Imagine a human traffic jam of 12 million illegal immigrants in seemingly endless lines along highways branching from every nook and cranny of America as they’re herded back to their countries of origin. Imagine American patriots bordering a parade route spanning coast to coast, border to border, cheering and holding red, white and blue signs spelling out, “Adios!”
At 7 million strong, 56% of illegal immigrants are from Mexico, another 22% from Latin American countries and the remainder from Asia, Europe and Africa. Whatever the nationality, the demographics of immigration reform will be devastating to many and inconsiderate of the individual. Congress must be more productive with legislation than what resulted from the Senate immigration hearings for the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007. Less than a month after the bill was introduced (May 9) it failed to pass a third test vote (June 7) by a margin of 45 to 50, well below the 60 votes needed.
As presented by then-Senator Obama, an amendment stated that "... parents of U.S. citizens would no longer be counted as immediate families... most parents seeking to join their children and grandchildren in the United States would be denied green cards. The rest of the current family preferences – siblings, adult children, and many parents -- would be eviscerated.” In other words, No way, Jose! your children born on American soil can stay, pero no otra familia! In real words: no family reunification.
Although more than 20% of immigrant children live in poverty, life in the U.S. is better than the destitute living conditions in their home countries. What further hardships would these and other children endure if either or both parents were deported? Through their fears of family separation they’re faith gives them hope that American lawmakers will provide them an equitable means for amnesty.
A Pew Institute Hispanic Center report states that 56% Hispanics are confident that police will treat them fairly. This is far better than 37% blacks. And 46% Hispanics, compared to 38% blacks, believe police won’t use excessive force. This suggests that Hispanics have, to a large degree, reached a comfort zone of maintaining residency in America.
From February 27 through April 4, Representative Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., hosted a cross-country United Families tour to "stop the immigration raids and deportations that are tearing our marriages, families and children apart." Testimonies from immigrants related personal tragedies resulting from worksite enforcement by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents that terrorize whole communities.
Texas and California were the most visited of the 11-state, 17-city tour. Both states have seen dozens of hospitals close their doors providing services regardless of citizenship, legal status or the ability to pay as required by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1985. The numbers of non-paying illegal immigrants are cited as the cause of the closures.
As stated by John Vison, president of the American Immigration Control Foundation, "The child [of the illegal immigrant] is an automatic American citizen, thus entitled to all benefits of American citizens. This gives a certain financial incentive for people coming from other countries illegally to have children here." Such is the reason why pregnant women risk their lives crossing the Rio Grande to enter American hospitals to give birth.
Acknowledging this custom, Joe Riley, CEO of the McAllen Medical Center in Texas, said, “Mothers about to give birth that walk up to the hospital still wet from swimming across the river in actual labor … dirty, wet, cold,” he said. “We have uncompensated care of over $200 million a year.”
There seems to be a large disregard for the millions of American families whose lives have been unjustly disrupted due to lost wages, jobs and medical benefits that put them at danger of indigent status (homelessness) and life-threatening conditions. In many cases, American citizens have lost the means of attaining their inherent share of the American Dream, fast becoming an Impossible Dream.
As dialogue proceeds toward a statement to be delivered by President Obama in May, media will play a large role in providing coverage of the plights of both American citizens and the undocumented workers who have left them fewer job opportunities.
A split screen marathon might be appropriate. On the left, illegal immigrants would speak in broken English telling woeful tales of family separation due to “un-American” practices as expressed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. On the right, sons and daughters of American pioneers would counter in real life anger stories of lost jobs and homes. Stuck in the middle, out of viewer sight, would be naturalized Americans who have also been affected by undocumented workers.
Others will have to work out the details of immigration reform while I sit here cross-legged, chanting OM and meditate on the high cost to American taxpayers.
Monday, April 13, 2009
The Immigration Bill
The stories are well-worn tales of heart-rending misfortune and fears of persecution from law enforcements agencies and the many cities and towns that have had to lay down creative laws to give them pause of remaining in neighborhoods. The cries of malfeasance for actions that are of disregard to family values of illegal immigrants are like that of a Mexican jumping bean, spastic in motion, flippant in spirit and yet, after a lifespan of 9 months, another crop populates into action.
Unlike the egg laid inside the bean that goes through a metamorphosis until a harmless moth emerges, immigration reform will be a very costly burden to not only the next generation of American taxpayers but also to present-day working men and women until death do they depart from the liability.
According to the non-profit organization Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), in 2005 the cost to Florida taxpayers amounted to $1.7B annually, a seemingly “cheap” figure when compared to the jump in price to $3.8B in 2008, taking into account the costs of K-12 schooling, health care and incarceration.
Out of fairness, FAIR acknowledges that if the estimated taxes paid by illegal immigrants are taken into account, the cost is reduced to “only” $2.3B. Of course, the organization doesn’t stop there. The report goes into the fact that if the jobs held by illegals had been gainfully earned by American workers taxes paid would be more representative of real-life contributions to the federal budget.
In 2007, the Heritage Foundation estimated the national annual cost was $2.5 trillion.
The Inter-American Development Bank estimated that in 2006 over $3B dollars earned by immigrants in the U.S. found their way to Latin American countries. If that doesn’t bring your patriotic blood pressure to dangerous levels, every Florida household contributes almost $700 per year to sustain the presence of undocumented workers and their families. Damn! As if you thought those reduced payroll taxes given to American workers are a federally sanctioned gift of stimulus dollars, think again. At best, it’s a washout.
The Center for American Progress, in 2005, estimated deportation costs to taxpayers would be as much as $230B over a five-year period, yet here we are 5 years down the dead-end road to immigration reform and the amounts have surely increased. Costs include detention, legal fees and transportation expenses.
On the other side of the deportation issue, FAIR had its own cost estimate of $275B over a five year period to allow illegal immigrants to remain in the country. The 2004 assessment includes the cost in American worker jobs, lost taxes and the continuing costs of maintaining non-reimbursement of social services.
The figures suggest deportation would be less costly than the status quo of continuing to be a host country to illegal immigrants. A free-for-all amnesty scenario would be a free-fall of American culture and the economy.
Truly no one really wants families to be split apart for any reason other than death by natural causes. It’s even exemplary that illegal immigrants have the determination and means to seek homeownership but how in the world of justice do they obtain mortgage loans in the first place?
It’s unfathomable that banking institutions can justify loans to any person without a valid Social Security Number. Since many immigrant workers’ jobs are supposedly temporary, there should be a concern that default rates would be higher than that of Americans. I don’t get it.
Eventually American families find themselves either on the street or with temporary residency in tent cities, facing the likelihood that at some point communities will prompt local law enforcement to oust them from their canvas/nylon “homes”.
Solutions to immigration reform might be financial goldmines to certain businesses interests (agriculture, construction) but they remain political landmines to public servants seeking reelection in 2010, then those in 2012, then those in 2014… However discompassionate to both sides of the immigration issue, politicians are decidedly inconsiderate of the American taxpayer to put off ‘til tomorrow what should have begun a decade ago.
Perhaps the U.S. Department of Justice should give the Immigration and Naturalization Service the wherewithal to declare an end to the hide-and-seek games played by undocumented workers and their families.
Agents could scour the countryside, crying out “Olly Olly Oxen Free”!, a phrase going back to the days of yore when a town crier in jolly old England signaled those outside the castle walls to come forth to receive a message from the King, “All Ye, All Ye, Outs in Free!” Alas, “No one loves the messenger who brings bad news.” (Sophocles)
Immigration issues remain largely void of racism. As Americans continue to lose jobs, homes and patriotic dignity, there are no guarantees that the two sides of immigration will remain civil. We all got guns, don’t we?
Unlike the egg laid inside the bean that goes through a metamorphosis until a harmless moth emerges, immigration reform will be a very costly burden to not only the next generation of American taxpayers but also to present-day working men and women until death do they depart from the liability.
According to the non-profit organization Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), in 2005 the cost to Florida taxpayers amounted to $1.7B annually, a seemingly “cheap” figure when compared to the jump in price to $3.8B in 2008, taking into account the costs of K-12 schooling, health care and incarceration.
Out of fairness, FAIR acknowledges that if the estimated taxes paid by illegal immigrants are taken into account, the cost is reduced to “only” $2.3B. Of course, the organization doesn’t stop there. The report goes into the fact that if the jobs held by illegals had been gainfully earned by American workers taxes paid would be more representative of real-life contributions to the federal budget.
In 2007, the Heritage Foundation estimated the national annual cost was $2.5 trillion.
The Inter-American Development Bank estimated that in 2006 over $3B dollars earned by immigrants in the U.S. found their way to Latin American countries. If that doesn’t bring your patriotic blood pressure to dangerous levels, every Florida household contributes almost $700 per year to sustain the presence of undocumented workers and their families. Damn! As if you thought those reduced payroll taxes given to American workers are a federally sanctioned gift of stimulus dollars, think again. At best, it’s a washout.
The Center for American Progress, in 2005, estimated deportation costs to taxpayers would be as much as $230B over a five-year period, yet here we are 5 years down the dead-end road to immigration reform and the amounts have surely increased. Costs include detention, legal fees and transportation expenses.
On the other side of the deportation issue, FAIR had its own cost estimate of $275B over a five year period to allow illegal immigrants to remain in the country. The 2004 assessment includes the cost in American worker jobs, lost taxes and the continuing costs of maintaining non-reimbursement of social services.
The figures suggest deportation would be less costly than the status quo of continuing to be a host country to illegal immigrants. A free-for-all amnesty scenario would be a free-fall of American culture and the economy.
Truly no one really wants families to be split apart for any reason other than death by natural causes. It’s even exemplary that illegal immigrants have the determination and means to seek homeownership but how in the world of justice do they obtain mortgage loans in the first place?
It’s unfathomable that banking institutions can justify loans to any person without a valid Social Security Number. Since many immigrant workers’ jobs are supposedly temporary, there should be a concern that default rates would be higher than that of Americans. I don’t get it.
Eventually American families find themselves either on the street or with temporary residency in tent cities, facing the likelihood that at some point communities will prompt local law enforcement to oust them from their canvas/nylon “homes”.
Solutions to immigration reform might be financial goldmines to certain businesses interests (agriculture, construction) but they remain political landmines to public servants seeking reelection in 2010, then those in 2012, then those in 2014… However discompassionate to both sides of the immigration issue, politicians are decidedly inconsiderate of the American taxpayer to put off ‘til tomorrow what should have begun a decade ago.
Perhaps the U.S. Department of Justice should give the Immigration and Naturalization Service the wherewithal to declare an end to the hide-and-seek games played by undocumented workers and their families.
Agents could scour the countryside, crying out “Olly Olly Oxen Free”!, a phrase going back to the days of yore when a town crier in jolly old England signaled those outside the castle walls to come forth to receive a message from the King, “All Ye, All Ye, Outs in Free!” Alas, “No one loves the messenger who brings bad news.” (Sophocles)
Immigration issues remain largely void of racism. As Americans continue to lose jobs, homes and patriotic dignity, there are no guarantees that the two sides of immigration will remain civil. We all got guns, don’t we?
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Hang 'Em High!
Dang ‘em! We ought to take a rope and hang ‘em! From higher than the tallest tree!
Who might be the targeted recipients of such a suggested act of vengeance? No doubt, Bernie Madoff, the $65B rip-off artist of thousands of gullibly stupid get-rich-quick investors, would be at the top the list. This firestorm of lost fortunes exceeds any single maelstrom of losses on Wall Street demands the man pay a just price for his extravagant lifestyle of nearly two decades.
The silver-haired, fork-tongued magistrate of greed has brought financial ruin to thousands of individuals, banks and, yes, charitable organizations that have subsequently had to close their doors due to lost funds. In the name of “tearorism”, how about saltwater-boarding Bernie with 65 billion tear drops streaming from the red and swollen eyes of the donors whose generosities will be denied of reaching their intended beneficiaries? And what of the multitudes of misty-eyed would-be recipients who may never realize the gifts that were meant to provide hope for those with physical and mental handicaps?
To a lesser extent, there are other Ponzi-schemers who have also caused financial ruin to too many lives. Take for instance, Lou Pearlman, the boy band mogul currently serving a 25-year sentence for jilting investors in an admitted sum of $300M, although a more realistic figure is said to be $500M, of which only $3.5M has been recovered. If the gravity of the situation weren’t so despicable, the offer from Judge G. Kendall Sharp would be laughable – one month taken off the sentence for every $1M paid back to investors.
Then there’s the likes of Robert Stanford/Stanford Financial Group/Stanford International Bank in off-shore Antigua that siphoned off over $8B from 50,000 dimwitted folks who actually believed riches could be had with CDs earning nearly twice the rate at American banks.
Merrill-Lynch. Citigroup. Morgan Stanley. Fannie. Freddie. Executive compensations in the hundreds of millions of dollars are justly criticized and loathed. AIG is a prime target of scorn. Executive retention is more of an excuse for continued abuse of investor and American taxpayer funds. This is an example of corporate protectionism in the context that boards of directors are hand-picked by their CEOs whereby each reap the benefits by scratching one another’s backs to keep the spandex money belts tightly harnessed around their fat-cat bellies.
In a broader sense, Congress, the SEC and the Fed can all be considered cohorts in the meltdown of financial institutions and the domino affect orchestrated by their corporate cohorts of wealthy campaign contributions. They’ve all made lackeys out of investors and taxpayers alike. Their oversights have led to this point of near-depression era statistics. You ask, How did we get to this point of despair?
The 1999 repeal of the Banking Act of 1933, the Glass-Steagall Act, was the culmination of two decades of a concerted effort to deregulate banking and investment vehicles.
The Depository Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 allowed banks to merge and charge any interest rates they chose, although it also increased FDIC guarantees from $40,000 to $100,000.
The Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 deregulated the savings and loan industry and proved to be one of the many factors that led to the S&L crisis less than a decade later. One provision, the Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act loosened decades-long conventional loan mortgage lending practices to allow adjustable rate, balloon payment and interest-only mortgages. Call em anything you want but they’re all sub-prime boohoo home investment schemes.
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, the Financial Services Modernization Act, allowed banks to engage in previously prohibited crossover activities such as financial services, securities investments, mortgage lending and insurance underwriting. It led to a one-stop shopping opportunity for these unregulated institutions to guarantee seemingly endless fortunes without disclosure of the high risks of becoming the debtor’s fool.
Fortunately, or not, in today’s society lynching isn’t an accepted means to bring villains to a just end. But what about bungee-jumping as an alternative to the ways of the bygone days of the Wild West? At 630 feet and the tallest monument in the US, the Gateway Arch in St. Louis may be the perfect execution site. Yes, sir, watch ‘em go down head first, on their way to Purgatory down below.
From the Old Courthouse the unscrupulous money-mongers would walk the 1076 steps to the top of the Arch whilst the rest of us would leisurely start from the Old Courthouse, continue our journey aboard the Arch’s Unique Tram System and follow the procession to the Observation Deck. Let the retribution begin!
Meet me in St. Louis.
Who might be the targeted recipients of such a suggested act of vengeance? No doubt, Bernie Madoff, the $65B rip-off artist of thousands of gullibly stupid get-rich-quick investors, would be at the top the list. This firestorm of lost fortunes exceeds any single maelstrom of losses on Wall Street demands the man pay a just price for his extravagant lifestyle of nearly two decades.
The silver-haired, fork-tongued magistrate of greed has brought financial ruin to thousands of individuals, banks and, yes, charitable organizations that have subsequently had to close their doors due to lost funds. In the name of “tearorism”, how about saltwater-boarding Bernie with 65 billion tear drops streaming from the red and swollen eyes of the donors whose generosities will be denied of reaching their intended beneficiaries? And what of the multitudes of misty-eyed would-be recipients who may never realize the gifts that were meant to provide hope for those with physical and mental handicaps?
To a lesser extent, there are other Ponzi-schemers who have also caused financial ruin to too many lives. Take for instance, Lou Pearlman, the boy band mogul currently serving a 25-year sentence for jilting investors in an admitted sum of $300M, although a more realistic figure is said to be $500M, of which only $3.5M has been recovered. If the gravity of the situation weren’t so despicable, the offer from Judge G. Kendall Sharp would be laughable – one month taken off the sentence for every $1M paid back to investors.
Then there’s the likes of Robert Stanford/Stanford Financial Group/Stanford International Bank in off-shore Antigua that siphoned off over $8B from 50,000 dimwitted folks who actually believed riches could be had with CDs earning nearly twice the rate at American banks.
Merrill-Lynch. Citigroup. Morgan Stanley. Fannie. Freddie. Executive compensations in the hundreds of millions of dollars are justly criticized and loathed. AIG is a prime target of scorn. Executive retention is more of an excuse for continued abuse of investor and American taxpayer funds. This is an example of corporate protectionism in the context that boards of directors are hand-picked by their CEOs whereby each reap the benefits by scratching one another’s backs to keep the spandex money belts tightly harnessed around their fat-cat bellies.
In a broader sense, Congress, the SEC and the Fed can all be considered cohorts in the meltdown of financial institutions and the domino affect orchestrated by their corporate cohorts of wealthy campaign contributions. They’ve all made lackeys out of investors and taxpayers alike. Their oversights have led to this point of near-depression era statistics. You ask, How did we get to this point of despair?
The 1999 repeal of the Banking Act of 1933, the Glass-Steagall Act, was the culmination of two decades of a concerted effort to deregulate banking and investment vehicles.
The Depository Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 allowed banks to merge and charge any interest rates they chose, although it also increased FDIC guarantees from $40,000 to $100,000.
The Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 deregulated the savings and loan industry and proved to be one of the many factors that led to the S&L crisis less than a decade later. One provision, the Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act loosened decades-long conventional loan mortgage lending practices to allow adjustable rate, balloon payment and interest-only mortgages. Call em anything you want but they’re all sub-prime boohoo home investment schemes.
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, the Financial Services Modernization Act, allowed banks to engage in previously prohibited crossover activities such as financial services, securities investments, mortgage lending and insurance underwriting. It led to a one-stop shopping opportunity for these unregulated institutions to guarantee seemingly endless fortunes without disclosure of the high risks of becoming the debtor’s fool.
Fortunately, or not, in today’s society lynching isn’t an accepted means to bring villains to a just end. But what about bungee-jumping as an alternative to the ways of the bygone days of the Wild West? At 630 feet and the tallest monument in the US, the Gateway Arch in St. Louis may be the perfect execution site. Yes, sir, watch ‘em go down head first, on their way to Purgatory down below.
From the Old Courthouse the unscrupulous money-mongers would walk the 1076 steps to the top of the Arch whilst the rest of us would leisurely start from the Old Courthouse, continue our journey aboard the Arch’s Unique Tram System and follow the procession to the Observation Deck. Let the retribution begin!
Meet me in St. Louis.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Drug Talk
Dial a wrong number and what do you get? An unknown someone and indiscernible of sex on the other end who speaks in slurred English, apparently in a hazy daze from the affects of medications, possibly subscribed for pain management, or just as likely bought on the sly from unscrupulous pill-pushers. Mention the word “oxy” and the tone would have changed to a perky mood at the prospects of making a friend - one more contact to feed the need.
Witness a delivery truck dislodge a mailbox, then discuss the situation with the greasy-haired and rotten-toothed driver, and where does the conversation lead? To avoid an insurance claim the guy pays cash out of hand and, in response to relating a story about a friend who had done the same to multiple mailboxes because he was on too high a dose of mood stabilizers, his interest is apparent when he mentions he might be interested if the meds are of the right mixture. Not what he was hoping for.
Go to an emergency room and what does the doctor tell you? That too many people just like yourself seek medical attention in desperation from the negative affects of being too long on certain prescription drugs. The medical professional also states that 25% of emergency room patients are there for the same reason.
Every age group, from teens to the eighty’s, find their minds and bodies unable to cope with the withdrawal of the opiate ingredients found in oxycodone products manufactured as Percocet, Percodan, OxyContin and Vicodin.
Intended to be time-released, habitual users crush the tablets, dissolve them in water and shoot the mixture directly into the bloodstream for a quick fix. Better yet, “roxies” are made to order without the added step of injection. Since oxycodone is extremely habit-forming, once a person is hooked, the dosage must be progressively increased.
Roxy Music, a 70s rock group fronted by Brian Ferry and a major influence on punk rockers, compared drug use with lovemaking. In fact, a YouTube music video of their first pop hit “Love Is A Drug” displays the lyrics superimposed over the image of two hearts with a syringe taking the place of the traditional arrow – a heart-breaking picture.
How about the words and music of Amy Winehouse, “They tried to make me go to rehab, I said no, no, no”? A very catchy tune but face it, not exactly the type of music a parent wants their kids to admire.
The same goes for Lil Wyte with the chorus “Oxycontin, Xanax bars, Percocets and Lortabs. Valiums, morphine patches, Ecstacy… and it’s all up for grabs”. Second verse same as the first… all together now… It’s a rapper’s paradise of fortunes at the expense of youth.
Drug use has become a national heritage, a war against which was doomed when President Richard Nixon first introduced the term “war on drugs” in 1971. It was primarily about marijuana but over the years it’s encompassed all kinds of nasty concoctions we’ve become familiar with, especially in the past decade: cocaine, heroin, opium and methamphetamines – they’re all a “crack” in our social makeup – a bad complexion.
Take a hard look at where our society is right now. Baby boomers, who were the initial users of hallucinatory drugs, have delivered to our institutions greed and self-interest as never before in history. Too many have shamed our generation as we all pay the price for their deranged guidance. Flower power wasn’t supposed to include poppy seeds.
What does the future hold for this country? Two decades from now, those on drugs now may have finagled through their 20s and founded a degree of success to gain access to influential positions, with executive privileges, and put America through another round of economic and political indiscretions.
Hopefully, my assumptions of the affects of drug use by our leaders are unfounded.
These little story quips come not from personal experiences but as told by friends. But there is a tale of a friendly acquaintance who was legitimately on pain medications, oxy’s, that he quit cold turkey by choice. It took a month to become fully un-hooked but, due to an unemployment situation, the lucrative business of selling (dealing) prescriptions for a profit (a couple grand a month) keeps the doctor with cash in hand and the individual being able to meet living expenses.
It’s a game of successful entrepreneurship. Without drug trade the economy would be further in jeopardy. It keeps money in circulation, flowing freely thanks to supply and demand. The costs in lost wages, government-subsidized health care and jail time costs will widen the cracks in taxpayers’ piggy banks. Oh ya, the affects on people's lives is a major concern too, if anyone really cares.
Bedroom communities, such as Hernando County, Florida, have been ripe for excessive drug abuse because they were planned development areas to attract retirees and not working class children. These poor unfortunate kids are the ones faced with not enough options to keep themselves busy and stay out of trouble with the law, whether by use of drugs or joy riding that result in traffic violations. The combination of both keep them in a vicious cycle of confrontation with law enforcement, a virtual career in offenses that lead to jail if not prison time.
Too many retail jobs and menial manual labor with parents finding themselves also in a bind to find sustainable upward moving employment opportunities should have found parents picking up their families and relocating, possibly out of Florida entirely. The economy is too reliant on low-paying jobs in the family entertainment business - amusement parks - where minimum wage and few, if any, other benefits are poor career choices.
No wonder Florida has a poor educational system and youth and young adults, if not their parents, are reliant on drug-induced personal entertainment. Too much idle, unproductive idle time on their hands and minds.
It’s a lost cause to expect responsible parenting. There are too many outside, easily accessible influences that undermine the otherwise sensible minds of innocent children.
Witness a delivery truck dislodge a mailbox, then discuss the situation with the greasy-haired and rotten-toothed driver, and where does the conversation lead? To avoid an insurance claim the guy pays cash out of hand and, in response to relating a story about a friend who had done the same to multiple mailboxes because he was on too high a dose of mood stabilizers, his interest is apparent when he mentions he might be interested if the meds are of the right mixture. Not what he was hoping for.
Go to an emergency room and what does the doctor tell you? That too many people just like yourself seek medical attention in desperation from the negative affects of being too long on certain prescription drugs. The medical professional also states that 25% of emergency room patients are there for the same reason.
Every age group, from teens to the eighty’s, find their minds and bodies unable to cope with the withdrawal of the opiate ingredients found in oxycodone products manufactured as Percocet, Percodan, OxyContin and Vicodin.
Intended to be time-released, habitual users crush the tablets, dissolve them in water and shoot the mixture directly into the bloodstream for a quick fix. Better yet, “roxies” are made to order without the added step of injection. Since oxycodone is extremely habit-forming, once a person is hooked, the dosage must be progressively increased.
Roxy Music, a 70s rock group fronted by Brian Ferry and a major influence on punk rockers, compared drug use with lovemaking. In fact, a YouTube music video of their first pop hit “Love Is A Drug” displays the lyrics superimposed over the image of two hearts with a syringe taking the place of the traditional arrow – a heart-breaking picture.
How about the words and music of Amy Winehouse, “They tried to make me go to rehab, I said no, no, no”? A very catchy tune but face it, not exactly the type of music a parent wants their kids to admire.
The same goes for Lil Wyte with the chorus “Oxycontin, Xanax bars, Percocets and Lortabs. Valiums, morphine patches, Ecstacy… and it’s all up for grabs”. Second verse same as the first… all together now… It’s a rapper’s paradise of fortunes at the expense of youth.
Drug use has become a national heritage, a war against which was doomed when President Richard Nixon first introduced the term “war on drugs” in 1971. It was primarily about marijuana but over the years it’s encompassed all kinds of nasty concoctions we’ve become familiar with, especially in the past decade: cocaine, heroin, opium and methamphetamines – they’re all a “crack” in our social makeup – a bad complexion.
Take a hard look at where our society is right now. Baby boomers, who were the initial users of hallucinatory drugs, have delivered to our institutions greed and self-interest as never before in history. Too many have shamed our generation as we all pay the price for their deranged guidance. Flower power wasn’t supposed to include poppy seeds.
What does the future hold for this country? Two decades from now, those on drugs now may have finagled through their 20s and founded a degree of success to gain access to influential positions, with executive privileges, and put America through another round of economic and political indiscretions.
Hopefully, my assumptions of the affects of drug use by our leaders are unfounded.
These little story quips come not from personal experiences but as told by friends. But there is a tale of a friendly acquaintance who was legitimately on pain medications, oxy’s, that he quit cold turkey by choice. It took a month to become fully un-hooked but, due to an unemployment situation, the lucrative business of selling (dealing) prescriptions for a profit (a couple grand a month) keeps the doctor with cash in hand and the individual being able to meet living expenses.
It’s a game of successful entrepreneurship. Without drug trade the economy would be further in jeopardy. It keeps money in circulation, flowing freely thanks to supply and demand. The costs in lost wages, government-subsidized health care and jail time costs will widen the cracks in taxpayers’ piggy banks. Oh ya, the affects on people's lives is a major concern too, if anyone really cares.
Bedroom communities, such as Hernando County, Florida, have been ripe for excessive drug abuse because they were planned development areas to attract retirees and not working class children. These poor unfortunate kids are the ones faced with not enough options to keep themselves busy and stay out of trouble with the law, whether by use of drugs or joy riding that result in traffic violations. The combination of both keep them in a vicious cycle of confrontation with law enforcement, a virtual career in offenses that lead to jail if not prison time.
Too many retail jobs and menial manual labor with parents finding themselves also in a bind to find sustainable upward moving employment opportunities should have found parents picking up their families and relocating, possibly out of Florida entirely. The economy is too reliant on low-paying jobs in the family entertainment business - amusement parks - where minimum wage and few, if any, other benefits are poor career choices.
No wonder Florida has a poor educational system and youth and young adults, if not their parents, are reliant on drug-induced personal entertainment. Too much idle, unproductive idle time on their hands and minds.
It’s a lost cause to expect responsible parenting. There are too many outside, easily accessible influences that undermine the otherwise sensible minds of innocent children.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Buy American?!?!
“Buy American” must be the choice of the consumer, not the federal government. Otherwise, it’s acid rain on the free market system, the very premise of capitalism. Worse yet, it’s protectionist and has an alarming affect on free trade between nations.
Economic growth would tumble head over heals like a snowball growing in size, picking up debris and becoming larger than life in a downward cycle reflective of what’s happening on Wall Street and other investment vehicles – crash and boom.
It makes little sense to divert infrastructure funds from rebuilding deteriorating roads, bridges and dams to construct what states may deem new and improved transportation routes. Both have merit but when money is limited it makes more sense to put unemployed workers on jobs that have been too long ignored and will eventually have catastrophic results on people’s lives.
There should be no delay with these upgrades. Over time, when structures crumble, costs increase and other traffic routes become overcrowded, adding travel time, wasting precious dollars on unnecessary fuel costs, spewing more green house gases into the atmosphere and having a negative affect on employee productivity as they put angry discussion with coworkers of more importance for mental stability than performing their job functions.
These changes need not be done strictly with American steel and other domestic materials.
Buy American was a patriotic theme of Barack Obama as he edged closer to his eventual election victory. No sooner had he given his acceptance speech than I heard people talking about “eight years”. I was appalled at their expectation that he will actually take such miraculous actions to bring America back to its historical place as the land of good and plenty.
Obama will have to prove his worth during the next forty some months before I decide which box I’ll mark in the 2012 presidential election. I want he and the Democratic Party to show their professed bipartisanship theme just as much as Republicans.
More important, consumers should to decide which products and services they purchase rather than be herded in the direction that would be most damaging to world peace and harmony. Competition is good.
Economic growth would tumble head over heals like a snowball growing in size, picking up debris and becoming larger than life in a downward cycle reflective of what’s happening on Wall Street and other investment vehicles – crash and boom.
It makes little sense to divert infrastructure funds from rebuilding deteriorating roads, bridges and dams to construct what states may deem new and improved transportation routes. Both have merit but when money is limited it makes more sense to put unemployed workers on jobs that have been too long ignored and will eventually have catastrophic results on people’s lives.
There should be no delay with these upgrades. Over time, when structures crumble, costs increase and other traffic routes become overcrowded, adding travel time, wasting precious dollars on unnecessary fuel costs, spewing more green house gases into the atmosphere and having a negative affect on employee productivity as they put angry discussion with coworkers of more importance for mental stability than performing their job functions.
These changes need not be done strictly with American steel and other domestic materials.
Buy American was a patriotic theme of Barack Obama as he edged closer to his eventual election victory. No sooner had he given his acceptance speech than I heard people talking about “eight years”. I was appalled at their expectation that he will actually take such miraculous actions to bring America back to its historical place as the land of good and plenty.
Obama will have to prove his worth during the next forty some months before I decide which box I’ll mark in the 2012 presidential election. I want he and the Democratic Party to show their professed bipartisanship theme just as much as Republicans.
More important, consumers should to decide which products and services they purchase rather than be herded in the direction that would be most damaging to world peace and harmony. Competition is good.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Unlucky Protectionism
“Protectionism”, if it becomes a widespread practice, will do further damage to the already tumultuous financial situation and none the better for the long-term prospects of a healthy global economy.
As such, “Buy American” must be the choice of the consumer, not the government. Otherwise, capitalism is doomed.
The definition in any given dictionary is pretty much the same, referencing the act of a government to impose restrictions on foreign competition to protect domestic producers against unfair trading policies. It verges on paranoia when one country jumps the gun by instigating tariffs, or subsidizes its own industries, and institutes a stance of nationalism; “me first” puts every citizen’s well-being in last place, regardless the country of origin.
It takes years, even decades, for trading partners to resolve concerns that imports and exports between them will be beneficial to each. One nation may come out on the negative end of the trade balance but that’s when a third, then a forth, fifth and upward numbers of trading partners make the round of economic growth a success for everyone. Will the circle remain unbroken or will it spin out of control in a tornado whirlwind of self-interest?
Addressing trade disputes among nations began shortly after WWII with GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trades (1947-1994), growing from 23 to 128 countries and resulting in over $500B of tariff concessions… money in the pockets of the working-class.
GATT was intended as a temporary means to promote international trading guidelines.
The International Trade Organization (ITO) was to have been a permanent governance body but Congress deemed it too restrictive to growth with provisions that would dictate rules of employment and international investments, roadblocks to sovereignty.
GATT was maintained as a means for trade negotiations until it evolved into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1994. The WTO now has 153 members that represent 95% of world trade.
The WTO condemns protectionist practices but has little influence to resolve disputes since it is a de facto governance whereby it relies on the “honor system” between trading partners rather than by direct fines. If a country is deemed at fault in a dispute, the threat of sanctions from other countries can be a fairly mute point.
Take for instance the recent dispute between the US and China on “intellectual property rights” violations, in particular the piracy of copyrighted music and movies. Although the WTO ruled in favor of the US, the lack of strict Chinese anti-piracy laws will have little impact to restrict continued violations.
To further dilute the effectiveness of the WTO, once a country files a complaint to the Dispute Settlement Body, the appeals process can prolong the resolution for 2 to 3 years, after which there is still a grace period before implementation of the settlement.
Still, as pointed out on the WTO website, “Sales people are reluctant to fight their customers”. You can translate this as being a means to avoid trade wars.
Trade-offs are made in the best interests of everyone in the global economy with a broader range of quality and choices of products, stimulating economic growth by expanding employment opportunities. The importance of trade agreements was demonstrated by the result of trade barriers in the ‘20s and ‘30s, increased tariffs and subsidies that led to short supplies of certain products and services which in turn increased the costs in other segments of the economy.
The Fordney-McCumber Tariff Act of 1922 authorized President Harding to raise or lower tariff rates 50%. Increases ran rampant and led to somersaults in financial markets. During the term of President Hoover, the Tariff Act of 1930, known as the Smoot-Hawley Act, was originally intended to protect farming interests but expanded to nearly every segment the economy. This led to increased tariffs and subsidies of 20,000 products.
World trade declined 65% from 1929 to 1934, thus the Great Depression. To make matters worse, FDR paid for the New Deal by imposing excise fees (taxes) to Americans on all sorts of products, including electricity, cars, tires and even some food products.
China recently accused the US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner of implying the yuan is undervalued to keep the trade imbalance between the two countries to benefit Chinese exporters. This has been an on-going contention for years but with worsening economic conditions members of Congress are strongly hinting at legislation that would offset the “dumping” of Chinese products by imposing import tariffs.
The US and China will be major players of international protectionism. Will the Eagle be able to fend of the Tiger? Or, since Russia isn’t a member of the WTO, will the Bear claw and maim them both?
Protectionism is a nasty, unlucky thirteen-letter word.
As such, “Buy American” must be the choice of the consumer, not the government. Otherwise, capitalism is doomed.
The definition in any given dictionary is pretty much the same, referencing the act of a government to impose restrictions on foreign competition to protect domestic producers against unfair trading policies. It verges on paranoia when one country jumps the gun by instigating tariffs, or subsidizes its own industries, and institutes a stance of nationalism; “me first” puts every citizen’s well-being in last place, regardless the country of origin.
It takes years, even decades, for trading partners to resolve concerns that imports and exports between them will be beneficial to each. One nation may come out on the negative end of the trade balance but that’s when a third, then a forth, fifth and upward numbers of trading partners make the round of economic growth a success for everyone. Will the circle remain unbroken or will it spin out of control in a tornado whirlwind of self-interest?
Addressing trade disputes among nations began shortly after WWII with GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trades (1947-1994), growing from 23 to 128 countries and resulting in over $500B of tariff concessions… money in the pockets of the working-class.
GATT was intended as a temporary means to promote international trading guidelines.
The International Trade Organization (ITO) was to have been a permanent governance body but Congress deemed it too restrictive to growth with provisions that would dictate rules of employment and international investments, roadblocks to sovereignty.
GATT was maintained as a means for trade negotiations until it evolved into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1994. The WTO now has 153 members that represent 95% of world trade.
The WTO condemns protectionist practices but has little influence to resolve disputes since it is a de facto governance whereby it relies on the “honor system” between trading partners rather than by direct fines. If a country is deemed at fault in a dispute, the threat of sanctions from other countries can be a fairly mute point.
Take for instance the recent dispute between the US and China on “intellectual property rights” violations, in particular the piracy of copyrighted music and movies. Although the WTO ruled in favor of the US, the lack of strict Chinese anti-piracy laws will have little impact to restrict continued violations.
To further dilute the effectiveness of the WTO, once a country files a complaint to the Dispute Settlement Body, the appeals process can prolong the resolution for 2 to 3 years, after which there is still a grace period before implementation of the settlement.
Still, as pointed out on the WTO website, “Sales people are reluctant to fight their customers”. You can translate this as being a means to avoid trade wars.
Trade-offs are made in the best interests of everyone in the global economy with a broader range of quality and choices of products, stimulating economic growth by expanding employment opportunities. The importance of trade agreements was demonstrated by the result of trade barriers in the ‘20s and ‘30s, increased tariffs and subsidies that led to short supplies of certain products and services which in turn increased the costs in other segments of the economy.
The Fordney-McCumber Tariff Act of 1922 authorized President Harding to raise or lower tariff rates 50%. Increases ran rampant and led to somersaults in financial markets. During the term of President Hoover, the Tariff Act of 1930, known as the Smoot-Hawley Act, was originally intended to protect farming interests but expanded to nearly every segment the economy. This led to increased tariffs and subsidies of 20,000 products.
World trade declined 65% from 1929 to 1934, thus the Great Depression. To make matters worse, FDR paid for the New Deal by imposing excise fees (taxes) to Americans on all sorts of products, including electricity, cars, tires and even some food products.
China recently accused the US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner of implying the yuan is undervalued to keep the trade imbalance between the two countries to benefit Chinese exporters. This has been an on-going contention for years but with worsening economic conditions members of Congress are strongly hinting at legislation that would offset the “dumping” of Chinese products by imposing import tariffs.
The US and China will be major players of international protectionism. Will the Eagle be able to fend of the Tiger? Or, since Russia isn’t a member of the WTO, will the Bear claw and maim them both?
Protectionism is a nasty, unlucky thirteen-letter word.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
TARP, ARRP and HARP
We Floridians are all too familiar with “tarp”, especially during summer months when hurricane force winds rip off shingles from rooftops and large sheets of the bright blue canvas are tacked over leaks to protect the inside of the home from additional damages. It takes weeks, even months, for an insurance company to assess the extent and dollar value of a loss.
Tarp is a makeshift remedy with no guarantee that there won’t still be scars on a structure, such as mold or mud-flooding, that aren’t covered by that hefty insurance premium. To make matters worse, if you’re like most people, your savings are pretty much nonexistent and your credit cards are maxed out and you don’t qualify for additional short-term loans. Tarp isn’t the answer to your troubles.
TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program) has proven to be pretty much the same. The initial disbursement of the $700B government investment of taxpayer dollars was virtually wasted with the cash infusion to banks. The banking industry was given a blanket policy whereby their misdealing was covered by shoddy government workmanship.
The remaining $350B from TARP is being held in escrow with the Obama Administration in a quandary as to how to safely disburse the money without being snookered again by financial institutions. Instead of sparking up loans, banks want to be left alone to fan a smoke screen that will leave the economy smoldering for years and no assurance that in the end there won’t eventually be a raging firestorm of depressing proportions. This isn’t meant to discredit President Obama; it’s just a plain and simple belief that no one really knows what to do. It’s all guesswork.
Now we’re looking head-on at another program, ARRP (American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan), which is too much of a sound-alike to TARP. It’s not a bad omen though, with over $800B of funds to assist in resolving the somersaults of the worsening recession. Its effect on the economic meltdown isn’t likely to be enough to make an immediate difference to corporate or individual financial shortfalls.
For eight years, Democrats too easily played patsy to Bush politics. They had no backbone from the very start of the war in Iraq, doing their part to make billions of dollars available to keep the military ball rolling on foreign oil. Eventually, they tried to backtrack and admit it was a mistake but the alternative at the time was to confront a Republican-controlled Congress and be accused of being unpatriotic, even traitors.
To the very end, Democrats pledged taxpayer money by failing to properly earmark the initial $350B of TARP.
By the end of the Bush reign of errors, most Americans conceded Iraq was poorly planned and much too expensive. Heck, last year the Iraqi government had a surplus of $79B of what can be called as an American taxpayer relief fund. Iraq got a pretty darn good return on American monetary “investments” that cost us anywhere from $600B (Pentagon), $1T to $2T (Congressional Budget Office) or $3T (Joseph Stiglitz, Columbia University Professor, 2001 Nobel Prize in Economics, and 2007 Nobel Peace Prize). It’s kinda like what happened on the home front - trillions of dollars were lost to Wall Street.
The blame game is fairly pointless, although George “The Scourge” Bush is the primary culprit with his commandant-in-chief attitude, convincing every American that they too can become a homeowner. The resultant excesses of lackey lending institutions helped create the 10-digit budget deficit, a dollar figure that makes no sense.
And yet, Republicans in general are proving themselves to be afflicted with same-minded ideas with a rehash of the monetary policies of the past eight years. When the House passed the $819B stimulus package, Republicans in unison barked up the wrong money tree with their insistence that tax cuts and reduced spending would be an appropriate action to stimulate the economy. It was probably a token stance of solidarity – Senate Republicans will likely give passage to ARRP.
The National Republican Party is way out there in right field, no pitcher, no catcher, just a shortstop with Democrats hitting one left field hit after another. And yet, red and blue states alike are already making plans to spend their share of relief funds. Just how many friends (voters) do Republicans think they’ll make with such game plans?
Which leads me to suggest that any recovery package that Republicans might drum up would be labeled HARP (Hapless Anemic Republican Program). Let’s lay that idea to rest and canvas such a leaky premise with an oversized blanket of tarp.
Tarp is a makeshift remedy with no guarantee that there won’t still be scars on a structure, such as mold or mud-flooding, that aren’t covered by that hefty insurance premium. To make matters worse, if you’re like most people, your savings are pretty much nonexistent and your credit cards are maxed out and you don’t qualify for additional short-term loans. Tarp isn’t the answer to your troubles.
TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program) has proven to be pretty much the same. The initial disbursement of the $700B government investment of taxpayer dollars was virtually wasted with the cash infusion to banks. The banking industry was given a blanket policy whereby their misdealing was covered by shoddy government workmanship.
The remaining $350B from TARP is being held in escrow with the Obama Administration in a quandary as to how to safely disburse the money without being snookered again by financial institutions. Instead of sparking up loans, banks want to be left alone to fan a smoke screen that will leave the economy smoldering for years and no assurance that in the end there won’t eventually be a raging firestorm of depressing proportions. This isn’t meant to discredit President Obama; it’s just a plain and simple belief that no one really knows what to do. It’s all guesswork.
Now we’re looking head-on at another program, ARRP (American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan), which is too much of a sound-alike to TARP. It’s not a bad omen though, with over $800B of funds to assist in resolving the somersaults of the worsening recession. Its effect on the economic meltdown isn’t likely to be enough to make an immediate difference to corporate or individual financial shortfalls.
For eight years, Democrats too easily played patsy to Bush politics. They had no backbone from the very start of the war in Iraq, doing their part to make billions of dollars available to keep the military ball rolling on foreign oil. Eventually, they tried to backtrack and admit it was a mistake but the alternative at the time was to confront a Republican-controlled Congress and be accused of being unpatriotic, even traitors.
To the very end, Democrats pledged taxpayer money by failing to properly earmark the initial $350B of TARP.
By the end of the Bush reign of errors, most Americans conceded Iraq was poorly planned and much too expensive. Heck, last year the Iraqi government had a surplus of $79B of what can be called as an American taxpayer relief fund. Iraq got a pretty darn good return on American monetary “investments” that cost us anywhere from $600B (Pentagon), $1T to $2T (Congressional Budget Office) or $3T (Joseph Stiglitz, Columbia University Professor, 2001 Nobel Prize in Economics, and 2007 Nobel Peace Prize). It’s kinda like what happened on the home front - trillions of dollars were lost to Wall Street.
The blame game is fairly pointless, although George “The Scourge” Bush is the primary culprit with his commandant-in-chief attitude, convincing every American that they too can become a homeowner. The resultant excesses of lackey lending institutions helped create the 10-digit budget deficit, a dollar figure that makes no sense.
And yet, Republicans in general are proving themselves to be afflicted with same-minded ideas with a rehash of the monetary policies of the past eight years. When the House passed the $819B stimulus package, Republicans in unison barked up the wrong money tree with their insistence that tax cuts and reduced spending would be an appropriate action to stimulate the economy. It was probably a token stance of solidarity – Senate Republicans will likely give passage to ARRP.
The National Republican Party is way out there in right field, no pitcher, no catcher, just a shortstop with Democrats hitting one left field hit after another. And yet, red and blue states alike are already making plans to spend their share of relief funds. Just how many friends (voters) do Republicans think they’ll make with such game plans?
Which leads me to suggest that any recovery package that Republicans might drum up would be labeled HARP (Hapless Anemic Republican Program). Let’s lay that idea to rest and canvas such a leaky premise with an oversized blanket of tarp.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)