Wednesday - February 16, 2005

Reader’s Corner: Post Three

Steel brought up a point that I am struggling with but feel has enough merit to post about.

A few days ago I wrote about how the MSM is have a tizzy fit over the proposed cuts in the VA budget.

Allan followed up with a chart which showed it was actually GOING UP 2.7%!!

This led Steel to email me with a very valid point but my problem is I can not seem to be able to substantiate the actual numbers of people involved in the same situation Steel is in.  I will post what he sent me so you can read and then I want you all to hear me out.

Here is his first post:

I am a vet on total disability. My pension is 846.00 @ month. It goes up adjusted to inflation. Approximately 3% per year.

SSI is supplemental security income. The threshold for qualification is, and has been, about 8 dollars shy of ‘total disability’ from the VA. This too, increases with the cost of living annually. Approximately 3%. (actually, I think the figure is 3.4% for both)

Therefore, I can’t get it.

Now you may have heard that W’s budget seeks to limit the increase in the VA’s budget to 2.7%

The left screams outrage. But wait a minute.

If the annual increase in my benefits is restricted to 2.7%, then next year I will be under the SSI threshold and thusly ... qualify. Full SSI for me would be about 850.00 a month, thereby doubling my income.

I suspect that this is intentional. It is a sneaky, under-the-radar way of increasing vet’s benefits. If the left doesn’t get wind of it, they can’t fuck it up. BUT, if I’m right it’s a story that would be headline material tomorrow ... BIG TIME!!!

And if it’s brought to fore, then W gets a big hand. And the left can’t say no.

Now stop and think about this for a moment. If my assumption is correct, well then yahoo and bully for Bush. If I’m off a bit, then it COULD become a movement for all the vets to say, ‘We want to contribute and we don’t need the annual increase’. In so doing, they double their pensions. Elegant no?

So I wrote him back trying to get a better feel for what he meant.  I also had concerns about the actual total number of people eligible.  His response was this: (stuff in parenthesis is mine for clarification)

SSI is a program for disabled people run by the SSA as an adjunct. The qualifying threshold for SSI has historically been a few dollars less than total VA disability.

For instance. When I first started getting my VA, I got 812.00 per month and the threshold for (getting) SSI was 805.00.

Both go up the cost of living index annually so ... I will always be about eight bucks away from getting SSI.

I’m not retired (from the military). I’m 56. AND I have never put enough into Social Security to get any payments were I 62. Avoided working in system for very long time. And knew I’d never see 60.

But anyone can get SSI. Provided they are disabled.

TWO DIFFERENT THINGS ENTIRELY.

Now if the VA’s pension is limited to 2.7% and SSI still goes up 3.4% ... I’ll get SSI next year. Because I will be under the threshold. Remember, the cost of living index is tied to annual inflation. Should be about 4% this year.

Full SSI is the same as the threshold amount. Should be about 838.00 this year since I get 846.00 per month. Do you follow?

I don’t know how many vets are on full disability (but) it’s a bunch. THAT is why SSI is under our reach. The dollars would be significant.

Also, SSI will not let you reject the difference back to the VA to qualify. It’s a catch 22 that has been in place for ‘Nam vets for YEARS.

IF this is not the case ... then vets should rally to ... give back the COL increase to help with ... ‘whatever’ for a year and THEN would qualify for SSI. Doubling the income for totally disabled vets.

He went on to say:

Based on the vets I’ve met while in or around the hospital, the number will be huge. A couple of hundred thousand I imagine nationwide. Not many ‘Nam vets on SSA yet. But plenty are labeled ‘total’ disabled. Agent Orange is one reason. Soon, Gulf War Syndrome. The situation affects any vet not yet 62 who is totally disabled and not yet retired with pension. They can be disabled for any reason. Car wreck for instance. Cancer for instance. Drug dependency for instance. 

OK, readers.  Here’s the part I want you to bear with me on.  To try and find this info, maintain the blog, do my yard work, eat, do daily chores, read/respond to emails, do research and such takes up most of my day and part of my night.  Plus I am on dial-up (OK, OK, damn it!  I think I may go to cable really soon as the DSL thing did not work out.)

So, if any of you can find it, will you let me know how many people are disabled vets in the US that fall under this threshold?

And is the next raise REALLY 2.7% or is that just the increase in the budget (as both numbers seem to be identical)

So far I found this site which says:

The amount of basic benefit paid ranges from $106 to $2,239 per month, depending on how disabled you are.

At the VA site I saw this. By clicking on the first link you can see a spreadsheet with numbers of vets but I could not break the codes.

So if anyone can help here, it just might mean that Steel may be on to something.  And President Bush may be doing our vets one hell of a great service.  I would just feel better knowing how many vets fall under that threshold he mentions as this could really be a wedge to throw at those who claim to want to help vets but ignore this little loophole.

   Tuesday - February 15, 2005

Didn’t See This One Coming, Did You?

Pardon me while I laugh my ass off ........

BWAH-HAH-HAH-HA-HA-HA ....

Wanna hear a great joke? Sure you do!

First, government has been harassing automobile manufacturers for decades to make cars more fuel efficient and to build cars that run on alternative fuels - other than gasoline.

Second, consumers have been buying up cars with better gas mileage and even buying hybrid cars that don’t use gasoline.

Third, the Feds and the various state governments pay for road repairs and new road construction with taxes on gasoline sold. As much as .50, .60, .70 cents per gallon of every gallon of gasoline sold in some states.

You already know where this joke is going, don’t you?

The PunchLine: Because of points ONE and TWO above, point THREE is “sucking hind tit” as my redneck friends say. In other words, the feds and the states now have a revenue shortfall and cannot afford the upkeep on our nation’s highways.

But don’t worry. They’re mulling over the idea to tax drivers BY THE MILE instead of by the gallon.

As Confucius Say: Never understimate resourcefulness of politician who already have hand in your pocket.

   Saturday - February 12, 2005

Progress

My, how times change. It was only a hundred years ago that these children as young as five and six years old worked for twelve to sixteen hours a day, six days a week without a break for meals in hot, stuffy, poorly lit, overcrowded factories to earn as little as four dollars per week. Thanks to public opinion and labor unions, these conditions changed radically. Nowadays, labor unions are still fighting management. Have we gone too far? What say you?

   Thursday - February 10, 2005

Pissing Off Unions, Wal-Mart Style

I love it!  The unions got greedy and were trying to force growth of employee numbers at the expense of the company.  Sort of like government bureaucracies.  Once you start one, they will find ways to convince you they need to grow to “meet the needs” of the people they serve even though what they are doing has nothing at all to do with their core competencies.

Same thing applies here.

The union’s demands would have forced the retailer to add 30 people to the existing payroll of 190, and guarantee many workers additional hours, he said.

In Florida the voters passed an amendment that raised the minimum wage.  When I ask people if they will be getting 20% better service or if the workers will be 20% more productive the answer is no.  So I then ask why it is we’ve just given them a 20% raise?

No answer.

Again, the same applies here:  if the union could have convinced Wal-Mart that the additional workers and hours would have resulted in equally increased sales volume and profits, I am certain Wal-Mart would have agreed.

But it’s all a shell game with unions.

GOOD FOR WAL-MART!  Now the people in that area can go blame the unions for the loss of 970 jobs. (but they won’t. It’s the people’s Republic of Canada, after all, so it HAS to be the E-E-E-Evil corporation’s fault.)

   Wednesday - February 09, 2005

A Budget Follow-up--The VA Cuts

Yesterday I posed a question more or less along these lines:  “if budget cuts are so steep this year why is it that nowhere can I find any numbers actually corroborating it?”

Of course we can’t find the justification for calling “cuts” “STEEP” because it’s all bullshit. For one, the budget is not getting “CUT!” Of course, to the panty-waisted pinko-fucktards of the media (to include most Democrats in this country) any reduction from “projected” numbers is considered a “cut.” Yet they will not admit that to roll back a tax cut is called a “tax increase.” Typical double standard hypocrisy.

A reader posed a question related to the “cuts” in the VA budget.  She wanted to know how she could justify to a leftist colleague the increases in fee structure for VA services.

Well, I dug up a bunch of stories on the subject but for the life of me could not find an answer to explain how the cuts would affect which people.

But I can relate a personal observation of what may be going on.

I had a neighbor who had his own insurance plan. He was 82 and served in the Navy back in WW II.  Then President Bush came into office and increased benefits.  (note: VA funding has CLIMBED 47% in 5 years!!) Anyway, this neighbor has a lot of money.  Two of his sons are millionaires.  My neighbor jumped ship and went to the VA for treatment.  Why?  Because it was cheaper than his insurance.  Of course. 

It’s a function of supply and demand.  Similar to what happened here a few years ago with HMOs.  Hernando County was on the verge of losing its last HMO and the blue-hair crowd was in a tizzy.  Then all of a sudden the government increased the amount disbursed per person to HMOs for Hernando residents (we were the low guys on the totem pole in Florida for reimbursement.) Now there are 4 HMOs here.  Co-pays which used to be $10 or $20 are now $5.  Pharmacy co-pays which used to be $7 or $10 or $20 are now zero in many cases.

And the liberals are telling you there is no crisis in Medicare?  When money rains down like manna from heaven for these programs?  No crisis?  Yeah, right!

Anyway, I think the president’s new proposed co-pay program will make people re-evaluate where they get care. VA should be for those most needing it (sort of like a Medicaid for military guys) I’m a 26 year veteran.  I do not use VA.  Frankly, it’d be the last place I’d go to.  Given they blew almost a BILLION dollars on a computer program that DOES NOT work, I can not be too enthused about their reliability of care.

So it’s about time this happens. 

I may change my mind when someone can show me more numbers proving that those who make little money will get hurt by this but be prepared, I will take no prisoners in the debate.

So read this article. And this one. And this one. And this one. And this one. And this one.

Bear in mind that you will have to read between the lines on them.  The President wants “better off” vets to pay more of their way.  Also bear in mind that the biggest screaming is coming from the liberals.  Once you begin a government entitlement program and they start sucking off that tit, they will scream if you threaten to remove it.

Why else does everyone have their knickers in a twist over the fact the president is not increasing the budget?  They call it cuts.  I call it not increasing it as much as they want.  Tell me one time federal spending has DECREASED?

Notice they all say about the same but none give firm numbers for the means testing.

One last thing:  the VA budget gets a 2.7% increase in 2006.  Some “CUT” huh?

---

The begging cup is out.  Please donate so we can stay in business.  Thanks!

   Tuesday - February 08, 2005

Helping Vilmar Understand

All right. Here are the figures from the Congressional Budget Office. Notice anything funny? Where are the steep cuts the MSM are talking about? The overall budget is growing. Why? Ragheads are trying to kill us is why. Also, we added a whole new cabinet-level department a few years ago (Homeland Security). How does President Bush propose to balance this? By cutting certain social programs that are not performing, i.e., have not provided measureable results in decades. Also, we are coming out of a recession and GDP is growing so revenues are growing.

You can dig through all the facts and figures at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) main web page.

You can also read the overview of the 2006 budget here (91KB PDF).

BMEWS: “When you want to get it straight, get it here.”

Memo: For those who don’t understand how the federal budget works, here is a little primer: (1) the federal fiscal year (FY) begins October 1 of each year, (2) the current fiscal year budget is the 2005 budget, (3) the budget submitted to Congress by President Bush this week is the 2006 proposed budget, (4) since we are currently in the 2005 FY, the figures are estimated due to the fact that outlays and revenues may change before September 30 when the current FY ends, (5) the budget everyone is arguing over now is for spending that starts October 1, 2005, (6) the budget’s “receipts” come rolling into the federal government every day from taxes - in other words, the feds squeeze their money out of us long before they get ready to spend it. That last point is called “taxation with representation”. Feel better now?

The Bottom Line: Here are Departmental impacts (budget increase/decrease) ....
Department Of Defense: +4.5%
Department Of State: +15.6%
Department Of Labor: -4.4%
Department Of Transportation: -1%
Department Of Interior: -1.1%
Department Of Education: -1%
Department Of Treasury: +3.9%
Department Of Agriculture: -9.6%
Department Of Veterans Affairs: +2.7%
Department Of Energy: -2%
Department Of Housing & Urban Development: -11.5%
Department Of Health & Human Services: -1.2%

Help Me Understand

Maybe it’s the lack of coffee, maybe it’s reading so much so early, maybe it’s reading so many emails, maybe it’s because I am so stupid but I need help here.

I have links to two stories.  Both claim the President’s budget proposed STEEP cuts.  I’ve read these articles twice.  All I see are “projections” for future year deficits.  Estimates of this year’s deficit.  The amount of the budget itself.  I see estimates of tax cut amounts and defense budget increase amounts.

But nowhere do I see a “HARD” figure stating EXACTLY how much he’s reducing it by.

I want to know where the “STEEP” in “STEEP BUDGET CUTS” is.

Can you help?

See for yourselves here and here.

Oh, and try here, too.

   Friday - February 04, 2005

The Democratic Mantra

Not a day goes by that the Democraps moan and groan about how bad the economy is.  Yet in the same breath they will tell you noting is wrong with Social Security (I wonder where they were in the 90s when Clinton was saying SS was doomed?  HMMMMM?)

Anyway, it should come as no surprise that our economy is in good shape notwithstanding the recent surge in oil prices.  Airline travel is high; home building is high; consumer spending is high.  None of these can occur in a period of bad economy regardless of what any leftist tells you.

Yet still the Duumycrats persist in their mantra.

I wonder if they’d have any vocal chords left from screaming about a bad economy if they lived in Germany, France, or Spain?  Of course not!  Those are models of perfect socialism to which they aspire.

Meanwhile, unemployment in Germany is 12.1% YIKES!!!

According to Bloomberg, the German numbers are 11.1% (adjusted) and Spain’s numbers are even higher with France coming in at 9.7%

Overall, in the EU the rate is 8.9%

GOOD!  FUCK THEM!  Maybe they will learn a lesson about taxation and free spending socialistic programs.  But I doubt it.

OBTW, in the US it is 5.4% Better than when Clinton was running for re-election (without a war, without major corporate scandals which his administration swept under the carpet); without 9-11; without a doubling of oil prices.  And still the Dummycraps call it AWFUL!

(hat tip to Political Vice Squad for the numbers)

   Thursday - February 03, 2005

Going Too Far

If you ever wonder why Social Security is going broke or Medicare is going broke, you need only read something like this.

When we have entitlement programs where we expand the list of eligibility to almost everyone and start giving benefits to them (and in a somewhat capricious way) the results are predictable.  We will either need to raise taxes or go broke because government programs will never get cut.

What’s got my knickers in a twist?

Medicare will now pay for impotence drugs.

Look, it’s wonderful to get your rocks off but I just do not see why it has to be at taxpayer expense.  We do we have to pay for some old man to get his jollies?  If he can’t, let him deal with it.  It’s not like he will die from it.

I wrote a few days about how nature abhors a vacuum and that if the government throws money at something, that something will grow ever more.

Same concept applies here and is noted by an economist at the Heritage Foundation who said:

“But this should not be a shock…. Once you create a universal entitlement, the tendency is for the entitlement to expand.”

Sorry, this is just wrong.  Our tax dollars should not be going to anyone so they can orgasm.  If they are so desperate, let them buy the drugs themselves.  Don’t make me pay for it.

   Wednesday - February 02, 2005

I Just Barely Made It Under The Wire

I turn 56 in March. I got mine, or at least that’s what they are telling me.

Citing information they received in a preview of the president’s speech, Republican congressional officials said that Social Security benefits promised to workers currently 55 and older would remain unchanged under Bush’s call for voluntary personal accounts for younger Americans. These officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they did not want to pre-empt the presidential address.

Whew! I just barely made it. Unless of course the Democrats start their usual crap and hack and slice the Social Security benefits to pieces to make sure the old farts are dependent on them. Who knows what will happen when the forons in DC start meddling?

It really doesn’t matter that much anyway to me. Heart disease runs in my family and I’m already fighting high blood pressure and high cholesterol. It’ll be a bloody miracle if I reach 65. I hope whoever gets all those thousands and thousands of dollars I paid into this lottery spends it well.   

What Do You Say?

A technology company is about to launch software that can monitor where employees surf while at work.

If it is not related to the job the employee gets billed at the end of the month for bandwidth and time spent.

Before you fly off the handle one way or another, bear in mind that it IS company time, company resources, and company money being spent.

Then think about all the time you’ve seen people answering emails, shopping on-line, surfing, etc. while on the job and NOT their breaks.  Then think about all the lost productivity and the effects it has on a macro scale on the economy (number of companies X number of computers X minutes X number of business days in a year = non-productive time.

Now, go ahead.  Read the article and then let’s hear what you have to say.

   Friday - January 28, 2005

Capitalism Is Great, But………

I was a bit disconcerted upon reading this last night.

In a nutshell, it talks of how to make money from sure-to-come purchases of energy suppliers in the world by Chinese conglomerates.

Given that China’s economy HUMMED along at 9.5% growth last year, we all need to keep our eyes open for the greediness factor to kick in and our corporate chiefs start to sell off our companies to the commie-chinks.

Of course, the leftist fucks in this country want us to sign the Kyoto Accords (which conveniently exempts China) and had we done so we’d have been in a world of hurt, pollution wise, since that crap flows west-to-east.  Read:

Put another way, on average the Chinese use about 1.8 barrels per person a year, compared to average consumption in the United States of about 25 barrels, says Charlie Maxwell, an energy analyst with Weeden & Co. Rapid economic growth will only move China towards Western consumption levels. “Will the Chinese ever use five or seven barrels per year? That would be a huge increase,” says Maxwell.

One more factor: China uses a lot of coal, and there’s grumbling around the world from environmentalists about this because the pollutants don’t stay in China. The country will likely come under more pressure to convert its coal-fired power plants to natural gas.

Be afraid.  Be VERY afraid.

Let’s hope they go for the “infrastructure” option.  In that case, we’ll be a bit better off since our refinery building companies stand to do well.

   Wednesday - January 26, 2005

Let’s Have Your Take On This

A company fires employees for smoking. Not on the job.  At their own home.

Are they right or wrong?  Should they be allowed?

Remember, they are a private company and should have the right to demand certain behaviors.  Especially if they foot the bill for the health care.

Remember, if you disagree with this company’s policy to hire those most representative of the image the company wants to portray you also must then insist that places like Hooters MUST hire fat, ugly women sporting lip hair as waitresses.  Or that Playboy MUST fat, ugly women sporting lip hair as centerfolds.  The argument being that Hooters and Playboy should not tell its employees what they can do on their own time---eat like pigs and get fat.

Think long on this one (libertarian values, Republican values, capitalistic values vs. Democratic values of mommy government telling us what to do.)

Be careful.

Now, fire away.

---

****Don’t forget to vote in our survey.  (Click here.)

   Monday - January 24, 2005

Why Social Security Reform Will Fail

Why Social Security Reform Will Fail

Unless there is a concerted effort to undo decades of government brainwashing by campaigning to convince people their future belongs to them, any effort to privatize social security is doomed to failure.

We can start with a VERY short letter to all our congress-critters:  “I demand the right to determine where my social security contributions go.  It is MY money and I want to take ownership of it.” Simple as that. 

But, as Neal Boortz points out at his site today, there are too many people who love the nanny state and really want nothing to do with the “freedom” that taking responsibility for their own actions will mean to them.

Since his page changes daily but the address is the same, I’ve copied it here for you to read.  He started out with a discussion of President Bush’s inauguration speech focusing on freedom and continued thusly:

---

What is the problem with freedom?  I think that the biggest problem is that people realize that along with personal freedom comes personal responsibility.  To be sure, Americans will say nice things about freedom ... right up until the time that personal responsibility rears its ugly head.  Freedom of speech?  Sure, that takes no real effort.  Freedom of religion?  No problem there.  It doesn’t really require you to actually do anything.  Introduce responsibility and consequences for irresponsibility, and the love of freedom suddenly wanes.

I saw a good example of the limited American love affair with freedom yesterday on CNN.  Three women from three generations were being interviewed; grandmother, mother and daughter.  They were being questioned on President Bush’s privatization plans for Social Security.  The grandmother was against it.  She said that this would be like the government teaching people to gamble.  She equates investing in the stock market to gambling, and has decided that it is wrong.  Let the government take your money, and then dole it out to you later.  Now that’s just fine.

The daughter was particularly troubling.  On the one hand she said that she had no confidence at all that there were going to be any Social Security benefits for her when she reached retirement age, whatever that retirement age might be.  On the other hand she said that she wasn’t in favor of privatization because she didn’t want to have to go to the trouble of making decisions on how her retirement money should be invested.  She would just rather have the government do it for her.

More examples?  They’re not difficult to fine.  Just go to the basic levels of our society.  Should you be free to negotiate with an employer on the basis of salary?  No ... we need a minimum wage.  Should you be free to buy a health insurance policy that doesn’t include pregnancy benefits?  No .. the government stands in the way.  Should you be free to chose who is going to come into your home and tell you what drapery fabric would look good with your throw pillows?  No.  The government tells you who you can and can’t hire for that job.  Do people complain?  Do they protest?  Not a bit.  Just accept the government controls and regulations and move on.

There is another troubling aspect of our lost love for freedom.  When freedom isn’t cherished people are opposed to paying a price to make freedom secure.  The United States is trying to introduce freedom into the heart of the tyrannical Arab World.  As in the past, people are dying in the effort.  Now we have people saying that it’s peace, not freedom that matters.  That might sound good until you realize that by “peace” they simply mean the absence of armed conflict.  Tyranny?  Fine.  Not even the most basic of freedoms?  No problem ... as long as there’s peace.  Today an astounding number of people, principally on the left, believe that peace without freedom is just fine, thank you very much.

---

---

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2008 Domain Owner