What The Heck Is A Sharing Economy?

       Have you ever heard of the Sharing Economy, or a Micro-Entrepreneur? They're new, but old, ideas of how to get by in modern America. Stephen Strauss had an article in the Huffington Post yesterday and Thomas Freidman has written about it. It's all about how people, lots of people, are forced by their economic circumstances to make do, share, barter and "get by", because they can't earn enough to live on. See what I mean by a lot of people?
       Strauss tells about how his immigrant parents were forced to do these same things back in the late 1930s. Rent out a spare room, or actually rent someone else's spare room, work day jobs or any odd job that would pay cash, even for an hour or two. Trading hard work for a meal or two.
       On the other hand there were those who were able to live a life of luxury. Did you know, the inequality between the haves and the have nots was very similar in the 1920s and 30s to what exists today? In fact in 1928, the top 1% received 23.9% of all pretax income while the bottom 90% got 50.7%. Nowadays we're just about in the same position. But of course if you mention it, those same 1% cry class warfare. Well, I don't doubt the existence of class warfare, in fact I think it's been building for about 30 years. But it's happening the other way. The very wealthy have been grinding the rest of us into the dust in their quest for ever more riches at the expense of everyone else.
       So what's the point of my ranting? My point is that even though statistics show an improved economy, with income growing stronger day by day, all the economic improvement keeps flowing to those 1% and the rest of us are being left in that dust I mentioned. So again, what's my point?
       My point is that the 1920s and 30s ended up in the Great Depression and forced a lot of redistribution of wealth through legislation and taxation. But after a couple of decades, things started swinging back in favor of the wealthy. Well, at some point that 90% will force those same changes. It may take a while and it may look different, it might even be more ugly, but one thing's for sure, Americans won't stand for this inequality for ever. Nor should they.
    

                                 HAVE A HAPPY, HEALTHY, AND SAFE NEW YEAR.


        Eddie Snowbeard.

The Circles Of Life.

       I wasn't going to write anything until the new year kicks in, but then I read this story in Mother Jones this morning. It's about what they feed cows. Well, no, it's about what they feed chickens. No, actually it's about what they feed cows. Maybe I'd better explain. Mixed in with the feed for cows is the sweepings from the floors of chicken pens and chicken houses. Ya know what's on the floor of a chicken house after the chickens eat? Yes! And all that goes into cow feed.
       Now, I'm old enough to remember back when farms grew what we all called cow corn. It wasn't tasty like sweet corn, but cows liked it.  The farmers chopped up even the corn stalks and put it into the silo for feed for the cows over the winter along with hay. Well, nowadays they don't use that stuff it seems. Instead companies mix together a variety of products to make up a good nutritional feed for our beef and milk. It's another layer of profit for somebody. The sweepings from the chicken pens and the sweepings from the cow barn used to go onto the corn fields with the first plowing.
       So what's in that mix? Well, as I've said, the sweepings from under the chickens, which includes things like some of the chickenfeed that fell on the floor, maybe parts of dead rodents, feathers and the bi-product of processed chicken feed. Oh, and chicken feed is made partially from cow parts. So in a way, cows are eating some cows. Now, let me see, did I leave anything out?
        I can tell you this much, the makers of feed for livestock certainly haven't left much out. So the next time you sit down to enjoy a big juicy steak, perhaps with eggs, it would be best if you just forgot about this information, for obvious reasons.
        The article goes on to say that the practice of cows eating feed that contains other cows is dangerous because it could lead to an outbreak of Mad Cow disease. Yeah, that's right. Which is something we should avoid wherever possible. So what's my point? Well, I just wonder how much we can or should trust the folks who make feed for the meat we eat? Kinda makes you want to be a vegetarian. Unless you look into the seed companies.

Penn's Woods, Gimme A Break.

       Today I'd like to talk about the great state of Penn's Woods. Once upon a time little Billie was given some lands in the "New World", I suppose because he was a good little boy. It's gone downhill a little since then. Today I read in the local paper about two things that makes me wonder. On the front page was an article that tells of our legislators taking $2 million in expenses. And of the $2 million, they had to account for $2000,000.
       The rest they took as "per-diem" payments. That means they don't have to say what that money was spent on. Like a trip to one of our new gambling establishments or Hershey Park with the grandkids. Who knows, they don't have to say.
       Then buried in section "D", the "Perspective" section near the letters to the editor, a small article explaining that the 74,000 state employees expenses will rise an estimated 9%. That's an average of $7,300 each for a total of around $540 million, which includes benefits. So as a state, and knowing you've got this tremendous increase in costs, wouldn't you think it might be time to require everyone to justify their reimbursable expenses. Hey, even if the state could save just one million, it would be a help. But in actual practice, what happens is a legislator hands in a slip of paper that basically says gimme some money. That's what's called per-diem.
       So I've got to wonder how it is that Pennsylvania's workers and management personnel are getting an increase of 9%? And I've also got to wonder how it is that our legislators get to just say gimme, gimme, and they get it with no questions asked. I mean 9% seems high in these currently hard economic times. Lots of people aren't getting any raise or very little. And if you've been unemployed for more than half a year, you're about to get a 100% cut in income. You could extent that unemployment compensation indefinitely on 9% and an extra million.
       Don't get me wrong, I don't begrudge those 74,000 state employees getting a nice bump, and I do understand legislators have expenses just like the rest of us, except we don't get reimbursed for our expenses. But then there are those long term unemployed that are about to get the screws.
      

The F-35 Is Strictly A High Test Airplane.

       With the restoration of the defense budget, it looks like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter airplane will be a definite go. This plane is supposed to do just about anything but bake cookies, and with all the classified equipment on board it might even do that. But cookies aren't what makes this plane special. It's a plane that every branch of the military will use in the future. It's supposed to be very versatile.
       But versatility isn't what makes it so special either. What makes it the most special aircraft our military has ever developed is the costs involved. Lockheed, the builder, claims the cost will be $75 million per plane. They say that, but the Government Accountability Office says $137 million each and tack on an additional $1 trillion to keep them flying for 30 years, the norm for such aircraft.
       The Pentagon stated this was an unaffordable amount so they lowered the expected cost to $857 million. That's right, from $1 trillion to $857 million. And they were able to lower that cost with no discernible change to what will be done to keep the planes flying. A savings of $999,143,000,000. $999 billion and some loose change! And no lose of servicing to the planes. Just what was all that money going to be spent for? You don't suppose the Pentagon is under estimating the cost, do you?
       Initially the cost to roll out the fleet was set at $233 billion, but now is set to run $400 billion, and counting. So if that cost doesn't rise any more and the GAOs estimate is more accurate, we're looking at $1.4 trillion. Where's all this money gonna come from? Oh, that's right, it's gonna come from you and me. Including the $999 billion the Pentagon doesn't think they will need.
       Now imagine if your child or grandchild wanted to buy one of these F35 Joint Strike Fighters for his or her school. How many chocolate bars will he have to sell? Well, at a dollar a piece, he'll have to sell at least $137 million chocolate bars. Does she know that many people she can hit up for a purchase of a Hershey bar? Can Hershey make that many bars in the allotted time period? And what about the fuel to get it to the school? It won't run on unleaded ya know.

Speaking Of Special Interest Groups.

       Speaking of special interest groups, did you know that there are more special interest groups than there are Senators and Congressmen combined? In fact I wouldn't be surprised to learn there are more special interest groups than there are citizens in America. There is no subject for which there isn't a special interest group. You've got to be careful where you walk lest you step on one. And for heavens sake watch what you say or you'll run afoul of the SIG police.
       There are conservative SIGs and liberal SIGs, hot button issues SIGs, and presumably cold button issues SIGs too. In fact when you stop and think about it, pretty much everybody is a member of some sort of SIG. So it's hard to say we should do away with SIGs or that we should ignore Sigs. I formed a special interest group to pay attention to me. Can you imagine if everybody ignored my SIG? That would be devastating. No, we've got to come up with a different way.
       The problem with SIGs is that just about anybody can run a SIG and I mean anyone. Now that, in and of itself isn't a problem. The problem is that a bunch of special interest groups are causing problems with our government and the way our country operates. Some folks think we should shut it down permanently and just do away with it. What those folks want is to run it their way or the highway. That would work if they were a majority of citizens, but they're not. And they're not alone. There's another group that wants things their way and they don't like this first group.
       Now this shouldn't be a problem for our government and usually isn't, except both sides got some odd people elected and now they're at odds and are willing to do just about anything to get their way. That's bad enough, but one of the groups has another SIG within it's group and they want something entirely different.
       These are the special interest groups of which I speak. These are the SIGs we need to figure out how to ignore. We should be polite, but we should ignore. My mother always said to be polite. The ignore part she didn't like so much, but there does come a time when ignoring is the preferred recipe.

What's The Problem With The Senate?

       Well, a couple of weeks ago the majority leader in the Senate, Senator Harry Reid pulled the nuclear trigger. I'm told that the Senate still exists though, contrary to some predictions. Oh, I admit that the minority is very unhappy with the change. They can't just call up Harry and tell him they want to put a hold on some appointment or other. Now they have to find other ways to hold up progress in the Senate. Of course they can still put a "hold" on legislation and require 60 votes to bring it up for a vote, while presidential appointments only require a majority of 1 vote.
       It was a surprise and uncle Mitch is still boiling mad. He's still telling uncle Harry to just wait and see what we'll do when we regain majority status. But judicial appointments that have been waiting for years, literally, are finally getting approved. Family get-togethers are really rough though. What with uncle Harry getting some things done and Uncle Mitch steaming mad about it, there's no peace at the table. "Just wait! You'll see!" And an "I had to do it to get some work done."
       So exactly who's in the wrong here? Who's lily white and without sin? On the one hand this secret filibuster rule has been around for a couple of decades and it worked pretty well. Nobody likes change and uncle Harry knows that. On the other hand a couple dozen or so such filibusters has turned into well over a hundred and fifty. When it comes to sin, I have to go along with the "let whoever is without sin cast the first stone." Or in the Senate's case, the first vote.
       In fact that rule, the one about casting the stone, or vote, might be a good idea for all legislators in Washington and the state capitals to consider. If you haven't taken any money from someone or some company this bill will effect, you can vote. That's because you're without sin. But if you did get money or your campaign did, then you can't vote. Boy would that change things. Then all that would be left to deal with would be special interest groups. But that's another whole story.

All Things Are Possible. With Money.

  

Let's give money the vote. Hey, we've given corporations the right to spend all the money they want to influence elections, why not just cut to the chase and give the vote to the money. If you want to vote for president, then one vote should cost say $1000, for Senators, say $400, for Congressmen how about $100. Well okay then, maybe $5 for each. That might be closer to the value of each. But then you could vote multiple times depending on how much money you have.

       The thing is, money talks. You can accomplish a whole storehouse of objectives if you have the money to do so. Without the money behind you, you won't get far. So nothing would actually change from the way it is now.  Billions would still be spent on elections. The only difference is that instead of going to sign makers and TV stations and the like, it would be spent at the polls.

       Another, and perhaps the most important, advantage is that all that money would be going to the IRS. That means your taxes could go down measurably. Of course your vote would be worth less, $5 remember, but since your taxes would be lower, you could afford to buy that new TV you've been wanting, or that Refrigerator or whatever. That would help to improve the economy so that our elected officials could take credit for all the new jobs.

       It's what we call a win-win-win idea. Big money wins, politicians win, you win. What's not to like here? Oh, I admit there are a few drawbacks to this scheme, like the electorate would lose control over the electoral process, but haven't we lost that already? Between big money and special interest groups, the voter really doesn't have much say now-a-days anyway. And with this plan TV stations and networks and news papers and sign makers would lose tons of money forcing them to lay some staff off, but the tax savings alone would more than make up for those losses  Now if it could get past Congress, I'm convinced our current Supreme Court would vote to approve along party lines. I should go on the road with this proposal.

It May Be People, But It Includes Guns.

       Hey, listen to this from Mother Jones news this morning. After the Sandy Hook tragedy last year Bloomberg News predicted that by 2015 there would be more gun deaths than automobile related deaths. So how's the prediction going? Well there are 15 states where that is already happening. And for all of America, the total number of traffic deaths stands at 32,885, but total gun deaths stands at 31,672, and counting. While traffic deaths are dropping, gun deaths are climbing. Not a sterling report.
       Are these numbers comforting? Not for me either, and the trend is even more worrisome. But be of good cheer. The federal government is------doing nothing, but the states have become----- more lenient when it comes to gun ownership. The race is on. Will America accomplish this heretofore unimaginable feat? Will traffic deaths become just a footnote on the news while gun deaths become the champion grim reaper of our times?
       I'll bet you never thought that such a goal was attainable, did you? I'd ask you to do your part to help reach this milestone, but it looks like we've got more than enough support to make our goal a reality. Ya know if twenty of our kids and six adults were killed in a war, we'd be screaming for the war to end. And we'd be writing our legislators, both in Washington and our state capitals. But we seem to think it's okay so long as it's our own people killing our own people.
       Well actually it's not so much that we think it's okay as the gun lobby, and that certainly includes the NRA, so long as they tell us it's okay, that it's not the guns that are killing these kids, it's people that are doing the killing. As though the "people" weren't pointing guns at the kids and pulling the trigger.
       Look. There's nothing wrong with a person of sound mind and even temper owning a gun or several guns. The problem comes into play when persons not of sound mind or even temper get their hands on guns. Now, nobody thinks that any law or set of laws can eliminate all gun violence. But is that a reason to make it ever easier for those who shouldn't have guns to get their hands on a gun? We all need to step back a minute and think about how we can set safe standards and still preserve the second amendment to our Constitution.

"There's No Such Thing As A Good War Or A Bad Peace"

       Ben Franklin came up with this little thought. As teaching moments go, it's a pretty good one. Some wars may be necessary, most are wars of choice, but none are good. Often peace is hard work, but sometimes peace works out. The thing is, peace is always worth while. And have you noticed that most often war is called by those who don't actually have to go there?
       Wouldn't it be nice if only those who have previously fought in war can vote on going to war. Or how about requiring anyone who votes for war must actually fight in that war. And I don't care how old they might be. And I don't mean behind the lines either. I'll never understand how some old guys can get themselves elected to Congress and then go around trying to pick a fight with anyone they can, as long as they think we can beat that enemy.
       Have you noticed that individual members of Congress can vote for us to go to war? They vote, so that somebody else can get killed. I suppose the only realistic way to stop these yahoos is to return to conscription. Because these yahoos risk nothing personally. Their kids or grandkids don't have to fight these wars. But if their kids might get drafted to fight the wars they start, they might not be quite so anxious to fight a war that can be worked out peacefully.
       Now, what about wars we cannot avoid? Well then the draft would already have been initiated and citizen fighters would already be registered. Then it's just a matter of calling them up and training them. And as long as influential draftees cannot be exempted, we'll be insured Congress will provide the support that's needed, without delay. But also, remember that wars that cannot be avoided are unavoidable because someone missed the chance to work out a solution first.

Congress And The Unemployed.

       There seems to be a continuing effort in Congress to eliminate long term payments of unemployment compensation benefits. The reasons vary but mostly suggest that those on unemployment for extended periods become complacent and wind up as part of the permanent welfare class. One thing that's true is that the longer someone is unemployed, the harder it becomes to get that person rehired. Companies prefer recently working to long term unemployed applicants.
       On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be the will in Congress to get these folks retrained in any other field. Congress doesn't seem to want to spend money on these poor folks in their unemployment to feed them or to teach them how to do any job. I think the idea is that these folks should just get out of bed and go to work. It's just that nobody has figured out where these folks should go to find the jobs. I guess that these Congressmen figure they found jobs so these unemployed folks should go out and get a job too.
       Well, one suggestion would be to go out and campaign for the jobs the current crop of Congressmen have. What they lack in experience might serve them well in Washington and serve the country well too. Now I don't mean to suggest our current crop in Washington aren't doing their jobs properly. It's just that the current crop isn't doing their job at all, mostly.
       There's an old saying "spare the rod, spoil the child." You could easily point out that somewhere along the line, these folks in Washington apparently never felt the rod. I think the best experience our current crop could undergo would be to find themselves unemployed. Even long term unemployed. Although I know of one previous Senator from Pennsylvania who doesn't seem to have learned anything. But that might not be the fault of the unemployment experience.
       The downside to this idea is that most of this current crop are lawyers. I see no value in turning these folk loose on an unsuspecting clientele. Can you imagine hiring one of these lawyers to represent you in a law suit? It might never come to trial.

Take A Look At Your Drug Costs.

       According to an article in the Washington Post today, the pharmaceutical industry has spent an average of  $180,000,000 per year on lobbying for the last fifteen years. That's $2.7 Billion dollars in Washington DC. Why fifteen years? Think back to when Congress and the president first started seriously looking at a prescription drug program, I think under Clinton. And in the plan that finally got passed, Medicare cannot negotiate for pricing on drugs.
       As an example, the article talks about two drugs for an eyesight problem, both made by the same company, both as nearly identical as possible, but one is priced at $2000 per dose, the other $50 per dose. Now which would you expect the manufacturer would prefer to sell? And here's the kicker, Doctors receive 6% over the cost of any drug they choose. So from a strictly financial point of view, which drug would you expect the doctors to choose?
       You're right. That's why it costs Medicare 1.2 billion dollars each year on just that one drug, instead of $30,000,000. A savings of $1.17 billion dollars could have been realized. On just one drug. In just one year. In two years, the savings could have canceled out all the lobbying by the pharmaceutical industry for all drugs for all fifteen years. Can you imagine what Congress could have done with all that money? Some wild parties and significant pay raises?
       No, actually Congress likes to look at things over ten year spans. So, okay, over ten years the savings would amount to $11.7 Billion. And, again, that's just one drug. I can see places where Medicare could develop some serious savings. What if they could only find ten drugs with similar equivalents? That would come to, ah, hm, I think that would be about a $117 billion in savings over ten years. And does anyone think there's only ten overpriced drugs on the market?
       Of course the pharmaceutical industry rightly points out that a fair portion of that money is spent on research and development. Fair enough. Show us an itemized bill and we'll reimburse you. We'd still save hundreds of billions over the next ten years. Now let's look at that Dep't of Defense toilet seat again.

How Come Imnflation is So One Sided?

       Here's just a few facts of interest. Over the last thirty years or so, our productivity has increased by about 90%, but income for the average family has increased only 8%. Want to know more? Our economy has doubled in size but nearly all of the increase in wealth seems to have preferred a select few over our average family. Those select few, 10%, used to get about a third of the wealth, but now enjoy half of all income. The rest of us get to share the other half. I suppose we should be grateful for that much. Now if only we would forget about raising the minimum wage, that divide can continue.
       Look at the difference between thirty years ago when it comes to CEO income compared to average worker income. CEOs used to get about 20 to 30 times what the average workers got. Nowadays CEOs get 273 times what those same average workers make. So how come this enormous inflation works for CEOs but not for average workers? It's not that workers make so much less, they still make about the same. What happened is CEO pay increased to unimaginable heights. How come? I think it's because CEOs have closer associations with the folks who dole out the money. But the average guy doesn't belong to the same country clubs. By the way, all these facts were mentioned in an editorial by Charles M. Blow in the New York Times today.
       But here's the thing, if we remain on the current course, pretty soon that top 10% will be getting 75% and then 90 % and then probably meet their final goal of 100%. At which point, it will be nearly impossible to determine the number of times a CEO's income will compare to the drones, oops, I mean workers. Seriously, at some point those drones (workers) are gonna get fed up with leftovers and take everything away from the 10%ers. Check your history. It's happened in many societies throughout the history of human social groups. The majority at some point will always demand a fair share. And the 10%ers won't be the ones who decide what fair is.

Talk About Stretching The Truth.

       An organization I'd never heard of before is bashing the "Common Core" educational approach being used by most states. It is a program initiated by the states and chief state educational officers. The federal government had no part in this endeavor. That didn't stop this organization, Citizens For Self Government, from trying to tie Common Core to the fed.
       See, the federal government has started to support the decisions of the various states to implement the Common Core improvements by providing grants to the states to help the states to institute these changes. The federal government still does not have any real part in the program.
       That hasn't stopped groups like this Citizens For Self Government and the Tea Party from trying to make it sound like the whole thing is a federal government ploy to take over our education. Although, certainly our educational system needs somebody to take it over and straighten it out. Which is exactly why the states got together to come up with Common Core. On Their own.
       Of course the Tea Party and CFSG and like organizations will tell you that our educational systems are best run by local elected officials, which of course, Common Core doesn't change except to require all schools in each state to teach the same subject matter. Currently, each state sets goals and minimums based on financial concerns rather than educational minimums.
       So under Common Core, for instance, one school district can't teach at one level and another school teach at a different level. In other words, one school can't graduate a student with no math while another requires math but not English. It also looks at international norms in math and science and endeavors to teach to those norms. Why? Because America is and will continue to compete internationally for jobs. If we hope to lure jobs to America, we've got to be better educated than our competition. There is no evidence that having individual school districts setting their own levels of student competency works to the betterment of the students. In some cases it hinders that effort.

Money Talks.

       Did you know that just over half of the citizens of America, 57.5%, voted in the 2012 elections? Half of all Americans eligible to vote didn't bother. Or were stopped from voting because of one form of obstruction or another. And by that I mean anything from no transportation to voter restrictions to just not caring. Now, if you asked how many citizens have complained about elected officials and their actions, I'd say about 85.5% fit that category. And of those who did not vote in 2012, the numbers look more like 95.5%
       But fair is fair. We're not required to vote. A lot of people just don't see the need to vote. After all, does our vote really count? Even if the candidate of our choice gets elected, the chances that he or she will carry out the promises he made to us is only about 10%. And if the other candidate gets elected you can bet there is no chance we'll see anything good come out of government.  So why should we vote?
       Then there's the constituents that matter the most and least. It amazes me that the constituents that matter the most when it comes to getting elected, at least on election day, are the voters. The people, the human citizens. The rest of the year the constituents that matter the most are the non-human kind and a few, very few, humans too. I speak of the corporations, the big ones that control the purse strings for the elections. And be honest. It is the money that speaks the loudest.
       Let's face it, you or I can call or write the newspaper about a political or governmental problem we think needs to be righted, or a politician we think is best suited for a position and maybe it will get printed, but not often. But let a major corporation send in a full page political ad or a commentary for the editorial page and you can bet it'll get printed. It's the money that talks.
       So why do so few people exercise their given right to vote or to their free speech? Because they are convinced their voices will not be heard. How come? Because money talks. And for some reason, the Supreme Court of the United States has insured that money will have a bigger and bigger place in the country's decision making process.