Author Archives: rff_blog_admin

Dueling Presidential Candidate Gaffes

Posted on by

With less than a week until we learn who will be elected president it seems the time is right for a mention of gaffes by the two candidates. It wouldn’t be a duel if the subject referred to Joe Biden and Paul Ryan, since Mr. Biden would win on the numbers of gaffes by an overwhelming margin.

Mitt Romney stirred understandable criticism when he foolishly mentioned that he need not campaign to the 47 percent of Americans who are “dependent on government” and consider themselves “victims.” He later said that he understood that he wasn’t going to get the vote of people who expected that the government’s job is to redistribute wealth, and that “I’m not going to get them.” He added “I do believe we should have enough jobs and take-home pay to allow people to pay taxes. I think people would like to be paying taxes.”

Mr. Obama presented a different opinion in an appearance at Loyola University in 1998 when he was an Illinois state senator. The admittedly 14 year-old video has Mr. Obama saying, “The trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some [wealth] redistribution — because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot.” Continue reading →

Joe Biden, Territorial Tax, and Social Security

Posted on by

I often refer to Vice President Joseph Robinette “Joe” Biden, Jr. as the accidental comedian because of the strange things he says. He says them with such force and vigor that people often are swayed by the emotion conveyed and perhaps don’t notice the absurdity of what was said. During his convention speech he said (with great vigor) that “Governor Romney believes in this global economy it doesn’t matter where American companies invest and put their money or where they create jobs. He then went on to say that Romney was proposing “…a territorial tax, which the experts have looked at, and they acknowledge that it will create 800,000 new jobs—all of them overseas, all of them.” Joe, or his speech writers, apparently did not know that the business leaders on President Obama’s Export Council and his Council on Jobs and Competitiveness have said that the tax system Joe accused as originating with Mr. Romney would be a good idea for the U.S economy.

Those comments by Joe during his speech created a flurry of astonished articles, but it isn’t even my favorite recent “Joeism.” During the Vice Presidential debate he accused Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney of wanting to privatize Social Security and inquired where people’s retirement programs be if that idea had been accepted when George W. Bush proposed it. I did a posting in February in which I analyzed what would have happened to a worker who voluntarily put the suggested one third of their Social Security “contributions” into a S & P 500 index (which was called “privatization by Joe and others) on a dollar averaging basis. It would have been really worrisome to watch the value of the account plummet with the stock market in 2008, but the money being invested during that time would have bought more shares.

The calculations I made were based on a person earning $50,000 a year with $3100 being withheld for Social Security and matched by the employer. One third of the monthly total would have resulted in about $170 dollars a month going into the private account. There would have been about $8300 invested since the beginning of 2005, and the value would have dropped to  $5700 at the worst of the market collapse. However, the investors that took advantage of the lower market value and continued to invest would be pleased with the results. They would have invested about $15,700 by now, and, with the improved stock market, the account would be worth about $17,600.

No one knows what the stock market is going to do in the future, but history has shown it to be a good place to create value for investments. The individual with the private account would have the advantage of being able to use the money however they wished upon retirement instead of having the government calculate how much money they would receive each month. They also could designate the person or persons of their own choice to be beneficiaries who would receive the full remaining value. Social Security payments stop immediately after the death of the person.

All of that may or may not be of interest, but let’s get back to Joe. When he asked where we would be if Social Security had been “privatized,” he apparently didn’t know that the individuals who had voluntarily began the investment process would have more money. What is even more astonishing is that he apparently hasn’t noticed that the stock market has improved since Mr. Obama and he took office. Wouldn’t that be something to brag about?

Angry Pigs Ad

Posted on by

Regular readers of this blog will notice that the first advertisement has been included as a “skyscraper” ad for the book “Angry Pigs Organized Against Gerbils: The Farmer Island War for a simple reason. We are promoting the book I authored based on the ideas and illustrations of our four grandchildren (listed as “Creative Staff and Illustrators.”) I think the way this book was developed by a grandfather teamed with grandchildren is unique, or at least I’m unaware of anything similar.

We’ve had enough feedback from readers of all ages to be confident that you will be pleased if you decide to buy the book either as a paperback or Kindle. Readers have called the book creative, fun, interesting, and intriguing. We’ve also been complimented about the positive messages. One of those is how the pig soldiers develop heartwarming respect for their comrades as they stand bravely together during the battles. They learn compassion is a more rewarding emotion than anger.

I selected the book to be discussed at the Denver Read and Feed book club October meeting held at our home, and have posted the comments by members on the review link of this web site. There were some very positive and interesting comments in that posting that might help you decide whether you are interested in the book.

We have a website that contains even more information. One of the links is “Continuing Adventures,” where ideas for a sequel are being created by the grandchildren and readers. Readers of the web site are encouraged to submit ideas about what happens next on Farmer Island.

We suggest you consider buying the book for your personal entertainment and that you consider it as a “stocking stuffer” for the upcoming holiday season.

Drug Litigation and Tort Reform

Posted on by

The title of this posting represents a dilemma for the country, and I credit John Grisham’s book “The Litigator” (reviewed on this web site) with the idea for this posting. New drugs have to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) after exhaustive testing, but there is no “safe” drug. Every pill anyone pops has side effects, regardless of whether it is aspirin or something used to combat pain, depression, cholesterol, or disease. People want relief from their ailments, and look to the big drug companies to provide that in the form of pills. People with loved ones who have uncommon diseases want the drug companies to spend the billions of dollars required to research possible cures. Lurking in the wings are the law firms specializing in suing drug companies after some people take their pills and suffer ill effects. The ill effects don’t even have to be associated with the pills to make the lawyers looking for cases happy. Apparently the FDA that approved the drug has no liability.

Anyone with a television understands the magnitude of the problem. Television ads are continually searching for people who willing to join a claim about a “bad drug” or a dangerous substance, such as asbestos. I’ve known that “Doug” has meothelioma for months or years now.

Tort reform is a one way of controlling the problem, but a couple of presidents have stood in the way. President Clinton vetoed legislation that had been carefully crafted to control frivolous lawsuits while allowing legitimate claimants their day in court and compensation. When a senator was asked why the bill was vetoed, the three words that were used to explain were, “The trial lawyers.”

Another president who avoided the wrath of trial lawyers was Mr. Obabma. He and his supporters in the legislature emphasized that the reason for “Obamacare” was to control escalating medical costs. One of the most obvious causes of escalating medical costs was and is the cost of litigation and costs of insurance for pharmaceutical companies and medical professionals. The final bill had nothing about tort reform despite the effort of some legislators to include language to address the problem. As to why this was so, once again, “The trial lawyers.”

Mideast Turmoil

Posted on by

The media infatuation with the “Arab Spring” reminded me of the high hopes when Fidel Castro overthrew Batista in Cuba. There was a celebratory feel to the reporting about that event. The bloom was quickly taken off  when Che Guevara presided over show trials in a sports stadium and the summary execution of large numbers of people. There weren’t that many executions after the overthrow of dictators in the Middle East, although Moammar Gadhafi may have thought there was at least one important execution.

Democracy is always messier than dictatorships, and the recent protests, riots, and U.S. embassy attacks are a good reminder of that. There were two headlines in the Sunday, September 16, 2012 Denver post pertinent to the current events in that part of the world. One that doesn’t require much more explanation is “No Plan for Syria” by Albert Aji of the Associated Press. “The new international envoy tasked with ending Syria’s civil war summed up his first foray to Damascus on Saturday with a startling and frank admission that he has no plan for stopping the bloodshed that he warned could threaten world peace.”

The second headline was “Don’t give up on Arab Spring” by Shadi Hamid. He points out there is irony that Barrack Obama’s decision to intervene in Libya resulted in the overthrow of Gadhafi’s dictatorship. That set up the conditions for the attack on the U.S. embassy and the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stephens and three other Americans. Frighteningly, Mr. Hamid observes that Libya is “…the most pro-American country in the Arab world.” He also says anti-American sentiment “…will almost certainly increase after the NATO operations fades from memory. In fact…U.S. favorability ratings have been lower under Obama than they were in the final years of President George W. Bush’s administration.” There might be wisdom in observations that demonstration of strength results in respect and conciliation results in contempt.

U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is in a terrible mess, and that probably shouldn’t be a surprise in an area where the control provided by brutal dictatorships has been removed. People have learned that they can gain political power with violence. I find it curious that the policies of the Obama administration are not being questioned by much of the U.S. media.  Reports seem to focus on Romney “getting in the way” with comments suggesting our foreign policy should not be based on apologies.

Another Reset in Russia and U.S. Relations

Posted on by

Diplomats had a good time three years ago when Hillary Clinton gave Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov a “mock reset button” to symbolize U.S. hopes to improve relations with Moscow. The big news at that time was that the “peregruzka” label on the button that was intended to mean “reset” instead translated to “overcharged” or “overloaded.” The presentation of the button was said to have been in response to one of Vice President Biden’s gaffes. This one had something to do with the new administration wanting to reset ties with Russia after years of friction.

The recent termination of a U.S. aid organization’s activities by the Kremlin represents an ominous reset in relations. The September 20, 2012 English version of Pravda by Oleg Artyukov reported that the “…decision to terminate the activity of the United States Agency for International Development, USAID, in Russia has expectedly caused a great deal of noise. Human rights advocates are in shock…” The Russian Foreign Minister said the decision to shut down the agency was made “…due to attempts of the agency to influence political processes, civil society institutions, and elections…”

The agency had distributed $2.7 billion in Russia since 1992.  A State Department spokeswoman said, “…not very confidently…” that a third of the money went to “…development of democracy.”  A New York Times article by David M. Heszenhorn published in the September 23, 2012 Denver Post said the money funded “…programs touching nearly every facet of society in the former communist state — fighting the spread of tuberculosis and HIV, developing judicial systems and training lawyers and judges, promoting child welfare, job readiness, youth engagement, human rights and democracy, even helping modernize the electric grid.”

It is apparent there is justification for the Russian accusation that the agency was being used to meddle in Russia’s internal affairs in addition to all the positive activities. An association that monitors elections in Russia called “The Voice” put out a statement that “The hastiness and sudden nature of this decision is apparently related to the elections on October 14.” There are continuing protests about that election, and Vladimir Putin has sent another warning to the protestors.

The U.S. media coverage of the story is perhaps as interesting as the story itself. The story was published on page 23A of the Sunday Denver Post, and I found little else about it except on the English Pravda site.  Senator John McCain described the closure of the USAID mission as “an insult to the United States and a finger in the eye of the Obama Administration.”  Is it possible the U.S. media doesn’t want to publish news of a major setback to Mr. Obama’s foreign policies when there is an election coming up?