If one wants to understand the dysfunction of the U.S. congress, look no further than this article. There is a little something for each side to complain about. Harry Reid should be fired and the Republicans should try once in a while to get something done by adding the word "Yes" to their vernacular.
In the mean time, progress has been ground to a halt.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/us/politics/22cong.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&src=igw
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Hmmm!
In the AZ Republic, the major newspaper for the 5th largest city in America, they post once a week a list of the 5 most expensive houses sold in the past week. What is interesting, and this is completely unscientific, but most of these houses aren't sold by people.
Of the 5 in any given week (with some exceptions), 3 will be sold by a husband and wife on behalf of a trust, 1 will be sold by a bank (million dollar repos?) and 1 sold by an individual. How many of you have a trust that owns your house?
When the really wealthy say they pay a lot in taxes, what they don't say is that they spend a great deal of time sheltering money from taxes, so much so that in reality they don't really pay so much. Now don't get me wrong, they are probably paying more than necessary because of government waste, but don't buy this business about them paying 50-70% in taxes. Not true.
And what do you want to bet the person who defaulted on their million dollar mortgage will be able to get another while Joe Middle Class will be screwed.
Of the 5 in any given week (with some exceptions), 3 will be sold by a husband and wife on behalf of a trust, 1 will be sold by a bank (million dollar repos?) and 1 sold by an individual. How many of you have a trust that owns your house?
When the really wealthy say they pay a lot in taxes, what they don't say is that they spend a great deal of time sheltering money from taxes, so much so that in reality they don't really pay so much. Now don't get me wrong, they are probably paying more than necessary because of government waste, but don't buy this business about them paying 50-70% in taxes. Not true.
And what do you want to bet the person who defaulted on their million dollar mortgage will be able to get another while Joe Middle Class will be screwed.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Reduced Government
Apparently in just 2 short years the majority of people have forgotten how the world's economy was nearly destroyed by lax regulators, greedy bankers, and otherwise smart people making stupid decisions by buying huge homes and SUVs they could not afford.
Thus, fiscal restraint is again in vogue. This is good when done correctly. In other words, we can procedurally make changes (ex. line item veto, cost reductions, etc.) that will allow for shrinking of government expenditures without telling the wolves that they are open for business once again.
Here is just one example: There are 2,768,886 people employed, about 90% FT by the U.S. government. This doesn't include military and other non-civilian jobs, except U.S. Coast Guard and the figures are for 2008.
According to reports, U.S. government civilian employees earn double what their counterparts in the private sector make. Ugh. The average salary made per the same report is about $120k per year in the government sector.
Those making less than $60K should take a 5% pay cut. I will assume that 1 million (about 35%) employees are in this category and will assume their average pay is $45k/yer. 5% of $45K is $2,250 per year multiplied by 1 million and the savings are $2.25 billion per year. With me so far?
Next, those making from $60K to $120K, with an average of $90K will take a pay cut of 5% on the first $60K and 20% on the rest. I will assume that about 30% of employees are in this category - approximately 830,000 workers at $90K. On the first $60k of their pay we save about $2.5B and the last $30,000 we save $4.9B. Total savings in this group - $7.4 Billion per year.
Next, those making $120 to $180K per year, I will guesstimate 25% or about 700,000 people fall into this category with an average salary of $150K. They should take the above cuts plus 40% of the last $30K. The math is: savings of $2.1B on the first $60K, $8.4b for the next $60k and $8.4b for the last part. Total savings from this group? $18.9 billion per year.
The last 10% are above $180,000. I will assign an average of $300k to this group of 275,000 employees. The math: $825 million savings on first $60K, $3.3b on the next $60K, $6.6b on the next $60K and with a 50% decrease on the last $120k, the savings would be $16.5b with a grand total of $27.25 billion.
Total for all savings are $55.8 billion per year. The total payroll is about $185billion so we have eliminated about 30%. Thus they are still being payed more than their counterparts in the private sector. Some may leave U.S. government employment, but I bet there is a private sector employee to step in.
Now, I have made multiple WAGs (Wild A-- Guesses) on the numbers, but you get the point. A reasonable approach to making government more responsive.
Thus, fiscal restraint is again in vogue. This is good when done correctly. In other words, we can procedurally make changes (ex. line item veto, cost reductions, etc.) that will allow for shrinking of government expenditures without telling the wolves that they are open for business once again.
Here is just one example: There are 2,768,886 people employed, about 90% FT by the U.S. government. This doesn't include military and other non-civilian jobs, except U.S. Coast Guard and the figures are for 2008.
According to reports, U.S. government civilian employees earn double what their counterparts in the private sector make. Ugh. The average salary made per the same report is about $120k per year in the government sector.
Those making less than $60K should take a 5% pay cut. I will assume that 1 million (about 35%) employees are in this category and will assume their average pay is $45k/yer. 5% of $45K is $2,250 per year multiplied by 1 million and the savings are $2.25 billion per year. With me so far?
Next, those making from $60K to $120K, with an average of $90K will take a pay cut of 5% on the first $60K and 20% on the rest. I will assume that about 30% of employees are in this category - approximately 830,000 workers at $90K. On the first $60k of their pay we save about $2.5B and the last $30,000 we save $4.9B. Total savings in this group - $7.4 Billion per year.
Next, those making $120 to $180K per year, I will guesstimate 25% or about 700,000 people fall into this category with an average salary of $150K. They should take the above cuts plus 40% of the last $30K. The math is: savings of $2.1B on the first $60K, $8.4b for the next $60k and $8.4b for the last part. Total savings from this group? $18.9 billion per year.
The last 10% are above $180,000. I will assign an average of $300k to this group of 275,000 employees. The math: $825 million savings on first $60K, $3.3b on the next $60K, $6.6b on the next $60K and with a 50% decrease on the last $120k, the savings would be $16.5b with a grand total of $27.25 billion.
Total for all savings are $55.8 billion per year. The total payroll is about $185billion so we have eliminated about 30%. Thus they are still being payed more than their counterparts in the private sector. Some may leave U.S. government employment, but I bet there is a private sector employee to step in.
Now, I have made multiple WAGs (Wild A-- Guesses) on the numbers, but you get the point. A reasonable approach to making government more responsive.
More Foolishness
The Reverend Terry Jones, with his flock of 50 or so in Florida, plans to burn Qurans this weekend. Basically everyone is asking or suggesting that he not do this. They are correct to ask but if he decides to do it, then he has expressed himself as allowed for by the U.S. Constitution.
As I always say, it is hard to be a true American and let people with different views have their say. If he wants to burn them, he can. Just like the group that wants to build the Mosque in NY City should be allowed to build.
However, just like the mosque dudes, perhaps the reverend could try to act a bit more civilized and not burn the Quran. We get his point - so what! Burning them will simply incite religious zealots in foreign lands to attack us more and will be recruiting material for like minded nut jobs. Plus, putting a soldier in harms way in Iraq or Afghanistan because you want to make a statement is ridiculous.
Just because you can burn the Quran or build the mosque, doesn't mean that you should burn the Quran or build the mosque. Apply some reasonableness and/or common sense.
As I always say, it is hard to be a true American and let people with different views have their say. If he wants to burn them, he can. Just like the group that wants to build the Mosque in NY City should be allowed to build.
However, just like the mosque dudes, perhaps the reverend could try to act a bit more civilized and not burn the Quran. We get his point - so what! Burning them will simply incite religious zealots in foreign lands to attack us more and will be recruiting material for like minded nut jobs. Plus, putting a soldier in harms way in Iraq or Afghanistan because you want to make a statement is ridiculous.
Just because you can burn the Quran or build the mosque, doesn't mean that you should burn the Quran or build the mosque. Apply some reasonableness and/or common sense.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Physicist v. God
Stephen Hawking is a British physicist. Apparently quite famous. I have opined in the past that science and religion need not be at odds. Mr. Hawking apparently disagrees.
He has released a book which basically debunks the need for God in terms of creating the world. That will not go over real big with the religious zealots of the world. In fact, it won't go over so big with most people.
Personally I think the religious right who try to downplay Darwin are nut jobs and I think Mr. Hawking is also. Perhaps he is not nuts because he has made a sound scientific argument for the creation of the world without God's input. What he hasn't been able to do, is give any context for the world. For many people, God does that.
Science is already under attack, perhaps not in Europe (I don't know), but certainly here in the U.S. Conservatives decrying stem cell research, denying global warming, and in extreme cases banning Darwin in favor of creationism, are just a few examples. They would prefer to suspend science and thought, and promote blind following of organized religion's word.
As usual, there is no reasonableness in the debate. The truth, I believe, falls in the middle - thank God.
He has released a book which basically debunks the need for God in terms of creating the world. That will not go over real big with the religious zealots of the world. In fact, it won't go over so big with most people.
Personally I think the religious right who try to downplay Darwin are nut jobs and I think Mr. Hawking is also. Perhaps he is not nuts because he has made a sound scientific argument for the creation of the world without God's input. What he hasn't been able to do, is give any context for the world. For many people, God does that.
Science is already under attack, perhaps not in Europe (I don't know), but certainly here in the U.S. Conservatives decrying stem cell research, denying global warming, and in extreme cases banning Darwin in favor of creationism, are just a few examples. They would prefer to suspend science and thought, and promote blind following of organized religion's word.
As usual, there is no reasonableness in the debate. The truth, I believe, falls in the middle - thank God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
