The media have spent the better half of this past week discussing how the Obama White House deals with race. Ordinarily I wouldn't care, except in this case, it has forced the White House to divert their attention from issues that matter much more.
When Obama was campaigning for President, I appreciated that race was not a key item on his agenda (although it was certainly discussed). While racism is a problem in certain parts of the country, constantly giving attention to it, in my opinion, is counter-productive. Maureen Dowd's call on Sunday for the President to simply add more black people to his inner circle (that isn't exactly what she said, but it is the idea I interpret - read for yourself here: NY Times article) in no way shows equal treatment for those of different races. To move past racism, we must treat all races completely equal; that means no special posts created for "black outreach", and no posts given to black people because of their race.
Until next time...
Joe
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Arizona Immigration Law
The recent Arizona Immigration and Enforcement Bill signed in Arizona has stirred up a lot of debate on racial profiling, and whether or not this bill encourages it, across the country. After reading the bill, I believe the bill does nothing to outwardly encourage or condone racial profiling.
Below is actual text present in the bill:
20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
34 J. THIS SECTION SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH
35 FEDERAL LAWS REGULATING IMMIGRATION, PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ALL
36 PERSONS AND RESPECTING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF UNITED STATES
37 CITIZENS.
38 Sec.
Although the bill does not outwardly encourage or condone racial profiling, I can envision opportunities for individual abuses of power (such as racial profiling) to occur.
Picture a situation where a person gets pulled over for speeding. When asked to show identification, this person doesn't have any identification on them. At this point, a reasonable suspicion could arise that this person may not be a citizen of the United States. There could be certain give aways, such as the inability to speak English or an offensive, out of the ordinary demeanor (after all, there is always some sort of personal, gut instinct feelings to manage and act on in the actual enforcement of a law). As long as Arizona law enforcement processes all of these cases the same, regardless of the person's race, it is clear to me that no racial profiling is taking place. However, if Arizona law enforcement doesn't go through all the regular protocol for confirming citizenship with a white person compared with a Hispanic person, then clearly the law is at least providing an outlet for law enforcement officers to racially profile on an individual basis. That being said, this law is simply stating that enforcement of already existing immigration law should be taking place, so perhaps this new law is not even really providing the outlet for racial profiling, but just reminding law enforcement that one exists.
My quick analysis of the situation is that, as long as checks are in place to ensure fair administration of this law by law enforcement, there is nothing wrong with mandating that all citizens of Arizona carry documentation indicating they are in fact a citizen of the United States (regardless of what form that identification is in). I am assuming that all naturalized citizens eventually get proper state identification, and that once they have that identification, they are not required to carry along any other documentation (just like I generally have to carry nothing more than my state issued identification in my normal travels).
You can read the entire bill for yourself here: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
Until next time...
Joe
Below is actual text present in the bill:
20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
34 J. THIS SECTION SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH
35 FEDERAL LAWS REGULATING IMMIGRATION, PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ALL
36 PERSONS AND RESPECTING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF UNITED STATES
37 CITIZENS.
38 Sec.
Although the bill does not outwardly encourage or condone racial profiling, I can envision opportunities for individual abuses of power (such as racial profiling) to occur.
Picture a situation where a person gets pulled over for speeding. When asked to show identification, this person doesn't have any identification on them. At this point, a reasonable suspicion could arise that this person may not be a citizen of the United States. There could be certain give aways, such as the inability to speak English or an offensive, out of the ordinary demeanor (after all, there is always some sort of personal, gut instinct feelings to manage and act on in the actual enforcement of a law). As long as Arizona law enforcement processes all of these cases the same, regardless of the person's race, it is clear to me that no racial profiling is taking place. However, if Arizona law enforcement doesn't go through all the regular protocol for confirming citizenship with a white person compared with a Hispanic person, then clearly the law is at least providing an outlet for law enforcement officers to racially profile on an individual basis. That being said, this law is simply stating that enforcement of already existing immigration law should be taking place, so perhaps this new law is not even really providing the outlet for racial profiling, but just reminding law enforcement that one exists.
My quick analysis of the situation is that, as long as checks are in place to ensure fair administration of this law by law enforcement, there is nothing wrong with mandating that all citizens of Arizona carry documentation indicating they are in fact a citizen of the United States (regardless of what form that identification is in). I am assuming that all naturalized citizens eventually get proper state identification, and that once they have that identification, they are not required to carry along any other documentation (just like I generally have to carry nothing more than my state issued identification in my normal travels).
You can read the entire bill for yourself here: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
Until next time...
Joe
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Our Choice
I have been waiting to comment on health care reform until it looked like passage or failure of an actual bill was a possibility. With the news that Ben Nelson now plans on voting for the Senate's version of a bill, it appears we are getting closer to finding out if we will get a signed bill or not.
I do not want to comment on the specifics of either the House or Senate bill (such as who will get a tax increase, what fines will be for not participating, etc.), as any specifics of the two bills will be completely renegotiated during the conferencing process. My concerns are with general principles surrounding this debate, such as:
1) Tax increases. Cut it however you want, a tax increase on the rich is also a tax increase on the poor. A tax increase on business is also a tax increase on the consumer. Everyone will suffer if taxes are raised on anyone. Fines for not participating in this system fall into this category.
2) Limiting profits so insurers pay more for the cost of health care. The idea of limiting health care providers' profits is frightening to me. Will we begin limiting the profits of any profitable business? Won't other factions of the economy suffer, such as those employed by health care providers (either in terms of amount of people employed or how much they make) or vendors of health care providers (advertising, computer software)? Won't drug makers and doctors charge more for their products and services, knowing of the additional requirements that have been placed on health care providers?
3) Rising cost of health care. How exactly is Congress trying to prevent the actual cost of health care from rising (both what we pay out of pocket and what our insurers cover)? I think that is the real concern among Americans. Raising taxes or limiting profits will not get to the heart of the problem (it will only punish difference facets of the economy). Only increasing competition will lower the cost of health care. Ideas for increasing competition, supported by Republicans, include allowing drugs from Canada, allowing insurance to be sold over state lines, and enacting meaningful tort reform (a well-known priority of George Bush). Limiting profits in no way increases competition. Additional regulations will either punish different facets of the economy directly (tax increases) or indirectly (increased costs, loss of customers).
4) Insuring the uninsured. I am not a bad person. If I go unemployed, I will lose my health insurance and be in a huge amount of financial trouble if something bad happens to me. But I do not want my money going to pay for the health care of the uninsured. This would be one more way lazy people who seek to play our government can sit back and collect rewards for the hard work of others (I am not in any way saying that anyone uninsured falls into this category). I would much rather see the government focus on cutting taxes and actual job creation. This will allow more people to get jobs with medical insurance. As the unemployment rate declines, more employers will be forced to give better insurance in order to keep their employees.
5) Consumerism. The health care debate seems to be avoiding one key idea; health care is a product or service that we consume. Some people over consume. Some people think this is some sort of right given to us. We all need to take personal responsibility for our actions. The ultimate solution to this problem is for our country to move toward a single payer health care system (just like our automobile insurance plans). This will force people to be smart about their health care consumption. We know if we get into an accident or get a speeding ticket, our automobile insurance premiums will increase. If we had a similar system for health care, people would do more to keep themselves healthy and limit the cost of medicating themselves. It sounds cruel, but health care is something we need to limit our consumption of (both in terms of quantity and price paid).
6) Republican support. It should alarm people that only one Republican (throughout both chambers of Congress) has gone out and supported their chamber's bill. Obama should refuse to sign any bill of this magnitude without at least 20% of Republicans voting for it. If Obama made this a requirement, he would truly have my respect and admiration for bringing true "change" to Washington: forcing bi-partisanship. If Obama wants to be a leader, here is his chance.
So that is my piece. Since this health care debate has begun, I have limited my fast food consumption as a way to keep eventual health care costs down. I think limiting our own consumption is the only control we each have over health care costs. What can you do to limit your eventual (or current) health care consumption?
I will wait to comment on my support for the health care reform bill until there is actually one to comment on.
Until we meet again, goodbye!
I do not want to comment on the specifics of either the House or Senate bill (such as who will get a tax increase, what fines will be for not participating, etc.), as any specifics of the two bills will be completely renegotiated during the conferencing process. My concerns are with general principles surrounding this debate, such as:
1) Tax increases. Cut it however you want, a tax increase on the rich is also a tax increase on the poor. A tax increase on business is also a tax increase on the consumer. Everyone will suffer if taxes are raised on anyone. Fines for not participating in this system fall into this category.
2) Limiting profits so insurers pay more for the cost of health care. The idea of limiting health care providers' profits is frightening to me. Will we begin limiting the profits of any profitable business? Won't other factions of the economy suffer, such as those employed by health care providers (either in terms of amount of people employed or how much they make) or vendors of health care providers (advertising, computer software)? Won't drug makers and doctors charge more for their products and services, knowing of the additional requirements that have been placed on health care providers?
3) Rising cost of health care. How exactly is Congress trying to prevent the actual cost of health care from rising (both what we pay out of pocket and what our insurers cover)? I think that is the real concern among Americans. Raising taxes or limiting profits will not get to the heart of the problem (it will only punish difference facets of the economy). Only increasing competition will lower the cost of health care. Ideas for increasing competition, supported by Republicans, include allowing drugs from Canada, allowing insurance to be sold over state lines, and enacting meaningful tort reform (a well-known priority of George Bush). Limiting profits in no way increases competition. Additional regulations will either punish different facets of the economy directly (tax increases) or indirectly (increased costs, loss of customers).
4) Insuring the uninsured. I am not a bad person. If I go unemployed, I will lose my health insurance and be in a huge amount of financial trouble if something bad happens to me. But I do not want my money going to pay for the health care of the uninsured. This would be one more way lazy people who seek to play our government can sit back and collect rewards for the hard work of others (I am not in any way saying that anyone uninsured falls into this category). I would much rather see the government focus on cutting taxes and actual job creation. This will allow more people to get jobs with medical insurance. As the unemployment rate declines, more employers will be forced to give better insurance in order to keep their employees.
5) Consumerism. The health care debate seems to be avoiding one key idea; health care is a product or service that we consume. Some people over consume. Some people think this is some sort of right given to us. We all need to take personal responsibility for our actions. The ultimate solution to this problem is for our country to move toward a single payer health care system (just like our automobile insurance plans). This will force people to be smart about their health care consumption. We know if we get into an accident or get a speeding ticket, our automobile insurance premiums will increase. If we had a similar system for health care, people would do more to keep themselves healthy and limit the cost of medicating themselves. It sounds cruel, but health care is something we need to limit our consumption of (both in terms of quantity and price paid).
6) Republican support. It should alarm people that only one Republican (throughout both chambers of Congress) has gone out and supported their chamber's bill. Obama should refuse to sign any bill of this magnitude without at least 20% of Republicans voting for it. If Obama made this a requirement, he would truly have my respect and admiration for bringing true "change" to Washington: forcing bi-partisanship. If Obama wants to be a leader, here is his chance.
So that is my piece. Since this health care debate has begun, I have limited my fast food consumption as a way to keep eventual health care costs down. I think limiting our own consumption is the only control we each have over health care costs. What can you do to limit your eventual (or current) health care consumption?
I will wait to comment on my support for the health care reform bill until there is actually one to comment on.
Until we meet again, goodbye!
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Decision Making
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34292844/ns/politics-the_new_york_times/
This article gives insight into how Obama came to his troop surge decision for Afghanistan.
I think Obama came to the right decision. It is important that America wins the war in Afghanistan. Failure will embolden our enemies and ensure Afghanistan is a safe haven for terrorists in the future. It is also important we leave Afghanistan as quickly as possible (as soon as Afghanistan can handle its own security and the Taliban can no longer operate there).
There were two portions of this article that I want to focus on (not really the decision itself). The first is a topic I feel liberals are on the wrong side of; the notion that Obama' decision making methods are better than Bush's were:
"The episode underscored the uneasy relationship between the military and a new president who, aides said, was determined not to be as deferential as he believed his predecessor, George W. Bush, was for years in Iraq. And the military needed to adjust to a less experienced but more skeptical commander in chief. 'We’d been chugging along for eight years under an administration that had become very adept at managing war in a certain way,' said another military official."
It does appear that Bush and Obama deliberate and decide on war strategy differently. But I find it interesting that, in all likelihood, an extremely similar decision would have been made if Bush was currently in office. Bush may have delegated and trusted his staff more, but the goals of the two for foreign occupation appear to be the same: do what is best for the security of America, and leave as quickly as possible. So what if Bush took less time or did not ask as many questions before reaching his decisions? Maybe Bush came to his decisions quicker because his staff was better equipped to handle the situation and give Bush what he wanted to know. I have a lot of respect for the investigative work Obama did, but I also have respect for Bush's ability to delegate and trust people with more experience in the area. While the management styles are different, both show great leadership qualities.
The other portion of this article I wanted to focus on was this:
"'What I’m looking for is a surge,' Mr. Obama said. 'This has to be a surge.'"
I do not think enough attention has been made of the fact Obama basically made the same decision with Afghanistan that Bush came to with Iraq. Send in a large amount of troops, stabilize the region quickly and for enough time to train security forces, and then leave as quickly as possible (you didn't forget that a timetable for withdrawl from Iraq was actually reached during the Bush administration, did you?). While I think it is accepted by most that Bush's troop surge worked in Afghanistan, I do not think he has received the credit he deserves for it by the mainstream media.
Until we meet again, goodbye!
This article gives insight into how Obama came to his troop surge decision for Afghanistan.
I think Obama came to the right decision. It is important that America wins the war in Afghanistan. Failure will embolden our enemies and ensure Afghanistan is a safe haven for terrorists in the future. It is also important we leave Afghanistan as quickly as possible (as soon as Afghanistan can handle its own security and the Taliban can no longer operate there).
There were two portions of this article that I want to focus on (not really the decision itself). The first is a topic I feel liberals are on the wrong side of; the notion that Obama' decision making methods are better than Bush's were:
"The episode underscored the uneasy relationship between the military and a new president who, aides said, was determined not to be as deferential as he believed his predecessor, George W. Bush, was for years in Iraq. And the military needed to adjust to a less experienced but more skeptical commander in chief. 'We’d been chugging along for eight years under an administration that had become very adept at managing war in a certain way,' said another military official."
It does appear that Bush and Obama deliberate and decide on war strategy differently. But I find it interesting that, in all likelihood, an extremely similar decision would have been made if Bush was currently in office. Bush may have delegated and trusted his staff more, but the goals of the two for foreign occupation appear to be the same: do what is best for the security of America, and leave as quickly as possible. So what if Bush took less time or did not ask as many questions before reaching his decisions? Maybe Bush came to his decisions quicker because his staff was better equipped to handle the situation and give Bush what he wanted to know. I have a lot of respect for the investigative work Obama did, but I also have respect for Bush's ability to delegate and trust people with more experience in the area. While the management styles are different, both show great leadership qualities.
The other portion of this article I wanted to focus on was this:
"'What I’m looking for is a surge,' Mr. Obama said. 'This has to be a surge.'"
I do not think enough attention has been made of the fact Obama basically made the same decision with Afghanistan that Bush came to with Iraq. Send in a large amount of troops, stabilize the region quickly and for enough time to train security forces, and then leave as quickly as possible (you didn't forget that a timetable for withdrawl from Iraq was actually reached during the Bush administration, did you?). While I think it is accepted by most that Bush's troop surge worked in Afghanistan, I do not think he has received the credit he deserves for it by the mainstream media.
Until we meet again, goodbye!
Friday, December 4, 2009
Fleeting Safety
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579294,00.html?test=latestnews
Over the last few weeks, I have read several articles on Iran's intentions regarding its nuclear program. Iran has no intentions of accepting a deal that would allow other countries to enrich Iran's uranium into fuel rods for energy production, as I predicted back when the deal was announced. In fact, the country claims it will work ever harder toward acquiring nuclear capabilities: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578712,00.html
Why would Iran give up the ability to make its own nuclear energy? Doing so would force the country to be dependent on others while infringing on its own sovereignty. Considering the United States is both able to make its own nuclear energy and trying to become energy dependent, agreeing to the deal would communicate that Iran is admitting it does not and should not have the same rights as other countries.
Obviously it would be great for the rest of the world if Iran had accepted this deal, but what was the point in proposing it (or wasting the time negotiating it)? How could anyone actually think Iran would accept? I am sure Iran's nuclear energy negotiators made it sound like the deal would be accepted back home; their mission is surely to buy as much time for Iran to develop nuclear capabilities as possible.
This proposal was successful in only one way; it gave Iran more time. I appreciate Obama's preference for diplomatic action. But the facts are simple; in the past year, Iran has gotten closer to acquiring a nuclear weapon. The country has done little to suggest it would like to peacefully co-exist with Israel or the United States. Obama's foreign policy has produced no results with Iran. With every passing day, it appears like a strategic attack on Iran's nuclear facilities is our best option. Sanctions will not work because major economic partners of Iran will not go along willingly, plain and simple.
Before we attack Iran, we need to lay out our intelligence against the country. We need other countries to support the same intelligence. We need to tell Iran we plan on attacking their nuclear weapon production capabilities, and most importantly, why (because of their repeated threats to Israel and the western world). And, we need to give Iran enough time to reverse their behavior. We should not be spending our time negotiating economic sanctions or trying to find a way to produce Iran's energy for them. We need to put up or shut up.
I am not arguing for an occupation of the country or a regime change. I simply think we should warn Iran of our intentions, explain our reasoning, allow them to act like they can peacefully exist with all countries, and then send a few bunker buster bombs to level Iran's underground facilities if they do not comply. World reaction might be similiar to the reaction that came after we attacked Iraq. But I would rather have the world hate us then stand by and wait for Iran to acquire the bomb before doing something about it.
Here is a link to the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iran: http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf. It goes way back to 2007, and does not confirm in any way that Iran is currently working to develop nuclear weapons. However, pressure is growing to revise this report as a result of new intelligence: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1121596.html.
Just my thoughts...I welcome all debate!
Until we meet again, goodbye!
Over the last few weeks, I have read several articles on Iran's intentions regarding its nuclear program. Iran has no intentions of accepting a deal that would allow other countries to enrich Iran's uranium into fuel rods for energy production, as I predicted back when the deal was announced. In fact, the country claims it will work ever harder toward acquiring nuclear capabilities: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578712,00.html
Why would Iran give up the ability to make its own nuclear energy? Doing so would force the country to be dependent on others while infringing on its own sovereignty. Considering the United States is both able to make its own nuclear energy and trying to become energy dependent, agreeing to the deal would communicate that Iran is admitting it does not and should not have the same rights as other countries.
Obviously it would be great for the rest of the world if Iran had accepted this deal, but what was the point in proposing it (or wasting the time negotiating it)? How could anyone actually think Iran would accept? I am sure Iran's nuclear energy negotiators made it sound like the deal would be accepted back home; their mission is surely to buy as much time for Iran to develop nuclear capabilities as possible.
This proposal was successful in only one way; it gave Iran more time. I appreciate Obama's preference for diplomatic action. But the facts are simple; in the past year, Iran has gotten closer to acquiring a nuclear weapon. The country has done little to suggest it would like to peacefully co-exist with Israel or the United States. Obama's foreign policy has produced no results with Iran. With every passing day, it appears like a strategic attack on Iran's nuclear facilities is our best option. Sanctions will not work because major economic partners of Iran will not go along willingly, plain and simple.
Before we attack Iran, we need to lay out our intelligence against the country. We need other countries to support the same intelligence. We need to tell Iran we plan on attacking their nuclear weapon production capabilities, and most importantly, why (because of their repeated threats to Israel and the western world). And, we need to give Iran enough time to reverse their behavior. We should not be spending our time negotiating economic sanctions or trying to find a way to produce Iran's energy for them. We need to put up or shut up.
I am not arguing for an occupation of the country or a regime change. I simply think we should warn Iran of our intentions, explain our reasoning, allow them to act like they can peacefully exist with all countries, and then send a few bunker buster bombs to level Iran's underground facilities if they do not comply. World reaction might be similiar to the reaction that came after we attacked Iraq. But I would rather have the world hate us then stand by and wait for Iran to acquire the bomb before doing something about it.
Here is a link to the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iran: http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf. It goes way back to 2007, and does not confirm in any way that Iran is currently working to develop nuclear weapons. However, pressure is growing to revise this report as a result of new intelligence: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1121596.html.
Just my thoughts...I welcome all debate!
Until we meet again, goodbye!
Sunday, October 25, 2009
100 Posts!
This post marks my 100th on this blog. I hope the blog has gotten better over time and is making a more consistent, relevant impression on its readership!
I wanted to be sure to touch on an important subject in this post; journalism. Here is an excerpt from an article in Harper's Magazine (November 2009) that discusses the death of the newspaper:
"We will end up with one and a half cities in America - Washington, D.C., and American Idol. We will all live in Washington, D.C., where the conversation is a droning, never advancing, debate between "conservatives" and "liberals." We will not read about newlyweds. We will not read about the death of a salesmen. We will not read about prize Holsteins or new novels. We are a nation dismantling the structures of intellectual property and all critical apparatus. We are without professional book reviewers and art critics and essays about what it might mean that our local newspaper has died. We are a nation of Amazon reader responses (Moby Dick is 'not really a good piece of fiction' - Feb. 14, 2009, by Donald K. Bingle, Saint Charles, Ill. - two stars out of five). We are without obituaries, but the famous will achieve immortality by a Wikipedia entry."
Should any of this concern us? In my opinion, no (as long as journalism is living in other media besides newspapers, such as the Internet). Newspapers, as nostalgic as they are, often contain irrelevant information that was only the latest news an hour ago. I do not agree with the notion we are losing structures of intellectual property. We actually have the most intellectual property available for perusal than at any point in history on the Internet. I promise I can find information on newlyweds and legitimate reviews of Moby Dick there.
The death of the newspaper means two things for us, neither of which are really changes. The first is that the average person will still be presented with news that impacts the majority of people from major media outlets, such as MSNBC and FOX. Secondly, more people will be encouraged to get their written news from the Internet. And just like reading a newspaper, if I peruse further into the information available to me on the Internet I can find more personalized news, such as obituaries and book reviews. In essence, nothing has changed besides more information. When I peruse for news on the Internet (or even television), I am not limited to three pages of information presented for today, but rather a vast multitude of limitless information that can be personalized by me to meet my own interests. Sounds like an improvement to me.
Here is to making the next 100 blogs even better than the first!
Until we meet again, goodbye!
I wanted to be sure to touch on an important subject in this post; journalism. Here is an excerpt from an article in Harper's Magazine (November 2009) that discusses the death of the newspaper:
"We will end up with one and a half cities in America - Washington, D.C., and American Idol. We will all live in Washington, D.C., where the conversation is a droning, never advancing, debate between "conservatives" and "liberals." We will not read about newlyweds. We will not read about the death of a salesmen. We will not read about prize Holsteins or new novels. We are a nation dismantling the structures of intellectual property and all critical apparatus. We are without professional book reviewers and art critics and essays about what it might mean that our local newspaper has died. We are a nation of Amazon reader responses (Moby Dick is 'not really a good piece of fiction' - Feb. 14, 2009, by Donald K. Bingle, Saint Charles, Ill. - two stars out of five). We are without obituaries, but the famous will achieve immortality by a Wikipedia entry."
Should any of this concern us? In my opinion, no (as long as journalism is living in other media besides newspapers, such as the Internet). Newspapers, as nostalgic as they are, often contain irrelevant information that was only the latest news an hour ago. I do not agree with the notion we are losing structures of intellectual property. We actually have the most intellectual property available for perusal than at any point in history on the Internet. I promise I can find information on newlyweds and legitimate reviews of Moby Dick there.
The death of the newspaper means two things for us, neither of which are really changes. The first is that the average person will still be presented with news that impacts the majority of people from major media outlets, such as MSNBC and FOX. Secondly, more people will be encouraged to get their written news from the Internet. And just like reading a newspaper, if I peruse further into the information available to me on the Internet I can find more personalized news, such as obituaries and book reviews. In essence, nothing has changed besides more information. When I peruse for news on the Internet (or even television), I am not limited to three pages of information presented for today, but rather a vast multitude of limitless information that can be personalized by me to meet my own interests. Sounds like an improvement to me.
Here is to making the next 100 blogs even better than the first!
Until we meet again, goodbye!
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Nothing to Fear
http://www.edn.com/article/CA6694951.html
Do you ever wake up and wish you could send a robot to work in your place? Or does the thought of your value being replaced by a machine frighten you? Here is an excerpt from an article that discusses the impact robots and technology could have on our economy in the future:
"Clark writes that the current downturn is a minor blip in technology-driven economic growth, and, he cautions, 'The economic problems of the future will not be about growth but about ... the ineluctable increase in the number of people with no marketable skills and technology's role not as the antidote to social conflict, but as its instigator' as machines displace people."
***Note, I did not edit this before he posted!!!
Jobs in many facets of our economy have been replaced, and are currently being replaced, by technology. How many cashier jobs have been lost due to self-checkout? How about food service jobs due to automated cooking devices? Data entry jobs to computer automation? Agricultural jobs to farm equipment? This basic list could go on indefinitely.
However, advances in technology have also created new jobs in opposite facets of the economy. Self-checkout machines, automated cooking devices, software automation, and farm equipment all require people to conceptualize, design, repair, and improve upon. In short, our capitalist economy is the great equalizer; what is bad for one person is usually good for someone else. To steal a line from Jurassic Park, "life finds a way."
Advances in technology have been made since the beginning of time, going all the way back to the wheel. Think of where our economy would be without power generators, cell phones, or satellites? Overall, world economic activity is stronger than it ever has been in history as a result of technology and automation (the current economic downturn is barely a blip compared with the rest of economic history). I can not imagine a circumstance in which technology works against our economy, and that includes seeing more robots in daily life.
Much more frightening for the future economy than advances in technology are the realities of population aging and, of course, tax policy. In this country, our own economy is about twenty years away from experiencing a large increase in median age. This will create a situation in which less people are working to support and sustain the country, making our economy weaker and our ability to advance and innovate technologically diminished.
In terms of tax policy, certain states in the United States currently have the highest tax rate in the world. As globalization increases and more countries become a part of the global economy, owning and/or operating a business in the United States will become even less profitable, resulting in less jobs and less diplomatic/military power. The world growing more competent economically can be a good thing for the United States and our employment rates, as long as we remain competitive. We literally are the opposite of competitive in terms of taxes today.
Until we meet again, goodbye!
Do you ever wake up and wish you could send a robot to work in your place? Or does the thought of your value being replaced by a machine frighten you? Here is an excerpt from an article that discusses the impact robots and technology could have on our economy in the future:
"Clark writes that the current downturn is a minor blip in technology-driven economic growth, and, he cautions, 'The economic problems of the future will not be about growth but about ... the ineluctable increase in the number of people with no marketable skills and technology's role not as the antidote to social conflict, but as its instigator' as machines displace people."
***Note, I did not edit this before he posted!!!
Jobs in many facets of our economy have been replaced, and are currently being replaced, by technology. How many cashier jobs have been lost due to self-checkout? How about food service jobs due to automated cooking devices? Data entry jobs to computer automation? Agricultural jobs to farm equipment? This basic list could go on indefinitely.
However, advances in technology have also created new jobs in opposite facets of the economy. Self-checkout machines, automated cooking devices, software automation, and farm equipment all require people to conceptualize, design, repair, and improve upon. In short, our capitalist economy is the great equalizer; what is bad for one person is usually good for someone else. To steal a line from Jurassic Park, "life finds a way."
Advances in technology have been made since the beginning of time, going all the way back to the wheel. Think of where our economy would be without power generators, cell phones, or satellites? Overall, world economic activity is stronger than it ever has been in history as a result of technology and automation (the current economic downturn is barely a blip compared with the rest of economic history). I can not imagine a circumstance in which technology works against our economy, and that includes seeing more robots in daily life.
Much more frightening for the future economy than advances in technology are the realities of population aging and, of course, tax policy. In this country, our own economy is about twenty years away from experiencing a large increase in median age. This will create a situation in which less people are working to support and sustain the country, making our economy weaker and our ability to advance and innovate technologically diminished.
In terms of tax policy, certain states in the United States currently have the highest tax rate in the world. As globalization increases and more countries become a part of the global economy, owning and/or operating a business in the United States will become even less profitable, resulting in less jobs and less diplomatic/military power. The world growing more competent economically can be a good thing for the United States and our employment rates, as long as we remain competitive. We literally are the opposite of competitive in terms of taxes today.
Until we meet again, goodbye!
Sunday, October 18, 2009
This is Offensive!
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/17/illegal.immigrant.costume/index.html
Brace yourself for some conservative ranting! It appears some are offended by an illegal immigrant costume being sold at various retailers throughout the country. Here is an excerpt from this article:
Brace yourself for some conservative ranting! It appears some are offended by an illegal immigrant costume being sold at various retailers throughout the country. Here is an excerpt from this article:
"Guillermo Iglesias said both of his parents were illegal immigrants in the United States. He felt the costumes were offensive because they depicted illegal immigrants as 'not one of us.'"
'I have a lot of illegal immigrant friends,' said Iglesias. 'If I showed them that costume, it would really hurt them.'"
Where should I begin? I do not care that illegal immigrants are depicted by this costume as "not one of us." Guess what? They should not be one of us! I also do not care that some view the costume as "offensive." Do you know what I find offensive? Someone breaking our laws to enter this country, and then benefiting from the great things this country has to offer without paying taxes like the rest of us.
I wish Obama would have tackled the illegal immigration issue before healthcare. I do understand the importance of healthcare for the economy (I know I am going to have to pay a higher premium this year, if I am lucky enough to still be employed). But illegal immigration is an economic issue and a national security issue, which makes it more important in my mind.
Until we meet again, goodbye!
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Maldives
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/10/17/maldives.underwater.meeting/index.html
The government of Maldives held a cabinet meeting underwater to shed light on rising sea levels (which threaten to completely overtake their country within the next 600 years).
While I feel incredibly bad for this country I've never heard of before (its a nation of islands located in the Indian Ocean), reading this story makes me think about the various portions of the United States that are located at, or very near, sea level.
I am not quite sure how valid this information is, but check this out: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001792.html. According to the chart, there are two places in the United States below sea level: Death Valley, California (probably not at risk of flooding) and of course, New Orleans.
I am not insensitive to the people of New Orleans. I am certainly not insensitive to their unique culture and history (after all, Dave Matthews Band choose to record their latest album there). But why are we dumping billions of dollars into rebuilding a city located below an ocean at a time when sea levels are rising?
Until we meet again, goodbye!
The government of Maldives held a cabinet meeting underwater to shed light on rising sea levels (which threaten to completely overtake their country within the next 600 years).
While I feel incredibly bad for this country I've never heard of before (its a nation of islands located in the Indian Ocean), reading this story makes me think about the various portions of the United States that are located at, or very near, sea level.
I am not quite sure how valid this information is, but check this out: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001792.html. According to the chart, there are two places in the United States below sea level: Death Valley, California (probably not at risk of flooding) and of course, New Orleans.
I am not insensitive to the people of New Orleans. I am certainly not insensitive to their unique culture and history (after all, Dave Matthews Band choose to record their latest album there). But why are we dumping billions of dollars into rebuilding a city located below an ocean at a time when sea levels are rising?
Until we meet again, goodbye!
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Still Alive
Hi all,
Just wanted to let you know I am still alive! I don't have time to comment on politics, but I did want to make sure everyone saw this commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nm2FJMJWKkQ
How many companies can pull off a commercial like this? Probably not a lot. I don't even like this store!
More intelligent musings to follow, I promise.
Until we meet again, goodbye!
Just wanted to let you know I am still alive! I don't have time to comment on politics, but I did want to make sure everyone saw this commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nm2FJMJWKkQ
How many companies can pull off a commercial like this? Probably not a lot. I don't even like this store!
More intelligent musings to follow, I promise.
Until we meet again, goodbye!
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Pay Attention
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31806096/ns/politics-white_house/
Pay attention to what is occurring on Capital Hill in terms of health care. Congress is debating the existence and magnitude of another tax burden and economic drain on our country. Think things are bad now? Imagine if our taxes are raised to pay for the health costs of all the uninsured.
Options on the table for funding the health care plan (of which I am not 100% sure will cover the uninsured, as it is still being debated in Congress) include raising taxes by 3% on those making more than $200,000 or $250,000, raising taxes on the middle tax, or finding some other way to raise additional money, such as a tax on alcohol or soft drinks. All these solutions are the same, and will produce less growth in the economy, make us less competitive internationally, and provide less of an incentive to excel financially in this country.
To be clear, I am all for a government health care program. The more competition the better. However, I think we need one which a) you can choose to be involved in and pay into, and b) no one gets any benefits that do not pay into it. If we want the uninsured to have a good health care plan, lets improve our economy by cutting taxes on businesses. This will increase the amount of jobs available in this country and allow more people to get health care. Don't take away what I have worked for to help someone who doesn't have to work for it.
Just my thoughts. Until we meet again, goodbye!
Pay attention to what is occurring on Capital Hill in terms of health care. Congress is debating the existence and magnitude of another tax burden and economic drain on our country. Think things are bad now? Imagine if our taxes are raised to pay for the health costs of all the uninsured.
Options on the table for funding the health care plan (of which I am not 100% sure will cover the uninsured, as it is still being debated in Congress) include raising taxes by 3% on those making more than $200,000 or $250,000, raising taxes on the middle tax, or finding some other way to raise additional money, such as a tax on alcohol or soft drinks. All these solutions are the same, and will produce less growth in the economy, make us less competitive internationally, and provide less of an incentive to excel financially in this country.
To be clear, I am all for a government health care program. The more competition the better. However, I think we need one which a) you can choose to be involved in and pay into, and b) no one gets any benefits that do not pay into it. If we want the uninsured to have a good health care plan, lets improve our economy by cutting taxes on businesses. This will increase the amount of jobs available in this country and allow more people to get health care. Don't take away what I have worked for to help someone who doesn't have to work for it.
Just my thoughts. Until we meet again, goodbye!
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Republican Tidbits
I just wanted to pass along some interesting items I read in the news today:
1) Colin Powell, after supporting President Obama during election season, is concerned about the increasing size of government and the amount of national debt. "'The right answer is, give me a government that works, keep it as small as possible,' said Powell, who said he stays in touch with Obama and has spoken to him recently." Read the whole article here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/04/supporting-obamas-campaign-powell-skeptical-presidents-spending-priorities/.
2) Apparently, over 70% of Republicans would choose Palin as their first pick in 2012: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/05/palin/. Check out Drew and I's fifth podcast for my thoughts on why I think Palin would be bad for the Republican party.
I support Palin's decision to step down as governor of Alaska. Reading this article made me understand the personal toll she is taking from the media and the expense it is causing taxpayers. I am, however, quite certain she would lose if running for President. Maybe Palin should stick to fundraising and advancing key parts of her agenda that she is knowledgeable about, such as energy policy.
That is all I have for now. Until we meet again, goodbye!
1) Colin Powell, after supporting President Obama during election season, is concerned about the increasing size of government and the amount of national debt. "'The right answer is, give me a government that works, keep it as small as possible,' said Powell, who said he stays in touch with Obama and has spoken to him recently." Read the whole article here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/04/supporting-obamas-campaign-powell-skeptical-presidents-spending-priorities/.
2) Apparently, over 70% of Republicans would choose Palin as their first pick in 2012: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/05/palin/. Check out Drew and I's fifth podcast for my thoughts on why I think Palin would be bad for the Republican party.
I support Palin's decision to step down as governor of Alaska. Reading this article made me understand the personal toll she is taking from the media and the expense it is causing taxpayers. I am, however, quite certain she would lose if running for President. Maybe Palin should stick to fundraising and advancing key parts of her agenda that she is knowledgeable about, such as energy policy.
That is all I have for now. Until we meet again, goodbye!
Friday, June 26, 2009
Iran's True Desire
I am ecstatic about the last two weeks worth of protests in Iran. Here is why:
1) These protests, in the face of repeated threats and hostile acts by Iran's top leadership, show the Iranian people truly want the ability to choose their own leaders. They are also not happy with the environment the current political system has produced for them.
2) These protests give the Iraq war increased validation. I believe strongly that having a newly democratic neighbor (Iraq) has emboldened the Iranians and made them more willing to challenge their political system. Any idea that the Middle East is a region of the world not ready for an increase in democracy should now be rejected. Iraq is a country marked by a line of increasingly peaceful elections. Those critical of Bush's policies should keep that in mind.
Why should we push for democracy in this region of the world? Simply put, democracies are far less likely to go to war with one another: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace#Explanations.
That is not to say we should try to oust every non-democratic regime. But we should definitely be paying attention when a situation like the one we are seeing in Iran arises. The Iranians are signaling they want something different. I think it is important we are as supportive as possible while not infringing on the sovereignty of Iran.
I think Obama has handled the Iranian situation very well up to this point. But if the situation becomes worse, a re-evaluation of our strategy will be necessary. Wide-spread violence caused by the government is the equivalent of Saddam Hussein gassing his own people, which in my opinion is a good reason for regime change.
One thing is for sure; if the Iranian people begin asking for our help and support, it is incredibly important we show we are there for them. It does not look like that situation has arisen yet, but only time will tell.
Until we meet again, goodbye!
1) These protests, in the face of repeated threats and hostile acts by Iran's top leadership, show the Iranian people truly want the ability to choose their own leaders. They are also not happy with the environment the current political system has produced for them.
2) These protests give the Iraq war increased validation. I believe strongly that having a newly democratic neighbor (Iraq) has emboldened the Iranians and made them more willing to challenge their political system. Any idea that the Middle East is a region of the world not ready for an increase in democracy should now be rejected. Iraq is a country marked by a line of increasingly peaceful elections. Those critical of Bush's policies should keep that in mind.
Why should we push for democracy in this region of the world? Simply put, democracies are far less likely to go to war with one another: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace#Explanations.
That is not to say we should try to oust every non-democratic regime. But we should definitely be paying attention when a situation like the one we are seeing in Iran arises. The Iranians are signaling they want something different. I think it is important we are as supportive as possible while not infringing on the sovereignty of Iran.
I think Obama has handled the Iranian situation very well up to this point. But if the situation becomes worse, a re-evaluation of our strategy will be necessary. Wide-spread violence caused by the government is the equivalent of Saddam Hussein gassing his own people, which in my opinion is a good reason for regime change.
One thing is for sure; if the Iranian people begin asking for our help and support, it is incredibly important we show we are there for them. It does not look like that situation has arisen yet, but only time will tell.
Until we meet again, goodbye!
The Free Market Economy Strikes Again!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31522318/ns/business-us_business/
In response to restrictions placed on employee compensation for companies accepting federal bailout money, Citigroup will pay employees normally compensated with bonuses a higher base salary.
Way to go Congress! As I predicted, the free market economy has discovered a way around your regulations. But should conservatives, or anyone for that matter, be happy about this?
I support the payment of retention bonuses to those on Wall Street. Retention bonuses are just as they sound; they are not paid in lieu of exceptional performance. Instead, they are granted to employees who do not leave their posts to see if the grass is greener on the other side. Financial companies want their employees to stay put in order to keep valuable information and intellectual property away from their competitors. These bonuses are effectively part of their employee's salary; they just do not collect the money until they serve their time.
Congress began regulating bonuses because the very nature of a bonus to employees at a failing organization outrages the majority of hard working, middle class Americans (let alone organizations receiving tax payer money to stay afloat). However, I think the average American's disgust at these bonuses is unfounded. These employees, for the most part, are not really getting bonuses. They are actually getting delayed salary payments. Americans need to understand these people were smart enough to go into a high paying industry, and skilled enough to land a high paying job in that industry. High payments, either in salary or bonus form, come with the territory.
Retention bonuses are fine in my book, even to companies receiving bailout money. Performance bonuses to companies accepting government bailout money, however, clearly can not be tolerated. There is a big difference between the two.
Until we meet again, goodbye!
In response to restrictions placed on employee compensation for companies accepting federal bailout money, Citigroup will pay employees normally compensated with bonuses a higher base salary.
Way to go Congress! As I predicted, the free market economy has discovered a way around your regulations. But should conservatives, or anyone for that matter, be happy about this?
I support the payment of retention bonuses to those on Wall Street. Retention bonuses are just as they sound; they are not paid in lieu of exceptional performance. Instead, they are granted to employees who do not leave their posts to see if the grass is greener on the other side. Financial companies want their employees to stay put in order to keep valuable information and intellectual property away from their competitors. These bonuses are effectively part of their employee's salary; they just do not collect the money until they serve their time.
Congress began regulating bonuses because the very nature of a bonus to employees at a failing organization outrages the majority of hard working, middle class Americans (let alone organizations receiving tax payer money to stay afloat). However, I think the average American's disgust at these bonuses is unfounded. These employees, for the most part, are not really getting bonuses. They are actually getting delayed salary payments. Americans need to understand these people were smart enough to go into a high paying industry, and skilled enough to land a high paying job in that industry. High payments, either in salary or bonus form, come with the territory.
Retention bonuses are fine in my book, even to companies receiving bailout money. Performance bonuses to companies accepting government bailout money, however, clearly can not be tolerated. There is a big difference between the two.
Until we meet again, goodbye!
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Latest Installment
The advertising war between Microsoft and Apple continues!!! This time Microsoft is bringing attention to their second greatest asset (the first being their status as industry leader and worldwide popularity) - price.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIS6G-HvnkU
In case anyone missed previous blogs, I am a big fan of the "I'm a PC" campaign. Check out one of these commercials here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSiSIzXKMXw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wj5UyZKo2iE&feature=related
OK, back to the US Open - Until we meet again, goodbye!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIS6G-HvnkU
In case anyone missed previous blogs, I am a big fan of the "I'm a PC" campaign. Check out one of these commercials here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSiSIzXKMXw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wj5UyZKo2iE&feature=related
OK, back to the US Open - Until we meet again, goodbye!
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
New Bumper Stickers
These bumper stickers were sent to me by David. Although I do not necessarily support the messages in each of these bumper stickers, it can be assumed I support them in general. Take this lefties!
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Imminent Conflict
The U.N.'s latest round of sanctions against
The situation with
So why should we be working to stop this? The Christian Science Monitor reported last month that
While the United States may have developed nuclear technology, and probably shared that technology with its allies, it did not spread that technology to countries bent on destroying other countries and people or countries that refuse to join the international system in which we depend on economically.
For this reason, I think intervening in
Until we meet again, goodbye!
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Cheney or Obama?
Much attention has been devoted in the press to the debate between Cheney and Obama over the best way to protect our national security. Cheney believes Bush administration policies of cracking down on terrorism should be upheld. These include allowed interrogation techniques and detainment of terror suspects. Obama believes in a mixture of policies; he wants to ban torture and other harsh interrogation techniques and close the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention center, while continuing the process of detaining terrorists indefinitely without trial.
On the issue of interrogation techniques, I think Cheney is in the right. The fact is we have not endured another attack on our mainland since September 11. Eliminating interrogation options could keep valuable information away from those who are charged with protecting us. I am not saying we should torture every suspect; just that we should be able to. I think some people are forgetting 9/11; I would rather torture a suspected terrorist than endure another terrorist attack.
I do not particularly care about Guantanamo Bay. If Obama wants to close it because of the negative symbol it creates, that is fine. Unlike both Obama and Cheney, I do not think we should detain terror suspects indefinitely. If we have a suspected terrorist, we should charge him, try him, and then imprison or release him. I do not see how it is beneficial to leave the suspect in limbo. Our government needs to finish this debate and iron out a process for handling these people.
Until we meet again, goodbye!
On the issue of interrogation techniques, I think Cheney is in the right. The fact is we have not endured another attack on our mainland since September 11. Eliminating interrogation options could keep valuable information away from those who are charged with protecting us. I am not saying we should torture every suspect; just that we should be able to. I think some people are forgetting 9/11; I would rather torture a suspected terrorist than endure another terrorist attack.
I do not particularly care about Guantanamo Bay. If Obama wants to close it because of the negative symbol it creates, that is fine. Unlike both Obama and Cheney, I do not think we should detain terror suspects indefinitely. If we have a suspected terrorist, we should charge him, try him, and then imprison or release him. I do not see how it is beneficial to leave the suspect in limbo. Our government needs to finish this debate and iron out a process for handling these people.
Until we meet again, goodbye!
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Say it Ain't So Joe!
Joe Biden may have really done it to himself this time! According to Fox News, Biden actually gave away the location of the secret bunker used to house Dick Cheney in the aftermath of 9/11 (and probably the secret bunker that would have been used to protect himself if a similar incident were to occur again).
Check out the details here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/17/oops-biden-reveals-location-secret-vp-bunker/
Until we meet again, goodbye!
Check out the details here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/17/oops-biden-reveals-location-secret-vp-bunker/
Until we meet again, goodbye!
Friday, May 15, 2009
Watch for Crocadiles
Yeah, it has been a while since I posted. I have been busy going to New York City, Niagara Falls, golfing, and sitting out on my porch. I even went to the Lilac Festival for a night. It's good to dust myself off every once in a while...
Have you heard Tom Golisano is moving? To Europe? The Caribbean? Maybe some other glamorous location? Nope, just to Florida. To save money on taxes. By living in Florida for just over 180 days a year, Golisano can claim Florida residency, saving him $13,800 a day in taxes - which is over $5 million a year!
Golisano is doing what I wish I had the guts to do. Instead of complaining about being over taxed and having my state reduced to an economic dead zone, Golisano is up and moving to a place with a better tax climate. If more follow his steps, the results will be catastrophic for New York.
When one gas station charges $4.00 for gas, and the one across the street charges $3.00 for gas, we almost always choose the station that is charging $3.00. Yeah, the $4.00 station may have a smaller line, and maybe even a better location, but if no one is paying the quality will suffer or the prices will have to go up even further. That is basically what is happening in this state right now. I sure hope the state gets its act together before I have the option to move...
Until we meet again, goodbye!
Have you heard Tom Golisano is moving? To Europe? The Caribbean? Maybe some other glamorous location? Nope, just to Florida. To save money on taxes. By living in Florida for just over 180 days a year, Golisano can claim Florida residency, saving him $13,800 a day in taxes - which is over $5 million a year!
Golisano is doing what I wish I had the guts to do. Instead of complaining about being over taxed and having my state reduced to an economic dead zone, Golisano is up and moving to a place with a better tax climate. If more follow his steps, the results will be catastrophic for New York.
When one gas station charges $4.00 for gas, and the one across the street charges $3.00 for gas, we almost always choose the station that is charging $3.00. Yeah, the $4.00 station may have a smaller line, and maybe even a better location, but if no one is paying the quality will suffer or the prices will have to go up even further. That is basically what is happening in this state right now. I sure hope the state gets its act together before I have the option to move...
Until we meet again, goodbye!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)