This Time It's Personal

A couple of days ago Sara asked me if I was going to write about AIG, the giant, multiple bailout-fund-receiving insurance company. I said I wouldn't, in part because I'm so sick of hearing about it, but also because I'm sick of writing about the "bailout".

However...

Yesterday, the House of (not so representative) Representatives passed a bill that, on the surface, was aimed at recovering most of the retention bonus money paid to AIG personnel. I was not comfortable with this from the moment I heard about it. I think the first, and natural, reaction to AIG bonuses is for people to feel violated in some way - since taxpayers are funding the bailout and it can be argued that the bonuses were paid with bailout money.

However...

It is not like that bonus money was awarded arbitrarily to the big wigs or given without merit. The money was given to people like you and me as part of their compensation arrangement. It is no different than another business that has to dip into a line of credit in order to meet payroll. The bailout funds are a loan to the recipients. Our government extended that loan. You and I only agreed to it to the extent that we participated in the election process that now allows the clowns to run the circus. If we're going to be mad at somebody, it should be our elected officials -not AIG - and definitely NOT the employees of AIG.

How can I say such a thing? Now, as more details are surfacing, I have discovered that I, too, would be effected by the AIG legislation. The bill stipulates that bonus recipients from any company that received more than $5 billion in bailout money will have to pay a 90% tax. Without going into detail, this legislation would directly penalize me.* I'm just an average worker toiling in the trenches. I am part of the 95% of Americans that were promised no increase in taxes. The bill isn't targeted at some small, elite group of greedy corporate scumbags, as we are being led to believe. The bill effects real people. A lot of real people. It effects your neighbors, your friends, your relatives, and your favorite blogger. 

Think about it - a 90% tax on anything. $19 for two $5 Footlongs at Subway. Ten cents on the dollar is what you get to keep. Work ten years, get paid for one. How is that going to help the economy recover - taking more money out of the wallets of consumers? If you are a tithe-payer as I am, that doesn't leave anything left over to pay bills, feed the family, or buy a hybrid so that I can get President Obama's tax rebate on said automobile. It would be no different than not working at all.

Earn $100, $90 to the government, $10 to the Church = $0 for me

or

Earn $0, $0 to the government, $0 to the Church = $0 for me

I guess it just seems wrong to me that everyone appears to be so much more upset about $200 million (give or take) spent by AIG than they are about the $3 trillion spent by our government. I mean, when the government loaned money to AIG, what did it expect the company to do with it? AIG used some of their $185 billion, $200 million of it, to honor employment agreements. If we're going to start tearing up contracts - and since I won't have any money left after taxes anyway - can I request to have the note on my house shredded as well? (Will that 90% tax revenue be deducted from the total that AIG must one day repay? Or is it in addition to?)

I think the crux of the issue lies in the term "bonus". A bonus is not free, unexpected money, like winning the Power Ball. Bonuses are an important part of an employee's total compensation. Under these rules, An employee that earns $100k in straight salary would not take a hit, but an employee that earns a salary of $50k plus the potential for $50k in bonuses would. The latter would get to keep just $5,000 of his bonus. I would go so far as to argue that "pay for performance" (i.e. bonuses) is in the taxpayer's interest moreso than guaranteed salaries. 

Makes no sense - like a lot of things nowadays.

* I may need to retract this claim at a later time. One source is telling me the House version would only apply to those making more than $250k, which would not include me. However, all of my other sources state otherwise. The jury is still out.

-----

At least one thing went right this week. The TSA successfully identified a very real threat to our national security and subjected the individual to extra security measures at PDX. Enjoy your flight, Congressman.

-----

I'm cutting myself off here. I could go on for hours. This is why I didn't want to blog about it in the first place.

I Challenge You...

...to a battle of wits - for the princess.

I got 8 out of 12.

Lots of other fun trivia and interesting facts on this site. I evidently don't know nearly as much about the Simpsons as I thought I did.

Here's one for my sisters.

More Shelf Reliance

One of the owners of Shelf Reliance saw my post from last night about the food storage planning tool. He wanted to clear up some key points and actually left a very substantive comment on the blog. I don't know that any of you actually read the comments, and since I feel Mr. Palmer's remarks are important, I am posting exerpts here along with further commentary.

First up, I am happy to inform you that all orders over $199 are shipped free of charge.

Second, 

It is very true that many of the items that we carry can be found for much better pricing. Anyone willing to do their own canning at the local Dry Pack, for example, will find pricing that doesn't compare to what you will find through an emergency company. It's always a good idea to look for items on sale and store them on your own when possible.

I find it heartening that Mr. Palmer is encouraging people to pursue a less expensive alternative, even though it may harm his sales a bit.

Third, and this is one of the points I tried to convey, 

Some customers find it convenient to just get everything at once. THRIVE Food Storage is definitely a premium name and you are paying for higher quality. Because we teach people to use their food storage, we need to make sure it tastes great:) We also offer some 60 foods more than is available through the Dry Pack.

And finally, 

Our packages are built around a 2000 calorie diet. Most companies try to sell you a "year supply", but if you were to dig into the details you will find that they calories per day won't keep you alive very long. The buckets sold at Costco are a prime example of this. For $100 you can buy a 'three month' supply of food, but when you do the math you have to live off of 460 calories a day.

First off, thank you Mr. Palmer for taking the time to provide some color on this topic. You obviously care a great deal about your products and the reputation of your company. As I told Mr. Palmer personally via email, I like Shelf Reliance a lot, and I hope that sentiment was conveyed in the original post.

I think it is safe to say that THRIVE may not be a solution for everybody, but it is definitely a solution for somebody. Everything has a cost associated with it. It took me several hours of my time to build my #10 can rotating system/workbench. What is my time worth? There is a price beyond the cost of the food to go to the dry-pack. Also, as Mr. Palmer elluded to, there are quite a number of THRIVE foods in my free food storage plan that are not available elsewhere (dry, in #10 cans - to my knowledge).

• Sweet corn
• Mushrooms
• Carrots
• Raspberries
• Strawberries
• Bananas
• Apples
• Cheese
• Tomatoes
• Chicken bouillon
• Butter

THRIVE's solution may seem expensive to me. But for somebody who wants to get the job done without worry, hassle, time, travel, shopping, effort, etc., Shelf Reliance offers a viable solution that definitely has value.

Shelf Reliance's Planning Tool

I've been waiting for something like this for a long time.

One short form. Two EASY questions. Done and done.

Shelf Reliance has a food storage planning tool on their web site. It's new to me. I discovered it in connection with Shelf Reliance's new "Thrive Q" pay-as-you-go food storage acquisition program.

Now, I'm certainly not a shill for Shelf-Reliance or, more specifically, its Thrive product line - they tell me a 12 month supply of their full product line will run me $7,500, plus shipping! Just like their line of food rotation systems, you're paying a BIG premium for the convenience of their products (which are, admittedly, VERY convenient).

In other words, I'm a fan of their products. We own several of their "Cansolidator Pantry" units which work great for small cans in our kitchen pantry. (Buying tip: These particular units are available at our local Costco at a substantial discount versus buying them directly from Shelf Reliance - <$25 at Costco vs. $36 (plus shipping) on sale from Shelf Reliance.) Long-time readers will also recall my inexpensive, home-made and improved (for my needs) alternative solution to their Harvest 72" #10 system.

While I like Shelf Reliance's products a lot, I think their prices make for a bittersweet irony. Food storage in general is founded on principles of provident living, saving for a rainy day, preparing for the unknown. Yet, acquiring most any of their products would violate those very principles for a large portion of their potential customer base. 

Consider that the 2006 median household income for a family of five in Oregon (where I live) was roughly $60,000. The $7,500 food cost plus estimated $1,675 in storage cost (5 racks x $335 ea.) would bring the one year total for my family to $9,175 (plus shipping), or 15% of median family income. That's a HUGE investment. Granted, it IS an investment and it does not need to be acquired in just a one year period. But the overall investment is almost like buying two additional years' worth of groceries (at a $100/wk rate). 

This brings me to my point: Shelf Reliance's food storage planning tool is fast and free. I first told it how many people there are in my family, along with the age and gender of each person. I then specified the number of months I wanted it to calculate. That's it! The next page was a detailed plan of all of the food the company thinks my family needs, along with details of each (description, weight, price and extended weight and price based on quantity.) It is easy to email the list to yourself. You can also adjust the plan to account for 1) personal preferences, or 2) inventory you may already have. Now I have a checklist/shopping list for my own inventory.

There is no obligation to buy the food from Shelf Reliance. And this is where the premium price for convenience comes into play. An example: Sugar. Shelf Reliance estimates my family will need 225 lbs of sugar for 12 months. I can buy it from them in 39 #10 cans for a total of $430 (plus shipping). Alternatively, that same sugar, but in 25 lb bags, would cost me about $112 at Costco or a comparable local source.

On the one hand, Shelf Reliance's solution is conveniently packaged, durable and ready to store long-term. I just have a hard time reconciling the $350 price difference (and that's just for the sugar). I could buy my own dry-pack can sealerwith the savings.

From the Desk of Captain Obvious - Volume Two

Warning that the global recession is deepening, the Obama administration on Wednesday called on major U.S. allies to do their part and support strong stimulus programs to fight the downturn. The administration said decisive action was needed by all countries to complement what is being done in the United States. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner outlined an ambitious agenda, including a tenfold increase in the size of an emergency fund the International Monetary Fund uses to help countries in trouble to as much as $500 billion.

[Ducheznee] And why not, right? I mean, the stimulus plan has miraculously turned our entire economy around. Maybe if every other country were to do the same, and each country becomes indebted to the next, we could all simply call it even and forgive everyone's debt. Problem solved! All of the spending of the stimulus - none of the responsibility. Am I right or am I right?

 -----

Furthermore, a poll from Rasmussen reports that 62% of voters want more tax cuts and less government spending in the plan. 

[Ducheznee] So, if I were to round up 100 people, Rasmussen is telling me that 38 of them want to pay MORE taxes? I'd like to see that.

 -----

The Treasury is tussling with the worst problems in decades, stemming from careless lending that helped fuel a housing crisis that has now dragged the U.S. economy and much of the rest of the world into deep recession.

 -----

At its core, the legislation is designed to ease the worst economic recession in generations, and combines hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending with tax cuts. Much of the money would go for victims of the recession in the form of food stamps, unemployment compensation and health care. 

[Ducheznee] Where's the "stimulus" here?

 -----

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Tuesday it is imperative for the government to reduce over time the debt that is piling up as a result of the government's response to recession and financial market turmoil.

[Ducheznee] Secretary Geithner, everybody. Let's give him a hand. [polite applause]

 -----

Despite the Obama administration's claim that its budget wouldn't raise taxes on families earning less than $250,000 a year, "the budget before us assumes large amounts of money" from the climate-change legislation, Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan, the top Republican on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, said at a hearing Tuesday. "And that means higher prices for Americans for food, for gas, for electricity, and in a state like Michigan for home heating -- pretty much anything that they buy."

[Ducheznee] Taxes come in many forms.

 

Memoirs of Customer Service - The Doctor

We got a bill on Monday from the hospital where Karsten was born. Karsten is nearly 14 months old.

On two prior occasions we have received afterthought bills from the hospital, although it has been several months since the last occurrence. Each one makes me a little more upset. I mean, the grocery store doesn't send me a bill after the fact stating that my milk actually cost more than they had originally charged.

So, I got on the speaking telegraph and rang the number printed on the statement - the one that said, "For any questions, call...". This is where our story begins.

Call #1 - "Tom" at the phone number listed on the bill tells me that the service is not covered by our insurance company. "What service?" I ask, "Delivering babies?" Tom explains that the service provided was routine, which is part of preventive care, which is not covered. Tom suggests I take up the issue with my insurance company. I say, "My kid is 14 months old. When can I expect to stop receiving bills?" Tom reveals that the charge is in fact not for Karsten's birth, but for Sara's annual girlie doctor visit - from more than a year ago. 

Why am I just now seeing this bill? No - that's beside the point. Why is the hospital billing me for services provided by a different legal entity? Why has Sara's doctor failed, yet again, to submit the proper procedure code to my insurance company? Both good questions. I suggest that the wrong procedure code may have been used. Tom transfers me to our Account Representative, "Tasha".

Call #2 - After explaining everything again to Tasha, she recommends I call the doctor's group practice. She can't change the billing code herself.

Call #3 - I broke ranks here and called my insurance company in order to gather facts and build my case. Low and behold, I was right. The doctor used the improper procedure code. This is not the first time we've had this problem.

Call #4 - Group practice. The receptionist tells me that Sara's doctor is no longer with that practice. She has ventured out on her own. In any case, I'll need to speak with "billing" and she transfers me to option #3.

Call #5 - Billing is gone for the day. It's 3 PM. Why was I transferred there? I back out of the voicemail menu and speak with a nurse at option #4. The nurse confirms that I'll need to speak with the people at option #3. Tomorrow.

Call #6 - Starting over, I explain the situation to billing. She can't find my wife's file. I provide Sara's social security number. Nope. Date of birth - nuh-uh. "Let me transfer you to Judy. She handles these things." I apologize for being crass.

Call #7 - Same as Call #6, but with some additional questions: "Did you two just recently get married?" - thinking perhaps they might have Sara listed under a different surname. Judy then asked for the date of service. "Oh, I think [the doctor] had left the practice by that time. We don't have any records for you after January [of 2008]. You need to call her new practice at..."

Call #8 - New practice reception. "Hi. My wife is a patient of Dr. X. I'm trying to resolve a billing issue." I'm transferred to "billing".

Call #9 - "Hi. Is this the billing department?" I ask. "Yes it is." "Finally! My wife is a patient of Dr. X from her previous office..." I begin. "One moment." I'm transferred into the matrix.

Call #10 - "Hello. You have reached Bonnie in billing. I am unable..." I leave a detailed message.

Call #11 - Bonnie calls me back. We start at the beginning. She cannot locate any information about any patient prior to April [of 2008]. She says she will talk to Dr. X and call me back before the day is out.

Call #12 - Bonnie calls me back again. Dr. X said she can't help me. I'll have to call her old group practice. I've had it.

Call #13 - LAST CALL. I call Tom back using the phone number on the bill. He once again tells me that the service is not covered by my insurance policy. I suggest to Tom that he may be mistaken. I tell him I have confirmed with my insurer that the service is indeed covered. I explain that the improper procedure code was submitted by Dr. X. I tell Tom that I have spoken not only with him, the account rep, and my insurer, but also with numerous representatives from both Dr. X's old and new practices. Nobody knows anything about the charge except for Tom and Tasha. Sara's appointment has apparently disappeared within a blip in the space-time continuum. As such, I tell Tom, regardless of the procedure code, I shouldn't have to pay for services that never occurred in the history of all time. Tom tells me to disregard the bill. He and the account rep will attempt to get the procedure code corrected and resubmitted to my insurance company.

The peasants rejoice.

The Fourth Amigo

Sometimes I feel like I'm turning into a Bush apologist. 

I am not.

However, when I see or perceive injustice, I'll be there.

President Obama has recently published his fiscal year 2010 budget, a 140-page report titled "A New Era of Responsibility," distributed by the Office of Management and Budget (www.budget.gov). Within its pages, the president and his crew attempt to make the case for why borrowing trillions of dollars is actually in the best interest of our country and its people.

I admittedly have not begun an in-depth study of the budget, and I probably won't. I have better things to do. But I have flipped through it a bit. Sometimes, something jumps off the page.

Here's an early dig at President Bush from the "President's Message" - a foreword.

For millions of Americans, the recovery from 2001 through 2007 was hardly one at all.

That may or may not be true - but it would be just as accurate to state that for millions of Americans, "the tech bubble was hardly one at all". If you didn't own stock or options in one or more of the hoards of tech companies that sprung up overnight around the turn of the century, you missed out. I missed out. Likewise, if you didn't own real estate, you didn't profit (on paper, anyway) from the surge in property and home values that only recently stalled.

The title of the first section of the budget is "Inheriting a Legacy of Misplaced Priorities". In what other job, other than hosting late-night television, can somebody sit around all day and take pot shots at his predecessor? Just *show* us how great *you* are, Mr. President. You want to be another Lincoln, right? History will judge you, as it will President Bush. We certainly don't need to pay you to do it for us. We do, however, need you to protect our country through wise security policy and smart, efficient financial policy.

This graph, just one of dozens in the document, highlights budget surpluses/deficits over the past three decades. I have added the color coding and the labels for your benefit. Click to enlarge.

President Obama's first budget deficit is expected to be more than three times larger than any of President Bush's which, I remind you, included events like the aftermath of 9/11, major military campaigns, Hurricane Katrina, and the first stimulus package. The government, of course, blames all of this deficit on other people, despite the fact that they themselves wrote, passed and signed the legislation into law. 

Mr. President, at what point can we expect you to begin accepting responsibility for what transpires in this country? Is it this year, with the 12% of GDP budget deficit? Your second year? Will you only take credit for the positive things and continue to pass the buck on the negative? Will you claim victory during the next president's administration? Unemployment continues to pile up - if you are the answer, shouldn't that trend have, at a minimum, stopped growing? The stock markets continue to plummet - if you are the pillar of hope, shouldn't that encourage a bull market as investors seek to profit from currently undervalued stocks? I've said it before: the financial markets are a reflection of the collective expectations, hopes and fears of its stakeholders.

If Obama = Hope, and

Financial markets = collective expectation, hope and fear, then

Obama = Fear (currently)

That said, I hope that President Obama's plan works (since I haven't been able to prevent it). I hope his plan restores America's economic strength and retools the country for the changing global environment. But on the other hand, I don't want to be an indentured servant for the rest of my natural life because of his commitments.

That Makes One of Us

President Obama today assured the American people that he knows "we did the right thing" by way of the $787 billion stimulus bill.

To make this proclamation, the President boarded Air Force One* and flew 300 miles to Columbus, Ohio to tell a graduating class of police cadets that their jobs are a direct result of the stimulus bill. At least until the end of the year when the funding dries up. The claim was not without substantial evidence to support it - he first looked into the recruits' eyes and at their shiny new badges before making his assessment.

As further evidence of the bill's obvious success, the President also noted that many teachers, nurses, firemen, and first responders were not among the 651,000 newly unemployed during the month of February.

This was a thinly veiled attempt to draw emotional support for the cause:

• "...teachers who are still able to teach our children because we passed this plan."
  
• "...nurses who are still able to care for our sick..."
• "...firefighters and first responders who are still able to keep our communities safe."

My complaint remains unchanged: the poorly-named American Recovery and Reinvestment Act does extremely little to actually stimulate the economy. Paying for 25 new police officers salaries for 10 months does not address the core issue in Columbus, Ohio - insufficient budget to pay for the salaries itself.

On the other hand, if an operating environment were fostered that actually encouraged businesses to expand, that would be change I could believe in. Change with long-lasting effects. Those businesses would need to hire new people. Those people (and the companies) would pay more taxes, helping the City of Columbus pay for their own police force. But that's not all - those employees, including the new cops, would buy things from other businesses, lifting the entire local economy. They would also be able to pay their mortgages, removing a painful burden that has been set upon our shoulders.

If President Obama's stated objective is to be believed, shouldn't he begin pushing for and enacting policies that will encourage real growth and strength? Policies like corporate tax rates, regulatory barriers that make it difficult for American companies to compete globally, and trade imbalance?

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but there appears to be an agenda at work here. What other explanation is there for ignoring the obvious? For ignoring the will of the people? 300 million of us can't be wrong.

Big government = broke (and broken) nation

-----

* Lots of interesting talk here about the cost to taxpayers of operating Air Force One, plus a (short) special investigative Congressional report on the topic by a then-minority Representative Henry Waxman. Waxman's attempt to cast Bush/Cheney in an unfavorable light is no more relevant than is an argument that Obama shouldn't be flying around unnecessarily on our dime.

I am of the opinion that the costs of presidential travel are largely fixed. The planes, the pilots, support crew, security, Secret Service, etc., are all expenses that would be incurred even if the POTUS stayed in bed all day. The only significant variables are fuel and accommodations at the destination (security and otherwise).

In other words, while I sought out and found interesting the estimated cost per hour of operating Air Force One, I don't believe it to be a strong argument against Obama for his trip to Columbus.

One Common Thread

US Trade Representative Nominee Ron Kirk is the latest friend of Obama to be caught trying to cheat the IRS and the citizens of this country. Am I the only person who find this absolutely hilarious? Not to mention disturbing, comical, egregious and, if I were President Obama, embarrassing. Aren't our friends a reflection of our own character? If all of my friends were drug dealers, it would not be entirely unreasonable to assume that I, too, had dabbled in that most dubious of enterprises.

Raising taxes. Cutting taxes. Evading taxes. Every day it's something different from these model citizens. The only constant is that every day we hear something something to do with taxes.

I have serious doubts that these tax issues would have been resolved had the individuals involved not been nominated. Would they have sought out the IRS to set things right? Would they have continued to conceal their theft?

My favorite part of this article is that Kirk has "agreed to make his payments" on his back taxes, in much the same manner one might "agree" to provide for his child or stop for a crossing train.

What's scary is that these stories represent only the corruption we have heard about. I have a feeling that if one were to pull on the right string, the entire fabric would unravel like the sweater from my previous post.

Obortion

This is old news now, but I'm trying to get rid of my backlog of time-sensitive half-written blog posts.

Brief summary: In one of his first acts as POTUS, President Obama, by executive order, removed the ban that states federal funds cannot in any way be used to support abortion internationally.

I only have two issues with this story:

1) The way it was promoted in the media was that this was a direct shot at President Bush, Jr.; that this act somehow made right the great evil that had transpired under the prior administration. The fact is, as you can read in the full text, the policy dates back to President Reagan. The policy was continued under President Bush, Sr., then lifted with President Clinton, only to be reestablished again with President Bush, Jr. Odds are the ban will be enforced once again in 2013. There's no story here - it is now a Presidential tradition.

2) The part that most upsets me about this story is that our tax dollars are being used to fund ANYTHING in other countries, let alone something so controversial as abortion. I'm certainly not calling for a ban on foreign aid or disaster relief. But abortion funding hardly fits either of those bills. Are we running such a surplus that we can afford to give money to other countries for planned parenthood?

Enjoy this educational video about where some of that "family planning" money ends up.