ITEMS WITH THE MOST HITS & MY FAVORITES - II

An eclectic blog (November, 2009, through December, 2012) with sections on Biography, Commentary (General, Economics and Investing), Fiction, Health Care, Oil and Gas, Politics, Photographs, and Poetry (Children's Poems, General, Health, and Space Poems): http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2011/07/reunite-gondwanaland-2009-june-2011.html  As of the end of 2012, the blog contains 200 items.

The items with the most hits continue to be: You Are So Lucky (Biographical) with 223 hits [http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2009/11/you-are-so-lucky.html] and Muammar Qadaffi And Me (Biographical) with 213 hits [http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2010/12/muammar-qaddafi-and-me-biographical.html]. The former was no doubt popular because of the Great Japanese Earthquake of 2011 and deals with my first three days in Japan in 1965. The latter was popular because of the overthrow of the Libyan dictator Qadaffi.  As for last year's report, there are six others with 100 to 199 hits , none of which are biographical and all from before 2012.  One came close, however, with 99 hits:  The Salt Content Of Foods from July 7, 2012: http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2012/08/salt-contents-of-foods.html which was closely followed by The Light from October 13, 2012, a biographical piece with 96 hits: http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=112427639902898514#editor/target=post;postID=6263706723454027302

Each piece I have written is like a child and I love them all, but it is common that some children are loved more than others. My personal favorite continues to be the Effectiveness Of Taxes from May 7, 2010 with 57 hits [http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2010/05/effectiveness-of-taxes.html] followed by Basics of Bureaucracy from July 26, 2011 with 124 hits [http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2011/07/basics-of-bureaucracy.html]. In the former, I point out why decreasing taxes on individuals is an inefficient way to stimulate the economy. I liked this so much that I refer to it in three other pieces. Alas the reading public did not agree as to its great value. In the latter that was written many years ago, I give some real rules of dealing with bureaucrats in a humorous fashion.


Let me give two Honorable Mentions. I wouldn't say this is a favorite of mine, but it can be important to some, i.e. Preferred Stock Investing from November 27, 2011 with 167 hits (picked up about 30 more hits in 2012) [http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2011/11/preferred-stock-investing.html]. I have invested for about 60 years, but never got involved in preferred stocks until the last decade. I would also like to mention one poem Upon the Second Anniversary Of Apollo 11 from January 9, 2010 with only 7 hits, the first landing on the Moon [http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2010/01/upon-second-anniversary-of-apollo-11.html]. Normally a couplet or more just pops into my mind and I construct a poem around it (An example is So How About An Asteroid from July 20, 2011 with 32 hits) that containes my favorite couplet: Who could possiboly be annoyed/About the study of an asteroid. The Second Anniversary of Apollo Eleven, however, was little noticed which I thought was terrible so this was the first time I sat down to compose a poem from scratch.

MASS MURDER WEAPON OF CHOICE

The weapon of choice of mass murderers is clearly a semi-automatic, probably with a large clip of ammunition although they may have multipleweapons.  The Aurora, CO, movie theater gunman used a semi-automatic rifle with a large magazine that jammed or the killings would have been worse, and he also had a semi-automatic pistol.*  As it was 12 people died.  The Wisconsin Sikh Temple shooter used a legally bought semi-automatic pistol and 6 were killed with two others seriously wounded.** The Oregon mall murderer also used a semi-automatic rifle (stolen) that jammed though he got it unjammed - two dead, one seriously wounded.***  The Newtown, CT, murderer used a semi-automatic rife with a large clip stolen from his mother (whom he killed).****  It did not jam and 20 first graders and six school officials were killed.

Incidentally, even in the Columbine, CO, shooting, a semiautomatic weapon was used among other weapons (http://acolumbinesite.com/weapon.html).

Although the outlawing semi-automatic weapons might not reduce the number of mass murder events, it might reduce the size of the killings and woundings.

*  http://www.ibtimes.com/colorado-shooter-what-kind-weapons-did-he-have-729953
** http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/06/us/wisconsin-temple-shooting/index.html; http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/07/us-usa-wisconsin-shooting-weapon-idUSBRE87606820120807
***  http://news.yahoo.com/police-ore-mall-shooter-used-stolen-rifle-181931596.html
****  http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/12/newtown-connecticut-school-shooting/59999/

MASS MURDER, MURDER, AND CULTURE

In the aftermath of the firearm Newtown, CT, massacre, we should remember that the number killed in these massacres per year are dwarfed by the number of gun deaths, suicides, and homicides deaths per year.

Homicides & Suicides As for the number of deaths by homicide in 2010, the total was 15,953 of which 11,078 (11,101 in 2011, preliminary) were by firearms which is 3.6 per 100,000 population.  The number of suicides in 2010 were 38,364 of which 19,392 (19,766 in 2011, preliminary) were by firearms or 6.3/100,000 population.*  For comparison, the number of automobile deaths in 2009 were 34,485.*

Firearm Deaths for U.S. vs. Developed Countries  In total number of firearm deaths, the U.S. ranked number 12 at 9/100,000 population (2011), ahead of such countries as Switzerland 3.5 (2011), France 3.0 (2012), Norway 1.78 (2012), Sweden 1.47 (2012), Germany 1.10 (2012),  Australia 1.05 (2011), United Kingdom 0.25 (2102), and Japan 0.07 (1998).**

Assault Deaths Over Time The murder rate/yr in the U.S. has been actually declining, with a triple peak centered on 1980 with a steep rise from 1965  and a steep decline particularly since 1991, with additional decline since then.***  For comparison, motor vehicle deaths are also declining.****

Discussion  Though I see no reason for people to have assault weapons and semi-automatic weapons in general, our problem in this country is also cultural, our mythic "Wild West" mentality, our deifying the "gunslinger."  We are now a country of more than 300 million people and not the sparsely populated West or yore.  Yet, we live today as if we are more wild than the Wild West probably was.

The large population means that there are going to be more deranged people in a country awash with arms.  Those that commit mass murder ending in their suicide have distinct psychological profiles that are shared, unfortunately, with a lot of people that never commit mass murders (and the profile for school mass murders are different from others).  We may be able to decrease these mass murders because they do some extended planning of weeks or even months that probably are not done in complete isolation; however, with such a large country and such a large population, I doubt we can totally eliminate them.

And do these mass murderers really intend ahead of time to commit suicide?  If so, why do they go to the trouble of procuring and wearing body armor such as at Aurora and Newtown?  It seems as if the suicide may be some afterthought.

And has been shown above, homicides are much, much broader than the mass murders.  Should we concentrate on the mass murderers and learn to live with the others as we do to a great extent with automobile deaths?  I think our cultural problem with the use of firearms is even more important than gun control.

The question of suicide has been dealt with elsewhere in this blog.  See http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2012/06/suicide.html and http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2012/07/what-about-8000-others.html  When even the severe wounding of President Reagan and the turning of his press secretary, Brady, into a vegetable by John Hinckley didn't result in any sort of permanent gun control, even on semi-automatic rifles, I guess I have become very cynical about the matter.  In fact the country seems even worse today than it was then in such things as carrying concealed weapons and carrying weapons into national parks and colleges.

* http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
Suicide was the 10th leading cause of death in 2011 whereas homicide ranked 15th.
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
*** http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/
**** http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42370348/ns/us_news-life/t/highway-deaths-fall-lowest-level/#.UM5JkNuF8Rk

DEATH PANELS & $716 BILLION FROM MEDICARE

I've never heard it discussed, but I think that Democrats are well concerned about making proposals to cut Medicare.  After all the Democrats had proposed in Section 123 of bill HR 3200 that would have paid physicians for counseling patients about living will, advances directives, and end-of -life care options.  Sarah Palin coined the phrase "death panels" to describe this and said that these panels would judge just how much health care you deserved.  Of those that knew about the claim, 30% said they thought it was true (about 255 of Americans).*  The provision about physicians counseling was removed from the final bill though end-of-life provisions, in particular, are a major expense in Medicare, but political hysteria had set in.  You should read the entire Wikipedia report but just to quote one claim "Rep Virginia Foxx (R-NC) charged that the proposal would 'put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government.'"

There is an Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) that will force cuts in Medicare if inflation in Medicare costs exceeds a certain number.**  These cuts specifically cannot reduce benefits or ration health care (Section 3403 of the health care law), but deal with things like Medicare Advantage costs, physician's reimbursement, hospital reimbursements.  Congress can rescind these cuts, but then must find the savings elsewhere.  This Board has been demagogued too.  Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney claimed that, "In order to bring health care costs down, we don't need to have `15 people telling us what kinds of treatments we should have."  But Romney's falsehood is relatively mild compared to that by others

 IPAB is a change from where a previous panel called MedPac advised the congress on cuts to medical costs, which congress duly ignored.  The panel consists of 15 members appointed by the President subject to Senate confirmation.  It is specified that the president must consult with the leaders of the Senate and House majorities and minorities for the appointment of 3 members each or 12 members total.  The other three members are the Head of HHS, and two health Administrators as non-voting members.  Though these members are not elected (thank heavens for that), they have more scrutiny than Department Secretaries, it seems to me.

Then there is the demogoging the $716 billion in cuts from Medicare, a sum identical to the cuts Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI).  These cuts are expected to extend the life of Medicare for 8 years.  Now in Obamacare, these cuts are used elsewhere to do things like close the "donut hole" in Medicare D, and one might want to use the cuts for other purposes like reducing the Federal deficit, but that was not what was claimed.  It was claimed by various Republicans that the cuts were to reduce benefits to Medicare beneficiaries.  In fact, 30.2% of the cuts involve Medicare Advantage (Medicare-C) that cost 17% more than Medicare-B (and I feel Advantage should be eliminated entirely), 34.8% were to reduce hospital costs (and hospitals agreed to this because of an expected increase in patients under Obamacare), and 35 % for everything else (e.g. insurance cuts, home care provider cuts, uninsured patient cuts to hospitals, etc., about a dozen in all).***  Republicans implied or claimed that this sum would be taken from Medicare benefits, though such was not the case.  Republican candidate for President even claimed he would restore the cuts.

The funny thing is that all these were cuts were made by people that actually want to destroy Medicare.  Paul Ryan wanted to eliminate Medicare in favor of vouchers to people to seek medical insurance.  Besides he still wants to eliminate $716 billion from Medicare.****  But is it any wonder that Democrats are wary of mentioning specific cuts to Medicare?

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_panel
** http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/04/mitt-romney/romney-says-ipab-board-can-tell-people-ultimately-/
*** http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/14/romneys-right-obamacare-cuts-medicare-by-716-billion-heres-how/
**** http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/03/republicans-likely-to-stick-with-medicar

SUSAN RICE & SWEET REVENGE

Susan rice has withdrawn herself from consideration of being Secretary of State.  So John McCain got his revenge for nasty things she is reported to have said about him in the 2008 election process.  Lindsay Graham has gotten revenge for the way John Bolton was treated by Democrats on his appointment as Ambassador to The United Nations.  So now let's hope they are happy and we can go on to more constructive things.

I have no idea whether Susan Rice would have made a good Secretary of State.  From what people say, she would have had to make some personality changes.  Hillary Clinton did it so maybe Susan rice could have done it also.  But for now, looks like she will stay as Ambassador to The Untied Nations.

MICHIGAN POLITICS & RIGHT TO WORK

It may come as a suprise to many people, but Michigan has a long history of voting Republican in spite of the large factory worker population.  In fact, they only started voting Democratic for president with the Clinton presidency in 1992 (http://www.270towin.com/states/Michigan and did vote for President Obama in 2012.  The two Senators from Michigan are the well known Carl Levin and the lesser known Debbie Stabenow, both Democrats and the national Representatives are close with 8 Republicans and 7 Democrats.  Thus in national offices, Michigan is Democratic overall, the state Senate, though, is something else with 26 Republicans and only 12 Democrats to total 38 members.*  The state House of Representatives is almost as one sided with 63 Republicans and 47 Democrats to total 110 members.**  The governor is also Republican.

With such a state Republican makeup, it should be no surprise that Michigan has become a Right To Work State.  Not long ago, the state legislature was dominated by Democrats.  The switch came in 2010, when, I guess, workers became disillusoned with the lack of economic progress under the Democrats and redistricting may have played a part also.

A detailed strategy of the Republican move to make Michigan a Right to Work State, is given at: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100309219

*  http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Michigan_State_Senate
** http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Michigan_House_of_Representatives

INHERITANCE TAXES

An informative article on what might be in store for estate/inheritance/gift taxes is given at: https://www.cnbc.com/id/100296248


For the rest of this year, the estate/inheritance tax applies only to estates valued over $5 million and the tax rate on these is 35%; however, if we go over the fiscal cliff, the inheratance tax will apply to estates worth more than to $1 million and be taxed at 55%.

Republicans have been saying that the the tax, they call the "death tax," hurts farmers and small business men.  Some Republicans would prefer to have no estate tax, as it was in 2010, but others will agree to leaving the estate tax what if is in 2012.  In contrast President Obama proposes a exclusion of the first $3.5 million with a tax rate of 35% on those estate exceeding the exclusion sum.  The estate tax raised $10.6 billion in 2012, according to the Tax Policy Center.   At the 2012 rates, they estimate that the estate tax would raise a total of $161 billion by 2021, a 10 year interval.  If the estate tax reverts to the old level, the estimate is a raise of $531 billion.  Obama's plan is estimated to raise a total of $258 billion by 2021.

As to the estate tax hurting farmers, the Tax Policy Center says that fewer than 50 out of the 3,270 paying estate taxes were small farmers and small buinesses, and they paid less than 1% of the total taxes.  "The top one percent of earners, by contrast, paid nearly 80 percent of the estate tax last year. The top 0.1 percent paid nearly half."

The goal is to reduce the Federal budget by $4 trillion by 2021 so letting the estate tax revert to $1 million would raise more than 10% of the total by itself.  We are fooling ourselves if we think that lowering the Federal budget by $4 trillion can be done without pain on inheritance.  So reluctantly, I would prefer to let the estate tax revert to the old level.  It would not affect the poor and probably most of the middle class.

Note:  After writing the above, I found a group of super wealthy people, including Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, who propose a $4 million exemption with a graduated tax rate starting at 45% for fortunes greater than the exemption:
 https://www.cnbc.com/id/100301732

GRANDMA

Grandmothers seem to be the epidomy or epidome of old age.  You may remember the advertisement this last couple of years of grandma in a wheel chair being dumped over a cliff.  Or you might have heard, grandma is being thrown under the bus.  But consider that the average age of women having their child was 25 in 2006.*  So lets say that a woman has her first child at 25  and that child has a first child also at 25.  The first mother then becomes a grandmother at 50.  While 50 might seem old to a, say, 17 year old, grandma is 12 years from being able to receive early Social Security and 15 years from qualifying for Medicare and probably is still working for pay.  The grandchild will be in high school by the time grandma qualifies for Medicare.  Let's say that, that child also has a first child at 25, then grandma becomes a great grandmother at the age of 75, old perhaps, but still short of the life expectancy at birth for women in the U.S. of 80.8 yrs.

Recall, however, that 25 is the average age for a woman at first birth of a child.  Even if we run the same sequence at an age of first birth by a woman of 30, she can easily become a grandmother at age 60, still two years shy of early Social Security and five years from qualifying for Medicare.  If we run the sequence for age 20, the woman becomes a grandmother at age 40, 22 years from early social Security and 25 years from Medicare coverage.  She would become a great grandmother at age 60 and a great great grandmother at age 80, still within the life expectancy of an American woman at birth.

Whereas grandmother does sound old, in life grandmotherhood normally isn't all that old. She probably is still working and doesn't qualify for even early Social Security or Medicare.  Whereas we probably should shift to great grandma for typifying old age, I doubt it will happen.



* http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db21.pdf

JIM DE MINT

It is hard not to cheer Jim DeMint , Senator from South Carolina, leaving the Senate for the Heritage Foundation.  He will finally get his chance to do what many Republicans talk about when "serving" in politics, to leave it and make some "real money."  My caution is that we don't know who will replace him.  Unfortunately, there is no bottom of the barrel and things can get worse.  After all DeMint had some redeeming graces, i.e. he approved of abortion to save the life of the mother, though he disapproved of it in cases of rape and incest.  Of course, he opposes health care for the masses.  He also doesn't want gays and single mothers to teach in our schools.  He has been a negative critic of what others propose and was not a legislator, and he opposed our president at every turn.

Can he develop being head of the Heritage Foundation into a political powerhouse?  Are the days of the heritage foundation being a conservative think tank over?  Time will tell.  After all, the most powerful Republicans seem to be outside of political offices.  Consider Grover Norquist and Rush Limbaugh.  Although he  backed some conservative winners for the Senate, he also backed kooky losers, the likes of Todd Akin, Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, Richard Murdock, and Christine O'Donnell.  There are those who feel DeMint lost the Senate for the Republicans through these backings.  Well, at least he didn't back Linda McMahon who personally lost the Republican Party TWO Senate seats!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_DeMint
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/12/jim-demints-greatest-hits-and-misses.php
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2012/12/06/good-riddance-mr-demint/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_McMahon

SMALL BUSINESS CONTROVERSY

One frequently hears certain politicians talk about how restoring the temporary tax cuts,on even the wealthest 2% of tax payers earning over $250,000 would hurt small businesses, the main job creators.  It is well known now that about 97% of small businesses earn less than $250,000/yr.  A rather detailed consideration of this number is given by the Center On Budget and Policy Priorities* that yields an even somewhat small percentage, perhaps 1.9%.

The Federal government definition of a small business is complex, but is usually given as 500 employees.   For investment purposes, a monetary limit is usally adopted, say $2 billion.  An interesting discussion of the problem is given by Ruth Marcus in the NY Times.**  Some parts of this article are given in italics follow:

....the economic drag of higher rates on the wealthiest taxpayers is far less than the impact on the middle class. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that raising top tax brackets would lower growth next year by one-tenth of a percentage point, compared to a 1.3-percentage-point hit if middle-class taxes rose.

....according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,* 237 of the wealthiest 400 taxpayers, with incomes averaging more than $200 million, would be considered small-business owners. So would President Obama, because he receives book royalties.
...............................................................................

Rather, it sweeps in all taxpayers with business income, no matter how small a share of earnings, along with lawyers or hedge fund managers whose firms are organized as partnerships.


These upper-bracket “small businesses” are not making hiring decisions based on tax rates. Most don’t employ anyone. According to the Treasury Department, less than 6 percent of income to taxpayers in the top two brackets went to small businesses that employ people.

Warren Buffet recently said that the top 100 earners in the U.S. would be unaffected by the increase in marginal tax rates.  This is so because of income tax deductions or loopholes.  Nonetheless, raising the top two brackets from 33% and 35% to 36% and 39.6%  is estimated to yield $493 billion over 10 years.***  This sum would constiture about 12% of the $4 trillion austerity budget needed to return Federal deficit to 2011 values.

If you haven't read the Buffet op-ed article, you should: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/opinion/buffett-a-minimum-tax-for-the-wealthy.html.

* http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2697
** http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-the-shifting-line-on-tax-cuts/2012/12/04/e50bd63e-3e46-11e2-ae43-cf491b837f7b_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions
***http://crfb.org/sites/default/files/Raising_Revenue_from_Higher_Earners_11_15-2_1.pdf

NON-DEMOCRATIC HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Democratic members of the House of Representatives received more votes than Republican members in 2012 (53,952,240 to 53,402,643); yet the Republicans have many more Representatives (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/08/house-candidates-votes_n_2096978.html).  How can this be?  Representatives are elected in districts and not state wide or nationally.  The party in power in the states can realign districts to minimize the opposing parties members and maximize their own.  This is called "gerrymandering."  It is usually done at the time of a census, but has been done at other times, also.  Doing this, the Republicans won 234 seats to the Democrats 201 in 2012.  Ah politics.  How we manage to avoid Democracy in this country.

The same thing, of course, happens in the election for President because of the Electoral College method of choosing the President.  In 2000, Al Gore received the popular vote but lost the Electoral vote which is what matters.  Of course the Democrats called foul but the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Republican George W. Bush.  The Republicans thought that might happen in this last election (because of faulty polling),* but Obama won both the electoral college vote and the numerical vote.

* Strangely, there were Republicans who thought that they would win the election for Presidency in 2012 (again because of faulty polling) and were all set for a celebration.