Tuesday, February 08, 2005
Law against underwear??
Virginia lawmakers have gone cuckoo. Talk about trivial pursuits. The assembly recently passed legislation to make it illegal for a young person to wear pants so low that underwear, especially women's thong underwear, shows. Now I think it does not look right for underwear to show, because it is supposed to be under, not over. The problem usually occurs with men who go shirtless or women with a bare midriff, because a normal shirt will cover underpants that would otherwise show.
But there are serious problems with this legislation. First of all, it says "young". What is young? Do they say? Do they mean under 40? In any case, it is age discrimination. I don't think it would stand a challenge in court. How one wears underwear is a personal decision, and it is not proper for government to pass laws against it, because government was meant to protect people from other people, and this legislation does not do that. But the main problem is that it makes Virginia look foolish. Tonight (2005 February 8), Aaron Brown on CNN, when presenting his morning papers (no, not the Richmond Times-Dispatch), showed one that mentioned the bill. Aaron got a little peeved by this item, and smirked at it. To me this shows that this is making Virginia the laughing stock of the nation.
I urge Virginia lawmakers to just simply table this legislation and put it in file 99. There is more important stuff to do.
But there are serious problems with this legislation. First of all, it says "young". What is young? Do they say? Do they mean under 40? In any case, it is age discrimination. I don't think it would stand a challenge in court. How one wears underwear is a personal decision, and it is not proper for government to pass laws against it, because government was meant to protect people from other people, and this legislation does not do that. But the main problem is that it makes Virginia look foolish. Tonight (2005 February 8), Aaron Brown on CNN, when presenting his morning papers (no, not the Richmond Times-Dispatch), showed one that mentioned the bill. Aaron got a little peeved by this item, and smirked at it. To me this shows that this is making Virginia the laughing stock of the nation.
I urge Virginia lawmakers to just simply table this legislation and put it in file 99. There is more important stuff to do.
Bush's Privatization Plan Will Not Work
Bush's Privatization plan for Social Security will not work. Bush's plan would allow workers to put Social Security or retirement money into retirement accounts that invest in private instruments, such as stocks and bonds. I know this because this plan has already been put in action, by President Ronald Reagan, and it does not work. The plan that does not work, and was mentioned by Bush himself at the State of the Union speech, is the Thrift Savings Plan for federal employees.
I am a federal employee about to retire. I have put money into the Thrift Savings Plan, and for me, under the old government system (Civil Service Retirement System, or CSRS), it is an extra that allows me to earn interest on my money tax-free, and further, the yields on the funds in the Thrift Savings Plan are good. However, the Thrift Savings Plan was intended to be part of the new Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) that went into effect in the Orwellian year of 1984. The old system consisted of a government annuity and the Thrift Savings Plan, without contributions from the government. The annuity pays close to 2% per year of service of the worker's highest salary (actually an average of the highest three years) as retirement pay.
The new system consists of a smaller annuity, only 1 or 1.1% per year of service of the high three average. Instead of 60%, the plan would pay only 30%. There are two other parts to FERS, namely Social Security and the Thrift Savings Plan. CSRS employees don't get Social Security credit for federal service; FERS employees do. However, Social Security does not kick in until age 66 or thereabouts, or 62 with a reduced annuity. The Thrift Savings Plan is much better for FERS employees. You can contribute twice as much, and the government matches about half of your contribution. But that plus Social Security do not make up for the loss of nearly half of the main annuity. I would now get thousands less per year under the new system. They offered me a chance to convert to FERS in the 1980s. I analyzed the situation and rejected the new plan. Government planners expected 40% of employees to convert to FERS; instead only 2% converted. I can see why.
And I think this Bush plan is the same way. It would mirror FERS; it would force people to take this FERS instead of the old system, unless they are at least 55 and about to retire anyway. The government hypes the private part, just as with FERS with the Thrift Savings Plan, hoping people don't notice that basic Social Security benefits would be based strictly on inflation instead of on actual growth of paychecks; due to promotions, the latter is usually greater by about 3%. This plan does not do the public any favors, and it is sneaky. Instead, if retirement of baby boomers threatens the system, a better idea would be to announce a straight decrease in benefits or increase in taxes, and maybe even consider allowing employees to transfer years of service from one place to another to encourage people to work longer.
I hope this measure fails.
I am a federal employee about to retire. I have put money into the Thrift Savings Plan, and for me, under the old government system (Civil Service Retirement System, or CSRS), it is an extra that allows me to earn interest on my money tax-free, and further, the yields on the funds in the Thrift Savings Plan are good. However, the Thrift Savings Plan was intended to be part of the new Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) that went into effect in the Orwellian year of 1984. The old system consisted of a government annuity and the Thrift Savings Plan, without contributions from the government. The annuity pays close to 2% per year of service of the worker's highest salary (actually an average of the highest three years) as retirement pay.
The new system consists of a smaller annuity, only 1 or 1.1% per year of service of the high three average. Instead of 60%, the plan would pay only 30%. There are two other parts to FERS, namely Social Security and the Thrift Savings Plan. CSRS employees don't get Social Security credit for federal service; FERS employees do. However, Social Security does not kick in until age 66 or thereabouts, or 62 with a reduced annuity. The Thrift Savings Plan is much better for FERS employees. You can contribute twice as much, and the government matches about half of your contribution. But that plus Social Security do not make up for the loss of nearly half of the main annuity. I would now get thousands less per year under the new system. They offered me a chance to convert to FERS in the 1980s. I analyzed the situation and rejected the new plan. Government planners expected 40% of employees to convert to FERS; instead only 2% converted. I can see why.
And I think this Bush plan is the same way. It would mirror FERS; it would force people to take this FERS instead of the old system, unless they are at least 55 and about to retire anyway. The government hypes the private part, just as with FERS with the Thrift Savings Plan, hoping people don't notice that basic Social Security benefits would be based strictly on inflation instead of on actual growth of paychecks; due to promotions, the latter is usually greater by about 3%. This plan does not do the public any favors, and it is sneaky. Instead, if retirement of baby boomers threatens the system, a better idea would be to announce a straight decrease in benefits or increase in taxes, and maybe even consider allowing employees to transfer years of service from one place to another to encourage people to work longer.
I hope this measure fails.
Monday, February 07, 2005
Roosting Chickens
Recently some people have been wanting to remove Prof. Ward Churchill from the faculty of the University of Colorado-Boulder because he wrote the essay "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens", in which he describes those who died at the World Trade Center "little Eichmanns" and Madeleine Albright a "malignant toad" and compared her to Jabba the Hutt. I have looked over parts of the essay and also of the criticism of it.
The first thing that comes out was that both Prof. Churchill and his critics use the verb "be" a lot: they label their enemy with some abominable word that has little to do with the essay. Prof. Churchill calls the World Trade Center people "little Eichmanns" without giving justification or even saying what a "little Eichmann" was. His equating Madeleine Albright with Jabba the Hutt fits in the same category - it seems to me that the Jabba label could fit any obese person. What has obesity got to do with America's relationships with other countries? His critics do no better. I read them from Prof. Churchill's web site. They use trite gross-out worlds such as f*k, ahole, sh*t, and cock. Prof. Churchill calls these people idiots and cretins. All of these appellations are meaningless. They don't say anything about the issues Churchill raises.
The point that he is raising is that America has taken actions against other countries that have offended them greatly and that they retaliate against us because of this. As examples, Churchill cites the constant bombing of Iraq by Clinton and both Bushes which have killed many people. He says that sooner or later people are going to be fed up with this and they are going to respond in kind.
Further, he raises the point that most Americans don't seem to care about this and don't realize the role they play in the oppression of third world countries. For example, World Trade Center employees traded stocks in corporations that made the bombs and the planes and carried them to their targets. For this he calls them "Eichmanns". I think that is overreaching the point. These people are just simply caught in a world not of their making. But his essential point still is valid: we need to consider the consequences of our actions overseas. Are we doing the best we can to improve life in this world?
The first thing that comes out was that both Prof. Churchill and his critics use the verb "be" a lot: they label their enemy with some abominable word that has little to do with the essay. Prof. Churchill calls the World Trade Center people "little Eichmanns" without giving justification or even saying what a "little Eichmann" was. His equating Madeleine Albright with Jabba the Hutt fits in the same category - it seems to me that the Jabba label could fit any obese person. What has obesity got to do with America's relationships with other countries? His critics do no better. I read them from Prof. Churchill's web site. They use trite gross-out worlds such as f*k, ahole, sh*t, and cock. Prof. Churchill calls these people idiots and cretins. All of these appellations are meaningless. They don't say anything about the issues Churchill raises.
The point that he is raising is that America has taken actions against other countries that have offended them greatly and that they retaliate against us because of this. As examples, Churchill cites the constant bombing of Iraq by Clinton and both Bushes which have killed many people. He says that sooner or later people are going to be fed up with this and they are going to respond in kind.
Further, he raises the point that most Americans don't seem to care about this and don't realize the role they play in the oppression of third world countries. For example, World Trade Center employees traded stocks in corporations that made the bombs and the planes and carried them to their targets. For this he calls them "Eichmanns". I think that is overreaching the point. These people are just simply caught in a world not of their making. But his essential point still is valid: we need to consider the consequences of our actions overseas. Are we doing the best we can to improve life in this world?
