If you have a complaint, go see our Complaint Manager, Helen Wait. That's right...go to Helen Wait.

Imagine this:  You decide you want a new flat-screen TV.  You're in Walmart and you notice they have a nice 75" Samsung priced for less than $1700, and they offer LAYAWAY.  Woohoo!  So you go to the service desk, fill out the paperwork, and make a down payment.  Every month you stop in and make a payment, and in mid-December you go in to make your final payment and pick up your new TV.  But instead of your expected 75" Samsung, they bring out this and hand it to you:

"Whoa!  No...no...this is NOT what I paid for" you say. 

"Sorry sir, but Walmart has realized they under-priced the TV they promised you, and this is all they'll be able to deliver for what you paid."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This, with little exaggeration, is where Social Security and Medicare are headed.  From the time you began your working career back in 19__ you have been putting money every payday into the Social Security Trust Fund, and Medicare via the Federal Insurance Contributions Act.  But the closer you get to receiving the social benefits you've already paid for, you'll hear "Oooo, sorry, but we may not be able to deliver what we've promised you."
 
Earlier this week the Congressional Budget Office issued their projection for the Federal budget deficit from now through 2028.  They say it will actually amount to $11.7 TRILLION DOLLARS ($1.6T more than they forecast just this past June).  That's a deficit of well over A TRILLION DOLLARS A YEAR, even after figuring in the increased economic growth that was supposed to make up for the tax cut shortfall.

Why so much?  Mainly for two reasons:  1, more people are reaching Social Security and Medicare age, resulting in more tax dollars being spent on those social programs; and 2, yes, reduced revenue to the Treasury due to last year's tax cut.   

You can't tell me Congress didn't see this coming when they voted a TRILLION dollar tax cut last year.  With all the data they had available they should have had no trouble projecting things like this 20 years ago.  But instead of adjusting taxes in anticipation of what was to come, they just kicked the can down the road for fear of losing votes right then.

Soon-to-retire House Speaker Paul Ryan has for years been the chief proponent of both cutting taxes and "reforming" Social Security and Medicare to make them more "sustainable"....that's the code word for "cutting benefits".  The two front-runners to replace him as Speaker are Congressman Kevin McCarthy and Congressman Steve Scalise (assuming Republican's keep control of the House of Representatives), both of whom share Ryan's vision.

But not to worry, they say those Americans now at or very near retirement age wouldn't be affected by any "sustainability" cuts.  Keep in mind these are the same folks who said all our money would be there for us when we retired, too. (Hmmm...could this be the impetus behind gun control?  Nothing scarier than a bunch of pissed off seniors running around with guns, right?)  *chuckle*

Just don't act surprised when, not if, it happens.

S

Follow the money

The Senate is currently on their third....or is it their fourth or fifth....iteration of a "Repeal and Replace ObamaCare" attempt, and this one is no better than the ones that came before it.  As bad as ObamaCare supposedly is, all their attempts to date have been giant steps BACKWARD.  The highlight of the current Republican bill is to give each state a "block grant", essentially a pot of cash, and then tell them to figure out what to do with health care.  "Not my circus, not my monkey" the Feds can then say.

Polls show less than 20% of Americans like this giant step backwards.  Neither does AARP, or the American Medical Association, or the various hospital associations, or the insurers, or the drug makers, or the American Cancer Society, The American Heart Association, the Diabetes Foundation, or any other group advocating on behalf of people with health issues.  So why are Republicans so hellbent on ramming this "reform" down our throats?  Who wins in this deal?

FOLLOW THE MONEY

The only logical explanation I can come up with is that, to Republicans, "Repeal and Replace ObamaCare" is simply a means to a greater goal.  They have told their ultra-wealthy mega-donors that they will deliver to them a giant tax cut, but before they can do that, they first have to come up with a pile of cash from somewhere.  That "somewhere", they have decreed, will be from the Federal healthcare kitty....cut a few hundred billion here, transfer it on to there.  But if they can't realize big savings via a repeal/replace bill, their promised wealth transfer, their REAL goal, is dead in the water.  

If you can think of another reason why congressional Republicans are pushing so hard to pass such a supremely unpopular bill, please let me know.

If they should ever succeed in achieving this goal, hold on!  Their next target will be Medicare and Social Security.  Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has already (correctly) labeled them as the two most expensive Federal programs that can be looted...er..."reformed" in order to realize great savings.  He just never tells us where those savings will go.

So, as is always the case, FOLLOW THE MONEY.  That will show you who is pulling the strings, and who the big winner will always be.

S

Is "socialist" the most feared word in America?

  Damn socialists!

I recently clicked on one of those silly quizzes that asked, "Are you more American or European?"  One of my Facebook friends, who is German by birth, felt the gist of it was that Americans are freedom loving, hard working, go-it-alone individualists, and Europeans aren't.  That Europeans are all just a bunch of *gag...puke...choke* SOCIALISTS.  Ewwwwww!

Truth is, Americans have benefited from many programs some would call "socialist", like SOCIAL Security and Medicare.  I'll concede, some Americans probably don't like Social Security or Medicare, as they will never in a million years ever need to rely on either.  They can just cut a check for whatever they want.

But what about public schools?  Isn't that a social program, paid for by all, for the benefit of all?  How about interstate highways, paid for by all, for the benefit of all?  

How about fire departments?  Modern professional fire departments are a fairly recent development.  Battling fires used to be something neighbors did for each other on a volunteer basis, with abysmal results.  Now we have highly professional, highly effective municipal fire departments, paid for by all, for the benefit of all.  Ditto for law enforcement....paid for by all, for the benefit of all.

When I was in school, way back in the last century, we were taught in civics class that government existed to do for people what they couldn't do for themselves.  At the time of the writing of our Constitution that meant things like maintaining a postal system and maintaining a strong military, paid for by all, for the benefit of all.  It was a pretty simple time.

Now, in this century, it seems reasonable to empower a Securities and Exchange Commission to look out for us, as "financial services" are much too sophisticated for the average person to comprehend, which leads to many of us getting ripped off.  We need an SEC to protect us, paid for by all, for the benefit of all.

How about a Food and Drug Administration, paid for by all, for the benefit of all?  Would you know how to tell if a drug is effective and safe, or just worthless snake oil, or worse? 

We're now on the cusp of comprehensive health care falling into the category of things we probably can't do on our own.  If a national health plan similar to that practiced in the UK is too radical for us, maybe we could look elsewhere, such as in my friend's native Germany, for a health care system that works, that is insurance based, and is universal.  But to just whack what we have now, without a better replacement, just to please those who will never have to worry about paying for anything, is just wrong! 

My point is, benefiting from some social programs does not make us socialists, and is something to be embraced, not feared.  We've had them for years, whether we've realized it or not, and they've served us well.

S

Healthcare in America....where are we headed?

Yesterday a friend of mine, who is in the healthcare field, asked on her Facebook page what should be done regarding the "repeal / replace" controversy now raging.  She and her other healthcare professional friends agreed some form of coverage for everyone is absolutely necessary, while her more "conservative" friends said "no way". 

First, a personal disclaimer.  I'm covered by Medicare, which has worked great for me, and my wife, who is now once again a full-time college student, has a group plan offered through her university.  And after her college days, as a last resort, she is a disabled veteran and has VA care available to her.  In short, I have nothing personally to gain or lose in this debate.

The argument I heard from the conservative "Tea Party-types" was that they resented being told they MUST buy insurance, and would be perfectly happy if it would just go back like it was pre-ACA / Obamacare.  My strong suspicion is that they have secure (for now) jobs and enjoy employer-provided insurance, or are older and are covered by Medicare.  Both see ACA as just a giant wealth transfer from them, the relatively affluent, to the poor.  There's no upside to them if there is a replacement plan.  They would prefer repeal, period.

Those in the healthcare field almost universally say they see the desperation every day on the faces of people who can't afford insurance or the ER medical care they've been billed for and are absolutely begging for their charges to be forgiven by the hospitals and doctors.

My observation is this:  The Tea Party-types know in general terms that poor people can't afford healthcare for themselves or their families, but they don't actually know any of them.  They just can't relate.  I can.  During my 40+ year career in homebuilding I saw on a daily basis plumbers, electricians, painters, roofers, etc who I'm certain didn't have health insurance.  

They may work 40 hours one week, and just 30 the next.  If the economy tanks, they may have no work for weeks at a time.  They're always on the brink of desperation.  They work hard....they certainly aren't slackers. They don't get a yearly two-week paid vacation, or have a 401K, or health insurance.  That's just the nature of the construction industry.  Are we just gonna kick people like them to the curb?

In the old days you worked 40 years for your company and retired with a gold watch.  Today if you have seniority, which probably came with yearly pay raises for decades, you're now at the TOP of the pink-slip list.  You're good as gone, to be replaced by a 25-year-old with a MBA who will work for 40% less than you're making.  And if you're 58 and find yourself with more and more ailments, and you're suddenly unemployed, how are you going to afford health insurance?  Who wants to insure you?

I know plenty of people who are / have been in that very position.  A secure job today is no guarantee of a secure job tomorrow.  Remember that!

"Oh", the Tea Party-types say, "they won't be able to deny you because of a pre-existing condition."  Isn't this a classic example of having your cake and eating it too?  They abhor the ACA, yet want to cherry pick the parts they want to keep....without paying for it.   Sorry, but life doesn't work like that.  "You'll still get a [smaller] subsidy" they say.  Again, they're UNEMPLOYED!  They have no income!  A [smaller] subsidy is worthless to them....it's like being promised a BIG piece of NO pie.

I laugh incredulously when they say they'll expand Health Savings Accounts that people can use to pay for their health insurance and deductibles. They just don't get it!  Lower income people don't have the luxury of putting a few hundred dollars a month into a HSA.  They're living hand-to-mouth as it is.  It's like Marie Antoinette telling her hungry French subjects "Let them eat cake."

The Tea Party-types ask how fair is it for them to pay into an insurance scheme that benefits someone else?  So let me ask, why should residents in West Texas pay higher homeowner insurance rates to make up for their fellow-Texans who have suffered hurricane damage on the Gulf Coast?  Why should I pay for an interstate highway in Ohio when I've never even been to Ohio?  Why should I pay school taxes now that my youngest daughter is 35 years old?  Because it's for the public good, that's why. 

If we average the cost of healthcare across all age groups around the country, the young will indeed pay more now than they could have before the ACA, but they'll make it up later in life when they'll need healthcare and get a sweet price break.  That's how a "risk pool" (insurance) works, and there's nothing more free-market than insurance.  

Yes, I hear those who point out that insurance is optional, but not buying in means no benefits.  Are they going to be the gatekeeper at the hospital door that turns away the hysterical mother with no insurance cradling her deathly ill child?  And if the mandate stays that requires hospitals to care for anyone who walks in, whether they can pay or not, how much longer will it be before marginally funded hospitals start closing? 

I don't know how this will ultimately play out, but times have changed, and we must change, too.  We need to find a way to provide healthcare for all our citizens.  They can't give healthcare away, I understand, but anointing some to enjoy the American "good life" while condemning others to always being on the outside looking in is not what America should be about.  America should not have a caste system.

Not everyone can have an enviable IQ, be well educated, have a secure, high-paying job with benefits, and just skip merrily through life.  If they could, who would be left to change our oil, or build our houses, or maintain our sewer systems?  *any volunteers?* 

It won't be easy, and it won't be cheap, but we will be a stronger, more internationally competitive country if we're healthy and working smart.  We MUST find a way to care for our own. 

S

Circle the wagons, boys!

It isn't exactly "Breaking News" when I say that people get really touchy when you talk about getting into their wallets.  "It's MINE, I WORKED for it, you CAN'T have it!"  And this, IMO, is why our government today is so dysfunctional and our people are so upset.  One economic class feels they're paying for benefits that another economic class is receiving, and to be honest, it's largely true.  (Their elected political manipulators see this perpetual standoff as their job security.)

TAXES.  Just saying the word gets most people's blood pressure up.  The average middle class guy feels he's working 100 mph to pay for day care, to put braces on his kids teeth, to somehow pay another semester's tuition for his oldest to stay in college, to pay the deductibles and co-pays on his heath insurance, or if he's an "independent contractor", to pay for his family's health insurance that might cost more than his house payment, etc.  It's a struggle for sure.

Meanwhile, in his mind, another economic class gets free child care, food stamps, rent subsidies, college grants (that require no payback), free medical care (via Medicaid) and even a free cell phone, all paid for by HIM!  And then when you interject race into the equation, it really gets nasty!  To the average middle class taxpayer (statistically likely to be white) the average beneficiary of our social safety net is black or brown, and now includes immigrants, too, hence the animosity.  Facts to the contrary be damned!  He simply can't fathom his economic situation deteriorating to the point he might need some of those services himself some day.  These are benefits (he thinks) he'll never receive.

This is where he thinks his taxes are going.

At the other extreme, while he vaguely knows about the massive government subsidies going to the private sector ($37B to Big Oil, $270B to Big Pharma, $18B to Big Ag, $83B to Wall Street, etc) he can't put a face with a $$$$ to know who to direct his anger at.  (I know, I know, a preposition at the end.  Shoot me.  ;) 

This is why the idea of a tax increase to balance the budget, for example, is a non-starter.  "MORE money to give to those bums? Oh HELL no!"  

In their minds they, personally, aren't getting anything for their tax dollars (hello!...national defense, highways, etc?), with the exception of Medicare and Social Security.  Ahhh....don't you love it when a Tea Party supporter holds his sign up high that says "NO SOCIALISM IN AMERICA!!", then says, "but don't mess with my Medicare or Social Security."  *dude, those programs are the epitome of socialism!*  

As long as people don't feel like they are themselves getting anything for their tax dollars, they're going to resist.  Call them anything you want....selfish, greedy, uncompassionate....when you get into people's wallets, the battle lines will be drawn.  Let's just hope the rest of the world stays more f__ked up than us so they'll run over here with their $$$$ and finance our debt.

Just my thoughts. 

S

New math

We seem to have become a "math challenged" society.  I saw it many times during my 40+ years as a custom homebuilder.  A client would come to me and say they had a hard budget of $    X     .  After learning what they wanted in terms of their amenities, I would advise them they should expect approx    Y    square feet in order to stay within budget.

Then we would all sit down with the architect and they would tell him to cap the footage at    Y    feet, and that they were willing to accept smaller secondary bedrooms, say 100 square feet each...."so make them 12 feet x 12 feet."

That's pretty much how our government has worked for decades.  A succession of congresses and presidents have wanted more than they could pay for.  That's how we got our $19,000,000,000,000 deficit.  We got away with it because no matter how badly we f__ked things up here in America, we were still less f__ked up than the rest of the world.  Smart money "over there" would invest their money here (read:  finance our deficit) because we were still considered a safe, stable country.  It was  all relative.

Tomorrow Prez Trump is going to give Congress his new budget outline.  He's said he was going to dramatically boost defense spending and infrastructure improvement, while not touching Social Security or Medicare.  Oh, and he wants a BIG tax cut, too.  I'm sure the Tea Party is sweating bullets right now!  Their whole reason for being is to cut spending and the deficit, and here a fellow Republican is proposing an increase in both.

"Not to worry" they'll say.  "We're going to increase income by growing the economy by 4% (thereby increasing tax revenues) and by cutting 'waste, fraud, and inefficiency'".

Have you ever heard a competent financial adviser say, "Sure, go ahead and buy that big new vacation house.  You're bound to get a substantial raise any day now.  I hope." And hasn't every president since Calvin Coolidge promised to save money by cutting waste, fraud, and inefficiency?  *still waiting*

The truth is, there are too many powerful constituencies (read: voters, special interests, and campaign contributors) who would scream bloody murder if Congress cut anything that affected them, and if there's anything every congressman loves it's happy voters and campaign contributors, so....

What will eventually happen is there will be, out of absolute dire necessity, a substantial tax increase on the wealthy.  "But how is that fair", the rich will ask?  My answer:  It isn't, but it's sorta like the answer John Dillinger gave when asked why he robbed banks:  "Because that's where the money is."

Fact.

S

This is gonna get ugly

Look out Washington.  Here they come!

The Democrats and Republicans have been waging a battle of wills....some would say stubbornness....as they fight about budgets and debt ceiling limits and such. The newspapers and cable TV report it, and some of us bloggers write about it, but odds are it has touched very few people any of us might know personally, if any at all.  

That could change in a big way very soon.  It's said that if the government defaults on paying it's bills (as soon as later this month), Social Security recipients, disabled veterans, military retirees, and others might not be getting their monthly checks.  I don't think the politicians realize what they're letting themselves in for when they start playing pinata with a beehive of Gray Hairs.

It's one thing to heap scorn on a welfare recipient who won't work and lives off his gubment handout and food stamps, yet has a new smartphone, a bottle of hooch and a carton of cigarettes, and a body full of expensive tattoos.  "Get off your ass you bums and get a job!"

I dare you to go up to your elderly neighbor wearing his "WWII Veteran" ball cap, or your grandmother, and tell them to "get a job you bum" because they can't pay for their apartment or food or medicine because their meager savings can't cover the shortfall of them not getting their social security checks.  Or the disabled veteran who is missing limbs because he/she did their time protecting you so you could get your MBA and land that great job on Wall Street, get rich, and join the Tea Party (or any party).

The government checks these people get are NOT welfare.  They PRE-PAID for these benefits by working for decades, paying into a supplemental retirement system every payday of their lives.  Same with veterans, whose terms of employment stipulated that if they were injured on the job they would be cared for.  Unilaterally change their terms of employment and not pay them NOW?  REALLY?

I agree there are lots of worthless programs our government can and should cut to save a buck.  But it would take a pretty cold person who shares a special relationship with the devil to hit on the Gray Hairs.

S

Sleep well tonight...NATO has your back

There was a time after WWII when the US, UK, and western Europe had real reason to believe the Soviet juggernaut would just roll right on across the Iron Curtain border and claim everything right up to the US continental shelf.  That spawned the creation of NATO.  We had the money and hardware, they had the manpower.  Fair enough.

But over the years the western Europeans got back on their feet and became solid economic powers on their own.  But they also had warm feelings for social services for their people and decided to spend their money on their people instead of their militaries.  Of course they spent some, just not as much percentage wise as they should have.  Why should they as long as Uncle Sugar was there with his checkbook?

Today we're all in economic straits, cutting back on everything, yet the US still pays for 75% of NATO's expenses.  Only the US, the UK, and basket-case Greece pay their treaty-mandated 2% of their GDP for defense spending.  (The US actually spends 4.9% of our GDP.)

Remember a couple of years ago when Europe was all up in arms about the mess Muammar Gaddafi was making of Libya?  With great chest-beating they demanded NATO military intervention.  Yes, they got it.....on our dime.  And a nickle of that we had to borrow.

According to an article in the NYT:

 “We are moving toward a Europe that is a combination of the unable and the unwilling,” said Camille Grand, a French military expert who directs the Foundation for Strategic Research. “European countries are continuing to be free riders, instead of working seriously to see how to act together.”

Meanwhile, elsewhere the news reported that many cancer treatment centers here who serve Medicare patients may soon have to turn some away because of a lack of funding, airline flights are backed up because we can't pay for enough air traffic controllers (that sequester thing), and our veterans can't get the VA benefits we promised them without waiting up to a year for their paperwork to be processed.

I'm no longer getting a warm fuzzy about NATO covering my back.  What exactly does NATO do these days, except spend our money for us?

S

From 1992 to 2009 I served on the Civil Service Commission in my city.  We set the rules for police and fire department employment, promotion, discipline, and removal.  One rule that had been in effect for many years (prior to my service) said that unused sick/personal leave could accumulate.  This meant that after 20 or more years of service an employee could have many months worth of sick/personal leave built up that he/she could use to in effect accelerate retirement (not show up for work) and still get paid.

The city realized this was costing them lots of money to pay overtime for police/fire fighters to cover for employees coasting into retirement early and they asked us to change the rule effective immediately.  The city would "buy" some of the accumulated leave time from each officer/fire fighter, but not all his accumulated time.

Problem was, this was an enticement when it came to recruiting new employees and was part of their original terms of employment.  In my mind, to disavow that promise later would be wrong (and maybe illegal).  We voted to change the rule for any NEW hires, but to honor our word to our existing officers/fire fighters.

Isn't this essentially what is happening now with our Medicare and Social Security systems?  We were told (not asked) that we would pay in X% from our pay and we would have Y benefits at the time of our retirement.  Now the government realizes it's costing them big bucks to do this and they want to back peddle.

How is this right?  A deal is a deal.  No?

The government has already postponed retirement for most of us by a year or two, and now they're talking about amending things further.  They win, we lose.  If they want to have a two-tier system from this day forward, fine, but to change the rules in the middle of the game....

Is congress going to cut back THEIR (extremely liberal) retirement package?  Are they going to unilaterally cut back the retirement terms of current and former government employees (one of their most favored constituencies)?  

You put something on layaway at a department store, pay on it for months, then when paid in full go to pick up your purchase and are told they're changing the terms....they're only going to deliver to you the basic model, not the super deluxe model you were promised.  Would you say anything or would you push back?

They call Medicare and Social Security "entitlements", which in popular modern vernacular implies "I didn't do anything to deserve it, but I'm entitled to it anyway."  Nothing could be further from the truth.  I paid for mine, and I have the receipts to prove it.

IMO, we taxpayers have held up our end of the deal, now it's time for the government to hold up their end.  As it is, they're holding up their end all right, and saying, "Kiss it!"

Counterpoint anyone?

S

Screwed again, and we didn't even get a kiss

So our politicians tell us that we're broke....way past broke, actually....because of all the old-timers now signing up for their Medicare and Social Security, which, by the way, they PAID for over their working lives.  (And if the tax rate was insufficient to keep those trust funds properly topped off, whose fault is that?)

But wait....now we find out that a cool $76 BILLION DOLLARS in special-interest tax credits was included in the recent "fiscal cliff" legislation.  Lobbyists such as the firm headed by former Senator's John Breaux (D-LA) and Trent Lott (R-MS), representing companies like General Electric and Citigroup, secured for them an extension to the provision that allows multinational corporations to defer US taxes by moving profits into offshore financial subsidiaries.  (Their profits are all credited to subsidiaries in low-tax countries like Luxembourg where they might have nothing more than a PO Box.  They then pay Luxembourg taxes, not US taxes.)

Known as the "active financing exception", this is the tool that GE (and quite a few others, too) uses to avoid paying nearly all US corporate taxes.  Also blessed with sweetheart tax breaks were companies like rum distiller Diageo, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, the American Wind Energy Association and the Motion Picture Association of America. (I checked and Park Place Custom Homes didn't get crap!)

Obviously their shareholders are ecstatic, but how is the taxpayer's interest served here?  

This scam was one the Obama administration insisted be included, and the Republicans feebly and quietly objected to, then voted "aye" anyway.  ("I'll vote for yours if you'll vote for mine?")  I wonder if we went back over the past 30 years or so and looked very carefully how much of our $16 TRILLION DOLLAR debt could be attributed to these kinds of giveaways?

No....no kiss, or dinner, or a movie, or even cab fare home.  Just a plain old fashioned screwing.  "I feel so....so used."

S

I didn't see THAT coming!

  
I think like many people I watched the Veep debate last night expecting to see a personable Joe Biden yap and on que say something funny that Saturday Night Live can take and make into a hilarious skit.  That SNL skit may still happen, but what I actually witnessed was an informed, powerful, very combative, stand-his-ground candidate Biden.

Specifically, here's what I saw:  Biden probably said the words "middle class" 20 times.  Same with "level playing field", and "a fair shake".  He came across as the populist defender of The People, something I think will play well with blue-collar voters.   And what is THE most critical state still in play?  Ohio....gritty, blue-collar Ohio.  Eighteen electoral vote Ohio.

Biden got so worked up on several occasions I fully expected to see him start foaming at the mouth.  But again, that much passion is probably appreciated by the blue-collar types.  Just go into a bar in Ohio and bring up Michigan, or vice versa.  You'll see lots of "mouth foaming"!

And Biden had something for war-weary voters, too, when he promised we would be out of Afghanistan by 2014.  "Sure, the Afghans would be happy to let us keep doing their fighting for them forever.  That's why we put them on notice.  'You'd better be ready to defend YOUR country come 2014.'" I think that struck a popular chord and will be well received.

In this case at least I think Biden's age and experience trumped Ryan's youth and vigor.  How could Ryan compete with Biden's "I was right there with Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neil (and a bottle of scotch?) during their epic budget battles"?  Or, "I was on an hour-long conference call with Bibi Netanyahu (Israeli PM) and the President and we're all in complete agreement...." 

I think that "complete agreement with Israel" reference probably reassured the Jewish community, too.  And correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Florida have a sizable Jewish community?  Twenty nine electoral vote Florida.  Smooth.

Paul Ryan is a numbers man; a budget, Medicare and Social Security expert.  While very important stuff, it's also very boring to talk about.  It's all based on "projections" and "assumptions", and with accounting being such a fraudulent practice today, can easily be refuted.  It's a "He said, She said" argument that politicians have been throwing at us for so long they're hardly believable any more.   "Projections" are a tough sell.

Most awkward exchange:  Ryan sharing Gov. Romney's compassion for a family who had suffered through a horrible car crash, while Biden explained he WAS the family that suffered through a horrible car crash.  OUCH!

Best zingers:  When Ryan mentioned that Jack Kennedy cut taxes, Biden chimed in, "Oh, so now you're Jack Kennedy?"  Also, when Ryan explained how Romney mis-spoke when talking about the 47% quip, saying, "I'm sure you know what it's like to have your words come out not the way you meant for them to."  Haha!

While the red states are still red and the blue states are still blue, I think Joe Biden's performance probably picked up quite a few net votes for the Democrats.  This is going to make for an interesting finish come November.

S

I believe I hear the fat woman singing....

....and I don't think Mitt Romney likes what he's hearing.

Various polls are now saying Willard "the Mitt" Romney is losing ground in the few critical up-for-grab states that are going to decide who will be our next President.  Sure, there are numerous things that could turn his campaign around, but as I see it, they are all outside his control.

Brick Obama could have a brain fart during the debates, but I think he's too smart for that.  Israel could turn Tehran into a smoking hole, causing them to close the Strait of Hormuz.  Gas goes up to $8 a gallon, and Obama could be sending out resumes.  Who knows?  Unemployment could take a huge leap up, but with holiday hiring now kicking off, that doesn't seem likely. 

So where did Romney go wrong?  As I've said for months, most Americans don't want an "extreme" candidate from either end of the spectrum.  Remember the extremely liberal Democratic Party of the 1980's?  The Republican's ultra-conservative Tea Party of today is that far to the right.  Many middle-class mature voters are turned off by those types.  Why didn't Mitt move towards the center?  

Instead he picked lightning rod Paul Ryan for a running mate, IMO a bad mistake.  Seniors see him as the guy who's gonna mess with their Medicare and Social Security.  Even though Ryan said nothing for them would change, seniors don't believe him.  It's sort of like how, when one company buys another, they always say, "No operational changes are expected."  

Yeah, right.  Six months later divisions have been sold-off, pensions and health care have been overhauled for the worse, and a few more pink slips are passed out every Friday.  That's how many seniors see Paul Ryan.  And just coincidentally, battle-ground states Ohio and Florida are loaded with seniors.

And the "47%" quip, the "my wife has two Cadillacs", and the "I don't know anything about NASCAR but several of my friends own teams" hasn't exactly made folks want to invite Mitt and Ann over for hot dogs and a friendly game of backyard horse shoes.  There's just no "warm fuzzy".

Nope, I don't think Mitt Romney has enough time left to distance himself from the Tea Party "Young Guns" and reinvent himself as a moderate (that he probably really is).  I guess we can read the expert's election post mortem three months from now and see if my analysis was on target or not.  One thing no one can argue with is this has been a ridiculously expensive, nasty election.  Can you imagine the free-for-all in 2016?

S

Goin' out with a BANG!

This afternoon I'm making a presentation to a potential client, hoping to build one last million dollar home for my retirement swan song.  IF (say long heart-felt prayer, rub rabbit's foot, stare at 4-leaf clover, knock on wood) they agree with my numbers, I'll be retired before we can actually break ground, so this job will be my first post-retirement consulting job.  Needless to say, bro is pulling for me.

I'm afraid it's going to be a tough sell because they are already "poor-boying" me, telling me how their income is down 25% this year.  (The wife is a doctor, and the reduced Medicare reimbursement scheme to doctors is taking its toll.)  I'm trying to make them understand that, even though their income is down, my costs are not.  But people hear what they want to hear, reason be damned, so....

I have all my documents, bids, numbers, etc properly assembled and collated, ready for their review. I have all my ducks in a row.  Wish me luck.

Let the games begin!

S

A couple of questions....

It's obvious that Social Security and especially Medicare are going to be the hot button issues of the upcoming presidential election.  It's all about cutting the deficit, and these two things will bear the brunt of any budget reforms.

My questions are:

Are you reasonably happy with Medicare as it exists now, or are you just comfortable with it because it is a known quantity?  

Do you just accept Medicare with all it's flaws because you are afraid of the alternative?

Are you afraid a voucher-type senior health care program will force seniors to pay money out of pocket (that they may or may not have) in order to get comparable coverage to what Medicare offers now?  In other words, in your mind, is a voucher-type system a step backwards?

WHAT was he thinking??

Can anyone explain to me Mitt Romney's grand strategy in choosing Paul Ryan as a running mate?  If he has one at all it baffles me.  All he did was solidify those conservative / Tea Party folks who were going to vote for him anyway.  He might now be able to bring in Ryan's home state of Wisconsin, but it will probably cost him Florida and several other states with large senior populations.

And politicians usually like to talk in vague, opaque language, giving out as few details as possible so the opposition will have a difficult time pinning them down with specifics to pound on.  Not this time!  Ryan has a detailed, articulate budget plan that will be a lightning rod issue.  Again, those who were already going to vote conservative will, while those who weren't still won't.  But now many of those absolutely vital moderate swing voters, many of them elderly, will have reason (Medicare / Social Security) to vote Democratic.  You just don't make the elderly's Medicare or Social Security benefits the centerpiece of a campaign, especially if it is to "reform" it.

This violates all rules of general elections.  You appeal to your core supporters in the primaries, and then move towards the middle when appealing to the larger population.  Just watch....Obama will appeal to the moderates with reassuring words while criticizing Romney as an extremist, and Romney will have to distance himself from his own Veep's controversial budget plan.  He should have brought Ryan on board later after the election (if he won) as a cabinet member.  

This is just bizarre.

S

Lemme think....food, or a dirt bike? Which to choose?

NASA's  unmanned spacecraft  Mars Curiosity Rover is scheduled to land on Mars August 6th where it will perform chemical experiments paving the way for a manned mission to the Red Planet in the 2030's.  And as a warm-up for that mission we're planning to land a man on an asteroid in 2025.


Lemme get this straight....we have a 15 TRILLION dollar national debt, we're tacking on another trillion or so a year, we're trying to decide what we can live without (fix the bridges?...cut Medicare?...delay the Social Security retirement age?...keep the post office open?...)  yet we're gonna spend billions to plant a flag on Mars?  Really?  A flag?  Big f__king whoop!


If you were broke, couldn't pay your mortgage, only had a few cans of beans in the pantry, couldn't get mama the operation she needs, and couldn't buy new school shoes for your growing kids, would you sell your blood in order to get a few bucks so you could buy a dirt bike?


Going to Mars would be cool, just like riding a dirt bike would be fun*, IF we had our fiscal house in order and had some fun money to spare.  But we don't.  This is insane!


S


*so I'm told


  

Healthcare talk

Any day now the U S Supreme Court will hand down their decision declaring all or parts of "Obamacare" to be unconstitutional or allowing it to stand as-is.  Regardless of the ruling, about 1/2 of the people are going to be unhappy.  Me?....I'm somewhere right in the middle.  I don't think the system we have now is working well enough to remain unchallenged, but I don't have an alternative to offer, either.  If you don't have insurance or can't get it, you know how dire the situation is.  If you're one of the lucky few who have insurance AND deep enough pockets that would enable you to absorb any after-insurance expenses, you obviously don't see the problem, but you should never forget.....things can change in a hurry.  


I have a friend who at age 61 had double-bypass surgery.  He had insurance and could easily handle the co-pay, but the next year he was laid off his upper management job of 25+ years, with his termination package giving him just one more year of company insurance after that.  (His deep suspicion was his company wanted him gone due to his health liability.)  With his medical and family history he couldn't buy health insurance on the open market.  He bought into a state "last-resort" policy, but that soon proved unaffordable so he went "naked" until Medicare kicked in at age 65.  Every ache and pain sent him into panic mode.  He never thought he'd find himself in that position.


On the other hand I don't have confidence in our government to manage much of anything efficiently.  The Obamacare bill is...what...2,700 pages long?  Can anyone really, REALLY understand it?  I know the UK, Canada, Australia, and some others have universal government-run programs that seem to have a lot of good points, but they also have some well-documented problems, too, such as the fact they're breaking the bank. 


Then there's the matter of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986.  This law requires almost all hospitals to treat anyone walking in seeking medical attention.  It was meant to cover true emergencies, but now is being used to treat colds, the flu, etc.  Hospitals and doctors have billions of dollars in un-collectable write-offs.  Did you know that >60% of bankruptcies are due to medical bills people can't pay?  And that 78% of those are by people who had insurance but couldn't pay for all those things not covered by their insurance?  And besides the obvious hit to doctors and hospitals, bankruptcy is a drain on our economy in a bigger sense, too.  Those who have gone through it find it difficult or impossible to buy a house, a car....pretty much anything that requires credit.  These are potential big-ticket consumers who will NOT be helping grow our economy.


Just some thoughts for you to consider.  IMO, regardless of what the Supreme Court decides, SOMETHING needs to be done about healthcare in America.  I wish there was a simple answer.


S