Obama has enacted programs that in effect force people to have retirement savings.
On the surface this may not sound like a bad idea. We should all save for retirement, espically considering the uncertian future of Social Security. Look closer at this plan and it is a gross stripping of personal freedom.
Obama's plan enables "small companies to set up 401(k) retirement savings plans in which all workers are automatically enrolled unless they ask to be omitted" and "[a]llow[] such plans to automatically increase the amount that workers save over time unless the workers object."
In short, this plan forces participation in 401(k) plans and the amount forcibally invested increases over time.
Let's do the math.
A person makes $50,000 a year. Initially, they are forced to invest 3% into a 401(k). That's $1500 a year. Over time the amount increases to say 5%, and the amount forcible invested rises to $2500 a year. That's a nice boost to the stock market.
The problem with the plan is two fold.
First, historically the stock market has a significant drop every five years or so. While over time the market increases, there are signicant stretches where the market has taken extensive time to recover it's losses.
The drop in 1906 took until the end of 1915 to reach 1906 levels. The drop of 1920 took until 1926. The stockmarket took until 1955 to return to levels right before the great depression. Even in that time span the drop in 1937 too until 1946, then the market immediatly dropped again and didn't reach 1946 levels until 1950. More receintly 2002 recovery in 2004, and 2007 until today and counting.
The second problem is that although the market has had some long runs of increases, it also has been flat for large stretches of time. We have the aforementioned 1906 to 1915 stretch. Then there was 1966 until 1983. The market was also flat 1999 to 2006.
The market is no sure gain in return. Individuals should have the option of investing how they choose, not being forced into a 401(k). Risk adverse individuals have plenty of other options for investing. This smaks of an attempt to artifically force the market up, not the best interest of the public.
Sources: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090905/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_retirement_savings
http://stockcharts.com/charts/historical/djia1900.html
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Lemon and the Pledge of Alegiance
The secularist movement, under the guise of not having other's views forced upon them, continue with their pursuit to remove the clause "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. Don't you just love the irony?
Those who know me know I'm no fan of Justice Brennan. He is the poster child for abuse of power and we will never escape or recover from the harm he and the Warren Court did to this great nation. Yet even Brennan didn't have a problem with "under God" in the pledge. (463 U.S. 783, 818 (dissenting opinion)) This is important because Brennan in a dissenting opinion to a case that upheld religious activity had no problem with the clause. If Justice Brennan did not object to the clause, this issue isn't one of Christians forcing their view on secularists, but rather is one of secularists forcing their views on Christians.
As strange as this may sound, perhaps it's time for Christian society to force the issue. The legal test to see if an activity encroaches on the Establishment Clause is the Lemon test. An exception to the Lemon test is the longstanding tradition exception. We now have four generations that have the words under God in the pledge. It is very possible that the current Court would overrule Lemon and replace it with a less strict test.
Justice Kennedy is the crucial 5th vote in many issues on the current Court. He has stated dissatisfaction with Lemon (492 U.S. 573, 673 (dissenting opinion)) and likely represents the threshold of where a new test would lie. Although this new standard, if it were to be created, would not be as welcoming as I would like, it is still better than the current Lemon test.
The time has come for Christians to stand up for our beliefs. We're not forcing our opinions on secularists; rather it is they who force their beliefs on us. President Obama will reload the Court with liberal instrumentalists. If Christians are going to take the fight to secularists, now is the time.
Those who know me know I'm no fan of Justice Brennan. He is the poster child for abuse of power and we will never escape or recover from the harm he and the Warren Court did to this great nation. Yet even Brennan didn't have a problem with "under God" in the pledge. (463 U.S. 783, 818 (dissenting opinion)) This is important because Brennan in a dissenting opinion to a case that upheld religious activity had no problem with the clause. If Justice Brennan did not object to the clause, this issue isn't one of Christians forcing their view on secularists, but rather is one of secularists forcing their views on Christians.
As strange as this may sound, perhaps it's time for Christian society to force the issue. The legal test to see if an activity encroaches on the Establishment Clause is the Lemon test. An exception to the Lemon test is the longstanding tradition exception. We now have four generations that have the words under God in the pledge. It is very possible that the current Court would overrule Lemon and replace it with a less strict test.
Justice Kennedy is the crucial 5th vote in many issues on the current Court. He has stated dissatisfaction with Lemon (492 U.S. 573, 673 (dissenting opinion)) and likely represents the threshold of where a new test would lie. Although this new standard, if it were to be created, would not be as welcoming as I would like, it is still better than the current Lemon test.
The time has come for Christians to stand up for our beliefs. We're not forcing our opinions on secularists; rather it is they who force their beliefs on us. President Obama will reload the Court with liberal instrumentalists. If Christians are going to take the fight to secularists, now is the time.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
The Christian Split
Some people suggest that middle of the road voters are the key to winning the mid term election. That the country is so divided that the political parties must compromise on their core values to court the elusive independent voter in order to achieve victory.
I respectfully disagree.
The republicans have been losing Christian voters, and that is the group they need to win in order to win the next election. The following labels could use some improvement, but for lack of a better term I'll refer to Christians as Classical Christians and Resonance Christians. The Classical Christians are individuals like me who some would mistakenly call fundamentalist. We are antiabortion, anti-euthanasia and believe in traditional marriage. Other religious issues are second tier.
The Resonance Christians have other top tier beliefs. They believe in social justice issues, and have by and large drunk the kool-aid on global warming. The issues that Classical Christians believe in are second tier, and as a result many voted for Obama.
Republicans have been slow to see this change in Christian voting patterns and slower still to act in any meaningful way to court these voters. It's much easier for the GOP to win these voters over than true independents since they are inclined to GOP positions on secondary issues already.
While the stimulus packages have many flaws, one good expenditure has been the cash for clunkers program. While it's arguable if this program is creating demand or merely accelerating future demand, it is a program that will reap benefits in the long run. As the fuel inefficient vehicles are replaced with fuel efficient vehicles the amount of gasoline consumption will drop, or probably more likely, rise at a slower rate. This means less is spent purchasing foreign oil, and more money stays in our own economy. The program is less of a bailout and more of a capital expenditure. This type of program is appealing to the Resonance Christian because it is helping the environment, which is being a good steward of that which God has given us.
Another item that could be used with little actual cost would be debt forgiveness. This can take the form both of foreign debt owed to the US which will likely never be paid, and also internal debt that is being paid, student loans for example. Forgiving debt that will never come into our coffers is merely memorializing that which is reality. Forgiving internal debt that is in the process of being paid off is more in the line of a capital expenditure. If the loan is currently in repayment and being actively paid then forgiving the loan frees up disposable income that will likely be spent, creating demand and in turn fueling the economy.
With a little outside the box thinking the GOP could make some sensible proposals that in the end pay for themselves and win back the Resonance Christian. Then the GOP doesn't have to compromise on core values to court the independent voter and still wins in 2010.
I respectfully disagree.
The republicans have been losing Christian voters, and that is the group they need to win in order to win the next election. The following labels could use some improvement, but for lack of a better term I'll refer to Christians as Classical Christians and Resonance Christians. The Classical Christians are individuals like me who some would mistakenly call fundamentalist. We are antiabortion, anti-euthanasia and believe in traditional marriage. Other religious issues are second tier.
The Resonance Christians have other top tier beliefs. They believe in social justice issues, and have by and large drunk the kool-aid on global warming. The issues that Classical Christians believe in are second tier, and as a result many voted for Obama.
Republicans have been slow to see this change in Christian voting patterns and slower still to act in any meaningful way to court these voters. It's much easier for the GOP to win these voters over than true independents since they are inclined to GOP positions on secondary issues already.
While the stimulus packages have many flaws, one good expenditure has been the cash for clunkers program. While it's arguable if this program is creating demand or merely accelerating future demand, it is a program that will reap benefits in the long run. As the fuel inefficient vehicles are replaced with fuel efficient vehicles the amount of gasoline consumption will drop, or probably more likely, rise at a slower rate. This means less is spent purchasing foreign oil, and more money stays in our own economy. The program is less of a bailout and more of a capital expenditure. This type of program is appealing to the Resonance Christian because it is helping the environment, which is being a good steward of that which God has given us.
Another item that could be used with little actual cost would be debt forgiveness. This can take the form both of foreign debt owed to the US which will likely never be paid, and also internal debt that is being paid, student loans for example. Forgiving debt that will never come into our coffers is merely memorializing that which is reality. Forgiving internal debt that is in the process of being paid off is more in the line of a capital expenditure. If the loan is currently in repayment and being actively paid then forgiving the loan frees up disposable income that will likely be spent, creating demand and in turn fueling the economy.
With a little outside the box thinking the GOP could make some sensible proposals that in the end pay for themselves and win back the Resonance Christian. Then the GOP doesn't have to compromise on core values to court the independent voter and still wins in 2010.
Healthcare Reform
We can probablly all agree that healthcare in the US is messed up. The question is what is the bigger ill, government intervention or unfettered insurance companies running amok?
Insruance companies are out of control. One example, in January I had salmonella, but it was presenting as appendicitus. So off to the ER where the ER doc thinks it is appendicitius and acts accordingly. When all is said and done, the hospital bill and insurance nonsense comes in. The insurance company is refusing to pay for tests that "are not necessary" to treat salmonella.
Even if the insurance companies have their guidelines based on doctors reviewing records, the examining physician's thoughts should be given greater weight since he was there to poke and prod and could see and examine what was going on.
Government health care is not any better. In Canada and the UK it is great for emergent situations, but not good for run of the mill ailments, even large/serious aiments. Need your knee scoped? It may take a year. The indigent health care systems in place in the US are marginally better at best. The fear is that the same will happen to health care in the US should government take control over health care.
I don't know what a good answer is, but two things stand out.
1) There is a potential middle ground. The government hires attorneys in significant numbers and pays them well, but not exhorbinant sums. There is no reason they couldn't do the same for doctors. These doctors would then be available to treat like they do in Canada and the UK. Then people will have a choice, they can either keep their private insurance, or they can go to a government doctor. Yes, this will hurt the insurance companies bottom line, but given the flaws in the way a government controled system of this nature would have there would still be a market for private insurance. They would simply have to provide a better product to keep people who are on the fringe of needing insurance as paying customers.
2) The nay sayers who trumpet the free market and say the free market will provide better care than the government seem to be discounting the free market. We already have a government healthcare system in Medicare. The free market responded by making Medicare supplement insurance. What's to stop that from happening if the government gets involved in healthcare for everyone?
I haven't formed an opinion on the current health care debate, but it seems that this has become more about political power and political will than about reforming a broken system. And we are all worse off as an end result.
Insruance companies are out of control. One example, in January I had salmonella, but it was presenting as appendicitus. So off to the ER where the ER doc thinks it is appendicitius and acts accordingly. When all is said and done, the hospital bill and insurance nonsense comes in. The insurance company is refusing to pay for tests that "are not necessary" to treat salmonella.
Even if the insurance companies have their guidelines based on doctors reviewing records, the examining physician's thoughts should be given greater weight since he was there to poke and prod and could see and examine what was going on.
Government health care is not any better. In Canada and the UK it is great for emergent situations, but not good for run of the mill ailments, even large/serious aiments. Need your knee scoped? It may take a year. The indigent health care systems in place in the US are marginally better at best. The fear is that the same will happen to health care in the US should government take control over health care.
I don't know what a good answer is, but two things stand out.
1) There is a potential middle ground. The government hires attorneys in significant numbers and pays them well, but not exhorbinant sums. There is no reason they couldn't do the same for doctors. These doctors would then be available to treat like they do in Canada and the UK. Then people will have a choice, they can either keep their private insurance, or they can go to a government doctor. Yes, this will hurt the insurance companies bottom line, but given the flaws in the way a government controled system of this nature would have there would still be a market for private insurance. They would simply have to provide a better product to keep people who are on the fringe of needing insurance as paying customers.
2) The nay sayers who trumpet the free market and say the free market will provide better care than the government seem to be discounting the free market. We already have a government healthcare system in Medicare. The free market responded by making Medicare supplement insurance. What's to stop that from happening if the government gets involved in healthcare for everyone?
I haven't formed an opinion on the current health care debate, but it seems that this has become more about political power and political will than about reforming a broken system. And we are all worse off as an end result.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Online dating social experiment
The wrong but interesting side of me won out after passing the bar and a social experiment was born. How much does occupation factor into considerations when people are looking at online dating sites? Aside from the tested results, hopefully I’d meet someone.
Two separate online dating profiles were created, one on yahoo which had a picture, write up, all the bells and whistles. I even had one of my married female friends look over and improve the write up to make it more appealing. As far as occupation Education/Academic Research was selected in accordance with a part time adjunct professor spot I had at the time. A separate account was created on match.com. This account had bare minimum information, name, age, location, and attorney as occupation. It didn’t have a picture for quite some time.
Initially, the inquiries were quite similar, but it turned out that one of the pictures on the yahoo account had a caption about graduating law school. Once that was removed, the results changed significantly. On yahoo, there’s 1-2 contacts initiated from others a month. On match, it’s on the order of 4-5 a week.
A couple of interesting tid-bits: When the picture and caption regarding law school on yahoo was removed the scam artists from Nigeria, and Russian girls stopped contacting me on yahoo. When the account was brought closer to the yahoo status of complete, no appreciable change in the number of contacts was generated on the match account.
This experiment turned out to be a sad commentary on the state of society….
Friday, March 6, 2009
Howdy
Howdy. You might be wondering about the name of this blog. Meteorologist to Attorney is the career change from career 1 as a meteorologist to career 2 an attorney.
All jokes about going from a liar to a cheat aside, both careers have their own set of satisfaction and I don't regret either, though do wish the practice of law gave me more time to pursue my research with meteorology.
My nickname is "Mad Cow" so don't be baffled about an occasional cow reference.
What you'll find here...
Commentary on meteorological/climate topics.
Commentary on current events.
Occasional political commentary/rants.
Random musings.
What you won't find here is much discourse about the law. Occasionally I might opine if something legal is a current event, but generally you won't see me blogging about the law because 1) nothing here is to be constured as legal advice 2) the law changes and anything here will likely become dated 3) the law is different state to state.
Feel free to comment, but any flaming or troll remarks will be deleted. Otherwise hopefully this will be worth the read.
All jokes about going from a liar to a cheat aside, both careers have their own set of satisfaction and I don't regret either, though do wish the practice of law gave me more time to pursue my research with meteorology.
My nickname is "Mad Cow" so don't be baffled about an occasional cow reference.
What you'll find here...
Commentary on meteorological/climate topics.
Commentary on current events.
Occasional political commentary/rants.
Random musings.
What you won't find here is much discourse about the law. Occasionally I might opine if something legal is a current event, but generally you won't see me blogging about the law because 1) nothing here is to be constured as legal advice 2) the law changes and anything here will likely become dated 3) the law is different state to state.
Feel free to comment, but any flaming or troll remarks will be deleted. Otherwise hopefully this will be worth the read.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
