Is Convenience Inconvenient?

I saw this story this morning on KREX-TV's website and it gave me a little pause. One of those stations is one I frequent and I had to think if I ever used the pay at the pump thing. I haven't so I'm safe.



This allows me to "rant" about couple of these convenience things that are available that I don't feel to comfortable with, the first is the pay at the pump thing. I hate the idea of the general public having access to the credit card machine when a business is closed, (see above story). Also I have used the pay at the pump thing a few times and on occasion the gas station will take out and "hold" a large sum of funds to ensure that the credit card will not "bounce". Let's say, you buy $30 in fuel the station may "hold" from 100 to 200 bucks until your transaction is posted. I usually don't have an extra couple hundred bucks waiting until a credit card transaction is posted. If you actually make it indoors, stand in line, and pay for your fuel with a human processing the card, the store will not "hold" the additional funds.

My second rant is about drive through restaurants. Drive through restaurants, drive me crazy. First off most time the restaurant can only help one customer at a time in the drive through, so you end up "in line" for a long time, all the time wasting my gas. Then once you get the food and get to your destination to eat it, the order is almost always wrong. Grrr!

Over the years working in mining, maintenance and listening to loud music, I have pretty much ruined my hearing and when I am in the drive through I usually cannot hear the person taking the order either, so I get frustrated. You add that with all the people in your car telling you what they want all at one time, I want to explode.

So, I go inside where I can see the people I'm talking to, I can check the order before I leave, and the people traveling with me can tell their order to trained restaurant employee and not me. Most times when I go into the restaurant I can get my order quicker than the people in the drive through line anyway.

My word of advice is: Go inside for everything. It will not hurt you to take a little walk (especially since you are eating fast food) and you will get better service in the long run. Plus you don't have the added chance of someone stealing your credit card information.

Stop Huge Jidette's Presidential Try...

Just when you thought we were done with campaign commercials, now we have to deal new "candidate" in a Presidential race...


Rally - HD from Peterson Foundation on Vimeo.


Kissing Babies - HD from Peterson Foundation on Vimeo.


Main Street - HD from Peterson Foundation on Vimeo.

How Would You Ax the U.S. Budget?

With all this talk about NPR firing Juan Williams and all the politicians wanting to cut NPR's funding it got me thinking about what things in the budget I would ax if I had a say (and if they actually made a budget). This is my top 10, discretionary spending items I would cut,...

1) NPR - There are thousands of radio stations why are we supporting stations with our tax dollars.

2) PBS - There are 15,000,000 channels out there and never anything on, PBS is no exception. More taxpayers wasted.

3) NEA- The National Endowment of the Arts. If you can't make it as an artist, get another job.

4) Department of Education - Let the states run their own education system not the federal government.

5) Department of Energy - Created in the 70's to help us save energy, didn't work. More dependent on foreign oil now than ever.

6)Amtrak - Never made any money just costs money, sell it already.

7) Post Office - Privatize this monstrosity so it can make money.

8)IRS - Implementation of the Fair Tax would eliminate the need for tax collectors.

9) Fannie Mae/Feddie Mac - I combined these two cause I don't think the government needs to be in the mortgage business.

10) Selective Service system - We haven't had a draft for 40 or so years, maybe we should think about trimming this one down a bit or even eliminating it all together. When we need more troops, I bet a law could be passed to re-create this government agency. For now it is just a waste.

This is not a complete list but it would be a good start. Another thing I noticed when I read the budget was that there are lots of "departments of statistics". There is one in about every government agency or department. Why don't we cut all those number crunchers into one department and actually throw away all the numbers that nobody actually gives a damn about. I know the list is far from complete, feel free to add to this list.

Mourning in America

President Calvin Coolidge on Spending and Taxes

I've posted this before, I believe, but it is worthy of listening to again. This is the first Presidential movie with sound, it  intresting that it would be a conservative speech. President Coolidge is in my top 5 favorite Presidents...
 

Reagan on the Recovery

Sounds like a plan ...lower taxes and reduce spending....

The Misery Index

Listeneing to the Bill Bennett radio show this morning the fill in guy  (I can't remember his name) mentioned the Misery Index. I had forgot all about this little index made popular during Jimmy Carter's administration. This index is simply adding the unemployment rate and the inflation rate.

You can find the misery  index here.

It is interesting to note that the largest drops in the misery index were where the Presidential administrations of Truman (10.18 reduction) and Reagan (9.61 reduction) lowered taxes and the largest growth was during spending hike years of Nixon (9.21 increase), Carter (increase 7.00). B, Hussain has already grown the misery index by 3.01 to the current index of 10.74.

What scares me the most about Obama's number is that we have had deflation and no inflation to note of yet during his term.  When is the other shoe going to drop? When inflation starts (and I believe it will soon) I can see that misery index going through the roof.  Welcome home.... 1970's.

The good thing about all this economic "malaise" is, that I think it will bring us another Ronald Reagan and we sure use another Ronald Reagan now.

The Broken Window Fallacy

So you think that World War 2 helped break the depression? How about 9-11? "stimulus packages?" I don't think so, check out this video from Eyeblast.tv

John Salazar - Colorado's Earmark King

John Salazar is my Representative in the U.S. House of Representatives, though you couldn't tell if you lived in Grand Junction because we have not seen him for quite some time (that is why I posted his picture so we could remember what he looks like). It appears that he does enjoy spending your money and he is getting better at it with time.

Here is some information I found on OpenSecrets.org about earmarks that John Salazar has sponsored or co-sponsored for the following fiscal years:




In 2008 John Salazar had the least amount of earmarks among the Colorado House members that had earmarks (Mike Coffman had none). By 2010, John Salazar leads the pack of current Colorado House members on earmarks. It appears that the longer that John Salazar stays in office the more disconnected he becomes with what his constituents actually want...JOHN SALAZAR STOP SPENDING MONEY!

Stimulus Revisisted

I thought it might be interesting to review the Recovery.gov website again and see if they fixed all the mistakes they had posted back in November of 2009 when I wrote the posting Colorado's 30th Congressional District.

This is what I found out...

The mistakes appear to be gone (or at least you have to look harder for them) , they have replaced the plain charts with a fancy map (for 18 million bucks I could put a fancy map on this blog too). The site breaks down where the stimulus money has been spent by state, county, congressional district and even street.

What I really want to talk about is the amounts. I will use the Mesa County numbers as an example. Mesa County was "awarded" $47,298,392 that added 17 new jobs. That breaks down to: $2,782,258 a job, who are the 17 new millionaires in town, haven't heard that story. Hummm the government is very efficient isn't it?...Maybe we can have them run health care...oh wait they do.

That part bugged me for sure but what was more disturbing is the more you play with the map the more you find. Their are different map views like funding, unemployment, street, aerial, and of course diversity. What..... diversity? I clicked on the diversity thing to see what they were talking about and evidently racial diversity is important knowledge for the distribution of stimulus funds. That was the only selection under the diversity header. There was nothing about men, women, gay, straight, legal, or illegal, just race.

The Dems like to call the Republicans a party of racists and they are the ones that highlight our differences. This is promising for me though, because my wife is partially of Hispanic origin, maybe we could be in line for one of those $2.7 million dollar stimulus jobs!

Silent Cal gets it...

Here's a video of President Calvin Coolidge addressing the country on government fiscal responsibility. It is interesting that the first Presidential film would be of a conservative talking about fiscal responsibility...

Social Security vs Health Care

I only got to watch a small portion of  Democrats Health Care Theater. The portion I did get a chance to watch was the actor Joe Biden rambling on about how good Social Security was and how much it was opposed in 1935. That got me thinking (for Democrats that is the little voices in your head), what it must have been like in 1935 when the Social Security debate was going on in Congress. 

First off I think it is important to "set the stage". There was a economic depression going on in the country, coupled with a crippling effects of the "Dust Bowl". Poverty rates among senior citizens were more than 50%. There was talk overseas about a new political idea which helps people having economic hardships (socialism). I believe the American public was begging for some help to get them out of their current economic woes, then along came F.D.R.

The Congress was overwhelmingly Democratic. The Senate distribution was 69 seats Democrats, 1 Farmer-Labor Party, 1 Progressive, and 25 Republicans, for a total of 96 seats (pre-Hawaii and Alaska). The House had  322 Democrats, 3 Farmer-Labor Party, 7 Progressives and 103 Republicans.  One of the biggest concerns at the time was that the Social Security Act would cause a loss of jobs. The Democrats answer was that it wouldn't cause a job loss, because more people would retire creating jobs. (Sound familiar?)

There were two bills passed, one by the House and one by the Senate. Then the diffences of the bills were resolved (I can't find much on how they were resolved...must have been a back room deal).

Strangely the first check was not issued until 1942, but don't worry they were collecting  social security benefits from 1937.  They used to have lump sum payments of social security checks. The first check was for 17 cents. The guy had "contributed" one nickel form his payroll check. He was in the social security program for one day.

Why do I bring up all this history? Because I want people to see the similarities of the enactment of Social Security and the current health care bill.  Americans were having difficult times and they were looking for something...anything to help. I contend that F.D.R. was the first President to use the theory of "Never let a crisis go to waste", although not called that at the time.

What was the end result of Social Security? As a nation we have $107,594,000,000,000 ($107 trillion) worth of unfunded liabilities (Social security, Prescription drug plan, Medicare). That is a liability of $348,470 PER CITIZEN! Yeah that program worked real well. Why the hell don't we do something about that, instead of adding more debt, so some bureaucrat in Washington can make my medical decisions? it is simply crazy!

I have been asked "If you think Social Security was such a bad idea why don't I just refuse to accept Social Security benefits when I retire?" The answer is simple... I want my money back. I was forced to "contribute" thousands of dollars to the system and I only know one way to get that money back, accept the benefits. 

There is no way we can afford to have a government controlled health care plan. Please contact your Representative and/or Senator and stop the insanity. We can't let them steal this money from our children!

It's the People Seat!

I found this video of Scott Brown stating the facts about Health care. Below the video is a comment that was posted elsewhere on Plumb and Square but I brought it out so every one could see it.



Thanks Troy...

To President Obama and all 535 voting members of the Legislature,

It is now official you are ALL corrupt morons:

The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775. You have had 234 years to get it right and it is broke.

Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 74 years to get it right and it is broke.

Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 71 years to get it right and it is broke.

War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor" and they only want more.

Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 44 years to get it right and they are broke.

Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 39 years to get it right and it is broke.

The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. You had 32 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.

You have FAILED in every "government service" you have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax dollars

AND YOU WANT AMERICANS TO BELIEVE YOU CAN BE TRUSTED WITH A GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARESYSTEM??

The Staffers You Don't Elect

There are a bunch of people that are elected to Congress every 2 or 6 years , we pay them $174,000 to represent their own district or state. They need help to run their offices so they hire people to help them. These are the people that quite frankly scare me. The reason they scare me is, they are from a group of people that have no concern at all what happens to the people of Colorado. They are in it for themselves. To make themselves look good they they have to make their Representative look good. There is little to no incentive to help the people of Colorado. If the Senator or Representative does not get re-elected, then they go to work for some other Senator or Representative, in some other state.

I know, I know that there are some honest hardworking staffers that are trying to do the right thing. My point is that once you get caught up in the system that is the Washington cesspool you are "corruptible". I would love to see a Representative that actually selects his or her own people from their own district or state. Not career staffers.

These are the people that actually write and research the laws, make the Representatives schedule, relay information to and from the Representative. They should be people that actually have a stake in the outcome of the decisions that are made and the laws that are written.

This part is fun (for us political junkies):
Below is the list of jobs titles that work in Colorado's Michael Bennet's Senate office. The amounts listed are how much they were paid the last six months. The smaller amounts were people who just started work recently. Take note of the titles, they are very interesting (ie: Northwest Regional Representative or Director of New Media/Systems Administrator).

Legislative Correspondent $5,155.54
Legislative Aide $5,599.98
Northwest Regional Representative $5,599.99
Staff Assistant $6,650.00
Regional Representative $10,483.28
Regional Representative $11,340.71
Special Assistant for Constituent Services $12,266.63
Communications Assistant $13,066.63
Assistant Scheduler/Assistant to Chief of Staff $13,688.85
Staff Assistant $13,999.98
Regional Representative $14,076.41
Legislative Aide $15,486.62
Regional Director $15,658.30
Legislative Aide $17,124.96
Research Director $17,250.00
Special Assistant for Constituent Services $17,333.28
Regional Representative $17,499.96
Legislative Aide $17,599.92
Regional Representative $17,749.95
Legislative Assistant $17,874.97
Legislative Aide $17,899.95
Regional Director $18,799.97
Legislative Aide $20,499.96
Community Liaison $20,595.93
Community Liaison $20,595.93
Regional Director-High Plains Region $21,363.82
Regional Representative $22,968.96
Regional Director $23,605.98
Community Liaison $24,750.46
Regional Director $27,499.98
Regional Director $27,499.98
Regional Director $27,499.98
Director of New Media/Systems Administrator $29,591.75
Community Liaison $29,834.28
Deputy Press Secretary $29,857.09
Legislative Counsel $30,433.30
Legislative Assistant $31,500.00
Legislative Assistant $31,999.98
Legislative Assistant $33,000.00
Legislative Assistant $33,999.96
Legislative Counsel $33,999.96
Scheduler $35,326.46
Communications Director $36,999.83
Statewide Director-Constituent Services $39,374.94
Director of Scheduling $41,499.96
Deputy Chief of Staff $50,312.43
Legislative Director $54,000.00
State Director $55,500.00
Administrative Director $60,000.00
Chief of Staff $78,367.44

Cash for Caulkers

I read the President's speech about "Cash for caulkers" (I never watch him, I read his speeches online, it's less irritating). I thought that this was a speech that needed "squaring up".

He made a point that we lose 40% of our energy from our houses and we should be adding caulking and insulating everything better. That is all I agreed with from the speech. Quite frankly, I don't know who would disagree with the logic: if you seal your home you can save money.

What I disagree with is; the government should be passing out money to do these projects. A tube of caulking costs between 5 and 10 bucks but after the government adds it's overhead of "money redistribution" you know the same tube will cost us 5 or 10 thousand dollars. Here's a couple of examples: Cash for Clunkers ended up costing about $24,000 to give away 3 to 5 thousand dollars. The stimulus cost about $200,000 per job created.

The President says that this policy is a win-win situation. We win by saving the planet from global warming and keeping energy costs down. I've got a better win-win situation for you Mr. President: How about building nuclear power plants? The waste they create is minimal, pollution is non-existent, and they help the security of the United States, because we are not depending so much on middle eastern oil. This seems to be more in line with what the President should be addressing, not the caulking in my windows.

Here's a thought, maybe we can get a check from the government to put caulking and insulation on our cardboard boxes we live in, after this President is done destroying the economy with his reckless spending.

P.S. Mr. President, insulation is not sexy, but feel free to cuddle with it anytime you want.

Shame on you President Obama

Recently President Obama was scolding banks for receiving bonuses even though the country is in a recession. We now have a "Pay Czar" who chief job is to punish people for succeeding, and make sure they do not make "too much money".

I've got an idea, why doesn't the President put his money where his mouth is (or should I say put our money where his mouth is)? At a time where most businesses are cutting pay, cutting positions, or simply failing, the federal government has been passing out raises.

Here is some key statistics I found on a USA Today story (This is the link) :

Increase of federal workers who makes more than $100,000 (from 12/07 to 6/09): 46%
Increase of federal employment 6.6% (Rest of country is facing 10% unemployment)
Average salary of federal worker $71,206 (Private sector $40,331)

Government does not earn any money, we earn money for the government. Why when we in the private sector, are earning less (and paying more) doesn't the federal government clip it's wings? Smaller governments (ie: Colorado, Mesa County, and even the City of Grand Junction) are making cuts to attempt to balance their budgets. But the Obama administration does nothing. Actually they do worse than nothing, if their checkbook is in the red they just spend more money (and print more money).

Mr. President before you open your mouth and tell the bankers that they are at fault for everything and that they make too much money, why don't you make a budget cut and attempt to balance a budget? Oh that's right you've never managed anything before I forgot. I guess you fulfilled your campaign mantras of Hope and Change. I HOPE I have CHANGE after the next three years of this President.

Governor Ritter makes the kids pay!

It appears the only way that Governor Ritter can create a balanced budget is to charge the children. The latest barrage of insanity; cut the education budget, tax candy, soda, and online purchases.

It appears that the Governor doesn't want young people to have any money. The current unemployment rate for teenagers is 27.6%. So if you are a teenager that actually has a job you are going to be charged extra for your candy and soda. I am so glad that Governor Ritter is here to help take care of us, I don't know if we could do it ourselves.


It might be interesting to so see if the education budget gets cut, increases are mandatory under the Colorado Constitution.

Governor Ritter must not realize that there are 49 other states we can live. Young people will be making the decision on where to go to school, or just live, in the near future. Does he think they are going to want to live in Colorado, when all their money pays taxes and fees?

I envision this as Governor Ritter's "Things to do List":

1) Kick mentally handicapped people out of their home..... Check
2) Release prisoners from prison early......Check
3) Get rid of that nasty natural gas industry.....Check
4) Raise fees for all services.....Check
5) Tax all soda and candy.........In process
6) Reduce education budget.....In process
7) Lose election in 2010......In process

A little side note....

I can see a promising career for those out of work teens....start bootlegging my Reese's Peanut Butter Cups and Diet Pepsi from Utah.

Captiol Police

I was thumbing through current spending legislation (What a hobby huh?), and I found something interesting I can't seem to wrap my mind around. In bill HR 2346, I found an interesting little bit of information.

Evidently the U.S.Captiol police would like a new radio system. All fair and good if they believe that they need new radios to protect our elected leaders, what does that cost 10 or 20 thousand right? Naa, how about $71,606,000. Yep that's right 71 million for radios.

I know radios are expensive, I purchase them for work and they can cost 250 to 300 bucks for the single radio. OK, let's say we spent $1000 a radio that is 71,606 radios. Why are we buying 71,606 radios for the protection of 535 members of Congress and a building. Something sounds fishy here. Even if we spent 10 grand per radio that is 7,160 radios. Huh?

The name of the bill (Now law - on 6/24) is the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act of 2009. The bill was for "Emergency" supplemental funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (yep that's right). I have no idea what police radios, and war funding have in common, but evidently it has something to do with recycling. No wonder I get crazy with all this spending. This is insanity at it's best.


Not exactly the clip from this movie "Dave" I was looking for but it makes the point.

GJPD to get 1.3 million via Porkulus

The Grand Junction Police Department looks like they are getting 1.3 million dollars from the stimulus law, to pay for 5 police officer vacancies. Let's do a little math on this figure. OK, we are adding 5 police officers and the money is for 3 years. So, I guess it costs the GJPD $86,666 a year for a police officer then, with benefits.

Some how I do not believe that the City of Grand Junction pays it's officers that much money(though after noticing recent events, they are worth that much). So do we get to spend the extra money on police cruisers or does it just go into the pocket of some "well deserving" politician who helped the process along? They are "vacant" positions so does the money that was/is budgeted for the positions going into keeping the spring cleanup or chip seal? After the 3 years are we supposed to just fire the police officers? Does Grand Junction get more money if the Clifton area become incorporated? Maybe we can get another 5 million for the officers for that area, I'm sure Obama can whip that cash out of the printing press fast enough.

Maybe the Obama administration is accounting for the runaway inflation that will occur from borrowing 12 trillion dollars, so police officers will be paid $86,666 a year. Maybe they threw in a little extra for a down payment on the new police station that the voters already rejected but will be built in some fashion, if we like it or not.

I better go for now, I've got to go to the police station and fill out a job application.....

Advertising and the Government

I was at Arby's last night and I was staring at the sign at Stocker Stadium and I noticed that the city parks department has a Twitter account. That got me thinking and watching, at what other advertising we (as in the people's government) spend countless dollars on every year. These were a few I noticed just last night.

1) The twitter account(s) for the city of Grand Junction.
2) The VA Hospital has a pretty sign that scrolls some message and tells you the time.
3) I noticed on TV there was an ad for the Census Bureau letting me know there was a census coming.
4) A city owned car drove by with a pretty emblem to let me know that it was city owned.
5) I heard on the radio that I was supposed to vote Grand Junction as the best tennis city in the country (never played tennis so I have no idea).
6) Then last but not least I click on the evening news which is a 1/2 an hour of advertising for the Obama Administration.

I was trying to find the cost of this advertising and the only number I could find was an old (2004) number of 1.2 billion that the Federal government spends on advertising every year. I am sure that it is much higher than that now.

For those of us that have lived around Grand Junction for a while, I am sure you remember the $27,000 it cost the city to create the Nike swoosh. That didn't include changing all the vehicles, street signs, and letterhead.

The point I am trying to make is that we seem to be inundated with government advertising and all this advertising costs money. Money that we don't have. Maybe the city could be dropping the Twitter and Facebook accounts, to help pay for the spring cleanup. Yes, I know they are free to use, but somebody has to type and answer the messages. Just a thought.

I guess all this advertising works though, every time I see the city emblem, I want a new pair of shoes.