April 2015 Archives

The right to die

The Right to Die

          When discussing the "Right to Die" legislation that "S" word (suicide) keeps popping up as if any legislation that might relieve persistent and agonizing pain of a loved one is a form of suicide and therefore despicable! 

They shoot horses don't they?!

          Childhood hop-along Cassidy westerns portrayed the heroic cowboy as being compassionate and thoughtful when putting to death his trusty horse to prevent pain and suffering of a broken leg or other disabling injury.

          It is not that unusual for a pet owner to put down his favorite dog or cat if it is determined the health issue will result in a lingering death sentence. 

But somehow, when it comes to family members who, in many cases, have given us life, provided us with loving care, food and shelter, but who, in their declining years, have fallen prey to some terrible end of life ailment; well, they must be prevented from getting relief from their pain and suffering because that would be a form of suicide.

         I might mention the movie "Soylent Green" (Charlton Heston - Edward G. Robinson) which offered a simple and effective way to end it all when a person gets tired of living.  Of course, our society abhors this solution, but it is a better alternative than some crazed individual who loads himself up with a bomb and kills everyone around him - or that person who commits suicide by cop.

In any case, it is time for this society to give our "human" loved ones the same respect we reserve for our pets.

 

Dear Mr. Krugman

The New York Times

Dear Mr. Krugman,

          Well, Mr. Krugman, I agree with your commentary "Social Security: Where federal government excels;" in which you extol the concept & benefits of social security - except . . . well, there are some problems.

On face value, it appears the Social Security Trust fund is NOT in immediate danger of going broke.  The 2013 calendar year Trust Fund Report submitted on July 28, 2014 to Congress indicates the fund took in $855 billion and spent $823 billion leaving a $32 billion surplus to be added to the Trust Fund Assets bringing the total to more than $2.764 trillion.  Of the $855 billion income, $752 billion was non-interest income and $103 billion was interest earnings. 

The real problem is the Social Security Trust Fund has no actual cash because several generations of political leaders replaced all these funds with Treasury notes and IOU's.  The "Feds" simply cannot keep their hands off the excess pension funds, which, in fact, were treated as another form of tax income.  But now that the surplus comes from the interest on the treasury notes our government provided, the "free" ride is over and the Fed is forced to pay the difference out of pocket.  Accordingly, any need to draw money from surplus assets would require more government borrowing of funds to pay for the funds already borrowed  -  or raising taxes which would result in Social Security benefits being taxed twice.

Proper management of the Social Security Trust would prohibit government borrowing of trust funds and instead allow investment in the private sector.

Suppose someone, who averages at least $40,000. per year and OASDI contributions (12.4% 50/50 with employer), has his Social Security deductions invested in some form of private sector secured investments drawing, let's say, 5.5% interest.  At the end of 30 years - including compounded interest - his retirement principal would be $379,463.90 and would provide annual interest of $20,870.52 or $1,740 per month.  Obviously, those who earn more would get a greater return. 

Because this pension fund is providing benefits from interest on investments, it would no longer matter how long the retiree lived, and, as retirees die off, their investment principal would continue to provide income to the trust.  Eventually, Social Security funds would catch up with pension demands and allow pension payments based on what was actually paid in.   Accordingly, this fund could grow to massive proportions allowing excessive reserves to assist in Medicare expenses.

Obviously, this change is too simple to consider. 

Open letter to State Legislators

Dear California State Legislature:
AB 87
            Recently Assemblyman Mark Stone submitted a bill which "clarifies" peremptory challenges based on a juror's disability, ethnic group or genetic information" . . . really?  And here I thought a Peremptory Challenge was a right in jury selection for an attorney or prosecutor to reject a certain number of jurors without stating a reason.  So what part of that needs to be clarified?
            I know you folks in the State Capital are not so short between the ears that you would put some kind of condition on a challenge that requires no justification!  AB 87 must mean that an attorney is barred from disqualifying a juror for "cause" based on some sort of handicap or sexual preference - but then, as far as I know, an attorney is already barred from this type of activity.  So why is the State's time being wasted with such a proposal?
AB 512 - another bill submitted by Mark Stone.
            Do you folks really think that tripling early-release credits because inmates participated in rehab and vocational training is going to decrease "recidivism?"  It certainly will reduce the prison population if that is the real reason for this legislation.  
            Possibly you might recall the realignment bill, AB 109 which resulted from a Federal mandate to reduce prison populations.   A Feb. 25, 2013 Associated Press article revealed that thousands of California parolees, many of them sex offenders, were removing court-ordered GPS monitors resulting in more than 3,400 arrest warrants.  Because many counties are under court orders to reduce jail populations, parole violators are often freed within days, or even hours, of arrest; accordingly, there is little risk of serving time by removing GPS devices because state prisons and local jails are too full to hold them.  
            It appears this realignment program is poorly planned, under-funded and a hasty solution to a federal mandate at the expense and peril of local communities.  It is time to consider other options.  Accordingly, I suppose the object here is to reduce prison population through one more piece of legislation. 
So why not make a whole bunch of illegal activities legal?   There would be fewer arrests, the court system would experience relief from its current heavy load and the public might pay less taxes.
Has everyone forgotten?  The justice system came into existence because there was an imminent need to prosecute and imprison thugs, thieves, racketeers and murderers because taking them off the street just might prevent further harm to others.  Rehabilitation was determined to occur when prison inmates came to realize there were consequences for their wrongful acts.
            California passes a thousand or more laws per year - Why?  Do you think you are elected merely to pass a law?  Is it some form of immortality to get your name on some piece of legislation?
            California has so many laws that a small business has to hire an accountant and an attorney just to stay out of jail.  And labor laws have made employees too expensive to hire which accounts for the fact that serve yourself stations are appearing in grocery stores and large chain stores.
            What we need is less laws!  As an example: what about the legislation passed to out-law speed traps?  Now local police are reluctant to write up traffic violations because the fines derived from these tickets go to the State of California - and yet, the police officer is on the hook for time and expense to go to court if he should write up a ticket - just another expense for the city.
            A small independent repairman can no longer charge for his services if the over-all bill exceeds $500.  What's that all about?  It's just another opportunity for licensed contractors to rip off the local homeowner.  
            I never thought I would see the day that a person could no longer charge for his labor!
            There are so many extraneous and unnecessary laws - so why not spend some time and do us all a favor by eliminating some of that crap!

May 2015

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31