This bill isn't going to help us taxpayers much. First off it allows spiking. Pension is determined NOT by base pay, but by base pay PLUS overtime, sick pay, vacation and holiday pay, cost of living bonus, non-cash payments such as room and board, and some other stuff. That's right at the beginning, RSA 100-A:1, XVII. Employees work a lot of over time, and cash in all their accrued pay right before retirement to boost their pensions. Pensions ought to be on base pay ONLY.
It permits pension benefits of 100% of base pay. (RSA 100-A:6 a). That is twice what it ought to be. Pensions ought to half pay. If the pension pays as much as base pay, why not retire now?
It permits pensions be paid to employees with as little as three years of service!! (RAS 100-A:XVIII 1).
The pension department says this bill isn't going to save any money. This is a "note" toward the end.
The whole bill is too long, and has too much opaque verbiage in it. There has gotta be some expensive benefits hidden in the lawyerese. We shouldn't pass bills that cannot be understood.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Resaw, or why you need a bandsaw
Should you need wood thinner than the standard 3/4 inch (softwood) or 1 inch (hardwood) you are pretty much up the creek without a paddle. Thinner stock either isn't available at all, or it's special order.
Plenty of projects call for thinner stock. In my case I needed 1/4 inch pine for the model railroad and 3/8 inch walnut for a set of DVD holding boxes.
Click on the image to see the whole thing. I can't seem to make blogger size the picture to the page.
A bandsaw will resaw thick stock into thinner stock. You can cut a 3/4 inch thick board into three 1/4 inch thick slices, or two 3/8 inch slices. A low end 12 inch Craftsman bandsaw is big enough to do a lot of resawing. You don't need a big fancy DoAll saw (like a friend of mine has), a plain jane low end bandsaw off Craigslist will do the job.
I resaw with a home made fence to keep the board vertical. The fence is nothing more than a couple of pieces of plywood, fastened together in a right angle, and secured to the band saw table with C-clamps.
I use a square to make sure the fence is at right angles to the table and the table is at right angles to the blade. I use the widest blade the saw will accept (1/2 Inch in my case, with coarse teeth and big gullets between teeth with room to hold the sawdust created on a deep cut.
Plenty of projects call for thinner stock. In my case I needed 1/4 inch pine for the model railroad and 3/8 inch walnut for a set of DVD holding boxes.
Click on the image to see the whole thing. I can't seem to make blogger size the picture to the page.
A bandsaw will resaw thick stock into thinner stock. You can cut a 3/4 inch thick board into three 1/4 inch thick slices, or two 3/8 inch slices. A low end 12 inch Craftsman bandsaw is big enough to do a lot of resawing. You don't need a big fancy DoAll saw (like a friend of mine has), a plain jane low end bandsaw off Craigslist will do the job.
I resaw with a home made fence to keep the board vertical. The fence is nothing more than a couple of pieces of plywood, fastened together in a right angle, and secured to the band saw table with C-clamps.
I use a square to make sure the fence is at right angles to the table and the table is at right angles to the blade. I use the widest blade the saw will accept (1/2 Inch in my case, with coarse teeth and big gullets between teeth with room to hold the sawdust created on a deep cut.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Obama can too bring gasoline prices down
All Obama need do is issue 50 or 100 permits for deep water drilling in the Gulf. Do it on TV, show stacks of paperwork, big "Approved" stamps all over them. Hand the paperwork over to some oil drillers, who then stagger out the door under the load of hundreds of pounds of paperwork.
Then expedite permits to drill in the Arctic ocean.
Then declare "Alaska National Wildlife Refuge" (ANWR, darling of the greenies) open for drilling. Explain that oil wells on frozen tundra don't harm caribou. Then open up the Atlantic and Pacific coasts for offshore oil exploration. Auction off leases to exploit shale oil in Colorado.
Do all of these things before the 2012 election. Watch the price of crude drop back to $50 a barrel. Price of crude will start going down within a week. Doesn't matter that it will be years before any of this comes on line. The crude market is a futures market, the price today is set by what the market thinks the price tomorrow will be.
When the MSM or the Administration says nothing can be done about gasoline prices, they are not telling the truth.
Then expedite permits to drill in the Arctic ocean.
Then declare "Alaska National Wildlife Refuge" (ANWR, darling of the greenies) open for drilling. Explain that oil wells on frozen tundra don't harm caribou. Then open up the Atlantic and Pacific coasts for offshore oil exploration. Auction off leases to exploit shale oil in Colorado.
Do all of these things before the 2012 election. Watch the price of crude drop back to $50 a barrel. Price of crude will start going down within a week. Doesn't matter that it will be years before any of this comes on line. The crude market is a futures market, the price today is set by what the market thinks the price tomorrow will be.
When the MSM or the Administration says nothing can be done about gasoline prices, they are not telling the truth.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
The Economist knows all about California
The Economist is a weekly news magazine from England. Unlike Time and Newsweek, the Economist still does real news mixed with a bit of liberal editorializing. This week they focus on the woes of California. Initiative, referendum, and recall, 19th century reforms, are 21st century disasters according to the Economist. "Too much democracy is bad." They go on to explain that initiative laws cannot be changed by the legislature and once passed, they live forever. Initiative proposition 13, the Howard Jarvis tax cap from the '70's is dissected in detail. Prop 13 put a 2% per year limit on real estate tax increases. This so impoverished municipal governments that Jerry Brown (governor back then) stepped in and offered state funds to the municipal governments to keep their payrolls intact. This had the effect of centralizing all budget decisions in Sacramento.
And that, in a British nutshell, is how California became a basket case. It's all because of initiative petitions.
That's a turn around from the American history they taught back when I went to school. In those days, initiative, referendum and recall were presented as true reforms of corrupt state governments and saviors of democracy.
There has to be more too it than that. Clearly the forces in favor of spending overwhelmed the forces of low taxes in California. The Economist says little about who the forces were (are), how numerous each side is, and what the crucial battles were, and how the forces of tax restraint lost them, or perhaps never even came out to fight. Despite being journalists themselves, the Economist says nothing about the role of the California media in informing the voters. They don't talk about the Gray Davis recall and the Governator. And why Arnold was unable to get the legislature to cut spending, or even pass a budget. Nor do they talk about the great California electric price controls and electric deregulation, which so reduced capacity as to cause rolling blackouts. Nor the greenies who obtained a law that makes virtually everything "known to cause cancer by the government of California." They never mention the name of Victor Davis Hanson, noted CA resident, author and blogger.
Bottom line. The Economist bloviates just as much as the rest of the MSM.
And that, in a British nutshell, is how California became a basket case. It's all because of initiative petitions.
That's a turn around from the American history they taught back when I went to school. In those days, initiative, referendum and recall were presented as true reforms of corrupt state governments and saviors of democracy.
There has to be more too it than that. Clearly the forces in favor of spending overwhelmed the forces of low taxes in California. The Economist says little about who the forces were (are), how numerous each side is, and what the crucial battles were, and how the forces of tax restraint lost them, or perhaps never even came out to fight. Despite being journalists themselves, the Economist says nothing about the role of the California media in informing the voters. They don't talk about the Gray Davis recall and the Governator. And why Arnold was unable to get the legislature to cut spending, or even pass a budget. Nor do they talk about the great California electric price controls and electric deregulation, which so reduced capacity as to cause rolling blackouts. Nor the greenies who obtained a law that makes virtually everything "known to cause cancer by the government of California." They never mention the name of Victor Davis Hanson, noted CA resident, author and blogger.
Bottom line. The Economist bloviates just as much as the rest of the MSM.
Predators over Libya
My question is, why drones? Why not manned aircraft? Unmanned drones are expensive and are intended for missions too dangerous to risk pilots on. Is Libyan airspace that dangerous? It's a no-fly zone, which means anything the radar sees taking off gets a fighter vectored onto it, and it's dead. That leaves SAM. Is the SAM problem that bad in Libya?
The drone pilot's vision is restricted to a TV set. I maintain a pilot in the cockpit, with binoculars, has a better chance of spotting targets, and aiming weapons accurately than a drone operator half a world away, sitting in an air conditioned trailer in Nevada.
The drone pilot's vision is restricted to a TV set. I maintain a pilot in the cockpit, with binoculars, has a better chance of spotting targets, and aiming weapons accurately than a drone operator half a world away, sitting in an air conditioned trailer in Nevada.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Tax Reform, Federal Income Tax that is. Pt II
I used to think a flat tax, no deductions, no exemptions, no credits, no nothing, with a rate cut, would bring in enough revenue to run the country. Now I'm not so sure.
Federal expenditures were 17% of GNP from the end of WWII to Obama. So, it would seem reasonable to make a tax rate of 17% and that would pay the bills. No tax hike.
I looked at the federal rates from 2010. They start at 10% and work up to 33% at $370,000 per year. They don't hit 17% until you hit $50,000 (single) and $100,000 (married). That's after deductions, exemptions, credits and what have you ("stuff"). We need 17% to maintain the government at the pre Obama level. It looks to me like we need more than the current rates to furnish 17% of GNP to keep the government in money. If we drop all the "stuff" we probably cannot cut the rates much and still furnish government revenue of 17% of GNP.
Even with really solid spending cuts, the Feds are gonna be short of revenue.
Federal expenditures were 17% of GNP from the end of WWII to Obama. So, it would seem reasonable to make a tax rate of 17% and that would pay the bills. No tax hike.
I looked at the federal rates from 2010. They start at 10% and work up to 33% at $370,000 per year. They don't hit 17% until you hit $50,000 (single) and $100,000 (married). That's after deductions, exemptions, credits and what have you ("stuff"). We need 17% to maintain the government at the pre Obama level. It looks to me like we need more than the current rates to furnish 17% of GNP to keep the government in money. If we drop all the "stuff" we probably cannot cut the rates much and still furnish government revenue of 17% of GNP.
Even with really solid spending cuts, the Feds are gonna be short of revenue.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
BP is going to sue over the Gulf oil spill
That's right, BP is going to sue the maker of the blowout preventer that failed to prevent, and the owner of the drill rig.
Actually, the BP man on the drill rig bears great responsibility for the blowout. He ordered skipping three leak tests of the cement job, any one of which would have showed the cement job had failed and was leaking high pressure natural gas up the well. Then they pumped out the heavy drilling mud and the well blew. This individual has never testified and in fact, left the US to avoid being put on the witness stand.
The blow out preventer, a 500 ton valve on the well top, was supposed to close and shut off the oil. It failed. It was salvaged last summer and inspected on a Lousiana dock last month. Apparently the drill pipe was a little off center and the "shear rams" won't work unless the pipe is right on center.
This is described as "a design failure". They got that right. In action the blow out preventer sits on the bottom, with 5000 feet, (one mile) of pipe reaching up to the drill rig floating on the surface. It doesn't take much to allow the drill rig to drift off position by a few hundred feet, pulling the pipe off center. Any blowout preventer that can't close no matter where the pipe is located is useless.
Apparently this blowout preventer met industry standards and they haven't done anything to stiffen those standards since the blowout. And, industry rumor has it that blowout preventers often are not strong enough to seal the very heavy and strong pipe used in deep water drilling. So in real life, the maker of the blowout preventer was doing what they had always been doing, making blowout preventers to industry standards. That shouldn't make them liable, although BP has plenty of expensive lawyers and you never know what a US court will do.
Was it me, I would require all blowout preventers pass a real test, right on the deck of the drill rig before lowering them into the sea. The preventer should seal a piece of the strongest pipe used in the well. In fact it ought to pass that test with a single failure, one dead battery, one broken wire, one leaking pipe, one empty air tank, etc. And pass that test with the pipe off center.
The drill rig owner is the same case, they were operating in accordance with industry and Coast Guard standards. In actual fact, when the rig caught fire it knocked out electric power, putting out the lights (the accident happened after dark), and killing the fire pumps. The rig is floating in the ocean, there is no lack of water to fight the fire, but when the fire hoses and the sprinklers go dead, the fire wins. They should have had about four engine driven fire pumps in four separate locations. The should have had sprinkler protection on the drilling deck, in the power room, and at the life boats. They should have had emergency lighting. But, none of these things are required and so that were not done. They are still not required. And so, should justice be done, the drill rig owner isn't liable, but again, expensive BP lawyers and US courts might give BP a courtroom victory.
Actually, the BP man on the drill rig bears great responsibility for the blowout. He ordered skipping three leak tests of the cement job, any one of which would have showed the cement job had failed and was leaking high pressure natural gas up the well. Then they pumped out the heavy drilling mud and the well blew. This individual has never testified and in fact, left the US to avoid being put on the witness stand.
The blow out preventer, a 500 ton valve on the well top, was supposed to close and shut off the oil. It failed. It was salvaged last summer and inspected on a Lousiana dock last month. Apparently the drill pipe was a little off center and the "shear rams" won't work unless the pipe is right on center.
This is described as "a design failure". They got that right. In action the blow out preventer sits on the bottom, with 5000 feet, (one mile) of pipe reaching up to the drill rig floating on the surface. It doesn't take much to allow the drill rig to drift off position by a few hundred feet, pulling the pipe off center. Any blowout preventer that can't close no matter where the pipe is located is useless.
Apparently this blowout preventer met industry standards and they haven't done anything to stiffen those standards since the blowout. And, industry rumor has it that blowout preventers often are not strong enough to seal the very heavy and strong pipe used in deep water drilling. So in real life, the maker of the blowout preventer was doing what they had always been doing, making blowout preventers to industry standards. That shouldn't make them liable, although BP has plenty of expensive lawyers and you never know what a US court will do.
Was it me, I would require all blowout preventers pass a real test, right on the deck of the drill rig before lowering them into the sea. The preventer should seal a piece of the strongest pipe used in the well. In fact it ought to pass that test with a single failure, one dead battery, one broken wire, one leaking pipe, one empty air tank, etc. And pass that test with the pipe off center.
The drill rig owner is the same case, they were operating in accordance with industry and Coast Guard standards. In actual fact, when the rig caught fire it knocked out electric power, putting out the lights (the accident happened after dark), and killing the fire pumps. The rig is floating in the ocean, there is no lack of water to fight the fire, but when the fire hoses and the sprinklers go dead, the fire wins. They should have had about four engine driven fire pumps in four separate locations. The should have had sprinkler protection on the drilling deck, in the power room, and at the life boats. They should have had emergency lighting. But, none of these things are required and so that were not done. They are still not required. And so, should justice be done, the drill rig owner isn't liable, but again, expensive BP lawyers and US courts might give BP a courtroom victory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)