Monday, October 19, 2009

Boo-Hoo! Swimmers can't afford expensive swim suits.

The Post-Bulletin came-out today in support of a ban on high-tech swimsuits. I don’t agree with that, but maybe there is some common ground. Ban the high-tech Speedo!

But seriously. The PB (and others) are complaining that these high-tech swimsuits give the wearer an unfair advantage against which economically-disadvantaged swimmers can’t compete.


Private coaches offer an advantage. So do two-parent households where one is free to shuttle kids to practice. That’s life.

Hendrix couldn’t afford a proper left-handed guitar, he managed. My brother couldn't afford goalie equipment, he found something else he enjoyed: science. As a cross-country runner who couldn’t afford proper spikes, I couldn’t compete with those who did, but you know what? I completed against myself. If I bettered my previous time, then I won. Either way, life went on.

The playing field will never be level. Deal with it! But first deal with much larger issues like the fact that 20% of the world’s population doesn’t have potable water. Or, more than 40% of our urban high-schoolers are failing the classes they need to survive in our society.

Fix those inequities, *then* maybe we’ll find time to listen to the whines about proper swim attire.

If Healthcare is a right, why should we have to pay for it?

We don't pay a poll tax to exercise our right to vote and we don't pay for a license to exercise our right to free speech. So, if healthcare is a right, why should we have to pay anything at all for it? Shouldn't liposuction and hiatal hernia surgery be as cost-free as that “right” Minnesota guarantees in Doe v. Gomez?

Well, the answer is this: as it turns-out, we might *not* have to pay anything ... anything more than we do already. Here’s why. Most states already bridge insurance coverage to make it accessible and more affordable. In Minnesota, for example, this year’s budget for the “Health Care Access Fund” is $1.103 billion. With the federal government owning this responsibility, the state will need to collect less taxes, Significantly less. More than a billion less here in Minnesota.

Has anyone calculated this savings to state taxpayers? Probably not because most state legislators see this as a general fund windfall which they’re free to spend elsewhere. Let’s not let them.

No conversation on national healthcare should exclude a discussion on the state money that no longer needs to be collected for that same purpose.

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Bush was better at "Creating or Saving" jobs

If President Obama and congressional Democratic leaders insist on their disingenuous “created or saved” jobs nomenclature, isn’t it only a matter of time until someone points out the obvious: more people were working under the previous administration, 3.7 million to be exact, then thus-far under the current. Wouldn't that mean President Bush was better at “Creating or Saving” jobs than President Obama?

Figures lie and liars figure.
Update. I was ranting about the Obama administration taking credit for jobs saved when all the while I should have carped about their misrepresenting the number of jobs created. Yesterday (10/29) the AP reported that the number of jobs “created” by the stimulus was overstated by as much as tenfold. “... the AP found ... jobs credited to the stimulus program that were counted two and sometimes more than four times...” They found more dubious things, as well, for example “the Child Care Association of Brevard County in Cocoa, Fla., reported that the $98,669 ... received in stimulus money saved 129 jobs ... though the cash was used to give ... 129 employees a ... raise.” And, “Officials at East Central Technical College in Douglas, Ga., said they now know they shouldn't have claimed 280 stimulus jobs linked to more than $200,000 to buy trucks and trailers for commercial driving instruction, and a modular classroom and bathroom for a health education program.”