Today's "My Two Cents" is brought to you by the Jeep Wrangler--The World's Most Capable Four-Wheel Drive. This is one of those days when I chuckle at Prius and Smart car owners--thinking about how they are effectively trapped within their houses--unable to go anywhere today and possibly tomorrow as well. (Actually I laugh at Prius and Smart car owners every day.) You know those commercials were they show the Wrangler or the Grand Cherokee blasting its way through the wall of snow? That will be me getting back into the driveway after work today (if they bother to plow our street today)--and I'll be doing it with a big smile on my face. As the stickers say "It's a Jeep thing...You wouldn't understand".
I've owned Jeeps for about half the time since I got my driver's license. I've gone to Camp Jeep and learned the operating limits of my vehicle and how to handle it in just about every situation that could arise on and off the road. I wonder what our vehicle crash numbers would be if all of the other manufacturers put their owners through their paces after buying a car or a truck?
Today is also a very frustrating day to be at work. Those of us who work on the air made it in--where is everybody else? How do those people feel when they get the email that all "non-essential" staff do not have to report to the office? This will also be a crazy busy day on the phones in the newsroom--as those calling in cancellations for events affecting four people mix with those calling to see if something has been canceled. When people call in to ask "Is such-and-such closed today?" I always like to ask them "Did you call them?" That is usually met with a moment of silence followed by "Oh, I guess I could do that."
Days like today also make me think about how much I am looking forward to early retirement. I have NEVER enjoyed winter (save for the fact that it does bring us basketball and hockey seasons). And since I've become obsessed with golf, the five months that we cant' play around here becomes even more frustrating. So every time I consider busting the budget and not putting as much as I should into savings for the month, I picture playing myself playing a round under bright sunshine with shirt-sleeves and shorts on--while everyone back here is digging out from 15-inches of snow. You'd be surprised how powerful an incentive that can be.
Finally, I would like to thank the people who still have to go out in this mess to keep us safe. There will still be emergencies requiring police, fire and ambulances to respond. And plow drivers will be putting in LONG hours the next two days in incredibly dangerous conditions--made even more unsafe by people blowing by them because they just can't wait the extra ten minutes to get where they needed to go safely.
So unless you are driving a Jeep, enjoy your day stuck in the house with the kids.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Ain't Nothin' In the World For Free
Apparently, Instagram is backing down from its new policy of allowing advertisers to use pictures posted by its users without compensating them. The outrage from users equaled and may have surpassed the reaction to the Connecticut Shooting--as everybody threatened to shut down their accounts and remove all of their pictures. It reminds me of the disgust that users of Facebook and Twitter expressed when those social media sites started posting ads on their sites--and selling sponsored posts to clutter up our timelines.
The Instagram debacle makes me wonder, why do we think that everything on the internet should be free? I remember how musicians were pilloried when they objected to Napster basically allowing everyone in the world to download songs and entire albums for free. Up until the invention of Napster, we were more than willing to compensate the artists, producers and manufacturers of music products for their efforts--why did we all of a sudden think that expecting on-line acquisition of the same product should be free?
Newspapers are coming under the same attacks now for putting up paywalls to view their content. I see social media posts and bloggers who rant about how "information should be free"--some even posting "workaround" ways to still access the content without paying. (Yes, we poke a little fun at the ink-stained wretches as well with a couple of promos that run here on the radio station.) But for 350-years, Americans were more than willing to hand over a few cents every day to get brief recap of history in printed form. Why do you suddenly think that the reporters who actually gather the content to put on those pages (printed and virtual) don't deserve to get paid for their efforts anymore? You know that if we weren't keeping an eye on them, you wouldn't hear anything from the Oshkosh School Board for the rest of time. And those bloggers who consider themselves "News Outlets" because they re-post links to actual news sources would find themselves hurting for content if they actually had to go out and cover stuff or do their own interviews.
I often make the point that people place more value on things that they actually have to pay for. It's why private school parents keep closer tabs on their kids academic performance. It's why you see garbage laying around in parks--but not on golf courses. And it's why the Green Bay "Bike Sharing Program" ended with all of the free-to-use bikes being stolen or damaged.
I hear all the time about how "social media" has forever changed the way we communicate and live--but I'm pretty sure that if Facebook or Twitter or Skype started charging even a penny a post or a nickel a minute to chat--nearly all of us would leave it behind in an instant. Maybe we should change our national motto from "In God We Trust" to "If It Ain't Free, It Ain't For Me."
The Instagram debacle makes me wonder, why do we think that everything on the internet should be free? I remember how musicians were pilloried when they objected to Napster basically allowing everyone in the world to download songs and entire albums for free. Up until the invention of Napster, we were more than willing to compensate the artists, producers and manufacturers of music products for their efforts--why did we all of a sudden think that expecting on-line acquisition of the same product should be free?
Newspapers are coming under the same attacks now for putting up paywalls to view their content. I see social media posts and bloggers who rant about how "information should be free"--some even posting "workaround" ways to still access the content without paying. (Yes, we poke a little fun at the ink-stained wretches as well with a couple of promos that run here on the radio station.) But for 350-years, Americans were more than willing to hand over a few cents every day to get brief recap of history in printed form. Why do you suddenly think that the reporters who actually gather the content to put on those pages (printed and virtual) don't deserve to get paid for their efforts anymore? You know that if we weren't keeping an eye on them, you wouldn't hear anything from the Oshkosh School Board for the rest of time. And those bloggers who consider themselves "News Outlets" because they re-post links to actual news sources would find themselves hurting for content if they actually had to go out and cover stuff or do their own interviews.
I often make the point that people place more value on things that they actually have to pay for. It's why private school parents keep closer tabs on their kids academic performance. It's why you see garbage laying around in parks--but not on golf courses. And it's why the Green Bay "Bike Sharing Program" ended with all of the free-to-use bikes being stolen or damaged.
I hear all the time about how "social media" has forever changed the way we communicate and live--but I'm pretty sure that if Facebook or Twitter or Skype started charging even a penny a post or a nickel a minute to chat--nearly all of us would leave it behind in an instant. Maybe we should change our national motto from "In God We Trust" to "If It Ain't Free, It Ain't For Me."
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
A Real Shocker
You may want to sit down for this one: A new study shows Republicans start saving for retirement earlier--and save more for retirement--than Democrats. In a nutshell, Fiscal Conservatives start saving for their old age starting in their 20's and early thirties--while those on the Left tend to wait until later in life, when the opportunity to have more saved up is lost.
The study doesn't list specific reasons for this trend. They toss out the usual factors: Republicans are "rich to being with", Conservatives tend to be more organized than Liberals and that the retirement savings trends match the individual belief in the role of government in our lives. Personally, I feel the last of those reasons is the most likely explanation.
We should really give both sides credit for practicing what they preach. Those of us in the Personal Responsibility camp would look pretty foolish if we were all reaching retirement completely dependent on Social Security and Medicare to get us through our Golden Years. And those in the Government Can Solve All of Your Problems group would appear hypocritical if they didn't actually need those monthly checks to get by.
Imagine how different the Fiscal Cliff debate would be if early retirement savings were the norm for all Americans--and not just those of us on the Dave Ramsey plan. Would increasing the Medicare eligibility age threaten to "kill people" as some alarmists on the Left would have you believe if all of those daily $4 Latte Mocha Grandes had been converted into mutual fund shares for all of those years? How many people would be howling over limits on cost of living adjustments for Social Security payments if all those new car payments had instead been able to go into 401(k)'s?
What you would actually have is outrage over the proposed increases in Capital Gains taxes as more Americans would see that retirement savings eaten away by Uncle Sam. And those who put away just 300-dollars a month starting at the age of 25 would be faced with their heirs getting hit by the new lower qualifying standards of the estate tax, because they would multi-millionaires by the time they hit 65.
Actually, we probably wouldn't be at the Fiscal Cliff to begin with--because early retirement savings would have given more people the financial cushion they would have needed to weather the "Great Recession" without government programs. Of course, there wouldn't have been a "Great Recession" either, because you wouldn't have had the over-borrowing to purchase over-priced real estate that was bundled into the derivatives that bombed when people who didn't have any money to begin with couldn't pay their mortgages anymore.
So enough of talking about Fiscal Responsibility. I'll let you get back to working on your budget--or picking up your $5 cup of coffee--whichever you choose.
The study doesn't list specific reasons for this trend. They toss out the usual factors: Republicans are "rich to being with", Conservatives tend to be more organized than Liberals and that the retirement savings trends match the individual belief in the role of government in our lives. Personally, I feel the last of those reasons is the most likely explanation.
We should really give both sides credit for practicing what they preach. Those of us in the Personal Responsibility camp would look pretty foolish if we were all reaching retirement completely dependent on Social Security and Medicare to get us through our Golden Years. And those in the Government Can Solve All of Your Problems group would appear hypocritical if they didn't actually need those monthly checks to get by.
Imagine how different the Fiscal Cliff debate would be if early retirement savings were the norm for all Americans--and not just those of us on the Dave Ramsey plan. Would increasing the Medicare eligibility age threaten to "kill people" as some alarmists on the Left would have you believe if all of those daily $4 Latte Mocha Grandes had been converted into mutual fund shares for all of those years? How many people would be howling over limits on cost of living adjustments for Social Security payments if all those new car payments had instead been able to go into 401(k)'s?
What you would actually have is outrage over the proposed increases in Capital Gains taxes as more Americans would see that retirement savings eaten away by Uncle Sam. And those who put away just 300-dollars a month starting at the age of 25 would be faced with their heirs getting hit by the new lower qualifying standards of the estate tax, because they would multi-millionaires by the time they hit 65.
Actually, we probably wouldn't be at the Fiscal Cliff to begin with--because early retirement savings would have given more people the financial cushion they would have needed to weather the "Great Recession" without government programs. Of course, there wouldn't have been a "Great Recession" either, because you wouldn't have had the over-borrowing to purchase over-priced real estate that was bundled into the derivatives that bombed when people who didn't have any money to begin with couldn't pay their mortgages anymore.
So enough of talking about Fiscal Responsibility. I'll let you get back to working on your budget--or picking up your $5 cup of coffee--whichever you choose.
Monday, December 17, 2012
Over-Reaction Bingo
It took all of two days following the shootings in Connecticut Friday to fill up my "Over-Reaction Bingo" card. It's a sheet that lists the all of the statements, demands and explanations that come up every time something like this happens.
My first square marked off was "BAN ALL GUNS!!!". There are a reported 310-million firearms in the United States--nearly one for every man woman and child--making the task of confiscating and destroying each of them nearly impossible. Add to that the fact that the legal owner of every one of those guns has a pretty good basis for a civil lawsuit, and the process becomes even more impossible. Even a semi-automatic weapons ban will be very difficult to enforce, as there are millions of those in private hands--who will not be willing to part with them easily.
Next up was the "WE NEED MORE GUNS FOR PROTECTION!!" box. This is the common over-reaction to the first over-reaction. The belief being that armed teachers and administrators would be able to stop assailants dead in their tracks by engaging in a firefight either in the classroom or out in the hallway. As police officers trained in tactical situations will tell you, unless you are packing the same firepower as your opponent, your odds of winning aren't good. In the case of the Connecticut shooting, the school staff would have needed semi-automatic weapons and body armor--just like the shooter.
Another winning square was "WE NEED TO IMPROVE SCHOOL SECURITY!!" Ideas tossed around this weekend included armed guards at all entrances, metal detectors, locked buildings and security fencing and gates. At a time of tight school budgets, how much money do you want to divert from actual classroom instruction to man entrances and security stations? And is turning a school into an impenetrable fortress really creating a positive learning environment?
And then we had the "WE NEED TO TEACH KIDS TO TREAT EVERYONE WITH RESPECT!!" This one was marked off after it was learned that the Connecticut shooter was described as a "loner" with "few friends in high school". Schools have been trying to teach "inclusiveness" for years now--and yet "nerds", "outcasts" and "social awkwardness" persists? What's next--requiring kids to have a certain number of friends? Mandatory dating?
We scored our "Bingo!!" with "WE NEED TO IMPROVE ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT!!" This one followed stories from friends of the shooter's mother that she had feared for her son's mental state. For centuries, we dealt with such "dangerous people" by committing them against their will in "Insane Asylums". That went out of style in the 60's and 70's, however, as behavior modification drugs became available and the consensus was that people with such conditions were better left in society under treatment. Now, an involuntary committal is a difficult legal process--unless of course, said "disturbed person" has committed a serious crime. And while doctors can prescribe medications, they can't be there 24/7 to make sure the patient is taking them.
If we want to play a "blackout game"--you can mark off "BAN ALL VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES AND MOVIES!!" and "BRING BACK PRAYER IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND GOVERNMENT!!" on your card as well. Let's hope we can go awhile before we have to play again.
My first square marked off was "BAN ALL GUNS!!!". There are a reported 310-million firearms in the United States--nearly one for every man woman and child--making the task of confiscating and destroying each of them nearly impossible. Add to that the fact that the legal owner of every one of those guns has a pretty good basis for a civil lawsuit, and the process becomes even more impossible. Even a semi-automatic weapons ban will be very difficult to enforce, as there are millions of those in private hands--who will not be willing to part with them easily.
Next up was the "WE NEED MORE GUNS FOR PROTECTION!!" box. This is the common over-reaction to the first over-reaction. The belief being that armed teachers and administrators would be able to stop assailants dead in their tracks by engaging in a firefight either in the classroom or out in the hallway. As police officers trained in tactical situations will tell you, unless you are packing the same firepower as your opponent, your odds of winning aren't good. In the case of the Connecticut shooting, the school staff would have needed semi-automatic weapons and body armor--just like the shooter.
Another winning square was "WE NEED TO IMPROVE SCHOOL SECURITY!!" Ideas tossed around this weekend included armed guards at all entrances, metal detectors, locked buildings and security fencing and gates. At a time of tight school budgets, how much money do you want to divert from actual classroom instruction to man entrances and security stations? And is turning a school into an impenetrable fortress really creating a positive learning environment?
And then we had the "WE NEED TO TEACH KIDS TO TREAT EVERYONE WITH RESPECT!!" This one was marked off after it was learned that the Connecticut shooter was described as a "loner" with "few friends in high school". Schools have been trying to teach "inclusiveness" for years now--and yet "nerds", "outcasts" and "social awkwardness" persists? What's next--requiring kids to have a certain number of friends? Mandatory dating?
We scored our "Bingo!!" with "WE NEED TO IMPROVE ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT!!" This one followed stories from friends of the shooter's mother that she had feared for her son's mental state. For centuries, we dealt with such "dangerous people" by committing them against their will in "Insane Asylums". That went out of style in the 60's and 70's, however, as behavior modification drugs became available and the consensus was that people with such conditions were better left in society under treatment. Now, an involuntary committal is a difficult legal process--unless of course, said "disturbed person" has committed a serious crime. And while doctors can prescribe medications, they can't be there 24/7 to make sure the patient is taking them.
If we want to play a "blackout game"--you can mark off "BAN ALL VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES AND MOVIES!!" and "BRING BACK PRAYER IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND GOVERNMENT!!" on your card as well. Let's hope we can go awhile before we have to play again.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Herb Kohl--In Retrospect
With Senator Herb Kohl having delivered his final speech on the floor of the Senate (he apparently doesn't anticipate having anything to say about a bill to avoid the "fiscal cliff") I thought it would be a good time to look back on the career of second-longest serving Sentator from Wisconsin.
Let's first review the influential pieces of legislation that Senator Kohl sponsored and helped to write while in Washington:
OK, now that we are done with that, I thought I would play back some of the strongest comments Senator Kohl provided to the media about the major issues during his terms:
Alright, now that we are done with that, let's spend the rest of our time together talking about what Senator Kohl is actually good at: philanthropy.
I don't think most Wisconsinites grasp just how rich Herb Kohl is. In a room full of millionaires known as the US Senate, Herb had all but a handful of those guys covered. Not bad for someone whose best business decision was to sell off his parents' grocery chain before it got buried by the big boxes. Senator Kohl then set about to giving away a good amount of that cash to help the people of Wisconsin.
He bought the Bucks to "keep them in Milwaukee". However, aside from one season where they made it to the Eastern Conference Finals with Ray Allen and Glenn Robinson, the Bucks really haven't generated any buzz with Wisconsin sports fans during the Kohl tenure. And the team consistently loses money due to declining attendance and (a point that can certainly be disputed) an "aging" Bradley Center. Outside of a few businesses around the arena itself, how much would Wisconsin actually miss the Bucks?
Speaking of arenas, Senator Kohl's most conspicuous contribution to the state is the University of Wisconsin-Madison facility that bears his name. As much as we like to romanticize about our historic buildings, the UW Fieldhouse is a dump. Uncomfortable seating, bad sight lines and not enough bathrooms to accommodate a small group outing--much less 11-thousand people to watch a basketball game. Senator Kohl stepped up with $25-MILLION for the project--which covered about 80% of the total costs. It remains the largest single gift to the UW System in its history. Suddenly, the Badgers went from one of the worst to one of the best Basketball and Hockey facilities in the countries--and Wisconsin had another top-notch concert venue as well. Every year at the WIAA Basketball Tournament when I can just walk in and use the restroom right away, I give a little thanks to Herb Kohl.
As nice a gift as the Kohl Center is, the Senator's most lasting contribution to Wisconsin will be the Herb Kohl Educational Foundation. This non-profit has provided $8.2-MILLION in scholarships to college-bound students, along with grants to K-12 teachers and schools over the last 22-years--along with presenting honors to those who excel in all roles in the classroom. I'm fairly sure that when the Senator does pass on, the foundation will be the main beneficiary of his estate--and the scholarships and grants will only get bigger.
Like everyone else in the "1%" Senator Kohl gives away a lot of money to other causes that don't bear his name--but also serve to better our communities and our state. So I hope in his retirement Herb Kohl will find new ways to voluntarily share his wealth with the less fortunate--now that he is done voting for bills that force the rest of us to do the same.
Let's first review the influential pieces of legislation that Senator Kohl sponsored and helped to write while in Washington:
OK, now that we are done with that, I thought I would play back some of the strongest comments Senator Kohl provided to the media about the major issues during his terms:
Alright, now that we are done with that, let's spend the rest of our time together talking about what Senator Kohl is actually good at: philanthropy.
I don't think most Wisconsinites grasp just how rich Herb Kohl is. In a room full of millionaires known as the US Senate, Herb had all but a handful of those guys covered. Not bad for someone whose best business decision was to sell off his parents' grocery chain before it got buried by the big boxes. Senator Kohl then set about to giving away a good amount of that cash to help the people of Wisconsin.
He bought the Bucks to "keep them in Milwaukee". However, aside from one season where they made it to the Eastern Conference Finals with Ray Allen and Glenn Robinson, the Bucks really haven't generated any buzz with Wisconsin sports fans during the Kohl tenure. And the team consistently loses money due to declining attendance and (a point that can certainly be disputed) an "aging" Bradley Center. Outside of a few businesses around the arena itself, how much would Wisconsin actually miss the Bucks?
Speaking of arenas, Senator Kohl's most conspicuous contribution to the state is the University of Wisconsin-Madison facility that bears his name. As much as we like to romanticize about our historic buildings, the UW Fieldhouse is a dump. Uncomfortable seating, bad sight lines and not enough bathrooms to accommodate a small group outing--much less 11-thousand people to watch a basketball game. Senator Kohl stepped up with $25-MILLION for the project--which covered about 80% of the total costs. It remains the largest single gift to the UW System in its history. Suddenly, the Badgers went from one of the worst to one of the best Basketball and Hockey facilities in the countries--and Wisconsin had another top-notch concert venue as well. Every year at the WIAA Basketball Tournament when I can just walk in and use the restroom right away, I give a little thanks to Herb Kohl.
As nice a gift as the Kohl Center is, the Senator's most lasting contribution to Wisconsin will be the Herb Kohl Educational Foundation. This non-profit has provided $8.2-MILLION in scholarships to college-bound students, along with grants to K-12 teachers and schools over the last 22-years--along with presenting honors to those who excel in all roles in the classroom. I'm fairly sure that when the Senator does pass on, the foundation will be the main beneficiary of his estate--and the scholarships and grants will only get bigger.
Like everyone else in the "1%" Senator Kohl gives away a lot of money to other causes that don't bear his name--but also serve to better our communities and our state. So I hope in his retirement Herb Kohl will find new ways to voluntarily share his wealth with the less fortunate--now that he is done voting for bills that force the rest of us to do the same.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Behind the Numbers
There is a Biblical verse that Dave Ramsey (2-5 weekdays on WOSH) likes to quote all of the time: "The borrower is slave to the lender." In Biblical times, that had very literal meaning, as those who owed someone could be forced into slavery to repay a debt. This week, the folks at the activist group One Wisconsin took it nearly that far, comparing student loan borrowers to "indentured servants".
The group conducted a small amount of research and found that the average college graduate takes 19-years to pay off their student loans--at monthly payments of $388. My calculator tells me that is a total repayment of more than 88-thousand dollars over the life of the loans. The only problem is, that doesn't jibe with the national averages cited in dozens of other locations: that the average college debt is $26,600 dollars--and the average time to pay that off is 11-years. As the Left often likes to do, it appears One Wisconsin made sure to find as many people in the deepest possible holes to make the situation look as dire as possible.
What the One Wisconsin study also fails to tell us is what other economic factors are playing a role in their study group's inability to repay their loans. What is the average credit card debt carried by these "servants"? And what were those charges spent on? Basic needs or, shall we say, things that wouldn't be considered necessities (e.g.: spring break trips, pizza and student section football tickets)? What is the average car loan payment for these borrowers? Are these "poor" people all driving "Hoopdees" (another Dave Term) And when were these car purchases made? Immediately after graduation--before their student loan payments kicked in and it seemed like there was plenty of room in the budget? And how big a data package are they buying for their cellphones, tablets and laptops?
And what were the fields of study for these "struggling" masses? Are they in the fields of business, science and industry that have always provided job opportunities? Or are these graduates sitting around with degrees in the Arts and Social Sciences--which usually depend upon more disposable income for consumers--or increasing numbers of children in need of education?
Where are the parents in all of this? $26,600 divided over the 22-years from birth to graduation would require a parent to put away $1,209 a year into a college savings account--or about $101 a month. And those numbers are based on the money being put into an account that draws no interest or investment income for those 22-years. You're telling me the generation of Middle-Class Americans that enjoyed some of the longest, sustained periods of economic growth in US history was totally incapable of putting away that amount of money?
One thing that stands out in the One Wisconsin recommendations to "fix" the student loan "problem" is to have governments spend more money on college systems to lower the cost of tuition. Perhaps these folks would like the 5% interest (which is tax deductible by the way) that student loan borrowers pay just added to 18 to 24% in income taxes that the graduates are already paying. We all know it's more "fair" to give Uncle Sam your money to "redistribute" than it is to give it to the "Greedy Wall Street Banks".
The group conducted a small amount of research and found that the average college graduate takes 19-years to pay off their student loans--at monthly payments of $388. My calculator tells me that is a total repayment of more than 88-thousand dollars over the life of the loans. The only problem is, that doesn't jibe with the national averages cited in dozens of other locations: that the average college debt is $26,600 dollars--and the average time to pay that off is 11-years. As the Left often likes to do, it appears One Wisconsin made sure to find as many people in the deepest possible holes to make the situation look as dire as possible.
What the One Wisconsin study also fails to tell us is what other economic factors are playing a role in their study group's inability to repay their loans. What is the average credit card debt carried by these "servants"? And what were those charges spent on? Basic needs or, shall we say, things that wouldn't be considered necessities (e.g.: spring break trips, pizza and student section football tickets)? What is the average car loan payment for these borrowers? Are these "poor" people all driving "Hoopdees" (another Dave Term) And when were these car purchases made? Immediately after graduation--before their student loan payments kicked in and it seemed like there was plenty of room in the budget? And how big a data package are they buying for their cellphones, tablets and laptops?
And what were the fields of study for these "struggling" masses? Are they in the fields of business, science and industry that have always provided job opportunities? Or are these graduates sitting around with degrees in the Arts and Social Sciences--which usually depend upon more disposable income for consumers--or increasing numbers of children in need of education?
Where are the parents in all of this? $26,600 divided over the 22-years from birth to graduation would require a parent to put away $1,209 a year into a college savings account--or about $101 a month. And those numbers are based on the money being put into an account that draws no interest or investment income for those 22-years. You're telling me the generation of Middle-Class Americans that enjoyed some of the longest, sustained periods of economic growth in US history was totally incapable of putting away that amount of money?
One thing that stands out in the One Wisconsin recommendations to "fix" the student loan "problem" is to have governments spend more money on college systems to lower the cost of tuition. Perhaps these folks would like the 5% interest (which is tax deductible by the way) that student loan borrowers pay just added to 18 to 24% in income taxes that the graduates are already paying. We all know it's more "fair" to give Uncle Sam your money to "redistribute" than it is to give it to the "Greedy Wall Street Banks".
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Did We Do That?
Back in the days when people still read newspapers, yesterday would have been a "Stop The Presses!!" day--but now, I guess the term to describe shocking news would be "Congress Blows Up Twitter!" I'm talking about the story that even Democrats are now calling for a halt to the taxes included in the Affordable Care Act:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/democrats-urge-delay-for-job-killing-obamacare-tax/article/2515711#.UMheraxJvWA
The specific concern raised this time is the 2.3% tax on medical devices that will go into effect on January 1st. It would affect things like dialysis machines, respirators, artificial hearts--you know, only things that the 1% use. And it would lower the cost of health care by making the equipment upon which modern medicine relies more expensive for hospitals and clinics to purchase--or maybe not.
What is particularly startling about this call to delay the implementation of the tax is that is it being led by Senators Al Franken of Minnesota and John Kerry of Massachusetts. In fact, Franken describes it as a "Job-killing tax". Now if Al Franken has come to believe that any tax actually hurts business and kills jobs, perhaps its time to start thinking that the Mayans were correct about December 21st. Of course, all of the Senators now calling for the delay of the taxes needed to pay for this behemoth public program were the most ardent supporters of the law and voted in favor of it in 2009. Perhaps Senator Franken should have talked to his good friend Former Senator Russ Feingold about the medical device tax--since Russ was the only Senator to actually read the bill (as he told everyone who would listen over and over again)--rather than take Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's approach of "We need to pass the bill so we can find out what is in it." (In fairness, Franken did know about the tax--and demanded that it be lowered from an even higher level--since he has some big device manufacturers in Minnesota. But still....)
So now this leaves Republicans with a bit of a Sophie's Choice. Do you back the effort to delay implementation of the taxes that are needed to pay for ObamaCare (thus increasing the deficit created by it) in order to save jobs--but then provide Democrats with political cover in the process? Or do you let Democrats live with the consequences of their decisions--while the American people continue to suffer? Personally, I think the Left made their bed--now they should have to lie in it.
Either way, this serves as a nice preview for the next four years--as the real impact of the Affordable Care Act takes effect. Why do you think all of the "good stuff" and "freebies" were front-loaded before the 2012 election? Kind of reminds you of the old "Take it home today, pay for it next year" sales that furniture stores used to run--knowing full well that it would sucker more buyers into paying even more than they expected down the road.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/democrats-urge-delay-for-job-killing-obamacare-tax/article/2515711#.UMheraxJvWA
The specific concern raised this time is the 2.3% tax on medical devices that will go into effect on January 1st. It would affect things like dialysis machines, respirators, artificial hearts--you know, only things that the 1% use. And it would lower the cost of health care by making the equipment upon which modern medicine relies more expensive for hospitals and clinics to purchase--or maybe not.
What is particularly startling about this call to delay the implementation of the tax is that is it being led by Senators Al Franken of Minnesota and John Kerry of Massachusetts. In fact, Franken describes it as a "Job-killing tax". Now if Al Franken has come to believe that any tax actually hurts business and kills jobs, perhaps its time to start thinking that the Mayans were correct about December 21st. Of course, all of the Senators now calling for the delay of the taxes needed to pay for this behemoth public program were the most ardent supporters of the law and voted in favor of it in 2009. Perhaps Senator Franken should have talked to his good friend Former Senator Russ Feingold about the medical device tax--since Russ was the only Senator to actually read the bill (as he told everyone who would listen over and over again)--rather than take Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's approach of "We need to pass the bill so we can find out what is in it." (In fairness, Franken did know about the tax--and demanded that it be lowered from an even higher level--since he has some big device manufacturers in Minnesota. But still....)
So now this leaves Republicans with a bit of a Sophie's Choice. Do you back the effort to delay implementation of the taxes that are needed to pay for ObamaCare (thus increasing the deficit created by it) in order to save jobs--but then provide Democrats with political cover in the process? Or do you let Democrats live with the consequences of their decisions--while the American people continue to suffer? Personally, I think the Left made their bed--now they should have to lie in it.
Either way, this serves as a nice preview for the next four years--as the real impact of the Affordable Care Act takes effect. Why do you think all of the "good stuff" and "freebies" were front-loaded before the 2012 election? Kind of reminds you of the old "Take it home today, pay for it next year" sales that furniture stores used to run--knowing full well that it would sucker more buyers into paying even more than they expected down the road.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)