I put in it! Let's see, 6% of what I've earned over the years, even when I barely made 5 figures in the 80's, I'm just guessing off the top of my head that's $20,000. Give me that 20 grand, let me put it someplace I can't touch it until I'm 60, and I'll be damned if I don't have a nice year or two's living at that point, maybe more if I invest well. I got out my calculator, and even at 5%, in 20 years I'm looking at over $53,000. At a 15% return (a stretch, but possible), it's over $327,000. If I found the next early-era Microsoft, Apple Computer, or Home Depot, I'm possibly a millionaire.
Now when I got my statement about a year ago, I think I was looking at $1100 a month from Social Security. Whoopee.
I think what I'm going to have to say (you know this is going to be a letter, I'm mad as hell and can't take it anymore!) is that I'll take the chance on 15 bad apples - it's MY money and I want the government's filthy hands off! Much better to worry about 15 traders on Wall Street than the 535 cutthroat spenders that make up Congress. They spend $9,000 on every man, woman, and child in the country...a $2.6 trillion budget for a country of 290 million or so.
Yes, I'm damn greedy. It's MINE, I worked for it, I want to keep as much of it as possible. And what I do have to give up, I don't want wasted. As far as I'm concerned, the feds need to protect me with a military and run our foreign affairs. Pretty much everything else can be up to the states. I know I'm oversimplifying it but you get the idea. If Maryland doubled their spending and taxes because the feds quit running the programs they do and turned it over to the states, I'd be ecstatic. I have a lot more pull in Annapolis than I do in DC. If Wicomico County did the same with the programs the state is handling that could be done locally, more's the better.
I may pay as much in taxes (or possibly even more) than I do now, but I'd have easy accountibility. It's a lot better for me to go to the mayor, the county commission, or even my state representative than it is to share my opinion with a Congressman who covers 9 counties and probably gets faxes and e-mails from 100 more daily, let alone Senators who both cover the whole state.
It's just too bad that if this happens it probably won't be in my lifetime. Of course, it could happen but if the studies are right I'll be a drooling idiot by then, since us big guys have a 74% larger chance of dementia according to some study. Probably paid for by a government grant.
Friday, April 29, 2005
Monday, April 25, 2005
Thoughts at large...
Yes, it's the dreaded "three-dot" blog. Well, sort of. Have a lot of things I've been reading and just wanted to put my 2 cents in on them. That way I can clean out my inbox.
Item #1: Delay hurts DeLay. I think it's the usual b.s. politics that the D's and their willing allies in the "partisan media" (a good term Rush likes to use, I'll allocate it) are playing. They can draw out the House Ethics Committee just as long as possible to cover their guilty House members (McDermott and Tubbs-Jones) and keep DeLay from clearing himself. Of course, the Washington Post came out with an article supposedly implicating DeLay for using a lobbyist's credit card during a trip. That's one congressman, let's look into the other 434, huh? Interesting that D's are the minority but take 54% of the junket trips.
Item #2: Can the Republicans collectively grow a pair? Let's get this judicial mess straightened out. Get that Constitutional option passed...hold up Senate business until we "get 'r done". Of course, the even better thing would be to dissolve the circuits as currently constituted and reappoint new ones. Theoretically it could be done. Only problem is that the next liberal pinhead could come in and do the same. Oh wait, FDR tried that once already by attempting to pack the Supreme Court.
Item #3: We have a new Pope, and that black smoke is now coming out of liberals' ears. Boy do they hate Benedict XVI. I'm betting they hope he reigns the same length of time as John Paul I. Saw a great cartoon with that theme, so I stole it.
Item #4: Lawyers will be busy on or about October 15. And I bet I see, starting about Labor Day, all the bankruptcy lawyers hitting the airwaves saying, declare bankruptcy now before the rules change! Won't be able to shirk our debts as easily.
Now I have been there in the past where I was overwhelmed but I worked my way out of it. I think it's fair that if you have the means to pay back debts, you should do so. Seems to me that if you do get into a real problem (generally from medical bills), most places will work with you if you get them involved at an appropriate time and say, hey, look, I have some money but can't pay this all at once like you want.
Only thing I wonder is if the government will be as forgiving if it's back taxes you owe.
Item #5: Today I found that they did put my Wal-Mart comment in the local paper, although they truncated it as follows:
"The Daily Times published an excellent editorial on the Wal-Mart situation on April 17. Government is out of bounds when it writes legislation to hinder a business simply because it happens to be a successful nonunion company."
I sent them another one today having to do with "Pork in the Park" rib competition and the "Beast of the East" custom motorcycle show, both local Salisbury events occuring this past weekend. (Come on down April 21-23, 2006). Basically I think since we already pay at least some tax funds for Shore Transit, they should run a shuttle between the two events. That way you can park at one and not have to move your car to the other...or even park out at the Centre of Salisbury (our mall) and shuttle from there. Anyway, we'll see what they do about that.
Item #6: Not politically related, but I do have to sit here and laugh at the folks in my old hometown of Toledo. While they got snow the last two days, we had a nice 55 degree day...little rain and a little sun. We actually got a nice weekend in considering they predicted a 90% chance of rain Friday night and Saturday. Only rain we got was late last night and some today. You could not do an event like we had this weekend in Ohio, still way too cold (obviously!)
Lots of other stuff to comment on, but I'll stick to these topics. We're pretty much done with state stuff for awhile, so now I get to watch inside the Beltway. Scary.
Item #1: Delay hurts DeLay. I think it's the usual b.s. politics that the D's and their willing allies in the "partisan media" (a good term Rush likes to use, I'll allocate it) are playing. They can draw out the House Ethics Committee just as long as possible to cover their guilty House members (McDermott and Tubbs-Jones) and keep DeLay from clearing himself. Of course, the Washington Post came out with an article supposedly implicating DeLay for using a lobbyist's credit card during a trip. That's one congressman, let's look into the other 434, huh? Interesting that D's are the minority but take 54% of the junket trips.
Item #2: Can the Republicans collectively grow a pair? Let's get this judicial mess straightened out. Get that Constitutional option passed...hold up Senate business until we "get 'r done". Of course, the even better thing would be to dissolve the circuits as currently constituted and reappoint new ones. Theoretically it could be done. Only problem is that the next liberal pinhead could come in and do the same. Oh wait, FDR tried that once already by attempting to pack the Supreme Court.
Item #3: We have a new Pope, and that black smoke is now coming out of liberals' ears. Boy do they hate Benedict XVI. I'm betting they hope he reigns the same length of time as John Paul I. Saw a great cartoon with that theme, so I stole it.
Item #4: Lawyers will be busy on or about October 15. And I bet I see, starting about Labor Day, all the bankruptcy lawyers hitting the airwaves saying, declare bankruptcy now before the rules change! Won't be able to shirk our debts as easily.
Now I have been there in the past where I was overwhelmed but I worked my way out of it. I think it's fair that if you have the means to pay back debts, you should do so. Seems to me that if you do get into a real problem (generally from medical bills), most places will work with you if you get them involved at an appropriate time and say, hey, look, I have some money but can't pay this all at once like you want.
Only thing I wonder is if the government will be as forgiving if it's back taxes you owe.
Item #5: Today I found that they did put my Wal-Mart comment in the local paper, although they truncated it as follows:
"The Daily Times published an excellent editorial on the Wal-Mart situation on April 17. Government is out of bounds when it writes legislation to hinder a business simply because it happens to be a successful nonunion company."
I sent them another one today having to do with "Pork in the Park" rib competition and the "Beast of the East" custom motorcycle show, both local Salisbury events occuring this past weekend. (Come on down April 21-23, 2006). Basically I think since we already pay at least some tax funds for Shore Transit, they should run a shuttle between the two events. That way you can park at one and not have to move your car to the other...or even park out at the Centre of Salisbury (our mall) and shuttle from there. Anyway, we'll see what they do about that.
Item #6: Not politically related, but I do have to sit here and laugh at the folks in my old hometown of Toledo. While they got snow the last two days, we had a nice 55 degree day...little rain and a little sun. We actually got a nice weekend in considering they predicted a 90% chance of rain Friday night and Saturday. Only rain we got was late last night and some today. You could not do an event like we had this weekend in Ohio, still way too cold (obviously!)
Lots of other stuff to comment on, but I'll stick to these topics. We're pretty much done with state stuff for awhile, so now I get to watch inside the Beltway. Scary.
Sunday, April 24, 2005
Writing my Congressman
Somehow it escaped me that I wrote to Wayne Gilchrest (my Congressman here, Maryland's 1st District) regarding Social Security and never put it in here. I'm sure I have it on file somewhere, and I was right. Wrote it way back on April 2nd.
Dear Congressman Gilchrest:
Recently I heard on the local radio news that you encountered quite a bit of opposition to any changes in Social Security at a recent town meeting.
I could not attend this particular meeting, but I wanted to say that I'm all for some of President Bush's changes, especially when it comes to privatization. For far too long, you and your cohorts have squandered the so-called Social Security "trust fund" and to be blunt, I trust the federal government with my retirement money about as far as I can throw it. So I'm saving money for myself already through an array of investments; precisely the method privatization of these Social Security individual accounts would achieve.
I'm not sure that the facts are getting out to the people at these town meetings. I know the AARP lobby is pumping millions into stopping any change, and that's their misguided attempt to protect their constituency. Add in the backing of the unions, and there's a lot of effort being made to preserve a broken status quo that only benefits the people who already get the lion's share of the benefits but endangers the well-being of future generations.
To that end, I'd like your assurance that private accounts are the centerpiece of any Social Security reform. It's a small first step in what I hope will be an ongoing attempt to create what President Bush termed an "ownership society"; where money that an individual earns for himself can stay in his pocket and benefit the community where he or she chooses for it to go...rather than a faceless Washington bureaucrat taking it away.
Sincerely,
Michael Swartz
Damn, I'd have to say I was pretty harsh! But today I got his reply, 3 weeks after writing my original e-mail. Knew an actual letter may have never made it to him, what with the anthrax scare and such. So here's what his letter said.
Dear Mr. Swartz,
Thank you for contacting me to express your views on Social Security reform. I was glad to hear from you.
As you are aware, there are various proposals being considered by Congress to address reforms of the Social Security program. While the President has floated suggestions on modifications he would like to see Congress support, the Administration has not offered a specific reform plan. At this time, the President is continuing to have productive conversations with Congress on various options including personal accounts and options to restore solvency.
My first priority relating to Social Security is to restore solvency to the program. I believe there is an opportunity to restructure the program to accommodate personal accounts, but we must not put the government further into debt in the process of developing that program. From my reading and conversations with leaders in this debate, I believe it is possible to both create personal accounts and restore the integrity of the program in a fiscally responsible way.
As the debate continues, I will be sure to keep your views in mind, and will make every effort to keep you informed of future developments. Thank you again for taking the time to share your views.
Sincerely,
Wayne T. Gilchrest
Member of Congress
In a lot of respects, while I'm glad he did write back, it was worth what he paid for it - and since he gets franking privileges and mails on the taxpayer dime, that's not saying much. The part that scares me most is he's trying to do this without putting the government into more debt. I read that as being open to support still higher Social Security taxes for the limited benefit of some of my money being available to me through a private account - and in the end, my higher benefits from privatization being re-taxed at some further point down the road (since Clinton began taxing Social Security benefits and no one has suggested that end).
I hope I did put in his head that there is a lot of anger on both sides. Obviously my side doesn't get the play in the liberal media while the AARP geezer gang can spew out as much BS as the papers can print. However, I know I'm right in the end. I'm hoping that private accounts are the first step in getting the government completely out of retirement. It may take 50 years and I likely won't live to see it, but I'd love to know that someday Social Security will "wither on the vine".
Dear Congressman Gilchrest:
Recently I heard on the local radio news that you encountered quite a bit of opposition to any changes in Social Security at a recent town meeting.
I could not attend this particular meeting, but I wanted to say that I'm all for some of President Bush's changes, especially when it comes to privatization. For far too long, you and your cohorts have squandered the so-called Social Security "trust fund" and to be blunt, I trust the federal government with my retirement money about as far as I can throw it. So I'm saving money for myself already through an array of investments; precisely the method privatization of these Social Security individual accounts would achieve.
I'm not sure that the facts are getting out to the people at these town meetings. I know the AARP lobby is pumping millions into stopping any change, and that's their misguided attempt to protect their constituency. Add in the backing of the unions, and there's a lot of effort being made to preserve a broken status quo that only benefits the people who already get the lion's share of the benefits but endangers the well-being of future generations.
To that end, I'd like your assurance that private accounts are the centerpiece of any Social Security reform. It's a small first step in what I hope will be an ongoing attempt to create what President Bush termed an "ownership society"; where money that an individual earns for himself can stay in his pocket and benefit the community where he or she chooses for it to go...rather than a faceless Washington bureaucrat taking it away.
Sincerely,
Michael Swartz
Damn, I'd have to say I was pretty harsh! But today I got his reply, 3 weeks after writing my original e-mail. Knew an actual letter may have never made it to him, what with the anthrax scare and such. So here's what his letter said.
Dear Mr. Swartz,
Thank you for contacting me to express your views on Social Security reform. I was glad to hear from you.
As you are aware, there are various proposals being considered by Congress to address reforms of the Social Security program. While the President has floated suggestions on modifications he would like to see Congress support, the Administration has not offered a specific reform plan. At this time, the President is continuing to have productive conversations with Congress on various options including personal accounts and options to restore solvency.
My first priority relating to Social Security is to restore solvency to the program. I believe there is an opportunity to restructure the program to accommodate personal accounts, but we must not put the government further into debt in the process of developing that program. From my reading and conversations with leaders in this debate, I believe it is possible to both create personal accounts and restore the integrity of the program in a fiscally responsible way.
As the debate continues, I will be sure to keep your views in mind, and will make every effort to keep you informed of future developments. Thank you again for taking the time to share your views.
Sincerely,
Wayne T. Gilchrest
Member of Congress
In a lot of respects, while I'm glad he did write back, it was worth what he paid for it - and since he gets franking privileges and mails on the taxpayer dime, that's not saying much. The part that scares me most is he's trying to do this without putting the government into more debt. I read that as being open to support still higher Social Security taxes for the limited benefit of some of my money being available to me through a private account - and in the end, my higher benefits from privatization being re-taxed at some further point down the road (since Clinton began taxing Social Security benefits and no one has suggested that end).
I hope I did put in his head that there is a lot of anger on both sides. Obviously my side doesn't get the play in the liberal media while the AARP geezer gang can spew out as much BS as the papers can print. However, I know I'm right in the end. I'm hoping that private accounts are the first step in getting the government completely out of retirement. It may take 50 years and I likely won't live to see it, but I'd love to know that someday Social Security will "wither on the vine".
Monday, April 18, 2005
More on Wal-Mart
I was pretty shocked today. I ran across an editorial in my local paper that actually was pro-business. They just ragged all over the Maryland General Assembly passing the Wal-Mart law. It was great, certainly a surprise from a paper that endorsed Kerry.
So obviously I had to put in my kudos there. They have a section called "Grapevine" where you can put in short (under 100 word) comments. So I did, made it by 4 words.
Excellent editorial on the Wal-Mart situation. Government is out of bounds when it writes legislation to hinder a business simply because it happens to be a successful non-union company.
I found it interesting that one of the entities pushing hardest for the bill was Giant Foods, which is a union company and supported it knowing they would have the backing of the United Food and Commercial Workers national union.
Rather than work within the free market, Giant and the UFCW try to hinder the competition through government fiat. A poor law courtesy of the Maryland Assembly.
Not bad for a guy like me.
Also got my little blurb on Wal-Mart in Friday's Federalist Patriot. He added a little to it, but it was pretty much what I wrote.
From the "Regulatory Commissars" File...
What do you get when you're an extremely successful corporation that rings up billions upon billions a year in sales and donates 90 percent of its political contributions to Republicans? You get legislation written to inhibit your business and fatten state coffers, courtesy of the Democrats in Maryland. Wal-Mart is the sole target of a bill that has passed both houses in Maryland with a veto-proof majority. This legislation mandates that companies employing 10,000 or more workers in the state who do not spend 8 percent of their total payroll for health benefits contribute the difference in compensatory payments to the state. Currently two private employers meet the 10,000 employee threshold; Wal-Mart and competitor Giant Foods, owned by the Dutch company Ahold. Giant Foods claims to spend 20 percent of its payroll for its unionized workforce, whereas non-union Wal-Mart falls under the 8 percent number.
It's another salvo in a recent effort by union management to target Wal-Mart as a bad corporate citizen. In another recent news item, 21 House Democrats and union officials sent a letter to ABC regarding Wal-Mart's sponsorship of ABC's "Good Morning America," asking the network to pull the plug on the retailer sponsoring a segment called "Only in America." The writers claimed that Wal-Mart's non-union stance and heavy importation of overseas products were at odds with the segment's slogan.
Actually I found out after I did the article there's two other entities that qualify but the point remains.
Sometimes I wonder if I should "blow my cover" with the Federalist stuff...really we're supposed to be anonymous contributors. But I figure if someone reads my blog, they're going to see it anyway in some form or another. People who are reading this are likely smart enough to put two and two together.
But they are MY words, and a lot of the time they ask for my take on things. I'd say that 1/3 to 1/2 of the time they ask me for an article and the rest is stuff I write on or quotes I find on websites.
It is cool to be in print though. And we get a lot of good comments from people on the website, so I feel like I contribute to the conservative cause in some small way.
I don't know about another contribution though. The "Meetup" phenomonon doesn't seem to work in Salisbury. And I'm certainly not interested in paying to be organizer, so I guess we'll just muddle along some other way. Haven't seen any sort of party organization here, but it could be a function of being the off-year between partisan elections. Not like the Maryland Republican Party is that large anyway...we only get a GOP governor every 30 years or so.
But that's enough for tonight, a shorter than average entry. Tomorrow starts another week, we'll see what lunacy goes on in government for me to comment on. I'm sure something will occur!
So obviously I had to put in my kudos there. They have a section called "Grapevine" where you can put in short (under 100 word) comments. So I did, made it by 4 words.
Excellent editorial on the Wal-Mart situation. Government is out of bounds when it writes legislation to hinder a business simply because it happens to be a successful non-union company.
I found it interesting that one of the entities pushing hardest for the bill was Giant Foods, which is a union company and supported it knowing they would have the backing of the United Food and Commercial Workers national union.
Rather than work within the free market, Giant and the UFCW try to hinder the competition through government fiat. A poor law courtesy of the Maryland Assembly.
Not bad for a guy like me.
Also got my little blurb on Wal-Mart in Friday's Federalist Patriot. He added a little to it, but it was pretty much what I wrote.
From the "Regulatory Commissars" File...
What do you get when you're an extremely successful corporation that rings up billions upon billions a year in sales and donates 90 percent of its political contributions to Republicans? You get legislation written to inhibit your business and fatten state coffers, courtesy of the Democrats in Maryland. Wal-Mart is the sole target of a bill that has passed both houses in Maryland with a veto-proof majority. This legislation mandates that companies employing 10,000 or more workers in the state who do not spend 8 percent of their total payroll for health benefits contribute the difference in compensatory payments to the state. Currently two private employers meet the 10,000 employee threshold; Wal-Mart and competitor Giant Foods, owned by the Dutch company Ahold. Giant Foods claims to spend 20 percent of its payroll for its unionized workforce, whereas non-union Wal-Mart falls under the 8 percent number.
It's another salvo in a recent effort by union management to target Wal-Mart as a bad corporate citizen. In another recent news item, 21 House Democrats and union officials sent a letter to ABC regarding Wal-Mart's sponsorship of ABC's "Good Morning America," asking the network to pull the plug on the retailer sponsoring a segment called "Only in America." The writers claimed that Wal-Mart's non-union stance and heavy importation of overseas products were at odds with the segment's slogan.
Actually I found out after I did the article there's two other entities that qualify but the point remains.
Sometimes I wonder if I should "blow my cover" with the Federalist stuff...really we're supposed to be anonymous contributors. But I figure if someone reads my blog, they're going to see it anyway in some form or another. People who are reading this are likely smart enough to put two and two together.
But they are MY words, and a lot of the time they ask for my take on things. I'd say that 1/3 to 1/2 of the time they ask me for an article and the rest is stuff I write on or quotes I find on websites.
It is cool to be in print though. And we get a lot of good comments from people on the website, so I feel like I contribute to the conservative cause in some small way.
I don't know about another contribution though. The "Meetup" phenomonon doesn't seem to work in Salisbury. And I'm certainly not interested in paying to be organizer, so I guess we'll just muddle along some other way. Haven't seen any sort of party organization here, but it could be a function of being the off-year between partisan elections. Not like the Maryland Republican Party is that large anyway...we only get a GOP governor every 30 years or so.
But that's enough for tonight, a shorter than average entry. Tomorrow starts another week, we'll see what lunacy goes on in government for me to comment on. I'm sure something will occur!
Saturday, April 16, 2005
1040 blues
Well, here on the East Coast as I write this there's four minutes to spare to get the magic April 15 postmark on your taxes. Mine were done over last weekend, had to send them to Ohio for my ex's signature but she sent them in Tuesday night. So I'll get back my interest-free loan to the government in a few weeks and share it with her.
I've always seen taxes as a necessary evil. But when the tax code is millions upon millions of words, maybe more than even I at my long-winded blogging worst, something just has to be done. I filed a Form 1040 this year, as I have for the last several, along with Schedule A, Schedule D, Schedule D-1 (2 copies), and the moving expense form I don't recall the number of. So what I sent Linda for her signature (in one place, federal and state) was something like 10 sheets of paper in a FedEx envelope, between all the forms I did and the copy of the Ohio one I did online.
So as always at this time of year, taxes are first and foremost on a lot of opinion makers' lists of things to talk about. And I was reading where a bill was introduced in Congress to abolish the income tax and replace it with a national sales tax, with a rebate to those who make less money (because they spend more on necessities). The only problem I have with that is that somehow the income has to be reported then and we're back to income being a basis for taxation.
And another thing that I see lacking is the repeal of the 16th Amendment. We could go to this national sales tax, and Congress would still have the right to resurrect an income tax - say the Democrats got back in the majority, they could decide to "soak the rich" and the cycle would start anew. I cannot see 38 states voting for a new 16th Amendment if they abolish the old one. I know I'd fight damn hard for Maryland not to ratify it. Of course, they might be one of the 12 states who wouldn't repeal the 16th Amendment.
All I know is that something simpler than this has to be done. But there's another factor thrown in the pot as well - the thousands of people who make their living from the tax monster. Not just the "bastards at the IRS", but H & R Block, Jackson Hewitt, et.al. would fight it tooth and nail. Plus, don't forget anyone who has a significant deduction now. Realtors would hate having one big reason for home ownership vanish as the home mortgage deduction becomes obsolete. That also affects all the companies who promise easy money through the equity on your home.
The 401.k deduction I just started today becomes a bit more dicey, what happens to the tax advantage of it being deducted in pretax dollars? I suppose I could deal with that, since under the sales tax I get my "full" paycheck less that deduction and health/life insurance. It may make our CFO's job a lot easier, not to mention throwing business taxes out the window.
I guess the best solution is to tackle this like Canada did the metric system - throw our IRS-based headache of an income tax system out the window on a date certain and live with the consequences. I'm sure the government will make its money off the sales tax. And if not, it means maybe they'll live within some kind of means (yeah, right).
So right now I would have to say that I've finally changed my mind from the Armey/Forbes "flat tax" idea (which does have merit but is still an income tax rather than a consumption tax) to the theory that taxes should fall on those who buy items rather than those who make profits from the items. Sounds logical to me, so I know it'll never happen. Not with this bunch in government.
Late edit on last night's post: It figures, I send my letter to Governor Ehrlich this afternoon and who comes to throw out the first pitch at the Shorebirds game tonight but Lt. Governor Steele. Could have saved me the 37 cents if I'd known that!
I've always seen taxes as a necessary evil. But when the tax code is millions upon millions of words, maybe more than even I at my long-winded blogging worst, something just has to be done. I filed a Form 1040 this year, as I have for the last several, along with Schedule A, Schedule D, Schedule D-1 (2 copies), and the moving expense form I don't recall the number of. So what I sent Linda for her signature (in one place, federal and state) was something like 10 sheets of paper in a FedEx envelope, between all the forms I did and the copy of the Ohio one I did online.
So as always at this time of year, taxes are first and foremost on a lot of opinion makers' lists of things to talk about. And I was reading where a bill was introduced in Congress to abolish the income tax and replace it with a national sales tax, with a rebate to those who make less money (because they spend more on necessities). The only problem I have with that is that somehow the income has to be reported then and we're back to income being a basis for taxation.
And another thing that I see lacking is the repeal of the 16th Amendment. We could go to this national sales tax, and Congress would still have the right to resurrect an income tax - say the Democrats got back in the majority, they could decide to "soak the rich" and the cycle would start anew. I cannot see 38 states voting for a new 16th Amendment if they abolish the old one. I know I'd fight damn hard for Maryland not to ratify it. Of course, they might be one of the 12 states who wouldn't repeal the 16th Amendment.
All I know is that something simpler than this has to be done. But there's another factor thrown in the pot as well - the thousands of people who make their living from the tax monster. Not just the "bastards at the IRS", but H & R Block, Jackson Hewitt, et.al. would fight it tooth and nail. Plus, don't forget anyone who has a significant deduction now. Realtors would hate having one big reason for home ownership vanish as the home mortgage deduction becomes obsolete. That also affects all the companies who promise easy money through the equity on your home.
The 401.k deduction I just started today becomes a bit more dicey, what happens to the tax advantage of it being deducted in pretax dollars? I suppose I could deal with that, since under the sales tax I get my "full" paycheck less that deduction and health/life insurance. It may make our CFO's job a lot easier, not to mention throwing business taxes out the window.
I guess the best solution is to tackle this like Canada did the metric system - throw our IRS-based headache of an income tax system out the window on a date certain and live with the consequences. I'm sure the government will make its money off the sales tax. And if not, it means maybe they'll live within some kind of means (yeah, right).
So right now I would have to say that I've finally changed my mind from the Armey/Forbes "flat tax" idea (which does have merit but is still an income tax rather than a consumption tax) to the theory that taxes should fall on those who buy items rather than those who make profits from the items. Sounds logical to me, so I know it'll never happen. Not with this bunch in government.
Late edit on last night's post: It figures, I send my letter to Governor Ehrlich this afternoon and who comes to throw out the first pitch at the Shorebirds game tonight but Lt. Governor Steele. Could have saved me the 37 cents if I'd known that!
Friday, April 15, 2005
Letter to the guv
Well, hopefully my online won't go on the fritz tonight. I had a very nice blog post all set to go last night, made a minor edit, and bam! lost the server. Goodbye blog post. Figures they take out the "recover post" feature.
Oh well, the highlight was a rant about a bill in CA I sent in an item to the Federalist about. It's a bill in the California Senate to enable divorced servicemen to have a hearing and get their child support adjusted if they ship out overseas. Sounds like fairness to me. Plus the thing about Peter Angelos and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce asking the Justice Department to look into allegations where doctors admitted they would certify during trial that a patient was diseased from asbestos - in most cases the patients were not. Something like 90% of the time X-rays in the trial were termed as being from sufferers but outside of court the same X-rays were from sufferers 5% of the time. And Peter Angelos got involved because a) he's an ambulance chaser from way back who's now looking for Vioxx patients for a class-action suit that he'll probably get 2/3 of; b) he gave $2.7 million to Democrat candidates and causes over the last 5 years, and c) really pissed me off with his sweetheart deal with MLB (I believe if he ever sells the Orioles he would receive over $300 million, regardless of actual amount MLB would make up the difference) and the fact that I can't watch the Nats because when they played Atlanta on a night the Orioles were idle it was blacked out here! Flipped around to TBS and was greeted with a black screen. So I'm stuck watching the Blorioles, it's made me an instant Nats fan. Baltimore seems to have two of the biggest asshole owners in sports...Angelos and Art Modell, who ripped Cleveland's heart out by moving the Browns and stomped on it by winning the Super Bowl with the Ravens.
Anyway, that's a synopsis of the post the other night. I guess brevity is the soul of wit.
Now, tonight, I sat down and put pixels to flat screen to write to Governor Ehrlich about being strong and vetoing the Wal-Mart bill and the minimum wage. That was until I saw a 700 character limit on submittals and knew there was no way I could make an argument in 700 characters on two separate issues I have a passion about. So he gets an old-fashioned "snail mail" letter from a constituent who didn't even vote for him. Not only did I state my case for vetoing the bills, I put in my two cents about the land divestment issue. Hey, I was at the end of a page anyway. If I'm going to two pages, I may as well make them count. So here's what I wrote:
April 14, 2005
Governor Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr.
100 State Circle
Annapolis, MD 21401-1925
Re: Fair Share Health Care Act and minimum wage bill vetoes
Dear Governor Ehrlich:
While reading the online edition of the Baltimore Sun, I came across an appeal by certain Democrats to contact you regarding their support of both the so-called "Fair Share Health Care Act"; and the bill raising Maryland’s minimum wage (SB 89/HB391).
I am a recent arrival in Maryland, having been downsized out of a job in Ohio by a number of factors. Possibly the main one was an anti-business attitude exhibited by those in local and county government at the behest of the local labor unions. But Maryland in general and the Eastern Shore in particular enamored me enough to immediately accept my new position upon being offered, over similar positions in Arizona and Nevada. This despite never having set foot in Maryland prior to my interview.
Having seen the problems encountered when government temporarily "empowers" workers at the expense of their employers, I am urging you to stand strong and veto both bills, even in the face of a legislative override. Perhaps the passage of time until the General Assembly reconvenes in January will give the bills’ proponents time to reconsider their stance in the face of evidence that what is bad for business eventually is bad for their employees as well.
Further, I feel it is terrible policy to write legislation that goes out of the way to punish a successful business simply because of failure to meet an artificial target set by a certain special interest group, especially an employer who is interested in adding hundreds of full-time jobs to an economically challenged area of the lower Eastern Shore. (I refer to the proposed Wal-Mart distribution center in Somerset County).
At the proper time, I will ask that my local representatives from Wicomico County reconsider their support of the bills, if they haven’t already expressed their opposition. But first things first, please use the veto pen on these ill-conceived bills.
Additionally, I would like to comment on efforts to place regulation on the sale of state land to private interests. I stated in a letter to the Daily Times here in Salisbury that I was in favor of any "surplus" land that the state owned being sold to private interests, this because it would add to the local tax rolls and make the taxation burden on the rest of us just that much less.
While the provisions currently under consideration would give voters a say in the matter, I feel that a matter like the sale of surplus state property is more properly handled through the executive branch of state government than in the legislative branch. To me, making the sale of property dependent on legislation encourages corruption and self-serving deals by a local politician at the expense of the greater good of Marylanders.
I appreciate your time in reading this and hope that this independent show of support helps you in your decision on these matters.
Sincerely,
Michael Swartz
So that was my contribution to better government for the day. When I was doing a search for the pertinent bill numbers being sourced someplace online, I sure saw a lot of anti-Wal-Mart websites, mostly ran by union local thugs. Boy, were they ecstatic about sticking it to a successful business. Wonder how they'll feel when GM says, "Boys, we're going to have to stop paying for all your health care because otherwise we're going out of business. You need to tell your DNC brethren in the environmental area to quit bitching about ANWR drilling, because without any new oil, we're not selling any Tahoes or Hummers. And you know as much as we do that those big SUV's are the most profitable things we have going...and they ain't going to fly out of showrooms with $3 a gallon gas. Sure, Saturns and Cobalts are nice, but we don't make a whole lot on them...not enough to pay for every doctor visit for every hangnail you have or month's supply of Viagra you want."
It's interesting that no one puts a gun to your head to work at Wal-Mart (which most would consider a menial job), but if you work the line at GM (pretty much a menial job as well) there's no choice but to join the union. And you certainly can't tell them not to use your union dues for political purposes (though it's legal to), that's a ticket to blackballing and intimidation.
The sooner we get rid of the bad parts of union influence the better. As far as negotiating wages and such, that's not such a bad thing. But absolute power over a group of workers corrupts absolutely. And when it's united with a political party that craves absolute power over the individual, it's doubly dangerous.
Oh well, the highlight was a rant about a bill in CA I sent in an item to the Federalist about. It's a bill in the California Senate to enable divorced servicemen to have a hearing and get their child support adjusted if they ship out overseas. Sounds like fairness to me. Plus the thing about Peter Angelos and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce asking the Justice Department to look into allegations where doctors admitted they would certify during trial that a patient was diseased from asbestos - in most cases the patients were not. Something like 90% of the time X-rays in the trial were termed as being from sufferers but outside of court the same X-rays were from sufferers 5% of the time. And Peter Angelos got involved because a) he's an ambulance chaser from way back who's now looking for Vioxx patients for a class-action suit that he'll probably get 2/3 of; b) he gave $2.7 million to Democrat candidates and causes over the last 5 years, and c) really pissed me off with his sweetheart deal with MLB (I believe if he ever sells the Orioles he would receive over $300 million, regardless of actual amount MLB would make up the difference) and the fact that I can't watch the Nats because when they played Atlanta on a night the Orioles were idle it was blacked out here! Flipped around to TBS and was greeted with a black screen. So I'm stuck watching the Blorioles, it's made me an instant Nats fan. Baltimore seems to have two of the biggest asshole owners in sports...Angelos and Art Modell, who ripped Cleveland's heart out by moving the Browns and stomped on it by winning the Super Bowl with the Ravens.
Anyway, that's a synopsis of the post the other night. I guess brevity is the soul of wit.
Now, tonight, I sat down and put pixels to flat screen to write to Governor Ehrlich about being strong and vetoing the Wal-Mart bill and the minimum wage. That was until I saw a 700 character limit on submittals and knew there was no way I could make an argument in 700 characters on two separate issues I have a passion about. So he gets an old-fashioned "snail mail" letter from a constituent who didn't even vote for him. Not only did I state my case for vetoing the bills, I put in my two cents about the land divestment issue. Hey, I was at the end of a page anyway. If I'm going to two pages, I may as well make them count. So here's what I wrote:
April 14, 2005
Governor Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr.
100 State Circle
Annapolis, MD 21401-1925
Re: Fair Share Health Care Act and minimum wage bill vetoes
Dear Governor Ehrlich:
While reading the online edition of the Baltimore Sun, I came across an appeal by certain Democrats to contact you regarding their support of both the so-called "Fair Share Health Care Act"; and the bill raising Maryland’s minimum wage (SB 89/HB391).
I am a recent arrival in Maryland, having been downsized out of a job in Ohio by a number of factors. Possibly the main one was an anti-business attitude exhibited by those in local and county government at the behest of the local labor unions. But Maryland in general and the Eastern Shore in particular enamored me enough to immediately accept my new position upon being offered, over similar positions in Arizona and Nevada. This despite never having set foot in Maryland prior to my interview.
Having seen the problems encountered when government temporarily "empowers" workers at the expense of their employers, I am urging you to stand strong and veto both bills, even in the face of a legislative override. Perhaps the passage of time until the General Assembly reconvenes in January will give the bills’ proponents time to reconsider their stance in the face of evidence that what is bad for business eventually is bad for their employees as well.
Further, I feel it is terrible policy to write legislation that goes out of the way to punish a successful business simply because of failure to meet an artificial target set by a certain special interest group, especially an employer who is interested in adding hundreds of full-time jobs to an economically challenged area of the lower Eastern Shore. (I refer to the proposed Wal-Mart distribution center in Somerset County).
At the proper time, I will ask that my local representatives from Wicomico County reconsider their support of the bills, if they haven’t already expressed their opposition. But first things first, please use the veto pen on these ill-conceived bills.
Additionally, I would like to comment on efforts to place regulation on the sale of state land to private interests. I stated in a letter to the Daily Times here in Salisbury that I was in favor of any "surplus" land that the state owned being sold to private interests, this because it would add to the local tax rolls and make the taxation burden on the rest of us just that much less.
While the provisions currently under consideration would give voters a say in the matter, I feel that a matter like the sale of surplus state property is more properly handled through the executive branch of state government than in the legislative branch. To me, making the sale of property dependent on legislation encourages corruption and self-serving deals by a local politician at the expense of the greater good of Marylanders.
I appreciate your time in reading this and hope that this independent show of support helps you in your decision on these matters.
Sincerely,
Michael Swartz
So that was my contribution to better government for the day. When I was doing a search for the pertinent bill numbers being sourced someplace online, I sure saw a lot of anti-Wal-Mart websites, mostly ran by union local thugs. Boy, were they ecstatic about sticking it to a successful business. Wonder how they'll feel when GM says, "Boys, we're going to have to stop paying for all your health care because otherwise we're going out of business. You need to tell your DNC brethren in the environmental area to quit bitching about ANWR drilling, because without any new oil, we're not selling any Tahoes or Hummers. And you know as much as we do that those big SUV's are the most profitable things we have going...and they ain't going to fly out of showrooms with $3 a gallon gas. Sure, Saturns and Cobalts are nice, but we don't make a whole lot on them...not enough to pay for every doctor visit for every hangnail you have or month's supply of Viagra you want."
It's interesting that no one puts a gun to your head to work at Wal-Mart (which most would consider a menial job), but if you work the line at GM (pretty much a menial job as well) there's no choice but to join the union. And you certainly can't tell them not to use your union dues for political purposes (though it's legal to), that's a ticket to blackballing and intimidation.
The sooner we get rid of the bad parts of union influence the better. As far as negotiating wages and such, that's not such a bad thing. But absolute power over a group of workers corrupts absolutely. And when it's united with a political party that craves absolute power over the individual, it's doubly dangerous.
Monday, April 11, 2005
State's right
Today I was writing to an acquaintance of mine about the political situation in Maryland; since he's from my old hometown he's not really familiar with it. I was going through some of the legislative madness we've endured lately and made the comment that someday somebody here on the Eastern Shore is going to say "enough of this bullshit coming from Annapolis, we want out!" Hey, the paper in Toledo always wanted Toledo to annex itself to Michigan, why not?
So what would it be like if we on the Eastern Shore decided to go out on our own? I think we would likely be a "red" state. Or we could become part of a "greater Delaware" and probably flip that state around to a red state. I think the population of the Eastern Shore would wipe out the numerical advantage Wilmington's Democrats have on the lower part of the state of Delaware. Hey, I'd be all for no sales tax (Delaware is a state with none).
And other places that would secede? I could see the Central Valley of California saying goodbye to the coastal areas. I bet the panhandle of Florida would be happier without bowing to Tallahassee. And the GOP would certainly be happy since they would likely get all four new senators. It's the same principle where the Democrats would love statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C.
Now, secession is not unheard of. Besides the obvious result of the War Between the States (I do like the Southern name for it), the state of West Virginia was the last state east of the Mississippi because the western counties of Virginia weren't interested in leaving the Union. So they formed their own state and were added to the Union in 1863.
There are a couple other secession movements I have heard of. I think back in the 1960's there were black radical separatists who wanted to split off Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana and form a black-ruled country called Gamal. They would leave the Atlantic corridor in Georgia for whites to get in and out of Florida but the rest would be for blacks.
More recently, there's a group out in the Southwest actively seeking to break that section of the country away and return it to Mexico. Of course, with all the illegal immigration out in that area it's almost de facto Mexican territory now.
I will place a little aside here to wonder why the places here on the Eastern Shore, hundreds of miles from the Mexican border, insist on having bilingual signage in places like Wal-Mart and even Spanish-language radio stations? Would it not be better for the immigrants (legal or not) to be immersed in English rather than have the crutch of the language of their homeland? After all, this is America and I'm not learning Spanish for their sake!
I guess where I'm leading all this is that life would be a lot better for all of us if the federal government would mind our Tenth Amendment rights. A lot of the madness that we have to deal with here is not necessarily the fault of those in Annapolis. They do claim their share, but we have a lot of bureaucrats in D.C. who have no task but to perpetuate their job. It's the same principle as the local agency that spends its last budget dollars on extra office supplies just to make sure they use up their fiscal allotment and ensure that they don't get a cut because they didn't spend the amount budgeted. This actually happened where my ex-wife worked.
As Reagan said (and I paraphrase) the government that works best is the government that's closest to the people.
So what would it be like if we on the Eastern Shore decided to go out on our own? I think we would likely be a "red" state. Or we could become part of a "greater Delaware" and probably flip that state around to a red state. I think the population of the Eastern Shore would wipe out the numerical advantage Wilmington's Democrats have on the lower part of the state of Delaware. Hey, I'd be all for no sales tax (Delaware is a state with none).
And other places that would secede? I could see the Central Valley of California saying goodbye to the coastal areas. I bet the panhandle of Florida would be happier without bowing to Tallahassee. And the GOP would certainly be happy since they would likely get all four new senators. It's the same principle where the Democrats would love statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C.
Now, secession is not unheard of. Besides the obvious result of the War Between the States (I do like the Southern name for it), the state of West Virginia was the last state east of the Mississippi because the western counties of Virginia weren't interested in leaving the Union. So they formed their own state and were added to the Union in 1863.
There are a couple other secession movements I have heard of. I think back in the 1960's there were black radical separatists who wanted to split off Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana and form a black-ruled country called Gamal. They would leave the Atlantic corridor in Georgia for whites to get in and out of Florida but the rest would be for blacks.
More recently, there's a group out in the Southwest actively seeking to break that section of the country away and return it to Mexico. Of course, with all the illegal immigration out in that area it's almost de facto Mexican territory now.
I will place a little aside here to wonder why the places here on the Eastern Shore, hundreds of miles from the Mexican border, insist on having bilingual signage in places like Wal-Mart and even Spanish-language radio stations? Would it not be better for the immigrants (legal or not) to be immersed in English rather than have the crutch of the language of their homeland? After all, this is America and I'm not learning Spanish for their sake!
I guess where I'm leading all this is that life would be a lot better for all of us if the federal government would mind our Tenth Amendment rights. A lot of the madness that we have to deal with here is not necessarily the fault of those in Annapolis. They do claim their share, but we have a lot of bureaucrats in D.C. who have no task but to perpetuate their job. It's the same principle as the local agency that spends its last budget dollars on extra office supplies just to make sure they use up their fiscal allotment and ensure that they don't get a cut because they didn't spend the amount budgeted. This actually happened where my ex-wife worked.
As Reagan said (and I paraphrase) the government that works best is the government that's closest to the people.
Sunday, April 10, 2005
Economic theory
All right, before your eyes glaze over, I was thinking about something today. It came from the intersection of three tangental factors. I was out looking for a chair for my front stoop (if one can call it that), and in the back of my mind I had all the talk about Wal-Mart I've done lately and how they are so-called "unAmerican" when they import most of their stuff. And today I also had to go out and put gas in my car, to the tune of $2.079 a gallon for regular unleaded.
Well, I did find a nice metal chair much like ones my mom and dad have, it lets me rock back and forth. I have never been able to sit still and I'm 40 years old, I may as well deal with it. I have a rocker/recliner in my living room, I'm going to have a rocking chair outside on my porch well before retirement. Bought this one at Home Depot, and best of all it was made somewhere here in the US of A. (By the way, the chairs I saw at Target and Lowe's were the ones made in China, Wal-Mart's chair was made in Indonesia.)
There was a time I refused to buy anything from China when they shot down our plane a few years back. Unfortunately, I didn't have a lot of choice in some matters but I try to avoid buying things made in a place that has missiles aimed at us.
Anyway, this all got me to thinking about something I heard awhile back, that China was now importing such an amount of oil that it was putting a squeeze on our supply and driving up gas prices. They have to use some energy to build all these things they export here.
But I never associated China with having a lot of oil. I know when OPEC sneezes, Japan catches a cold because they have very little oil. So I had a theory about China and what could be its oil problem. This led me to look up some facts that I thought could back it up. Keep in mind, I'm no Dr. Walter E. Williams or Thomas Sowell.
But here are the parameters I found.
In total daily oil consumption, the U.S. uses 20.4 million barrels a day, China 5.56 million. They are expected to increase to 12.8 million bbl./day by 2025. Meanwhile, I wouldn't expect our usage to increase to that extent, I'll say 25 million barrels for us. Still double their usage (or more if usage increases faster), even in 20 years.
Proven reserves: China is #10 in the world with 23.7 billion barrels in proven reserves, the U.S. is #11 at 21.9 billion barrels. So if either were forced to "go it alone", the U.S. would be in trouble a LOT sooner. I'm thinking that this does count ANWR and Gulf of Mexico drilling. Top countries in reserves: Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, UAE, Russia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Libya, then China and the U.S.
I was reading recently where China is getting friendlier with Latin America. This spells trouble for us as well since 2 of our top 4 suppliers are Mexico and Venezuela. The other top suppliers for us are Canada, the Saudis, and Nigeria. I would say only one is a stable supplier, that being Canada.
The U.S. has a refinery capacity of 16.9 million barrels a day and consumes 20.4 million. We import about 60% of our oil from the suppliers noted above. Note that neither Canada nor Mexico are among the top 10 in oil reserves.
Where the U.S. does have the advantage is in natural gas. Our reserves are 6th in the world, 187 Tcf of gas compared to China's 53.3 Tcf.
So it looks like these things need to happen if we don't want to lose the oil war, and by extension the economic one.
1. In the short term, we need to maximize our drilling and exploration. Try and cut as much importation from these unfriendly nations as possible. That means drill ANWR and the Gulf. Pump as much oil as we can out of those suckers. It's not as dirty as the environmentalists think, Mother Nature has a way of surprising us and bouncing back quickly (remember the Exxon Valdez? It's almost like it didn't happen now.)
2. I have heard that deriving oil from shale is cost-effective after $30 a barrel. Well, let's go. It's domestic product, from out in the Rockies as I recall.
3. We need to increase our refining capacity for both oil and natural gas. Now, I know that the NIMBY crowd will go nuts and I don't blame them. I used to call East Toledo the "stinky part of town" because that's where the Sun Oil and BP refineries are and you certainly knew when they were in operation. But I'm sure somewhere there are people who could sacrifice dealing with the offensive odor for a bunch of well-paying jobs. Even if the refineries were to expand existing operations it would help.
4. We need to be sneaky as well. I know as well as anyone that OPEC countries are notorious for stating an output goal and watching each member blow it off and overproduce. We need our "friends" to step up and tell OPEC to screw itself, we're selling more. We liberated Kuwait and Iraq, time for some payback for about 15-20 years.
5. Wherever we can, we need to start thinking of substituting natural gas for oil. I'm really surprised more effort hasn't been made to get more true "gas" pumps out there. Maybe $60, $70, $80 a barrel oil will show some entrepreneur that a market is possible. It certainly could revolutionize the trucking industry if someone made an engine that ran on natural gas but could provide the power of a diesel. Time for some private sector partnerships between the trucking industry and the natural gas industry.
I started this out by thinking China would run out of oil before we did, but that theory is all wrong. With higher proven oil reserves and lower consumption, they could outlast us for decades in the oil business. And with many of our suppliers being on not-so-friendly terms (think Hugo Chavez in Venezuela wouldn't like to stick his thumb in our eye and supply his Communist buddies in China?) we do need to think about an eventual alternative. But in the short-term, we need to work to maximize our supplies.
We in America came up with the greatest modes of personal transportation known to mankind. Now it's time to come up with the next generation of transport. And just like the last time, no government agency need apply. Let the private sector do its magic!
As far as I'm concerned, that was a nice exercise in getting me thinking. Not bad for an amateur economist.
Well, I did find a nice metal chair much like ones my mom and dad have, it lets me rock back and forth. I have never been able to sit still and I'm 40 years old, I may as well deal with it. I have a rocker/recliner in my living room, I'm going to have a rocking chair outside on my porch well before retirement. Bought this one at Home Depot, and best of all it was made somewhere here in the US of A. (By the way, the chairs I saw at Target and Lowe's were the ones made in China, Wal-Mart's chair was made in Indonesia.)
There was a time I refused to buy anything from China when they shot down our plane a few years back. Unfortunately, I didn't have a lot of choice in some matters but I try to avoid buying things made in a place that has missiles aimed at us.
Anyway, this all got me to thinking about something I heard awhile back, that China was now importing such an amount of oil that it was putting a squeeze on our supply and driving up gas prices. They have to use some energy to build all these things they export here.
But I never associated China with having a lot of oil. I know when OPEC sneezes, Japan catches a cold because they have very little oil. So I had a theory about China and what could be its oil problem. This led me to look up some facts that I thought could back it up. Keep in mind, I'm no Dr. Walter E. Williams or Thomas Sowell.
But here are the parameters I found.
In total daily oil consumption, the U.S. uses 20.4 million barrels a day, China 5.56 million. They are expected to increase to 12.8 million bbl./day by 2025. Meanwhile, I wouldn't expect our usage to increase to that extent, I'll say 25 million barrels for us. Still double their usage (or more if usage increases faster), even in 20 years.
Proven reserves: China is #10 in the world with 23.7 billion barrels in proven reserves, the U.S. is #11 at 21.9 billion barrels. So if either were forced to "go it alone", the U.S. would be in trouble a LOT sooner. I'm thinking that this does count ANWR and Gulf of Mexico drilling. Top countries in reserves: Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, UAE, Russia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Libya, then China and the U.S.
I was reading recently where China is getting friendlier with Latin America. This spells trouble for us as well since 2 of our top 4 suppliers are Mexico and Venezuela. The other top suppliers for us are Canada, the Saudis, and Nigeria. I would say only one is a stable supplier, that being Canada.
The U.S. has a refinery capacity of 16.9 million barrels a day and consumes 20.4 million. We import about 60% of our oil from the suppliers noted above. Note that neither Canada nor Mexico are among the top 10 in oil reserves.
Where the U.S. does have the advantage is in natural gas. Our reserves are 6th in the world, 187 Tcf of gas compared to China's 53.3 Tcf.
So it looks like these things need to happen if we don't want to lose the oil war, and by extension the economic one.
1. In the short term, we need to maximize our drilling and exploration. Try and cut as much importation from these unfriendly nations as possible. That means drill ANWR and the Gulf. Pump as much oil as we can out of those suckers. It's not as dirty as the environmentalists think, Mother Nature has a way of surprising us and bouncing back quickly (remember the Exxon Valdez? It's almost like it didn't happen now.)
2. I have heard that deriving oil from shale is cost-effective after $30 a barrel. Well, let's go. It's domestic product, from out in the Rockies as I recall.
3. We need to increase our refining capacity for both oil and natural gas. Now, I know that the NIMBY crowd will go nuts and I don't blame them. I used to call East Toledo the "stinky part of town" because that's where the Sun Oil and BP refineries are and you certainly knew when they were in operation. But I'm sure somewhere there are people who could sacrifice dealing with the offensive odor for a bunch of well-paying jobs. Even if the refineries were to expand existing operations it would help.
4. We need to be sneaky as well. I know as well as anyone that OPEC countries are notorious for stating an output goal and watching each member blow it off and overproduce. We need our "friends" to step up and tell OPEC to screw itself, we're selling more. We liberated Kuwait and Iraq, time for some payback for about 15-20 years.
5. Wherever we can, we need to start thinking of substituting natural gas for oil. I'm really surprised more effort hasn't been made to get more true "gas" pumps out there. Maybe $60, $70, $80 a barrel oil will show some entrepreneur that a market is possible. It certainly could revolutionize the trucking industry if someone made an engine that ran on natural gas but could provide the power of a diesel. Time for some private sector partnerships between the trucking industry and the natural gas industry.
I started this out by thinking China would run out of oil before we did, but that theory is all wrong. With higher proven oil reserves and lower consumption, they could outlast us for decades in the oil business. And with many of our suppliers being on not-so-friendly terms (think Hugo Chavez in Venezuela wouldn't like to stick his thumb in our eye and supply his Communist buddies in China?) we do need to think about an eventual alternative. But in the short-term, we need to work to maximize our supplies.
We in America came up with the greatest modes of personal transportation known to mankind. Now it's time to come up with the next generation of transport. And just like the last time, no government agency need apply. Let the private sector do its magic!
As far as I'm concerned, that was a nice exercise in getting me thinking. Not bad for an amateur economist.
Saturday, April 09, 2005
The damage is almost done
Well, well, well. Today is Friday, April 8th, and the 90 days of hell also known as the Maryland legislative session are almost done. I really need to get a copy of the Maryland Constitution and see if there's anything we can do about this mess.
In one legislative session they've tried to eliminate thousands of jobs. I see that the minimum wage increase did pass our Senate 30-16, so even if Ehrlich vetoes it (as he should) it would become law...although we do hold out hope that someone in the majority gets cold feet or a lot of nasty e-mail from constituents.
And then we have the famous "Wal-Mart" bill. Rush alluded to this on his show yesterday, another proud moment for the so-called "Free State". I did submit something to the Federalist on this, they didn't use it today though. One thing I didn't know is that Giant Foods was also pushing for this, probably because Wal-Mart kicks their ass when it comes to grocery prices. So any company of over 10,000 employees not spending 8% on payroll for health benefits will have to kick over the difference to the government. That means Wal-Mart, since Giant claims that they do. I would laugh if Wal-Mart closed its store in north Salisbury and moved up the road 2 miles into Delaware. Can't do as much about Fruitland, but they could do the same in Pocomoke too, it's only 4 miles from Virginia.
So let me get this straight. We take what is the largest amount of expense for any small business (payroll) and increase it by government fiat, and expect them to happily shoulder the burden. Somehow I think that the prices and such will now go up, then they'll have to do this all over again in 4 or 5 years. Then we tell one of the state's largest employers that they don't spend enough money on health insurance. Now I do not recall anyone having a gun put to their head and being told they must work at Wal-Mart. People know going in that they will have to contribute to the cost of their health insurance. I know I do!
Then they also decided to put an "extra" $400 million in the budget rather than cut property taxes, so that there will be no funding controversy in 2006. We can't have that in an election year, uh-uh. I hate to see what my Maryland taxes will be, I get the really bad feeling that a lot of the federal refund I'll get (and have to share with a certain ex-spouse of mine) is going to fatten the coffers of Maryland and Ohio (another state that loves to tax me). Oh well, at least it won't be income when I do 2005 taxes next year.
I guess that the founders were right when they noted that democracy works well up to the point where the elected class finds that they can enrich their pockets at the public till and buy their votes. Just try and make any cut in government spending and watch them squeal. Even when somebody attempts to sell state land to a developer there's a stink raised.
Found it interesting that the voters of Salisbury decided that two new councilpeople were in order, both incumbents on the ballot were kicked out in close elections. It seems that we live in a nice city (crazy people on two-state shooting sprees the exception rather than the rule) but I'm glad that sometimes they see change can be made to improve when they see it fit. Hopefully it will carry over to 2006 statewide. We need to get these big-government, squarely in the union's pocket Democrats out and make this state more friendly to people rather than special interests. Get their hands out of my back pocket.
And this doesn't exempt Governor Ehrlich. He needs to grow a pair; of course, if he's re-elected and term-limited maybe he'll do that. But this state is rapidly becoming a mess and it's going to be like Ohio pretty soon if things continue on their path.
As a country, we need to scream, "Enough!" Let's find a way to have government do only what it needs to do, do that well, and let people do things they want to do (within the boundaries established by a moral, civilized society) unemcumbered by regulation, fiat, or taxation.
Late edit: According to the Baltimore Sun, two other entities qualify over the 10,000 employee threshold. They are Johns Hopkins University (who as a non-profit only has a 6% threshold) and defense contractor Northrop Grumman. Both would be exempt under the new law.
In one legislative session they've tried to eliminate thousands of jobs. I see that the minimum wage increase did pass our Senate 30-16, so even if Ehrlich vetoes it (as he should) it would become law...although we do hold out hope that someone in the majority gets cold feet or a lot of nasty e-mail from constituents.
And then we have the famous "Wal-Mart" bill. Rush alluded to this on his show yesterday, another proud moment for the so-called "Free State". I did submit something to the Federalist on this, they didn't use it today though. One thing I didn't know is that Giant Foods was also pushing for this, probably because Wal-Mart kicks their ass when it comes to grocery prices. So any company of over 10,000 employees not spending 8% on payroll for health benefits will have to kick over the difference to the government. That means Wal-Mart, since Giant claims that they do. I would laugh if Wal-Mart closed its store in north Salisbury and moved up the road 2 miles into Delaware. Can't do as much about Fruitland, but they could do the same in Pocomoke too, it's only 4 miles from Virginia.
So let me get this straight. We take what is the largest amount of expense for any small business (payroll) and increase it by government fiat, and expect them to happily shoulder the burden. Somehow I think that the prices and such will now go up, then they'll have to do this all over again in 4 or 5 years. Then we tell one of the state's largest employers that they don't spend enough money on health insurance. Now I do not recall anyone having a gun put to their head and being told they must work at Wal-Mart. People know going in that they will have to contribute to the cost of their health insurance. I know I do!
Then they also decided to put an "extra" $400 million in the budget rather than cut property taxes, so that there will be no funding controversy in 2006. We can't have that in an election year, uh-uh. I hate to see what my Maryland taxes will be, I get the really bad feeling that a lot of the federal refund I'll get (and have to share with a certain ex-spouse of mine) is going to fatten the coffers of Maryland and Ohio (another state that loves to tax me). Oh well, at least it won't be income when I do 2005 taxes next year.
I guess that the founders were right when they noted that democracy works well up to the point where the elected class finds that they can enrich their pockets at the public till and buy their votes. Just try and make any cut in government spending and watch them squeal. Even when somebody attempts to sell state land to a developer there's a stink raised.
Found it interesting that the voters of Salisbury decided that two new councilpeople were in order, both incumbents on the ballot were kicked out in close elections. It seems that we live in a nice city (crazy people on two-state shooting sprees the exception rather than the rule) but I'm glad that sometimes they see change can be made to improve when they see it fit. Hopefully it will carry over to 2006 statewide. We need to get these big-government, squarely in the union's pocket Democrats out and make this state more friendly to people rather than special interests. Get their hands out of my back pocket.
And this doesn't exempt Governor Ehrlich. He needs to grow a pair; of course, if he's re-elected and term-limited maybe he'll do that. But this state is rapidly becoming a mess and it's going to be like Ohio pretty soon if things continue on their path.
As a country, we need to scream, "Enough!" Let's find a way to have government do only what it needs to do, do that well, and let people do things they want to do (within the boundaries established by a moral, civilized society) unemcumbered by regulation, fiat, or taxation.
Late edit: According to the Baltimore Sun, two other entities qualify over the 10,000 employee threshold. They are Johns Hopkins University (who as a non-profit only has a 6% threshold) and defense contractor Northrop Grumman. Both would be exempt under the new law.
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
Someone just about nailed it!
"These things I believe: That government should butt out. That freedom is our most precious commodity and if we are not eternally vigilant, government will take it all away. That individual freedom demands individual responsibility. That government is not a necessary good but an unavoidable evil. That the executive branch has grown too strong, the judicial branch too arrogant and the legislative branch too stupid. That political parties have become close to meaningless. That government should work to insure the rights of the individual, not plot to take them away. That government should provide for the national defense and work to insure domestic tranquility. That foreign trade should be fair rather than free. That America should be wary of foreign entanglements. That the tree of liberty needs to be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. That guns do more than protect us from criminals; more importantly, they protect us from the ongoing threat of government. That states are the bulwark of our freedom. That states should have the right to secede from the Union. That once a year we should hang someone in government as an example to his fellows." --Lyn Nofziger
In a nutshell, he just about got it. Almost short-circuits the need for a blog...but there will always be times when people need to hear about issues in the context of the quote above.
Next week, I'm hoping that the close of the legislative season here in Maryland won't create any more damage than it already has. I'm still pissed about the Wal-Mart bill and I wish Governor Ehrlich had the balls to veto it despite the fact it would be overrode. I'm just curious if there were any RINO's who voted for that mess. When government goes out to target one individual or entity for a (perceived) wrong like not spending enough on health benefits, it's time to rein in government.
The other item I'm very unhappy about is the uproar over selling off state land to a developer. I say sell off more! Put the land back on the tax rolls so the rest of us pay a little less freight. I wrote about this to the Daily Times not too long ago. This is what I wrote, or close to it (since my letters seem to get edited sometimes):
No need to halt sale of surplus state lands
Lately the issue of selling state land for private development has found its way to the front burner, as evidenced by a number of bills introduced in the Maryland House. These measures would put roadblocks in any effort to sell "surplus" land.
To me, the word "surplus" implies not needed for any purpose. In an era where the trend is for government to overuse its power of eminent domain, I find returning state land to the private sector a refreshing trend.
After I looked at this article, I pulled out my state map of Maryland and noticed there's a lot of green area on it, meaning government-owned land. I know a lot of this area is set aside for recreational use and wildlife habitat, but does the state really need that much land?
I would like to see a lot more state land turned over for private use. The extra taxes collected could help lower that burden on the rest of us.
Development is not a dirty word. It's development that keeps all of us working and makes life more convenient for area residents. Maybe it was nice when Route 13 was all open space up to Delaware and down to Fruitland, but we all shop there now.
So put me down as a person firmly against any effort to halt state land divestment.
Almost forgot, they passed the state minimum wage increase as well. Idiots. That was the letter I sent to the Baltimore Sun and they gutted it.
Let the market set the floor for our wages
(Note: my edited out parts will be in standard print).
In a game of keeping up with the Joneses (or in this case, Delaware and DC), the powers that be in the Maryland Legislature have placed in the hopper a bill to increase the minimum wage to $6.15 an hour ("Md. legislators to push for minimum-wage rise, Feb. 11). The Sun's article noted that just 2% of Maryland hourly workers would actually directly benefit from this increase. In other words, just 2 of every 100 laborers make $5.15 an hour.
However, this doesn't count the thousands of people who make just above the minimum wage, who would also get a bump up in wages. Then the people just a little more skilled up the employment ladder would see the people below them get wages that now equal theirs and demand raises for themselves, and so forth. All this adds up to inflationary pressure.
Obviously, the unions would be behind this because in many instances, their contract wages are tied to minimum wage. Thus a higher minimum wage would be an unnegotiated wage increase for their rank-and-file. Higher wages mean more union dues and more largesse to spread around political circles.
And all this leaves me, as a salaried worker who negotiated his own wage, scratching his head as to how I would continue to enjoy the standard of living I sought by coming here and taking my job while prices go up around me. And sooner or later, after prices go up, people will demand a higher minimum wage, since "just" $6.15 an hour won't do. Then the merry-go-round will circle again. Economics is not a zero-sum game, a fact which I think Democrats sometimes forget with these proposals.
I have (a) some simpler, more business-friendly solutions for those of you down the block in DC who control such things at the federal level. How about sunsetting the minimum wage and letting the market control itself? (This is where the Sun version ends).
Or, as a half-measure, why not adopt a lower "training wage" for workers under 18 who can get their start at the low end of the corporate totem pole? Many of those who make minimum wage are under 18 and aren't supporting a family. A slightly lower wage for them would be incentive for employers to hire younger workers and let them learn the responsibility of holding a job. If they work out well as good employees the employer would think long and hard before ditching them for a younger and cheaper employee, since experience is worth much more than a small wage gap gained by replacing an older worker to take advantage of the "training wage".
I think either solution at the federal level is better than this simple misguided attempt at "fairness" coming from Annapolis.
************
Don't you hate it when your great argument is left on the cutting room floor? When I write these kinds of things, I generally offer some sort of proposal or solution. I don't just bitch and say this is so wrong, life sucks, I hate everything, blah blah blah.
So I think I'll sit down in the next couple weeks and study what further restrictions have been put on my freedom in this so-called "Free State". Right now I wouldn't even say it's at a greatly reduced price.
In a nutshell, he just about got it. Almost short-circuits the need for a blog...but there will always be times when people need to hear about issues in the context of the quote above.
Next week, I'm hoping that the close of the legislative season here in Maryland won't create any more damage than it already has. I'm still pissed about the Wal-Mart bill and I wish Governor Ehrlich had the balls to veto it despite the fact it would be overrode. I'm just curious if there were any RINO's who voted for that mess. When government goes out to target one individual or entity for a (perceived) wrong like not spending enough on health benefits, it's time to rein in government.
The other item I'm very unhappy about is the uproar over selling off state land to a developer. I say sell off more! Put the land back on the tax rolls so the rest of us pay a little less freight. I wrote about this to the Daily Times not too long ago. This is what I wrote, or close to it (since my letters seem to get edited sometimes):
No need to halt sale of surplus state lands
Lately the issue of selling state land for private development has found its way to the front burner, as evidenced by a number of bills introduced in the Maryland House. These measures would put roadblocks in any effort to sell "surplus" land.
To me, the word "surplus" implies not needed for any purpose. In an era where the trend is for government to overuse its power of eminent domain, I find returning state land to the private sector a refreshing trend.
After I looked at this article, I pulled out my state map of Maryland and noticed there's a lot of green area on it, meaning government-owned land. I know a lot of this area is set aside for recreational use and wildlife habitat, but does the state really need that much land?
I would like to see a lot more state land turned over for private use. The extra taxes collected could help lower that burden on the rest of us.
Development is not a dirty word. It's development that keeps all of us working and makes life more convenient for area residents. Maybe it was nice when Route 13 was all open space up to Delaware and down to Fruitland, but we all shop there now.
So put me down as a person firmly against any effort to halt state land divestment.
Almost forgot, they passed the state minimum wage increase as well. Idiots. That was the letter I sent to the Baltimore Sun and they gutted it.
Let the market set the floor for our wages
(Note: my edited out parts will be in standard print).
In a game of keeping up with the Joneses (or in this case, Delaware and DC), the powers that be in the Maryland Legislature have placed in the hopper a bill to increase the minimum wage to $6.15 an hour ("Md. legislators to push for minimum-wage rise, Feb. 11). The Sun's article noted that just 2% of Maryland hourly workers would actually directly benefit from this increase. In other words, just 2 of every 100 laborers make $5.15 an hour.
However, this doesn't count the thousands of people who make just above the minimum wage, who would also get a bump up in wages. Then the people just a little more skilled up the employment ladder would see the people below them get wages that now equal theirs and demand raises for themselves, and so forth. All this adds up to inflationary pressure.
Obviously, the unions would be behind this because in many instances, their contract wages are tied to minimum wage. Thus a higher minimum wage would be an unnegotiated wage increase for their rank-and-file. Higher wages mean more union dues and more largesse to spread around political circles.
And all this leaves me, as a salaried worker who negotiated his own wage, scratching his head as to how I would continue to enjoy the standard of living I sought by coming here and taking my job while prices go up around me. And sooner or later, after prices go up, people will demand a higher minimum wage, since "just" $6.15 an hour won't do. Then the merry-go-round will circle again. Economics is not a zero-sum game, a fact which I think Democrats sometimes forget with these proposals.
I have (a) some simpler, more business-friendly solutions for those of you down the block in DC who control such things at the federal level. How about sunsetting the minimum wage and letting the market control itself? (This is where the Sun version ends).
Or, as a half-measure, why not adopt a lower "training wage" for workers under 18 who can get their start at the low end of the corporate totem pole? Many of those who make minimum wage are under 18 and aren't supporting a family. A slightly lower wage for them would be incentive for employers to hire younger workers and let them learn the responsibility of holding a job. If they work out well as good employees the employer would think long and hard before ditching them for a younger and cheaper employee, since experience is worth much more than a small wage gap gained by replacing an older worker to take advantage of the "training wage".
I think either solution at the federal level is better than this simple misguided attempt at "fairness" coming from Annapolis.
************
Don't you hate it when your great argument is left on the cutting room floor? When I write these kinds of things, I generally offer some sort of proposal or solution. I don't just bitch and say this is so wrong, life sucks, I hate everything, blah blah blah.
So I think I'll sit down in the next couple weeks and study what further restrictions have been put on my freedom in this so-called "Free State". Right now I wouldn't even say it's at a greatly reduced price.
Saturday, April 02, 2005
Think before you donate!
(This is the article I submitted to gopusa.com - never heard a thing about it. Bummer, I thought it was good.)
Today I went to my mailbox, opened it up, and received something I get about every month or two – an appeal from the Republican National Committee to donate money. They’re always concerned that I haven’t renewed my membership for the year. Funny, but I don’t recall ever becoming a member in the first place. Stranger still, the mail has followed me to my new home. Looks like they used some of the money from my phantom membership to acquire my new address.
Obviously the RNC knows that, in the past, I have taken advantage of my ever-shrinking First Amendment rights (as far as political speech goes) and donated some small sums of money to local and state candidates. Additionally, I’ve spent a lot of hours pounding the pavement and working the polls for people who I believed would be an improvement in the political office from the person then occupying it. This happened a lot in my native Ohio, where I lived most of my adult life in a heavily Democrat area.
But I’ve never donated to the national party and there’s a very logical reason why. I’m a person who has an overarching belief that individual rights are paramount, and as far as government goes I believe in the adage that government which governs best governs least. It’s too bad that some in the Republican Party have seemed to get away from this. One example already noted is the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act, with Senator McCain being the main Republican advancing this infringement on political speech rights.
However, the RNC has no real litmus test as to whom their money supports. It’s pretty much a given that as long as the "R" is behind the name and the person’s not way off the so-called "mainstream", the RNC will give its financial help.
A little-known fact is that actual direct monetary support to candidates is a fraction of RNC expenditures – out of over $300 million collected in the 2004 election cycle, less than a quarter actually went to state and federal candidates. Most of the rest goes to the grunt work of getting the volunteers and, more importantly, the GOP voters out on Election Day. And there’s really nothing wrong with that. My beef (and thus my withholding) only extends to having this huge sum of money in a big pot for anyone with an "R" to use.
This means that the $25, $38, or $50 contribution suggested in the mailing (they must know what I make, too) is just as likely to help out someone I consider a "RINO" like Senators Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania or Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island as it is to a Republican officeholder I mostly agree with and admire like Ron Paul of Texas or Ken Blackwell in Ohio.
To this end, my personal solution has been to donate money and time to individual candidates. I feel a lot more comfortable in meeting the person and finding out what sort of views he or she has on the issues I’m most passionate about. Getting to know these things influences the decision whether or not to open up my checkbook. I know from experience that what I give may not be a huge amount, but in most local races any amount I give helps in a big way.
So I have a suggestion for the people at the RNC who run the fundraising arm, and I’m going to use this widely-read forum to opine it: let me tell you where I want my money to go. Even if you provide a short checklist of items I can focus my donation on, much like the United Way does, I’d be more encouraged to send in a few dollars.
But for the remainder of readers, before you send in another donation to the RNC and possibly to the Specters and Chaffees of the world you may not agree with, think about maybe sending a donation directly to the candidates and officeholders you admire most for their views on your pet issues.
I certainly don’t want the Republican National Committee to dry up and blow away – we do need some sort of bulwark against the socialistic liberals who continue to try and erode individual freedom any way they can. But I also don’t want the RNC to help those who seem to be aiding and abetting the liberal cause, and letting just anyone with an "R" at that big pile of money may not be helping the Republican Party in the long run.
Today I went to my mailbox, opened it up, and received something I get about every month or two – an appeal from the Republican National Committee to donate money. They’re always concerned that I haven’t renewed my membership for the year. Funny, but I don’t recall ever becoming a member in the first place. Stranger still, the mail has followed me to my new home. Looks like they used some of the money from my phantom membership to acquire my new address.
Obviously the RNC knows that, in the past, I have taken advantage of my ever-shrinking First Amendment rights (as far as political speech goes) and donated some small sums of money to local and state candidates. Additionally, I’ve spent a lot of hours pounding the pavement and working the polls for people who I believed would be an improvement in the political office from the person then occupying it. This happened a lot in my native Ohio, where I lived most of my adult life in a heavily Democrat area.
But I’ve never donated to the national party and there’s a very logical reason why. I’m a person who has an overarching belief that individual rights are paramount, and as far as government goes I believe in the adage that government which governs best governs least. It’s too bad that some in the Republican Party have seemed to get away from this. One example already noted is the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act, with Senator McCain being the main Republican advancing this infringement on political speech rights.
However, the RNC has no real litmus test as to whom their money supports. It’s pretty much a given that as long as the "R" is behind the name and the person’s not way off the so-called "mainstream", the RNC will give its financial help.
A little-known fact is that actual direct monetary support to candidates is a fraction of RNC expenditures – out of over $300 million collected in the 2004 election cycle, less than a quarter actually went to state and federal candidates. Most of the rest goes to the grunt work of getting the volunteers and, more importantly, the GOP voters out on Election Day. And there’s really nothing wrong with that. My beef (and thus my withholding) only extends to having this huge sum of money in a big pot for anyone with an "R" to use.
This means that the $25, $38, or $50 contribution suggested in the mailing (they must know what I make, too) is just as likely to help out someone I consider a "RINO" like Senators Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania or Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island as it is to a Republican officeholder I mostly agree with and admire like Ron Paul of Texas or Ken Blackwell in Ohio.
To this end, my personal solution has been to donate money and time to individual candidates. I feel a lot more comfortable in meeting the person and finding out what sort of views he or she has on the issues I’m most passionate about. Getting to know these things influences the decision whether or not to open up my checkbook. I know from experience that what I give may not be a huge amount, but in most local races any amount I give helps in a big way.
So I have a suggestion for the people at the RNC who run the fundraising arm, and I’m going to use this widely-read forum to opine it: let me tell you where I want my money to go. Even if you provide a short checklist of items I can focus my donation on, much like the United Way does, I’d be more encouraged to send in a few dollars.
But for the remainder of readers, before you send in another donation to the RNC and possibly to the Specters and Chaffees of the world you may not agree with, think about maybe sending a donation directly to the candidates and officeholders you admire most for their views on your pet issues.
I certainly don’t want the Republican National Committee to dry up and blow away – we do need some sort of bulwark against the socialistic liberals who continue to try and erode individual freedom any way they can. But I also don’t want the RNC to help those who seem to be aiding and abetting the liberal cause, and letting just anyone with an "R" at that big pile of money may not be helping the Republican Party in the long run.
Introduction
This is kind of a neat setting to start out. You know, people go to journalism school in order to "change the world"; well, I decided this blog was a good place for my effort to do so.
Now I know next to nothing about blogging. The way I understand it, it's a lot like keeping a diary except you get other peoples' comments on it if you wish. I'm not particularly thin-skinned so I can accept constructive criticism.
I have a goal, well, maybe it's more of a hobby of mine. But I have many passions in life. Two of them are writing and politics. I cover the writing on everything from my "real" job (part of which involves writing specifications for architectural projects, a thing I really don't mind doing), to the frequent posting I do on the Detroit Tigers Fan Forum site (www.detroittigers.com). Baseball is another of my passions, particularly the Tigers and my old hometown Toledo Mud Hens.
But in an effort to "make a difference", for the last dozen or so years I would consider myself one of the more politically active people around. I used to be in the Toledo Metro Young Republican Club, even did a year as the president. I worked on I-don't-know-how-many campaigns, usually doing the grunt work like lit drops or getting petitions signed. I was a Central Committeeman for 4 years, which was a nice job for me.
If everything played out for me in a perfect world, I would make a living at this kind of stuff. Now if there's one thing I can do, it's write a lot. And people who know me certainly know I'm very opinionated, and I don't see a lot of gray except in my goatee.
Just for those who are curious, I moved from Ohio to Maryland this past fall for several personal reasons, not the least of which was being downsized out of my job. With that and the other changes in my life I decided to put my resume on Monster.com and move south or west. South won after I visited the Delmarva area and, if not fell in love with it, developed a strong case of like. It reminds me of northwest Ohio in that it's flat, rural with a lot of little towns, by a large body of water, and relatively conservative. It was either that or Arizona and I wasn't certain I wanted to move that far.
As far as a writing resume, I have managed to get a few letters to the editor published, most recently in the Salisbury Daily Times and the Baltimore Sun. But that's way too restricting to me - some papers only take one letter a month from a reader, and I have had the experience of half my letter finding file 13 as it were. I've also submitted what I thought was a great op-ed to gopusa.com but that hasn't seen the light of day. I think I'll post it after I finish this.
So here I am, now I can place a lot of words to screen and share as many opinions as I wish. And who knows, maybe someone is looking for the next Ann Coulter or Mark Steyn. I work relatively cheap...
Now I know next to nothing about blogging. The way I understand it, it's a lot like keeping a diary except you get other peoples' comments on it if you wish. I'm not particularly thin-skinned so I can accept constructive criticism.
I have a goal, well, maybe it's more of a hobby of mine. But I have many passions in life. Two of them are writing and politics. I cover the writing on everything from my "real" job (part of which involves writing specifications for architectural projects, a thing I really don't mind doing), to the frequent posting I do on the Detroit Tigers Fan Forum site (www.detroittigers.com). Baseball is another of my passions, particularly the Tigers and my old hometown Toledo Mud Hens.
But in an effort to "make a difference", for the last dozen or so years I would consider myself one of the more politically active people around. I used to be in the Toledo Metro Young Republican Club, even did a year as the president. I worked on I-don't-know-how-many campaigns, usually doing the grunt work like lit drops or getting petitions signed. I was a Central Committeeman for 4 years, which was a nice job for me.
If everything played out for me in a perfect world, I would make a living at this kind of stuff. Now if there's one thing I can do, it's write a lot. And people who know me certainly know I'm very opinionated, and I don't see a lot of gray except in my goatee.
Just for those who are curious, I moved from Ohio to Maryland this past fall for several personal reasons, not the least of which was being downsized out of my job. With that and the other changes in my life I decided to put my resume on Monster.com and move south or west. South won after I visited the Delmarva area and, if not fell in love with it, developed a strong case of like. It reminds me of northwest Ohio in that it's flat, rural with a lot of little towns, by a large body of water, and relatively conservative. It was either that or Arizona and I wasn't certain I wanted to move that far.
As far as a writing resume, I have managed to get a few letters to the editor published, most recently in the Salisbury Daily Times and the Baltimore Sun. But that's way too restricting to me - some papers only take one letter a month from a reader, and I have had the experience of half my letter finding file 13 as it were. I've also submitted what I thought was a great op-ed to gopusa.com but that hasn't seen the light of day. I think I'll post it after I finish this.
So here I am, now I can place a lot of words to screen and share as many opinions as I wish. And who knows, maybe someone is looking for the next Ann Coulter or Mark Steyn. I work relatively cheap...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)