Where is this month, this year, this life going? Time just flies. A guy I spoke with the other day was either lamenting or was astonished that his 50th class reunion is coming up. (Join the club, buddy!) He almost stuttered, "50 years!" while shaking his head. Einstein was right about relativity; reality, or perception of it, relies upon frames of reference.
What adolescent thinks of, say, reaching 60 or 70 years? I know I didn't and I'll bet few, if any, others do. What's a wasted hour of one's life at age 15 or 22 or even 36? But at age 70, that wasted hour takes on a completely different meaning. Maybe you'll have to take my word for it, at least for now.
Sometimes the little things that go right help to make up for the big things that go bad. It was just a flag football game for 7- and 8-year olds. It was fun to watch the little ones, even some girls were playing, running around enjoying themselves. Nobody, other than some of the parents, seemed to care who was ahead or behind or won or lost. Catching a pass or scoring a touchdown made the moment fun. No, I'm not talking about participation trophies; I can't stand them. But I can't see anything at all wrong with kids enjoying success, even with something as trivial as a Sunday afternoon flag football game.
That my grandson scored his first touchdown wasn't at all important to me. That he was so excited and happy was very important to me. With luck and some guidance, maybe he'll be able to use that experience, that some practice (hard work?) leads to success and enjoyment.
On the other hand, a couple of kids from the other team were a handful. More than once these teammates were not involved in the play(s) or even the game. They were chasing each other around, even kicking at each other--during the game action! Initially I felt sorry for their coaches (having been in similar youth coaching situations) and then realized what their teachers had to endure! I don't want to tell others how to raise their kids (I'm certainly no expert and, even now, am still learning about this "parenting" thing, all over again.), but it would have been nice to see Mom and/or Dad come down to speak to their kids.
Speaking of sports, my Michael this year is playing lacrosse for the high school(s) united JV team. He has ever played before, just picking up a lacrosse stick for the first time the day before his first practice. I guess I wasn't surprised that some of his teammates have been playing the game for 10 years or even more. He likes the game, although he is behind in some of the skills--hey, he's been at it less than 2 months vs 10 years! But, of the 40-minute games, he usually plays more than 10 minutes. In several of the games, when the team was a bit short-handed, he even played more than 30 minutes! Yep, he was very tired. We were talking about it last night, coming home from taking Grandma out to dinner for Mother's Day (Michael's idea!), lacrosse being different from his other sports. In the others, he said, football, basketball, and of course baseball, "There's always time to rest. In lacrosse, I'm always running somewhere." Yes, he is. It's an interesting game to watch and I am still picking up on some of the rules and nuances.
And, speaking of schools, I read an interesting fact (Of course, is it really a "fact?" Who can tell nowadays, with so many distortions, untruths, and outright lies passing as "facts?" I certainly can't and have fallen victim to them just like everyone else seems to have.) about the best private high schools. (I believe the article called them "elite private secondary schools," but would have to double check.) Tuition, the author claimed, at these "elite" schools was "from $30,000 to $40,000." Whoa! That's far more than public colleges/universities! What makes them "elite?" I don't know for sure. Is it results, particularly compared to public schools? Locally, our district schools get about $7,000 to $8,000 per student. I don't think I need my calculator to recognize that's a far cry from "$40,000." I know there are other expenses involved, but $30,000+ per student per year? It's probably strange hearing from one who taught in the public schools say he isn't opposed to private schools or school choice, but I'm not. After all, we have "choice" in picking our colleges and universities to attend. And I went to a private college. Competition between the public and private schools? Bring it on, I say. I've never shied away from competition in anything. I do say, let's play by the same rules and I would suggest that many of the comparisons being made do not involves schools and results that play by the same rules. Trump, DeVos, et al should know that and, if they don't, should be made aware and questioned about "the rules."
Last week a local columnist wrote about the pitfalls of "repealing Obamacare," which I fear will not happen. What he wrote might well have been true. He based his entire article, supporting the results of Obamacare and critical of the more recent attempts to pass new health care legislation, on a single example. He might well have been able to cite more examples, but he didn't. Among what he said, and I have no reason to disbelieve it, was that, without Obamacare, this person cited wouldn't have been able to access a doctor and the medications she needed. They were beyond her financial means. Yep, I don't doubt that. But what this columnist (and both of my Democrat US Senators) fails to realize (or accept?) that it's now not just those who were without coverage who have been affected. (And according this this writer, the woman was positively affected). Does anyone consider those, under Obamacare, whose premiums have shot through the roof, whose co-pays and deductibles for care and prescriptions have put them beyond their financial reach? I'll use a personal example. With my former coverage, before Obamacare, I had co-pays that were reasonable. I didn't like them; after all, who doesn't want free stuff, esp medicine? But they were reasonable. After a fairly serious eye injury last summer, I was given four prescriptions by a specialist. Before leaving, I inquired as to their relative cost and absolute necessity. With my new (after Obamacare) coverage, I could afford two of the prescriptions. OK, I could have afforded all of them, but the chunks out of our budget would have been dire. Just like the columnist surely could have found others to make his point, that Obamacare has helped them, I'm certainly not the only one whose higher costs have precluded visits to doctors, forgoing medications, etc. It's just something to consider.
Yesterday, on this same topic, a local editor broached the subject of paying for health coverage. Of course, he admitted, it is very desirable for all Americans to have health insurance. Who can argue otherwise? After all, some would say, European nations have provided it for years. But hold on a minute. (Again, are the figures he tosses around accurate? Who knows today? I have no reason to dispute them. I could likely find sources to support and sources to refute them. Such is today's world.) The average American taxpayer now pays about 20% of his income to the federal government. With my taxes last month, that's about right on the money. Now, that doesn't include local taxes--state, county, township, and school. It doesn't include property taxes, sales taxes, and even state and city income taxes, all of which we pay. If all of those local taxes are added up, I'll bet I pay more than 25% in total taxes. And that seems to be right; I remember reading 28% somewhere is the norm, but I'm hazy on when and where I read that. Still, that's not the point. The editor points out that, in those European nations which have "free" health insurance, tax rates, the average real tax rate, in the European union is 45%. Obviously not all of the increase can be attributed to health care bills, but in other social spending, too. But in the European nations with the highest social spending, the average tax rates are also the highest. Imagine Sweden, paying a tax rate of 47%, Germany, 52%, and Belgium 57%. France comes in with an average tax rate of 57.5%. I guess that's not bad--if it's "the other guy" who is paying that much. But it isn't. In that same Belgium, a married couple with two kids pays almost 40% in taxes. In the US, a similar family pays less than half that. Again, it's OK if "the other guy" foots the bill. Will this fairly "average" or "typical" American family be willing to pay double the taxes it already does? My guess is not.
Consider how Americans live and whether they would be willing to give up their lifestyles. In the US, according to the figures presented by this editor, the average American (It's not clear if he means family or person, but likely person) lives in a home of 1000 square feet. In Europe, the average housing space is 400 square feet (again, it's not clear if that means family or person, although I suspect person). We have more than 1000 square for our family and do not complain. We are very comfortable. But we also have the house with the smallest square footage in our entire subdivision. How about our cars, most notably our pick-ups and SUVs? Are Americans going to willing drive the popcorn machines of Europe in order to pay more taxes?
Of course the United States can afford health care for everyone. The question is really whether they will. What politician (at least openly!) would suggest doubling taxes? And taxing the 1% or 10% or 20% won't do it. Most European nations tax their wealthiest citizens at extraordinarily high rates; how much blood can be squeezed from a turnip or beet (or whatever it is)? There's no doubt that the middle class here would have to be hit with higher rates.
Oh, I think I'll save the rest for later in the week......
Monday, May 15, 2017
Friday, May 5, 2017
A Good Question
I don't remember where I heard or saw this the other day, but it is worth considering. "Why bother voting for Republicans?" I most often don't vote for Republicans (or Democrats for that matter); I didn't vote for Trump (nor Clinton) and didn't vote for Snyder either time (nor his Democrat opponents). I'm not arguing policy or philosophy here (Well, maybe I am?), but rather realities.
The Republicans have been given, nationally, control of Congress and the White House. Yet, the headlines the other day blared, "Spending deal shows Dems' clout." Huh? What "clout?" The Democrats lost the election in November, were hammered. What "clout?"
What's with this "reaching across the aisle?" "bipartisanship?" "compromise?" I don't recall much of that coming from the Democrats the previous eight years. Perhaps it's a one-way street. Voters didn't vote for Republicans to "reach across the aisle."
Take that budget. Why is there still funding for Planned Parenthood, although there might have been a cut? (Who can go through the multi-paged monstrosities Congress passes? Members of Congress themselves can't go through those bills.) Why the money still going to "sanctuary cities," who openly defy the law? (Why can't you and I openly break the law, say, not pay our income taxes and get away with it?) Where were the Republicans who campaigned against "PP" and "sanctuary?" Why didn't the President veto the bill?
And not to discuss the merits of the new House bill on health care, but what happened to "We're going to repeal Obamacare?" Oh, the Establishment Republicans were rough and tough in passing, what?, 50-some bills to repeal it when there was no chance of Obama signing any of them into law. Yep, they were very courageous then. Now, with a President to pledged to do the same thing, "repeal," they bail. Of course, who knows what this President would do--veto?
Congress created this mess, yet it wants to kick the can to the states? Members of Congress don't want to be the bad guys, but are willing to see if the state legislators will? From the actions of the states in the aftermath of Obamacare (well, at least Michigan), there's little chance of that happening.
Again I ask, why can't these politicians be sued for fraud? They make promises on the campaign trails, apparently with no intention of keeping them. When elected, the liars break those promises that got them elected. And those few who stand up for what they said are marginalized and penalized by their own Establishment parties. Of course, it's futile to expect any of these liars to be shamed; there is no sense of shame any longer. (Instead of crawling into a hole to hide, a former President who had sex in the Oval Office, then lied to the American people about it, and was impeached, now commands hundreds of thousands of dollars for a speech and is looked upon by his party as an elder spokesman.) Shame? What's that?
Around here, it's been a particularly nasty week. A seven-year old girl was shot in the head/neck when someone(s) opened fire on the house in which she was sleeping. Five men sitting in a van in a gas station were shot up (one or two died). A police officer was shot in the head by a guy who opened fire on him; the guy was himself shot and killed. There were shootings in some of the suburbs, too. Where does this attitude derive? Why do people think they can just start shooting other people? It's yet another of life's mysteries to me.
The story just seems to get recycled. A "pit bull mix" mauled two other people. The dog was the pet (?) of a man who lived with his mother. Both his mother and a friend were in intensive care at area hospitals. "It's not my fault," said the dog's owner. This was after the dog reportedly had attacked the mother before, resulting in 30+ stitches. "It's not my fault."
I joked, but only a bit, with some folks last week about some students showing up to take their final exams--without bringing paper or any writing utensils, no pencils, no pens. I can't imagine that, esp going back to my student days (The Stone Ages). Then, again yesterday, it happened again. In handing out the exam, a student asked, "Do you have a pencil?" And she had no paper, either. Maybe she was going to write her essays on the table/desk, but her finger ran out of ink?
I bought a book of New York Times Sunday Crosswords. Some are 70 and 80 years old! The first couple appeared before Pearl Harbor. And, they used to be a whole lot more difficult than they are now. They are very hard. It's not just that some of the clues are from the '30s and '40s. I think some of the words have fallen out of usage. Some of the popular names/places aren't so popular 70 and 80 years later. But they are fun and I am enjoying them.
Apparently there is a widespread scam going on regarding the IRS. People are getting phone calls that the IRS has "issued an arrest warrant" for failure to pay back taxes. "Immediately" call such-and-such a number for help and "to avoid arrest." I rec'd such a call. I checked the phone number online and found numerous others who have reported the same scam. First, the IRS was going to "arrest" me for $128? (K paid it, against my wishes.) Second, the IRS has enough resources to come after me for $128, but such phone scams aren't worth investigation or "arresting" the perpetrators?
It was great to listen to one of our local radio personalities be his usual obsequious self to a politician guest. But when the guest pointed out the mistakes the governor and his office made regarding the Flint water crisis, the host started mumbling and bumbling. "Well, er, uh......" finally adding, "There are other factors......" Yeah, right.
The Republicans have been given, nationally, control of Congress and the White House. Yet, the headlines the other day blared, "Spending deal shows Dems' clout." Huh? What "clout?" The Democrats lost the election in November, were hammered. What "clout?"
What's with this "reaching across the aisle?" "bipartisanship?" "compromise?" I don't recall much of that coming from the Democrats the previous eight years. Perhaps it's a one-way street. Voters didn't vote for Republicans to "reach across the aisle."
Take that budget. Why is there still funding for Planned Parenthood, although there might have been a cut? (Who can go through the multi-paged monstrosities Congress passes? Members of Congress themselves can't go through those bills.) Why the money still going to "sanctuary cities," who openly defy the law? (Why can't you and I openly break the law, say, not pay our income taxes and get away with it?) Where were the Republicans who campaigned against "PP" and "sanctuary?" Why didn't the President veto the bill?
And not to discuss the merits of the new House bill on health care, but what happened to "We're going to repeal Obamacare?" Oh, the Establishment Republicans were rough and tough in passing, what?, 50-some bills to repeal it when there was no chance of Obama signing any of them into law. Yep, they were very courageous then. Now, with a President to pledged to do the same thing, "repeal," they bail. Of course, who knows what this President would do--veto?
Congress created this mess, yet it wants to kick the can to the states? Members of Congress don't want to be the bad guys, but are willing to see if the state legislators will? From the actions of the states in the aftermath of Obamacare (well, at least Michigan), there's little chance of that happening.
Again I ask, why can't these politicians be sued for fraud? They make promises on the campaign trails, apparently with no intention of keeping them. When elected, the liars break those promises that got them elected. And those few who stand up for what they said are marginalized and penalized by their own Establishment parties. Of course, it's futile to expect any of these liars to be shamed; there is no sense of shame any longer. (Instead of crawling into a hole to hide, a former President who had sex in the Oval Office, then lied to the American people about it, and was impeached, now commands hundreds of thousands of dollars for a speech and is looked upon by his party as an elder spokesman.) Shame? What's that?
Around here, it's been a particularly nasty week. A seven-year old girl was shot in the head/neck when someone(s) opened fire on the house in which she was sleeping. Five men sitting in a van in a gas station were shot up (one or two died). A police officer was shot in the head by a guy who opened fire on him; the guy was himself shot and killed. There were shootings in some of the suburbs, too. Where does this attitude derive? Why do people think they can just start shooting other people? It's yet another of life's mysteries to me.
The story just seems to get recycled. A "pit bull mix" mauled two other people. The dog was the pet (?) of a man who lived with his mother. Both his mother and a friend were in intensive care at area hospitals. "It's not my fault," said the dog's owner. This was after the dog reportedly had attacked the mother before, resulting in 30+ stitches. "It's not my fault."
I joked, but only a bit, with some folks last week about some students showing up to take their final exams--without bringing paper or any writing utensils, no pencils, no pens. I can't imagine that, esp going back to my student days (The Stone Ages). Then, again yesterday, it happened again. In handing out the exam, a student asked, "Do you have a pencil?" And she had no paper, either. Maybe she was going to write her essays on the table/desk, but her finger ran out of ink?
I bought a book of New York Times Sunday Crosswords. Some are 70 and 80 years old! The first couple appeared before Pearl Harbor. And, they used to be a whole lot more difficult than they are now. They are very hard. It's not just that some of the clues are from the '30s and '40s. I think some of the words have fallen out of usage. Some of the popular names/places aren't so popular 70 and 80 years later. But they are fun and I am enjoying them.
Apparently there is a widespread scam going on regarding the IRS. People are getting phone calls that the IRS has "issued an arrest warrant" for failure to pay back taxes. "Immediately" call such-and-such a number for help and "to avoid arrest." I rec'd such a call. I checked the phone number online and found numerous others who have reported the same scam. First, the IRS was going to "arrest" me for $128? (K paid it, against my wishes.) Second, the IRS has enough resources to come after me for $128, but such phone scams aren't worth investigation or "arresting" the perpetrators?
It was great to listen to one of our local radio personalities be his usual obsequious self to a politician guest. But when the guest pointed out the mistakes the governor and his office made regarding the Flint water crisis, the host started mumbling and bumbling. "Well, er, uh......" finally adding, "There are other factors......" Yeah, right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
