Let's face it... The vast majority of our Illegal Imigrants are here to work hard and build a better life for themselves and their families. They are not terrorists, not criminals, not banditos and certainly not here to hurt people.
The recent Three part series of articles in the Houston Chronicle is a Must read for all who wish to be informed about the Illegal Imigrants.. They come seeking a better life... they find it.. they do their best to fit in to society. They take great personal risks to come. They are contributing to our healthy economy.
I feel we should give Amnesty to those who deserve it ... Give them the "Green Cards", Visas, social security cards, Drivers Liscences, sign them up as Taxpayers, and set them on a path to citizenship should they seek it.
My caveat, "those who deserve it", means we need to establish some criteria and the INS needs to check them out before awarding the Visa and Green card. Have they means of support? A Job? A place to live? A sponsor? Accepted for University? Do they pass Background Checks?
At the same time we should Strengthen the enforcement of Existing imigration laws. This will probably require more counterfit proof Green Card.
It is Illegal to Hire Undocumented Imigrants... Create a Fast track to identify the "Keepers" and get them Documented. Enlist the support of Employers to sponsor the deserving. Then fine Employers who continue to hire the undocumented.
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
George's 2000 mile Wall
Dear George,
I don't Think you thought this 2000 mile Border wall through.
It needs to be made of Reinforced concrete, right?
The kind of stuff we use to make Freeways.
If you took a Freeway and tilted it in its side, It would be a Wall.
To get such a wall built in the Harsh Desert Southwest you need Concrete, Steel and Labor.
The nearest Low cost supplier of these three commodities Is Mexico.
The Winning Contractor will use all three... Just like Freeway construction in Texas.
George, I think your plan will backfire. It will cause an employment boom for illegal Mexican workers.
Please forget the wall idea. Besides while they are building it, the workers would probably install hidden tunnels.
I don't Think you thought this 2000 mile Border wall through.
It needs to be made of Reinforced concrete, right?
The kind of stuff we use to make Freeways.
If you took a Freeway and tilted it in its side, It would be a Wall.
To get such a wall built in the Harsh Desert Southwest you need Concrete, Steel and Labor.
The nearest Low cost supplier of these three commodities Is Mexico.
The Winning Contractor will use all three... Just like Freeway construction in Texas.
George, I think your plan will backfire. It will cause an employment boom for illegal Mexican workers.
Please forget the wall idea. Besides while they are building it, the workers would probably install hidden tunnels.
Sunday, November 27, 2005
Medicare Plan D Tax Credit
In an earlier post I established that My participation In Medicare Plan D would result in a claim 0f $1,431. This is the projected claim I would be awarded in 2006 if I joined and purchased our usual drug supply.
Trust me, I will Not be Joining Plan D... Plan D will not have to pay this amount to me. Medicare can keep this money.
Should this be a Charitable Deduction or a Tax Credit?
Because I have contributed this amount to the Plan D program, I plan to enter this amount on IRS Form 1040 line 50 Tax Credit
"50 Retirement Savings contributions credit. Attach form 8880 50 __$1431_ "
It seem only fair to do it as a Tax credit.
Most of us seniors don't get much mileage with Itemized Deductions.
Trust me, I will Not be Joining Plan D... Plan D will not have to pay this amount to me. Medicare can keep this money.
Should this be a Charitable Deduction or a Tax Credit?
Because I have contributed this amount to the Plan D program, I plan to enter this amount on IRS Form 1040 line 50 Tax Credit
"50 Retirement Savings contributions credit. Attach form 8880 50 __$1431_ "
It seem only fair to do it as a Tax credit.
Most of us seniors don't get much mileage with Itemized Deductions.
Saturday, November 26, 2005
Friday, November 18, 2005
Drug and Insurance Companys are Happy
Lets face it the real beneficiaries of the Medicare Part D Rx Drug Plan are the Drug companies and the Insurance companies. The seniors on Medicare will benefit little if at all.
Marion and I were at the local CVS Pharmacy filling a prescription for an Ointment that relieves fever blisters. Marion was dealing with the pharmacict and I was shopping for batteries for our Gate Opener.
Marion found me in Xmas lights and said, "Honey are you ready for the price they want?"
"Let me guess" I answered, "about $50 ?"
"No its $95." she said. "Then I asked if they considered my TRS-Caremark Discount Card. They hadn't; so I got them to reprice it.. they still want $88. That only saves $7. I think I can forget buying this."
"Well the doctor prescribed it... you get blisters from time to time... " I replied. "It probably will be a lifetime supply... If it has good shelf life I think you should invest in it"
I went back with her and, while she purchased it, I asked the Pharmicist about the New Plan D.
"Will I pay the same for this drug under the new Medicare Plan D?" I asked.
"Yes you will." he replied, "Any benefits you get will come from the Insurance Company when you file with them."
"The dicsount card will no longer be honored, is that true?". I was on to something.
"Thats true... we will collect the full price," he answered.
"Then Medicare Part D will be less Headache for you and you will sell at full price, Right?" I asked.
" That's true."
I felt like Michael Moore doing one of his famous interviews... too bad I didn't have a TV camera to record it all. I had the goods on the Drug Companies.
I need help to establish just where my new premiums will go... The Government will collect the money? Or the Insurance company will collect the money?
I think the answer is, "All of the money I pay for premiums goes to the Insurance companies."
The Insurance companies will need to hire a bunch of GED Level claims adjusters and pay them. They will use the money for that, and more computers, and more answering machines, and more 800 Numbers.
That does not buy any Drugs for Seniors. I think the Medicare plan D program probably funds the drug claims. This is the part I am not sure of.
Here is my understanding of how the program will work.
If I buy Exactly $250 in drugs my annual expense will be $250 to the Drug Company plus $400 to the Insurance Company. Total $650 cost for $250 drugs. Not a Good Deal! Medicare pays a claim $0.0.
More realistically One of us has Drug bills of about $1,350 per year the other about $3,250. After meeting plan deductibles and premiums for the year, plan D will reimburse $381 of the $1,350 expense for one of us and $1,056 of the $3,250 expense for the other.
Summarizing. We buy $4,600 worth of drugs. We pay $800 in premiums. Medicare pays us $1,431 in claims. Adjusted Cost 4,600 + 800 - 1431 = $3,969 That is a good deal, right? The drug companies and the insurance companies want you to think so. So does George because his plan "gave" us $1,431. But remember we paid a $800 premium. Total savings over not participating 4600 - 3969 = $ 631.
Here is Ed's Plan. Buy the same drugs in Canada and take advantage of the cheaper prices. Get the same stuff for 39% less. That means I pay $2,806. Instead of $4,600 and save $1,794. Plus I don't have to shell out $800 to the insurance company. Total Savings = $2,594.
This is Better than Medicare Plan D.... I don't pay premiums, I have no dedictible to meet. The Canadian government negotiated a great deal.
Several States have recognized the savings possible and are buying Canadian drugs for their State employee benefit plans.
Medicare Plan D is crafted by the Drug and Insurance companies and pushed forward by George Bush. He will Never allow negotiations for reduced prices from the Drug companies. This might actually benefit Senior citizens.
I plan to opt out of Medicare Part D unless it will reimburse Prescriptions Purchased in Canada... Then it might be a Good Deal.
Fat chance of that happening... That loophole has been shut in secret negotiations between the drug Lobbyists and the Republican party.
Marion and I were at the local CVS Pharmacy filling a prescription for an Ointment that relieves fever blisters. Marion was dealing with the pharmacict and I was shopping for batteries for our Gate Opener.
Marion found me in Xmas lights and said, "Honey are you ready for the price they want?"
"Let me guess" I answered, "about $50 ?"
"No its $95." she said. "Then I asked if they considered my TRS-Caremark Discount Card. They hadn't; so I got them to reprice it.. they still want $88. That only saves $7. I think I can forget buying this."
"Well the doctor prescribed it... you get blisters from time to time... " I replied. "It probably will be a lifetime supply... If it has good shelf life I think you should invest in it"
I went back with her and, while she purchased it, I asked the Pharmicist about the New Plan D.
"Will I pay the same for this drug under the new Medicare Plan D?" I asked.
"Yes you will." he replied, "Any benefits you get will come from the Insurance Company when you file with them."
"The dicsount card will no longer be honored, is that true?". I was on to something.
"Thats true... we will collect the full price," he answered.
"Then Medicare Part D will be less Headache for you and you will sell at full price, Right?" I asked.
" That's true."
I felt like Michael Moore doing one of his famous interviews... too bad I didn't have a TV camera to record it all. I had the goods on the Drug Companies.
I need help to establish just where my new premiums will go... The Government will collect the money? Or the Insurance company will collect the money?
I think the answer is, "All of the money I pay for premiums goes to the Insurance companies."
The Insurance companies will need to hire a bunch of GED Level claims adjusters and pay them. They will use the money for that, and more computers, and more answering machines, and more 800 Numbers.
That does not buy any Drugs for Seniors. I think the Medicare plan D program probably funds the drug claims. This is the part I am not sure of.
Here is my understanding of how the program will work.
If I buy Exactly $250 in drugs my annual expense will be $250 to the Drug Company plus $400 to the Insurance Company. Total $650 cost for $250 drugs. Not a Good Deal! Medicare pays a claim $0.0.
More realistically One of us has Drug bills of about $1,350 per year the other about $3,250. After meeting plan deductibles and premiums for the year, plan D will reimburse $381 of the $1,350 expense for one of us and $1,056 of the $3,250 expense for the other.
Summarizing. We buy $4,600 worth of drugs. We pay $800 in premiums. Medicare pays us $1,431 in claims. Adjusted Cost 4,600 + 800 - 1431 = $3,969 That is a good deal, right? The drug companies and the insurance companies want you to think so. So does George because his plan "gave" us $1,431. But remember we paid a $800 premium. Total savings over not participating 4600 - 3969 = $ 631.
Here is Ed's Plan. Buy the same drugs in Canada and take advantage of the cheaper prices. Get the same stuff for 39% less. That means I pay $2,806. Instead of $4,600 and save $1,794. Plus I don't have to shell out $800 to the insurance company. Total Savings = $2,594.
This is Better than Medicare Plan D.... I don't pay premiums, I have no dedictible to meet. The Canadian government negotiated a great deal.
Several States have recognized the savings possible and are buying Canadian drugs for their State employee benefit plans.
Medicare Plan D is crafted by the Drug and Insurance companies and pushed forward by George Bush. He will Never allow negotiations for reduced prices from the Drug companies. This might actually benefit Senior citizens.
I plan to opt out of Medicare Part D unless it will reimburse Prescriptions Purchased in Canada... Then it might be a Good Deal.
Fat chance of that happening... That loophole has been shut in secret negotiations between the drug Lobbyists and the Republican party.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Lets Rob the Rich
I like the Robin Hood approach.
Its Good old-fashioned Keynesian economics: Take from the rich, whose marginal propensity to consume is low, and give to the poor, who will spend every extra dollar you give them and then some.
That's the way Bill Clinton got rid of the deficit.
Back in those good old days, even the poor were getting rich.
Its Good old-fashioned Keynesian economics: Take from the rich, whose marginal propensity to consume is low, and give to the poor, who will spend every extra dollar you give them and then some.
That's the way Bill Clinton got rid of the deficit.
Back in those good old days, even the poor were getting rich.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Stop those Tax Cuts
Yes I benefit from the Tax Cuts. But we don't need them.
Taxes are the way we pay for Government. (I did not say Good Government or Bad Government. Just Government.)
Right now our Government is Borrowing Money to pay bills... This Borrowed Money will be paid by our Children and Grand Children... That's Not Fair.
We have worked up a lot of extra ordinary bills... Katrina Bills... Iraq Bills... Medicare part D bills.
Even if we get real smart in Cutting Waste we will be paying more out than we get in. This is no time to also be cutting Taxes.
Besides the tax cuts are principally benefiting the wealthy... The ones who can best afford to help.
And I don't want to hear about how their Riches Trickle Down. I have not seen that happen because they are Hermetically sealed containers.
Taxes are the way we pay for Government. (I did not say Good Government or Bad Government. Just Government.)
Right now our Government is Borrowing Money to pay bills... This Borrowed Money will be paid by our Children and Grand Children... That's Not Fair.
We have worked up a lot of extra ordinary bills... Katrina Bills... Iraq Bills... Medicare part D bills.
Even if we get real smart in Cutting Waste we will be paying more out than we get in. This is no time to also be cutting Taxes.
Besides the tax cuts are principally benefiting the wealthy... The ones who can best afford to help.
And I don't want to hear about how their Riches Trickle Down. I have not seen that happen because they are Hermetically sealed containers.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Justice Without DeLay ?
DeLay's attorneys, Dick DeGuerin and Richard Keeton of Houston, got a visiting judge to remove state District Judge Bob Perkins from overseeing the criminal case against U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay.
They argued that their effort was not just a matter of trying to get a Democratic judge removed from hearing the case of a Republican officeholder. They said it was a matter of removing a judge whose contributions showed him to be a "staunch Democrat" presiding at the trial of the nation's "most partisan Republican."
Who will get the Job of trying DeLay?
It will really smell to High Heaven if they pick a Staunch Republican.
I say Move the Case to Canada.... Or Maybe better yet to the UN world Court.
They argued that their effort was not just a matter of trying to get a Democratic judge removed from hearing the case of a Republican officeholder. They said it was a matter of removing a judge whose contributions showed him to be a "staunch Democrat" presiding at the trial of the nation's "most partisan Republican."
Who will get the Job of trying DeLay?
It will really smell to High Heaven if they pick a Staunch Republican.
I say Move the Case to Canada.... Or Maybe better yet to the UN world Court.
Monday, October 24, 2005
The Rich are not Paying Their Way
I think that Trickle down is not effective.
It's supposed to work like this.
Don't Tax the wealthy so much. They will have more to invest. And they will have more to spend. This is supposed to create more worker jobs.
More workers means more taxpayers. Everyone knows: Workers Pay Taxes. Wealthy Avoid Taxes. Also there are more workers than wealthy.
So there you have it... The treasury gets a Lots More Money from workers by reducing taxes on the wealthy.
I tried to create a Mathematical Model of this process but I kept getting Error messages that critized my competence. It insisted "17 - 4 is not equal to 23". So I gave up on that feature of the model. When I abolished the Tax Cut for the Wealthy in my model, I found the treasury had some money to reduce the deficit.
I feel the more you have recieved, the more you owe back to society. The Graduated Income Tax embodies this principle.
I also feel it would be good to actually employ some of the Idle Wealthy. Then they could have Real Jobs and Pay taxes like the workers do. This involves a small but Untouched population. It would allow the Rich to Pay Their Way.
It's supposed to work like this.
Don't Tax the wealthy so much. They will have more to invest. And they will have more to spend. This is supposed to create more worker jobs.
More workers means more taxpayers. Everyone knows: Workers Pay Taxes. Wealthy Avoid Taxes. Also there are more workers than wealthy.
So there you have it... The treasury gets a Lots More Money from workers by reducing taxes on the wealthy.
I tried to create a Mathematical Model of this process but I kept getting Error messages that critized my competence. It insisted "17 - 4 is not equal to 23". So I gave up on that feature of the model. When I abolished the Tax Cut for the Wealthy in my model, I found the treasury had some money to reduce the deficit.
I feel the more you have recieved, the more you owe back to society. The Graduated Income Tax embodies this principle.
I also feel it would be good to actually employ some of the Idle Wealthy. Then they could have Real Jobs and Pay taxes like the workers do. This involves a small but Untouched population. It would allow the Rich to Pay Their Way.
Monday, August 22, 2005
My Social Security Opinion
Two Principles shape my position:
- "Ownership is Fostered by Savings Not by Taxes"
- "Preserve The Social Security Safety Net... It Works"
False Security
Even if the account does better (and that is debatable) than the Guaranteed Segment which it displaces,
this is a False Ownership... It is not Savings... It is Tax money. The Citizen is duped into believing that he is providing for his future and reduces needed retirement savings. This Is a BAD Result.
Social Security is meant to be a safety net; it was never intended to be a complete retirement program. Employer pension programs and self directed savings programs are the other components of a retirement program. In these programs there is True Ownership. These programs come in a wide variety of options. Some are tax free going in and some are tax free coming out. The Government encourages both kinds of savings with these tax break options... That is Good.
Phony Crisis
Back in the early 80's we had one of these alarms... the funds won't be there in 2001... A high level Commission Studied the problem and came up with a workable solution. They found that you can't promise higher wage indexed benefits if you don't have a payroll tax for anything over $45,000. The solution was: to gradually increase the base on taxes to $90,000 (that's where it is now) and to gradually increase the retirement age for "Full Benefits" from Age 65 to 67 (where it now). As a result of those actions Social Security is running a Surplus, and this surplus is serving to reduce the need for Borrowing in the federal budget.
This solution used again will work out into the future and there will be no need to borrow money to fund the "Private Accounts".
Fairness
Today all who make less than $90,000 pay a 6.2% tax on their wages and the employer also pays 6.2%. Believe me there are people who make more than $90,000 a year. These persons are not paying as high a percentage of income as those sweating to make ends meet at $50,000. A person making $180,000 a year pays 3.1% of income. It is Not Fair in my opinion to provide the safety net for 3.1% of wages to wealthy, when everyone earning under $90,000 is paying 6.2% --- Twice that percentage.
Solution
Reconstitute the Commission to review the Funding .... Eliminate the Cap... Adjust retirement age if necessary...
Make Social Security Mandatory for All wage earners. For example teachers in Texas are exempt from participation.
Enhancements to Encourage Retirement Savings
Make the 401K, 403b, Teacher Retirement, and other Tax deferred plans mandatory at age 30. Promote Generous matching contributions by employers. Continue to enforce penalties for early withdrawal.
I found that when we retired we paid more in taxes than when we were working. I was surprised, because I had always heard that taxes would go down due to a lower living expenses. We found, however, that our "Living Expenses" rose dramatically. We had more time to spend having fun, and we spent more money having fun than we ever could have while working. That lasted for the first five years of retirement...
It sure would be a great incentive for Retirement Savings if the withdrawals were taxed at a lower rate than Ordinary Income... We do it for Capital Gains! We do it For Social Security Income! Why not for Retirement Income from bona fide plans?
Summary
Strengthen the Social Security Net... It works!
Make Retirement Savings Accounts mandatory for all wage earners age 30 and above. Contributions by both Employer and Employee are Tax free going in. This is true Ownership. Make these programs "No Brainer Attractive" so all will take advantage of these plans.
Greenspan should love it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)