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.
Monday, December 24, 2012
Friday, December 21, 2012
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?
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
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.
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.
Saturday, December 8, 2012
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".
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".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
