It does not take an advanced degree in economics to understand what role labor unions have played in pulling the prosperity from much of American manufacturing, several states' economies, and various government roles. (teacher's union, etc.)
In the past, the primary role of the union has been to "get more" for its employees in terms of wages, benefits, pension, labor hours, safety, etc. In the wake of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, labor unions were a valued and needed part of the workplace. (Wouldn't my mom be proud that I pulled that reference off the top of my head)
Now, however, many have recognized that unions are no longer needed to protect those original rights and operation procedures for which unions were founded. Due to state and federal government regulations across all industries, we have 'OSHA' guidelines, anti-discrimination, unemployment benefits, etc.
Still, unions play a vital role in many industries to further negotiate many facets of employment and compensation beyond what is legally required. They do so as a group in order to increase leverage against their employer for fear of a strike or 'walkout.'
What if unions could be used for just the opposite scenario?
In an interesting political twist, what if the "National Union of Federal Taxpayers" was created? (NUFT) As in, I've had about 'NUFT' of all these taxes!
If radio talk show hosts are correct, this is the first year where we had less than 50% of the population be a "net tax payer" to the Federal Government. That means that the majority can now vote themselves more and more entitlements without the ability for the minority taxpayer to stop them.
As alluded in earlier posts, I view many of the entitlement programs, essentially, as "ransomes" to be paid to those who cannot or will not work to provide for themselves. Economically speaking, there is a value in having basic food and shelter for everyone. Thus, these should not be considered rights but a valuable alternative to looting or potential chaos stemming from desperation.
As we have also seen, too much of a ransom paid, and there are more and more 'takers'in the system.
Therefore, there is a mathematical way to determine the appropriate amount of handouts or entitlements from the government to deter both chaos and apathy at the same time.
Until the boys in Washington figure that one out on either side of the aisle, I suggest we explore the idea of forming 'NUFT' to negotiate on our behalf.
If teachers can negotiate with the government through unions, then why can't taxpayers? What are they going to do, fire us?
The only difference between this and a regular union is that instead of asking for more from our employer, we are asking for our government to take less from us.
Just as a union should generally understand that a company does have to make some profit, NUFT will understand that the government does need revenue for essential services, military, and an appropriate amount of entitlements. However, get too greedy, and the NUFT kicks in.
Just as the union was designed to protect "the little guy," the little guy is now the American taxpayer.
So, I have no ambition of creating and organizing a union of tens of millions of people. (only 1 organizer I know has the sort of experience to try that sort of sweeping vision) My goal is to offer a comparison of the somwhat helpless feeling many of us now have towards the amount of money we get to keep.
Hell, maybe the Republican Party or the Tea Party movement can use the idea in November to get some bi-partisan support.
Unions have devastated the growth of companies before, maybe it can work for the government too!
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Monday, March 1, 2010
The "Death Panel" Finally, a breakthrough idea by the Democrats
Let me first say that I have no interest in endorsing the Democratic led healthcare reform bill or any part thereof. Any time the government starts using words like "fairness," I get nervous.
Merely, I would like to analyze a part of the bill as a real breakthrough for the Democratic party.
Allow me to also provide the disclaimer: Much like our congressmen, I have not had the time to read or the mental capacity to understand the specific language of the bill. Therefore, I am drawing my analysis on what I believe to be the least partisan commentators on the issue and ignoring the "phrase bombs" that are thrown from both sides. In light of that, consider this a hypothetical opinion.
Now that's out of the way...
What a breakthrough!
People, the Democrats are in favor of saving government money, obtained through taxation, in spite of the potential sympathy and humanity involved.
So, a person has a terminal illness and the government is willing to provide "end of life counseling" to decide the best path towards their 'outcome.' This path seems to be designed at reducing treatment costs which can skyrocket in the final weeks of one's life and also reduce the stress on the patient.
Many have become frightened by this prospect, because it can potentially lead to having the government ration care to those in the most severe conditions, essentially writing them off by saying their odds of survival are not worth the cost of care. This situation has been realized in Great Britain and has resulted in many patients seeking care outside the system.
Thus, the flaws of a single payer system...
However, we do not have a single payer system,(yet) and we are still able to purchase health insurance or pay for treatments privately. Thus, as free citizens, our decisions and financial capacity to execute those decisions will determine the quality of our family's healthcare.
Those currently not covered under insurance (anywhere from 8 to 46 Million) are the primary beneficiaries of the new legislation and will then be at the government's mercy to disperse revenue collected by taxation towards their healthcare.
Based on the Constitution, we have the right to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" along with all those rights enumerated in the "Bill of Rights" and subsequent amendments.
None of those rights suggests that the government must provide housing, food, utilities, education, or healthcare to its citizens, as all of these items require the time and resources of others.
The only 'right' that we have which requires a part of someone else's time is the right to a trial by jury.
The government provides these failsafe benefits because we have collectively voted that our country is better, more productive, safe, etc. if we have these lowest common denominators in place.
Just as one is not likely to live in the most finely appointed mansion on Section 8, one should not expect to have an unlimited healthcare budget being paid for with tax dollars.
Basic economics lesson:
1. Healthcare, like housing, food, education, etc. is a scarce resource with a limited number of doctors, nurses, and facilities.
2. Scarce resources have value.
3. Items with value are generally rationed by the ability of a consumer to pay. (Again, houses, cars, etc.)
4. Thus, healthcare is currently rationed by the ability of a consumer to pay either through insurance coverage, private funds, or government subsidy.
So, we have the ability to live in better housing than government projects or Section 8 if we pay for it. We can go out to eat and spend more money on food than food stamps if we pay for it ourselves. We can send our children to private schools for a better education if we pay the tuition.
With this in mind, we should also be able to get preferred healthcare or treatment if we rely on our own insurance and funds to pay.
Again, the proposed bills scare some because of the potential loss of control of their own destiny and care through government rationing of this scarce resource by some other means than one's ability to pay.
If we can put that fear aside and hypothetically assume that our current insurance and payment options will not change, that means that only those who rely on the government for care will be subject to 'value minded treatments' and "end of life counseling."
Anyone have a problem with your tax dollars being distributed as efficiently as possible for someone else's healthcare?
Those are tough decisions that the government has a lot of difficulty in making. "Nobody wants to be the bad guy."
That is what makes this such a breakthrough for the Democrats!
I am sure that many facts of this legislation are left out of my opinion, and perhaps, some others are misrepresented. Still, this is about the concept, and that is something we should examine more closely.
Merely, I would like to analyze a part of the bill as a real breakthrough for the Democratic party.
Allow me to also provide the disclaimer: Much like our congressmen, I have not had the time to read or the mental capacity to understand the specific language of the bill. Therefore, I am drawing my analysis on what I believe to be the least partisan commentators on the issue and ignoring the "phrase bombs" that are thrown from both sides. In light of that, consider this a hypothetical opinion.
Now that's out of the way...
What a breakthrough!
People, the Democrats are in favor of saving government money, obtained through taxation, in spite of the potential sympathy and humanity involved.
So, a person has a terminal illness and the government is willing to provide "end of life counseling" to decide the best path towards their 'outcome.' This path seems to be designed at reducing treatment costs which can skyrocket in the final weeks of one's life and also reduce the stress on the patient.
Many have become frightened by this prospect, because it can potentially lead to having the government ration care to those in the most severe conditions, essentially writing them off by saying their odds of survival are not worth the cost of care. This situation has been realized in Great Britain and has resulted in many patients seeking care outside the system.
Thus, the flaws of a single payer system...
However, we do not have a single payer system,(yet) and we are still able to purchase health insurance or pay for treatments privately. Thus, as free citizens, our decisions and financial capacity to execute those decisions will determine the quality of our family's healthcare.
Those currently not covered under insurance (anywhere from 8 to 46 Million) are the primary beneficiaries of the new legislation and will then be at the government's mercy to disperse revenue collected by taxation towards their healthcare.
Based on the Constitution, we have the right to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" along with all those rights enumerated in the "Bill of Rights" and subsequent amendments.
None of those rights suggests that the government must provide housing, food, utilities, education, or healthcare to its citizens, as all of these items require the time and resources of others.
The only 'right' that we have which requires a part of someone else's time is the right to a trial by jury.
The government provides these failsafe benefits because we have collectively voted that our country is better, more productive, safe, etc. if we have these lowest common denominators in place.
Just as one is not likely to live in the most finely appointed mansion on Section 8, one should not expect to have an unlimited healthcare budget being paid for with tax dollars.
Basic economics lesson:
1. Healthcare, like housing, food, education, etc. is a scarce resource with a limited number of doctors, nurses, and facilities.
2. Scarce resources have value.
3. Items with value are generally rationed by the ability of a consumer to pay. (Again, houses, cars, etc.)
4. Thus, healthcare is currently rationed by the ability of a consumer to pay either through insurance coverage, private funds, or government subsidy.
So, we have the ability to live in better housing than government projects or Section 8 if we pay for it. We can go out to eat and spend more money on food than food stamps if we pay for it ourselves. We can send our children to private schools for a better education if we pay the tuition.
With this in mind, we should also be able to get preferred healthcare or treatment if we rely on our own insurance and funds to pay.
Again, the proposed bills scare some because of the potential loss of control of their own destiny and care through government rationing of this scarce resource by some other means than one's ability to pay.
If we can put that fear aside and hypothetically assume that our current insurance and payment options will not change, that means that only those who rely on the government for care will be subject to 'value minded treatments' and "end of life counseling."
Anyone have a problem with your tax dollars being distributed as efficiently as possible for someone else's healthcare?
Those are tough decisions that the government has a lot of difficulty in making. "Nobody wants to be the bad guy."
That is what makes this such a breakthrough for the Democrats!
I am sure that many facts of this legislation are left out of my opinion, and perhaps, some others are misrepresented. Still, this is about the concept, and that is something we should examine more closely.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Census Advertising
Would someone please explain to all of us why the 2010 U.S. Census is something that needs constant advertisement on television?
I mean during the Super Bowl for goodness sakes!
Advertising for something that is mandatory seems a little silly to me. (as well as wasting millions of dollars doing so.)
Why don't we start advertising for the IRS to pay your taxes or Social Security? Perhaps throw out some advertisements to drive on the right side of the road or send your kids to school...
Government at its finest!
I mean during the Super Bowl for goodness sakes!
Advertising for something that is mandatory seems a little silly to me. (as well as wasting millions of dollars doing so.)
Why don't we start advertising for the IRS to pay your taxes or Social Security? Perhaps throw out some advertisements to drive on the right side of the road or send your kids to school...
Government at its finest!
Friday, February 12, 2010
Self Confidence through the Apathy of Others
Around 1% - Depending on how you calculate, this is the percentage of Americans who are millionaires. (likely not counting the equity of the primary residence)
Around 6% - Percent of individual American workers who make $100k per year or more from their job
Less than .5% - Percent of Americans who make over $400k per year or more from their job
$43,000 - Median income of a full-time worker in the U.S.
(Data compiled from various years in the late 2000's from sources including WSJ and Merrill Lynch)
Just looking at these figures, financial success is not likely and certainly not as immenent as we have lead ourselves to believe as we graduated high school and college. Those of us with even the most modest amount of ambition strive to be a millionaire these days. Besides, a million dollars doesn't get you what it used to!
Particularly in times of economic stress, it can become difficult to envision rising from the ranks of financial mediocrity. However, looking at the numbers, there just isn't much room at the top for stowaways.
Do not despair.
While $400k jobs aren't growing on trees, and becoming a millionaire (without inheritance) will take a few wise moves and some strategic planning, just keep in mind the "competition."
You see, when we get discouraged by these small numbers or percentages, we are competing with the other 98% for the top 2%. That is quite daunting.
The reality is that much of the "other 98%" is no competition at all:
Every time you go to the grocery store and see unreturned shopping carts, all of those people who did not return their cart are not competition.
The millions of 'great unwashed' who live through government handouts... At least they are not competition.
How about all those people at the mall with colored hair, piercings, and clearly visible tattoos? Unless they are in the music industry, they are not competition.
You are not competition if you openly litter.
Unless you are a professional athelete, wearing your pants below your underwear, or having your hat sideways = not competition.
While there are some exceptions, if you need to take a smoke break at work, you are not likely to be competition.
If you regularly purchase the "tall boys" of Icehouse beer that is appropriately 'on ice' at the checkout stand of a convenience store, you will not regularly be competition for the rest of us.
If you ever mistreat your pet, you are not competition.
More than likely, if your trailer hitch has a dangling ball sack, you will not be competition.
If you paid more for your car than your house, you are not competition.
Some of the competition does not even want to be competition.
Sometimes, the non-competition has an almost undefinable quality. However, you know it when you see it.
If you don't know what I'm talking about, you are not competition either.
So, the next time you find yourself feeling discouraged about "getting ahead," take a trip to Wal-Mart or your local mall. It will make you feel better about your odds-
Around 6% - Percent of individual American workers who make $100k per year or more from their job
Less than .5% - Percent of Americans who make over $400k per year or more from their job
$43,000 - Median income of a full-time worker in the U.S.
(Data compiled from various years in the late 2000's from sources including WSJ and Merrill Lynch)
Just looking at these figures, financial success is not likely and certainly not as immenent as we have lead ourselves to believe as we graduated high school and college. Those of us with even the most modest amount of ambition strive to be a millionaire these days. Besides, a million dollars doesn't get you what it used to!
Particularly in times of economic stress, it can become difficult to envision rising from the ranks of financial mediocrity. However, looking at the numbers, there just isn't much room at the top for stowaways.
Do not despair.
While $400k jobs aren't growing on trees, and becoming a millionaire (without inheritance) will take a few wise moves and some strategic planning, just keep in mind the "competition."
You see, when we get discouraged by these small numbers or percentages, we are competing with the other 98% for the top 2%. That is quite daunting.
The reality is that much of the "other 98%" is no competition at all:
Every time you go to the grocery store and see unreturned shopping carts, all of those people who did not return their cart are not competition.
The millions of 'great unwashed' who live through government handouts... At least they are not competition.
How about all those people at the mall with colored hair, piercings, and clearly visible tattoos? Unless they are in the music industry, they are not competition.
You are not competition if you openly litter.
Unless you are a professional athelete, wearing your pants below your underwear, or having your hat sideways = not competition.
While there are some exceptions, if you need to take a smoke break at work, you are not likely to be competition.
If you regularly purchase the "tall boys" of Icehouse beer that is appropriately 'on ice' at the checkout stand of a convenience store, you will not regularly be competition for the rest of us.
If you ever mistreat your pet, you are not competition.
More than likely, if your trailer hitch has a dangling ball sack, you will not be competition.
If you paid more for your car than your house, you are not competition.
Some of the competition does not even want to be competition.
Sometimes, the non-competition has an almost undefinable quality. However, you know it when you see it.
If you don't know what I'm talking about, you are not competition either.
So, the next time you find yourself feeling discouraged about "getting ahead," take a trip to Wal-Mart or your local mall. It will make you feel better about your odds-
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Sports Populism
Before us this past week has been a microcosm of how quickly we can annoint and disjoint public figures, particularly those considered at the top of their field, organization, government, etc.
Peyton Manning was all set to be annointed as the greatest quarterback of all time last Sunday. All he needed was a decent performance and a Colts victory. Peyton, as it turned out, had more than a decent performance, passing for 333 yards despite one or two crucial drops, one touchdown pass with another one dropped, and one lowly interception.
It seems that Peyton Manning is now a "choker" or "all stats and no substance." Our experts can't fathom him being in the discussion for "best all time." One commentator said on the radio, "he is more Dan Marino than Joe Montana."
Perhaps this is a function of our 24 hour news cycle, even for sports. However, don't we have to question this leap to judgement?
Peyton Manning was, once again, the league's most valuable player. He nearly took a team that would likely not have made the playoffs without him to an undefeated Super Bowl win. His head coach, if not for pulling the starters the last two games of the regular season, would have been considered an afterthought. After all, the Colts are Peyton's team.
That being said, the outcomes in football, like politics and others, are not determined by one player even if he is at the top. Peyton Manning was on the field less than half of the plays in this year's Super Bowl. At one point, he was off the field for more than an hour of real time.
So, we can blame Peyton for the loss even though the Saints had better talent. We can blame George W. Bush even though the final years of his presidency were accompanied by a Democratic congress. We can blame the banks even though the government pressured them to offer loans to low income borrowers. We can blame the oil companies even though they don't control the price of oil...
The point is that the easiest to blame or the most interesting to blame is not always the one to blame. Sometimes there is no blame at all-
Peyton Manning was all set to be annointed as the greatest quarterback of all time last Sunday. All he needed was a decent performance and a Colts victory. Peyton, as it turned out, had more than a decent performance, passing for 333 yards despite one or two crucial drops, one touchdown pass with another one dropped, and one lowly interception.
It seems that Peyton Manning is now a "choker" or "all stats and no substance." Our experts can't fathom him being in the discussion for "best all time." One commentator said on the radio, "he is more Dan Marino than Joe Montana."
Perhaps this is a function of our 24 hour news cycle, even for sports. However, don't we have to question this leap to judgement?
Peyton Manning was, once again, the league's most valuable player. He nearly took a team that would likely not have made the playoffs without him to an undefeated Super Bowl win. His head coach, if not for pulling the starters the last two games of the regular season, would have been considered an afterthought. After all, the Colts are Peyton's team.
That being said, the outcomes in football, like politics and others, are not determined by one player even if he is at the top. Peyton Manning was on the field less than half of the plays in this year's Super Bowl. At one point, he was off the field for more than an hour of real time.
So, we can blame Peyton for the loss even though the Saints had better talent. We can blame George W. Bush even though the final years of his presidency were accompanied by a Democratic congress. We can blame the banks even though the government pressured them to offer loans to low income borrowers. We can blame the oil companies even though they don't control the price of oil...
The point is that the easiest to blame or the most interesting to blame is not always the one to blame. Sometimes there is no blame at all-
Monday, February 8, 2010
America like Europe?
So, America is becoming more like Europe everyone says...
I recently saw the front page of a newspaper that had a story about how the city was having to find new ways to cut spending because of reduced revenues from sales taxes, property taxes, etc. Another story on the front page showed the same town's policemen proudly burning about $13 Million of illegal drugs.
The irony caught me.
It also made me question just how close to being like Europe we really are-
I recently saw the front page of a newspaper that had a story about how the city was having to find new ways to cut spending because of reduced revenues from sales taxes, property taxes, etc. Another story on the front page showed the same town's policemen proudly burning about $13 Million of illegal drugs.
The irony caught me.
It also made me question just how close to being like Europe we really are-
Monday, February 1, 2010
"Saved or Created" -A Quick Look at the Numbers
It seems that American politicians have a case of the "illions." As long as a number ends in i-l-l-i-o-n, then they understand that the American public will generally treat them as equals.
In President Obama's state of the union address, he mentioned a plan to save 15 billion dollars per year, which was portrayed as quite significant.
Today, the Obama admisistration has proposed a budget with a $1.55 trillion deficit. $100 billion of which was for a "job creation program."
Thus the $15B is only 1% of the budget deficit and less than 1% of the annual budget.
There are only 300 million American citizens and the labor force is roughly half of that number including the unemployed, around 155 million. (sources are for journalists, so just trust that this is accurate along with everything else I say...)
Our unemployment figures show just over 10% unemployment nationally or around 16 million people. That does not take into account those who are "under-employed" or those who are struggling with their own business.
Pundits of the Democratic party have varying estimates of the number of jobs that have been "saved or created" by the stimulus package. However, most of the figures endorsed by the administration are in the neighborhood of 650,000. Any person with even a rudimentary understanding of economics can understand that some jobs will be "saved or created" by this enormous amount of spending. Still, the math and accountability on this seems suspect.
The advertised cost of the "Stimulus Package" that helped to "save or create" all of these jobs is $789 billion. That number does not take into account the interest expense on these dollars (since we are running a budget deficit) nor does it account for future spending increases if any of the temporary programs in the package are extended or made permanent. (sounds quite likely though...)
However, just using the administration's numbers, that equates to $1.2 million per job "saved or created." ($789,000,000,000.00/650,000)
Even if the average job "saved or created" is done so in perpetuity, and that job 'pays back' $12,000 per year in federal taxes, it will take 100 years to pay back the stimulus amount required to "save or create" that job in the first place. That, again, does not include any interest and assumes these jobs to be $75-80k per year in order to pay $12k in fed taxes. Only Jimmy Carter would see a 100 year loan with no interest as the right thing to do.
So, what is our point... 2 things:
1. These numbers with all the 'Zero's' have consequences. The budget shortfall of $1.55 trillion is about $10,000 per every working American. Add that to our existing 'net' national debt of $8.5 Trillion, and we have over $60,000 of debt for every working American. Unless the government plans to sell assets such as national parks, federal buildings, and technology, it will need to collect this money from the taxpayers in addition to keeping current with interest.
2. These so called "investments" in the American economy or workforce make absolutely no business sense and have only had a marginal impact in relation to unemployment rates. Can you imagine any business spending $1.2M for an annual cash flow of $12,000? The loan to GM was a better deal! This illustrates the need to have more individuals with practical business experience working in government as a Representative, Senator, or the CEO, himself.
I just wonder how many on "the hill" really understand the numbers themselves. I'm afraid I know just how few average citizens 'get it.'
In President Obama's state of the union address, he mentioned a plan to save 15 billion dollars per year, which was portrayed as quite significant.
Today, the Obama admisistration has proposed a budget with a $1.55 trillion deficit. $100 billion of which was for a "job creation program."
Thus the $15B is only 1% of the budget deficit and less than 1% of the annual budget.
There are only 300 million American citizens and the labor force is roughly half of that number including the unemployed, around 155 million. (sources are for journalists, so just trust that this is accurate along with everything else I say...)
Our unemployment figures show just over 10% unemployment nationally or around 16 million people. That does not take into account those who are "under-employed" or those who are struggling with their own business.
Pundits of the Democratic party have varying estimates of the number of jobs that have been "saved or created" by the stimulus package. However, most of the figures endorsed by the administration are in the neighborhood of 650,000. Any person with even a rudimentary understanding of economics can understand that some jobs will be "saved or created" by this enormous amount of spending. Still, the math and accountability on this seems suspect.
The advertised cost of the "Stimulus Package" that helped to "save or create" all of these jobs is $789 billion. That number does not take into account the interest expense on these dollars (since we are running a budget deficit) nor does it account for future spending increases if any of the temporary programs in the package are extended or made permanent. (sounds quite likely though...)
However, just using the administration's numbers, that equates to $1.2 million per job "saved or created." ($789,000,000,000.00/650,000)
Even if the average job "saved or created" is done so in perpetuity, and that job 'pays back' $12,000 per year in federal taxes, it will take 100 years to pay back the stimulus amount required to "save or create" that job in the first place. That, again, does not include any interest and assumes these jobs to be $75-80k per year in order to pay $12k in fed taxes. Only Jimmy Carter would see a 100 year loan with no interest as the right thing to do.
So, what is our point... 2 things:
1. These numbers with all the 'Zero's' have consequences. The budget shortfall of $1.55 trillion is about $10,000 per every working American. Add that to our existing 'net' national debt of $8.5 Trillion, and we have over $60,000 of debt for every working American. Unless the government plans to sell assets such as national parks, federal buildings, and technology, it will need to collect this money from the taxpayers in addition to keeping current with interest.
2. These so called "investments" in the American economy or workforce make absolutely no business sense and have only had a marginal impact in relation to unemployment rates. Can you imagine any business spending $1.2M for an annual cash flow of $12,000? The loan to GM was a better deal! This illustrates the need to have more individuals with practical business experience working in government as a Representative, Senator, or the CEO, himself.
I just wonder how many on "the hill" really understand the numbers themselves. I'm afraid I know just how few average citizens 'get it.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)