Strobie's World

Can We Afford Obama's Health Plan?

2009-06-16T08:21:00.000-07:00

President Obama is pushing for "health care reform" which could cost $1 Trillion, according to preliminary estimates by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Just so that everyone is clear on this, that's 1,000,000,000,000 dollars. Spending a dollar per second, a trillion dollars will last you 31,688 years! $1 Trillion over 10 years works out to just over $3000 per second.

Knowing that there are roughly 300 million people in the United States, this will cost us $333 per person, per year, which may seem like a small amount to pay for health care, except the CBO also estimates that this plan would only reduce the number of uninsured people by about 16 million by 2015. So, in six years we will have spent about $600 billion to insure 16 million people. That works out to $37,500 per person, or $6250 per person, per year.

And remember, this is on top of what we already spend for health care. CBO data for Fiscal Year 2008 shows Medicare and Medicaid as the largest piece of the budget pie already (even more than the evil Defense Department).

And let's not forget the hidden costs associated with any new spending. Part of the funding will come from "cutting tax deductions for families that make over $250,000 a year." It's the same old plan: We need some more money, what should we do? I know! Let's make the rich people pay for it. They have lots of money they don't need. But those "rich people" are the small business owners who already have a hard time providing health care for their employees. Raising taxes on these people is only going to increase the number of uninsured americans.

Great Depression Part II?

2008-12-02T20:01:00.000-08:00

Lately, many people have been talking about the current economic downturn in the US as if it were a repeat of the Great Depression, but I'm not sure that's really appropriate at this point.

The Political Machine states, "The important thing is to prepare for your new life during the New Great Depression, which will probably last at least a dozen years and end with the United States being one of the world's poorest, most-backward nations."

For those of us that were born after the Depression, and those that experienced it and somehow forgot, let's review the Depression:

Crop prices fell by about 60%
13 million people became unemployed; Unemployment was up to 19% in 1938
Industrial production fell by nearly 45% between the years 1929 and 1932
Home-building dropped by 80% between the years 1929 and 1932
From the years 1929 to 1932, about 5000 banks went out of business
Bread lines were a common sight in most cities
As much as 2.5 million people abandoned their homes in the South and the Great Plains and went on the road to search for jobs and food
Hundreds of people lined up every day outside unemployment offices in major cities
Millions of people got their food at soup kitchens

So far, I haven't seen a single "bread line", and as far as I know there aren't long lines every day at the unemployment office. The unemployment rate as of October is 6.5%. New home construction dropped 24.8% from 2006 to 2007, but construction had been near record highs for several years so a drop was inevitable.
There is even some question as to whether we are technically in a recession. The National Bureau of Economic Research studies the economy and formally designates economic expansions and recessions. "Recession" is commonly defined as two consecutive quarters of declines in the gross domestic product. The US GDP did drop .5% in the 3rd quarter, but had increased 2.8% in the 2nd quarter. The group has used other factors to determine this is officially a recession, but it isn't as easily labeled as many would have us think.

Whatever you label it, clearly the economy has taken a downturn from recent years and we must be careful to prevent a repeat of the past, but we must also be careful not to freak out and cause a repeat of the past. As John D. Rockefeller said, "These are days when many are discouraged. In the 93 years of my life, depressions have come and gone. Prosperity has always returned and will again."

We also must be strong through this time of correction in our economy and not sacrifice what makes America great just to build up our 401Ks. We must remember the words of President Roosevelt from a radio address in 1938:

"Democracy has disappeared in several other great nations, not because the people of those nations disliked democracy, but because they had grown tired of unemployment and insecurity, of seeing their children hungry while they sat helpless in the face of government confusion and government weakness through lack of leadership....Finally, in desperation, they chose to sacrifice liberty in the hope of getting something to eat. We in America know that our democratic institutions can be preserved and made to work. But in order to preserve them we need...to prove that the practical operation of democratic government is equal to the task of protecting the security of the people....The people of America are in agreement in defending their liberties at any cost, and the first line of the defense lies in the protection of economic security."

It's a Small World After All... or is it?

2008-11-25T16:16:00.000-08:00

The group "World Overpopulation Awareness" states on their website:

Unfortunately, with exploding population growth, excessive consumption on
the part of the more well-off people in the world, errant technology, and
corrupt governments, the environment is in trouble and the sustainability of the
people of our planet is threatened. The solutions seem simple: empower and
enable women to have fewer children, develop simpler lifestyles, tax pollution
of any kind, and set up government programs to enable the other three
solutions.
Overpopulation is a serious problem getting worse every year: if we continue at the current rate, population will double to over 11 billion by 2035. Overpopulation is the root of most, if not all, environmental and many economic issues, timber overharvesting, loss of arable land, ocean depletion, food shortages, water shortages, air pollution, water pollution, flooding, plant and animal habitat loss, global warming and immigration.

That sounds pretty serious. They also claim on the same website that "1/3 of the population growth in the world is the result of incidental or unwanted pregnancies." A quick perusal of their website would have you believe that increased contraceptive use would solve most of the world's problems. As they said, one of the "simple solutions" is to "empower and enable women to have fewer children." But is that true?

Obviously, many unwanted pregnancies contribute to population growth. The very definition of population growth requires new people to be born. However, according to a study by the Guttmacher Institute, in 1994 "28% [of women aged 15-44] had had one or more unplanned births." Farther down on the same page they note "[a]n earlier study based on the 1982 NSFG [National Surveys of Family Growth] concluded that 46% of women aged 15-44 at the time of the survey had experienced one or more unintended pregnancies." That is a drop of more than a third in the number of women having unintended pregnancies, which would seem to indicate an increase in "contraceptive use" (including abstinence, condoms, birth control, abortions, etc.). NSFG data collected in 2002 shows 14% of women reported having an unwanted birth, again a significant drop. So, we would assume that from 1982 to 1994, and through to 2002, we would see a significant drop in the population growth rate.

Using U.S. census data, the population growth rates for 1980, 1990, and 2000 respectively were 11.5%, 9.8%, and 13.2%. So, while unwanted pregnancies (and lack of contraceptive use) can contribute to growth rate increases, they apparently are not a major cause of current trends.

Perhaps it's our complicated lifestyles that are causing overpopulation, and we need to "develop simpler lifestyles." However, the U.S. census data also shows that population growth significantly decreased from the 19th to the 20th century, when life became less simple.

Okay, so their solutions to overpopulation may not be correct, but overpopulation is still a problem right? The current population of the world is around 6.7 billion according to UN estimates. Using some simple math, 7 billion people living in single family homes could fit inside the state of Alaska. (Assume 4 people per house, .2 acre lots, 1.48 million km² of land) Now, obviously everyone is not going to move into single family homes in Alaska, but the point is that they could and the population density would only be 4070 people/km², a little less than Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. For comparison, Manhattan has a population density of 25,850 people/km².

Indisputably, if the population continues to grow, eventually (many, many years from now) the earth will become overcrowded. But, as World Overpopulation Awareness tells us, "the sustainability of the people of our planet is threatened." Doesn't it stand to reason that if the world becomes overcrowded enough to affect the sustainability of humans that the population will decrease? It seems to be a self-correcting problem.

Besides, by the time the population grows that much, we'll be living in outer space.

Discriminating Through the Minimum Wage

2006-11-14T08:02:00.000-08:00

Now that Nancy Pelosi is going to be speaker of the house, we can look forward to her "first 100 hours." I'd like to call it her first 100 errors. She has put forth a list of things she wants to do in the first few days after taking control. Along with funding stem cell research, reversing the recent tax cuts, and investigating Bush and nearly all the Republicans, she plans to raise the minimum wage - possibly as high as $7.25. On the surface this seems like a good idea; raise the minimum wage so poor people can make more money. The problem is that it doesn't actually work that way.

The first myth to clear up is that people are not poor because of the minimum wage. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that in 2005 only 2.7% of employees working in the private sector and 1.1% in the public sector were earning at or below the minimum wage. But you must take into account who these 2.7% are. The BLS also reports that "About three in four workers earning $5.15 or less in 2005 were employed in service occupations, mostly in food preparation and service jobs," and these people generally make above minimum wage with tips. Of this small percentage making below minimum wage, half are under the age of 25 and a fourth are between the ages of 16 and 19. Only 15% of workers still earn minimum wage after 3 years. So, if only a very small portion of the population is making at or below minimum wage, then only a very small portion of the population can claim they are poor because of the minimum wage. In general, people are poor because they aren't skilled or productive enough to be worth more money.

In fact, it can be argued that people are unemployed because of the minimum wage. Let's say you own a business and you can afford to pay $30 per hour for labor. So, you hire 5 employees and pay them $5.15 per hour. We'll say it costs you $.85 for benefits (sick leave, workers comp, insurance) for a total of $30 per hour. If the minimum wage gets raised to $7.25 per hour it costs $8.10 per employee. Now you can only afford to hire 3 employees with benefits or 4 without benefits. Either way someone is unemployed, and it will most likely be the least productive employee who gets the pink slip.

Raising the minimum wage will only discriminate against the unskilled/uneducated and increase unemployment.

Are We Running Out of Oil?

2006-11-13T15:03:00.000-08:00

"Non-renewable" "Limited" "Run Dry" - These are some of the buzzwords used in reference to oil. Many people are talking about the coming oil extinction, but are we really going to run out of oil soon? The NCPA (National Center for Policy Analysis) states that "Estimates of the world’s total endowment of oil have increased faster than oil has been taken from the ground." This is due to new technologies which increase the amount of oil that we can use as well as the discovery of new oil fields.

Ever since oil was first used for energy people have warned of its limited lifespan. It is beginning to sound like the Boy Who Cried Wolf. The NCPA lists many of the limited oil claims that turned out to be false, including an advertisement from 1855 - four years before the first U.S. oil well was even drilled!

The problem is that oil figures are actually much different from what is traditionally stated. When someone says, "We have enough oil for only 10 more years," they mean that with current technology and the number of oil fields we can/are using, without changing anything, we will have enough oil for 10 more years. A number of advances (such as the Electric Downhole Steam Generation process and the Discoverer Deep Seas) have increased the amount of "usable" oil. Also, large oil fields are being discovered which increase the number of possible sources.

"But isn't the staggering increase in price due to a limited supply?" First of all, no. There are many things that can raise the price of oil (and I don't mean George Bush). Second of all, the price really isn't that high. Sure it seems high since it went up rather quick, but if you adjust for inflation we're not doing so bad as can be seen in the chart below (courtesy of Wikipedia).

Should We Drill in ANWR?

2006-03-23T08:48:00.000-08:00

There has been much debate in the past few years over whether or not we should be drilling for oil in ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge). Many people are oppopsed to it outright for environmental reasons. Other people support it outright for its potential contribution to the economy regardless of cost. However, few people are actually concerned with what impact this would really have.

Ted Stevens of Alaska, the most senior Republican in the Senate, has been fighting to open parts of the refuge to drilling since the early 1980s. Senator Lisa Murkowski, also a republican from Alaska, says, "We need ... to open up the small area of the coastal plain (of the refuge) for oil exploration and development." Their proposed legislation anticipates about $5 billion in federal revenue from oil leases.

According to the Alaskan Wilderness League ANWR is comprised of about 19 million acres. Currently this vast area is protected by the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), passed in 1980. SEction 1003 states that the “production of oil and gas from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is prohibited and no leasing or other development leading to production of oil and gas from the [Refuge] shall be undertaken until authorized by an act of Congress.” This sounds like the ban was not meant to be permenant, but is it now the time for drilling to be "authorized by an act of congress"? The Senate did pass a bill allowing ANWR to be drilled in the 90s but it was vetoed by then President Bill clinton.

Critics of the drilling bill offer up alternative methods of energy which could lower our dependence on oil such as wind, solar, hydrogen, and even human feces, however these are not going to impact our oil usage in the immediate future. The main objection to using ANWR for oil is the possible impact to wildlife, such as caribou, which are prevalent in the area. They also point to a U.S. Geological Survey which estimates that the energy that could be gained would be about what the U.S. consumes in six months. They say that only six months worth of oil is not worth it.

Supporters of drilling counter that argument by putting that six months worth of oil in perspective. The six months estimate means all the energy consumed, not just petroleum, so the U.S. Geological Survey is really saying we could get the amount of oil equivalent to about thirty years of imports from Saudi Arabia. That figure is hard to dismiss. They also look to current drilling efforts in Alaska, such as Prudhoe Bay, where the caribou herds have prospered.During debates over the drilling bill Senator Frank Murkowski pointed out in a floor speech that "This area, called ANWR, is pretty big, 19 million acres; 19 million acres is the size of the state of South Carolina... This area [the refuge's coastal plain] is 1.5 million acres out of 19 million acres. The House bill said we could only make a footprint of 2,000 acres. That is what we are asking in the amendment [that] we will offer in this bill – 2,000 acres of 19 million acres. Somebody in South Carolina that has a 2,000-acre farm can relate to that. Gee, only 2,000 acres out of our whole state. The rest of the state will be either a wilderness or a refuge." To put that into perspective the picture to the right shows ANWR as the gray area and the proposed 2000 acres as the red dot in the center.

Everyone agress that we need to diminish our dependence on foreign oil, it is just how to go about it that is up for debate. Perhaps Congress needs to allow a small amount of drilling to take place as a temporary fix and at the same time provide funding so we can actually put into place an alternative form of fuel, not just talk about it happening "some day".

Has the Earth Stopped Wobbling?

2006-02-15T06:00:00.000-08:00

An astonishing thing happened on January 8, 2006: The Earth stopped wobbling. At least that is what some people are claiming. Now, this is not something to get freaked out about because even if the wobble has stopped it has little immediate impact on our lives (I'm sure none of you even noticed we weren't wobbling).

During the broadcast of Coast to Coast AM on January 28, 2006, Lloyd Stewart Carpenter said that the Earth's wobble had paused. Agreeing with this theory, Michael Mandeville gives two possible explanations on his website for the cause of this change, but he admits that there is no evidence as of yet to support his theories. A Wikipedia article claims, "This is however completely unfounded speculation as the actual recorded data shows no indication that the wobble has stopped." There is no mention of stopping or pausing on the website of the International Earth Rotation & Reference Systems Service where Michael Mandeville claims to get his data from.

I feel that it is worth noting that many of the websites claiming the Earth has stopped wobbling seem to be related to paranormal discussions in one way or another. The "Coast to Coast AM" program is airing an interview this Friday relating to John Titor, self proclaimed time traveler from the year 2036. He supposedly visited our time between November, 2000 through March, 2001. Unfortunately for him he missed the Time Travel Convention at MIT on May 7, 2005. He probably chose not to come back in 2005 due to the Civil War he said we were going to have...

Whether the Earth's wobble (aka Chandler's Wobble) has paused or not it is interesting to think of what could happen if it does.

The significance of a pause in Chandler's Wobble is that it is tied into claims that the Earth's poles may shift sometime in the near future. Most scientists agree that it is at least possible and that it has happened in the past, but that's hardly a reason to start looking at real estate in Antarctica. Unless of course you're into psychics and the like, in which you case you may want to check out several sites including Edgar Cayce's A.R.E., Ruth Montgomery's 1979 Earth Changes Prophecy, and the best one - Zeta Talk - where aliens (the Zetas) are "assisting this planet and it’s people in the transformation from 3rd to 4th density. This Transformation is happening now, and will be completed sometime after the passage of the 12th Planet, and the resulting Pole Shift that this passage will cause."

There are two ways in which a shift in the Earth's poles could occur:

An axial shift in which the Earth’s crust slides around its molten core. This type of shift would change the location of the planets rotational axis relative to the land masses. It is said that this could happen by a few degrees or by many degrees. The Artic could move to the equator and the Amazon might move to one of the poles. Obviously the effect of such changes would be catastrophic. Aside from sunny beaches becoming frozen tundra, icebergs could melt, and major earthquakes/volcanoes could result.

A shift of the magnetic poles without affecting the rotational axis of the Earth. Contrary to how it's named, the North Pole is not actually magnetic north. This magnetic pole is not fixed and can move. Some scientists feel fairly certain that it has shifted by as much as 180 degrees several times in the past. This type of shift would most likely have much less affect on life on Earth (aside from boyscouts getting lost in the woods), although the homing instincts of some animals could be affected (such as migratory birds).

Of course, there has been no evidence to suggest this will for sure happen, let alone anytime soon, but rather that it is "possible".

Contrary to Public Opinion

2006-02-06T21:04:00.000-08:00

Public opinion polls are often referenced in news reports, but not always with specifics. Often times reporters will say things like "public support for the war in Iraq has dropped over the last month," or "prayer in school is bad because it forces the opinion of a few people on the rest." With the disclaimer that surveys have many ways of being done inaccurately and public policy should not be based solely on polling which is often done on a very small sample of the population, here are a few statistics (with numbers!) that contradict what the media would lead you to believe about Americans' beliefs:

In July, 2005 the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press conducted a survey under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International among a nationwide sample of 2,000 adults, 18 years of age or older. In this study they found that 67% of the people polled felt that liberals have gone too far in trying to keep religion out of schools and government, while only 45% felt that conservatives have gone too far in trying to impose their religious values on our country.

In addition, 64% favored teaching Creationism along with evolution in public schools. 62% said that President Bush mentions faith and prayer the right amount and only 26% felt that politicians in general express their views too much. Two-thirds of democrats, independents, and republicans feel that faith-based groups should be allowed to receive government funding to provide social services, and that houses of worship help solve social problems. This same study found that, while not necessarily supporting the Iraq war, 60% of the US believe that we should promote Democracy globally.

A November, 1997 Gallup Poll found that only 10% of Americans believe that God had no part in the creation/development of life, while 44% believe in a "Creation without Evolution" history.

The First Amendment Center and the American Journalism Review released the results of a poll in August, 2003 in which they found that 68% of adults believe that teachers who include "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance were not violating the principle of separation of church and state, and 73% feel that the pledge, including the "under God" phrase, is "primarily a statement related to the American political tradition." Posting the Ten Commandments in government offices was favored by 60%.

A Fox News/Opinion Poll from November, 2005 found that 59% of Americans feel that Christianity is under attack in the United States today. 83% believe that nativity scenes should be allowed on public property. The motto "In God We Trust" on currency and coins is supported by an overwhelming 93%, and the phrase "under God" in the pledge by 90%.

Court Rulings in the United Hypocrital States of America

2006-02-03T13:24:00.000-08:00

A 9th Circuit ruling regarding students "playing muslim" for three weeks has demonstrated the hypocritical nature of our court system these days.

A teacher in Byron, CA had her students spend three weeks experiencing the life of a muslim by assuming Islamic names, reciting prayers in class, memorizing and reciting verses from the Quran, and also getting a taste of Ramadan fasting by going without something for a day such as television.

San Francisco U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton dismissed the suit in December, 2003, saying Carlin was merely teaching and not indoctrinating since the students did not engage in actual religious exercises.

Last November The 9th Circuit Court agreed, in an unpublished memorandum, that since students were allowed to "opt-out" of the exercise that it was not a violation of the students' first ammendment freedom of religion.

The issue here is not with their decision in this case per se (the opt-out clause is a convincing argument), but rather the inconsistency with which the 9th Circuit, and most of the judicial system, rules on these cases.

Can you imagine what the reaction had been if an instructor had her class "play Christian" for 3 weeks? The ACLU would have cried "Freedom From Religion (especially Judeo-Christian ones)!" all the way to Washington. Richard Thompson, chief counsel for the Thomas More Law Center, a Christian defense organization, points to what he calls an obvious double standard:

"While public schools prohibit Christian students from reading the Bible, praying, displaying the Ten Commandments, and even mentioning the word 'God,' students in California are being indoctrinated into the religion of Islam," he told World Net Daily on filing the lawsuit. "Public schools would never tolerate teaching Christianity in this way. Just imagine the ACLU’s outcry if students were told that they had to pray the Lord's Prayer, memorize the Ten Commandments, use such phrases as 'Jesus is the Messiah,' and fast during Lent."

This ruling comes after the 9th Circuit ruled in 2002 that the Pledge of Allegiance could NOT be said in school if it included the words "under God" even though the school rules in this case also had the magical "opt-out" clause. They felt that children listening to other students recite the pledge was a "coersive exercise." So, apparently the court is telling the American people that the 1st Ammendment affords freedom of religion only as long as they agree with it.

The amazing thing about this case is that the ruling was in an unpublished memorandum, indicating that the court felt this was entirely supported by precedent and was not anything new, since unpublished decisions cannot be cited in future cases. The opposite case seems to be true based on precedent set by the 9th Circuit Court themselves.

The Poor Get Richer and the Rich Get Poorer

2006-02-01T10:54:00.000-08:00

It seems like lately there have been many people complaining about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. They often cite amazing statistics about the "income gap". However, in reality, poverty is getting to be less of a problem in the US than it used to be. People like to use statistics much like bible verses. They site whichever ones support their current argument the best and don't use them in context. They like to show amazing numbers that will stir people to act in support of their agenda.

The University of Michigan did a panel study of income dynamics data that tracked more than 50,000 individual families since 1968. This study found that only five percent of families in the lowest 20 % in 1975 were still there in 1991. Three-quarters of these families had moved into the three highest income brackets. During the same period, 70 % of those in the second lowest income bracket moved to a higher one, with 25 % of them moving to the top income bracket. The Bureau of Census reports that the poverty rate hasn't changed from one decade to the next; however, this does not mean that the same people are stuck at poverty level with no hope for working their way up.

In a 1992 U.S. Treasury Department study that used income tax returns, it was shown that 85.8 % of tax filers in the bottom income quintile in 1979 had moved up to a higher quintile by 1988. This 85.8 % includes 66 % that moved to the second and third quintiles and 15 % to the top quintile.

Not only are the poor not getting poorer, the rich are not getting richer. The U.S. Treasury Department also found that over half (52.7%) of the people who were in the top 1% of income earners in 1979, had fallen by 1988. Less than 10% of Americans are permanently poor or rich.

The 1995 Annual Report of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas found that "Average income tends to rise quickly in life as workers gain work experience and knowledge. Households headed by someone under age 25 average $15,197 a year in income. Average income more than doubles to $33,124 for 25- to 34-year-olds. For those 35 to 44, the figure jumps to $43,923. It takes time for learning, hard work and saving to bear fruit." This may seem obvious, but few people take into consideration the fact that many of the "poverty level" individuals are recent high school graduates or dropouts. I can't think of more than a couple people I knew in college who had much money (hence all the ramen noodles), but I never considered any of us to be "in poverty" because that's how things are in college, and we had much potential to earn a ton more than we were making at the time. When most people here that 12 % of Americans live "in poverty" they picture 35.5 million people living under bridges and on street corners. This is what many people who like to quote statistics are hoping you will see. Any sensible American would not feel that this should be happening in the richest country in the world (again statistics can be skewed - see CIA World Factbook)and will support whatever cause is being promoted.

The Federal Reserve Bank report also gave several common ways for individuals to move up in the income range:

Get a Full Time Job

Households in the top income bracket average 2.1 workers; those in the bottom average 0.6 workers. In the lowest income bracket, 84 % only worked part time while in the highest income bracket, 80 % worked full time.

Get Married

Only 7 % of top income earners live in a "nonfamily" household compared to 37 % of the bottom income category.

If You Can't Find a Job, Move

At the time of the study, the unemployment rate in McAllen, Texas, was 17.5 percent, while in Austin, Texas, it was 3.5 percent.

The report concludes, "Little on this list should come as a surprise. Taken as a whole, it's what most Americans have been told since they were kids — by society, by their parents, by their teachers." The issue seems to be not that "the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer", but that people don't like to consider the source of or possible reasons for many statistics.