For the past several weeks I have had a terrible, and debilitating case of the mind flu (it's much worse than the swine flu).If you who have never experienced it, it is my sincere wish that you never do....for if a mind is a terrible thing to waste, then a wasted mind is a terrible thing to have. It involves racing thoughts, an inability to focus(refocus) on anything constructive. Try as I might, the negative thoughts, feelings and anxiety come back tenfold every time I think I have won; I begin to realize this is a never ending lifelong battle. I feel trapped, boxed in, claustrophobic and frozen. I try to move "in spite of" this chaotic mind, that is doing its best to cripple me but at times it hurts just to breath. The more I try to understand it, the worse it becomes. All attempts make me feel like Sisyphus, and my mind screams "Give up"; I hear it in my head over and over again, after all that would be easier. In the face of adversity isn't it always easier to give up? Certainly when I am pushing my body far beyond anything I thought I could do, it would be way easier to give up, to quit, but I don't do it then. I do 10 more boxjumps, I do one more rep, I get back on the bar and pull myself up despite agonizing lactic acid build up and the fact that my legs feel like cement. I continue to push myself past the breaking point, so why does the voice in my head dominate my thoughts and cripple me now? Why are all the negative thoughts bouncing around faster than atoms in the hadron supercollider?
I try to rally around a lesson I learned from Charlie Plumb some time ago. That very often we build our own prisons, and the six inch prison cell b/w our ears is every bit as debilitating and painful as any real prison could ever be. Everything we do is a choice, and if we want, we can choose to give up , after all its just one more choice. However if we do give up we are letting go of the last of the human freedoms, which is to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way as Viktor Frankl once said. I try to make that choice, to choose my attitude, but fail. I tell myself that at the very least by trying I have made a choice, and have not given up that last of human freedoms. And yet the supercollider continues to spin, in a very real way creating black hole that is sucking me in. As I sit on the event horizon of this abyss of misery, despair and loneliness I try to recall anything that makes me happy--I try to choose. I recall my nephews laugh, my nieces immeasurable cuteness, or even her smile. I battle back; I make a choice. The pull doesn't let go, and I'm exhausted. I lie there and wonder why no matter long I spend staring at and talking to the ceiling it offers me nothing in return. And now I wait, for the next round to begin.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Friday, September 18, 2009
Dear Representative Polito
I was checking the roll call on the vote for an interim replacement for Senator Kenndy’s seat and noticed you did not cast a vote (at least not that I saw, if I missed it please excuse my oversight) and was wondering why a vote was not cast, and where you stood on the issue? I know as a state rep. you are extremely busy and may not have time to reply to each and every email you receive but this issue, to me anyway, exemplifies exactly what is wrong with the way the Commonwealth is being run.
150 years ago in his famous work On Liberty John Stuart Mill warned that “Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities.” From representative governments inception in ancient Greece there has always been the fear that a majority could “legally” impose its will on and place its interests so far above that of anyone who dissents that the dissenting become oppressed. Plato warned against in the Ancient world, Alexis de Tocqueville coined the phrase the “tyranny of the majority” in his masterpiece Democracy in America, and John Stuart Mill eloquently warns against it in his utilitarian works. What we have here in Massachusetts is nothing short of a “tyranny of the majority” (TOTM).
These same representatives only a few years ago passed this law to prevent the governor at the time, Mitt Romney, from appointing an interim Senator should Kerry’s seat become available. This was nothing but partisan politics, they did not want a republican possibly getting a coveted Senate seat. Now only five years later, these same men and women, want to repeal a law that they passed so that Governor Patrick can appoint someone to the seat vacated by Senator Kennedy’s passing. To call it anything but an ultimate exercise in hypocrisy is naieve at best, ignorant at worst. The Massachusetts state legislature has become the TOTM that Plato, De Tocqueville, and Mill all warned against. They are putting their own self interest so far above the interest of the individuals who disagree that it has become an act of active oppression. They have become the “kingmakers” of the medieval world, rather than responsible representatives of the citizen body.
It is my sincere hope that you do not agree with the representatives who support this bill.
Sincerely
Craig from Shrewsbury
I was checking the roll call on the vote for an interim replacement for Senator Kenndy’s seat and noticed you did not cast a vote (at least not that I saw, if I missed it please excuse my oversight) and was wondering why a vote was not cast, and where you stood on the issue? I know as a state rep. you are extremely busy and may not have time to reply to each and every email you receive but this issue, to me anyway, exemplifies exactly what is wrong with the way the Commonwealth is being run.
150 years ago in his famous work On Liberty John Stuart Mill warned that “Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities.” From representative governments inception in ancient Greece there has always been the fear that a majority could “legally” impose its will on and place its interests so far above that of anyone who dissents that the dissenting become oppressed. Plato warned against in the Ancient world, Alexis de Tocqueville coined the phrase the “tyranny of the majority” in his masterpiece Democracy in America, and John Stuart Mill eloquently warns against it in his utilitarian works. What we have here in Massachusetts is nothing short of a “tyranny of the majority” (TOTM).
These same representatives only a few years ago passed this law to prevent the governor at the time, Mitt Romney, from appointing an interim Senator should Kerry’s seat become available. This was nothing but partisan politics, they did not want a republican possibly getting a coveted Senate seat. Now only five years later, these same men and women, want to repeal a law that they passed so that Governor Patrick can appoint someone to the seat vacated by Senator Kennedy’s passing. To call it anything but an ultimate exercise in hypocrisy is naieve at best, ignorant at worst. The Massachusetts state legislature has become the TOTM that Plato, De Tocqueville, and Mill all warned against. They are putting their own self interest so far above the interest of the individuals who disagree that it has become an act of active oppression. They have become the “kingmakers” of the medieval world, rather than responsible representatives of the citizen body.
It is my sincere hope that you do not agree with the representatives who support this bill.
Sincerely
Craig from Shrewsbury
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Kosmo had it right
The office of the GAO (General Accountability Office) released a statement today stating the USPS faces a potential loss of $7 billion this year which equates to roughly $19 million a day; or 799k an hour; or over 13k/minute. So if my math is right, in roughly the 3-5 minutes it will take you to read this USPS will have lost more money than the median household income in the USA . The question is why do we continue to let his happen? Do we really need the mail?
I for one do not, and would submit none of us do. All my bills are sent me to electronically, in fact almost every bank in the country offers you a discounted rate (usually a .25% discount or some other incentive) to sign up for estatements, so clearly we do not need the mail to make sure we get our bills, and we do not need the mail to pay or bills either. If you are still mailing in a check for your monthly mortgage, car, loan payment please join the rest of us in the 21st century and pay those online. Stop using aerosol hairspray and making mix tapes while you are it too.
What else is there that you get in the mail that you must continue to receive? Virtually everything you order online is shipped via FedEx or UPS, whose service is a little more expensive but is about 7 billion times better. And while yes I will stipulate that the world has gotten a little too impersonal, tell me when was the last time that motivated you to drop someone a letter in the mail?
The USPS is a dinosaur that serves as nothing more than a monument to government waste. The service is horrible and we do not need it. In a sane world, where the government was truly held accountable to the people, tomorrows headline would read "USPS goes the way of the dodo". Please save me the nonsense of telling me how many more people that would add to the already long list of unemployed, surely that would cost a lot less than continuing to operate at a $7 billion annual loss. Face it, Kosmo Kramer had it right, he was way ahead of the curve, it's about time we all cancel the mail.
I for one do not, and would submit none of us do. All my bills are sent me to electronically, in fact almost every bank in the country offers you a discounted rate (usually a .25% discount or some other incentive) to sign up for estatements, so clearly we do not need the mail to make sure we get our bills, and we do not need the mail to pay or bills either. If you are still mailing in a check for your monthly mortgage, car, loan payment please join the rest of us in the 21st century and pay those online. Stop using aerosol hairspray and making mix tapes while you are it too.
What else is there that you get in the mail that you must continue to receive? Virtually everything you order online is shipped via FedEx or UPS, whose service is a little more expensive but is about 7 billion times better. And while yes I will stipulate that the world has gotten a little too impersonal, tell me when was the last time that motivated you to drop someone a letter in the mail?
The USPS is a dinosaur that serves as nothing more than a monument to government waste. The service is horrible and we do not need it. In a sane world, where the government was truly held accountable to the people, tomorrows headline would read "USPS goes the way of the dodo". Please save me the nonsense of telling me how many more people that would add to the already long list of unemployed, surely that would cost a lot less than continuing to operate at a $7 billion annual loss. Face it, Kosmo Kramer had it right, he was way ahead of the curve, it's about time we all cancel the mail.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
I have spent the last couple of weeks re-reading a book I read while in graduate school. The book is "The Crisis of the Old Order" by Arthur Shclesinger Jr. and it is widely considered the seminal political-economy book on the Great Depression era. Schlesinger's main thesis (and the most recognizable line from the book), is that FDR "saved capitalism from the capitalists". His praise for FDR and the New Deal is gushing, bordering on school girl infatuation, but it is not without its merits. Many of the socio-economic changes that came about under the New Deal did a great deal of good for the American people (the FDIC, Glass-Steagall Act which prob never should have been repealed just to name two).
However, I have been unable to move on from his contention that FDR saved "capitalism from the capitalists", after all many world renowned economists have argued WWII did as much, if not more, than any New Deal legislation to end The Great Depression, but what is inarguable is how much FDR changed capitalism in America. Farm subsidies, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, a government led/driven economy, and confiscatory tax rates all got their start under FDR, and an argument could very easily be made that every year since the United States has moved further and further away from free market capitalism, and closer to a collectivist/socialist nation, culminating with the election of Barak Obama (who by taking over GM essentially took capitalism from the capitalists).
No other New Deal program illustrates this point better than Social Security, it is the crown jewel of socialism in America. We need to be clear about one thing, Social Security is nothing but a glorified Ponzi Scheme, it's Bernie Madoff on steroids, and it could ultimately bankrupt this country. If it was run by anyone other than the US government it would be shut down, and the people in charge would be imprisoned. The program is insolvent, and yet no one has dared to touch it, because it has always been considered the "3rd rail of American politics". Essentially our fearless leaders have refused to reform the program b/c retirees (read old people) always show up on election day. Rather than do what is in the best interest of the country, our elected officials refuse to reform Social Security b/c they fear being voted out of office. On behalf of everyone under 40 allow me to say thanks for straddling us with massive debt b/c you are spineless.
What is even worse is the Social Security tax is higher on those who are self employed. Nothing like rewarding good old fashioned ingenuity and hard work huh? Start your own business, be rewarded with higher taxes---where do I sign up?? I defy anyone to explain to me how this is equitable, or better yet why when Congress passed the Social Security Act in 1935, it excluded federal, state, and local government employees from mandatory coverage. Does anyone seriously think if given the chance we wouldn't all opt out from Social Security?? But we aren't given that chance, and in all likelihood never will be. Social Security is wealth redistribution, from the young to the old. The money is never invested, it is simply transferred, to call it anything but socialistic is misguided at best, ignorant at worst. The system needs to be done away with, the problem is we are in so deep there is no easy way out, if there is any way out at all.
Confiscatory tax rates also got their start in the Depression. It was William Foster who proposed "steep taxes on incomes, profits and inheritances". Foster, in referring to the rich said "we should take from them a sufficient amount of their surplus" to essentially redistribute those monies to jump start the economy(the quote is on 187 of Schlesingers book). Pure socialism, and sure enough guess what happened? The top marginal tax rate in 1931 was around 25%, it more than doubled in 1932 to 63% and continued to gradually increase to 79% in the late 1930s, then around 88% in the 1940's and it maxed out at an astonishing 91% in the early 60's and stayed around 70% until the Reagan Revolution. There can be no other reason to have such astronomical tax rates other than wealth redistribution. What would be any ones motivation to make a single nickel above the floor where the top marginal rate kicks in? In the 60's any income over 400k was taxed at 91%!! Why bother making another penny over that amount when the government would confiscate 91 cents out of every dollar?? Finally in 1964 the top tax rate was reduced by something like 20% (still leaving it at an absurd 70%) and guess what happened? Liberals these days would have us believe that such a drastic tax cut would leave tremendous shortfalls in the government budget but in reality the GNP rose 10% in the first year and federal revenues dramatically increased throughout the 60's.
LBJ must have felt this was a good time to continue the movement toward socialism and introduced his Great Society, specifically the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid, and a War on Poverty. I guess on paper it seemed like a good idea, maybe in theory it worked (in theory everything works, even communism works IN THEORY). But as a jumping off point ask yourself the question when was the last time government got involved in something and made it better or more efficient? How did the government do with the rail roads? The postal service? How about public transportation in most major cities--are they efficient? does it turn a profit or break even? NO, NO, NO a thousand times NO!
Johnson laid the groundwork for socialized medicine by extending benefits to everyone over age 65 regardless of need through Medicare and to welfare recipients of all ages through Medicaid. Those benefits of course are paid for by those who do not receive them, sounds fair doesn't it? On top of it Medicare is projected to run out of money in about 10 years (2019). In 2008 Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, one of the trustees, warned that the country was facing a fiscal train wreck unless something was done. He was quoted as saying "Without change, rising costs will drive government spending to unprecedented levels, consume nearly all projected federal revenues and threaten America's future prosperity," Paulson said(found this quote online b/c I wanted to make sure I did not misquote Mr Paulson). I guess maybe Medicare sounded good....in theory. And now our current president wants to tax employee benefits and has discussed adopting a single payer system. Let us not forget it wasn't even until 1913 that there was a federal income tax, and now our president wants to tax health benefits!
How can we draw any conclusion other than America has gradually moved further and further away from our roots of rugged individualism, small government, and a libertarian country that was born out of a set of ideas that have become nothing more than rhetoric for politicians to use, rather than things worth dying for. Since FDR allegedly saved "capitalism from the capitalists" America has become a big government, nanny state. A country in which roughly 44-47% of the people pay no federal income taxes at all! Taxes have risen for the rest of us, social programs have been launched at our expense that threaten our future prosperity. We are living in a time where the few pay for the many and I can't help but wonder....When does Atlas shrug?
However, I have been unable to move on from his contention that FDR saved "capitalism from the capitalists", after all many world renowned economists have argued WWII did as much, if not more, than any New Deal legislation to end The Great Depression, but what is inarguable is how much FDR changed capitalism in America. Farm subsidies, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, a government led/driven economy, and confiscatory tax rates all got their start under FDR, and an argument could very easily be made that every year since the United States has moved further and further away from free market capitalism, and closer to a collectivist/socialist nation, culminating with the election of Barak Obama (who by taking over GM essentially took capitalism from the capitalists).
No other New Deal program illustrates this point better than Social Security, it is the crown jewel of socialism in America. We need to be clear about one thing, Social Security is nothing but a glorified Ponzi Scheme, it's Bernie Madoff on steroids, and it could ultimately bankrupt this country. If it was run by anyone other than the US government it would be shut down, and the people in charge would be imprisoned. The program is insolvent, and yet no one has dared to touch it, because it has always been considered the "3rd rail of American politics". Essentially our fearless leaders have refused to reform the program b/c retirees (read old people) always show up on election day. Rather than do what is in the best interest of the country, our elected officials refuse to reform Social Security b/c they fear being voted out of office. On behalf of everyone under 40 allow me to say thanks for straddling us with massive debt b/c you are spineless.
What is even worse is the Social Security tax is higher on those who are self employed. Nothing like rewarding good old fashioned ingenuity and hard work huh? Start your own business, be rewarded with higher taxes---where do I sign up?? I defy anyone to explain to me how this is equitable, or better yet why when Congress passed the Social Security Act in 1935, it excluded federal, state, and local government employees from mandatory coverage. Does anyone seriously think if given the chance we wouldn't all opt out from Social Security?? But we aren't given that chance, and in all likelihood never will be. Social Security is wealth redistribution, from the young to the old. The money is never invested, it is simply transferred, to call it anything but socialistic is misguided at best, ignorant at worst. The system needs to be done away with, the problem is we are in so deep there is no easy way out, if there is any way out at all.
Confiscatory tax rates also got their start in the Depression. It was William Foster who proposed "steep taxes on incomes, profits and inheritances". Foster, in referring to the rich said "we should take from them a sufficient amount of their surplus" to essentially redistribute those monies to jump start the economy(the quote is on 187 of Schlesingers book). Pure socialism, and sure enough guess what happened? The top marginal tax rate in 1931 was around 25%, it more than doubled in 1932 to 63% and continued to gradually increase to 79% in the late 1930s, then around 88% in the 1940's and it maxed out at an astonishing 91% in the early 60's and stayed around 70% until the Reagan Revolution. There can be no other reason to have such astronomical tax rates other than wealth redistribution. What would be any ones motivation to make a single nickel above the floor where the top marginal rate kicks in? In the 60's any income over 400k was taxed at 91%!! Why bother making another penny over that amount when the government would confiscate 91 cents out of every dollar?? Finally in 1964 the top tax rate was reduced by something like 20% (still leaving it at an absurd 70%) and guess what happened? Liberals these days would have us believe that such a drastic tax cut would leave tremendous shortfalls in the government budget but in reality the GNP rose 10% in the first year and federal revenues dramatically increased throughout the 60's.
LBJ must have felt this was a good time to continue the movement toward socialism and introduced his Great Society, specifically the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid, and a War on Poverty. I guess on paper it seemed like a good idea, maybe in theory it worked (in theory everything works, even communism works IN THEORY). But as a jumping off point ask yourself the question when was the last time government got involved in something and made it better or more efficient? How did the government do with the rail roads? The postal service? How about public transportation in most major cities--are they efficient? does it turn a profit or break even? NO, NO, NO a thousand times NO!
Johnson laid the groundwork for socialized medicine by extending benefits to everyone over age 65 regardless of need through Medicare and to welfare recipients of all ages through Medicaid. Those benefits of course are paid for by those who do not receive them, sounds fair doesn't it? On top of it Medicare is projected to run out of money in about 10 years (2019). In 2008 Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, one of the trustees, warned that the country was facing a fiscal train wreck unless something was done. He was quoted as saying "Without change, rising costs will drive government spending to unprecedented levels, consume nearly all projected federal revenues and threaten America's future prosperity," Paulson said(found this quote online b/c I wanted to make sure I did not misquote Mr Paulson). I guess maybe Medicare sounded good....in theory. And now our current president wants to tax employee benefits and has discussed adopting a single payer system. Let us not forget it wasn't even until 1913 that there was a federal income tax, and now our president wants to tax health benefits!
How can we draw any conclusion other than America has gradually moved further and further away from our roots of rugged individualism, small government, and a libertarian country that was born out of a set of ideas that have become nothing more than rhetoric for politicians to use, rather than things worth dying for. Since FDR allegedly saved "capitalism from the capitalists" America has become a big government, nanny state. A country in which roughly 44-47% of the people pay no federal income taxes at all! Taxes have risen for the rest of us, social programs have been launched at our expense that threaten our future prosperity. We are living in a time where the few pay for the many and I can't help but wonder....When does Atlas shrug?
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Our nation turns it's lonely eyes to you....
I am convinced that Andrew Jackson is one of the greatest Americans who ever lived, and we sure could use him right now. As a student of history Jackson has always had a special place in my heart as the hero from the Battle of New Orleans, to the two term president whose belief in America was as strong or stronger than any other person who ever sat in the oval office. And it was certainly demonstrably stronger than our current presidents, Jackson would never have referred to America as "they", it was always "we" and "us".
His story is one that epitomizes what it means to be American, and how this land, more than any other place in the history of the world, is truly the land of opportunity. Jacksons ascendancy is an incredble story. Born before there even was an America somewhere in either North/South Carolina (to this day it is uncertain). Jackson was an orphan who never knew his father, and lost his mother and brothers during the American Revolution. He had little to no formal education and yet rose to the highest office in the land, and while he held that office he transformed and transmorgrified (to borrow a word from Joe Clark) the office of the president into what it is today. Before Jackson, the president was seen as subservient to Congress, a mere roleplayer, but Jackson was a man whose interminable will would not allow him to be a roleplayer so he moved the office of the presidency to center stage.
In perhaps his two biggest battles Jackson showed unflinching will power and determination. He defeated Nicholas Biddle and the Bank of the United States, as well as defeating perhaps the biggest villain in American history--John Calhoun. His battle with the bank has been debated for decades, since immediately after allowing the charter to expire and withdrawing the deposits the country went in to a panic and sent the economy in to a tailspin. Jackson truly felt he was sticking up for the "every man"; he was steadfast in his belief that the bank represented nothing but greed and corruption. Its sole reason for existence was to benefit the priveleged at the expense of the commoner. It is tough not to notice how the current economic crisis mirrors exactly what Jackson was fighting against.
The Richard Fulds, Vikram Pandits, and Joseph Cassanos of the world have made billions of dollars (those three alone probably made a billion agrregate) at the expense of the rest of us. They used their banks to peddle influence, make obscene amounts of money for themselves, then pass off obscene amounts of debt to the rest of us....just as Old Hickory feared.
In his battle with Calhoun, Jackson faced the toughest challenge of his presidency, and sadly it was a battle that would eventually cost America over 600,000 lives. Calhoun and the South (specifically Charleston SC) passed a nullification law, essentially stating that they could nullify any federal law they chose, in this case the collection of tariff duties. There was serious talk in SC about secession, and armed insurrection over the tariff issue (almost 30 years before they would try to secede over slavery). It was Jackson who voiced the belief that Lincoln would later invoke. It was he who said "Disunion by armed force is treason", that it would be treated as such, and that he would smash it down with armed force if he himself had to lead the Army in to battle. Ultimately Calhoun and SC backed down, but the same secession talk reared its ugly head three decades later. For the time being Jackson had preserved the Union and there was nothing Jackson believed in more than the Union. Jackson would have happily sacrificed his life for America, you need not look any further than his role as a General in the Army to prove that point. He was by all accounts well respected and beloved by the men under his command, but he was also incredibly tough and never thought twice about hanging deserters. He happily placed himself in harms way to protect the country he held so dear.
It is an odd symbolism compared to President Obama is it not? Jackson would endure any harship and risk his own life to defend America, but Obama said he will not water board a terrorist even if it means savings thousands of American lives. Recent documents released show that certain interrogation techniques used by the CIA post 9-11 prevented the loss of American life, and thwarted disgusting acts of terrorism attempted by a despicable enemy. I would volunteer to let myself be water boarded if it meant it would save the lives of my friends and family, and I think any respectable American would do the same. So why is it Obama feels the need to put more lives in jeopardy? Does he think it will get him more respect abroad? I would submit respect isn't something you ask for, it is something you demand.
When France decided not to pay the US reparations that had been agreed upon after the war of 1812 Jackson felt this was an insult to the country and an attempt to undermine its position in the world, so he made it clear that the debt would be honored. He did not travel to France, grovel at their feet, refer to his fellow countrymen as "they", and ask to be treated with respect....he demanded it, and he got it. If Jackson were alive today he would not travel the globe apologizing to the Muslim world, and ask them for forgiveness. Can anyone tell me what it is Obama is apologizing for?
It's times like these that make me wish Jackson was still around. To borrow as phrase from Paul Simon (with a slight change) "Where have you gone Andrew Jackson? Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you.".
His story is one that epitomizes what it means to be American, and how this land, more than any other place in the history of the world, is truly the land of opportunity. Jacksons ascendancy is an incredble story. Born before there even was an America somewhere in either North/South Carolina (to this day it is uncertain). Jackson was an orphan who never knew his father, and lost his mother and brothers during the American Revolution. He had little to no formal education and yet rose to the highest office in the land, and while he held that office he transformed and transmorgrified (to borrow a word from Joe Clark) the office of the president into what it is today. Before Jackson, the president was seen as subservient to Congress, a mere roleplayer, but Jackson was a man whose interminable will would not allow him to be a roleplayer so he moved the office of the presidency to center stage.
In perhaps his two biggest battles Jackson showed unflinching will power and determination. He defeated Nicholas Biddle and the Bank of the United States, as well as defeating perhaps the biggest villain in American history--John Calhoun. His battle with the bank has been debated for decades, since immediately after allowing the charter to expire and withdrawing the deposits the country went in to a panic and sent the economy in to a tailspin. Jackson truly felt he was sticking up for the "every man"; he was steadfast in his belief that the bank represented nothing but greed and corruption. Its sole reason for existence was to benefit the priveleged at the expense of the commoner. It is tough not to notice how the current economic crisis mirrors exactly what Jackson was fighting against.
The Richard Fulds, Vikram Pandits, and Joseph Cassanos of the world have made billions of dollars (those three alone probably made a billion agrregate) at the expense of the rest of us. They used their banks to peddle influence, make obscene amounts of money for themselves, then pass off obscene amounts of debt to the rest of us....just as Old Hickory feared.
In his battle with Calhoun, Jackson faced the toughest challenge of his presidency, and sadly it was a battle that would eventually cost America over 600,000 lives. Calhoun and the South (specifically Charleston SC) passed a nullification law, essentially stating that they could nullify any federal law they chose, in this case the collection of tariff duties. There was serious talk in SC about secession, and armed insurrection over the tariff issue (almost 30 years before they would try to secede over slavery). It was Jackson who voiced the belief that Lincoln would later invoke. It was he who said "Disunion by armed force is treason", that it would be treated as such, and that he would smash it down with armed force if he himself had to lead the Army in to battle. Ultimately Calhoun and SC backed down, but the same secession talk reared its ugly head three decades later. For the time being Jackson had preserved the Union and there was nothing Jackson believed in more than the Union. Jackson would have happily sacrificed his life for America, you need not look any further than his role as a General in the Army to prove that point. He was by all accounts well respected and beloved by the men under his command, but he was also incredibly tough and never thought twice about hanging deserters. He happily placed himself in harms way to protect the country he held so dear.
It is an odd symbolism compared to President Obama is it not? Jackson would endure any harship and risk his own life to defend America, but Obama said he will not water board a terrorist even if it means savings thousands of American lives. Recent documents released show that certain interrogation techniques used by the CIA post 9-11 prevented the loss of American life, and thwarted disgusting acts of terrorism attempted by a despicable enemy. I would volunteer to let myself be water boarded if it meant it would save the lives of my friends and family, and I think any respectable American would do the same. So why is it Obama feels the need to put more lives in jeopardy? Does he think it will get him more respect abroad? I would submit respect isn't something you ask for, it is something you demand.
When France decided not to pay the US reparations that had been agreed upon after the war of 1812 Jackson felt this was an insult to the country and an attempt to undermine its position in the world, so he made it clear that the debt would be honored. He did not travel to France, grovel at their feet, refer to his fellow countrymen as "they", and ask to be treated with respect....he demanded it, and he got it. If Jackson were alive today he would not travel the globe apologizing to the Muslim world, and ask them for forgiveness. Can anyone tell me what it is Obama is apologizing for?
It's times like these that make me wish Jackson was still around. To borrow as phrase from Paul Simon (with a slight change) "Where have you gone Andrew Jackson? Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you.".
Monday, March 23, 2009
Drinking at noon with AIG
In a rare moment of clarity (after roughly beer 23) last weekend it hit me how really down right criminal the behavior of some of the execs at AIG has been. Their massive exposure to Credit Default Swaps essentially bankrupted a company that had been built over hundred years of safe/responsible choices. In the 4th quarter of 2008AIG lost over 450k per minute!! It is really staggering when you think about.
On Saturday afternoon I was sitting at a table with some friends. I had given one of them a few bucks I had owed him from the last time we hung out. Roughly 1.7 seconds later a different friend then borrowed money from the person who I had just paid back. I jokingly said "I just should have given W the money".
My friend then laughed and said "I know right?".
In an instant the entire credit default swaps market became clear to me. There were 6 of us at this table, enjoying the NCAA tournament on a sunny Sad'day afternoon and I came up with the following scenario. Imagine if 4 of the 6 people, lets call them Holden, Granby, Palmer, and W had all needed to borrow money that day from my friend Matty Bayonne for whatever reason.
So Bayonne lends each person at the table 100k but he is a little worried about their ability to pay this money back b/c after all they are drinking at noon on Saturday and gambling on basketball. Bayonne wants protection in the event those 4 default (de fault the two sweetest words in the English language as Homer Simpson once said), so I offer him this protection for a fee of course, let's say 10%. So Bayonne has 400k out in loans and he pays me forty thousand and in the event any of them default I will then have to pay him the balance on their loan.
Bayonne now feels "insured", and feels it is guaranteed he is going to get the money he loaned out back no matter what happens. Problem is Bayonne is not too bright, and a little greedy, so he goes off and lends 100k to six more strangers in this bar, and again buys protection from me at 10%. So he has now lent 1 million dollars to people who have an affinity for the drink and he has no idea how they will pay it back, but he doesn't care. He feels safe b/c he has protection in the form of a credit default swap from me. After all he has now paid me 100k to guarantee this million dollars in loans. Ultimately a few of these people default, not a real surprise since Bayonne never even bothered to ask them if they had jobs. Holden and Granby are the only ones to pay him back so he comes looking to me for the other 800k. One major problem, I don't have 800k, never did. No one thought to ask me, or check to see if I could guarantee all these loans so I need a government bailout to pay him otherwise we both go bankrupt. And the best part of it all, I get to keep the 100k he paid me while the government writes the check to him for making loans he had no business making in the first place.
As ridiculous as this scenario sounds, this is exactly what AIG and many of the failed banks did, and it blows my mind. There is no way I would be allowed to write a million dollars in guarantees, after all I was there drinking at noon time too and don't have assets coming anywhere near that amount. Imagine this on a scale one million times the size, and one conclusion is maybe Joe Cassano ( one head of AIGFP) was also hitting the bottle early and often when he devised his credit default swaps. If you want to villanize someone/something, and lets face it we all do, villanize Cassano.
These banks wrote so many bad loans b/c they didn't "know" their borrowers any better than Matt "knew" the people in the bar. Many times they never verified their income, or if they even had a job. Sometimes they even went as far as to count unemployment as income, if they ever took the time to verify it at all. When the borrowers defaulted these banks went looking to AIG who had "insured" these loans and surprise surprise AIG didn't have the money or the assets to back their guarantees so they needed a bailout. The government allowed AIG to write credit default swaps without having the money or the assets to back them, and then left us(the taxpayers) holding the bag. And the real kick in the teeth, we raised taxes on Holden and Granby who were the only two people to pay back their loans in the first place!
AIG had no business doing what they did. I am as big a free market capitalist as there is, but what Cassano and AIG did was more akin to throwing dice at a craps table, hoping and praying he would never crap out, but with one significant difference. Cassano was playing with OPM (other peoples money) and we all know it's not gambling when its not your money. Cassano made hundreds of millions of dollars during the CDS run up days, and when he finally crapped out it cost him nothing. He kept all the money he made and was even kept on at AIG as a one million dollar per month consultant. AIG soon imploded, and had to receive billions and billions in bailout money. At its height one share of AIG stock was worth almost 73.00 dollars, as recently as this month it was worth less than 50 cents. I'm starting to think the AIGFP credit default swap group must also have been in the bar at noon most days.
On Saturday afternoon I was sitting at a table with some friends. I had given one of them a few bucks I had owed him from the last time we hung out. Roughly 1.7 seconds later a different friend then borrowed money from the person who I had just paid back. I jokingly said "I just should have given W the money".
My friend then laughed and said "I know right?".
In an instant the entire credit default swaps market became clear to me. There were 6 of us at this table, enjoying the NCAA tournament on a sunny Sad'day afternoon and I came up with the following scenario. Imagine if 4 of the 6 people, lets call them Holden, Granby, Palmer, and W had all needed to borrow money that day from my friend Matty Bayonne for whatever reason.
So Bayonne lends each person at the table 100k but he is a little worried about their ability to pay this money back b/c after all they are drinking at noon on Saturday and gambling on basketball. Bayonne wants protection in the event those 4 default (de fault the two sweetest words in the English language as Homer Simpson once said), so I offer him this protection for a fee of course, let's say 10%. So Bayonne has 400k out in loans and he pays me forty thousand and in the event any of them default I will then have to pay him the balance on their loan.
Bayonne now feels "insured", and feels it is guaranteed he is going to get the money he loaned out back no matter what happens. Problem is Bayonne is not too bright, and a little greedy, so he goes off and lends 100k to six more strangers in this bar, and again buys protection from me at 10%. So he has now lent 1 million dollars to people who have an affinity for the drink and he has no idea how they will pay it back, but he doesn't care. He feels safe b/c he has protection in the form of a credit default swap from me. After all he has now paid me 100k to guarantee this million dollars in loans. Ultimately a few of these people default, not a real surprise since Bayonne never even bothered to ask them if they had jobs. Holden and Granby are the only ones to pay him back so he comes looking to me for the other 800k. One major problem, I don't have 800k, never did. No one thought to ask me, or check to see if I could guarantee all these loans so I need a government bailout to pay him otherwise we both go bankrupt. And the best part of it all, I get to keep the 100k he paid me while the government writes the check to him for making loans he had no business making in the first place.
As ridiculous as this scenario sounds, this is exactly what AIG and many of the failed banks did, and it blows my mind. There is no way I would be allowed to write a million dollars in guarantees, after all I was there drinking at noon time too and don't have assets coming anywhere near that amount. Imagine this on a scale one million times the size, and one conclusion is maybe Joe Cassano ( one head of AIGFP) was also hitting the bottle early and often when he devised his credit default swaps. If you want to villanize someone/something, and lets face it we all do, villanize Cassano.
These banks wrote so many bad loans b/c they didn't "know" their borrowers any better than Matt "knew" the people in the bar. Many times they never verified their income, or if they even had a job. Sometimes they even went as far as to count unemployment as income, if they ever took the time to verify it at all. When the borrowers defaulted these banks went looking to AIG who had "insured" these loans and surprise surprise AIG didn't have the money or the assets to back their guarantees so they needed a bailout. The government allowed AIG to write credit default swaps without having the money or the assets to back them, and then left us(the taxpayers) holding the bag. And the real kick in the teeth, we raised taxes on Holden and Granby who were the only two people to pay back their loans in the first place!
AIG had no business doing what they did. I am as big a free market capitalist as there is, but what Cassano and AIG did was more akin to throwing dice at a craps table, hoping and praying he would never crap out, but with one significant difference. Cassano was playing with OPM (other peoples money) and we all know it's not gambling when its not your money. Cassano made hundreds of millions of dollars during the CDS run up days, and when he finally crapped out it cost him nothing. He kept all the money he made and was even kept on at AIG as a one million dollar per month consultant. AIG soon imploded, and had to receive billions and billions in bailout money. At its height one share of AIG stock was worth almost 73.00 dollars, as recently as this month it was worth less than 50 cents. I'm starting to think the AIGFP credit default swap group must also have been in the bar at noon most days.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
The real "inconvenient truth"
According to a 2005 study by the Employee Benefit Research Institute, public-sector employees earn 40 percent higher salaries and 60 percent greater benefits than private-sector employees. Is it any wonder why so many towns/municipalities across the country have such tremendous deficits? Again I need to ask the question, when did becoming a public servant become a road to massive wealth accumulation? I missed the memo...
In our formative stages as a country public officials were civil servants in the true sense of the phrase---they were not paid. The main impetus to changing this was the fact that the general public felt this only allowed wealthy individuals to serve in government because the middle/lower class literally could not afford. They could not donate a large portion of their time to a job from which they would receive no compensation. The concern was that if only the wealthy could afford to serve in government then policies would be made to only serve the interest of one class/group of people. In an effort to make things more egalitarian an agreement was reached stipulating that public officials would receive a modest compensation so as to make these positions available to everyone; basically to provide for an equal opportunity and to avoid being elitist. Fast forward two hundred years and what you see is that public service is not what it was intended to be, nor what it should be. I have looked at the numbers of only one major Massachusetts public institution and the numbers are mind boggling, truly disturbing.
This is not a democrat/republican issue; it's a taxpayer one. And when you posit that mind frame on it and look at through that lens there is only one conclusion to draw. For example did you know that you and I, the taxpayers of Massachusetts, paid a janitor $48,650.00 last year, seriously a fifty thousand dollar janitor.
Building Maintenance - MHS Custodian $48,650.00
Now let me be clear that my intention is by no means to belittle or demean this person (which is why I left the name out), or their job. The larger point is that only at a government job could someone make $48,650.00/year as a custodian. At the bottom of this article there is a link where you can see for yourself that these numbers are accurate. To further illustrate this point ask yourself how many people who graduate college this year will get a job making that kind of money? Sadly this is not even the tip of the iceberg. Once you factor in the custodians benefits and state pension he/she must be in the neighborhood of a sixty five thousand dollar per year tax liability to us, the taxpayers of Massachusetts. If there is someone out there who thinks the tax payers should be paying a janitor almost 50k/year I would love to hear from you.
In fiscal year 2008 the Massachusetts Turnpike had a projected budget of $81,777,225.64 but the actual budget was $108,324,800.29, only an over run of $26.5 million dollars! The over run is largely due to the state troopers who are assigned to the Pike, and while I am sure it won't be popular to rail against police pay it must be done. Now I do not begrudge a police officer an honest days pay, but what happened to the days when men and women became police officers out of a sense of civic duty not a cash grab? After all the badge reads "to serve and protect"; to serve is the first half! To serve necessarily entails not living in the lap of luxury or being in the richest 1-2% of the entire country.
EARNED vs PROJECTED
State Police Lieutenant $240,809.52 $121,838.79
State Police Lieutenant $240,493.24 $0.00.
(You can not make this stuff up; this officer had a projected pay of $0.00 but made almost a quarter of a million dollars).
It strikes me as humorous, even ironic, the manner in which "the masses" and the Democrats rallied around the Obama cries of taxing the rich and those who make more than 250k/year or even 200k/year, but I guarantee those same people would not support the elimination of trooper details on the Mass. Pike. Did you know that last year that 9 state troopers on the Mass. Pike payroll made over $200,000.00? The highest one pulled in an astonishing $240,809.52!! That officers projected salary for fiscal year 2008 was $121,838.79. Now even if I accepted his projected salary as being agreeable, you can not convince that it is ok for him to nearly double his pay through overtime and details. In 2008 alone 96 state troopers on the Pike payroll made over $150,000.00. Many, if not all, of them almost doubling their pay through overtime/details. The tax liability to the people of Massachusetts once these officers retire is an undue burden and needs to be eliminated. This is waste and mismanagement; there is no other name for it. These officers artificially inflate their salary at a tremendous cost to us.
Further proof of the waste and cost over run is the pay of toll collectors. Here are just three examples (again the names are left out but the link below will verify the numbers)
EARNED vs PROJECTED
MHS Toll Collector $71,053.47 $53,022.70
MHS Sr Toll Collector $76,110.02 $58,749.02
MHS Sr Toll Collector $97,588.92 $58,749.02
Honestly I do not know which one is more ridiculous a fifty thousand dollar janitor or a toll collector making just under one hundred thousand dollars!!!
The real "inconvenient truth" is that public employees are grossly overpaid! One can not even make the argument that the cost of living in Boston is so high which is why they need to make more money b/c so many of them live in western and central MA and are rich when compared with the average salary of a private sector employee in that region. A toll collector making 70k/year living in the Springfield area is tantamount to making double that if they lived in Boston. We are affording these civil servants a life of luxury, there is no other way to put it and do not be fooled, it is all at our expense.
Upon retirement these public employees will receive lifetime guaranteed pensions, pensions that were originally designed to last from roughly age 65 to age 75. Now a days many are retiring in their early fifties and living into their 80's, collecting that pension for 30 years. However, if any public official mentions pension reform for state/municipal employees they incur the full wrath of police/teacher unions and others who essentially hold them hostage. Their sense of entitlement is disturbing; to serve is not to be entitled. In my opinion the pensions should be eliminated entirely, and public employees should have 401k's with a matching contribution like the rest of us; however, I am pragmatic and understand that is not going to happen so what does need to happen is some basic reform.
For starters the retirement age needs to be raised to 65-67 to be in line with Social Security. If a public official wishes to retire earlier that is fine but they need to be able to afford it on their own, and can not begin collecting the pension until that age. Also pension calculations would only include base salaries (NO OVERTIME), and it should cap around 60% of an employees final compensation. These recommendations are what an independent research firm suggested to the state of CA a year or so ago, and like I said I am pragmatic and although would prefer to see pensions eliminated entirely, I am wiling to use the suggestions as a jumping off point for reform.
With the economy in shambles and hundreds of thousands of people losing their jobs, why is it that government continues to grow? If the economy contracts shouldn't the government and its payroll? Many private companies are forcing employees to take pay freezes, and even pay cuts, yet somehow public officials continue to get raises and get paid a hundred thousand dollars to do a job in which they would be replaced by a bucket. In all seriousness what skill does a toll collector have that warrants that kind of pay? In the real world it is a minimum wage job. The skill set is that of a grammar school child---being able to make change. Those jobs need to be eliminated altogether. If the MTA imposed a mere 5% pay cut and only paid out peoples projected salaries(no overtime) that alone would save the tax payers over thirty million dollars.
However, as we all know , no government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size, so we need to force this reduction in size on the bloated bureaucracy. Sadly we had a chance to force this reduction in size on the government by repealing the state income tax but for some inexplicable reason we chose not to. The wool was pulled over our eyes, and we chose rather to outlaw grey hound racing. How does a populace choose to outlaw grey hound racing while condoning the egregious waste that is rampant in this state? The pay in the public sector is complete out of line with what it should be (due in large part to the unions).
By continuing to support the elected officials, and those unions, is as Ronald Reagan once said, "To sit back hoping that some day, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last---but eat you he will". As long as we have fifty thousand dollar janitors and one hundred thousand dollar toll collectors, you can forget about a repeal of any tax, in fact you are all but guaranteeing higher taxes for us all and bankrupting municipalities.
Link to confirm the salaries cited above :
http://www.bostonherald.com/projects/mta2008
In our formative stages as a country public officials were civil servants in the true sense of the phrase---they were not paid. The main impetus to changing this was the fact that the general public felt this only allowed wealthy individuals to serve in government because the middle/lower class literally could not afford. They could not donate a large portion of their time to a job from which they would receive no compensation. The concern was that if only the wealthy could afford to serve in government then policies would be made to only serve the interest of one class/group of people. In an effort to make things more egalitarian an agreement was reached stipulating that public officials would receive a modest compensation so as to make these positions available to everyone; basically to provide for an equal opportunity and to avoid being elitist. Fast forward two hundred years and what you see is that public service is not what it was intended to be, nor what it should be. I have looked at the numbers of only one major Massachusetts public institution and the numbers are mind boggling, truly disturbing.
This is not a democrat/republican issue; it's a taxpayer one. And when you posit that mind frame on it and look at through that lens there is only one conclusion to draw. For example did you know that you and I, the taxpayers of Massachusetts, paid a janitor $48,650.00 last year, seriously a fifty thousand dollar janitor.
Building Maintenance - MHS Custodian $48,650.00
Now let me be clear that my intention is by no means to belittle or demean this person (which is why I left the name out), or their job. The larger point is that only at a government job could someone make $48,650.00/year as a custodian. At the bottom of this article there is a link where you can see for yourself that these numbers are accurate. To further illustrate this point ask yourself how many people who graduate college this year will get a job making that kind of money? Sadly this is not even the tip of the iceberg. Once you factor in the custodians benefits and state pension he/she must be in the neighborhood of a sixty five thousand dollar per year tax liability to us, the taxpayers of Massachusetts. If there is someone out there who thinks the tax payers should be paying a janitor almost 50k/year I would love to hear from you.
In fiscal year 2008 the Massachusetts Turnpike had a projected budget of $81,777,225.64 but the actual budget was $108,324,800.29, only an over run of $26.5 million dollars! The over run is largely due to the state troopers who are assigned to the Pike, and while I am sure it won't be popular to rail against police pay it must be done. Now I do not begrudge a police officer an honest days pay, but what happened to the days when men and women became police officers out of a sense of civic duty not a cash grab? After all the badge reads "to serve and protect"; to serve is the first half! To serve necessarily entails not living in the lap of luxury or being in the richest 1-2% of the entire country.
EARNED vs PROJECTED
State Police Lieutenant $240,809.52 $121,838.79
State Police Lieutenant $240,493.24 $0.00.
(You can not make this stuff up; this officer had a projected pay of $0.00 but made almost a quarter of a million dollars).
It strikes me as humorous, even ironic, the manner in which "the masses" and the Democrats rallied around the Obama cries of taxing the rich and those who make more than 250k/year or even 200k/year, but I guarantee those same people would not support the elimination of trooper details on the Mass. Pike. Did you know that last year that 9 state troopers on the Mass. Pike payroll made over $200,000.00? The highest one pulled in an astonishing $240,809.52!! That officers projected salary for fiscal year 2008 was $121,838.79. Now even if I accepted his projected salary as being agreeable, you can not convince that it is ok for him to nearly double his pay through overtime and details. In 2008 alone 96 state troopers on the Pike payroll made over $150,000.00. Many, if not all, of them almost doubling their pay through overtime/details. The tax liability to the people of Massachusetts once these officers retire is an undue burden and needs to be eliminated. This is waste and mismanagement; there is no other name for it. These officers artificially inflate their salary at a tremendous cost to us.
Further proof of the waste and cost over run is the pay of toll collectors. Here are just three examples (again the names are left out but the link below will verify the numbers)
EARNED vs PROJECTED
MHS Toll Collector $71,053.47 $53,022.70
MHS Sr Toll Collector $76,110.02 $58,749.02
MHS Sr Toll Collector $97,588.92 $58,749.02
Honestly I do not know which one is more ridiculous a fifty thousand dollar janitor or a toll collector making just under one hundred thousand dollars!!!
The real "inconvenient truth" is that public employees are grossly overpaid! One can not even make the argument that the cost of living in Boston is so high which is why they need to make more money b/c so many of them live in western and central MA and are rich when compared with the average salary of a private sector employee in that region. A toll collector making 70k/year living in the Springfield area is tantamount to making double that if they lived in Boston. We are affording these civil servants a life of luxury, there is no other way to put it and do not be fooled, it is all at our expense.
Upon retirement these public employees will receive lifetime guaranteed pensions, pensions that were originally designed to last from roughly age 65 to age 75. Now a days many are retiring in their early fifties and living into their 80's, collecting that pension for 30 years. However, if any public official mentions pension reform for state/municipal employees they incur the full wrath of police/teacher unions and others who essentially hold them hostage. Their sense of entitlement is disturbing; to serve is not to be entitled. In my opinion the pensions should be eliminated entirely, and public employees should have 401k's with a matching contribution like the rest of us; however, I am pragmatic and understand that is not going to happen so what does need to happen is some basic reform.
For starters the retirement age needs to be raised to 65-67 to be in line with Social Security. If a public official wishes to retire earlier that is fine but they need to be able to afford it on their own, and can not begin collecting the pension until that age. Also pension calculations would only include base salaries (NO OVERTIME), and it should cap around 60% of an employees final compensation. These recommendations are what an independent research firm suggested to the state of CA a year or so ago, and like I said I am pragmatic and although would prefer to see pensions eliminated entirely, I am wiling to use the suggestions as a jumping off point for reform.
With the economy in shambles and hundreds of thousands of people losing their jobs, why is it that government continues to grow? If the economy contracts shouldn't the government and its payroll? Many private companies are forcing employees to take pay freezes, and even pay cuts, yet somehow public officials continue to get raises and get paid a hundred thousand dollars to do a job in which they would be replaced by a bucket. In all seriousness what skill does a toll collector have that warrants that kind of pay? In the real world it is a minimum wage job. The skill set is that of a grammar school child---being able to make change. Those jobs need to be eliminated altogether. If the MTA imposed a mere 5% pay cut and only paid out peoples projected salaries(no overtime) that alone would save the tax payers over thirty million dollars.
However, as we all know , no government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size, so we need to force this reduction in size on the bloated bureaucracy. Sadly we had a chance to force this reduction in size on the government by repealing the state income tax but for some inexplicable reason we chose not to. The wool was pulled over our eyes, and we chose rather to outlaw grey hound racing. How does a populace choose to outlaw grey hound racing while condoning the egregious waste that is rampant in this state? The pay in the public sector is complete out of line with what it should be (due in large part to the unions).
By continuing to support the elected officials, and those unions, is as Ronald Reagan once said, "To sit back hoping that some day, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last---but eat you he will". As long as we have fifty thousand dollar janitors and one hundred thousand dollar toll collectors, you can forget about a repeal of any tax, in fact you are all but guaranteeing higher taxes for us all and bankrupting municipalities.
Link to confirm the salaries cited above :
http://www.bostonherald.com/projects/mta2008
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
The best minds are not in government
It was recently reported that the MBTA's payroll jumped by 14% last year and that 441 employees made over $100,000. This is the perfect illustration of the point that no government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. How can it be possible that 441 employees made over 100k last year for a company that announced a $160 million deficit on Monday??? Can anyone honestly tell me with a straight face that there are 441 employees at the MBTA that would demand a fair market value of 100k/year in the private sector? Plus benefits and pension? Judging by my experiences on the MBTA I do not think there is one.
We are in the throes of dramatic recession; the stock market, for the first time I think, has a negative 10 year return; unemployment may be headed for double digits and trillions of dollars of wealth has been wiped out in the last 14 months, but yet somehow the MBTA grew 14%. Is there anyone who can explain this to me? How can we the people continue to support such graft, waste and mismanagement? Last November we had the chance to eliminate the state income tax but the government warned that if the state income tax was eliminated there would be massive cuts and cessation of local aid. I would submit that is exactly what is needed. Furthermore, the true cost to the tax payer is significantly higher than we think at first glance. Think about the inane and asinine pensions these state employees will be receiving upon retirement, all funded by yours truly. So the 441 people who "stole" over 100k last year (yes stole, they did not make/produce anything. I defy you to show me what they "made") really comes at a cost much greater than that. If you do not believe me simply ask any actuary but the true cost to you and I is otherworldly and unacceptable.
In December of 2008 in response to the financial crisis FedEx announced a 5% pay cut to its employees, no bonuses and no company match on its 401k in an effort to cut cost. To an average middle manager making 45k/year that is a savings of 2250.00 in salary, roughly 3000.00 in bonus and 3.5% on the 401k match saves another 1575.00. That makes a total savings of about 6825.00 for a run of the mill employee. One of the most well respected international companies is reducing its operating expenses by several thousand dollars per employee during this crisis while one of the most poorly run entities in the world increases its payroll by 14%. Is it any wonder that Ronald Reagan once said "The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would steal them."?
We are in the throes of dramatic recession; the stock market, for the first time I think, has a negative 10 year return; unemployment may be headed for double digits and trillions of dollars of wealth has been wiped out in the last 14 months, but yet somehow the MBTA grew 14%. Is there anyone who can explain this to me? How can we the people continue to support such graft, waste and mismanagement? Last November we had the chance to eliminate the state income tax but the government warned that if the state income tax was eliminated there would be massive cuts and cessation of local aid. I would submit that is exactly what is needed. Furthermore, the true cost to the tax payer is significantly higher than we think at first glance. Think about the inane and asinine pensions these state employees will be receiving upon retirement, all funded by yours truly. So the 441 people who "stole" over 100k last year (yes stole, they did not make/produce anything. I defy you to show me what they "made") really comes at a cost much greater than that. If you do not believe me simply ask any actuary but the true cost to you and I is otherworldly and unacceptable.
In December of 2008 in response to the financial crisis FedEx announced a 5% pay cut to its employees, no bonuses and no company match on its 401k in an effort to cut cost. To an average middle manager making 45k/year that is a savings of 2250.00 in salary, roughly 3000.00 in bonus and 3.5% on the 401k match saves another 1575.00. That makes a total savings of about 6825.00 for a run of the mill employee. One of the most well respected international companies is reducing its operating expenses by several thousand dollars per employee during this crisis while one of the most poorly run entities in the world increases its payroll by 14%. Is it any wonder that Ronald Reagan once said "The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would steal them."?
Monday, January 26, 2009
Plane hypocrisy and pseudo capitalism
News broke this morning that Citi Group , despite all of its troubles, has decided to move forward on the purchase of a brand new $50,000,000.00 private jet. This is the same company who a few months ago was on the brink of collapse; the same company who in the last two years (Jan 2007-Jan 2009) has seen its stock price go from roughly $55/share to $3/share; the same company who has already squandered roughly $45,000,000,000.00 in government bailout money. Look at all those zeros, both in the dollar amounts and in leadership of the distressed bank. Certainly no one can question Vikram Pandit's intellect (he has PhD in Finance from Columbia), however we can and should question his judgment.
In the face of a global economic crisis the level of which we have not seen since The Great Depression could anyone make an argument for spending $50,000,000.00 on a private jet?? Especially by a company who is "on the dole"?? Why is that banks only rally around the cries of free enterprise and de-regulation in boom times, but are always the first ones in line with their hands out when things go bad? They throw around terms like "systemic risk" in order to gain entrance in to the federal reserve , line their pockets with cash from the government coffers and go on to spend like drunken sailors. And yet somehow no one holds them accountable. How is it possible that to date we have no accounting as to where 45,000,000,000.00 dollars of tax payers money has gone? Well I guess after today we may only need to know where 44,950,000,000.00 has gone.
Wall Street and corporations like Citi are the penulitamte in hyporcisy. They are pseudo-capitalists if you will. It is as if the mission statement of the company is "privatize gains, socialize losses"; and I for one am sick of it.
They are that friend/person we all know, who happily lives off unemployment and uses that money to go on vacation or buy a new car. If Mr. Pandit thought the acquistion of such a lavish mode of transportation was necessary for the continued success of Citi (I almost got through that without laughing), then maybe he should have picked up the tab himself. After all during the boom times Pandit has made hundreds of millions of dollars, the only problem is that would fly in the face of the aforementioned mission statement. It appears we have turned a famous phrase on its head, today it is "ask not what you can do for your country but what your country can do for you. ". And so we continue, feeding the crocodile......
In the face of a global economic crisis the level of which we have not seen since The Great Depression could anyone make an argument for spending $50,000,000.00 on a private jet?? Especially by a company who is "on the dole"?? Why is that banks only rally around the cries of free enterprise and de-regulation in boom times, but are always the first ones in line with their hands out when things go bad? They throw around terms like "systemic risk" in order to gain entrance in to the federal reserve , line their pockets with cash from the government coffers and go on to spend like drunken sailors. And yet somehow no one holds them accountable. How is it possible that to date we have no accounting as to where 45,000,000,000.00 dollars of tax payers money has gone? Well I guess after today we may only need to know where 44,950,000,000.00 has gone.
Wall Street and corporations like Citi are the penulitamte in hyporcisy. They are pseudo-capitalists if you will. It is as if the mission statement of the company is "privatize gains, socialize losses"; and I for one am sick of it.
They are that friend/person we all know, who happily lives off unemployment and uses that money to go on vacation or buy a new car. If Mr. Pandit thought the acquistion of such a lavish mode of transportation was necessary for the continued success of Citi (I almost got through that without laughing), then maybe he should have picked up the tab himself. After all during the boom times Pandit has made hundreds of millions of dollars, the only problem is that would fly in the face of the aforementioned mission statement. It appears we have turned a famous phrase on its head, today it is "ask not what you can do for your country but what your country can do for you. ". And so we continue, feeding the crocodile......
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
I believe.....ramblings from inauguration day
As a student of history I fully appreciate and understand how monumental the inauguration of Barak Obama is, I do however feel that America is about to receive a big dose of socialism European style. So I felt today was as good a day as any to take inventory of, and "formalize" my own beliefs:
-I believe that no one should get a free ride. There is nothing more un-American than a free ride.
-I believe in a progressive tax, it is the only way this country will work; but I don’t think we should ever say the rich need to pay their fair share. If anyone needs to pay more it is the bottom 50% not the top 50%.
-I believe the most terrifying words in the English language are “ I’m from the government and I’m here to help” and I also believe liberalism is the disease, common sense is the cure.
-I believe that all men are created equal and that everyone should be "judged by the content of their character not the color of their skin”. To that end affirmative action is wrong.
-I believe the government is horribly inefficient, and bloated. The less we ask them to do the better.
-I believe no government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this Earth.
-I believe it means more if you earn it and that charity works better than government hand outs.
-I believe a lot of civil servants have lost their way, and went from being underpaid to overpaid in the last 10 years. Their sense of entitlement irks me. When I was growing up, I knew a lot of kids whose parents were cops and teachers and none of them lived in a big house, drove expensive cars, and belonged to country clubs…let alone all three! Maybe we need to go back to when they were actual civil servants, when they did not get paid, then lets see how many empty suits run for office. Additionally that would solve all budgetary problems.
-I believe that individual liberties must be protected, and the cost of living in a free society means you don’t get to impose your morality on me, especially in hotly contested issues (this is directed at you pro lifers).
-I believe that literacy is a right and parenting is the most important job on Earth. No one is perfect, but once you have a kid realize your life is not yours anymore. Your sole reason for being is to love, protect and raise that kid right. Stop asking others to do it for you.
-I believe indifference is the greatest sin.
-I believe money isn’t everything but will freely admit life is easier with it than it is without it.
-I believe that a government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take all you have. And certainly do NOT believe in a government that protects us from ourselves.
-I believe the tolls on the Mass. Pike are illegal. Moreover, I believe we should never ever pay anyone to do a job in which they can be replaced by a bucket.
-I believe laughter truly is the best medicine. We should all love/laugh hard and often. The world would be a better place.
-I believe friends and family are the most valuable commodity on Earth.
-I believe the side that is right will eventually win; good will triumph over evil.
-I believe that all glory is fleeting.
-I believe most people wonder if their life made a difference; I don’t think the men and women of the United States Armed Forces ever have to ask that question.
-More than anything I believe in America.
-I believe that no one should get a free ride. There is nothing more un-American than a free ride.
-I believe in a progressive tax, it is the only way this country will work; but I don’t think we should ever say the rich need to pay their fair share. If anyone needs to pay more it is the bottom 50% not the top 50%.
-I believe the most terrifying words in the English language are “ I’m from the government and I’m here to help” and I also believe liberalism is the disease, common sense is the cure.
-I believe that all men are created equal and that everyone should be "judged by the content of their character not the color of their skin”. To that end affirmative action is wrong.
-I believe the government is horribly inefficient, and bloated. The less we ask them to do the better.
-I believe no government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this Earth.
-I believe it means more if you earn it and that charity works better than government hand outs.
-I believe a lot of civil servants have lost their way, and went from being underpaid to overpaid in the last 10 years. Their sense of entitlement irks me. When I was growing up, I knew a lot of kids whose parents were cops and teachers and none of them lived in a big house, drove expensive cars, and belonged to country clubs…let alone all three! Maybe we need to go back to when they were actual civil servants, when they did not get paid, then lets see how many empty suits run for office. Additionally that would solve all budgetary problems.
-I believe that individual liberties must be protected, and the cost of living in a free society means you don’t get to impose your morality on me, especially in hotly contested issues (this is directed at you pro lifers).
-I believe that literacy is a right and parenting is the most important job on Earth. No one is perfect, but once you have a kid realize your life is not yours anymore. Your sole reason for being is to love, protect and raise that kid right. Stop asking others to do it for you.
-I believe indifference is the greatest sin.
-I believe money isn’t everything but will freely admit life is easier with it than it is without it.
-I believe that a government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take all you have. And certainly do NOT believe in a government that protects us from ourselves.
-I believe the tolls on the Mass. Pike are illegal. Moreover, I believe we should never ever pay anyone to do a job in which they can be replaced by a bucket.
-I believe laughter truly is the best medicine. We should all love/laugh hard and often. The world would be a better place.
-I believe friends and family are the most valuable commodity on Earth.
-I believe the side that is right will eventually win; good will triumph over evil.
-I believe that all glory is fleeting.
-I believe most people wonder if their life made a difference; I don’t think the men and women of the United States Armed Forces ever have to ask that question.
-More than anything I believe in America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)