Saturday, July 25, 2015

Centralized Waste from the Department of Education

I can always count on the Department of Education to waste money. A recent post touts $270 million awarded to 978 programs to support students.

Why is this waste? Centralized bureaucracy is costly. Let local municipalities take care of local concerns and cut their federal taxes. 282 of the schools (manual count of "Community College" in the name of the program list; could be miscounted) in the list of 978 are local. That is over 1/4 of the programs should be considered local programs. But first we had to send the money to D.C. and wait to get the money back.

What does the money go to?
  • academic tutoring
  • assistance in course selection
  • information about financial aid and economic literacy
  • support and resources to help students transfer from two-year to four-year colleges or from undergraduate to graduate or professional studies
  • individualized counseling and career guidance
  • exposure to cultural events
  • mentoring
  • housing assistance during school breaks for students who are homeless or in foster care
All of these items except for the last one sounds like it should be a basic service already available in any school. Maybe the first one could be considered an extra. Otherwise it is all services and information that should be available.

Except, maybe, "exposure to cultural events" which sounds like a party slush fund. Aren't you glad there is a centralized party fund?

The really weird thing about the last item is it is about housing for students when they are not in school instead of when they are in school. That seems like the focus on housing is counterproductive to when the student needs housing the most.

Only in centralized thinking do you get funding for services counter to the time of need.


Gas Tax : Punishing the Heretics of the Green Movement

There is a gap between funding for the highways and roads and the revenue coming in for it. The gas tax hasn't been raised for 22 years and you are going to hear calls for raising it.[1][2]

End the Gas Tax


USA today calls for phasing out the gas tax because of the cost of bureaucracy. Anything government driven has this problem so this reason is moot.

Forbes calls for reform of the gas tax but gets the reasoning wrong. Forbes lays out the history of the gas tax and how funds in are tied to projects directly related to the road, however, in the 90's this relation was temporarily severed to pay for other things; this is blamed for the unpopularity of the tax and why reform is needed.

Bloomberg actually gets part of problem correct, ... fuel efficiency and less driving.

Government Created the Problem


CAFE standards demand better fuel efficiency in vehicles which means when the goals are met drivers buy less gas to go the same distance. So it stands to reason that less money is collected through taxes.

Fuel efficiency is nice but the government has no place dictating it; this is legislating physics which is a very arrogant thing for man to do.

The next problem is a double blow to the gas tax and funds for roads; the government's push for electric and hybrid vehicles.

Tax credits to buyers of the green vehicles is paid for by all tax payers. The first punch is these drivers don't use gas or only a little thus evading the gas tax and yet they still put wear and tear on the roads.

The double punch is the subsidy money could instead be put towards road construction and repair, but no. Instead we are going to continue to subsidize these vehicles and look to taxing the drivers that use gas more.

Last I checked only churches and non-profits were supposed to be tax exempt. (Yeah, the Volt lost money but that doesn't make it a non-profit organization.)

The subsidies don't go just to the people that buy the cars but companies within the pipeline that make the car or parts of it. There is an article that "debunks" Volt myths and fails on the government money myth. It frames the myth as "#5 It’s made of government bailout money." That is not the myth; the myth is "the Volt is a government subsidized car." In fact the debunking of the myth admits to the subsidies and blames Bush for the subsidies; whether this is a Bush subsidy or an Obama subsidy it is still a government subsidy. Supposedly the 2016 Volt will be profitable.

There's no telling how long these subsidies will continue. A subsidy is per model per model year and does not phase out till 200,000 units of it are sold. Even then the subsidy phases out to 50% after two quarters, 25% at four quarters, and no credit after six quarters after hitting the 200,000 mark. By then the car will be on to the next model year and a new set of subsidies.[1][2]

To be fair there was a discontinued subsidy. It was replaced by a new one.

What's the Solution?


End the gas tax, end the green car subsidies, and budget the roads like any other part of the government.

Ending the gas tax will make the cost of the transportation of goods cheaper thus making them more affordable. This can lead to an increase of consumption and leading to the need for more production. In the end there could be more tax revenue through increased income tax revenues; in addition this enriches the lives of the citizens.

Ending the subsidies will also correct the car and energy market to use what is truly economical choices. Also, it is immoral to make one person to pay for part of another person's desired purchase. Can you imagine if the government subsidized the purchase of yachts? Subsidizing the purchase of a car because of the type of motor it uses is no different.

Budget the roads like other parts of the budget. Make the importance of running shrimps on a treadmill compete with the importance of good roads. Hopefully we can expose wasteful projects by making them compete with critical projects.

Or we can raise the gas tax making products more expensive due to transportation costs while we give money to people who buy cars that do not contribute to the road fund.


1 2 1 2 3

Tuesday, July 7, 2015

Dukes of Hazzard Email!

Sign up here!

Dog Days of Bureaucracy

This story is sensationalism and incomplete.

A woman was arrested for not relicensing her dog. Except she was arrested when she showed up to the sheriff's office to prove she did.

Wow. Where to begin.

She is going to court over this. It looks like it is inarguable she did it in a less then timeless manner.

But should she be jailed for 3 hours while her child is sitting in her car while she produced a 5 or 10 minute proof of compliance?

Let's get even more absurd than that.

Through mail, phone, and in-person contacts she was given notice to renew. Was she given the opportunity to renew through those contacts? No information in the article is given on that. The renewal is only $10. If there was an in-person contact why not say "do you have $10" and be dome with it?

I have no proof, but I have to say BUREAUCRATS! Fill out my form. It pleases me. I exist for you to lovingly drag your pen across my forms. Yes. I orgasm on the signature! Flair it!

3 hours of any one's time is worth more than $10 and man more than the $100 dollar fine. This is worth a counter suit.


Thursday, June 25, 2015

Warm your triggers

Thank the founders for the second amendment. Guns are not for hunting but putting down oppressive government officials.

Scalia put forth how wrong the decision of the SCOTUS decision on the ACA was in regards to reimbursements. Basically SCOTUS invented a new intention even though the word of law and initial intentions were noting of the sort.

Two insanely bad things happened today. Both violate the contract between the government and the people.

First, the law was not enforced as written.

Second, the decision bypassed the power of Congress and their responsibility of the purse strings by passing funding for this illegal contraption to other non-elected bodies.

Slide your finger from safe guard to the trigger.

Thursday, April 16, 2015

Hillary Roundup

Hillary Clinton For President of Lesbians 2016


Can You Survive 4 Minutes of Hillary?


Hillary’s War Against Women In Effect For 2016


Hillary Clinton's Campaign Manager Steps Forward! Explains 'Strategy'


Hillary Clinton is a damn LIAR and her logo sucks


Hillary Clinton Election Video Cold Open


Carly Fiorina says Hillary Clinton is waging war on women


Hill No We Won't Go! Hillary's in and Ready to be Ready


The Media's Hillary Clinton Obsession



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Thursday, March 19, 2015

FAA Jerks

The concept of private drones and drones for commerce is a really exciting and popular idea. So if the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) approves a company to use drones; that's got to be great and a lot of social points with the people. In fact here is their front headline for today plus screen capture.
Amazon Gets Experimental Airworthiness Certificate


However, if you read the article you will realize that the decision is nothing more than a headline banner ingratiation for the public.

The details are the excrement of the bowels.

From the page:
The UAS must always remain within visual line-of-sight of the pilot and observer. The pilot actually flying the aircraft must have at least a private pilot’s certificate and current medical certification.
So the FAA rules just completely screws the green movement. If the drone needs to remain in line-of-sight then the controller ( not pilot, there is no pilot ) then they need to follow in a vehicle. And who is this observer? Is the FAA imposing more people to deliver a package than the USPS ( United States Post Office )?

So the more people to deliver a package the more energy needed the less green it is. FAA conspiracy.

And how does piloting a plane translate to a drone? Why is an old technology being applied to a new technology? Don't we need a new standard?

What is the observer? This seems to be an excessive requirement. How many of you do your job and there is someone who's job is to watch you?

How does piloting a plane help piloting a drone? Should we not need a video game expert instead?

What is up with the medical certification? Do you need medical certification to play a video game? No.

Is flying a drone more like flying a plane or more like playing a video game?

If you say a plane you're an idiot.