Posts
Well... In the end, GM is going to cost us ANOTHER $60 BILLION!!! The Fed will own 60% of it under the current plan.
Model: GM
Cost: About $100 billion
Needs Work! Will not run as-is.
Warranty: As-is.
THIS is whyipaytaxes.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Make ready the lobbyists
The Health Care industry is snapping up Lobbyists like they are going out of style.
From the Washington Post:
The nation's largest insurers, hospitals and medical groups have hired more than 350 former government staff members and retired members of Congress in hopes of influencing their old bosses and colleagues
OK.
Health Insurance: Interests covered.
Hospitals, et al: Interests covered.
Other Professional Medical Groups: Interests covered.
Federal Government: Interests covered.
Lets see... ... Are there any interested stakeholders in the health care system who are not represented here? Hmmm... Seems I'm forgetting something...
OH YEAH! There doesn't seem to be anyone invited to their meetings that represent US, The Patients.
Oh well, I'm sure they'll fight for whats best for us. I'm sure they'll spare no expense to ensure our comfort with our quality of medical care in this country.
I might add, that maybe if they'd hire 350 efficiency experts they might be able to better attack the problems at hand as opposed to hiring 350 bureaucrats good only for sucking up to their former bosses.
THIS is whyipaytaxes.
From the Washington Post:
The nation's largest insurers, hospitals and medical groups have hired more than 350 former government staff members and retired members of Congress in hopes of influencing their old bosses and colleagues
OK.
Health Insurance: Interests covered.
Hospitals, et al: Interests covered.
Other Professional Medical Groups: Interests covered.
Federal Government: Interests covered.
Lets see... ... Are there any interested stakeholders in the health care system who are not represented here? Hmmm... Seems I'm forgetting something...
OH YEAH! There doesn't seem to be anyone invited to their meetings that represent US, The Patients.
Oh well, I'm sure they'll fight for whats best for us. I'm sure they'll spare no expense to ensure our comfort with our quality of medical care in this country.
I might add, that maybe if they'd hire 350 efficiency experts they might be able to better attack the problems at hand as opposed to hiring 350 bureaucrats good only for sucking up to their former bosses.
THIS is whyipaytaxes.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Library: Bad. Hockey: Good!
I'm on a roll today, thought I'd keep going for one more...
As I mentioned below in the fireworks rant, Rockford, IL is in the top 10 cities in the U.S. with its ultra high unemployment rates. Needless to say, the city itself is desperately slashing budgets and services to its citizens. Among these are homeless shelters, clinics, the public library, and much more.
NOT among the budget cuts is an ADDITIONAL $1 MILLION likely to be given to the local concert hall, the Metro Center. To be clear, it is more than $1 MILLION EACH YEAR for the next 3 YEARS. Meanwhile, the library's budget cuts will be permanent.
I might add, that a very small percentage of the city uses the Metro Center on a regular basis and many of us have never been there at all. Last year they had a 80's Hair Band concert that didn't even fill the stadium halfway. They also host the local minor league hockey team that NEVER fills the stadium even halfway.
Cutting services, adding corruption.
THIS is whyipaytaxes.
(I have no sources to quote. This is just what I understand of the politics in my town.)
As I mentioned below in the fireworks rant, Rockford, IL is in the top 10 cities in the U.S. with its ultra high unemployment rates. Needless to say, the city itself is desperately slashing budgets and services to its citizens. Among these are homeless shelters, clinics, the public library, and much more.
NOT among the budget cuts is an ADDITIONAL $1 MILLION likely to be given to the local concert hall, the Metro Center. To be clear, it is more than $1 MILLION EACH YEAR for the next 3 YEARS. Meanwhile, the library's budget cuts will be permanent.
I might add, that a very small percentage of the city uses the Metro Center on a regular basis and many of us have never been there at all. Last year they had a 80's Hair Band concert that didn't even fill the stadium halfway. They also host the local minor league hockey team that NEVER fills the stadium even halfway.
Cutting services, adding corruption.
THIS is whyipaytaxes.
(I have no sources to quote. This is just what I understand of the politics in my town.)
Legislating vehicle capacity
Allstate ran a full page ad on the back of this weeks Newsweek. I was going to scan it in, but I'm not going to give them the free impressions by posting it online...
They are a big fan of the STANDUP act of 2009, in which we will have our federal government choose and impose the minimum driving age, limit nighttime driving, limit in-car distractions, and caps the number of passengers allowed in the car with young drivers.
Yes. Our federal government shouldn't be worried about economic collapse, health coverage, Iran, China, the loss of our manufacturing base, etc. No. Instead they should worry about how many friends your kid has in their car. Then we should pay cops to enforce these laws.
What made me laugh out loud was one of their prominent statistics in bold:
When states [up the minimum driving age to 17] the number of fatal crashes among 16 year old drivers has fallen by almost 40%.
Someone will HAVE to explain to me how the number of fatalities among 16 year old drivers is reduced by less than half by eliminating 16 year old drivers? And, where are the statistics for 17 year old drivers? I'll bet their fatality rate went up, oh, about 40%.
As you can tell by the last post and this one, I am feeling really nit-picky today. ...
I am sure this is all very reasonable and I wouldn't be surprised if the statistics are reasonable. However, do we really want our government to sit around an legislate how many passengers we can have in our cars based on our age?
THIS is whyipaytaxes.
They are a big fan of the STANDUP act of 2009, in which we will have our federal government choose and impose the minimum driving age, limit nighttime driving, limit in-car distractions, and caps the number of passengers allowed in the car with young drivers.
Yes. Our federal government shouldn't be worried about economic collapse, health coverage, Iran, China, the loss of our manufacturing base, etc. No. Instead they should worry about how many friends your kid has in their car. Then we should pay cops to enforce these laws.
What made me laugh out loud was one of their prominent statistics in bold:
When states [up the minimum driving age to 17] the number of fatal crashes among 16 year old drivers has fallen by almost 40%.
Someone will HAVE to explain to me how the number of fatalities among 16 year old drivers is reduced by less than half by eliminating 16 year old drivers? And, where are the statistics for 17 year old drivers? I'll bet their fatality rate went up, oh, about 40%.
As you can tell by the last post and this one, I am feeling really nit-picky today. ...
I am sure this is all very reasonable and I wouldn't be surprised if the statistics are reasonable. However, do we really want our government to sit around an legislate how many passengers we can have in our cars based on our age?
THIS is whyipaytaxes.
Dog 'n' Ponyworks
As we approach the birthday of this great nation, I am forced to ponder the penchant for our local and regional governments who are cutting back on a swath of social services yet still find the budget room to have a giant fireworks display.
How about the $150,000 Clevelend OH spends on their display, including extra cops and port-a-johns. This year, they wouldn't have been able to afford such an extravagant affair if it hadn't been for one of the Councilmen brave and bold enough to cut a check from the council's fund.
Councilman Joe Santiago is pissing our tax dollars away - What is wrong with this picture?
How about Moreno Valley California, where they cut 2 hours from their festivities and hired local talent instead of Eddie Money to bring their average spending on fourth of july celebrations from $140,000 down to $80,000.
Several Inland cities cut July 4th spending
Belvidere, IL will be spending around $15,000 for their around the 4th celebration called Heritage Days. The city itself will only be spending $7,750, but with their Chrysler plant shut down, I'd guess every penny should count...
Belvidere City Council approves Heritage Days necessities
Next door, in Rockford, IL, we have one of the highest unemployment rates in the country (top 10 unemployed cities), are cutting social programs, and are cutting the library's budget by around 25%. So, lets pay a bunch of overtime for a bunch of cops to make the downtown area ready for 125,000 spectators. While this fireworks display is not funded by the city government, I can't help but wonder if there aren't a few soup kitchens that could have used the citizen's donations more wisely than 'letting freedom ring'... Go ahead, have yourself a nice steaming hot bowl of freedom ringing. See how that fills you up. (while Rockford has the highest unemployment rate in the state of Illinois, they also have the largest fireworks display... At least the locals don't have to worry about being at work the next day!)
http://www.rockfordfireandice.com/gpage1.html
On the plus side, while looking around for stories about cities bankrupting themselves for hot 'n' heavy 15 minutes, I found a lot more stories about cities exchanging their fireworks for bonfires and other more reasonable, just as exciting celebrations...
Flaming displays of testosterone...
THIS is whyipaytaxes.
How about the $150,000 Clevelend OH spends on their display, including extra cops and port-a-johns. This year, they wouldn't have been able to afford such an extravagant affair if it hadn't been for one of the Councilmen brave and bold enough to cut a check from the council's fund.
Councilman Joe Santiago is pissing our tax dollars away - What is wrong with this picture?
How about Moreno Valley California, where they cut 2 hours from their festivities and hired local talent instead of Eddie Money to bring their average spending on fourth of july celebrations from $140,000 down to $80,000.
Several Inland cities cut July 4th spending
Belvidere, IL will be spending around $15,000 for their around the 4th celebration called Heritage Days. The city itself will only be spending $7,750, but with their Chrysler plant shut down, I'd guess every penny should count...
Belvidere City Council approves Heritage Days necessities
Next door, in Rockford, IL, we have one of the highest unemployment rates in the country (top 10 unemployed cities), are cutting social programs, and are cutting the library's budget by around 25%. So, lets pay a bunch of overtime for a bunch of cops to make the downtown area ready for 125,000 spectators. While this fireworks display is not funded by the city government, I can't help but wonder if there aren't a few soup kitchens that could have used the citizen's donations more wisely than 'letting freedom ring'... Go ahead, have yourself a nice steaming hot bowl of freedom ringing. See how that fills you up. (while Rockford has the highest unemployment rate in the state of Illinois, they also have the largest fireworks display... At least the locals don't have to worry about being at work the next day!)
http://www.rockfordfireandice.com/gpage1.html
On the plus side, while looking around for stories about cities bankrupting themselves for hot 'n' heavy 15 minutes, I found a lot more stories about cities exchanging their fireworks for bonfires and other more reasonable, just as exciting celebrations...
Flaming displays of testosterone...
THIS is whyipaytaxes.
The Fed
Why, oh why did Eliot Spitzer have to go and get himself busted for whoring around? We need critical thinkers on the front lines, not disgraced out of public office.... *sigh*
He questions the power of the Fed and why they are asking for more and why Obama wants to give it to them in a new Slate article.
Some great questions he wishes would be asked (EA):
Where is the legal analysis showing the Fed had no power or insufficient power to intervene to save Lehman Bros.—widely viewed as the failure that precipitated the credit crisis—as it has claimed repeatedly, yet had sufficient power to orchestrate the gift of Bear Stearns assets to JPMorgan Chase? How did it differentiate between the two?
Did the Fed do any analysis of the risk that would result from AIG's potential default, and how did the Fed analyze the risk to each of AIG's counterparties?
When the Fed authorized the first $80 billion payment to AIG, almost all of which flowed directly through to counterparties, why did the Fed not arrange for taxpayers to get equity in the counterparties, rather than the essentially worthless AIG equity? What communications did the Fed have with the counterparties over this period?
What analysis had the Fed done of the general leverage ratios in the financial-services sector and the need for additional capitalization? Had it done any "stress tests" during this period, or did it believe that there would never be an economic downturn?
Since the N.Y. Fed is controlled by the very institutions that were at the heart of the meltdown, and these institutions used the Fed to give themselves hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to resuscitate their balance sheets without any public scrutiny, will the Fed release any conflict-of-interest rules it has in place to assure the public that board members do not act on policies that will affect their own corporate interests?
Six of the nine members of the N.Y. Fed board are supposed to be "public" representatives, yet these individuals have all too often been CEOs of major corporations or financial entities. How does the Fed define "public" board members, and what is the process by which those board members are selected?
The Fed itself states that "the safety, soundness and vitality of our economic system" is its responsibility. How exactly are these terms measured? By GDP growth? Bank profits? Job growth? Growth of median household income? Without knowing how it will measure success, how can we measure whether the Fed is succeeding or failing?
How does the Fed believe it can regulate "systemic risk" meaningfully if institutions remain "too big to fail," necessitating that the federal government be an insurer of their risk in any serious downturn?
Has any thought been given to refocusing on a financial services model that has more smaller institutions and fewer mega banks, thus diversifying risk?
Leaving the reins in the hands of those who fucked us in the first place...
THIS is whyipaytaxes.
He questions the power of the Fed and why they are asking for more and why Obama wants to give it to them in a new Slate article.
Some great questions he wishes would be asked (EA):
Where is the legal analysis showing the Fed had no power or insufficient power to intervene to save Lehman Bros.—widely viewed as the failure that precipitated the credit crisis—as it has claimed repeatedly, yet had sufficient power to orchestrate the gift of Bear Stearns assets to JPMorgan Chase? How did it differentiate between the two?
Did the Fed do any analysis of the risk that would result from AIG's potential default, and how did the Fed analyze the risk to each of AIG's counterparties?
When the Fed authorized the first $80 billion payment to AIG, almost all of which flowed directly through to counterparties, why did the Fed not arrange for taxpayers to get equity in the counterparties, rather than the essentially worthless AIG equity? What communications did the Fed have with the counterparties over this period?
What analysis had the Fed done of the general leverage ratios in the financial-services sector and the need for additional capitalization? Had it done any "stress tests" during this period, or did it believe that there would never be an economic downturn?
Since the N.Y. Fed is controlled by the very institutions that were at the heart of the meltdown, and these institutions used the Fed to give themselves hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to resuscitate their balance sheets without any public scrutiny, will the Fed release any conflict-of-interest rules it has in place to assure the public that board members do not act on policies that will affect their own corporate interests?
Six of the nine members of the N.Y. Fed board are supposed to be "public" representatives, yet these individuals have all too often been CEOs of major corporations or financial entities. How does the Fed define "public" board members, and what is the process by which those board members are selected?
The Fed itself states that "the safety, soundness and vitality of our economic system" is its responsibility. How exactly are these terms measured? By GDP growth? Bank profits? Job growth? Growth of median household income? Without knowing how it will measure success, how can we measure whether the Fed is succeeding or failing?
How does the Fed believe it can regulate "systemic risk" meaningfully if institutions remain "too big to fail," necessitating that the federal government be an insurer of their risk in any serious downturn?
Has any thought been given to refocusing on a financial services model that has more smaller institutions and fewer mega banks, thus diversifying risk?
Leaving the reins in the hands of those who fucked us in the first place...
THIS is whyipaytaxes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
