There has been such an emotional uproar over the AIG bonuses that many have overlooked some common sense with regards to how to handle these sorts of things - or even if they SHOULD be 'handled'.....
I feel as much outrage over how this whole thing happened, as do many. The fact that I paid those bonuses, through my taxpayer-funded AIG bail-out, really pisses me off. It's not right. And the insistence by the AIG CEO that due to 'contractual obligations', they had to pay the bonuses. Of course, the UAW had a contract but re-opened it to renegoitiation. But Congress caused the issue by not putting any - or very many - strings on the money they gave AIG, at Bush's insistence. So now they are outraged at the bonuses being paid, although the writing was on the wall for months, and many people knew about them.
But the position they are taking - with a 90% tax on these bonuses - seems to me a large overreaction, which is what we should expect from Congress. It's a very slippery slope they are stepping on to, and it makes me very nervous. If they can retroactively tax these bonuses, what's to stop them from enacting any sort of retroactive tax? Or a tax targeted at a very narrow group of citizens? Should they really be allowed to dictate the compensation policies of companies? Granted, in this instance, they (we) own 80% of AIG - but shouldn't they have to work through the same stockholder procedures that any stockholder would have to?
This is one instance where I agree with President Obama (who has indicated that he is against the bonus tax). I hope he has the guts to stick with his position this time.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
I LIKE the World Baseball Classic!
There has been a lot of discussion regarding the WBC. Most pundits - and managers and GM's - don't like it. Too much risk of injury, time away from the team during spring training, too intense too early in the year.... These are all reasons why the teams don't like it.
But I've watched a lot of the games this spring, and I have to say that I really like it! Compared to watching spring training games, watching guys with numbers like 83, 97 and 134 filling out most team's line-ups, especially after the 5th inning, is incredibly boring and a waste of time, even for a baseball nut like me.... The intensity level of the WBC is certainly much higher than spring training, and even feels like a play-off environment in some of the games, especially the elimination games - like last night's US - Puerto Rico game, which both teams had to win to stay alive. I mean, David Wright came through in the clutch - how big is that?? And how unusual is that!
I have to admit to some concern when I learned that Dustin Pedroia got hurt, although it sounds like it's relatively minor. And when I was watching the Japan team play - Dice-K was pitching - I was also concerned that he got through the game ok. He and Pedroia are 2 major pieces for the Sox this year.
But overall I'd have to say that I'm pro-WBC. The games are great - I mean, Netherlands knocking off the Dominican Republic twice? Are you kidding me? That's great stuff! A bunch of guys with glasses and with names like Vanden Hurk, Schoop, Duursma (and Curt Smith (huh?)) knock off Big Papi and his boys - cool stuff for sure.
Looking forward to 2012 already.....
But I've watched a lot of the games this spring, and I have to say that I really like it! Compared to watching spring training games, watching guys with numbers like 83, 97 and 134 filling out most team's line-ups, especially after the 5th inning, is incredibly boring and a waste of time, even for a baseball nut like me.... The intensity level of the WBC is certainly much higher than spring training, and even feels like a play-off environment in some of the games, especially the elimination games - like last night's US - Puerto Rico game, which both teams had to win to stay alive. I mean, David Wright came through in the clutch - how big is that?? And how unusual is that!
I have to admit to some concern when I learned that Dustin Pedroia got hurt, although it sounds like it's relatively minor. And when I was watching the Japan team play - Dice-K was pitching - I was also concerned that he got through the game ok. He and Pedroia are 2 major pieces for the Sox this year.
But overall I'd have to say that I'm pro-WBC. The games are great - I mean, Netherlands knocking off the Dominican Republic twice? Are you kidding me? That's great stuff! A bunch of guys with glasses and with names like Vanden Hurk, Schoop, Duursma (and Curt Smith (huh?)) knock off Big Papi and his boys - cool stuff for sure.
Looking forward to 2012 already.....
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Losing Weight, Feeling Good!
I've been really trying to lose weight, for the first time in a coupe of years. I'm happy to say, it's been very successful so far! Starting on February 27th, I have been writing down everything I eat during the day, along with the calories (WebMD has a pretty good calorie guide). In addition, I've ramped up my exercising. I was already walking about 30 minutes 5 to 6 days a week. I've now added a short walk after lunch and dinner, ab exercises every morning and night (bicycle crunches) and 20 minutes of free weights every other day. The sum total so far is about 7 pounds, and I've lost it without really killing myself. In other words, I think I am making a lifestyle change here. I hope I am.
I can see it in my face - less puffy - and I have several pairs of pants that were tight and are not much better fitting in the waist! I also seem to have more energy. I was 202 at the beginning of the year and weight 192 right now (although I was about 199 when I started on february 23).
The funny part is watching the calories. It really forces you to look for items that you can fill up on without running up the calorie total, versus having a small portion of something that has a lot of calories. And it forces you to plan ahead a bit too. For example, I knew I was going out to lunch today, so I really had to watch what I ate yesterday so I didn't go way over. I am trying to stay in a range of 900 - 1200 calories per day.
The increased exercise has been good, too. I love to walk, and with the improving weather, I tend to walk more anyways. The weights have been a struggle. I am mainly working on upper-body stuff, to try and build the muscles a bit. But I can feel that working too.
I can see it in my face - less puffy - and I have several pairs of pants that were tight and are not much better fitting in the waist! I also seem to have more energy. I was 202 at the beginning of the year and weight 192 right now (although I was about 199 when I started on february 23).
The funny part is watching the calories. It really forces you to look for items that you can fill up on without running up the calorie total, versus having a small portion of something that has a lot of calories. And it forces you to plan ahead a bit too. For example, I knew I was going out to lunch today, so I really had to watch what I ate yesterday so I didn't go way over. I am trying to stay in a range of 900 - 1200 calories per day.
The increased exercise has been good, too. I love to walk, and with the improving weather, I tend to walk more anyways. The weights have been a struggle. I am mainly working on upper-body stuff, to try and build the muscles a bit. But I can feel that working too.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Replacing Gas Tax with Mileage Tax
The discussion of replacing a gasoline tax with a tax on miles driven (mileage tax) is becoming more heated (even though President Obama says the Federal government isn't interested in doing it). Attached is the text of an e-mail I have sent to all of my state and federal elected representatives.
I've been reading more and more discussion about this topic - a replacement of the gasoline tax with a tax based on the number of miles driven. I am against this idea for several reasons -
1) Privacy - yet again, Big Brother will be tracking my every move. The fact of the matter is, that once the government can start to monitor how many miles I am driving, it's a small step to now gauge my speed, where I am driving to and from and transmitting this information to a central database that already contains too much information about me. I don't care to be monitored in this way. It's a slippery slope, and we are already on it with EZPass. This would push us further down that slope.
2) Cost of equipment - if all new cars will be required to have a GPS device, a counting mechanism and some sort of transmitter, who will bear the cost of the added technology? The consumer, of course. I could see this adding several hundred dollars to the price of a new car.
3) Retrofitting older vehicles - again, who pays for the cost, if this were to be required? Also, older vehicles don't necessarily have the means to handle additional devices requiring electrical power - so that could lead to additional upgrades of the vehicles systems. Meaning additional cost. And any sort of government subsidy of these items would end up costing me in the end.
I also own 2 classic cars, from the '60's and '70's. They have relatively rudimentary electrical systems, so retrofitting any sort of GPS device would be almost impossible at any sort of reasonable cost. I also value the authenticity of these cars, so any sort of modern tracking system would destroy that authenticity and impact the value of the car.
4) Infrastructure to run this thing - more government bureaucrats? And I keep thinking about the initial application of EZPass here in the Northeast - there were many many problems when this system was implemented, and even today, there are problems with phantom tickets and bad transponders.
5) This is completely counter to the move to get people to drive more fuel-efficient vehicles! An increased gas tax would certainly incent people to continue to look at vehicles that get better economy; this sort of tax doesn't drive that behavior at all. We already have too many large SUV's with only a driver on our NJ roads, although the recent spike in gas prices has certainly started a trend the other way. Eliminating the gas tax could reverse that trend.
6) This sort of tax really penalizes those who MUST drive for a living. My wife is a home health-casr nurse. As such, she drives 200+ miles each week, caring for patients that cannot leave their homes to visit a doctor or healthcare facility. This Miles-Driven Tax would impact our income and further inhibit our ability to pay for college and save for retirement, to say nothing of our day-to-day needs.
This issue is one that rates very highly with me, and I would definitely look at your stand on this issue as an indicator of whether I will vote for you come re-election time.
I've been reading more and more discussion about this topic - a replacement of the gasoline tax with a tax based on the number of miles driven. I am against this idea for several reasons -
1) Privacy - yet again, Big Brother will be tracking my every move. The fact of the matter is, that once the government can start to monitor how many miles I am driving, it's a small step to now gauge my speed, where I am driving to and from and transmitting this information to a central database that already contains too much information about me. I don't care to be monitored in this way. It's a slippery slope, and we are already on it with EZPass. This would push us further down that slope.
2) Cost of equipment - if all new cars will be required to have a GPS device, a counting mechanism and some sort of transmitter, who will bear the cost of the added technology? The consumer, of course. I could see this adding several hundred dollars to the price of a new car.
3) Retrofitting older vehicles - again, who pays for the cost, if this were to be required? Also, older vehicles don't necessarily have the means to handle additional devices requiring electrical power - so that could lead to additional upgrades of the vehicles systems. Meaning additional cost. And any sort of government subsidy of these items would end up costing me in the end.
I also own 2 classic cars, from the '60's and '70's. They have relatively rudimentary electrical systems, so retrofitting any sort of GPS device would be almost impossible at any sort of reasonable cost. I also value the authenticity of these cars, so any sort of modern tracking system would destroy that authenticity and impact the value of the car.
4) Infrastructure to run this thing - more government bureaucrats? And I keep thinking about the initial application of EZPass here in the Northeast - there were many many problems when this system was implemented, and even today, there are problems with phantom tickets and bad transponders.
5) This is completely counter to the move to get people to drive more fuel-efficient vehicles! An increased gas tax would certainly incent people to continue to look at vehicles that get better economy; this sort of tax doesn't drive that behavior at all. We already have too many large SUV's with only a driver on our NJ roads, although the recent spike in gas prices has certainly started a trend the other way. Eliminating the gas tax could reverse that trend.
6) This sort of tax really penalizes those who MUST drive for a living. My wife is a home health-casr nurse. As such, she drives 200+ miles each week, caring for patients that cannot leave their homes to visit a doctor or healthcare facility. This Miles-Driven Tax would impact our income and further inhibit our ability to pay for college and save for retirement, to say nothing of our day-to-day needs.
This issue is one that rates very highly with me, and I would definitely look at your stand on this issue as an indicator of whether I will vote for you come re-election time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
