Affordable Healthcare Effect on Society

    This is an exchange of emails between Bob Mansfield and me concerning the Affordable Healthcare Act and particularly its effect on young women.

Mansfield:
    The Affordable Health Care Act now provides a birth control and abortion safety net for young women. Responsibility along with the new benefit should prevent women who are financially unable to raise a child from having them. In 12 months there should no longer be a need for new aid to dependent children. Young women can chose their own destiny and avoid a pregnancy that they can not afford and the rest of society would like not to. This can save the treasury 100 of billions annually in support: Less: public housing, ADC, food stamps, Medicaid, cell phones, and other unpaid benefits I have failed to mention. Because the young woman is able body she could also get a job and pay taxes, or at the least reduce the amount of unearned income tax credit the government shells out.
    When she becomes financially strong enough or forms a financially sound family unit prior to making the conscious decision to have children, all of our society wins. She will pay taxes adding to the national collective rather than being a drain.
    As soon as possible the government should end the economic encouragement for a young woman to have children she can not afford. The Democratic party needs to harness the true power of the act. By eliminating all of this deficit spending we could balance the budget without further penalizing the most productive members of society. The only problem is that we would erode our future voting base.

Sucsy:
    I'm afraid that I have to take strong exception to what you have just written. I'm sure that the people who wrote the Affordable Health Care Act had in mind the idealistic approach, which you have elucidated, particularly with respect to young women. My reason for differing is that I anticipate it will not really work that way.
    Providing birth control and abortion funding for young women such as the professional law student Sandra Fluke will accomplish nothing other than to spend taxpayer money on birth control medication. With or without Affordable Health Care, Sandra Fluke and her group will not be requiring abortion, except under conditions of extreme neglect. The group is normally competent in most things and will continue to avoid unwanted pregnancies. The free availability of birth control medication will have little effect on their lifestyle. If free birth control medication was not available, members of that group would bear the cost themselves. The group will continue to engage in sex to its satisfaction, without obvious penalty, but with decreased personal financial expense.
    The Sandra Fluke group will be doing themselves damage by significantly reducing births, which are a normal positive emotion of women's lives. They will be substituting that for freedom of operation in careers, which can have some satisfaction, but not the fundamental emotion of childbirth. If some also wish to have children, and go the childbirth route, the likelihood is that they will be single parents, which will be disadvantageous to new children.    The additional monetary requirements of childcare coupled with reduced ability of the parent for productive employment will require access to other funding. Since husbands are no longer a part of the financial picture in raising such families, the single mother must go to Father Obama and his funding mechanism for dependent children. However, this will likely be an exception, and the majority of the group will be opting for career development with public funding of birth control medication. That will result in a reduced birthrate from this advanced intellectual group, and a general dumbing down of the population.
    Many young women do not have the intellectual skills of the Sandra Fluke group, but will still be attracted to the sexual freedom of the new society, without having to tolerate a financially supporting husband. Some may opt for career development, like the Sandra Fluke group, but more likely will follow the emotional route of childbearing. This will save public expense on birth control medication and abortion, but will lead to continued public expense for dependent children. Since the financial benefits of dependent children will be better than without dependent children, there will be encouragement of this group to have as many children as reasonably possible. In addition to the public costs, we will again be dumbing down the population but much more so in this case than with the Sandra Fluke group.
    The normal world is made up approximately of equal numbers of men and women. Children growing up only under the direction of single mothers will have an obvious disadvantage of not knowing how to deal with men coming from a traditional family, when they arrive in the adult world . However, they will be able to easily deal with other men who have been raised by single women. This will lead to a fundamental change in society, the more single men who are products of single women "families", the more our society will move to feminism. I have no feeling on whether this would be good or bad. Merely noting that there will be a distinct change.

Washington Negotiations Miss the Point

Anonymous CJ contributes the following:


One of the interesting experiences of my life was negotiating with a Middle East rug merchant. These people have a routine all their own. On one of our visits to Istanbul, DG and I engaged in such negotiations with a Turkish rug merchant and wound up buying several thousand dollars worth of rugs.

Without going into great detail, one of the features of a rug merchant is that he will take back deals previously offered. Therefore, it is important always to keep changing the deal during the negotiation. This is easily done by enlarging the size of the deal or purchase. One principle common to all negotiations is that a good deal is struck if both sides win.

Having said that, the negotiations going on in Washington, DC have all the characteristics of bargaining with a rug merchant. Obama is clearly the rug merchant and keeps reneging on former agreements. Speaker Boehner keeps trying to increase the size of the deal. The serious problem in this case is the definition of winners and losers. There is little prospect that the country will win regardless of the outcome because the critical matter facing our country is the rapidly growing national debt. That issue is not being addressed at all.

Think about it. Do we elect our representatives to score political points or to legislate policies that will foster economic growth?

Commercialization of Federal Research Technology

Andrea Widener has a nice two-page article entitled, "Mission Impossible: Tech Transfer" in the November 26 issue of Chemical and Engineering News. I say "nice" because whether intended or not, the use of the term "Mission Impossible" appears very appropriate.

Various government agencies spend collectively many billions of dollars each year on research grants to universities. Presumably, those research results would be of interest to industry for the development of new products or procedures to improve the public lifestyle.

President Obama has now issued a memo requesting that the federal agencies create plans to push more of those research lab results to private companies in an effort to develop commercial products. However, Congress passed a law in 1980 establishing that program. The question is then what have various presidents and the government agencies been doing on the subject for the past 32 years?

Most of Andrea's article involve statements by various government officials concerning what they had done in the past and what they are now expecting to do. One previous activity has been the licensing of government patents, but no mention is made of how any patent licensing or other technology transfer has actually led to a commercial product.

The new Presidential push will likely involve the expenditure of additional taxpayer funds, on top of the many billions already spent on the research itself. I predict that the new action will lead to nothing more than it has led to in the past 32 years, except to spend more money.

However, this new program is in effect, and we will see whether there is any practical realization in the next few years. If as I suspect, there is no new commercial product on which we can lay a finger saying that it was of original government research grant origin, then I will have been correct. Since it is likely that the government transfer program will have been effective, the conclusion must then be drawn that the original research technology was not commercializable and should not have been taxpayer supported in the first place.

Stop Government Agency Research Grants to Universities

In 2008, Congress mandated that the government agency, National Institute of Health (NIH), must make the results of taxpayer funded research freely available to the public. However, university grant receivers from the NIH have done so only about 75% of the time.

In the November 26 issue of Chemical and Engineering News, Britt Erickson reports that the National Institute of Health will begin holding back grant money to NIH funded researchers who do not comply with the agency's published access policy.

A weak congratulations to the NIH. We limit it to weak, because the NIH should not be giving out grant money in the first place. Any research done at universities should be done on a private contribution basis from the University itself, from donors, or from companies interested in the results of such research.

The public gains essentially nothing from such grants, which run into billions of dollars, and they should be eliminated.

Federal Employee Compensation Misunderstood

    The public appears to have a general misconception on the compensation of federal employees
    The Gen. Services Administration (GSA) has the responsibility for administering federal employees compensation. While there are some differences within the system, most federal employees operate under the same compensation rules.
    One public misunderstanding appears to be the impression that federal employees have higher salaries than the equivalent positions in private industry.
    As a comparative example, information was recently published that a tennis coach at Texas Tech has retired at the age of 48 and will receive an annuity involving 80% of his previous salary. The implication is that he started at the age of 24, and therefore he would have 24 years of service.
    I recently talked with an employee in the US Attorneys Office of the federal government. His anticipated retirement annuity is estimated to be 35% of his previous salary. One could say this is an unreasonable comparison, because the federal employee salary was so much higher than the salary of the tennis coach. We don't know the facts on the tennis coach's salary, but we do know that two employees who recently joined the US Attorneys Office took salary cuts of $20,000 per year. In addition, they had joined a group whose salary has been frozen for the last three years. One could also ask why anyone would to do that, but there are reasons unrelated to the federal employee benefits which we are discussing.
    Many years ago when I was a chemist at the Bridesburg Plant of the Rohm & Haas Company, there were two salary classifications; nonexempt and exempt. The nonexempt payroll involved wage payments for a 40-hour week, with overtime payments at one of a half times the regular hourly rate, and double time for Sundays and holidays. The exempt category did not receive additional compensation for overtime. Such overtime would be occasional, if we were running a plant trial around-the-clock, but might involve four or five hours of overtime per month.
    I talked with the US Attorney's Office employee about overtime. He says that the Department management strongly encourages employees to engage in uncompensated overtime. In other words, they are on the "exempt" payroll. As I recall, my contact says he generally puts in 5 to 10 hours a week on overtime and considerably more when he is preparing for trial. At that time he might be working 10 to 12 hours a day. Some of that overtime may be compensatory time off, but no extra pay. If he happens to be working on Christmas day or any other federal holiday, that time is a gift to the Department. There is no compensatory time off. If he is working overtime, the building services are usually shutdown, and in summer he may be working in a 90° office.
    I asked whether there any other "strange conditions of his employment". He said that he has to pay for a parking space in the government parking lot at his office. There's nothing special about that parking space. It is not a garage or otherwise covered. He also said that when he initiated employment he had to buy his own calling cards, although in recent years that has changed.
    I also asked whether he knew of any differences in compensation within the GSA system. He said that FBI employees by Congressional edict receive a higher retirement annuity than employees of the US Attorneys Department. The difference was said to be based upon a higher stress level at the FBI than in US Attorneys operations. Apparently Congress felt that there is no significantly higher stress in standing before a judge and jury.
    I asked why our US Attorney Department employee continued his work, in view of these rather stupid rules and inequalities. He said he likes the principles of his job in maintaining law and order for his country and his benefits overall were not bad, even though they didn't seem to compare favorably with the retired Texas tech tennis coach.
    Does this all this mean that there is no justification for the public complaint that we spend too much money on federal employees? The answer is "no". There is justification. It does not involve individual federal employees. We spend too much money on government, because there are too many federal employees. Are there too many federal employees in the In the US Attorneys Office? Probably not. Are there too many US employees in the Department of Energy, the Department of Education, and the Environmental Protective Protection Agency? Undoubtedly, "yes".

Black Professional Organizations Are Anti-American

    There is an organization known as the NOBCChE, which stands for National Organization for the Professional Advancement of Black Chemists & Chemical Engineers. Lauren Wolf of Chemical and Engineering News reported in the November 5 issue on an NOBCChE meeting held in Washington in September.
    I am very much opposed to the existence of this organization, because it is un-American.
    In the nature of living things, like tends to associate with like. Geese associate with geese in flocks. Similarly ducks. Antelopes associate with antelopes. Black people associate with black people. Hungarians associate with Hungarians, etc.. This happens because of some inate characteristics, which we do not fully understand. However, we have some inkling as to why this happens with respect to people.
    The mentality of people is twofold, with respect to associations. They like individuality and personal freedoms, while simultaneously enjoying the presence of belonging to a group. For this reason, we have black churches, Presbyterian churches, Sons of Italy, and Lions. Each of these groups has a commonality. It might be persons of similar skin color, persons with similar thought about how to worship God, persons of similar culture, and persons of similar altruism. We generally refer to these organizations as social organizations.
    However, the Constitution says we should not be discriminating against persons based upon race, sex, or national origin. The aforementioned groups have no connection with the government and therefore their existence is not in conflict with the concept of our Constitution. However, when we have a professional organization with members restricted to a single color and that organization is dedicated to promoting itself and its members through influence in the government, we have a completely undesirable situation. America is a country dedicated to opportunity for all. When there is a racial organization dedicated to promote the financial well-being of its members, we have a mixed, bag, which should not be tolerated.
    The American Chemical Society has previously promoted the economic well-being of its members, but the difference is that its members are a group of Americans of all sexes, ages, race, and national origin.
    This is not an America where blacks should be competing against whites, women against men, nor Catholics against Presbyterians. Economic competition through government largess discriminates against one group, if it favors another group. As previously said, It was obviously the intent of the Constitution framers to have opportunity for all.

US Opportunity to Study Missile Interception in Israel

I strongly regret not having recognized a tremendous opportunity, but hopefully our military has been more alert.

For the past week, Hamas missiles have been raining down on Israel. What a tremendous opportunity for the US military to study its ability to intercept missiles! If this R&D work were done in the United States, we would first have to manufacture and subsequently destroy missiles at some great cost. There in the Middle East, we would have free access to any number of targets.

From this aspect it is unfortunate that there has been a cease-fire today, but that may be short-lived, as our most agreements in the Middle East. At least, if our military has not been doing R&D on missiles in the Middle East, now is the time to set it up with Israel and get our gear in position. There is little doubt that a missile rain in the Middle East will come again, and we should be ready.

Why is this important to the US, other than helping our friends, the Israelis?

Korea has nuclear capability and Iran is developing the same. Iran and Korea are also developing missile capability to deliver warheads to the United States. It is only a matter of time before they are able to accomplish this. 

President Reagan started development of an antimissile capability through his Star Wars program. Subsequent developments by the military have not been much in the news concerning effectiveness, but occasionally we have heard that a trial interception was only partially successful.

With the potential destruction of a thermonuclear warhead on the United States, this continues to be of utmost importance. Every effort should be made to develop complete US antimissile capability.

When we were dealing with the Russians during the Cold War, the protective philosophy was that one side or the other would not be provocative, since it would then lead to everybody's destruction. It was termed Mutually Assured Destruction or MAD. However, let us remember that Oriental and Middle East mentality is not the same as Russian mentality. Middle Easterners are much less afraid of death, as they are welcomed into the arms of Allah

Should We Have More Visas for US Trained Foreign Scientists?

    Andrea Widener has a longer article in the November 5 issue of Chemical and Engineering News concerning immigration of scientifically trained persons to the US.
    US companies looking for highly skilled workers claim that more visas and green cards are needed for foreign nationals to fill open positions and keep the companies competitive internationally. Congress is apparently listening.
    However, this appears to the writer to be a rather strange problem. Most of the people that these companies apparently desire have been trained at US universities under the financial benefits of government grants from US taxpayers. That trained group of scientists includes US citizens and noncitizens.
    From previous articles in C&E News concerning employment of newly produced graduates with Masters and PhD degrees, there seems to be a steady moaning concerning lack of job opportunities. Most of these complaints seem to come from Americans rather than foreigners. Does this mean that the American graduates are less trained than the foreign graduates at the same universities? I doubt it.
    Why then the steady drumming of companies claiming an insufficient supply of qualified scientists? The answer is simple. Companies like to keep their payroll expenses as low as possible. They can hire foreign graduates from US universities at lower salaries, and the greater the supply of US trained foreign graduates, the more talent they can obtain for the buck.
    I am not especially sympathetic to the plight of recently US trained American scientists concerning job opportunities, and therefore, would not oppose an increase in the visa and green cards for US trained foreign scientists. It is certainly better to allow US trained foreign scientists to remain in the country in a productive capacity, as opposed to the societal cost of administering to untrained illegal immigrants, who sneak across the border.
    However, I have said in a separate writing that I am strongly opposed to US trained foreign scientists working on confidentially sensitive research and development at the US Department of Defense.

No Foreign Nationals for R&D At the Department Of Defense

Andrea Widener has a short article in the November 5 issue of Chemical and Engineering News. It concerns a report from the National Academies on the manpower of Research and Development section of the Department of Defense (DOD).

          The National Academies is a combination of four other societies, which are all honorary membership organizations. Total membership is about 6,000 scientists, engineers, and health professionals.

          The National Academies' report generally criticizes the Department of Defense for poor management of its employees but concentrates on the shortage of qualified scientists and engineers in the department. To alleviate that situation, it suggests that Congress reform the H-18 Visa system to allow more highly trained non-American graduates of US universities to work at DOD.

          This is a ridiculous recommendation, which this scientist strongly opposes. No matter what our shortage of qualified scientists and engineers may be in the DOD, we should never allow entrance to non-Americans. DOD research and development work is highly confidential. We have enough foreigners trying to kill Americans, without giving them access to improved technology. How far do you think we would have gotten in development of the atomic bomb if we had invited German and Japanese scientists to participate? 

EU R&D Results Available to US?

With the previous development of the European Union, it assumed responsibility for European research and development in much the same manner that the various US government agencies have established grant programs of taxpayer funds to universities.

My personal opinion is that this is a socialistic program which is not justifiable for either the US or the European Union. However I have no objection to the European Union acceding to the 100,000 people request and continuing their unified Research and Development efforts.

I say this because, with the general socialistic attitude of the Europeans, the results of such Research and Development will be generally publicly available, presumably to the US as well as to the member European countries

If this is true, the US may be able to recoup through any positive the EU R&D results some of the previous expenditures we have made to Europe and also justify our own reduction of R&D research grants.

While this seems like a "leech" attitude, it is not much different than the US supplying for the world the various R&D development in pharmaceuticals, with the result that other countries then produce those same substances and sell them at low cost without having the need to amortize R&D costs.

With my proposal, it is at least justifiable in consideration of the previous blood, sweat, and tears we have spent on the Europeans.

Dow and DuPont Shutdowns and Layoffs

    In the October 25 issue of Chemical and Engineering News, Marc Reisch has an article entitled, "Dow And DuPont Unveiled Job, Plant Cuts". Reasons for the reductions are indicated as operating in a slow growth and volatile world.
    Dow will eliminate 2400 jobs and shutdown 20 facilities.
    DuPont will eliminate 1500 jobs, shutdown a polyethylene facility and sell off its automobile coatings business.
    Why is this? The simple answer is that business is bad.
    Dow, DuPont, and chemical companies in general make basic materials which are then formulated by other companies into consumer products. Business is bad for the formulating companies, and they reduce their purchases of basic materials from the chemical companies.
    Why is business bad for the formulating companies? With a general reduction in household income, consumers are reducing purchases of formulated or consumer products.
    How do we arrive at a general reduction in household income? A large amount of unemployment has led to a significant reduction in the average household income pie.
    Are there any other factors which discourage the consumer from buying? Other than the fact that he has less money, the average consumer also has higher expenses. Gasoline prices are significantly higher. The price of bread is up about 80% in the last 15 years. Healthcare costs are up. Costs for restaurant meals and entertainment are up. Local taxes continue to increase. In general, cost-of-living continues to climb.
    Why is cost-of-living up when household income is down? Cost-of-living is primarily related to the value of the dollar, which continues to shrink. The shrinkage is caused by inflation, which is a result of the overprinting of money by the Federal Reserve.
    Why does the Federal reserve overprint money? Because government needs money to continue its operations. Government cannot obtain sufficient funds from public taxation or from borrowing.
    Why doesn't government spend less money? There are several reasons. Government officials feel a sense of power when they are in control of spending public funds. Government officials also feel a need to be reelected in order to maintain their sense of power and personal high incomes. Reelection require satisfying the local electorate, which can be accomplished by bringing back from the federal coffers more money for local spending then has been obtained from taxes. In other words, at bigger piece of the pie.
    Until most of these problems can be resolved, Dow, DuPont and other chemical companies will continue to see their businesses decline, which will require further employee layoffs and a shutdown of manufacturing facilities.Dow and DuPont shutdowns and layoffs

    General Petraeus had an extramarital affair. So what?
    President Clinton had at least two extramarital affairs while in office (Lewinsky and Jones). Some of the sexual acts were performed in the Oval Office.
    President Clinton never resigned.
    President Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. He was not removed from office. There was no charge involving an extramarital affair or sexual misconduct.
    While it does not speak well of Gen. Petraeus' character to have been involved in an extramarital affair, it does not appear to have affected his job performance or have had any effect on blackmail related to his job. However, his resignation does support his character flaw. It is clear that he has a character flaw in morality, but he has two instances of poor judgment. The first was being involved in an extramarital affair and the second was to have resigned because of it.

Open email to Bill O'Reilly at FOXNews:

Bill,
    You asked why a 32--year-old single woman will vote Democrat, while a married woman of the same age will vote Republican.
    Part of a feminine emotion is a desire to be taken care of.
    A married woman emotionally depends upon her husband for her emotional stability. This leaves her free for a more objective look at her family and society in general. The Republican platform more closely matches her desires.
    A single woman does not have a male figure on which to depend. Therefore, she is attracted to a government bureaucracy, which can give her the stability she needs. Couple that with the father image of the President, and she is emotionally a strong Democrat.

Let's See the Data Justifying a Stricter Ozone Standard

In the Government Concentrates Section of the October 29 issue of Chemical and Engineering News, GH reviews recent activity by the Environmental Protective Protection Agency with respect to concentrations of ozone in the ground-level atmosphere.




The current ozone standard is 75 parts per billion, which was established in 2008. There is no information on how that limit was established.



EPA now wants to reduce that level to 60 is 70 ppb. Ozone is indicated as an irritating air pollutant and EPA says it has "rationale" for reducing the standard. No mention is made on what that rationale consists of.



At least the EPA has started to consider money when making its pronouncements. In this case, it estimates that US businesses could lose $90 billion per year with the new standard, but that this cost would be offset by benefits to public health. There is no explanation of how these business costs were calculated and other benefits to public health.



Until we see a better analysis of cost-benefit, I am opposed to any change in the ozone standard. In fact, I also suggest that the present ozone standard should be reviewed to see whether it has really made a significant positive cost-benefit.

A Non-Government Program for Small Business Start-Ups

More good news!

Marc Reisch has a two-page article in the October 22 issue of Chemical and Engineering News, entitled "Funding Startups". A subtitle says, "Investor network gears up to offer seed capital, advice to nascent chemical businesses".

The article is actually broader in concept than the subtitle implies. The accent is entrepreneurship and specifically the startup of small businesses.

Today's climate has three advantages for such startups. First, universities are eager to commercialize any technology that they have developed through research. Second, retired scientists with the investing bug are ready to risk a little more and help startup businesses become more than concepts. Lastly, in today's slow economy many late career scientists are looking for jobs and are eager for opportunity.

The total approach involves the Angel Resource Institute, a nonprofit information clearinghouse for early-stage investing. The clearinghouse lists 329 Angel investor groups in North America. Each investment of an Angel Group involves approximately $100 thousand in seed money to help launch a new business. Subsequently, when the new business has gathered momentum, venture capitalists come in and are able to supply millions of dollars raised from wealthy individuals and institutions.

Of the total number of Angel deals, about 32% involves new Internet businesses and about 20% health care, although the essence of the ACS article is on a new program to foster chemical startups.

Without going into unnecessary detail, the main point of this writing is that there is a significant private program for the development of new businesses and entrepreneurship in general, which does not involve government.

We Need Drastic Cuts in Federal Research and Development Spending

In the October 15 issue of Chemical and Engineering News, Andrea Widener has an article entitled, "Billions at Risk in Budget Cuts".

In the article, she is referring to the sequestration, which involves Congressionally established automatic federal budget cuts to take place on January 2, after a select committee was unable to come up with specific recommendations. Andrea discusses the Research and Development budgets of 10 government agencies. Note that this does not cover the budgets of the agencies themselves. She includes a chart showing that in the first year of sequestration, the R&D budget cuts for those departments would be $12.1 billion.

It is interesting to me that in this time of accent on higher education, Andrea doesn't understand the meaning of the term "risk". From a financial point of view, a risk is where you put money in expectation of obtaining a gain, but also knowing that there's a possibility for loss. If one calls back money, from an investment, risk is reduced.

In the case of Federal Departmental budgets, the Research and Development portions are the items at risk. In other words, the spending of such funds is with anticipation of obtaining a return on the Research and Development. In actual fact, we have already spent many billions of dollars on Research and Development for these departments and have so far achieved little to no return

Going through the eight departments individually, instead of the sequestration amount, I recommend an increase in the R&D budget for the Military. We need to take a risk in developing the best technology, because we know for sure that there are bad guys in the world who will do us harm if possible and we need to protect ourselves.

For the Environmental Protection Agency, rather than a sequestration cut of $50 million, I recommend a cut of about $300 million, which is half of the EPA's R&D budget. I do so knowing that up to now they have been squandering money on political projects which have no significance to our well-being.
For the Department of Health and Human Services, the present R&D budget is $30.8 billion. It has so far accomplished nothing in many years, and I would cut that budget to 5% of the present amount
With respect to NASA, I would cut the R&D budgets to 20% of its present budget. In addition, I would also eliminate completely the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of the Interior and the Department of Homeland Security.

For those who may say that this is a drastic step, there are other federal departments which could take over essential duties, such as passport issuance, and the handling of patents and trademarks. Control of tariffs and import duties could be transferred to the Department of Treasury. Let us also remember that we have a private enterprise system, which can be called into play, even though it has been previously overshadowed by a bloated federal bureaucracy.

Are Research Universities Imaginary?

    The National Research Foundation reported that in an 8-year period to 2010, funding for public research universities fell 20%, while student enrollment increased 13%. The report also seems to make a distinction between normal universities and research universities. It says that state funding for research universities in 1992 was 38% of total and this dropped to 23% in 2010.
 
    I had never heard of a research university, and I googled it for a definition. While there were several listed definitions for "Research University", the actual texts described universities in general, with no specific mention of research university. I concluded that the idea of a research university only seems to be in the minds of persons at the National Research Foundation and related government bureaucracies.
 
    From a practical consideration, any university that teaches science must also teach research techniques, in the same way it would teach how to light a Bunsen burner in a Chemistry lab course.
 
   However, a large number of federal agencies have been collectively dumping billions of taxpayer dollars into university research and apparently have some sort of sales program to justify this.

  From another point of view, while I would hope that states are actually decreasing funding of university research, it may be that the federal government has taken over this aspect to the extent that the states are finding it difficult to legitimately place more money.
 
    The objective of a university should be to teach students. For science, that includes lectures and hands-on laboratory courses.

    When those students later arrive in private industry jobs, some may likely end up in research and development departments, which industry finds necessary for the development of new products to sustain its business. Obviously research techniques should be taught by the universities to prepare those students.

   However if a university considers its main function to actually turn out research and subscribes to various funding mechanisms to accomplish this, it is no longer a university, but rather a research organization.

Judging Effectiveness of Research & Development Funding

    An article by Lisa Jarvis, in the October 1 issue of C&E News, reports that the French pharmaceutical company, Sanofi, will cut 900 jobs in France in an effort to improve R&D efficiency.

Congratulations to Sanofi in recognizing that R&D is a part of business success. If there is no progress with the development of new products from an R&D program, the R&D money is being wasted.

Congress should make a note that Research and Development, as conducted by US agencies in the US government should also be susceptible to critical analysis. Of the billions of dollars spent by these various agencies on R&D, what successes have we had for our money?. If we find insufficient success, we should be making major cuts, as has Sanofi.

The fact that Sanofi is a private company and can go out of business if it doesn't perform efficiently, while the US government cannot fail, is no excuse for continued government R&D inefficiency.

"Means Test" for Social Security

    There has been general bipartisan agreement that the Social Security system needs some adjustment.
     I heard on TV this morning a Democrat proposing that a "Means Test" be used to calculate Social Security payments to individuals.
    Let's look at what a "Means Test" means.
    In the context of finance, persons with high Means are wealthy. Persons with low Means are poor. Therefore, the Democrat proposal is to look at each Social Security recipient's total assets to determine whether he has high or low Means. If he has high Means, he will receive lower monthly payments. If he has low Means, he will receive higher monthly payments.
    This proposal is essentially a redistribution of wealth or a matter of government stealing from one individual in order to benefit another individual. I will now attempt to prove that.
    In the many years I worked, I paid the government a Social Security fee, which could also be regarded as a monthly insurance premium to guarantee me income in my old age. My Social Security fee was the same percentage as for everyone else. But, those who had higher salaries were actually paying higher dollar fees, and those with lower salaries were paying lower dollar fees. Through the years, I then had on deposit a somewhat higher dollar account with the Federal Social Security System than did a person who had been making a somewhat lower salary. In other words I had saved more money through the Social Security system, than had a lower salaried individual.
     Since I paid in more dollars over the course of my working years, I would expect to receive higher monthly payments, than the individual who paid in less during his working years.
    However, if we both now receive the same Social Security payments, the government would be stealing from my account to pay equivalent Social Security for the person who paid in less. If the government now determines that other than my Social Security Account, I have considerably other financial assets and use that as a further basis to reduce my monthly security payments and increase the monthly security payments for those persons having less independent assets, we would enter the realm of super stealing. Another way of looking at this is that government would be no longer respecting private property rights but would be operating in a Marxist system.

Excessive Federal Salaries

    The general federal pay scale limit for various government agencies is $155,500 per year.
    However, Title 42, which was passed in 1944, allowed that level to be exceeded in order to hire exceptional scientists and managers.
    The Government Accountability Office (GAO), recently reported that 22% of Health & Human Services employees are now above the $155,500 limit. In other words, 22% of HHS employees are exceptional scientists and managers. Sound reasonable? Not to me!
    The National Institute of Health (NIH) is part of HHS. Two years ago, 25% of all NIH employees and 44% of NIH researchers and clinical practitioners exceeded the $155,500 limit.
    One might suggest that the $155,500 limit was placed some time ago and that there has been a normal increase in salaries, through inflation.
    However, Chemical and Engineering News reported on a Salary & Employment Survey in its September 24 issue. The highest median salary was for PhD's in industry at $121,000.
    This is obviously an area for considerable budget cuts in these times of extreme budget deficits and debt. We might also ask how we have come to this situation.
    The answer lies in the obvious deficiency of Title 42. It allowed for abuse, and wherever there's an opportunity for abuse, it will be forthcoming. Congress needs now to change Title 42 to eliminate the possibility of abuse and also strongly consider avoiding possibilities of abuse in any future legislation.

Control of Toxic Chemicals

    In the September 24 issue of Chemical and Engineering News, Cheryl Hogue reports on the EPA's system of handling suspected toxic chemicals. The EPA has developed what they call an Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) and the National Research Council is reviewing IRIS at the request of Congress. IRIS intends to determine for each chemical a scientifically-based judgment on the maximum human exposure to the chemical that will not cause adverse health effects.
    Simultaneously, the EPA has decided to consider toxicity information supplied by industry and others, rather than make a decision concerning acceptability of a chemical for public use only on the basis of its own data.
    I don't see what the NRC hopes to accomplish by reviewing IRIS. Obviously every regulation and control should be questioned, but I don't see anything special about IRIS that would require a separate Congressional action. It seems satisfactory to me.
     In addition, I applaud the EPA for taking a more open attitude in considering information from outside the agency.

Budget Cuts for Specific Government Agencies

    In federal budget context, sequestration means an arbitrary budget cut established by Congress following the failure of a congressional super committee tasked with coming up with a plan to cut $1.2 trillion from the federal budget over the next decade.
    The sequestration will be effective January 2, 2013. All R&D.
    The White House Office of Management and Budget reports that sequestration would be deeply destructive to national security, domestic investments and core government functions. It says sequestration is not a responsible way for our nation to achieve deficit reduction.
    I basically agree with the OMB report. We need more precision in our budget cuts. Congress will have an opportunity to change the sequestration before the deadline of January 2, but it appears unlikely that it will do so.
    Research and related activities at the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Health, and the Department of Energy  will have budget reductions of 8.2% to 9.4%.
    While I said we don't need a general drastic budget cut applying to all government expenditures, I do agree with the reductions in R&D for the first two agencies of the three mentioned above. With respect to the Department of Energy, I would like to see 100% reduction by elimination of the agency.
    Conversely, I do not agree that we should be cutting military funding, including military R&D expenditures. In fact, we should be increasing them to better protect ourselves militarily. That would also have the ancillary advantage of promoting peace worldwide. This does not mean that the agencies previously mentioned should have increased budgets for research and development involving military projects. Those agencies should not be involved. All military research and development should be handled by the Department of Defense.
    I like what contender Romney said at his debate with the President last evening. Namely, we should look at each expenditure from the viewpoint of whether borrowing money from China is justified to pay for it.

Congratulations to the EPA on Chemical Toxicity

    Nonstick frying pan coatings have been around for some years. The coatings are polymers, which means molecules stuck together to make a solid. The molecules are perfluorinated, which means they are loaded with fluorine atoms.
    The coatings are not dangerous, but the EPA says that laboratory tests show that the molecules, from which the coatings are made, are toxic to animals, such as quail and frogs. The EPA says the chemicals cause adverse reproductive developmental and systemic effects in lab animals.
    The problem arises through the fact that in the manufacture of the coatings, some of the molecules are lost to the general environment. It is also characteristic that molecules with a high concentration of fluorine atoms are very stable and persist in the environment for many years. One particularly toxic molecule is perfluorooctanoic acid, which has eight carbon atoms in the molecule. Similar materials are also toxic and the EPA lumps these all together as long-chain perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs). To date there has been no obvious toxicity problem in the human population, but there is reason to be concerned, if in continued production of the coatings, long-chain PFCs continue to be lost to the atmosphere and increase in concentration because of their long-term stability.
    The EPA has asked US nonstick coating producers to reduce their emissions of PFCs and have obtained good cooperation, but there are significant foreign producers who have not complied. This aspect is being taken up by the International Conference on Chemicals Management at a Nairobi, Kenya meeting, and will likely have some success.
    I find this activity on the part of the EPA and the International Conference on Chemicals Management completely justifiable, providing we are on solid ground with respect to proof that the PFCs are significantly toxic.

EPA Must Base Its Decisions on Science

According to an article by Cheryl Hogue in the September 10 issue of Chemical and Engineering News, the National Research Council has studied the activities of the EPA and recently issued a report. There were several recommendations, among which is a need for better coordination among the field offices of the EPA and its home Office of Research and Development. As a promoter of efficiency, that certainly sounds reasonable to me.

Of greater significance, the report suggests that the EPA must change how it studies and then acts on persistent and emerging environmental challenges such as climate change and human exposure to an increasing number of chemicals in the environment. Cheryl's report does not indicate any specific recommendations were made. However, I wholeheartedly agree with the objective. I believe the EPA is doing a reasonable job with respect to hazardous chemicals in the environment, but it is sorely deficient in its approach to climate change.

On climate change, the EPA appears to have made no specific scientific study to justify or discredit the theory that deleterious climate change is being caused by increased emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Up to now, it appears that EPA has merely taken information from the emotional positions of climate change enthusiasts and has established and continues to establish regulations based on that unsupported theory.

We need some good scientific proof to show that carbon dioxide is an unusual greenhouse gas, in view of the fact that it's thermal resistivity is only slightly greater than that of other major components of the atmosphere and less than some of the other minor constituents.

Classroom Socialism

    The following came from an Associate:

"An economics teacher at a local school made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama/ Biden socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The teacher then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on the Obama/Biden plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
 
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the teacher told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, and gives to those who do nothing, no-one will try or want to succeed."

Here are also some truths and ramifications regarding socialism:

"1. You can not legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation."

The Ice Cream and the Cow

    The following was sent to me by an Associate, but originally came from a teacher in the Nashville area:

    "We are worried about 'the cow' when it is all about the 'Ice Cream.'  The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching 3rd grade.
    The last Presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest. I decided we would have an election for a class president.  We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote.  To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members.  We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have.

    We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot.

    The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were good kids.

    I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support.

    I had never seen Olivia's mother.
    The day arrived when they were to make their speeches.

    Jamie went first.

    He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place.
    He ended by promising to do his very best.

    Everyone applauded and he sat down.

    Now is was Olivia's turn to speak.

    Her speech was concise. She said, "If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream." She sat down.

    The class went wild. "Yes! Yes! We want ice cream."

    She surely would say more. She did not have to.

    A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn't sure. But no one pursued that question. They took her at her word.

    Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it...She didn't know.
    The class really didn't care. All they were thinking about was ice cream...

    Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a landslide.

    Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth he offered ice cream and 51.4 % of the people reacted like nine year olds.

    They want ice cream.

    The other 48.6% percent know they're going to have to feed the cow and clean up the mess."

    THIS is the ice cream Obama promised us! ! ! ! ! !

      
    Remember, the government cannot give anything to anyone that they have not first taken away from someone else ! ! ! !

    THAT, MY FRIEND, IS HOW OBAMA GOT ELECTED, AND MAY GET ELECTED AGAIN,
 BY THOSE WHO WANT EVERYTHING FOR FREE!

    And, that is why the "middle class is now the dependency class"
.

    CLASS DISMISSED ! !

Mitt Romney Unlikable?

    The following has been sent to me by Associate Dave:

"A lot is being said in the media about Mitt Romney not being “likable” or that he doesn’t “relate well” to people. So after much research, we have come up with a Top Ten List to explain this “unlikablility.”

Why Mitt Romney is Unlikable?

Top Ten Reasons To Dislike Mitt Romney:

1. Handsome, with gracious, statesman like aura. Looks like central casting's #1 choice for Commander-in-Chief.

2. Been married to ONE woman his entire life, and has been faithful to her, including through her bouts with breast cancer and MS.

3. No scandals or skeletons in his closet. (How boring is that?)

4. Can't speak in a fake, southern, "black preacher voice" when necessary.

5. Highly intelligent. Graduated cum laude from both Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School... and by the way, his academic records are NOT sealed.

6. Doesn't smoke or drink alcohol, and has never done drugs, not even in the counter-culture age when he went to college. Too square for today's America ?

7. Represents an America of "yesterday", where people believed in God, went to Church, didn't screw around, worked hard, and became a SUCCESS!

8. Has a family of five great sons... and none of them have police records or are in drug rehab. But of course, they were raised by a stay-at-home mom, and that "choice" deserves America's scorn.

9. Oh yes... he's a MORMON. We need to be very afraid of that very strange religion that teaches its members to be clean-living, patriotic, fiscally conservative, charitable, self-reliant, and honest.

10. And one more point... pundits say because of his wealth, he can't relate to ordinary Americans. I guess that's because he made that money HIMSELF... as opposed to marrying it or inheriting it from Dad. Apparently, he didn't understand that actually working at a job and earning your own money made you un-relatable to Americans.

My goodness, it's a strange world, isn't it?

*****************************************************
Personal Information:

His full Name is: Willard Mitt Romney
He was Born: March 12, 1947 and is 65 years old
His Father: George W. Romney, former Governor of the State of Michigan
He was raised in Bloomfield Hills , Michigan
He is Married to Ann Romney since 1969; they have five children.

Education:

B.A. from Brigham Young University ,
J.D. and M.B.A. from Harvard University

Religion:

Mormon - The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints

Working Background:

After high school, he spent 30 months in France as a Mormon missionary. After going to both Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School simultaneously, he passed the Michigan bar exam, but never worked as an attorney.

In 1984, he co-founded Bain Capital a private equity investment firm, one of the largest such firms in the United States.

In 1994, he ran for Senator of Massachusetts and lost to Ted Kennedy.

He was President and CEO of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games.

In 2002, he was elected Governor of the State of Massachusetts where he eliminated a 1.5 billion deficit.

Some Interesting Facts about Romney:

Bain Capital, starting with one small office supply store in Massachusetts, turned it into Staples; now over 2,000 stores employing 90,000 people.

Bain Capital also worked to perform the same kinds of business miracles again and again, with companies like Domino's, Sealy, Brookstone, Weather Channel, Burger King, Warner Music Group, Dollarama, Home Depot Supply and many others.

He was an unpaid volunteer campaign worker for his dad's gubernatorial campaign
1 year.

He was an unpaid intern in his dad's governor's office for eight years.

He was an unpaid bishop and state president of his church for ten years.

He was an unpaid President of the Salt Lake Olympic Committee for three years.

He took no salary and was the unpaid Governor of Massachusetts for four years.

He gave his entire inheritance from his father to charity.

Mitt Romney is one of the wealthiest self-made men in our country but has given more back to its citizens in terms of money, service and time than most men.

And in 2011 Mitt Romney gave over $4 million to charity, almost 19% of his income... Just for comparison purposes, Obama gave 1% and Joe Biden gave $300 or .0013%.
Mitt Romney is Trustworthy:
He will show us his birth certificate

He will show us his high school and college transcripts.

He will show us his social security card.

He will show us his law degree.

He will show us his draft notice.

He will show us his medical records.

He will show us his income tax records.

He will show us he has nothing to hide.

Mitt Romney's background, experience and trustworthiness show him to be a great leader and an excellent citizen for President of the United States.

You may think that Romney may not be the best representative the Republicans could have selected. At least I know what religion he is, and that he won't desecrate the flag, bow down to foreign powers, or practice fiscal irresponsibility. I know he has the ability to turn this financial debacle that the current regime has gotten us into. We won't like all the things necessary to recover from this debt, but someone with Romney's background can do it.

He never was a "Community Organizer", never took drugs or smoked pot, never got drunk, did not associate with communists or terrorists, nor did he attend a church whose pastor called for God to damn the US.
Is his responsible and clean lifestyle something that should be held against him?

Just imagine the contrast between the Romneys in the White House compared with the current occupants. It is highly likely that the Romneys would not hypocritically and extravagantly spend on hugely expensive vacations, at the taxpayers' expense. The more I see and learn of Mitt Romney and his family the more I like."

Federal Farm Bill

Open email to Representative Neugebauer:

Randy,
    I read your latest newsletter.
    We don't need a farm bill to protect farmers.
    The economic deficiencies for seasonal variations in farm productivity can be covered by private business insurance companies.
    The federal government should get out of the insurance business.

The Fruits of Appeasement

The following article was submitted by an Associate, Anonymous CJ:

"None [few] of you were around in the late 1930s when Hitler was flexing his military muscle in Europe. At that time the Prime Minister of England, Neville Chamberlain, met with Hitler in Munich and offered peace in exchange for Hitler reining in his forces. Chamberlain was hailed as a peace maker, and the Poet Laureate of England even wrote an ode in praise of him. Needless to say, Hitler ignored the agreement and soon overran Europe. World War II had begun.

We are now witnessing a repeat of that ignominious event. Obama, the President of the United States, is now trying to appease Iran. Hopefully, there will be no praise of him as a peacemaker and certainly no odes of praise written about him.

In order to reverse this folly, he must be voted out of office and the United States must resume its position of strength in the Middle East. Tyrants do not understand appeasement. They see it as weakness.  They only understand strength.

CJ"

Welcoming the National Democratic Convention to Charlotte

The following article was sent to me by one of my Associates: 

 " by Rev. Austin Miles CHARLOTTE, North Carolina (9/11/12) When the DNC came to Charlotte, area churches, 100 of them, offered hospitality, not knowing how much the Dems hate God and would actually boo God at the convention. They had no idea how that hatred would be directed at them and their churches.  

The Sunday before the DNC, over 9000 people had come together to pray for the convention. Then, wanting to extend hospitality to the visitors to their city, 56 of the churches set out to "Adopt-a-Delegation." They put together gift baskets featuring Carolina Pralines and a letter welcoming them to the city and offering assistance in transportation, childcare or spiritual matters.  

According to writer, Todd Starnes, The DNC banned the churches from distributing the gift baskets to delegates because, DNC said, the congregations hold values that are contrary to the party platform. Read that carefully.
David Benham, one of the organizers of the outreach said, "We were just trying to display Southern hospitality." DNC officials, however, conveyed to city leaders that the Christians would not be allowed to present their gift baskets. Even the Charlotte Mayor's office jumped in to tell the churches not to participate, saying that their views on women's rights are contrary to the platform. That's right..the same platform that booed God later.  

Benham then asked if they could send welcome letters to the delegates. Again, the DNC refused, because, they said, "The churches hold pro-life values."  

The baskets did not contain a single political or pro-life message. They just wanted to give them regional candles and a welcome letter. The DNC refused to return numerous phone calls seeking comment.  But it gets worse. When a gathering of 200 Muslims showed up to pray for the convention, the Dems welcomed them with open arms and the liberal media gave extensive national coverage.  

It is ironic that this day, in the shadow of that Islamic prayer event, we commemorate the greatest tragedy in American History, when Muslims attacked America on September 11, 2001, brutally killing thousands of innocent people. Muslims who publicly state their hatred of our country with fierce determination to kill us all and put America under Sharia Law, are welcomed by the Democratic Party while Christians are pushed out of sight like criminals because they respect life and hold family values.  

These are the same democrats who want you to vote them into office to direct the United States of America and every life from beginning to end. It is obvious that we must not let this happen.  

Our thanks to Rev. Ed Berkey (retired) who alerted us to this story.
Austin Miles."

More on Entitlements

    One of our Associates says that Social Security and Medicare are entitlements in the same category as food stamps, rent subsidies and the like.
    My position is that the so-called entitlements are of two types; earned and unearned. I consider Social Security and Medicare are earned entitlements, because I put money into them with the intention of obtaining a return, as I would with any insurance program.
    Our Associate says that this is an improper way to look at it. A government expenditure pie chart shows significant expenditures for Social Security and Medicare and includes all other expenditures, such as the military, foodstamp's etc. On that basis, our Associate says I should give up receiving Social Security and Medicare payments, on the basis of principle, similar to the fact that I would not accept payments for food stamps. My latest reply is as follows:

     "You are right from the government's point of view. Social Security is the best example. It was originally intended to be an insurance program with separate funding. In other words it was the same as a private insurance company collecting premiums to pay against claims. The policyholders had a balance of credit toward the insurance company or government, which in turn was an insurance company or government debt.
    This has been adulterated so that the the US government no longer regards it as a debt. In other words it was a debt which the government found convenient to disallow. It is not basically different than a program which would also disallow government debt from sale of government bonds.
    From my point of view, I still regarded Social Security and Medicare as a government debt to me, because I paid and continue to pay the insurance premiums. In view of that, I am entitled to continue receiving monthly Social Security payments. Medicare is similarly included.
    Look at it this way. The Chinese have bought US government bonds, on which the US government has a debt to the Chinese. If the US government now decides that it no longer has this debt and continues to pay the Chinese something on general principles or as an entitlement, do you think that the Chinese would agree to that logic?"

Entitlements

Open email to Congress:
 

   I continue to complain about the over-expenditures of the federal government and the continually mounting national debt. In this context, my obsession has been to address the problem of "entitlements".
 

   One of my Associates says that I will get nowhere in trying to convince others to give up their special interests and entitlements, as long as I retain mine. He says that in accepting Social Security and Medicare I am being hypocritical and I am choosing to empower politicians with my money in those areas.
 

    My Associate is a rather astute person, and I am rather surprised to see that he is confused on this point. I also suspect that many others may have similar confusion, including members of Congress. It is for that reason, I am addressing the subject of "entitlements". 

   I looked into the Internet definition of "entitlement" and found that it is a guaranteed right by law to receive a benefit, usually a payment. Social Security and Medicare are usually included as examples of entitlements. However, an antonym of "entitlements" is "earned". Therefore, a synonym of "entitlements" would be "unearned".
 

    On that basis, we need to reconsider government payments to individuals. Rather than lump them all together under the term "entitlements", we should distinguish between earned and unearned benefits. The reason for making this distinction is a form of economic logic. Receiving an unearned benefit is a form of charity. Receiving an earned benefit is a form of compensation; that is "something for something", for which the legal term is "quid pro quo".
 

    To be specific, I interpret my Social Security payments as earned benefits. For the many years that I worked, I paid the federal government a Social Security insurance premium. The basic contract was that after a retirement age, I would stop paying premiums, and start to receive payments based upon what I had previously paid. The "policy" condition was that I would receive such payments only as long as I lived. If I died early, I would have received few payments and the Social Security Trust Fund would have made a profit on my "policy". Since I have had the good fortune of living for many years, the Social Security Trust Fund, is likely taking a loss on my "policy". However, that is the basis of all insurance operations, whether private or government sponsored. But I repeat, the Social Security payments, which I now receive, are an EARNED benefit. I paid my premiums.
 

    Going on to Medicare, this is also a form of medical insurance. For all of the years that I worked, I paid each month an FICA fee. I still pay this on the part-time job that I hold. FICA is an acronym for Federal Insurance Contributions Act. Notice the word "insurance" in the title? The online dictionary describes FICA as a "U.S. law requiring a deduction from paychecks and income that goes toward the Social Security program and Medicare." In other words, the FICA fee, which I have been paying for years has not only been my premium payments for a Social Security policy, which I covered above, but also included my premium payments for a Medicare policy. As previously indicated, I continue to pay that based on my part-time income, but I also am required to make additional payments, apparently just because I'm a citizen. A Medicare insurance premium is deducted each month from my Social Security benefit. When I go to the doctor periodically, Medicare pays a part of the cost. However, recall that I have previously paid and continue to pay Medicare insurance premiums. Therefore, any Medicare payments to medical practitioners are an indirect EARNED benefit for me. In addition, I carry with First Health an medical insurance policy covering only prescription drugs. I pay the insurance premium monthly. In total, I have two forms of medical insurance; one government Medicare and one private First Health. I have previously paid and continue to pay Medicare and only recently pay First Health. All health monetary benefits I receive are EARNED.
 

   Let's go on to other potential government payments. These might be Social Security Disability, Unemployment, Food Stamps, Housing Subsidies, and perhaps others. I have never received a nickel from these so-called "entitlements" and well I should not, because they are not benefits, which I have earned, contrary to Social Security and Medicare. I could theoretically say that I am entitled to them as earned benefits, because I paid federal income taxes for a great number of years and for which a portion of those payments has been allocated to those unearned benefits. But this would be a stretch and is antagonistic to my basic moral integrity. The fact that the government confiscates my tax money to give to others is abhorrent to me, as a believer in private enterprise, the right of private property, and individual responsibility. But, there is not much I can do about it, except write this letter to you in the hope that your sense of responsibility and fair play will help to put these things into proper perspective.