Government Tracks Who You Mail and Who Mails You...

Should I Stop Using a Return Address?

In 1979 the Supreme Court created the "third-party doctrine", that Americans lose their expectation of privacy whenever they voluntarily give information to a third party, such as a phone company. Telling the phone company whom you call by dialing a number is enough to surrender your expectation of privacy that you are contacting that person.  The court did, however, preserve the letter analogy governing U.S. mail. That is, only what's on the envelope is fair game.

Which begs the question... if the NSA is hell bent on Meta Data, I wonder if they have an agreement with the Post Office to track who we mail and who mails us?  In 1997 the post office began using computers to read addresses.  In the beginning, they succeeded about 10% of the time with a 2% error rate.  Today over 90% of all mail is processed by computer and for those hard to read addresses, there is a large plain looking warehouse in Salt Lake City filled with rows of cubicles were Postal Service’s data conversion operators decipher the worst hand written addresses.

So basically, every single piece of mail in the US is routed via computer and naturally with the Snowden revelation one should assume the NSA or some other shadow government agency is capturing this data for future use.  I don't doubt for a moment that the NSA is properly safeguarding our data.  However, it's only a matter of time before another administration, J. Edgar Hoover wannabe or "something" else taps into this data for some future unforeseen nefarious purpose.

Mr. Snowden basically sacrificed his freedom, potentially his life, to tell the people of the world that there really is a Big Brother.  Whether his "crime" is comparable to the governments criminality is yet to be seen and regardless of what the talking heads may indicate, his guilt should be determined by a court and not proclaimed by our elected officials.  I for one think the recent 205-to-217 Congressional vote to block the National Security Agencies ability to collect vast amounts of phone records was far closer than the White House expected, and leads credibility that Mr. Snowden is a whistle blower.

So if you're thinking it's time to stop putting return addressed on your mail and start using 128 bit encryption for everything Internet based, think again.  If something is encrypted the legal assumption can be made, for right or wrong, the information is from a non-US source and thus not subject to constitutional restrictions.  The data can now be held indefinitely and oh by the way; the NSA likely has back doors built in to the encryption we use and or CPU's.

Lastly, if the NSA can't crack what you send or your CPU they likely can get into the computer that sent it which reminds... It's time to beef up my computer's passwords, upgrade my firewall, turn off sharing and unplug all computers from the Internet when not in use.  Call me silly but those crazy conspiracy nuts aren't looking so nutty lately.

US Health Care in the 21st Century

As the United States slowly recovers from recession, the European Union struggles and Britain continues to decouple it's economy from the EU it's hard to believe that over forty years ago President Nixon repeatedly lobbied Congress to pass comprehensive health care reform:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=3311

Nixon's arguments for heath care reform make sense today and it's possible that our current national health care anxiety is part of the reason the United States' recovery has been so anemic and Europe's recovery, with it's expansive social programs, has repeatedly stalled.

Today, we are still dealing with health care reform as the house again votes (40 times now) to repeal Obama care while the administration determines sections of the legislation need to be rewritten, delayed or just not enforced such as congressional staffers.  All of this results in uncertainty for business, which again further exasperates our economic recovery.

The Affordable Health Care Act addressed many needed reforms but does it take us down the path of a European based socialized health care?  Regardless, many Americans absolutely want a European single payer system while others see this as North versus South... Korea.

I propose a completely different approach to health care, not modeled on the European single payer system but one that incorporates the popular & positive changes of the Affordable Health Care Act while turning on the competitive switch we see in other forms of insurance such as auto and home.  The crux of my argument is that insurance is just insurance.  I've been selling it for over 20 years and it boggles my mind how people try to make it into something it's not.  Life insurance isn't a savings vehicle and health insurance isn't too complicated to be sold individually.  If group health plans didn't exist, it's likely individual health plan premiums would come down.

Consider this... Would it makes sense for federal employees or Home Depot employees to get their auto insurance from their employer?  That is silly... So why are we so committed to employers provided health care?

Fourth-Five million Americans don't have health insurance for two reasons.  They don't think they need it or it costs to much.  This insurance gap is an incredible drain on our economy and puts American companies at a significant disadvantage when they try to compete globally. 

What can be done?

Forty-eight states require car insurance, lenders require home insurance and the Affordable Health Care Act will soon requires health insurance.  OK... So for starters make health insurance mandatory for those ages 26 to 65 without exception.  Get the federal and state governments out of providing insurance for employees and find ways to prohibit employers from providing health insurance to their employees.  Employers should not be incentivized, via the tax code, to offer any insurance.  If offered, the policies should cover everyone and cost the employee nothing.  Furthermore, the CEO's plan should be no different to that of the mail clerk.

With reform all cost associated with health care should be fully deductible to the individual (recovered for the poor via the earned income credit) and it should save money if 100% of preventive medicine was paid for by a combination of local, state and federal government.

In addition:

The current Medicare drug cost "doughnut hole" should be filled so that Medicare covers the cost of drugs after a certain amount which is now $2,970 for 2013.

Insurance companies can't screen for or maintain databases of those with pre-existing conditions.

Insurers can only base rates on age, NOT sex or past treatment.

Upon birth children are automatically added to parents health insurance and covered up to the age of 26.

Insurance payouts are not capped.

Health coverage reports are standardized so consumers can accurately compare health insurance plans.

The cost of procedures are pre-disclosed and not based on who is paying.

At 65 Medicare kicks in for everybody.

An expansion of the private insurance premium base with healthy individuals while ensuring those with existing medical issues can get coverage will be a net plus.  The private medical system continues intact and it's my hope that standardize health care cost benefit reports and upfront cost transparency will allow market forces to do what they have done so well in other areas of our economy.

Lastly, I look forward to one day having Flo (Progressive car insurance) help me bundle my car, home and health insurance.

Is the United States worse off than Detroit?

Detroit went bankrupt owing $19 billion, which breaks down to $27,000 per Detroit resident.  At nearly $17 trillion, every American owes roughly $53,000.  In other words, at $27,000 a city is bankrupt but at $53,000 it's business as usual.  How much longer can this go on?

Sequester was triggered when the legislative an executive branches couldn't come up with a debt reduction solution.  The Dems would not cut social programs and the GOP would not cut defense during a time of war.  Since WWII only seven federal budgets balanced.  Why would ANYONE think Congress and the President could find a way to do it now?  Even with sequestration our debt continues to compound.

In just ten years our federal budget increased $1.6 trillion to $3.8 trillion.  This massive spending increase coupled with a $17 trillion dollar national debt helps explain why the world down graded our debt three times since August of 2011.  With rates on the rise, the cost of servicing our debt will increase and unless we actually balance our budget the United States will go the way of Detroit.

Abortion Clinics -vs- Keystone Pipeline

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government."  - Thomas Jefferson

What would the redhead from Virginia think of the country he helped found?  In 1803 Jefferson more than doubled the size of America and yet the Constitutional purest in him gave him pause to wonder if the U.S. Government was authorized to acquire new territory.

Last year the Keystone Pipeline was essentially killed because of environmental concerns.  This false argument was put forth by a liberal agenda in an attempt to prevent the development of environmentally "dirty" Canadian oil sands.

Meanwhile, conservative states continue to dream up new legislation to circumvent  Roe v. Wade and limit abortions:

http://www.kansas.com/2011/06/28/1911589/abortion-clinic-law-maps-out-details.html

Both liberals and conservatives are gaming the system.  Liberals cry out that a pipeline crossing an aquifer (already crossed by thousands of miles of pipeline) is an environmental disaster waiting to happen while conservatives demand ultrasounds and apply the same medical standards for arthroscopic knee sugary to  abortion clinics that conduct first trimester abortions.  Both arguments are Machiavellian at best and the vast majority of American's... The silent majority... go on with their lives while Republican's demand less government unless it suits their purposes and Democrats refuse to acknowledge the nearly 17 trillion dollar elephant in the room.

All of this goes on as Congress passes laws that are selectively enforced and  government agencies create and enforce their own rules and regulations, not to mention the "self-regulatory" agencies who come up with new ways to limit competition and promote protectionism in the guise of consumer protection.

Who ever actually coined the phrase "The Price of Liberty is eternal vigilance" hit the nail on the head... Unfortunately the silent majority is just that... Silent.

Foreign Assistance Act

Section 508 of the decades-old Foreign Assistance Act stipulates:

"None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to this Act shall be obligated or expended to finance directly any assistance to any country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup or decree: Provided, That assistance may be resumed to such country if the President determines and reports to the Committees on Appropriations that subsequent to the termination of assistance a democratically elected government has taken office."

I've been following what has happened in Egypt and it's clear to me that Egypt's military removed the 1st ever democratically elected Egyptian President.  With this, I'm hopeful that our annual Egyptian aid of $1,500,000,0000 per year might be withheld until such time as a new democratically elected government is in place.

However, I'm worried that the Obama administration will once again selectively pick and choose which laws to enforce.  The law is clear, military take over = loss of aid.  Before you argue cutting aid will hurt innocent Egyptians, please understand that over 85% of our annual aid goes directly to the military and I don't know about you but does that really makes sense?

Are you sure we don't live in a Police State?

In the aftermath of the Asiana 214 crash I saw a boy, maybe 14 years old, being interviewed by the press in the terminal area.  Behind him a group of TSA and security officers were slowly moving closer and in short order a burly, serious looking officer interrupted the interview and abruptly asked  the boy "Were you on the flight that crashed?"  The boy said yes and the man grabbed him by the scruff, pulled him away from the reporters saying you have to come with me.

No big deal?  As soon as I saw how this young boy was treated I got angry.  What gives any government official the right to lay hands on someone, let alone a young boy and recent crash survivor?  If I was handled like that I would have thrown an absolute fit.  Turns out that those who walked away from the crash had to go through what was basically a four hour integration and search before they were released - while hundreds of concerned family members agonizingly waited to learn what happened to their loved ones. 

Seeing that young boy being bullied and basically hauled away angered me and it's my hope that the officer who did this be reprimanded... that is unless we really do live in a police state.

COLLECTING MORE DATA THAN YOU THINK

The Virginian-Pilot
© June 20, 2013

COLLECTING MORE DATA THAN YOU THINK

FOR 60 YEARS, the National Security Agency has been protecting the United States against foreign threats. Now, however, the NSA has focused on threats within the United States.

The Patriot Act and other laws have turned the financial industry into a massive data-collection arm of the government. Financial advisers are required to collect and submit volumes of data on our clients into searchable databases, ostensibly used to fight terrorism.

I just completed a project that was allegedly mandated by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. It required 85 data points for every client registration. Data such as the name, address, Social Security number and date of birth have always been required, but now we collect and submit data such as the client's cash on hand, net worth, income, job title, employer and employer's address. I uploaded 52,000 data points on my clients onto a secure server on the Internet.

Knowing these requirements and that over half of all Americans have some type of financial investment, it's hard to imagine that the NSA or some other shadow government agency hasn't found a way to capture this data for future use. Years ago, this type of information was kept on paper, locked in filing cabinets and presented upon inspection. Now this data is very easily searchable.

This data collection is excessive and intrusive. The requirement that it now be available in databases is fraught with everyday security risks, let alone potential government or corporate abuse.

David Beemer
Virginia Beach

 

Congressman Scott is Right - Metadata will be abused

For sixty years the NSA has been protecting the US against foreign threats.  The huge flap now seems to be that external NSA efforts have become an internal effort since the 9-11 attacks.

Not being reported is how the Patriot Act and other regulations have turned the financial industry into a massive data collection arm of the government.  Advisers are required to collect and submit volumes of data on our clients into searchable data bases ostensibly to fight terrorism by knowing your client and preventing money laundering.  I just completed a project that was allegedly mandated by FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority) which required 85 data points for every client registration.  Data such as the name, address, SSN, DOB has always been required but now we collect and submit data such as cash on hand, net worth, income, job title, employer, employer's address, etc...  For me it was over 52,000 data points which was uploaded to a secure server via the internet.

Knowing these requirements and that over half of all American's have some type of investment, it's hard to imagine that the NSA, CIA, DIA, I and A, FBI, INR, TFI or some other shadow government agency hasn't found a way to capture this META data for "future" use.  Years ago this data was kept on paper, locked in filing cabinets and presented upon inspection but due to changing requirements this data is now very much searchable.

I would argue this data collection is excessive, intrusive and the requirement that it now be available in database format fraught with everyday security risks, let alone potential government and/or corporate abuse.

David Beemer

Virginia Beach, VA
Investment Registered Representative since 1993

 Growth of Government

Today within the executive branch of the federal government there are fifteen cabinet secretaries. These are the Presidents men and women who in my mind run our country or at least our countries bureaucracy.  Each of these fifteen positions represent massive government agencies which in some cases date back to the founding of our country. There were initially four cabinet level positions which have morphed into what we have today.

My question is - are we better off as a country and are we more free because of the expansion of government? Regardless of this argument the result of government expansion is a collective federal debt of $16.7 trillion, so clearly financially we are NOT better off. Furthermore, a  third of these cabinet level agencies have been formed since 1965.  How did our nation survive almost 200 years without a third of it's leadership?

For starters, agencies who have failed to meet their mandates, after say 36 years, should be reviewed and likely eliminated.  I would consider these agencies to be among the most endangered:

15)  Department of Homeland Security (I think the name is super dumb) - est. 2002

14)  Department of Veterans Affairs - est. 1988

13)  Department of Education - est. 1976

12)  Department of Energy - est. 1977

10)  Department of Housing and Urban Development - est. 1965

There is one basic question that must be asked and answered of our elected officials if the United States is to continue as the economic, military and world leader. Is our federal government to big?  If so, what can be done about it?

Those on the right argue our government is too big. When agencies such as the IRS can't even audit their own books something has to give and that give is something that rarely (ever?) happens in Washington... The elimination of an entire government agency, lock, stock and barrel.

How can Congress Reduce the Cost of Gas?

For starters consider modify the Merchant Marine Act of 1920.

The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 is a United States federal statute that regulates maritime commerce in U.S. waters and between U.S. ports. It's better known as the Jones Act and requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried in U.S. flaged ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens or U.S. permanent residents. The purpose of the law is to support the U.S. maritime industry.

It's clear that the last 93 years of "protecting" U.S. maritime industry hasn't worked.  At the very least Congress should modify the Merchant Marine Act to allow foreign shipping companies to fill in when there isn't a bonafide U.S. ship available.

What will this do?  It would allow oil companies to ship oil from the Gulf States to the East Coast verses West Africa.  Big deal?  You bet and it saves big money.  Right now there aren't enough U.S. ships to transport oil from the Gulf States so East Coast refineries are forced to buy oversea crude which is more expensive and in some cases ends up supporting governments that aren't supportive of  the United States.

The Federal Income Tax Turns 100!

The 16th amendment was passed and 100 years ago American's started paying income tax.  Initially there were 7 brackets starting at 1% with the top bracket being 7% on incomes over $11,000,000+ in today's dollars.  Right now nine states manage without any income tax (Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, Wyoming, Tennessee, New Hampshire) and when Bobby Jindal, Gov. of Louisiana, announced his #1 legislative goal for 2013 was repealing his states income tax it only took days for him to back down and recant his extreme position.

More states are considering the repeal of their income tax  Nebraska, Kansas, Georgia, Oklahoma and North Carolina are seriously considering this as way to compete with their neighbors and create jobs.  Maybe Governor Jindal should have started with corporate taxes?  I've talked to many Virginians about the idea that corporations shouldn't be taxed because they ultimately pass this cost onto consumers.  The feedback I’ve gotten has been quite positive.  People from various backgrounds and political views seem to innately understand the concept that corporations don't pay tax, people pay tax.

Virginia's legislative session is over, but as our elected officials file their returns I hope they appreciate our system is just too complicated at best and that the 100 year experiment has resulted, as predicted, in a government that knows no bounds.  Maybe, just maybe, it's time that once again Virginia take the lead and consider "extreme" tax reform.

Could Virginia stop taxing corporations?

I've talked to many Virginians about the idea that corporations shouldn't be taxed because they simply pass the cost of taxation onto consumers and the feedback I’ve gotten is very positive.  People from various backgrounds and political views seem to innately understand this concept.

For years North Carolina, Tennessee and Kentucky have lured our civil service and military retirees to their states by exempting retirement pay from state income tax.  Why couldn't Virginia drop the bomb with corporate taxation, repeal it and successfully lure more businesses here?

I bet this sounds nuts, but right now nine states (Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, Wyoming, Tennessee, New Hampshire) don't have any income tax and Louisiana, Nebraska, Kansas, Georgia, Oklahoma and North Carolina are seriously considering repealing theirs.  Furthermore, the nine states with out income tax refute the dire forecasts that eliminating income taxes will negatively impact schools, public safety and other social programs.  

If North Carolina, Tennessee and Kentucky have figured out they can net more revenue by luring retirees why can't Virginia do the same with corporations.  It's a bold idea but one deserving of consideration.  I'm not a native Virginian, but I've lived here since 1991, raised two daughters and put them through state universities.  I'm proud of Virginia, consider this home and I understand if your not growing, it's only a matter of time before you decline.

** Update **

Scratch Louisiana from the list.  Gov. Bobby Jindal scraps his plan only days after announcing it.  Turns out that what works in nine states is TOO EXTREME for Louisiana.  "Governor, you’re moving too fast, and we aren’t sure that your plan is the best way to do it,” is what Gov. Jindal indicates he's been hearing. 

New Virgina State Budget Allots 50% to Education

As the North Carolina legislature debates the possibility of phasing out their state income tax, our elected leaders comment Virginia shouldn't consider reform because we are #1 in so many areas. While true in general, in many cases Virginia's numbers are skewed by Northern Virginia's proximity to Washington and Hampton Roads being home of the largest military complex in the world.

Education is one area that Virginia isn't overtly impacted by the federal government.  Regardless of the spin put out by our State Department of Education or what you may read in local papers, the 2012 SAT scores matched up with our 2010 national ranking of 33rd.  That's right, our awesome Vo-Tech kids aside, Virginia's educational product came in 33rd while spending 50% of the Common Wealth's budget, not including city and county contributions.

What makes matters worse... and I'm guessing, Virginia's SAT results are likely propped up by a large population of private and home schooled kids.  As North Carolina rethinks basic government principles, it's time that Virginian figure out why we are getting such a poor return on our educational dollar.  The political mantra of throwing more money at the problem needs to change and a real solution found to raise our national SAT ranking above 33rd. 

July 2010 State Education Rankings: Virginia SAT Scores

Critical Reading SAT Score: 511 (Ranking 32)
Math SAT Score: 512 (Ranking 35)
Writing SAT Score: 498 (Ranking 32)

Total SAT Score: 1521 (Ranking 33)

More Individual Health Care Insurance

        More Individual Health Care Insurance

Dr. Ben Carson's ideas on healthcare are intriguing.  Recently, I stumbled upon a similar idea from a brilliant young woman who is at the very epicenter of health care billing and technology.

She explained that a fundamental shift from group plans to individual plans is what's needed to effect reform.  She believes that group plans, which most of us seem to want, are actually what's wrong with our current system.  That without group plans; health insurance would be sold individually like auto insurance.  Individual plans would result in "one" price and costs would come down as consumers actually participated in their healthy care decisions.

Unfortunately, the Affordable Health Care Act doesn’t take free market forces into consideration and does little to fix the core problems of our current bloated, disjointed and blotchy patch work of insurance and providers.  If Dr. Carson is right, maybe injecting free market principles into our health care is what's needed.

Am I a Gun Nut?

A few years ago I purchased a handgun that came with a 15 round clip and being EX military I didn't think anything of it, but when Senator Feinstein introduces legislation that "Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds" I started to wonder.... Am I a gun nut?  

As it turns out many states already have restrictions on magazine size:  New York 7, California 10, Massachusetts 10, Hawaii 10, District of Columbia 10, Chicago 12, New Jersey 15, Maryland 20 and Ohio 30. 

Clearly legislators in various states think guns and specifically magazines should be limited for public safety.  However, after just a little research I felt much better knowing that the great syrupy state of Vermont has the least restrictive guns laws, followed closely by the "Live Free or Die" state which is basically tied with Maine.  I was stunned to find out that that VT, NH and ME are the 3rd, 2nd and THE most peaceful states in the U.S., according to Stockdale and Sauter.

Who knew that guns, lobster, maple syrup and hippies would go together so harmoniously.
 
PS  I own one inexpensive 80 year old shot shotgun, one basic semi-automatic handgun and I strongly believe that the security of a free state should allow the size of magazines to be that of which the weapon was originally designed.

Note - Turns out that Canada has even more restrictive magazine laws. In Canada all hand guns are limited by law to 10 rounds while believe it or not rifles are limited to 5 rounds. 

Bad Guys With Guns

Guns

 
The right to bear arms is NOT about blasting Bambi or shooting ducks, it's about a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.  

In the 1930's machine guns became strictly controlled under the National Firearms Act requiring extensive background checks and a $200 tax for ownership.  

To carry a concealed weapon in Virginia you have to visit the court house, file a form, get finger printed and pay $50 for processing and a background check.  You also have to show that you have taken a gun safety course or have previous experience like being a member of the military. 

Registering guns, smaller magazines and banning semi automatic rifles will do little in preventing crime BUT requiring citizens to complete a gun safety course and have a background check before they can can buy ammo might.  

I wonder if we could piggy back on the current system of concealed weapon permits or come up with something that combined with an instantaneous background check could help prevent guns and ammo from getting into the hands of those who would illegally use them.

The 80/20 Rule

As we go partway over the fiscal cliff it dawned on me that Washington is invoking the 80/20 rule.

In 2011 Warren Buffet's tax bill was only 18% of his income while his employees averaged 33%.  However, in dollars Mr. Buffet paid nearly $11,000,000 versus the average personal tax bill of $7,000 or zero for 76 million households or the so called 47 percent.

The top 20% of households now account for over 70% of the personal income tax collected and if this trend continues I fear that our government imposed fairness could one day destroy capitalism and the 20% of families who now pay so many of our nations bills?

Honestly - They Sky is Not Falling

The call on the answering machine was clear and concise. There would be an armed guard at every Virginia Beach elementary Monday morning and for the foreseeable future.

As the country recovers from the shock of last week's shooting, the cries for new stricter gun laws echo throughout Congress.

I'm NOT an expert but a few things seem obvious to me:  These mentally disturbed, young, white men are seeking attention and fame which is exactly what they get. The feel-good bills that will inevitably be signed into law will do nothing to decrease this kind of crime. Our schools, malls, theaters, subways, trains, etc. will continue to be soft targets in some cases specifically because guns are banned.

Last year approximately 32,000 people lost their lives on U.S. roads. Over the last ten years this death toll adds up to 392,000 men, women and especially thousands of children.  That's enough bodies to annually fill the average NFL stadium to 50% capacity. Yet for some reason our society determines the way you die is more important than being dead.

By all means make our soft targets less soft. Ban the bushmaster or all assault rifles if it can be shown to statistically help and for sure find ways to help these troubled young men before they become known by the masses. But the truth is, we know our schools and colleges are among the safest places our young people can spend their day and the Sky is NOT falling.

Why Not Go Over the Fiscal Cliff?

For starters the DOW will likely drop 900 points and 1.5% trillion dollars in equity will evaporate in a few days but more importantly we can't afford to miss this opportunity to actually make tough political changes.

The Republicans want to see spending reductions and entitlement reform before they agree to raise taxes while the Democrats keep pounding the drum of tax fairness and indicate they will not make changes to entitlements.

It's self evident that the social security retirement age must be raised to keep the program solvent and benefits means tested.  Next, move the charitable deduction from Schedule "A" to the front of the 1040 and limit total Schedule "A" deductions to an amount that will not impact 80% of tax payers. 

This is just a start. Other issues like the payroll tax cut, capital gains taxes, defense spending, etc... still need to be addressed but let's agree it would be a bad idea to start the New Year with a market in a tail spin and continued economic stagnation if not double dip recession.

Election Day 2012

Election Day 2012

It's the morning of November 6th and a few days back I called the race for the President.  Now with the stock market going up I'm thinking maybe I'm wrong but then again gold is also surging.  I've always known that the market really doesn't care which party is in office but I'm starting to think that just maybe gold does.

According to "Kramer" over the last four years gold is up 101%.  Should we all go out and buy gold?  Can't comment on that but I think it's interesting to ponder what the election means for the country and markets.

Twelve years ago at roughly 4:00 in the morning CBS and many other media outlets concluded they had really messed up in Florida and said the race was just too close to call.  The nationwide popular vote at that time was displayed as:

Gore 45,752,056      

Bush 45,943,474

Of course it all boiled down to the Florida recount.  Gore's people argued basically two things.  When someone voted for both Bush and Gore (overvote possible when using punch cards) you could look at who else they voted for to determine what the voter's intention was.  Next Gore's people argued that when no vote for president was recorded (undervote) you could also deduce who they would have voted for by looking at the other votes.

The Supreme Court unanimously rejected this line of logic and then along party lines ruled 5–4 that no constitutionally valid recount could be completed by the December 12th "safe harbor" deadline. They concluded that time was up for a recount and the certification of Florida's election was to be accepted.

The issue I had with this was even more basic.  Gore's team wanted the recount with the interpretation of voter intent to be conducted in specific democratic dominated counties like Miami-Dade and Broward.  This fight delayed the  statewide recount such that time ran out and no "meaningful" statewide recount was conducted

One thing that many Democrats refuse to acknowledge is that the exhaustive independent media sponsored recount after the Court's decision showed Bush would have won the election had the recount Gore requested been allowed to continue. However a statewide recount allowing official interpretation of "undervotes," or "overvotes," just  might have made Gore the winner but we will never know.  FYI, the official margin for Bush was recorded at 537 votes but the media coordinated recount was Bush by 493 based on what the Florida Supreme Court ordered but was overruled by the US Supreme Court.

No matter what you think about the 2012 election I hope we never go down the road of Florida in 2000 again.

PS Novermber 10th 2012 - Electoral College with President Obama 303, Mitt Romney 206 and Florida's 29 Electoral votes?  Still not officially determined... LOL

 Do Nothing Congress...

"Congress is on pace to make history with the least productive legislative year in the post World War II era.  Just 61 bills have become law to date in 2012 out of 3,914 bills that have been introduced by lawmakers, or less than 2% of all proposed laws.  In 2011, after Republicans took control of the U.S. House, Congress passed just 90 bills into law.  These statistics make the 112th Congress, covering 2011-12, the least productive two-year gathering on Capitol Hill since the end of World War II." Anonymous - VA Pilot

Well Mr. Anonymous if this Congress is the do nothing Congress I'm OK with that.  With the exception of emergencies, I wouldn't mind seeing Congress do nothing for a few more years.  Why is more legislation the answer?

I don't feel more free, safer or better off because Congress passed 90 bills into law.  Major job and business killing financial regulation (something I know a little bit about) like Dodd-Frank didn't even address the main reason it was envisioned; to reign in "too big to fail" financial institutions.

Maybe we should be more concerned with RESULTS rather that the number of laws passed.  That and it would be nice to at least go through the motions of passing a federal budget... It's been 1238 days since the Democrat controlled Senate passed one.

Curiosity Lands on Mars!

I have to admit that the possibility of the Martian rover Curiosity crashing into a mountain three miles tall and 96 miles in diameter was very much on my mind. NASA was trying not one but three new technologies to land a nuclear powered Jeep size rover on Mars. Remember, all of this is from an organization who mixed up feet and meters and drilled a probe into Mars just a few years ago?

Well my hats off to NASA and I'm pumped that the SKY CRANE worked and Curiosity settled near the foot of a mountain inside the Gale Crater. This is a huge week for NASA, the United States, American's and the world in general.

Will Curiosity find past life? If it does, it just might be a game changer and something I believe our collective human consciousness could really use.

"Today, the wheels of Curiosity have begun to blaze the trail for human footprints on Mars. Curiosity, the most sophisticated rover ever built, is now on the surface of the Red Planet, where it will seek to answer age-old questions about whether life ever existed on Mars -- or if the planet can sustain life in the future," said NASA Administrator Charles Bolden.

"A smooth sea never made a skilled mariner."

English proverb          

The Virginian-Pilot
© July 7, 2012

We need some price tags

Recently, former U.S. Sen. Tom Daschle, a Democrat, said, 'Health care is probably the only sector in this economy where at the time of purchase you don't know what it's going to cost or who is going to pay.'

When I heard Daschle say this, I was flummoxed. I agree with Tom Daschle?

The Affordable Health Care Act includes roughly twice the number of words as 'Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix,' and is full of good ideas and new taxes, but it never mentions cost transparency.

I'm tired of having very little, if any, clue about what something is going to cost before a doctor's visit or medical procedure. I'm tired of asking about the cost and getting nothing but a blank stare.

Dave Beemer
Virginia Beach

Transparent Healthcare

Last Sunday Tom Daschle said "Healthcare is probably the only sector in this economy where at time of purchase you don't know what it's going to cost or who is going to pay."

When I heard Mr. Daschle say this I was flummoxed.  I replayed the segment a few times, wrote down his words and shook my head while muttering to myself - I concur with Tom Daschle?

The Affordable Health Care for America Act has roughly twice the words as Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix, is full of good ideas and new taxes but never mentions cost transparency.  I'm tired of having very little, if any clue what something is going to cost prior to a doctors visit or procedure.  I'm tied of asking and getting nothing but a cursory, "I'm sorry" to a deathly blank stare.

Is it overly simplistic to suggest that cost transparency might be the "Golden Snitch" of health care? Clearly both Tom and I think it's worth a try so why do we continue to practice 21st century medicine with 19th century billing?