...till November 4th, a Tuesday, where we all need to go to the polls and excercise our duties as citizens of the United States of America.
I'll be frank with you, and let you know that I am a bit exhausted mentally at the moment. One thing I can think of though, comes from my many talks with people reading this blog. Some have not noticed that there is more content than is on this page, accessible via the archiver over on the right. So I'm gonna list below links (in chronological order of my posting) to all of my previous posts.
A republican voting green in Illinois 18th
Schafer came to MY party
What do we see when we get to the core?
What makes a qualified representative?
A "present" that's not for you
Goliath takes a note from David
A Scientist for Congress
TAXES: Taking from the poor, 'cause the rich choose our Congress
Transparency above and beyond
Voter Information
I have bolded what I believe to be the most important 5 to read, in case you are in a hurry.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Voter Information
The time is drawing close to show up at the polls. I'm hoping at this point you've decided that you're ready to cast your vote to make a real difference. Of course, by that I mean, I hope you've caught the Schafer wave. If you haven't, or you are still unsure, continue researching your candidates. Go to each of their websites and find where they stand on the issues. Google their names and read any press releases or articles. Do the research and commit to being a part of the solution as an informed voter.
All that said, let's look at some voter resources.
Your first resource is the Illinoise Voter Guide which can be accessed here. From the home page, click on the chair icon in the upper right, then click the "Representative in Congress" button, and then the "18th Congress" link. I'd link you straight there, but the website design doesn't allow it.
Next, you may want to be sure you're in the 18th congressional district. I was talking with a man one day while out handing out flyers, and he said he wasn't in the Illinois 18th. When I asked him where he lived, it turned out he lived in the same town as our current representative. In his defense, it's not easy to find out by city what your district is, as most listings are by county and there are several split counties. That being said, here are a few links with information about the Illinois 18th:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd?state=IL&district=18
http://www2.pjstar.com/index.php?/elections/districtmaps/18th_congressional_district/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IL-18_congressional_district.gif
If you happen to live in a split county, find your town's website and see or call your town's city hall.
And lastly, know where to go to vote come the 4th. This involves knowing what precinct you are in in your town. So again, a call to city hall may be in order.
All that said, let's look at some voter resources.
Your first resource is the Illinoise Voter Guide which can be accessed here. From the home page, click on the chair icon in the upper right, then click the "Representative in Congress" button, and then the "18th Congress" link. I'd link you straight there, but the website design doesn't allow it.
Next, you may want to be sure you're in the 18th congressional district. I was talking with a man one day while out handing out flyers, and he said he wasn't in the Illinois 18th. When I asked him where he lived, it turned out he lived in the same town as our current representative. In his defense, it's not easy to find out by city what your district is, as most listings are by county and there are several split counties. That being said, here are a few links with information about the Illinois 18th:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd?state=IL&district=18
http://www2.pjstar.com/index.php?/elections/districtmaps/18th_congressional_district/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IL-18_congressional_district.gif
If you happen to live in a split county, find your town's website and see or call your town's city hall.
And lastly, know where to go to vote come the 4th. This involves knowing what precinct you are in in your town. So again, a call to city hall may be in order.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Transparency above and beyond
As you may have garnered from my writings by this time, among other important qualities, there are two "biggies" for me regarding what makes a qualified candidate.
1.) A candidate who works for the PEOPLE and NOT for special interests or members of the "political donor class".
2.) A middle class individual who has walked the walk of the people he'll be representing.
It should come as no surprise, that I believe Sheldon Schafer excels in these two qualities. Furthermore, he has taken a big step to prove it.
As he crossed the threshold of receiving $5,000 worth of campaign contributions, he was required by law to do some filings. Well he took it one step further and decided to publish his PERSONAL tax returns for the last two years openly. He did this because it shows exactly how he puts (and gets) his money where his mouth is. If you review his records posted on his website, you'll see the following things:
1.) A middle class income
2.) Generous to charity
3.) NO income from special interests of any type.
Go to http://www.schaferforcongress.info/bio.html to see his bio, where at the bottom you'll find a link to a PDF of those tax returns.
He has called on his opponents to do the same. Read about it here. Admirably, Colleen Callahan, took the challenge and did the same. So far Schock's camp has chosen not to follow suit, despite being explicitly called upon to do the same by both Schafer and Callahan.
In case you don't go to his tax records, I'd like to point out exactly how generous to charity he really is. I'm no accountant, so I could be missing some gross vs. net whatnot, but it would appear that in 2007, he gave roughly 50% of the total household wage income (it's a joint return with his wife) to charity!!!! ...again, I'm no accountant, and according to the records, he got some income from investment or something beyond his salary, so even if you factor that in, he still gave around 33% of the households GROSS earnings of any type to charity!!! I think this should leave no question about his intentions and proves how much of a passion for the people around him he has. !!!
EDIT: Just verified with a CPA that my numbers above are correct. He emphasized that the 33% figure is the ethical statistic to point out "since adjusted gross income would really be the appropriate denominator". Whatever that means. :)
UPDATE: After Sheldon read this, he felt it an ethical commitment to clarify the reason for the extent of his generosity in 2007:
"Actually, 2007 was an unusual year as far as contributions go. Usually [his wife]Mary Ann and I try to give about 10% to charity but in 2007 Mary Ann's mother died, and Mary Ann gave a large donation to the OSF facility that cared for her mother the last three years in memory of her mother and in recognition of the fine care she received at St. Clare Home."
1.) A candidate who works for the PEOPLE and NOT for special interests or members of the "political donor class".
2.) A middle class individual who has walked the walk of the people he'll be representing.
It should come as no surprise, that I believe Sheldon Schafer excels in these two qualities. Furthermore, he has taken a big step to prove it.
As he crossed the threshold of receiving $5,000 worth of campaign contributions, he was required by law to do some filings. Well he took it one step further and decided to publish his PERSONAL tax returns for the last two years openly. He did this because it shows exactly how he puts (and gets) his money where his mouth is. If you review his records posted on his website, you'll see the following things:
1.) A middle class income
2.) Generous to charity
3.) NO income from special interests of any type.
Go to http://www.schaferforcongress.info/bio.html to see his bio, where at the bottom you'll find a link to a PDF of those tax returns.
He has called on his opponents to do the same. Read about it here. Admirably, Colleen Callahan, took the challenge and did the same. So far Schock's camp has chosen not to follow suit, despite being explicitly called upon to do the same by both Schafer and Callahan.
In case you don't go to his tax records, I'd like to point out exactly how generous to charity he really is. I'm no accountant, so I could be missing some gross vs. net whatnot, but it would appear that in 2007, he gave roughly 50% of the total household wage income (it's a joint return with his wife) to charity!!!! ...again, I'm no accountant, and according to the records, he got some income from investment or something beyond his salary, so even if you factor that in, he still gave around 33% of the households GROSS earnings of any type to charity!!! I think this should leave no question about his intentions and proves how much of a passion for the people around him he has. !!!
EDIT: Just verified with a CPA that my numbers above are correct. He emphasized that the 33% figure is the ethical statistic to point out "since adjusted gross income would really be the appropriate denominator". Whatever that means. :)
UPDATE: After Sheldon read this, he felt it an ethical commitment to clarify the reason for the extent of his generosity in 2007:
"Actually, 2007 was an unusual year as far as contributions go. Usually [his wife]Mary Ann and I try to give about 10% to charity but in 2007 Mary Ann's mother died, and Mary Ann gave a large donation to the OSF facility that cared for her mother the last three years in memory of her mother and in recognition of the fine care she received at St. Clare Home."
Monday, October 6, 2008
TAXES: Taking from the poor, 'cause the rich choose our Congress
This is my continuation on David Cay Johnston's work ...today using "Perfectly Legal" as my primary source. This is David's first of the two, and is a best seller.
A note on my choice of title prior to continuing ...the use of the word "poor" in the phrase "taking from the poor" is not entirely accurate ...yet. In truth, it's the middle class that is getting taken from the most ...and, surprise, surprise, the middle class is shrinking ...with the vast majority being pushed into the lower class, thus making my usage of the word "poor" far more poignantly accurate than I dare imagine.
As I've mentioned before, I'm not anti-rich or anti-capitalism at all ...I think the drive to succeed and achieve financial security for one's self and one's family really do drive people in this country ...but the playing field is being tilted against all but the super rich.
An alarming statistic is that in 2003 dollars, the average income across all classes was $36,573 in 1970 and $40,330 in 1999. [Johnston, 27] That's a 10% jump. Not bad, not bad ...people toiled 30 years to increase their income by 10% ...lest we forget that this is the average of ALL incomes, including the wealthiest 10% of Americans ...let's look at how they faired individually:
...I see a trend there, don't you? Remember my 10% income increase for 30 years above ...well, that included the above. So, clearly, for your average Joe, it was alot less. Fortunately, I have that info separated into the top 1% and the rest of us:
!!! To put it into perspective, if we could somehow say we (the bottom 99%) got ahead by about a mile in those 30 years, then the top 1% got ahead by 7,500 miles ...that's just shy of the diameter of the Earth at the equator (7,926.28 miles)!!!
So, things just might be tilted in their favor ...but here is the part that will make you sick ...they pay LESS in taxes than we do!!! (as a percentage of their income)
The IRS (in 1999) audited 1.36% of the people making < $25,000 (up 33%) and only 1.15% of those making > $100,000 (down 90%). [Johnston, 130] They justify this by trying to find people defrauding the Earned Income Tax Credit ...but read Chapter 9 (Preying on the Working Poor) of "Perfectly Legal" and you'll see how messed up the details of that credit are ...the type of details that can get a woman who made just $7,000 one year get audited and thrown thru the court system over pennies. These people can be denied the credit for up to a decade over something as simple as living in the same household as another person (since neither could afford to live on their own). ...all the while, someone who makes $91,000 or the child of a foreign billionaire can LEGALLY apply for the FULL credit. ...thanks Congress (as the law makers, they're the ones who put the devil in the details of that credit, of course).
Check out the Alternative Minimum Tax. Initially intended to not allow people who make tons of money to pay less than they should by using all sorts of deductions, has instead turned into a greater tax burden on the middle class. ...the super rich and the corporations (as you'll read more about shortly) don't end up showing profits as far as the IRS can tell, so it ends up not applying to them. Worse yet, is that the way that Congress drafted the law, even though exemptions, deductions, and income tax brackets automatically get adjusted for inflation, the AMT does not ...so every time the dollar inflates, another round of middle class people get sucked into paying more taxes. (Read Chapter 7 "The Stealth Tax")
Or how about the laws that make it PERFECTLY LEGAL to do what is called a corporate inversion, where a company rents a mailbox in Barbados and pays them 2.5% (instead of 35%) income tax, then creates that mailbox as the "parent company" ...then with magic like charging the subsidiary company rent, usage rights to logos and names, this that and the other, the company makes no profit in the US at all. Further, the taxes they do pay in Barbados, are deductible in the US (again we have Congress to thank for that with the Foreign Tax Credit). This is detailed in the 17th chapter of Perfectly Legal entitled "Profits Trump Patriotism".
Don't get me started on how Royal Dutch Shell sold a day's worth of volume on the open market in and then bought it back for $1.92 less a split second later ...46 TIMES in one day. This was an incredibly complicated scheme to basically show a loss in the US, pay less tax to the Dutch government, and basically profit off of taxes ...another willing participant in the game was Compaq ...who also got similar perks from the transaction (they were the company that bought and sold back at the loss) ...this worked by having the coordinating third party short the shares somehow ...it's complicated and can be read in full in Chapter 16 of Perfectly Legal. It turns out they got away with it, but Congress did actually step up and make that particular type of deal illegal going forward.
A concept you may or may not be familiar with is the "tax gap" ...it's the difference between what should be paid in taxes and what does get paid. "Some tax experts have said that $300 billion is a cautious estimate for 2003" [Johnston, 296]. Since income tax was expected to bring in just a little over $1 trillion that year, it's a GAP of nearly 30% of what should be paid ...
...this discrepancy (as is detailed in Perfectly Legal) comes almost entirely from the super rich and the corporations who have the luxury of using all of these crazy schemes that congress has made PERFECTLY LEGAL.
Now let's talk about a candidate who knows and understands all this: Sheldon Schafer. He's a member of the squeezed middle class. He's made his tax records open to the public so they can see he has been paying his share. ...and further he could be in Congress representing us in the future on these things ...I know for a fact he has read and understands "Perfectly Legal" as I have seen his copy (which is highlighted to all get out).
Further, if you still aren't convinced about Schafer, drill your would-be candidate (if you can get them to talk to you) about taxes ...I've read up on the other candidates, and you'll be surprised to find they may not be aware of this disappearing middle class and all the laws that make it legal ...even encourage it ...and perk up your ears when you hear one of them looking to CUT corporate taxes ...without massively reducing government service, it's a zero sum game, so if the corporate taxes get cut, then we'll pick up the slack.
...so again, look to a candidate that wants to represent the majority. He is one of us ...you can get a hold of him ...he knows your concerns, and is looking out for the people ...not the special interests that contribute to the major party candidates and not the people who aren't paying their taxes so that we can pay more.
A note on my choice of title prior to continuing ...the use of the word "poor" in the phrase "taking from the poor" is not entirely accurate ...yet. In truth, it's the middle class that is getting taken from the most ...and, surprise, surprise, the middle class is shrinking ...with the vast majority being pushed into the lower class, thus making my usage of the word "poor" far more poignantly accurate than I dare imagine.
As I've mentioned before, I'm not anti-rich or anti-capitalism at all ...I think the drive to succeed and achieve financial security for one's self and one's family really do drive people in this country ...but the playing field is being tilted against all but the super rich.
An alarming statistic is that in 2003 dollars, the average income across all classes was $36,573 in 1970 and $40,330 in 1999. [Johnston, 27] That's a 10% jump. Not bad, not bad ...people toiled 30 years to increase their income by 10% ...lest we forget that this is the average of ALL incomes, including the wealthiest 10% of Americans ...let's look at how they faired individually:
| Income Group | Average 1970 | Average 2000 | % Gain |
| 90th-95th percentile | $80,148 | $103,860 | +29.6% |
| 95th-99th percentile | $115,472 | $178,067 | +54.2% |
| 99th-99.5th percentile | $202,792 | $384,192 | +89.5% |
| 99.5th-99.9th percentile | $317,582 | $777,450 | +144.8% |
| 99.9th-99.99th percentile | $722,480 | $3,049,226 | +322.0% |
| 99.99th-100th percentile | $3,641,285 | $23,969,767 | +558.3% |
| [Johnston, 34] | |||
...I see a trend there, don't you? Remember my 10% income increase for 30 years above ...well, that included the above. So, clearly, for your average Joe, it was alot less. Fortunately, I have that info separated into the top 1% and the rest of us:
| Income Group | Average 1970 (inflation adjusted) | Average 2000 | $s added |
| Bottom 99% | $32,763 | $35,473 | +$2,710 |
| Top 1% | $3,641,285 | $23,969,767 | +$20,328,482 |
| [Johnston, 37] | |||
!!! To put it into perspective, if we could somehow say we (the bottom 99%) got ahead by about a mile in those 30 years, then the top 1% got ahead by 7,500 miles ...that's just shy of the diameter of the Earth at the equator (7,926.28 miles)!!!
So, things just might be tilted in their favor ...but here is the part that will make you sick ...they pay LESS in taxes than we do!!! (as a percentage of their income)
The IRS (in 1999) audited 1.36% of the people making < $25,000 (up 33%) and only 1.15% of those making > $100,000 (down 90%). [Johnston, 130] They justify this by trying to find people defrauding the Earned Income Tax Credit ...but read Chapter 9 (Preying on the Working Poor) of "Perfectly Legal" and you'll see how messed up the details of that credit are ...the type of details that can get a woman who made just $7,000 one year get audited and thrown thru the court system over pennies. These people can be denied the credit for up to a decade over something as simple as living in the same household as another person (since neither could afford to live on their own). ...all the while, someone who makes $91,000 or the child of a foreign billionaire can LEGALLY apply for the FULL credit. ...thanks Congress (as the law makers, they're the ones who put the devil in the details of that credit, of course).
Check out the Alternative Minimum Tax. Initially intended to not allow people who make tons of money to pay less than they should by using all sorts of deductions, has instead turned into a greater tax burden on the middle class. ...the super rich and the corporations (as you'll read more about shortly) don't end up showing profits as far as the IRS can tell, so it ends up not applying to them. Worse yet, is that the way that Congress drafted the law, even though exemptions, deductions, and income tax brackets automatically get adjusted for inflation, the AMT does not ...so every time the dollar inflates, another round of middle class people get sucked into paying more taxes. (Read Chapter 7 "The Stealth Tax")
Or how about the laws that make it PERFECTLY LEGAL to do what is called a corporate inversion, where a company rents a mailbox in Barbados and pays them 2.5% (instead of 35%) income tax, then creates that mailbox as the "parent company" ...then with magic like charging the subsidiary company rent, usage rights to logos and names, this that and the other, the company makes no profit in the US at all. Further, the taxes they do pay in Barbados, are deductible in the US (again we have Congress to thank for that with the Foreign Tax Credit). This is detailed in the 17th chapter of Perfectly Legal entitled "Profits Trump Patriotism".
Don't get me started on how Royal Dutch Shell sold a day's worth of volume on the open market in and then bought it back for $1.92 less a split second later ...46 TIMES in one day. This was an incredibly complicated scheme to basically show a loss in the US, pay less tax to the Dutch government, and basically profit off of taxes ...another willing participant in the game was Compaq ...who also got similar perks from the transaction (they were the company that bought and sold back at the loss) ...this worked by having the coordinating third party short the shares somehow ...it's complicated and can be read in full in Chapter 16 of Perfectly Legal. It turns out they got away with it, but Congress did actually step up and make that particular type of deal illegal going forward.
A concept you may or may not be familiar with is the "tax gap" ...it's the difference between what should be paid in taxes and what does get paid. "Some tax experts have said that $300 billion is a cautious estimate for 2003" [Johnston, 296]. Since income tax was expected to bring in just a little over $1 trillion that year, it's a GAP of nearly 30% of what should be paid ...
...this discrepancy (as is detailed in Perfectly Legal) comes almost entirely from the super rich and the corporations who have the luxury of using all of these crazy schemes that congress has made PERFECTLY LEGAL.
Now let's talk about a candidate who knows and understands all this: Sheldon Schafer. He's a member of the squeezed middle class. He's made his tax records open to the public so they can see he has been paying his share. ...and further he could be in Congress representing us in the future on these things ...I know for a fact he has read and understands "Perfectly Legal" as I have seen his copy (which is highlighted to all get out).
Further, if you still aren't convinced about Schafer, drill your would-be candidate (if you can get them to talk to you) about taxes ...I've read up on the other candidates, and you'll be surprised to find they may not be aware of this disappearing middle class and all the laws that make it legal ...even encourage it ...and perk up your ears when you hear one of them looking to CUT corporate taxes ...without massively reducing government service, it's a zero sum game, so if the corporate taxes get cut, then we'll pick up the slack.
...so again, look to a candidate that wants to represent the majority. He is one of us ...you can get a hold of him ...he knows your concerns, and is looking out for the people ...not the special interests that contribute to the major party candidates and not the people who aren't paying their taxes so that we can pay more.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
A Scientist for Congress
At the bottom of this article I've placed a link to a youtube video featuring Sheldon Schafer going over why he's qualified to represent us. Notably, he mentions his scientific background quite a bit.
He mentions that he, as a scientist among other reasons, is qualified to evaluate good science vs. bad science and the issues that in our modern era need a scientist to understand the complexities present therein.
It turns out, I learned first hand why this is important.
As a conservative, I tend to lean towards having the government not branch too far into some things. One thing that had been (only slightly) troubling me was why was the government getting involved in the HDTV broadcast mandate. After February 19, 2009, full-power television stations in the USA will broadcast in digital only (source).
So I brought this up with Sheldon, and his first question/statement to me was "Surely, the government should regulate the electro-magnetic spectrum." ...and he's right ...the importance of the electro-magnetic spectrum cannot be overstated ...and further, since we have a finite number of frequencies available, we need regulation to ensure the public's right to the public airwaves. If the government didn't regulate this, we wouldn't get to enjoy our modern conveniences like TV, radio, cordless phones, wireless internet and cel. phones. Without regulation the frequencies these things operate on would be a wash with garbage. So, like roads, rivers and airways, these things need regulation.
This was something I already knew to be true, but conceded, that yes, in fact, the government should be able to regulate these things. So, there was no conflict, just a "why bother" question left in my head.
So, then he goes on to tell me something I didn't know, and have verified with an acquaintance of mine at a television studio. Watt for watt, digital broadcast is more energy efficient. My source at the television station told me that their amplifier (before gain produced by the antenna array) is designed to output between 50-100 kilowatts, and broadcasting that strength digitally saves between 75 and 100 kilowatt hours per month. As of now, the mandated date only applies to full power stations at this time ...these number at around 1800. (the 7,100 low power and Class A stations are being encouraged to convert, but have no mandated date at this time) Also of note, the station my acquaintance works for is a low power full-power station ...full power UHF goes all the way to 5.5 megawatts worth of broadcasting power. I have tried and failed to find the average broadcasting power across these 1800 stations, so let's assume that the average is the median of 2.7 mega watts, meaning their savings (if all other variables, and there are a lot of them, are equal) would be 2,700 kilowatt hours a month across the country.
To put it into perspective, I calculated the cost of the last 100 kilowatt hours I purchased, and came up with roughly $380. So, using my many assumptions, this mandate conserves $120,000 worth of energy a year out of the gate. If I get more aggressive with my assumptions, that figure becomes a quarter of a million dollars of conserved energy a year just for the 1,800 full power stations ...it is not inconceivable that down the road, once all stations convert it could be up to half a million dollars worth of savings EACH YEAR ...or in terms of kilowatt hours, over 130,000 kilowatt hours of energy savings.
The FCC is doing a good job of letting us know about the multicasting abilities available in digital broadcast as well as the fact that the frequencies that they are, in a sense, getting back from analog broadcast can be appropriated to civil services. But short of having a source at the television studio, or an extreme level of knowledge regarding how broadcasting works, you can't find information on the net about this energy savings. The FCC Digital TV Consumer Facts Page
...but Sheldon knew. ...right there on the spot, he told me about the energy savings ...which is a good thing for all of us ...not wasting our resources.
...to sum up, he's a scientist who knew on the spot the subtle details of this mandate ...so when similar things come up in Congress in the future, wouldn't it be great if we had a scientist there who knew all about it and could vote based on sound reasoning, not what his donors are telling him to do?
Sheldon's Video
Note that the numbers I used are extrapolated from what little data I had readily available …there are many factors that go into broadcast power, including the initial amplifier signal and the gain produced in antenna arrays, and the Quality of Service (QoS) and Effective Radiated Power (ERP) (which are products of the former variables). Further, the dollar figures are based on consumer pricing in today’s dollars, so are likely to be slightly different for commerce and in the years down the road.
He mentions that he, as a scientist among other reasons, is qualified to evaluate good science vs. bad science and the issues that in our modern era need a scientist to understand the complexities present therein.
It turns out, I learned first hand why this is important.
As a conservative, I tend to lean towards having the government not branch too far into some things. One thing that had been (only slightly) troubling me was why was the government getting involved in the HDTV broadcast mandate. After February 19, 2009, full-power television stations in the USA will broadcast in digital only (source).
So I brought this up with Sheldon, and his first question/statement to me was "Surely, the government should regulate the electro-magnetic spectrum." ...and he's right ...the importance of the electro-magnetic spectrum cannot be overstated ...and further, since we have a finite number of frequencies available, we need regulation to ensure the public's right to the public airwaves. If the government didn't regulate this, we wouldn't get to enjoy our modern conveniences like TV, radio, cordless phones, wireless internet and cel. phones. Without regulation the frequencies these things operate on would be a wash with garbage. So, like roads, rivers and airways, these things need regulation.
This was something I already knew to be true, but conceded, that yes, in fact, the government should be able to regulate these things. So, there was no conflict, just a "why bother" question left in my head.
So, then he goes on to tell me something I didn't know, and have verified with an acquaintance of mine at a television studio. Watt for watt, digital broadcast is more energy efficient. My source at the television station told me that their amplifier (before gain produced by the antenna array) is designed to output between 50-100 kilowatts, and broadcasting that strength digitally saves between 75 and 100 kilowatt hours per month. As of now, the mandated date only applies to full power stations at this time ...these number at around 1800. (the 7,100 low power and Class A stations are being encouraged to convert, but have no mandated date at this time) Also of note, the station my acquaintance works for is a low power full-power station ...full power UHF goes all the way to 5.5 megawatts worth of broadcasting power. I have tried and failed to find the average broadcasting power across these 1800 stations, so let's assume that the average is the median of 2.7 mega watts, meaning their savings (if all other variables, and there are a lot of them, are equal) would be 2,700 kilowatt hours a month across the country.
To put it into perspective, I calculated the cost of the last 100 kilowatt hours I purchased, and came up with roughly $380. So, using my many assumptions, this mandate conserves $120,000 worth of energy a year out of the gate. If I get more aggressive with my assumptions, that figure becomes a quarter of a million dollars of conserved energy a year just for the 1,800 full power stations ...it is not inconceivable that down the road, once all stations convert it could be up to half a million dollars worth of savings EACH YEAR ...or in terms of kilowatt hours, over 130,000 kilowatt hours of energy savings.
The FCC is doing a good job of letting us know about the multicasting abilities available in digital broadcast as well as the fact that the frequencies that they are, in a sense, getting back from analog broadcast can be appropriated to civil services. But short of having a source at the television studio, or an extreme level of knowledge regarding how broadcasting works, you can't find information on the net about this energy savings. The FCC Digital TV Consumer Facts Page
...but Sheldon knew. ...right there on the spot, he told me about the energy savings ...which is a good thing for all of us ...not wasting our resources.
...to sum up, he's a scientist who knew on the spot the subtle details of this mandate ...so when similar things come up in Congress in the future, wouldn't it be great if we had a scientist there who knew all about it and could vote based on sound reasoning, not what his donors are telling him to do?
Sheldon's Video
Note that the numbers I used are extrapolated from what little data I had readily available …there are many factors that go into broadcast power, including the initial amplifier signal and the gain produced in antenna arrays, and the Quality of Service (QoS) and Effective Radiated Power (ERP) (which are products of the former variables). Further, the dollar figures are based on consumer pricing in today’s dollars, so are likely to be slightly different for commerce and in the years down the road.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Goliath takes a note from David
I'm taking a quick break before my second post related to David Cay Johnston's work to interject at least a couple of other things while I finish my research for that.
So in the meantime...
Ok, I've noticed a couple of things while tracking this congressional race.
First, Colleen Callahan, the democratic candidate, from the outset has been using green as her primary advertising color. Could it be that she was aware of the growing movements collectively referred to as "green"? Things like alternative energy, recycling, conservation, climate change concerns, etc... Could it be that she knows there is growing public concern in these areas and she wanted to align herself with that concern in the voters' subconscious? It's at least a possibility.
Second, Aaron Schock, the republican candidate, just recently hit the airwaves with a new advertisement promoting his energy position. In this ad, he is seen numerous times walking in front of giant wind turbines. Clearly, in his case, he's very upfront about appealing to the public concerns here.
My point is not to deride these two for being conscious of this. Not at all. I support a candidate who is very conscious of this and has it as one of his key campaign points.
My point is that we've had someone all along who has known about everything green ...I mean, he is after all, running as a candidate for the Green Party. Schafer has been promoting alternative energy so much so that the photo on his most printed piece has him in front of ...you guessed it... a giant wind turbine. This piece has been in circulation for months.
Is it possible that Schock took a note from Schafer? Definitely possible, at least.
Perhaps we should think for a moment about what it means if the candidates of the two big parties are taking notes from the underdog. Maybe it means the underdog knows what the voters' concerns are ...and has all along. Maybe it means the underdog is a LEADER with VISION even to his opponents. Maybe it means the underdog is the guy we want representing us.
Would you rather have a candidate who figured out what "plays", or a representative who already KNEW and is in it for more than the "play"?
So in the meantime...
Ok, I've noticed a couple of things while tracking this congressional race.
First, Colleen Callahan, the democratic candidate, from the outset has been using green as her primary advertising color. Could it be that she was aware of the growing movements collectively referred to as "green"? Things like alternative energy, recycling, conservation, climate change concerns, etc... Could it be that she knows there is growing public concern in these areas and she wanted to align herself with that concern in the voters' subconscious? It's at least a possibility.
Second, Aaron Schock, the republican candidate, just recently hit the airwaves with a new advertisement promoting his energy position. In this ad, he is seen numerous times walking in front of giant wind turbines. Clearly, in his case, he's very upfront about appealing to the public concerns here.
My point is not to deride these two for being conscious of this. Not at all. I support a candidate who is very conscious of this and has it as one of his key campaign points.
My point is that we've had someone all along who has known about everything green ...I mean, he is after all, running as a candidate for the Green Party. Schafer has been promoting alternative energy so much so that the photo on his most printed piece has him in front of ...you guessed it... a giant wind turbine. This piece has been in circulation for months.
Is it possible that Schock took a note from Schafer? Definitely possible, at least.
Perhaps we should think for a moment about what it means if the candidates of the two big parties are taking notes from the underdog. Maybe it means the underdog knows what the voters' concerns are ...and has all along. Maybe it means the underdog is a LEADER with VISION even to his opponents. Maybe it means the underdog is the guy we want representing us.
Would you rather have a candidate who figured out what "plays", or a representative who already KNEW and is in it for more than the "play"?
Monday, September 15, 2008
A "present" that's not for you
It's important that we get to know where our potential congress people will fall on the "big" items like abortion, gun control, the death penalty, and universal health care, to name a few. These are all big deals to most of us and we have some pretty strong feelings on. The truth is though, that while important, the votes our congress people will cast on those "big" issues are actually in the minority ...when was the last time abortion or the death penalty was voted on at the congressional level?
Today, I want to address the things that go under the radar, the stuff Congress spends most of their time voting on. Last week, the House voted 25 times, 15 of which were on the passage of various bills, and a couple more on addendums to bills.(source) Not one of these were what I would characterize as "big" issues. ...and there in lies the story.
Have you ever heard the term "Christmas Tree Bill" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_tree_bill)? It refers to the process of tacking on a bunch of (often unrelated to the main bill) addendums where the main bill is the Christmas Tree and the addendums are a bunch of little "presents" that the congress people give away to the special interests. You see, when a congress person gets campaign contributions, they come with strings attached ...not formally, but the unspoken rule is that the heaviest contributors get more face time with their representatives to push their agendas.
David Cay Johnston (author and Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporter) calls these people the "political donor class". The class of people who basically decide who gets into congress via their campaign donations. They in turn expect to be heard and get their interests represented in the occasional "present" under a Christmas tree bill. It should not surprise you that the political donor class is among the richest in the US. And chances are their interests are likely aligned with making them richer. Don't get me wrong, I'm all "yey capitalism" and such, but only on a level playing field ...the playing field is no longer level and we have our Congress to thank for that. In the 30 years between 1975 and 2005 the top 1% richest Americans got richer (yearly income) at an average of 209%, the top .01% richer by 650%, and the lower 90% of Americans (you, me, Sheldon, and most of us) actually got poorer by 3%. (Johnston, 2007, p.276).
Another staggering statistic is that Warren Buffett, now the richest man in the US, pays a lesser percentage of income tax than his secretary.(source) Again, we have the law to thank for making this possible. (and who writes the laws?)
EDIT: Just found out Bill Gates is back on top ...apparently shares of Berkshire Hathaway (this *basically* is Warren Buffett derives his wealth) have fallen 15% since February.
These things are possible, at least in part due to those "presents" to special interest groups. Remember Enron? There was a quagmire of bills (state and national), including one in Texas that passed there 142-4 (showing that both republicans and democrats are in on this) that made that all possible. To get the full story read chapters 17-19 in "Free Lunch". Enron was masterful in getting Free Lunches from the government that allowed them to just shy of actually write the laws themselves. And in the following year, the average cost of a kilowatt on the west coast went from $30 to $600 ...wrecking many peoples' lives ...then when the company went bust, more lives, so many lives of the lower level employees who had their retirement locked up in Enron, and then all the investors.
I call out the Enron debacle because we've all heard about it, and it eventually fell apart (publicly). But they aren't the only ones, not by a long shot.
Among several others, there are two big classes of "presents" these special interest groups seek. The first class is around bending/breaking/eliminating certain taxes, which sounds good but usually benefits the interest group while shifting the burden on to the public ...I might have to write an entire post about this class alone. The second class is the "privatizing" class ...an example above is the Enron case where they "privatized" the electric utility. All "privatizing" does in these cases is remove laws and regulations that allow them to charge whatever they want ...again I have to suggest reading chapters 17-19 in "Free Lunch" to get a grip on the cases where market rules work in the opposite direction (like utilities and health care).
Again, I'm all "yey capitalism" and such, and love how the market works ...when it's allowed to work that is. Every time a law is written to help the market do it's job, the truth is it helps someone beat the market. Adam Smith says (paraphrasing) that the (truly free) market will set the lowest price possible that keeps the business in business. If a special interest group is lobbying for something in the law, like privatization of some scarce resource, chances are this is a case where the market would work in their favor. After all, they wouldn't want to pass law that lowers their prices (and thus profits) would they? Honestly.
Getting back to my point, I'd like to remind you that this is the stuff our congress people spend most of their time voting on. They are, for all intents and purposes, paid to advance the interests of their political donors. This is yet another good reason to vote for an independent/third party candidate. Such candidates are gonna come with quite a bit less baggage and commitment to vote for these special interest groups. A candidate (like Schafer) who accepts no donations from any special interest group or company is going to be free to vote for the PEOPLE he represents, not the $2,000,000 worth of favors owed to the political donors.
As I wrap this up, I want to mention (again) David Cay Johnston. He's no conspiracy-cook. He's a Pulitzer Prize winner, New York Times bestseller, and investigative journalist for the New York Times. Pretty much all of my info for this post comes from his book "Free Lunch". I have also recently read his "Perfectly Legal" and will quote from that to show you how the donor class is cheating the rest of us via taxes on my next post.
I know for a fact Sheldon has read both of these books. He can quote from them. Again, as evidenced by this, Sheldon is here for US, the PEOPLE. We need to stop the tilting of the playing field to the super rich and the corporations. And Sheldon understands how it's being done, and owes no favors to those who would see it continue happening.
I'd like to close with a quote from "Free Lunch": "We need to vote out officials, even ones we like for some emotional reason, when they work against our interests."
Further Reading:
"Perfectly Legal" David Cay Johnston
"Free Lunch" David Cay Johnston
My favorites from "Free Lunch":
Chapter 14 - about stickin' to people with school loans
Chapter 15 - about stickin' to people with home loans
Chs. 17-19 - about stickin' to people who use utilities (everyone)
pp.240-242 - about corruption in congress
Today, I want to address the things that go under the radar, the stuff Congress spends most of their time voting on. Last week, the House voted 25 times, 15 of which were on the passage of various bills, and a couple more on addendums to bills.(source) Not one of these were what I would characterize as "big" issues. ...and there in lies the story.
Have you ever heard the term "Christmas Tree Bill" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_tree_bill)? It refers to the process of tacking on a bunch of (often unrelated to the main bill) addendums where the main bill is the Christmas Tree and the addendums are a bunch of little "presents" that the congress people give away to the special interests. You see, when a congress person gets campaign contributions, they come with strings attached ...not formally, but the unspoken rule is that the heaviest contributors get more face time with their representatives to push their agendas.
David Cay Johnston (author and Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporter) calls these people the "political donor class". The class of people who basically decide who gets into congress via their campaign donations. They in turn expect to be heard and get their interests represented in the occasional "present" under a Christmas tree bill. It should not surprise you that the political donor class is among the richest in the US. And chances are their interests are likely aligned with making them richer. Don't get me wrong, I'm all "yey capitalism" and such, but only on a level playing field ...the playing field is no longer level and we have our Congress to thank for that. In the 30 years between 1975 and 2005 the top 1% richest Americans got richer (yearly income) at an average of 209%, the top .01% richer by 650%, and the lower 90% of Americans (you, me, Sheldon, and most of us) actually got poorer by 3%. (Johnston, 2007, p.276).
Another staggering statistic is that Warren Buffett, now the richest man in the US, pays a lesser percentage of income tax than his secretary.(source) Again, we have the law to thank for making this possible. (and who writes the laws?)
EDIT: Just found out Bill Gates is back on top ...apparently shares of Berkshire Hathaway (this *basically* is Warren Buffett derives his wealth) have fallen 15% since February.
These things are possible, at least in part due to those "presents" to special interest groups. Remember Enron? There was a quagmire of bills (state and national), including one in Texas that passed there 142-4 (showing that both republicans and democrats are in on this) that made that all possible. To get the full story read chapters 17-19 in "Free Lunch". Enron was masterful in getting Free Lunches from the government that allowed them to just shy of actually write the laws themselves. And in the following year, the average cost of a kilowatt on the west coast went from $30 to $600 ...wrecking many peoples' lives ...then when the company went bust, more lives, so many lives of the lower level employees who had their retirement locked up in Enron, and then all the investors.
I call out the Enron debacle because we've all heard about it, and it eventually fell apart (publicly). But they aren't the only ones, not by a long shot.
Among several others, there are two big classes of "presents" these special interest groups seek. The first class is around bending/breaking/eliminating certain taxes, which sounds good but usually benefits the interest group while shifting the burden on to the public ...I might have to write an entire post about this class alone. The second class is the "privatizing" class ...an example above is the Enron case where they "privatized" the electric utility. All "privatizing" does in these cases is remove laws and regulations that allow them to charge whatever they want ...again I have to suggest reading chapters 17-19 in "Free Lunch" to get a grip on the cases where market rules work in the opposite direction (like utilities and health care).
Again, I'm all "yey capitalism" and such, and love how the market works ...when it's allowed to work that is. Every time a law is written to help the market do it's job, the truth is it helps someone beat the market. Adam Smith says (paraphrasing) that the (truly free) market will set the lowest price possible that keeps the business in business. If a special interest group is lobbying for something in the law, like privatization of some scarce resource, chances are this is a case where the market would work in their favor. After all, they wouldn't want to pass law that lowers their prices (and thus profits) would they? Honestly.
Getting back to my point, I'd like to remind you that this is the stuff our congress people spend most of their time voting on. They are, for all intents and purposes, paid to advance the interests of their political donors. This is yet another good reason to vote for an independent/third party candidate. Such candidates are gonna come with quite a bit less baggage and commitment to vote for these special interest groups. A candidate (like Schafer) who accepts no donations from any special interest group or company is going to be free to vote for the PEOPLE he represents, not the $2,000,000 worth of favors owed to the political donors.
As I wrap this up, I want to mention (again) David Cay Johnston. He's no conspiracy-cook. He's a Pulitzer Prize winner, New York Times bestseller, and investigative journalist for the New York Times. Pretty much all of my info for this post comes from his book "Free Lunch". I have also recently read his "Perfectly Legal" and will quote from that to show you how the donor class is cheating the rest of us via taxes on my next post.
I know for a fact Sheldon has read both of these books. He can quote from them. Again, as evidenced by this, Sheldon is here for US, the PEOPLE. We need to stop the tilting of the playing field to the super rich and the corporations. And Sheldon understands how it's being done, and owes no favors to those who would see it continue happening.
I'd like to close with a quote from "Free Lunch": "We need to vote out officials, even ones we like for some emotional reason, when they work against our interests."
Further Reading:
"Perfectly Legal" David Cay Johnston
"Free Lunch" David Cay Johnston
My favorites from "Free Lunch":
Chapter 14 - about stickin' to people with school loans
Chapter 15 - about stickin' to people with home loans
Chs. 17-19 - about stickin' to people who use utilities (everyone)
pp.240-242 - about corruption in congress
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
