Are the hotel/motel receipts in town down? Should the city of Tucson be borrowing $15,000,000 to tear down the front of the convention center and rebuild it, all before the February opening of the gem show? As Ms. Trasoff indicates, this would provide few jobs. The jobs created would be short term, but the debt she embraces is for the long term, with the rest of us paying for those few quick jobs. Taxpayers will pay for years and years, plus high interest rates siphoned off to the moneylenders. Ms. Trasoff would have us pay and pay while she moves on.
And what about hotel receipts in town? Should the city be funding anything that competes with already struggling businesses? Should the city be going into debt to compete with local businesses?
This is a cynical attempt to gain momentary control over $15,000,000. The construction lobby would have secured one more short term job that will be paid for by the rest of us for a long time. All this without any discernable benefit to the public and the possibility that the convention center will be torn up just in time for the gem show. . Get a restraining order against any destruction of the convention center.
VOTERS! Please vote these people out.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
Campaign Statements Mean Nothing
Since our president has reneged on a campaign declaration against forcing citizens to buy insurance, it is necessary to oppose his position. Forcing citizens to buy anything would raise the price, since the supply is controlled by profit takers while the citizenry is mandated to buy. This sounds like slavery to me. You say we will have an array of choices, but none of these choices is a refusal to buy anything to save the money. If this ‘reform’ goes through, we lose our freedom of choice to buy or not to buy. We can merely choose among an array provided by the insurance companies and the government, because we all know that our politicians and insurance agents know much more about how we should spend our money. We have to spend our money on insurance, whether or not we want to. We are not allowed to save this money and use it for medical costs negotiated at a fair market value.
The free market will not function without freedom of choice on the part of the consumer.
Of course, I have not heard that all health care businesses must honor all these mandatory insurance ‘choices’ we will be so graciously allowed to pay for. Since we are posited to lose our freedom to chose whether to buy insurance or not, the health care businesses should not be allowed to turn away customers, no matter what insurance they have. These health care businesses should be forced to take whatever every insurance pays without charging the patient further costs. If our freedom to bring the medical profession to a fair market value is at an end, then their freedom to pick and choose among patients and insurance plans should be at an end.
Mandatory insurance of any kind is a cash cow for those controlling the insurance companies. The money they siphon off could be better spent on actual healthcare instead of for enriching executives and investors and politicians. What is going on here? These insurance parasites do not deserve the cover of legislation making it mandatory for us to buy what ever makes them the most profit.
The free market will not function without freedom of choice on the part of the consumer.
Of course, I have not heard that all health care businesses must honor all these mandatory insurance ‘choices’ we will be so graciously allowed to pay for. Since we are posited to lose our freedom to chose whether to buy insurance or not, the health care businesses should not be allowed to turn away customers, no matter what insurance they have. These health care businesses should be forced to take whatever every insurance pays without charging the patient further costs. If our freedom to bring the medical profession to a fair market value is at an end, then their freedom to pick and choose among patients and insurance plans should be at an end.
Mandatory insurance of any kind is a cash cow for those controlling the insurance companies. The money they siphon off could be better spent on actual healthcare instead of for enriching executives and investors and politicians. What is going on here? These insurance parasites do not deserve the cover of legislation making it mandatory for us to buy what ever makes them the most profit.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Invasive Species
Invasive Species in North and South America
Pestilence comes to mind first the scourge that hit the new world as we in our history phrase it. The Amerind population decimated by European diseases reduced almost wiped out in successive waves of disease originating at European contact points and spreading out way ahead of any physical meetings. Once the Amerinds caught the diseases, dying spread throughout the trade routes, making it easy for the Europeans to move in to a new territory. So European diseases were invasive species in North and South America, dating from at least 1492 onward. Mayan legend has it that death comes from the East, from across the ocean, which might indicate earlier contacts and bouts of disease originating in Africa.
These epidemics were followed by the introduction of European food plants and animals, hitchhikers like wharf rats, roaches and mosquitos, pets like cane toads, lionfish, English sparrows and starlings, working animals like donkeys and horses, food animals, the list goes on and on. Earlier introduction of invasive species through Chinese contact around 1420 and possibly earlier had brought Asian chickens and ducks, the Cherokee rose and a human intestinal parasite. Invasive grasses include Bermuda grass, pampas grass, fountain grass, rice, barley, wheat and rye, some food crops, some not. The mulberry, chinaberry, eucalyptus and tamarack all came in from Asia and the South Pacific.
Economic practices of humans included clear cut logging, burning, plowing, overgrazing, poisoning and dumping waste, all of which favored the new invasive species, much like the European diseases had prepared the way for European victory in the new world.
So now we worry about buffelgrass? The drought brings change in all species of the desert. The drought plus human destruction of habitat is devastating to the Sonoran Desert. Buffelgrass is used as fodder in Sonora and has been here at least 80 years.
The drought has changed the buffelgrass population. That which I observe appears to be damaged by the drought where continuing drying of the soil will kill it, seeing that the Sonoran Desert is on the edge of the possible range for this grass. So far this year I have seen little replication activity in the plants. These buffelgrass plants near I-10/Valencia are either dormant or dead as of 25 August 09.
The drought will do for free what all this controversy over spraying poison will do at a cost to taxpayers. I would like a cost rundown on this spraying project from all the cooperating entities, just to see how much money is being wasted on this poisoning. How many people could be funded to manually remove the grass, if it is that important to some people? Is spraying really what we want to do here? The Agent Orange personal devastation that many recruits suffered in the aftermath of Vietnam has never left my mind.
How soon some of you forget and accept the assurances of those selling the product.
Pestilence comes to mind first the scourge that hit the new world as we in our history phrase it. The Amerind population decimated by European diseases reduced almost wiped out in successive waves of disease originating at European contact points and spreading out way ahead of any physical meetings. Once the Amerinds caught the diseases, dying spread throughout the trade routes, making it easy for the Europeans to move in to a new territory. So European diseases were invasive species in North and South America, dating from at least 1492 onward. Mayan legend has it that death comes from the East, from across the ocean, which might indicate earlier contacts and bouts of disease originating in Africa.
These epidemics were followed by the introduction of European food plants and animals, hitchhikers like wharf rats, roaches and mosquitos, pets like cane toads, lionfish, English sparrows and starlings, working animals like donkeys and horses, food animals, the list goes on and on. Earlier introduction of invasive species through Chinese contact around 1420 and possibly earlier had brought Asian chickens and ducks, the Cherokee rose and a human intestinal parasite. Invasive grasses include Bermuda grass, pampas grass, fountain grass, rice, barley, wheat and rye, some food crops, some not. The mulberry, chinaberry, eucalyptus and tamarack all came in from Asia and the South Pacific.
Economic practices of humans included clear cut logging, burning, plowing, overgrazing, poisoning and dumping waste, all of which favored the new invasive species, much like the European diseases had prepared the way for European victory in the new world.
So now we worry about buffelgrass? The drought brings change in all species of the desert. The drought plus human destruction of habitat is devastating to the Sonoran Desert. Buffelgrass is used as fodder in Sonora and has been here at least 80 years.
The drought has changed the buffelgrass population. That which I observe appears to be damaged by the drought where continuing drying of the soil will kill it, seeing that the Sonoran Desert is on the edge of the possible range for this grass. So far this year I have seen little replication activity in the plants. These buffelgrass plants near I-10/Valencia are either dormant or dead as of 25 August 09.
The drought will do for free what all this controversy over spraying poison will do at a cost to taxpayers. I would like a cost rundown on this spraying project from all the cooperating entities, just to see how much money is being wasted on this poisoning. How many people could be funded to manually remove the grass, if it is that important to some people? Is spraying really what we want to do here? The Agent Orange personal devastation that many recruits suffered in the aftermath of Vietnam has never left my mind.
How soon some of you forget and accept the assurances of those selling the product.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Health Care Cost Containment
Institutions have lost flexibility, the ability to adapt to changing conditions. The loss of flexibility comes from rules, laws, policies, taxes and regulation. The purposes of these phenomena vary, but range from addressing public health issues to increasing revenue to policing moral failings expressed in destructive business tactics.
The issues of human fragility, a lack of moral attentiveness, or a combative competitive urge towards anarchy has been dealt with by the creation of governments. A government is created at a point in time from then forward must use the system to meet new situations. The familiar situation will be the most easily solvable and the new variant situations will demand creativity and flexibility in order to survive the new conditions. Maintaining moral values must be imperative as the system morphs enough to meet changing conditions.
As a moral imperative to be honest and trustworthy apparently will not define the current moral atmosphere that if it is not defined as illegal then it is all right to proceed, no matter what earlier moral codes would have prohibited such action on the basis of good or evil. This malfunction of the economic system is a demonstration of a lack of adaptation to changing conditions and a failure of moral predictability. An economic system that is posited on the rule of law, growth and cheap resources worked well in the conditions of Manifest Destiny but may not function so well under population and resource buildout conditions.
The basic tenets of free enterprise were developed under frontier expansionism but were soon diluted by regulations within communities. Free enterprise is exactly that: an individual will have freedom to open a business using their property for that business, barring some public health concerns. Commercial areas are now long distances from the clients, must maintain huge parking lots and must pay exorbitant rent, pay higher taxes and buy insurance for employees. The small entrepreneur working out of a home is priced out of the market due to the money siphon to government assisted by big business. The recent economic downturn has closed down businesses, the city and county are raising taxes and the unemployment level is climbing. The system is so tied up in revenue enhancement, gigantic loan payments, fees and high taxes, all flexibility is lost.
The subprime scandal is an example of maladaptive behavior that some would view as criminal, as that self serving cynicism appeared to rule human behavior, rather than a well considered morality aimed at the good of society. Some confuse free enterprise with a free for all attitude resulting in personal gain without consideration of the peripheral damage. Free enterprise must have rules like chess in order to function. Eliminating competition through buying politicians to install high government fees and taxes on small businesses is not free enterprise. Competing should be based on quality service and quality goods, not manipulating the environment so no others exist. The current economic environment is regulated into sluggishness and rising unemployment, amid the crisis of confidence created by the subprime scandal.
The fewer choices people have, the less free enterprise functions. Government ordered expenditures from the earnings of citizens in the form of mandatory insurance results in price fixing and high prices plus an unwelcome power grab on the part of those anointed to sell this mandatory insurance that can be cancelled with no refund for you. Forcing citizens to buy insurance will tie up more money into the hands of a few.
So what kind of system do we here have? Private profit and subsidized losses for the financials immersed in the subprime morass? That did not please many citizens, whose losses were ignored as the ‘investments’ went under with the money long gone. The bailouts were disliked and resented at the grassroots as the scandal continued in bonus payments promised through the implementation of a business model that was aimed at selling specific debt derivatives to unwary investors, a goal that had nothing to do with the public good, only a short term profit for a few. And now taxpayer money subsidizes these people as they collect high salaries and ‘bonuses’ earned by bankrupting the company. Of course more regulation became reality as a result of this lack of social responsibility. So we have a system that takes from the taxpayer to give to the financials and insurance companies while also forcing the citizenry to buy services from insurance companies, entrusting them to make payments to our health care providers. We subsidize private sector insurance middlemen as required by law.
Using private enterprise to enforce public policy is contrary to the system of free enterprise. The government should not mandate that the citizenry buy from private enterprise or government. If private enterprise needs more clients, the services they are selling should be competitive, not mandated by the government. Free enterprise begins with the consumer and discretionary income and free choice to buy or not to buy. Free enterprise depends on the consumer having freedom of choice to patronize any given business. If discretionary income is so allotted to mandatory programs, fees and taxes, free enterprise suffers.
So are we a free enterprise society or not? The current health insurance debate seems to leave personal choice out of the picture. Bureaucrats and insurance executives have created a system that requires an ever larger percent of the income in order to function, a trend that is obviously unsustainable. Healthcare costs need to be lowered, tort reform accomplished, and voluntary individual insurance must be instituted in order to give the free enterprise system room to function. Competition among insurance companies for business from a captive audience is not to be confused with competition for individual patronage by a legitimate business serving the needs of the people. Let the healthcare providers compete for the peoples’ business by lowering prices. Allow the money to pay for healthcare to remain in the hands of the people and let the insurance companies and government compete for this business. The costs of health insurance and health care will be more affordable because competition and flexibility will be reinstituted into the system.
The issues of human fragility, a lack of moral attentiveness, or a combative competitive urge towards anarchy has been dealt with by the creation of governments. A government is created at a point in time from then forward must use the system to meet new situations. The familiar situation will be the most easily solvable and the new variant situations will demand creativity and flexibility in order to survive the new conditions. Maintaining moral values must be imperative as the system morphs enough to meet changing conditions.
As a moral imperative to be honest and trustworthy apparently will not define the current moral atmosphere that if it is not defined as illegal then it is all right to proceed, no matter what earlier moral codes would have prohibited such action on the basis of good or evil. This malfunction of the economic system is a demonstration of a lack of adaptation to changing conditions and a failure of moral predictability. An economic system that is posited on the rule of law, growth and cheap resources worked well in the conditions of Manifest Destiny but may not function so well under population and resource buildout conditions.
The basic tenets of free enterprise were developed under frontier expansionism but were soon diluted by regulations within communities. Free enterprise is exactly that: an individual will have freedom to open a business using their property for that business, barring some public health concerns. Commercial areas are now long distances from the clients, must maintain huge parking lots and must pay exorbitant rent, pay higher taxes and buy insurance for employees. The small entrepreneur working out of a home is priced out of the market due to the money siphon to government assisted by big business. The recent economic downturn has closed down businesses, the city and county are raising taxes and the unemployment level is climbing. The system is so tied up in revenue enhancement, gigantic loan payments, fees and high taxes, all flexibility is lost.
The subprime scandal is an example of maladaptive behavior that some would view as criminal, as that self serving cynicism appeared to rule human behavior, rather than a well considered morality aimed at the good of society. Some confuse free enterprise with a free for all attitude resulting in personal gain without consideration of the peripheral damage. Free enterprise must have rules like chess in order to function. Eliminating competition through buying politicians to install high government fees and taxes on small businesses is not free enterprise. Competing should be based on quality service and quality goods, not manipulating the environment so no others exist. The current economic environment is regulated into sluggishness and rising unemployment, amid the crisis of confidence created by the subprime scandal.
The fewer choices people have, the less free enterprise functions. Government ordered expenditures from the earnings of citizens in the form of mandatory insurance results in price fixing and high prices plus an unwelcome power grab on the part of those anointed to sell this mandatory insurance that can be cancelled with no refund for you. Forcing citizens to buy insurance will tie up more money into the hands of a few.
So what kind of system do we here have? Private profit and subsidized losses for the financials immersed in the subprime morass? That did not please many citizens, whose losses were ignored as the ‘investments’ went under with the money long gone. The bailouts were disliked and resented at the grassroots as the scandal continued in bonus payments promised through the implementation of a business model that was aimed at selling specific debt derivatives to unwary investors, a goal that had nothing to do with the public good, only a short term profit for a few. And now taxpayer money subsidizes these people as they collect high salaries and ‘bonuses’ earned by bankrupting the company. Of course more regulation became reality as a result of this lack of social responsibility. So we have a system that takes from the taxpayer to give to the financials and insurance companies while also forcing the citizenry to buy services from insurance companies, entrusting them to make payments to our health care providers. We subsidize private sector insurance middlemen as required by law.
Using private enterprise to enforce public policy is contrary to the system of free enterprise. The government should not mandate that the citizenry buy from private enterprise or government. If private enterprise needs more clients, the services they are selling should be competitive, not mandated by the government. Free enterprise begins with the consumer and discretionary income and free choice to buy or not to buy. Free enterprise depends on the consumer having freedom of choice to patronize any given business. If discretionary income is so allotted to mandatory programs, fees and taxes, free enterprise suffers.
So are we a free enterprise society or not? The current health insurance debate seems to leave personal choice out of the picture. Bureaucrats and insurance executives have created a system that requires an ever larger percent of the income in order to function, a trend that is obviously unsustainable. Healthcare costs need to be lowered, tort reform accomplished, and voluntary individual insurance must be instituted in order to give the free enterprise system room to function. Competition among insurance companies for business from a captive audience is not to be confused with competition for individual patronage by a legitimate business serving the needs of the people. Let the healthcare providers compete for the peoples’ business by lowering prices. Allow the money to pay for healthcare to remain in the hands of the people and let the insurance companies and government compete for this business. The costs of health insurance and health care will be more affordable because competition and flexibility will be reinstituted into the system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)