US corporate income tax is the highest in the world according to TaxProf.
Will the last industry leaving the US please turn out the lights.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Front Runner who ain't far out in front.
Mitt Romney. All the Sunday pundits agree that he is the front runner, but he sure ain't far out in front. Not with the Donald, speaking birther non sense, right on his tail.
Mitt's a nice guy, and he would made a decent president, but he's got a long way to go to get elected.
Mitt's a nice guy, and he would made a decent president, but he's got a long way to go to get elected.
NH HHS
The head of the NH dept of Health and Human Services was on WMUR-TV (essentially the NH state TV channel) talking about state budget cuts and his department. The media (democrats to a man) have been wailing about cuts in the HHS budget. Now the department head is on state wide TV and he ought to be making his department's case for more money.
Well, he wasn't very good at it. He didn't say what his last year's budget was, what his this year's budget looks like. He didn't say how many New Hampshire citizens were accepting HHS services. He didn't say what those services were, how much they cost, how many they helped. He didn't say what would happen, would people be cut off completely, have their benefits reduced, shipped out of state, or what?
In short, he (never did catch his name) failed to connect with me. I was prepared to feel sorry for, and perhaps even support a little more money for, deserving citizens being thrown out in the cold. He didn't tell me how bad things are, how deserving the recipients of HHS services are, and how necessary those services are.
So, Bill O'Brian, go for it. Balance that budget.
Well, he wasn't very good at it. He didn't say what his last year's budget was, what his this year's budget looks like. He didn't say how many New Hampshire citizens were accepting HHS services. He didn't say what those services were, how much they cost, how many they helped. He didn't say what would happen, would people be cut off completely, have their benefits reduced, shipped out of state, or what?
In short, he (never did catch his name) failed to connect with me. I was prepared to feel sorry for, and perhaps even support a little more money for, deserving citizens being thrown out in the cold. He didn't tell me how bad things are, how deserving the recipients of HHS services are, and how necessary those services are.
So, Bill O'Brian, go for it. Balance that budget.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Buying a gun at auction
That was this morning's exercise. Ammonoosuc Valley Auction Center (Mike and Jan Carver)auctioned off a big lot of guns this morning. There were handguns and rifles and shotguns, and a room full of men looking at the arms and then bidding on them. The top dollar ($600-$700) went for three US military 30 caliber rifles, two M1 Garands and a 1903 Springfield. Handguns fetched as much as rifles. There were a fair number of black powder arms, mostly shootable replicas rather than real antiques. I managed to snag a Marlin 30-30 deer rifle in beautiful condition. Living where I do, with black bears walking up and down my driveway, it seems reasonable to have a real rifle in the house.
Then we had to do Federal Firearms paperwork. Fill out a four page yellow form, check off 10 times "no" you are not a felon, not a fugitive from justice, not a drug user, not an illegal alien, and not a few other things. Then a very patient guy from Corey's Sport Shop telephoned somewhere and after a delay OK'ed us to pick up our purchases. No gun show loopholes in Littleton NH, except you didn't have to do the federal paperwork for black powder guns. Last time I bought a gun (45 years ago) it was simpler, you just gave them money and they gave you the gun.
So, brought my new rifle home and wiped it down with a little WD-40 on a rag to maintain the lustrous dark blueing against the corrosive effects of fingerprints. Need to join the local shooting club to use their range and buy some ammunition and a cleaning kit. That ought to keep me busy for a while.
Then we had to do Federal Firearms paperwork. Fill out a four page yellow form, check off 10 times "no" you are not a felon, not a fugitive from justice, not a drug user, not an illegal alien, and not a few other things. Then a very patient guy from Corey's Sport Shop telephoned somewhere and after a delay OK'ed us to pick up our purchases. No gun show loopholes in Littleton NH, except you didn't have to do the federal paperwork for black powder guns. Last time I bought a gun (45 years ago) it was simpler, you just gave them money and they gave you the gun.
So, brought my new rifle home and wiped it down with a little WD-40 on a rag to maintain the lustrous dark blueing against the corrosive effects of fingerprints. Need to join the local shooting club to use their range and buy some ammunition and a cleaning kit. That ought to keep me busy for a while.
Friday, April 15, 2011
The American Incline
Op ed in the Wall St Journal for Wednesday. I was gonna post a link to it but I couldn't find it on the Journal's website.
If you look at numbers, say population, GNP, and military spending, over the last decade (2000-2010) we have solid growth. Population is up 10%, to 310 million. GNP is up 21% over the decade, despite the dot com bust of 2001 and Great Depression 2.0, still on going. Military spending is up 55%
Compared to other countries, we are doing better than the EU, Russia, and Japan. India and China have been doing humongous growth over the last decade, so they pulled up closer to us, although we are still ahead by maybe 3X in the GNP department. Ten years ago we were ahead by 10X. Both India and China have 3X our population, so we can expect them to remain competitive for the forseeable future.
But, all and all, the numbers say the US is doing OK. There are a horde of lefty greenie pundits who have been crying gloom and doom, but they are just saying it, the numbers disagree.
If you look at numbers, say population, GNP, and military spending, over the last decade (2000-2010) we have solid growth. Population is up 10%, to 310 million. GNP is up 21% over the decade, despite the dot com bust of 2001 and Great Depression 2.0, still on going. Military spending is up 55%
Compared to other countries, we are doing better than the EU, Russia, and Japan. India and China have been doing humongous growth over the last decade, so they pulled up closer to us, although we are still ahead by maybe 3X in the GNP department. Ten years ago we were ahead by 10X. Both India and China have 3X our population, so we can expect them to remain competitive for the forseeable future.
But, all and all, the numbers say the US is doing OK. There are a horde of lefty greenie pundits who have been crying gloom and doom, but they are just saying it, the numbers disagree.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Have the 18 wheelers burn natural gas
That's T. Boone Pickens plan, as reported in Forbes.
It makes a certain amount of sense. Natural gas tanks are huge compared to gas tanks. The big 18 wheeler tractors have plenty of space for the bulky tankage. Much easier than fitting a natural gas tank into a Corolla.
The writer estimates that converting the truck's diesel engine to natural gas would cost $60,000 a truck. That's damn high. I bought an entire new V8 engine for $3000 a few years ago. Then he thinks the government should pay for the conversion.
Apparently the conversion to natural gas amounts to converting the diesel to a spark ignition engine, and reducing the compression ratio from 18:1 down to 10:1. That's gonna cost you fuel economy, big time. I'd want to see some test results showing fuel consumption on the natural gas converted engine. Would the converted mill be more economical than stock diesel? At what prices for natural gas and for diesel fuel?
And, the chicken and the egg problem. Truck stops don't supply natural gas right now. They won't until there are some customers for the stuff. Truckers won't convert until there is a refueling infrastructure to keep 'em running.
It makes a certain amount of sense. Natural gas tanks are huge compared to gas tanks. The big 18 wheeler tractors have plenty of space for the bulky tankage. Much easier than fitting a natural gas tank into a Corolla.
The writer estimates that converting the truck's diesel engine to natural gas would cost $60,000 a truck. That's damn high. I bought an entire new V8 engine for $3000 a few years ago. Then he thinks the government should pay for the conversion.
Apparently the conversion to natural gas amounts to converting the diesel to a spark ignition engine, and reducing the compression ratio from 18:1 down to 10:1. That's gonna cost you fuel economy, big time. I'd want to see some test results showing fuel consumption on the natural gas converted engine. Would the converted mill be more economical than stock diesel? At what prices for natural gas and for diesel fuel?
And, the chicken and the egg problem. Truck stops don't supply natural gas right now. They won't until there are some customers for the stuff. Truckers won't convert until there is a refueling infrastructure to keep 'em running.
Expenditures Rise to meet Income (Parkensen)
Medical care is like that. If the funds are there, they will be spent. Make more funds available, and they get spent too. You can always do another CAT scan (just to be sure), do more blood work (something might develop), make another office appointment (see how the patient is doing), prescribe another medicine (just in case). Then you can add more costly safety requirements. Such as requiring the air conditioning in hospitals hold the temperature to plus or minus one degree, no matter what the temperature is outside. Or requiring that even doctor's offices have backup electrical generators.
Medicare has no limit on payouts. Medics submit bills and Medicare pays them. With a deep pocket paying, a lot of medical stuff gets done, and billed, and paid for.
Congressman Paul Ryan has proposed a way to cut medicare costs. Seniors would be given money or vouchers to purchase health insurance. Where do the savings come from? Healthy seniors would tend to purchase "hospitalization only" plans and pay routine costs out of pocket. "Hospitalization only" plans are only $3000 a year, where as the "cover everything" plans are $14,000 a year (last year's prices, tomorrow's will be higher). Patients tend to refuse costly treatments when they have to pay for them. That's where the savings come from.
Medics hate this. They have to put on their best bedside manner and convince needy patients to dig into their own pockets to pay for pills or scans or blood work. Medics like to prescribe and not have the patient worrying about the expense. Improves the doctor-patient relationship no end.
So, is the Ryan plan a good deal for seniors and the country as a whole?
Depends. Ryan's plan puts a hard cap on the government's liabilities. Uncle chips in so much and no more. Patient pays the rest. This is good for the country as a whole. This country spends twice as much on health care as any other country in the world and we don't get anything for it. We would be better off directing that money into economic development, research and development, infrastructure, education, or other worthy causes.
Would it be a good deal for seniors? Depends upon how costly insurance gets, and how much Uncle chips in. This is unclear. Ryan's plan suggests/hints/handwaves that Uncle will chip in $10000 which is about what today's Medicare costs the government. Future contributions would rise at the rate of inflation. Would that be enough? Who knows?
Also, can the senior keep the savings that come from electing a "hospitalization only" insurance plan?
At a guess, it will work out OK for seniors whose health is fair-to-good, and visit hardship on those with poor health and no money.
Medicare has no limit on payouts. Medics submit bills and Medicare pays them. With a deep pocket paying, a lot of medical stuff gets done, and billed, and paid for.
Congressman Paul Ryan has proposed a way to cut medicare costs. Seniors would be given money or vouchers to purchase health insurance. Where do the savings come from? Healthy seniors would tend to purchase "hospitalization only" plans and pay routine costs out of pocket. "Hospitalization only" plans are only $3000 a year, where as the "cover everything" plans are $14,000 a year (last year's prices, tomorrow's will be higher). Patients tend to refuse costly treatments when they have to pay for them. That's where the savings come from.
Medics hate this. They have to put on their best bedside manner and convince needy patients to dig into their own pockets to pay for pills or scans or blood work. Medics like to prescribe and not have the patient worrying about the expense. Improves the doctor-patient relationship no end.
So, is the Ryan plan a good deal for seniors and the country as a whole?
Depends. Ryan's plan puts a hard cap on the government's liabilities. Uncle chips in so much and no more. Patient pays the rest. This is good for the country as a whole. This country spends twice as much on health care as any other country in the world and we don't get anything for it. We would be better off directing that money into economic development, research and development, infrastructure, education, or other worthy causes.
Would it be a good deal for seniors? Depends upon how costly insurance gets, and how much Uncle chips in. This is unclear. Ryan's plan suggests/hints/handwaves that Uncle will chip in $10000 which is about what today's Medicare costs the government. Future contributions would rise at the rate of inflation. Would that be enough? Who knows?
Also, can the senior keep the savings that come from electing a "hospitalization only" insurance plan?
At a guess, it will work out OK for seniors whose health is fair-to-good, and visit hardship on those with poor health and no money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)