For those who say Bush did not have an energy program, take a look at this article on May 17, 2001 from CNN and tell me what you think.
Link
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Monday, September 8, 2008
Energy - Increase Security By Drilling More
Certain of the United States' current adversaries gain a significant amount of income from oil sales. If we start drilling in all available areas now, even though it may takes years before any oil is produced, those that produce oil will know that in the future they will find it harder to sell oil.
If the U.S. combines drilling with an aggressive alternative energy program, those that sell oil will realize that there will be less demand in the future. This will produce a desire to sell as much oil as they can while they still can. More overall supply will lower the price, thus leaving the current adversaries with less funds with to do mischief.
If the U.S. combines drilling with an aggressive alternative energy program, those that sell oil will realize that there will be less demand in the future. This will produce a desire to sell as much oil as they can while they still can. More overall supply will lower the price, thus leaving the current adversaries with less funds with to do mischief.
Can we handle benefits better?
The way we handle cut off points for denying benefits seems counter-productive. Example: Social Security disability benefits. Assume you are receiving benefits but decided to try to go back to work. You are allowed to work so much but once you achieve a certain point you lose all benefits. This is an incentive not to work unless the new individual income is greater than the current benefits receiving plus taxes paid on the new income plus the cost of working. The cost of working includes possible increased costs in transportation, clothing, meals, baby-sitting, etc, plus the lost of time.
A better system would be a partial cut in benefits. For example for each additional $3 earn, a $1 decrease in benefits. This would provide an incentive to work while also decreasing the cost to agency. In this case the agency actual cost is decreased by $1, plus $0.45 ($3 *15% combined SS tax, individual and company match). And if they person is "wealthy"enough, the state and federal government will also receive income tax.
Links:
substantial gainful activity (SGA)
trial work period
A better system would be a partial cut in benefits. For example for each additional $3 earn, a $1 decrease in benefits. This would provide an incentive to work while also decreasing the cost to agency. In this case the agency actual cost is decreased by $1, plus $0.45 ($3 *15% combined SS tax, individual and company match). And if they person is "wealthy"enough, the state and federal government will also receive income tax.
Links:
substantial gainful activity (SGA)
trial work period
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Is the media biased?- The Chris Matthews Show
9/7 With Joe Klein of Time and John Heilemann of New York Magazine, Andrea Mitchell of NBC, and Michele Norris of NPR is the panel unfairly balanced toward the left?
9/7 Joe Klein came out swinging against the Republicans with Democratic talking points. From his blogs I would guess he is far-left.
9/7 Joe Klein came out swinging against the Republicans with Democratic talking points. From his blogs I would guess he is far-left.
Health Care - Socialized Medicine - Vaccines
Whether or not you believe in socialized medicine, there maybe a few areas where the government should participate.
One area is the distribution of vaccines. Because vaccines protect not only the health of the individual but also of the whole population, the cost of vaccines should be shared by the government. Vaccines should be made available to everyone.
But we also need to protect those who suffer adverse reactions from taking vaccines. To insure the viability of the companies making vaccines, we should limit being able to sue the manufactures. In return, a fund would be set up to pay for those injured by taking vaccines. This will take out the "lottery" mentality out of suing manufactures. Those that are severely injured would be compensated fairly without having to overly compensate lawyers and battle manufactures in court.
The government would save money by increasing the overall health of the general public, reducing lost wages from those becoming sick and those taking care of the sick. Also the court system will save money by having less trials. The manufactures will save money by having a sure customer for their product (the government) and by reducing litigation costs. Because their risks will be less, they can lower the overall return needed to attract investors. These saving can be passed on it lower drug cost or in increased research and development.
One area is the distribution of vaccines. Because vaccines protect not only the health of the individual but also of the whole population, the cost of vaccines should be shared by the government. Vaccines should be made available to everyone.
But we also need to protect those who suffer adverse reactions from taking vaccines. To insure the viability of the companies making vaccines, we should limit being able to sue the manufactures. In return, a fund would be set up to pay for those injured by taking vaccines. This will take out the "lottery" mentality out of suing manufactures. Those that are severely injured would be compensated fairly without having to overly compensate lawyers and battle manufactures in court.
The government would save money by increasing the overall health of the general public, reducing lost wages from those becoming sick and those taking care of the sick. Also the court system will save money by having less trials. The manufactures will save money by having a sure customer for their product (the government) and by reducing litigation costs. Because their risks will be less, they can lower the overall return needed to attract investors. These saving can be passed on it lower drug cost or in increased research and development.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
