The working poor and middle class, including small business owners, are paying more in taxes for fewer services, either paying out of pocket or living without, while using ever more of their take home pay for medical care and saving for school and retirement (if they can). Public workers across the country are basically taking pay cuts, paying more for health and pension benefits, as fewer taxpayers have salaries that can afford higher taxes while good jobs continue to bleed overseas, benefiting no one but stockholders. These workers, most of whom are us, have made sacrifices for the greater good, even though they didn't want. And these people are the lucky ones in an economy where the unemployment rate remains high. Meanwhile the rich are not asked to do anything. Heaven forbid they, whether they be individuals or corporations, be asked to pay more taxes since they then might export the jobs they are already exporting overseas.
Why must taxes be raised on the rich? Because, despite an economy that's twice as large as it was 30 years ago, most Americans can't afford higher taxes since almost all the new wealth has gone to the rich. Worse, rather then investing this extra money in new jobs for Americans, they are sending this money overseas and creating jobs in other countries. Now you can argue that it is not the rich sending jobs overseas but corporations. However, I have never seen a corporation big enough to export jobs being run by somebody earning minimum wage. Time for those who benefited most from the tax loopholes to pay up.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Wienergate: What a Putz
With all that is going on, I can't believe Weinergate is continuing.
I've read that Andrew Breitbart and company are the ones who first found the mistweeted picture and ran with it. For those who forget, Mr. Breitbart is the same "journalist" who essentially got an Obama aide fired by purposefully manipulating video of a speech she gave to suggest she was racist against white people. After that stunt I would not believe Breitbart if he said the sun was strong today while I was getting sun burned. He is somebody who successfully gets the people and media wound up over trivial things so we don't pay attention to what is really important. Men like him are the true danger to this country, not some putz who can't keep his pants on.
At this point it is sounding like Rep.Wiener, or someone on his staff, accidentally tweeted a private picture of him (whoever him ends up being) in his underwear to all his followers which was then exploited by Breitbart or one of his allies on Breitbart's site. Embarrassing? Yes. Stupid? Yes. And is Wiener making things worse by not firmly denying or admitting the picture is or is not of him? Yes. But this does not warrant the amount of coverage you are providing. Nothing illegal happened. Men wear less on the beach.
We've had our fun, time to move on to all the news that really is fit to tweet. With three wars going on, the debt ceiling hitting its limit, debates about Medicare going on or housing prices continuing to decline, I'm sure the media can find something. As to the picture itself, if it turns out to be Rep. Wiener, that should be between Rep. Wiener, his wife, the college student who was supposed to have received his tweet and the voters of his district in Nov. 2012.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Welcome to public school. Please have your credit card ready
I just read an article about public schools charging students to just walk in the door and take basic classes due to cutbacks in government spending. I'm not talking about charging a student $100 to play in the band, I'm talking about charging a student to take a math class. What has happened to our society that we became so greedy that we don't see the wisdom in increasing taxes to invest in our nation's biggest asset: its' people?
One of the good things about this country has always been the opportunities allowed for the poor to pull themselves up by their boot straps and succeed. How will this be possible in the future with these type of cuts as even blue collar manufacturing jobs require some sort of education? We are dooming ourselves by planting the seeds to be like every other nation with a permanent underclass that under performs on the world market with shortsighted steps like this. Education is what helped made us a super power. What good is it to the US if we doom the next Einstein to working as a store greeter because the student couldn't afford to take the proper math and science classes when he or she was in high school?
One of the good things about this country has always been the opportunities allowed for the poor to pull themselves up by their boot straps and succeed. How will this be possible in the future with these type of cuts as even blue collar manufacturing jobs require some sort of education? We are dooming ourselves by planting the seeds to be like every other nation with a permanent underclass that under performs on the world market with shortsighted steps like this. Education is what helped made us a super power. What good is it to the US if we doom the next Einstein to working as a store greeter because the student couldn't afford to take the proper math and science classes when he or she was in high school?
Sunday, May 15, 2011
What will become of libraries in the digital world?
A friend and I were having a debate about the future of libraries. We have both recently purchased electronic reading devices and he wondered how much longer until physical libraries were no longer needed. We had different opinions, then somehow wandered into a discussion of where Superman's Fortress of Solitude was located, but generally agreed that the library of today, as we commonly know it, will have to change or die as just another obsolete idea.
As children, we spent many hours in libraries taking books out to read for pleasure and or research to do reports. However, as more and more novels and children's books are available electronically in the coming years, a child may not have to go to a physical library to take out a book, instead streaming it to a reading device much the way one can now stream movies and TV shows with the right subscriptions and devices. How much longer until e-readers are advanced and cheap enough to allow picture books to be streamed/downloaded in as good a format as the physical book? As for research, much of the same information can be found today (and quicker) via the Internet, either through free sites or through pay sites that students, with proper IDs, can access at school, the library or home.
As adults, our trips to the library to take out books, already in decline, has gone to near zero. We can now download, for free, many older works to our electronic readers. We can already download, from our homes, books that are cheaper and easier to carry than physical books. Sooner or later publishers and libraries will figure out a way to make e-books available for e-lending.
I responded that physical libraries will not disappear but will morph into something different. There will be many older works that will never be digitized for various reasons. For now, there are still many people without broadband connections and they will still need a library hotspot to get materials. Third, many digital materials will remain behind paywalls in databases controlled by publishers. Speaking of databases, professional librarians will need to learn how to manage them and help patrons navigate them -- think of the Jedi library in Star Wars II.
The definition of a library is going to change -- libraries are already part virtual. Space arrangements will change. Who in the future will buy massive treatises and research journals that fill bookshelves when they can be stored in an e-book allowing what once filled rows of bookshelves to "fit" onto a piece of plastic smaller that my laptop. Perhaps branches will close. Perhaps they will become much smaller, coffee house sized entities where one comes to socialize and download reading materials, with dedicated, separate physical facilities remaining to house older, print only collections. Perhaps they will become virtual where one downloads reading materials from their own home. Or, more likely, perhaps they will encompass all those options.
Libraries of the foreseeable future will probably remain important for researchers and civilians, both online and offline. Publishers aren't going to want to deal directly with customers on a regular basis. People will still be able to borrow books from the library, either by going in or downloading from home, but, perhaps, will have those works expire within a set period of time (and libraries may be forced to renew those books from publishers from time to time where they now replace books that wear out or are lost). Maybe they will pay a fee ala Netflix that will allow them to take out a book or two for an unlimited time?
For these reasons, and more, I don't believe that brick and mortar libraries are going to go away anytime soon. We are only at the beginning of this revolution and it is hard to predict what will happen. Paper is still king, though its kingdom is shrinking. I do think the physical space will change with less books and more public seating/gathering areas -- maybe they'll partner with Starbucks? Ask me again in 10-20 years, when e-readers and broadband are much more mainstream and my answer will change.
I think the better question is will brick and mortar bookstores still be necessary in a wi-fi world? Why go to to the bookstore down the highway. aside from social reasons, when I can download a book to my e-reader. Like computers, e-readers will undoubtedly continue to decline in price and it is probably not too long before book sellers start giving out e-readers for practically free as long as you maintain an account with them. I already know people who have bought their last physical book and I suspect that it won't be long until I'm one of them, especially when generic e-readers become available for next to nothing. And, as soon as the libraries and publishers figure things out, it probably won't be long until I take out my last physical paper copy of a book (well at least newly published books).
As children, we spent many hours in libraries taking books out to read for pleasure and or research to do reports. However, as more and more novels and children's books are available electronically in the coming years, a child may not have to go to a physical library to take out a book, instead streaming it to a reading device much the way one can now stream movies and TV shows with the right subscriptions and devices. How much longer until e-readers are advanced and cheap enough to allow picture books to be streamed/downloaded in as good a format as the physical book? As for research, much of the same information can be found today (and quicker) via the Internet, either through free sites or through pay sites that students, with proper IDs, can access at school, the library or home.
As adults, our trips to the library to take out books, already in decline, has gone to near zero. We can now download, for free, many older works to our electronic readers. We can already download, from our homes, books that are cheaper and easier to carry than physical books. Sooner or later publishers and libraries will figure out a way to make e-books available for e-lending.
I responded that physical libraries will not disappear but will morph into something different. There will be many older works that will never be digitized for various reasons. For now, there are still many people without broadband connections and they will still need a library hotspot to get materials. Third, many digital materials will remain behind paywalls in databases controlled by publishers. Speaking of databases, professional librarians will need to learn how to manage them and help patrons navigate them -- think of the Jedi library in Star Wars II.
The definition of a library is going to change -- libraries are already part virtual. Space arrangements will change. Who in the future will buy massive treatises and research journals that fill bookshelves when they can be stored in an e-book allowing what once filled rows of bookshelves to "fit" onto a piece of plastic smaller that my laptop. Perhaps branches will close. Perhaps they will become much smaller, coffee house sized entities where one comes to socialize and download reading materials, with dedicated, separate physical facilities remaining to house older, print only collections. Perhaps they will become virtual where one downloads reading materials from their own home. Or, more likely, perhaps they will encompass all those options.
Libraries of the foreseeable future will probably remain important for researchers and civilians, both online and offline. Publishers aren't going to want to deal directly with customers on a regular basis. People will still be able to borrow books from the library, either by going in or downloading from home, but, perhaps, will have those works expire within a set period of time (and libraries may be forced to renew those books from publishers from time to time where they now replace books that wear out or are lost). Maybe they will pay a fee ala Netflix that will allow them to take out a book or two for an unlimited time?
For these reasons, and more, I don't believe that brick and mortar libraries are going to go away anytime soon. We are only at the beginning of this revolution and it is hard to predict what will happen. Paper is still king, though its kingdom is shrinking. I do think the physical space will change with less books and more public seating/gathering areas -- maybe they'll partner with Starbucks? Ask me again in 10-20 years, when e-readers and broadband are much more mainstream and my answer will change.
I think the better question is will brick and mortar bookstores still be necessary in a wi-fi world? Why go to to the bookstore down the highway. aside from social reasons, when I can download a book to my e-reader. Like computers, e-readers will undoubtedly continue to decline in price and it is probably not too long before book sellers start giving out e-readers for practically free as long as you maintain an account with them. I already know people who have bought their last physical book and I suspect that it won't be long until I'm one of them, especially when generic e-readers become available for next to nothing. And, as soon as the libraries and publishers figure things out, it probably won't be long until I take out my last physical paper copy of a book (well at least newly published books).
Monday, May 9, 2011
Iowa comes to NJ for the flavor of the week
Now that Donald Trump's approval ratings are sinking like those of his TV show, some Iowa bigwigs (read: money men) are treking to NJ this week to see if they can talk our governor into running against President Obama in 2012. Before the GOP pronounces Gov. Christie as their candidate for 2012 they really need to address a few things.
Governor Christie hasn't seemed to have done much when he's been in state aside from yell and scream at his enemies. He has yet to really tackle the legal corruption that invades almost every part of government life at all levels here. I don't mind paying taxes for services, like police, schools and libraries. I do mind paying taxes so that the high school drop out of a friend of a low level politician can have a $60k a year job doing nothing in some government office. And I was promised lower property taxes, not a 2% annual increase cap. Not that I was really expecting a tax decrease like his millionaire friends so they can create jobs overseas, but a little piece of the action would have been nice.
Also Gov. Christie's reputation is enhanced in part because he has been very lucky that the tone deaf union leaders here have made some very dumb moves. Instead of making logical arguments, like the pensions are deferred compensation that the workers agreed to wait for and offer suggestions on how to work together with the governor regarding insurance costs, their responses have been along the lines of "Wah! You promised!!" I don't think President Obama is as dumb as the union leaders.
Then there is his woman problem. My wife and her friends, some of whom are pretty conservative (for NJ), see him as a big bully picking on women with his attacks on state workers and especially teachers, many of whom are female. Though they voted for him in '09 (or at least didn't vote for Corzine), I don't know if they'd vote for him in '13. I'm not even going to start on his plans to seemingly destroy the state's school system, which is pretty good outside of urban areas, for charter schools run by for profit corporations (it's ok for money to go to corporations, but not teachers or administrators in the field).
I don't dislike Gov. Christie. NJ needed change. The state needs someone who can tell us the truth -- that we've voted through weak, pandering politicians to make this state almost unaffordable. He's made some good points and has tackled some waste (train tunnel to Macy's -- so much extravagance when cheaper options, such as an extension of the 7 subway train, which would provide East Side access, were possible), but most of his changes have been smoke and mirrors and getting the have nots to fight with the have a little bit mores. The state is not going to get back to prosperity by blaming teachers, police officers, and blue collar workers for the state's own bad policies. Neither will the nation.
Governor Christie hasn't seemed to have done much when he's been in state aside from yell and scream at his enemies. He has yet to really tackle the legal corruption that invades almost every part of government life at all levels here. I don't mind paying taxes for services, like police, schools and libraries. I do mind paying taxes so that the high school drop out of a friend of a low level politician can have a $60k a year job doing nothing in some government office. And I was promised lower property taxes, not a 2% annual increase cap. Not that I was really expecting a tax decrease like his millionaire friends so they can create jobs overseas, but a little piece of the action would have been nice.
Also Gov. Christie's reputation is enhanced in part because he has been very lucky that the tone deaf union leaders here have made some very dumb moves. Instead of making logical arguments, like the pensions are deferred compensation that the workers agreed to wait for and offer suggestions on how to work together with the governor regarding insurance costs, their responses have been along the lines of "Wah! You promised!!" I don't think President Obama is as dumb as the union leaders.
Then there is his woman problem. My wife and her friends, some of whom are pretty conservative (for NJ), see him as a big bully picking on women with his attacks on state workers and especially teachers, many of whom are female. Though they voted for him in '09 (or at least didn't vote for Corzine), I don't know if they'd vote for him in '13. I'm not even going to start on his plans to seemingly destroy the state's school system, which is pretty good outside of urban areas, for charter schools run by for profit corporations (it's ok for money to go to corporations, but not teachers or administrators in the field).
I don't dislike Gov. Christie. NJ needed change. The state needs someone who can tell us the truth -- that we've voted through weak, pandering politicians to make this state almost unaffordable. He's made some good points and has tackled some waste (train tunnel to Macy's -- so much extravagance when cheaper options, such as an extension of the 7 subway train, which would provide East Side access, were possible), but most of his changes have been smoke and mirrors and getting the have nots to fight with the have a little bit mores. The state is not going to get back to prosperity by blaming teachers, police officers, and blue collar workers for the state's own bad policies. Neither will the nation.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Can we please fire the Trump "presidential" show?
So now that he has "won" on his birther agreement and gotten President Obama to produce the long version of his birth certificate, probably because the President figured he had gotten all the political distraction he was going to get from the issue), Mr. Trump has moved onto questioning the President's school records. So, what does his school records have to do with his being eligible to be president? Cough cough * * Affirmative action, questioning his intelligence like liberals question Justice Thomas's intelligence * * cough cough.
The GOP has nothing at the moment. Nothing. They have no plans aside from saying no to whatever the Democrats want, even when Democrats agree with them. So they play this race BS over and over instead of tackling the real problems.
Their candidates so far are a bunch of hacks just fattening their own egos (Trump, Palin), rejects (Romney, Huckabee) and people without original ideas (the rest). Not one of them can offer a legitimate plan that will be acceptable to all (hint: probably involves raising taxes AND lowering spending) on how they would lead the country in a new direction aside from repeating the failed polices of the past. Cutting taxes for their rich overlord campaign contributors (the Dems do it too but at least they are sneaky enough to do it without annoying their base by defending civil rights, entitlements etc), screwing the middle class, bombing some brown people for oil and hope it all works out can only work for so long. The Dems have the same problem in Congress so unless they can create a liberal tea party the status quo will probably remain.
At this point I, as a 43 year old middle class man, am looking at which party will hurt me less. There is a part of me that is really pissed that those over 55 will get away without having to sacrifice, even just a little, to pay for the mess they helped to create in Medicare/Social Security over the last 37 years of them voting (in general) to cut taxes and leave the debts to the younger generations. Then there is the other part that looks at my nursing home bound elderly mother's medical bills and wonders what the F would happen when that block grant money proposed by Ryan would run out by spring. These are issues worthy of debate in a conversation we need to have.
However, the media doesn't cover this, or even wonder what political motives were really behind the President's not releasing the long version of his birth certificate until now (probably has something to do with keeping the media chasing a dead story kept them from following up on real issues like why has the President gone back on many campaign promises has run its course). Instead we have to listen to Trump's pronouncements while the really tough issues are ignored for another day.
The GOP has nothing at the moment. Nothing. They have no plans aside from saying no to whatever the Democrats want, even when Democrats agree with them. So they play this race BS over and over instead of tackling the real problems.
Their candidates so far are a bunch of hacks just fattening their own egos (Trump, Palin), rejects (Romney, Huckabee) and people without original ideas (the rest). Not one of them can offer a legitimate plan that will be acceptable to all (hint: probably involves raising taxes AND lowering spending) on how they would lead the country in a new direction aside from repeating the failed polices of the past. Cutting taxes for their rich overlord campaign contributors (the Dems do it too but at least they are sneaky enough to do it without annoying their base by defending civil rights, entitlements etc), screwing the middle class, bombing some brown people for oil and hope it all works out can only work for so long. The Dems have the same problem in Congress so unless they can create a liberal tea party the status quo will probably remain.
At this point I, as a 43 year old middle class man, am looking at which party will hurt me less. There is a part of me that is really pissed that those over 55 will get away without having to sacrifice, even just a little, to pay for the mess they helped to create in Medicare/Social Security over the last 37 years of them voting (in general) to cut taxes and leave the debts to the younger generations. Then there is the other part that looks at my nursing home bound elderly mother's medical bills and wonders what the F would happen when that block grant money proposed by Ryan would run out by spring. These are issues worthy of debate in a conversation we need to have.
However, the media doesn't cover this, or even wonder what political motives were really behind the President's not releasing the long version of his birth certificate until now (probably has something to do with keeping the media chasing a dead story kept them from following up on real issues like why has the President gone back on many campaign promises has run its course). Instead we have to listen to Trump's pronouncements while the really tough issues are ignored for another day.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Who are the super rich?
Though the original post has been deleted, I saw a blog entry summarizing a University of Chicago Law School professor's rant that he can't afford potential tax hikes because he only makes $400,000 or so a year. Only $400k? I think somebody needs to get a better handle on his budget. My wife and I make about a third of that combined. We somehow manage to make ends meet paying for cable (no movies), Netflix, childcare (youngest one needs full time daycare), a legal Mexican to cut our lawn, our mortgage, NJ property taxes (among the highest in the nation), a car payment (other car is paid off) and a class or two for our children (just bought the oldest a clarinet).
We don't have a cleaning woman, but that is more because we haven't found one we like. We also don't pay for private school, aside from the private kindergarten our daughter goes to because our town does not have the full day kindergarten working parents need. Granted, we probably have a smaller home, but it is still 4 bedrooms and 2 baths and our retirement and college education funds are a mess, but we somehow manage to make a decent middle class living earning less than one third of the law school professor. Even adding in the additional costs a larger home and private school would cost to our budget, we would probably still have quite a bit left over if our income doubled, much less tripled. But then we have always tried to live a somewhat modest lifestlye that I am sure looks quite affluent to a family making less than half of what we do.
While the law professor does create jobs for the cleaning and garden people, whatever classes he puts his children in and wherever else all his money goes (I imagine he also invests in stocks), it sounds like he is doing quite nicely. Paying taxes is part of the price of living in a civilized society, which includes protection to prevent people making a minimum wage and just getting by from storming the castles of the rich for a more immediate wealth distribution.
The law school professor is obviously highly skilled and no doubt deserves the high salary he earns. I don't begrudge him trying to keep control of as much of his money as he can. But to say he is not rich is a joke, especially in this horrible market for new lawyers coming out with over $160k in law school loans with no job prospects.
We don't have a cleaning woman, but that is more because we haven't found one we like. We also don't pay for private school, aside from the private kindergarten our daughter goes to because our town does not have the full day kindergarten working parents need. Granted, we probably have a smaller home, but it is still 4 bedrooms and 2 baths and our retirement and college education funds are a mess, but we somehow manage to make a decent middle class living earning less than one third of the law school professor. Even adding in the additional costs a larger home and private school would cost to our budget, we would probably still have quite a bit left over if our income doubled, much less tripled. But then we have always tried to live a somewhat modest lifestlye that I am sure looks quite affluent to a family making less than half of what we do.
While the law professor does create jobs for the cleaning and garden people, whatever classes he puts his children in and wherever else all his money goes (I imagine he also invests in stocks), it sounds like he is doing quite nicely. Paying taxes is part of the price of living in a civilized society, which includes protection to prevent people making a minimum wage and just getting by from storming the castles of the rich for a more immediate wealth distribution.
The law school professor is obviously highly skilled and no doubt deserves the high salary he earns. I don't begrudge him trying to keep control of as much of his money as he can. But to say he is not rich is a joke, especially in this horrible market for new lawyers coming out with over $160k in law school loans with no job prospects.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)