People of the Lie by Dr. Scott Peck
I’m a reader. I love the evolution of a story or the explanation of new ideas, the flow of the phrases, and the choice of the words; the way a book feels in my hands and the sound of the pages gently swishing against one another as they’re turned. I love curling up with a book in a comfortable chair near a window through which the rays of the Sun come in to the room, gently landing on the pages as if the Sun, too, wants to read.
The library has been a good friend over the decades, although I’ll admit to having purchased books over the years to add to my own amateur collection of paperbacks, textbooks, and bestsellers. We readers are like that; we always like to have a book near at hand.
And, readers know that books are worth reading more than once. Between the covers may rest words of history, of romance, of scientific theory, or of a life similar to or completely different than our own. There are some books that are timeless, books that contain questions or answers or perspectives that seem relevant regardless of the era or the changes in pop culture.
People of the Lie is one of them. Though a bestseller in the eighties, the words, the theories, the questions and possible solutions are still as relevant today. With the troubles facing our country, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, the economy, and a growing sense of dissatisfaction amongst the public, perhaps it is even more so.
The book attempts and succeeds in carefully holding up a mirror to our selves as individuals, as communities, and as a country. Delicately, though the sharing of stories and the explanation of theories, Dr. Peck helps us each to acknowledge the evil in each of us, how this evil typically manifests, and the responsibility that we hold in an interdependent world.
But, if creating an explanation, a definition, of human evil wasn’t enough of a task, Dr. Peck vividly examines how we are all interconnected, relating to one another in manners that, for better or worse, will have an effect on someone.
For those who have not yet read the book, it is a valuable resource, an aide in self-inspection and a path towards insight. Evil, as defined by Dr. Peck, is not what one might typically consider when they first hear the word: Satanic, Criminal, Insane. Rather, evil as defined by Dr. Peck is a much more common, though equally as destructive, series of behaviors that can govern someone’s relations with others.
Are you a parent? A child? A teacher? A student? A therapist? A patient? A human? This book applies to everyone and it has a great deal to offer the reader who is willing to do some deep psychological work. The true price may be, however, not the cost of the book but, rather, the willingness to look into that painful mirror that Dr. Peck so graciously holds up to our eyes.
Peck, Scott. People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil. New York. Simon and Schuster, 1983.
Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools by Jonathan Kozol
Although the words flow gracefully, Savage Inequalities is a difficult book to read. Written upon the pages is the truth, a substance that can sometimes be bitter to learn. However, it is truly a timeless book that should neither be discarded nor dismissed.
Jonathan Kozol placed a bright light on the inequalities between American schools when this book was published in the early nineties, and it is a light that reveals the disgrace that we, as citizens, have allowed to go on for far too long. Unfortunately, if one listened to President Obama’s speeches over the past year on the need for education reform, it was clear that some of these horrible conditions continue to exist.
So clearly, Kozol shows the talent, the brilliance we have wasted throughout time by not nurturing the minds of the youth who could have grown to be doctors or scientists or teachers. Without doubt, he describes how entire areas of families and children have been simply ignored, pushed aside, and forgotten as if they were unimportant; how attempts have been made to educate children in unsafe, unsanitary, and unsatisfactory conditions.
Although apathy appears present in some of the regions, it is an apathy born of having cries for help ignored for generations. Yet, apathy does not prevail; rather, there are still many crying out, fighting for the improvements to the schools, the equality guaranteed under the law, and an intent to try to educate all of the youth of tomorrow and encourage their potential.
Changes to the public school system, however, can only come when the public-at-large understands and knows of the crises in the public school system and the gross inequalities between the individual schools. By sharing with us his first-hand accounts of having visited some of these schools, of the research he uncovered on the issues, and of his conversations with school personnel, students, families, and leaders, Jonathan Kozol has pulled back the curtain to reveal to us these truly Savage Inequalities.
Kozol, Jonathan. Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools. New York. HarperPerennial, 1992.
Common Sense by Thomas Paine
Common Sense may have again found fame, in part, due to a copy of the book being a prop in the hit movie, National Treasure. But, this book contains timeless arguments, arguments that Paine originally authored anonymously, that are an important part of our national history.
Thomas Paine wrote an emotional publication that argued for our independence from Britain, and he punctuated the argument with stories, reminders of harsh British invasions and of the British military controlling the colonists on certain occasions.
As a written work, it is a legendary; as a photograph of our past, it is a timeless reminder of where our country once was, what many earlier people battled on the road to freedom, and all that has been won and lost along the way. Between the lines on the pages, there are quiet reminders of the souls that have been lost in wars past and wars still raging; there are the whispers of those who fought for and designed the historical documents that guarantee us our freedoms as well as the rights and responsibilities that come with that freedom; and there are gentle yet silent nudges to remind us that the freedoms that we have can be taken away if we ignore their value and, apathetically, allow them to slip from our grasp.
Although the book was primarily written about the need for America to be free of British rule, it could, with only a few slight changes, be an argument that would appropriately apply in any era to any situation in which the ruling power impeded progress, individual freedom, and national independence.
Although Common Sense can be found in hardback and paperback, it can be read on-line here:
http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/index.htm
People who enjoy reading the horror genre may enjoy any of the selections mentioned at
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1084088/frightening_tales.html?cat=38
For an additional 15 selections of both fiction and non-fiction in multiple genres with brief descriptions of the books, try
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/984972/15_mustread_books_you_may_have_overlooked.html?cat=38
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Comparing Prices for Medical Care
Yet another presidential press conference is over and America still has no information on exactly what the health care reform plan is, how much it will cost, or how the cost will be paid. We, as a nation, know nothing more about health care reform after the press conference than we did before it began.
Perhaps, however, President Obama was giving us a clue when he spoke about health care reform being necessary to control medical services and medical costs. Could he have meant that the government will, in part, control the services offered and the pricing—and therefore, the entire health care industry--of the medical professionals, the medical facilities, and the medical insurance companies?
It suggests a question: Isn’t there a much more economical manner by which to increase competition in the medical field and, therefore reduce medical expenses without the government purchasing and controlling the health care industry?
We diligently review the sale ads in the Sunday paper, comparing the price of paper towels, frozen vegetables, or the price per pound of ground beef. Before purchasing a home or a vehicle, we spend months comparing prices and locations and the options available.
Yet, we do not compare the cost-per-visit of one doctor to that of another. Why? Why do we not compare the cost of an x-ray or a CAT Scan, or a blood draw at a particular location verses nearby competitors. Perhaps it has been, in part, because the doctors send us to one particular location and we never question why. Perhaps it has been because the insurance companies dictate which medical facilities can be used by policyholders or patients of a particular doctor. Perhaps, it is simply because the pricing information has never been made public.
When was the last time you saw a piece of paper or an overhead neon sign stating the cost of any particular visit or medical test prior to being billed? We wouldn’t buy a meal at a restaurant without first knowing the price; we wouldn’t buy a new pair of jeans without knowing about how much we would spend at the register; we wouldn’t purchase gasoline not knowing the cost-per-gallon; so, why do we purchase medical care, visits and testing and hospital stays, without first learning of the cost and comparing that cost to that of the competitors during our non-emergencies?
Perhaps health care costs are so expensive not because of the insurance companies or the new technology, but because we, as medical consumers, have not been diligent in demanding to know the costs, and then comparison shopping when there is no emergency to make the decision for us.
Everyone would rather have good medical care as compared to simply the cheapest care available, but isn’t it feasible that if medical professionals and medical facilities were forced to publicize the costs of their services that this new knowledge for the consumer would, through competition, drive down medical costs? Facilities and medical professionals providing poor service will, in time, be weeded out and passed over like a fad diet plan that people realize does not work. So, there seems to be no risk in the patients being allowed to compare prices for health care and taking this information into consideration when choosing a personal physician or a location for surgery, etc.
After all, if there were two local physicians, equal in the quality of care they provide, why become the patient of one who charges $100 for an office visit as opposed to $50? If two hospitals provide equally comfortable and appropriate care to the patients, why stay at the one that charges $100 for an aspirin or $40 for a pillow when the other may offer more economical prices for the same care?
In emergencies, a patient wants knowledgeable professionals to do what needs to be done, regardless of the cost. But, most medical visits and treatments are not emergencies, providing us with time to make a decision based on our experiences with a particular medical facility or professional, our location in reference to a medical professional, our particular medical needs, and our finances—if we were only provided with the information.
And, it could all be done without a multi-trillion dollar health care reform bill that would unfairly tax the rich and remove basic American freedoms by controlling the individual health care choices of doctors and patients. What if the government decided that a particular medical test or a particular medical treatment was simply too expensive to allow even though the treating physician felt it necessary? Or, that you or your loved one was unworthy of receiving medical treatment?
Being able to compare the costs of medical services and make our own decisions regarding medical care instead of having the government make those decisions for us sounds like an alternative path that, when working with additional necessary health care reforms, might be a positive change.
Perhaps, however, President Obama was giving us a clue when he spoke about health care reform being necessary to control medical services and medical costs. Could he have meant that the government will, in part, control the services offered and the pricing—and therefore, the entire health care industry--of the medical professionals, the medical facilities, and the medical insurance companies?
It suggests a question: Isn’t there a much more economical manner by which to increase competition in the medical field and, therefore reduce medical expenses without the government purchasing and controlling the health care industry?
We diligently review the sale ads in the Sunday paper, comparing the price of paper towels, frozen vegetables, or the price per pound of ground beef. Before purchasing a home or a vehicle, we spend months comparing prices and locations and the options available.
Yet, we do not compare the cost-per-visit of one doctor to that of another. Why? Why do we not compare the cost of an x-ray or a CAT Scan, or a blood draw at a particular location verses nearby competitors. Perhaps it has been, in part, because the doctors send us to one particular location and we never question why. Perhaps it has been because the insurance companies dictate which medical facilities can be used by policyholders or patients of a particular doctor. Perhaps, it is simply because the pricing information has never been made public.
When was the last time you saw a piece of paper or an overhead neon sign stating the cost of any particular visit or medical test prior to being billed? We wouldn’t buy a meal at a restaurant without first knowing the price; we wouldn’t buy a new pair of jeans without knowing about how much we would spend at the register; we wouldn’t purchase gasoline not knowing the cost-per-gallon; so, why do we purchase medical care, visits and testing and hospital stays, without first learning of the cost and comparing that cost to that of the competitors during our non-emergencies?
Perhaps health care costs are so expensive not because of the insurance companies or the new technology, but because we, as medical consumers, have not been diligent in demanding to know the costs, and then comparison shopping when there is no emergency to make the decision for us.
Everyone would rather have good medical care as compared to simply the cheapest care available, but isn’t it feasible that if medical professionals and medical facilities were forced to publicize the costs of their services that this new knowledge for the consumer would, through competition, drive down medical costs? Facilities and medical professionals providing poor service will, in time, be weeded out and passed over like a fad diet plan that people realize does not work. So, there seems to be no risk in the patients being allowed to compare prices for health care and taking this information into consideration when choosing a personal physician or a location for surgery, etc.
After all, if there were two local physicians, equal in the quality of care they provide, why become the patient of one who charges $100 for an office visit as opposed to $50? If two hospitals provide equally comfortable and appropriate care to the patients, why stay at the one that charges $100 for an aspirin or $40 for a pillow when the other may offer more economical prices for the same care?
In emergencies, a patient wants knowledgeable professionals to do what needs to be done, regardless of the cost. But, most medical visits and treatments are not emergencies, providing us with time to make a decision based on our experiences with a particular medical facility or professional, our location in reference to a medical professional, our particular medical needs, and our finances—if we were only provided with the information.
And, it could all be done without a multi-trillion dollar health care reform bill that would unfairly tax the rich and remove basic American freedoms by controlling the individual health care choices of doctors and patients. What if the government decided that a particular medical test or a particular medical treatment was simply too expensive to allow even though the treating physician felt it necessary? Or, that you or your loved one was unworthy of receiving medical treatment?
Being able to compare the costs of medical services and make our own decisions regarding medical care instead of having the government make those decisions for us sounds like an alternative path that, when working with additional necessary health care reforms, might be a positive change.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
"And, I mean it!"
What? “And, I mean it?” I’ve been considering that comment for days, now.
As I watched the presidential speech regarding health care reform orated by President Obama on July 17th, I couldn’t help but be surprised at the comment: “And, I mean it!” It seemed out-of-character and as though the usually intelligent, eloquent speaker could think of no other effective way to establish his point.
President Obama stressed in his speech that health care reform will be completed this year. My initial reaction: Why? If health care reform is so important to so many people, why rush such an important piece of legislation that will completely alter how health care operates in this country. Wouldn’t the American people prefer health care reform that better suited the needs and wants of the people and the medical professionals, even if it required another year or two to tweak the details and make certain we could pay for it, as opposed to quick legislation that will cause us more financial and health care problems than we have now? What is the sudden rush?
Another point President Obama made was that health care reform would not increase the deficit as some have been recently reporting. Yet, “And, I mean it,” did absolutely nothing to answer the questions of the country or increase confidence, particularly when coming from the administration who “misread” the economy, thereby trying to explain why unemployment has risen higher than predicted.
Although President Obama seemed fairly certain where two-thirds of the cost of health care reform will come from, he failed to thoroughly explain who or how the final third would be paid; more importantly, he did not explain how cutting Medicare and Medicaid would not increase the health care problems and costs facing the growing population of the elderly. Furthermore, if a portion of the program will be funded by eliminating wasteful government spending, then why hasn’t the wasteful spending been eliminated already, health reform or not? And, of course, the issue of increasing taxes on a very small percentage of wealthy Americans to pay for a number of reforms for the majority of Americans still weighs heavily on the conscience of many.
Perhaps instead of worrying about achieving health care reform at a rapid pace, President Obama and his administration need to spend more quality time working on unemployment rates, on the economy, although the economy and health care costs are related. It’s no wonder that the comments regarding jobs created or saved due to the Stimulus have ceased coming from the administration; people realize that it has no meaning when millions have lost their income since the Stimulus, not to mention that the administration has not even attempted to specifically cite which jobs have been “saved.” (A field is not a specific job.)
Now, there are rumors abounding of the possibility of a second Stimulus even though only a tiny fragment of the original Stimulus has been spent. Perhaps this is because the Stimulus truly wasn’t a “stimulus” but, rather, a long-term spending plan that had little, if anything, to do with the current state of the economy. A second stimulus would likely be no different.
In addition to health care, many institutions in America are in need of reform, but that does not mean that they must all be reformed at the same time or that America can throw money we neither have nor will have at projects we can’t afford. America has always been a nation of proud, hard-working people who prefer to earn the income for the house, groceries and various other expenses. And, what people want at this time more than any reform is good, full-time jobs.
And, I mean it.
As I watched the presidential speech regarding health care reform orated by President Obama on July 17th, I couldn’t help but be surprised at the comment: “And, I mean it!” It seemed out-of-character and as though the usually intelligent, eloquent speaker could think of no other effective way to establish his point.
President Obama stressed in his speech that health care reform will be completed this year. My initial reaction: Why? If health care reform is so important to so many people, why rush such an important piece of legislation that will completely alter how health care operates in this country. Wouldn’t the American people prefer health care reform that better suited the needs and wants of the people and the medical professionals, even if it required another year or two to tweak the details and make certain we could pay for it, as opposed to quick legislation that will cause us more financial and health care problems than we have now? What is the sudden rush?
Another point President Obama made was that health care reform would not increase the deficit as some have been recently reporting. Yet, “And, I mean it,” did absolutely nothing to answer the questions of the country or increase confidence, particularly when coming from the administration who “misread” the economy, thereby trying to explain why unemployment has risen higher than predicted.
Although President Obama seemed fairly certain where two-thirds of the cost of health care reform will come from, he failed to thoroughly explain who or how the final third would be paid; more importantly, he did not explain how cutting Medicare and Medicaid would not increase the health care problems and costs facing the growing population of the elderly. Furthermore, if a portion of the program will be funded by eliminating wasteful government spending, then why hasn’t the wasteful spending been eliminated already, health reform or not? And, of course, the issue of increasing taxes on a very small percentage of wealthy Americans to pay for a number of reforms for the majority of Americans still weighs heavily on the conscience of many.
Perhaps instead of worrying about achieving health care reform at a rapid pace, President Obama and his administration need to spend more quality time working on unemployment rates, on the economy, although the economy and health care costs are related. It’s no wonder that the comments regarding jobs created or saved due to the Stimulus have ceased coming from the administration; people realize that it has no meaning when millions have lost their income since the Stimulus, not to mention that the administration has not even attempted to specifically cite which jobs have been “saved.” (A field is not a specific job.)
Now, there are rumors abounding of the possibility of a second Stimulus even though only a tiny fragment of the original Stimulus has been spent. Perhaps this is because the Stimulus truly wasn’t a “stimulus” but, rather, a long-term spending plan that had little, if anything, to do with the current state of the economy. A second stimulus would likely be no different.
In addition to health care, many institutions in America are in need of reform, but that does not mean that they must all be reformed at the same time or that America can throw money we neither have nor will have at projects we can’t afford. America has always been a nation of proud, hard-working people who prefer to earn the income for the house, groceries and various other expenses. And, what people want at this time more than any reform is good, full-time jobs.
And, I mean it.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Electric Cars: More Expensive Than They Seem
It’s fascinating, this concept of an automobile that needs no gasoline, that requires only to be plugged in at the end of each day. It sounds low-maintenance and inexpensive; it sounds environmentally friendly and “green”; it sounds so simplistic that anyone could take care of such a vehicle.
One of the primary reasons people dislike electric vehicles, however, is that a fully charged battery typically will not allow an owner to drive more than a few miles, forty or fifty seeming the average. This isn’t exactly convenient for someone commuting to work from a rural area or seeking the adventure of a lifetime by driving cross-country. Yet other reasons have included the lack of charging-up stations and the expensive up-front cost at a dealership.
But, is there another expense that has gone unnoticed and undisclosed by those promoting electric vehicles?
Electric vehicles are powered by batteries that are charged by plugging them in to electrical outlets. One can only assume that something as large as a vehicle would require quite a large-sized battery and a healthy dose of electricity to charge it.
Electric lawnmowers are quite small, and yet the batteries typically last one to two seasons before the battery must be replaced with a new one (and even a new battery usually requires twelve to twenty-four hours to fully charge, a charge that lasts approximately one hour). Cell phone batteries are very distant relatives of the electric car, and, yet, after about two years, newly charged cell phone batteries lose their ability to maintain a charge for a two-minute phone call. Are we in for the same problem with electric cars? Would we have an expensive vehicle in the garage that would require a new battery every couple of years to hold a charge and fully power the vehicle? Is this a “green” gimmick, a way to force the consumer into future mandatory purchases of new batteries and electrical supplies?
The battery for an electric lawnmower can range from fifty dollars to two hundred dollars, depending on the size and power of the lawnmower and the manufacturer. Cell phones are upgraded by the companies so quickly that the purchase of a battery style manufactured two years ago is usually more expensive than purchasing a new phone with a brand new style battery. Since both of these items are much less powerful than that of an automobile, one has no reasonable manner by which to estimate how much a new electric car battery would be, how quickly the manufacturers would produce a new battery style, how often the battery would need to be replaced, or if a specialized certified mechanic in electric vehicles would be required to remove or install such a battery. Considering, however, that they would be the brain of the entire vehicle, one can only imagine that they would be expensive.
The closest answers to this question that I’ve found has been at this article written by Christopher Lampton on HowStuffWorks:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/vehicles/electric-car-battery4.htm
For anyone wanting more knowledge about electric vehicles, Lampton has written an informative article, and suggests that a battery will likely last approximately 100,000 miles and cost nearly $10,000 to replace, although they were speaking of an expensive sports car.
Montana Green Power, which can be located at
http://www.montanagreenpower.com/faq/hev.php#Q10
offers another viewpoint in regard to hybrid vehicles, saying that the batteries can last up through 200,000 miles, and adding that some batteries are covered by a warranty and that the batteries are seldom replaced. Still, in a hybrid vehicle the gasoline engine is sometimes used and, more importantly, the FAQ begs a question: If a battery is expensive to replace or is simply not replaced, then are we going to be driving disposable cars? Won’t this fill the landfills and junk yards very quickly and be very expensive in many different ways?
Richard Thomas wrote an article on eHow that can be found at
http://www.ehow.com/about_4674805_batteries-have-replaced-hybrid-cars.html
and suggests a battery replacement on a hybrid will average $3000 to $6000, but should one battery should last if you own your vehicle for only a few years. But, then, would you be able to trade-in or sell an electric car with a near-dead battery without taking a loss or purchasing a new battery? This question is especially important if new style batteries won’t work in older—say two or three years—models.
At this point, it’s impossible to know how well electric cars will operate, how long the parts, including the battery, will last, what the average cost of regular maintenance will be, or how much replacement parts will cost. However, the question regarding the battery, in particular, prohibits in many the desire for an electric vehicle.
One of the primary reasons people dislike electric vehicles, however, is that a fully charged battery typically will not allow an owner to drive more than a few miles, forty or fifty seeming the average. This isn’t exactly convenient for someone commuting to work from a rural area or seeking the adventure of a lifetime by driving cross-country. Yet other reasons have included the lack of charging-up stations and the expensive up-front cost at a dealership.
But, is there another expense that has gone unnoticed and undisclosed by those promoting electric vehicles?
Electric vehicles are powered by batteries that are charged by plugging them in to electrical outlets. One can only assume that something as large as a vehicle would require quite a large-sized battery and a healthy dose of electricity to charge it.
Electric lawnmowers are quite small, and yet the batteries typically last one to two seasons before the battery must be replaced with a new one (and even a new battery usually requires twelve to twenty-four hours to fully charge, a charge that lasts approximately one hour). Cell phone batteries are very distant relatives of the electric car, and, yet, after about two years, newly charged cell phone batteries lose their ability to maintain a charge for a two-minute phone call. Are we in for the same problem with electric cars? Would we have an expensive vehicle in the garage that would require a new battery every couple of years to hold a charge and fully power the vehicle? Is this a “green” gimmick, a way to force the consumer into future mandatory purchases of new batteries and electrical supplies?
The battery for an electric lawnmower can range from fifty dollars to two hundred dollars, depending on the size and power of the lawnmower and the manufacturer. Cell phones are upgraded by the companies so quickly that the purchase of a battery style manufactured two years ago is usually more expensive than purchasing a new phone with a brand new style battery. Since both of these items are much less powerful than that of an automobile, one has no reasonable manner by which to estimate how much a new electric car battery would be, how quickly the manufacturers would produce a new battery style, how often the battery would need to be replaced, or if a specialized certified mechanic in electric vehicles would be required to remove or install such a battery. Considering, however, that they would be the brain of the entire vehicle, one can only imagine that they would be expensive.
The closest answers to this question that I’ve found has been at this article written by Christopher Lampton on HowStuffWorks:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/vehicles/electric-car-battery4.htm
For anyone wanting more knowledge about electric vehicles, Lampton has written an informative article, and suggests that a battery will likely last approximately 100,000 miles and cost nearly $10,000 to replace, although they were speaking of an expensive sports car.
Montana Green Power, which can be located at
http://www.montanagreenpower.com/faq/hev.php#Q10
offers another viewpoint in regard to hybrid vehicles, saying that the batteries can last up through 200,000 miles, and adding that some batteries are covered by a warranty and that the batteries are seldom replaced. Still, in a hybrid vehicle the gasoline engine is sometimes used and, more importantly, the FAQ begs a question: If a battery is expensive to replace or is simply not replaced, then are we going to be driving disposable cars? Won’t this fill the landfills and junk yards very quickly and be very expensive in many different ways?
Richard Thomas wrote an article on eHow that can be found at
http://www.ehow.com/about_4674805_batteries-have-replaced-hybrid-cars.html
and suggests a battery replacement on a hybrid will average $3000 to $6000, but should one battery should last if you own your vehicle for only a few years. But, then, would you be able to trade-in or sell an electric car with a near-dead battery without taking a loss or purchasing a new battery? This question is especially important if new style batteries won’t work in older—say two or three years—models.
At this point, it’s impossible to know how well electric cars will operate, how long the parts, including the battery, will last, what the average cost of regular maintenance will be, or how much replacement parts will cost. However, the question regarding the battery, in particular, prohibits in many the desire for an electric vehicle.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Have We Lost Sight of the American Dream?
I’m not rich, nor have I ever been. Not even close. Yet, I am not in favor of taxing the wealthy to pay for new legislation.
Have we lost sight of the American Dream? Have we forgotten what made this country great to begin with?
For generations, families have immigrated to America with nothing but a few coins in their pockets and dreams of freedom. Many worked hard, applying themselves tirelessly as they walked along a path toward their goals, knowing that in America someone can arrive with nothing, work diligently, and build a business, a life, or even a fortune—all because of freedom.
And, the pride they felt inspired them to teach their children to do the same.
If there were two neighbors, exactly the same in every way except that one chose to take a financial risk and start their own business, and say that that risk along with hard work increased the family income to anywhere over $250,000, why should the risk-taker be punished for their talent, their personal time and financial sacrifices, their work? Isn’t this the same as punishing someone for chasing and obtaining the American dream?
Yet, this is exactly what we, as a nation, will be doing if taxes are raised on the wealthy to pay for health care reform, the stimulus bill, any other legislation, or to pay down the deficit. It will, in fact, kill what is left of the American dream.
Over the years, many people have scratched and saved pennies, gone without necessities, worked multiple jobs, sacrificed time they could have spent with their families, and worked until their fingers bled on the road to the American dream. It was a time when perseverance and working toward the dream was respected, honored, and achieving the dream was praised and complimented. Now, however, we seem to be choosing to punish this unique group of individuals.
If pursuing the dream will result in punishment, then many will choose not to pursue it at all; or, they will choose to only follow the road part of the way so as not to risk venturing in to the territory of punishment, each an action that would result in fewer growing businesses and fewer jobs. And, for those earning far below these amounts considered wealthy, there will be no encouragement to work to improve their own situation. In essence, placing additional taxes on higher wage earners will only work to weaken the morale of a people, to keep down a population, and to disrupt—if not destroy—an economy.
We need the American dream. We need to foster an atmosphere of encouragement and inspiration that will aid people in following the American dream, in becoming the best that they can be--even if their best is better than our own.
We need the American dream. We need to allow people to use their talent, their ideas, and their fortitude as they build and create and, in the process, help to build and create a stronger nation, a stronger people, and better opportunities for everyone.
Were it not for the American dream, we wouldn’t have local newspapers or national magazines; we wouldn’t have historical works of fiction and non-fiction and we wouldn’t have timeless paintings; we wouldn’t have the local diner down on the town square or the shop where a local family makes handmade furniture; we wouldn’t have the stories of the person who had an idea, put their savings on the line, began selling an item out of their house, and now are national household names.
We need the American dream. It is the foundation of our country, our freedom, and it is the driving force that propels us toward improvement, toward being something better tomorrow than what we are today. It is the ingenuity that has created inventions that have saved lives, simplified tasks, or simply brought about a laugh. We need the American dream because it is America.
We need the American dream. And, what we really can not afford is to lose sight of it.
Have we lost sight of the American Dream? Have we forgotten what made this country great to begin with?
For generations, families have immigrated to America with nothing but a few coins in their pockets and dreams of freedom. Many worked hard, applying themselves tirelessly as they walked along a path toward their goals, knowing that in America someone can arrive with nothing, work diligently, and build a business, a life, or even a fortune—all because of freedom.
And, the pride they felt inspired them to teach their children to do the same.
If there were two neighbors, exactly the same in every way except that one chose to take a financial risk and start their own business, and say that that risk along with hard work increased the family income to anywhere over $250,000, why should the risk-taker be punished for their talent, their personal time and financial sacrifices, their work? Isn’t this the same as punishing someone for chasing and obtaining the American dream?
Yet, this is exactly what we, as a nation, will be doing if taxes are raised on the wealthy to pay for health care reform, the stimulus bill, any other legislation, or to pay down the deficit. It will, in fact, kill what is left of the American dream.
Over the years, many people have scratched and saved pennies, gone without necessities, worked multiple jobs, sacrificed time they could have spent with their families, and worked until their fingers bled on the road to the American dream. It was a time when perseverance and working toward the dream was respected, honored, and achieving the dream was praised and complimented. Now, however, we seem to be choosing to punish this unique group of individuals.
If pursuing the dream will result in punishment, then many will choose not to pursue it at all; or, they will choose to only follow the road part of the way so as not to risk venturing in to the territory of punishment, each an action that would result in fewer growing businesses and fewer jobs. And, for those earning far below these amounts considered wealthy, there will be no encouragement to work to improve their own situation. In essence, placing additional taxes on higher wage earners will only work to weaken the morale of a people, to keep down a population, and to disrupt—if not destroy—an economy.
We need the American dream. We need to foster an atmosphere of encouragement and inspiration that will aid people in following the American dream, in becoming the best that they can be--even if their best is better than our own.
We need the American dream. We need to allow people to use their talent, their ideas, and their fortitude as they build and create and, in the process, help to build and create a stronger nation, a stronger people, and better opportunities for everyone.
Were it not for the American dream, we wouldn’t have local newspapers or national magazines; we wouldn’t have historical works of fiction and non-fiction and we wouldn’t have timeless paintings; we wouldn’t have the local diner down on the town square or the shop where a local family makes handmade furniture; we wouldn’t have the stories of the person who had an idea, put their savings on the line, began selling an item out of their house, and now are national household names.
We need the American dream. It is the foundation of our country, our freedom, and it is the driving force that propels us toward improvement, toward being something better tomorrow than what we are today. It is the ingenuity that has created inventions that have saved lives, simplified tasks, or simply brought about a laugh. We need the American dream because it is America.
We need the American dream. And, what we really can not afford is to lose sight of it.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
What Could You Do With $18 Million?
ABC reported on July 6, 2009, in a report that can be read at
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/07/18m-being-spent-to-redesign-recoverygov-web-site.html
that the government is planning on spending nearly ten million in tax dollars through January and up to $18 Million in tax dollars over the next few years to improve the recovery.gov website, the site that is to offer transparency to America by showing us where and how our Stimulus tax dollars have been spent.
$18 Million is a huge amount of money, and money that could be spent in very worthwhile ways. So, what could you do with $18 Million?
Well….
$18 Million could pay a $40,000 salary for one year to 450 unemployed workers with families to support.
Donate the $18 Million to Feeding America (formally known as Second Harvest Food Bank) and it could supply 180 million pounds of food and groceries to hungry children and families in the U.S.
$18 Million could purchase approximately 6 million gallons of gasoline for workers looking for employment or trying to get to work.
$18 Million could pay $2000 to 9000 homes with payments in arrears or at risk of foreclosure.
It could purchase 600,000 pairs of shoes costing $30 or less for the homeless or displaced workers looking for employment in new fields or the children of the unemployed. Or, it could buy 180,000 complete outfits for displaced workers in need of appropriate clothing for a job interview.
Or, it could buy nearly 15 million bottles of water for the military or for disaster assistance agencies.
Or, it could purchase health insurance for approximately 36,000 people for one month.
Or, it could purchase 180,000 medical prescriptions or prescription eye glasses costing $100 or less for the children or the elderly.
Or, it could provide over 9 million meals for the homeless.
$18 Million could provide 1800 $10,000 college scholarships.
If the new fuel-efficient vehicles cost an average of $50,000, then $18 Million could put 360 of those cars on the road to replace gas-guzzlers.
If it would cost $72,000 or less to install solar panels on a home (the cost varies according to size and usage), then $18 Million could do this for 250 homes. Or, it could purchase and install 9 wind turbines.
If a new electric push-mower cost $800 or less (costs vary according to type and power and some go as low as $200), then the $18 Million could replace over 22,500 carbon-emitting gasoline push-mowers with electric models.
If a grade school or high school teacher earned $45,000 per year, the $18 Million could pay the salary of 400 teachers for one year. Or, it could pay the same salary to 400 nurses.
Or, it could be used to train 45,000 people to be a Certified Nursing Assistant.
It could purchase over 12,000 new computers for public schools. Or, it could purchase over 360,000 new textbooks for public schools. Or, it could purchase approximately 6 million school lunches or breakfasts for underprivileged children.
If you had the ability to spend these tax dollars however you wanted, what could you do with $18 Million?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/07/18m-being-spent-to-redesign-recoverygov-web-site.html
that the government is planning on spending nearly ten million in tax dollars through January and up to $18 Million in tax dollars over the next few years to improve the recovery.gov website, the site that is to offer transparency to America by showing us where and how our Stimulus tax dollars have been spent.
$18 Million is a huge amount of money, and money that could be spent in very worthwhile ways. So, what could you do with $18 Million?
Well….
$18 Million could pay a $40,000 salary for one year to 450 unemployed workers with families to support.
Donate the $18 Million to Feeding America (formally known as Second Harvest Food Bank) and it could supply 180 million pounds of food and groceries to hungry children and families in the U.S.
$18 Million could purchase approximately 6 million gallons of gasoline for workers looking for employment or trying to get to work.
$18 Million could pay $2000 to 9000 homes with payments in arrears or at risk of foreclosure.
It could purchase 600,000 pairs of shoes costing $30 or less for the homeless or displaced workers looking for employment in new fields or the children of the unemployed. Or, it could buy 180,000 complete outfits for displaced workers in need of appropriate clothing for a job interview.
Or, it could buy nearly 15 million bottles of water for the military or for disaster assistance agencies.
Or, it could purchase health insurance for approximately 36,000 people for one month.
Or, it could purchase 180,000 medical prescriptions or prescription eye glasses costing $100 or less for the children or the elderly.
Or, it could provide over 9 million meals for the homeless.
$18 Million could provide 1800 $10,000 college scholarships.
If the new fuel-efficient vehicles cost an average of $50,000, then $18 Million could put 360 of those cars on the road to replace gas-guzzlers.
If it would cost $72,000 or less to install solar panels on a home (the cost varies according to size and usage), then $18 Million could do this for 250 homes. Or, it could purchase and install 9 wind turbines.
If a new electric push-mower cost $800 or less (costs vary according to type and power and some go as low as $200), then the $18 Million could replace over 22,500 carbon-emitting gasoline push-mowers with electric models.
If a grade school or high school teacher earned $45,000 per year, the $18 Million could pay the salary of 400 teachers for one year. Or, it could pay the same salary to 400 nurses.
Or, it could be used to train 45,000 people to be a Certified Nursing Assistant.
It could purchase over 12,000 new computers for public schools. Or, it could purchase over 360,000 new textbooks for public schools. Or, it could purchase approximately 6 million school lunches or breakfasts for underprivileged children.
If you had the ability to spend these tax dollars however you wanted, what could you do with $18 Million?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)