This is your first, last and only warning:  Rant coming up.

I supposed everyone (in the U.S. anyway) by now has heard about the Tea Party movement.  If you haven’t or if you need a refresher course, they are a loosely organized group of groups that tout the idea that government has gotten too big and intrusive, the deficit is too big, and the stimulus/bail-outs measures were wrong and not needed. It is predominately made up of upper-middle class, white Conservatives (no, I’m not talking Republicans and Democrats, the group has  both) who seem to have a lot of time on their hands and little regard for their fellow man.  How many of these Tea Party protesters and affiliates are unemployed or under-employed?  Who among them are struggling to pay mortgages or rents, struggling to put food on the table? Were the Tea Partiers willing to live with the outcome if all the banks had failed and the country had spiraled into Depression and 25% unemployment?  If you think it is bad now, just image how worse it could have been. Unlike other countries that get into binds, there is no one to bail us out.  I suppose the Tea Partiers want us to stop helping the Haitians, stop the fighting terrorist, and close all of our ports as well.  I understand they are worried and scared, but take a minute to think about what you are asking and the consequences if you get your way. I really do not think these people did much thinking.  And the rabble rousers that fanning these fears they have will drop them the minute the Tea Party movement isn’t working for them, you know, the politicians, the lobbyist, etc.

And who is paying for all this?  Tea Party organizers are refusing to disclose exactly how they can afford all the conventions, Sara Palin’s $100,000 speaking fee (the $349 to $549 per ticket wouldn’t begin to cover it, and no, she did not waive her fee… and what average working class American can afford that for a ticket anyway), and the organized protests.  Now they are setting up a corporation called Ensuring Liberty Corporation to create the Ensuring Liberty Political Action Committee. Yes, you heard it right, the same people protesting against lobbyist are forming their own lobby group that will be bank rolled by a corporation that allows other corporations and rich investors to anonymously donate (based on the recent Supreme Court decision that could mean billions) and it is tax exempt. But they vow to be transparent in doing this.  Yeah, right.

Yes, the original people who started the Tea Party movement have been pushed aside so that a group of lobbyist representing the rich and corporations can use a one time grassroots movement to further their agenda. And these poor shmucks who will be doing all the protesting really think they are doing something for the common people.

The Mount Vernon Statement?  Just a political ploy by a bunch of Conservatives to gain some support for the “God, Guns, and No Immigrants” movement that has risen up again.  Yes, it is the same thing that happens every time when times are tough. Really, these people have never read the Constitution, much less know what it means or what our fore-fathers intended.  Our Constitution was written, as the founding fathers themselves said, to be flexible with the changing needs of the nation (not the fickle and mostly capricious wants of the few) while still insuring that everyone is free, liberated, and served by the government. Did they not read that the Federal Government is the rule of the land, and what powers it does not take upon itself can then be disseminated to state and local levels. And what gets my goat the most is that the people who signed this document are the very same people clamoring for more security at the detriment of personal freedoms, advocating torture, and killing small business and entrepreneurship.

Hate me if you want, you still have that freedom for now, but I will not guarantee that you will if these people get in the government.

Email this post

• Healthcare – Yes, we need to do something about the healthcare availability and the lack thereof.  I do not agree that this is, as one doctor put it, a matter for politicians not government.  Politicians are going to skirt the issue for as long as possible and then give a solution that helps only those who donate the most money.  We need a solution that allows everyone to get healthcare, preventative treatments, medical help, etc and not depend on what the insurance companies are willing the meter out.  We spend more per person on healthcare than anyone in the world yet we still have some of the poorest care available.  What is so wrong about the government single payer idea?  Everyone else uses it with great success.  And don’t start with the stories about how bad is government-run healthcare, most of those stories are false to begin with and the others do not tell the whole truth.  We never hear about the resounding success stories like the woman just recently on a story for Morning Edition on NPR that opted to live in Canada because she could afford and receive the care she needed that she was denied in the U.S. through her private insurance.
• Iran’s elections – Seems that the people of Iran are finding out just how free they are really.  In Iran, the only rallies allowed are the ones sanctioned and sponsored by the Iranian government, the protesters of the election are being fired upon and arrested. Reporters are banned from the streets, media is being censored even more than before, internet access in Iran is reduced and at times outright banned. Even before the elections were held, social networking sites were closed to the Iranian people (who have the highest percentage of web-connected people in the Middle East) especially those that supported the opposition to the current President.  The former Vice-president that was a supporter of reform has been reported arrested by Iranian police forces. This is a prime example of what happens when church runs the state. Remember that when you want more religious-centric legislation in the U.S.

Email this post

Though technically this is not an opinion piece, but rather a look at the issue, I will tag is as opinion because I am basically too tired to go back over the source materials and link to the sources.

There has been a great deal of discussion lately about socialized health care with many people just going to the extreme to convince others that we are heading toward a communist state even just thinking about the topic and that democracy will fall if we even let one bit of socialism in the system.  Here are a few points I would like to make:

1. “Socialism will take away our right to vote” – Socialism is an economic theory just like capitalism, it is not a form of government.  You can have extreme socialized systems and still have democracy and choice in everything.  They are not mutually exclusive.
2. “Socialized health care is just the tip of the iceberg for more socialism” -  Uhm, sorry to break the news to you, but we have been practicing a limited form of socialism since the founding of our government.  Even the founding fathers advocated that the government had a responsibility to administer certain programs and services.  We have been in our history much more socialistic than the USSR ever was.
3. “Socialized healthcare does not work, it failed in other countries” – In what countries has it failed? The British dental problems? The problems British people have with their dentals has nothing to do with healthcare and everything to do with their view of dentistry… basically, the British hate dentist more than we do and just plain refuse to go.  Stories of people denied critical medical care always boil down to people not the system, people too involved in the bureaucracy to get thing done.  Sounds like the problem with have with our own insurance companies.  More people die from insurance companies refusing to pay for necessary procedures than do from systems run by a government.  I keep reading about all these people in England not getting medical care and I’m wondering were are all the stories about the people in the U.S. that don’t get the needed care… their stories are there just buried deeper in the news.
4. “It will destroy the economy, cause higher taxes” – No, the economy will not bomb just because some insurance companies will finally have to start competing for customers.  Currently, insurance companies charge what they can get away with because there are no alternatives.  This may not bother people with plenty of money, but those of us struggling to get by it is a constant worry and juggling act – do I get insurance in case I get sick because I sure can’t afford the medical and hospital bills or do I pay the rent and buy food.  And the cost just keeps getting higher faster than the rate of inflation.  Yes, your taxes will be higher, but you will not be paying that high insurance premium.  You end up probably with the same cost in the end BUT you and everyone will be covered.  You lose your job, you would still be covered by the government, the insurance companies presently drop you like a hot potato if you lose work.
5. “The government has a poor record of administrating, it is not the government’s job to provide health care” – Oh really, I guess we don’t have roads, Social Security, hospitals, schools, jobs, and all the other things we could have only gotten through the government because industry didn’t see a financial return.  The government is not perfect as it is made up of people, that is why we have a cycle of elections.  You don’t like it, vote the person out. At least with the government you can complain about something and have some reasonable assurance that something will be done.  Try getting that in the marketplace.  Most companies will ignore any complaints no matter how many if it doesn’t effect the intake of money.  Remember, you have no choice in the current commercial health care system, you get what they give you and you have no voice in the process.  And no one will be turned away from the government.  There is not a week that goes by when there is not a news story about someone losing insurance or not able to get insurance because of some pre-existing health problem.

I could go on for pages about this.  I have yet to have anyone come up with a valid argument against socialized healthcare or even a valid argument for commercial healthcare.

Email this post

It has been all in the news lately about California’s huge budget problems.  It boggles the mind that any state can get billions of dollars in debt, though California isn’t the only state with this problem.  To solve this problem, the legislation of the state has decided that increasing taxes and laying off workers is the only way.  Now, I agree that you will probably have to raise taxes (though I would have thought California would have other means of revenue available), but laying off state workers (on top of the ones already furloughed and laid off) is more of a shoot yourself in the foot move. Point in fact…

• State workers in general tend to be the smallest part of the budget, most (the ones most likely to be let go) are low income.  Yes, you save some money instantly, but not a great deal, unless you lay off the big paycheck people (not likely).
• Some of these people have skill sets that are essential and will be hard to replace once the budget crisis is over.  Government services that are still left will suffer.
• These laid off workers will be joining the other laid off workers on unemployment and on state welfare.  You will have even more children on the state insurance.  All of this will increase the money needed from the government.
• All those with homes and outstanding debts will be defaulting on their loans added to the problems of the economic crisis.

I don’t have any answers, but it seems that no or little thought has been put into solving the budget crisis in California.

UPDATE: Bizarre ideas seems to be rampant these days.  Georgia has been having budget problems as well (a shortfall and not an actual debt since by the state constitution the budget has to be balanced with projected revenue) with cuts across the board with some lay offs by a few universities.  Now that the legislature has just recently manage to keep the budget in range of the law, some Republicans are now advancing their own “economic stimulus” package of their own with tax cuts for businesses and corporations.  How are they going to pay for the tax cuts?  Lay off state workers.  I know for a fact that state workers in Georgia (teachers included) are severely underpaid.  And what is one of the main tax breaks?  A tax break for hiring people who have been unemployed for at least 60 days.

I see where this is heading, you hire someone (maybe a laid off state worker) who has been out of work for sixty days, employ the person for the minimum time, and then lay them off getting the tax break in the process.  One hell of a scam in the making if you are not careful with the wording on the legislation.

Email this post

There has been a lot of news about the President’s economic stimulus plan and the problems of getting the Republicans to come on board. One of the biggest sticking points is the ration of government spending to tax cuts.  Let us just take a look at what tax cuts and spending as referenced in the proposal changes…

• First of all, government spending actually gives a better return on the dollar.
• Every dollar spent by the government translates to $1.02 to $1.38 of economic benefits.  That dollar spent by the government pays for resources and labor used in the U.S. In other words, the money stays in the U.S., goes into U.S. tax payer pockets as income, and actually does something for the people.
• Every dollar in tax cuts translates into about 30¢ into the economy – the tax refunds and breaks to people end up in savings accounts, paying bills, or paying down debts.  Hardly does that money actually go to new spending.
• Spending by government means the dollar stays in the U.S., spending by people sends dollars overseas, thus weakening the dollar.
• Tax breaks for small businesses, though noble, is not much help in the economy.  Again, small businesses will use the tax breaks not to spend on new equipment, upgrades, and new jobs, but on paying down debt.  Yes, it is good to pay down debt, but it does nothing to stimulate the economy.
• Tax breaks for big business (does Trickle Down Theory ring a bell) has the same problem as small business breaks added that any extra money will be given to stockholders.  Big business is notorious for not using money to upgrade, improve, and create jobs.
• Tax breaks will not stimulate investment.  In the past, it has been Wall Street that has drained the economy and money by companies buying back stock and paying dividends.  And who has all that stock… it is not you and me, skippy, who are buying the goods and struggling to put food on the table.
• Business growth comes by sales, not investment capital.  A company is not going to dive into risky investment just because there is more cash lying around.  Sales stimulates growth because then companies have solid evidence that there will be more money on the heels of the current sales.  Money the government spends on projects employ people who then will be more willing to spend knowing that they will still have a job.
• Government spending creates jobs, particularly the plan as put forth by the President.  Those who have been laid-off will be more able to find jobs.  Pay attention because this can get complicated…
• Jim works for a software company and was laid-off.  Government starts building roads.  Though Jim does not have a clue on how to build roads, someone else does named Carl.  So Carl gets hired along with other people.  Maybe this company suddenly needs more IT people to handle the increase in data.  Maybe Jim can doe that job and because the company has more money coming in it will hire Jim.  Or that company sees a chance with the new money and employees to upgrade its systems, Jim gets rehired to his old job.  Now we have a lot less people using unemployment benefits.  Hey, the government just saved some money.
• Bill is a teacher about to lose his job because of state budget crisis.  State gets more education funds.  Bill keeps his job, can continue to give that kid having problem in math the extra help.  That kid grows up, goes to college, and finds a job at Jim’s software company that didn’t go bust because of the stimulated economy making much more money that working at a fast food chain so in turn he has more taxable income.
• Yes, that little bit of spending on that road made an enormous impact.
• The other scenario, tax break instead went to a company that used the money to pay more dividends to a stockholder Sam that put it away in savings.  Jim didn’t get his job back, Carl stayed on unemployment, Bill lost his job, and the kid wasn’t able to get the extra help he needed because there was not enough teachers. Yes, Sam has more money from his reduction in capital gains, lower taxes, and higher dividends. of course Sam could be altruistic, but history proves otherwise (see what got us into this mess in the first place).

That is just my opinion, but it is backed by this guy and this guy as well as in this interview.

Of course, that federal wage tax holiday would work for me as I’d would by more groceries and some clothes.

Email this post

We’ve been hearing a lot about “Cloud Computing” lately from the media and IT publications that it is where we are all inevitably headed in the area of computers and the Intertubes. Cloud computing is one of those buzzwords that software salespeople come up with to sell a new, numinous repackaging of product that the IT staff will have to work out heers-and-wherefores later. So, you ask and rightfully so, what the blue blazes is Cloud Computing while you sit there with your latte getting being consumed by some alien symbiote?  Cloud computing is Internet-based development and resources that are accessed by the user whereas the user does not keep the applications and data on the local computer but rather on the Internet with the said user using the application while not “aware” that the stuff is not on the local computer. Confused now?

Now for a picture….

Now you have your user which could be you, some company, your congressman, the government, some chimp, etc that is accessing the Internet through a browser, IPhone, or some other communication application, the client, that connects to the “Cloud Architecture” (the Internet) which in turn connects to the “Application and Data thingy” on someone’s server. The whole idea is that the client does not nor needs to know what is going on in the server, just that there is an application there to do the job and the data is available.  This is to enable the user to access the applications and data from anywhere so the user is not tied to one or more physical computers.  This means that your computer will be nothing more than and Internet connection device — your data and applications are on the Internet.

This has some advantages, one being that you don’t have to worry about upgrading software, virus protection (except for the local machine), malware, or data incompatibility. Users don’t have to worry about data protection, keeping up with software installs disks, and type of operating systems.  The idea would be that Macs, PC, Linux, and other OS’s could access the same applications and data without worry.  Users don’t have to worry about losing data to local computer crashes since data is not on the machine (and ideally will be on several other servers for redundancy protection). This is a plus for software providers as they can upgrade, patch, and rework applications without the need to distribute the application software to users (which cost money) and the idea of “software as a service” can be implemented (assured revenue).

I bet you are all raring to jump on the bandwagon aren’t ya.  Not so fast.

There are some disadvantages to this idea, major being connectivity.  You have to be connected to the Internet for it to work… no local applications, no local data (though some proposed implementations actually save a copy of the data to the user’s device).  Your Internet connection goes down, you cannot use the applications.  Of course you could just go somewhere that has Internet and continue working (hmm, a boon for laptop sales).  Then there is the server downtime.  Yes, the data and apps will be on other servers as well, but how many servers will a company want to have redundant?  One is down for maintenance and other server suddenly goes down due to a cut line…. office holiday!  That assumes that everyone who will use cloud computing will have assess speeds fast enough to use the systems… we have a very poor distribution of high-speed access in this country and high speed will be necessary for the more intense apps.  Then there is the problem that application providers have to buy and maintain the servers.  Servers aren’t the cost gorillas they used to be, but they still aren’t free.  And there is the biggy with a lot of users, the data is not local but is residing on someone’s server.  Security and privacy issues crop up and scare a lot of users.  How secure is my data? Can I get my data when I urgently need it? Will my data be sold to the highest bidder? Will my data be confiscated by the government? Will a competitor get my data? Will my data suddenly disappear? Users will have to put a lot of trust in the owners of the servers.  User agreements will have to be scrutinized, access to servers assured, and it may be necessary to regulate the industry to enforce privacy and fair business practices.

I know what you are about to say, “what about malicious people intercepting data on the way from point A to point B?”  The idea is that the data is encrypted while it is floating on the ether and on the servers to prevent any intercepting or theft.  Unfortunately I see that as a money making opportunity for the providers… if you want security you’ll have to pay more.

All in all, cloud computing is an interesting idea that is already being put to test (Google Apps) and with a little maturity could be a benefit to everyone.

Confused yet?

Email this post