(Disclaimer: My fiancee' is a state employee and I whole heartedly believe that the public sector serves an important role in our society.)
The problem with government employees is, very simply, the amount of taxes from the private sector that it takes to pay their salary and benefits.
Here's an idea that I'd wager very few people - and even fewer Democrats, specifically - have had occur to them. Government employees Don't pay taxes.
Yep. Let that one sink in a little.
How can you pay taxes when you're already being payed with taxpayer money? There's a line on your pay stub every pay cycle that shows Federal, State (unless you live in FL, TN, TX, et al), FICA, etc.. But, the truth of the matter is, whichever government entity it is that you're working for simply withholds a portion of taxpayer money from your check and disperses it to the appropriate Fed/State agency.
Through this prism, the notion that the President floated last week about the problem with the economy being the lack of public sector employees should seem even more ridiculous.
I posed this question four years ago, after the stimulus bill was passed: What happens when the money runs out? Granted, this question assumed that there were actually shovel ready jobs to be had, and that the stimulus wasn't just a slush fund used to keep the UAW and other union dues-paying employees employed. Eventually the government runs out of other people's money, be it U.S. taxpayer's, or China's. Then what?
Government employees will always be faced with the consequences (teachers being forced to take furloughs) of a faltering economy. Before we can worry about how to keep government employees working, we must first focus on the private sector. Simply, expanding the private sector is the only way to keep the public sector.
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Saturday, June 2, 2012
Taking Out The (John Edwards) Trash
I thought the current President was narcissistic - ok, he is definitely narcissistic - but it's possible we, as a country, were a scandal away from having an even more narcissistic President.
After his trial was declared deadlocked (save the one count of conspiracy to accept fraudulent campaign donations for which he was found not guilty), John Edwards didn't have the decency to keep his head down and ignore reporters before being whisked away in a Surburban. Nope. He stops on the courthouse steps and delivered what amounted to a stump speech.
Hey, John, you escaped by the skin of your teeth. No need to thank the jury for doing their job.
You love your dughter more than any of us can imagine. Really? I have two daughters, and I didn't try to deny their existense for the first two years of their lives. I have a hard time believing you saw Ms. Hunter's pregnancy as anything other than an obstacle to receiving the Democrat nomination for President back in 2008. Definitely not an occasion to be celebrated.
Can't you hear the conversation?
"That's great, baby, but we have to act like the baby belongs to one of my aides because this could wreck my chances of becoming President".
As far as doing all that you can in order to help poor children - while that is indeed an honorable ambition - just think of how much good you could've done with the million dollars that you used to hide the fact you had an affair and got your mistress pregnant.
I think you and Mel Gibson need to catch the next train to Obscurityville, never to be heard from again.
After his trial was declared deadlocked (save the one count of conspiracy to accept fraudulent campaign donations for which he was found not guilty), John Edwards didn't have the decency to keep his head down and ignore reporters before being whisked away in a Surburban. Nope. He stops on the courthouse steps and delivered what amounted to a stump speech.
Hey, John, you escaped by the skin of your teeth. No need to thank the jury for doing their job.
You love your dughter more than any of us can imagine. Really? I have two daughters, and I didn't try to deny their existense for the first two years of their lives. I have a hard time believing you saw Ms. Hunter's pregnancy as anything other than an obstacle to receiving the Democrat nomination for President back in 2008. Definitely not an occasion to be celebrated.
Can't you hear the conversation?
"That's great, baby, but we have to act like the baby belongs to one of my aides because this could wreck my chances of becoming President".
As far as doing all that you can in order to help poor children - while that is indeed an honorable ambition - just think of how much good you could've done with the million dollars that you used to hide the fact you had an affair and got your mistress pregnant.
I think you and Mel Gibson need to catch the next train to Obscurityville, never to be heard from again.
Monday, May 21, 2012
The Student Loan Lie
A few weeks ago, President Obama went on a week long college/university tour warning that the current student loan interest rate of 3.4% would double in July if congress didn't act quickly to pass a bill to stop the increase. An increase that was written into legislation back in 2007, when the Democrats had control of both houses of congress, and, quite frankly, when G. W. Bush was proving what a moderate Republican he was.
What's not being told is that Obama needs the interest rate to double because the revenue produced from the new 6.8% was calculated into Obamacare to help show that it wouldn't add to the the deficit. Instead, the issue is being used as political issue to help distract from his abysmal record on the economy and, more to the point, jobs. Pres Obama is proposing an increase in the tax rate on the job creators in exchange for keeping interest rate at its current level, knowing that Republicans won't approve it and thereby shifting the responsibility of the rate increase to them.
If Pres Obama were truly worried about the students who would be affected by the rate increae, he would have taken his tour to high schools around the country since the change effective for new loans and would not affect loans already taken out by current college students. But, again, this just a political manuever to paint Republicans, and especially Mitt Romney, as only caring about the "rich".
What's not being told is that Obama needs the interest rate to double because the revenue produced from the new 6.8% was calculated into Obamacare to help show that it wouldn't add to the the deficit. Instead, the issue is being used as political issue to help distract from his abysmal record on the economy and, more to the point, jobs. Pres Obama is proposing an increase in the tax rate on the job creators in exchange for keeping interest rate at its current level, knowing that Republicans won't approve it and thereby shifting the responsibility of the rate increase to them.
If Pres Obama were truly worried about the students who would be affected by the rate increae, he would have taken his tour to high schools around the country since the change effective for new loans and would not affect loans already taken out by current college students. But, again, this just a political manuever to paint Republicans, and especially Mitt Romney, as only caring about the "rich".
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Trayvon Martin: Facts vs Smear
(I preface this post with the following statement: a young man was shot and killed, and that in and of itself is a tragedy. Trayvon's parents have lost a son and, as a father of two young children, I empathize with them and regret what they are currently going thru and hope that I never have to experience the same.)
On the evening of February, 23, 2012, Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by George Zimmerman. Over the course of the past month - and most intensely in the past 2 weeks - the media has directed it's attention, almost non-stop, in the direction of Sanford, FL where the shooting took place. In the past few weeks, facts have begun to surface, not only about the shooting itself, but also about both Martin and Zimmerman. Trayvon "supporters" say that the facts emerging about the 17 year old victim amount nothing more than smears from "the other side".
I disagree, and here's why: Yesterday, I took some time to ponder what, exactly, a smear is. My initial answer was, a smear is a lie intentionally told to cast a negative light on someone. Then I began to wonder if a truth could also constitute a smear. I began to think about the things I'd done in my past, and whether or not I would consider someone bringing those things up now, in a public forum, to be a smear against me. Case in point: I'm coming up on the 20 year anniversary of a teenage/high school prank that I and several others committed. It was 1992, I had just recently graduated, and the only reason I say it was a high school prank is because that's where it was done...at my alma mater. Me and the others had to pay restitution for some minor damage that was done inadvertently, and I was sentenced to a year of probation which was commuted after 4 months when I entered the USAF. I found myself thinking, "Yeah, that would be a smear because that's not who I am today". I'm a law abiding citizen now, with no other run-ins with the law. I have two beautiful daughters that I support with the job that I've been employed at for almost 9 years now. Bringing up something like that from my pastr, which has nothing to do with who I am today, would constitute a smear in my eyes. Unfortunately, this logic doesn't apply for Trayvon Martin, whose supporters believe that a smear is anything that cast a negative, true or not, relevant or not, regardless of when the incident(s) occured. The facts that have come out aren't old. I'd happily discount anything that's come out about Trayvon that's before him reaching high school. However, what we are learning is recent and therefore, I conntend, are all we have in an attempt to define his character.
When the media finally jumped on this story, the picture of Trayvon that was used was that of a shorter, near pre-pubescent kid... you know, the one of Trayvon in the crimson colored Hollister tee (I'll come back to this). The pictures that have surfaced in the past several days show a much taller, older looking Trayvon with tattoos and a gold plated grill. We've also learned that Trayvon was serving his third suspension of the current school year - for being caught with trace amounts of marijauana - when he was visiting his dad Sanford. We know the other 2 suspensions were for truancy and vadalism. We know that he had a twitter account with the screen name NO_LIMIT_NIGGA. All of these facts have been attacked by the likes of Al Sharpton as being smears and have nothing to do with incident that took place just over a month ago. But don't they? When I first heard of this shooting while driving through Orlando nearly three weeks ago, I had made up my mind that Zimmerman had followed Trayvon, initiated contact with him and ended up shooting Trayvon after Trayvon started getting the better of him. I made a comment on a friend's facebook post that there was no way that the "Stand Your Ground" defense would hold up and that Zimmerman would end up serving time in prison for manslaughter, at the very least.
But, with new facts of both Trayvon and Zimmerman arising on an alomost daily occurance, we are beginning to see a different picture of both. Perhaps Zimmerman isn't the racist profiler that was first portrayed. Appparently he and his wife both mentored minority children on the weekends. Perhaps Trayvon isn't the innocent child that the media initially tried to portray him as. The media did their dead level best to make sure that Trayvon would be seen as the innocent victim by showing for weeks the older picture. The media knew that showing a picture of Trayvon with tats and a grill wouldn't conjure up near the sentiment and/or outrage over a shooting that it wanted desperately to be seen as senseless and unwarranted.
In Zimmerman's statement, http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/report-says-police-reveal-details-of-george-zimmermans-account-of-trayvon/1222087 he claims that Trayvon approached him as he was on his way back to his SUV after loosing sight of the 17 year old. According to the statement, Trayvon then asked him if he had a problem, punched him in the nose and then jumped on top of Zimmerman after he'd fallen, and began slamming his head into the ground. Zimmerman claims that the cries for help heard on the 911 tapes are his and that he shot Trayvon in self defense, and in accordance with Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law. I submit that the facts that have come out about Trayvon show a young man who could easily be seen as the aggressor. As a potentially angry young man who felt disrespected by a "white" man following him. A young man who felt he needed to confront Zimmerman and let him know what he thought about being followed as though he had done something wrong. But, then he did do something wrong, if we are to believe Zimmerman's statement. He attacked Zimmerman and forced him to defend himself with his lawfully concealed weapon that he was carrying at the time.
This just my hypothesis, and I'm open to any and all facts as they emerge that might prove otherwise.
On the evening of February, 23, 2012, Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by George Zimmerman. Over the course of the past month - and most intensely in the past 2 weeks - the media has directed it's attention, almost non-stop, in the direction of Sanford, FL where the shooting took place. In the past few weeks, facts have begun to surface, not only about the shooting itself, but also about both Martin and Zimmerman. Trayvon "supporters" say that the facts emerging about the 17 year old victim amount nothing more than smears from "the other side".
I disagree, and here's why: Yesterday, I took some time to ponder what, exactly, a smear is. My initial answer was, a smear is a lie intentionally told to cast a negative light on someone. Then I began to wonder if a truth could also constitute a smear. I began to think about the things I'd done in my past, and whether or not I would consider someone bringing those things up now, in a public forum, to be a smear against me. Case in point: I'm coming up on the 20 year anniversary of a teenage/high school prank that I and several others committed. It was 1992, I had just recently graduated, and the only reason I say it was a high school prank is because that's where it was done...at my alma mater. Me and the others had to pay restitution for some minor damage that was done inadvertently, and I was sentenced to a year of probation which was commuted after 4 months when I entered the USAF. I found myself thinking, "Yeah, that would be a smear because that's not who I am today". I'm a law abiding citizen now, with no other run-ins with the law. I have two beautiful daughters that I support with the job that I've been employed at for almost 9 years now. Bringing up something like that from my pastr, which has nothing to do with who I am today, would constitute a smear in my eyes. Unfortunately, this logic doesn't apply for Trayvon Martin, whose supporters believe that a smear is anything that cast a negative, true or not, relevant or not, regardless of when the incident(s) occured. The facts that have come out aren't old. I'd happily discount anything that's come out about Trayvon that's before him reaching high school. However, what we are learning is recent and therefore, I conntend, are all we have in an attempt to define his character.
When the media finally jumped on this story, the picture of Trayvon that was used was that of a shorter, near pre-pubescent kid... you know, the one of Trayvon in the crimson colored Hollister tee (I'll come back to this). The pictures that have surfaced in the past several days show a much taller, older looking Trayvon with tattoos and a gold plated grill. We've also learned that Trayvon was serving his third suspension of the current school year - for being caught with trace amounts of marijauana - when he was visiting his dad Sanford. We know the other 2 suspensions were for truancy and vadalism. We know that he had a twitter account with the screen name NO_LIMIT_NIGGA. All of these facts have been attacked by the likes of Al Sharpton as being smears and have nothing to do with incident that took place just over a month ago. But don't they? When I first heard of this shooting while driving through Orlando nearly three weeks ago, I had made up my mind that Zimmerman had followed Trayvon, initiated contact with him and ended up shooting Trayvon after Trayvon started getting the better of him. I made a comment on a friend's facebook post that there was no way that the "Stand Your Ground" defense would hold up and that Zimmerman would end up serving time in prison for manslaughter, at the very least.
But, with new facts of both Trayvon and Zimmerman arising on an alomost daily occurance, we are beginning to see a different picture of both. Perhaps Zimmerman isn't the racist profiler that was first portrayed. Appparently he and his wife both mentored minority children on the weekends. Perhaps Trayvon isn't the innocent child that the media initially tried to portray him as. The media did their dead level best to make sure that Trayvon would be seen as the innocent victim by showing for weeks the older picture. The media knew that showing a picture of Trayvon with tats and a grill wouldn't conjure up near the sentiment and/or outrage over a shooting that it wanted desperately to be seen as senseless and unwarranted.
In Zimmerman's statement, http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/report-says-police-reveal-details-of-george-zimmermans-account-of-trayvon/1222087 he claims that Trayvon approached him as he was on his way back to his SUV after loosing sight of the 17 year old. According to the statement, Trayvon then asked him if he had a problem, punched him in the nose and then jumped on top of Zimmerman after he'd fallen, and began slamming his head into the ground. Zimmerman claims that the cries for help heard on the 911 tapes are his and that he shot Trayvon in self defense, and in accordance with Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law. I submit that the facts that have come out about Trayvon show a young man who could easily be seen as the aggressor. As a potentially angry young man who felt disrespected by a "white" man following him. A young man who felt he needed to confront Zimmerman and let him know what he thought about being followed as though he had done something wrong. But, then he did do something wrong, if we are to believe Zimmerman's statement. He attacked Zimmerman and forced him to defend himself with his lawfully concealed weapon that he was carrying at the time.
This just my hypothesis, and I'm open to any and all facts as they emerge that might prove otherwise.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
War On Women
Contrary to what certain members of the media and most liberal pundits would have Americans believe, there is no #waronwomen. I know. It's hard to believe, but conservatives do not care what type of birth control method(s) women choose to use. No one is suggesting that women not be allowed to freely use birth control.
The narrative that right-wingers are trying to take charge over a woman's "reproductive healthcare" is patently false. Conseratives just don't think anyone but the person using the birth control should be forced to help subsidize it. Nor do we believe that a religious organization should be forced to act against its tenets and teachings and be required to pay for insurance that would end up providing coverage for birth control pills, morning after pills, abortions et al.
I love those who try to make the argument that it's non-issue since such a large percentage of the female Catholic congregation actually use birthcontro.
A little analogy if I may: I grew up in a strict souther Baptist house. Southern Baptist take a disapproving view of alchahol consumption (I once had a Sunday school teacher tell me that the wine Jesus turned from water was actually more like grape juice). I, on the other hand, enjoy an adult beverage from time to time and don't believe that I'm doing anything wrong. However, I don't expect my church, or any church, to be forced to provide cocktails in Sunday school.
This was a preconceived plan on behalf of Pres Obama and the Democrats: back off the "original plan" of forcing the church itself to provide contraception to its employees, and simply force all insurance companies to provide for contraception and abortions. Now the Catholic church must pay for and provide insurance, essentially subsidizing the behavior it opposes, or dropping insurance on its employees altogether. Where will these employees get their insurance should the Catholic church go this route? That's right. Obamacare. Pres Obama campaigned on a single-payer healthcare system, and is slowly but surely fixing the game so as to ensure as many Americans as possible are herded into this impending financial fiasco.
The narrative that right-wingers are trying to take charge over a woman's "reproductive healthcare" is patently false. Conseratives just don't think anyone but the person using the birth control should be forced to help subsidize it. Nor do we believe that a religious organization should be forced to act against its tenets and teachings and be required to pay for insurance that would end up providing coverage for birth control pills, morning after pills, abortions et al.
I love those who try to make the argument that it's non-issue since such a large percentage of the female Catholic congregation actually use birthcontro.
A little analogy if I may: I grew up in a strict souther Baptist house. Southern Baptist take a disapproving view of alchahol consumption (I once had a Sunday school teacher tell me that the wine Jesus turned from water was actually more like grape juice). I, on the other hand, enjoy an adult beverage from time to time and don't believe that I'm doing anything wrong. However, I don't expect my church, or any church, to be forced to provide cocktails in Sunday school.
This was a preconceived plan on behalf of Pres Obama and the Democrats: back off the "original plan" of forcing the church itself to provide contraception to its employees, and simply force all insurance companies to provide for contraception and abortions. Now the Catholic church must pay for and provide insurance, essentially subsidizing the behavior it opposes, or dropping insurance on its employees altogether. Where will these employees get their insurance should the Catholic church go this route? That's right. Obamacare. Pres Obama campaigned on a single-payer healthcare system, and is slowly but surely fixing the game so as to ensure as many Americans as possible are herded into this impending financial fiasco.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)