Hi Everyone:
So there I was this morning reading the Sunday paper when the big headline read, Perks boost SUNY presidents' pay. For those of you who are not in the know, SUNY is the 64 campus, State University system in New York state. FYI, since 2008, NYS cutbacks to SUNY have amounted to $1.5 billion, or roughly 35% in operating aid. University officials have been pressing lawmakers for permission to raise tuition by small, predictable increments each year.
So what are the perks the SUNY presidents receive? According to my newspaper, they receive free housing or housing allowances, free cars and an array of other perks, including; golf-club memberships, paid retirement contributions, drivers for night driving and long trips, entertainment allowances and in one case up to $13,000 per year in additional personal expenses. Also FYI, the presidents' salaries range from $183,068 to well over $400,000. I am not so sure that the SUNY system should get automatic tuition increases when they seem to be giving away the ship to a small number of employees, namely the presidents. I understand the free housing or housing allowance perk. But if someone makes over $183,000, do they need a free car, free retirement funding, free entertainment expenses, free drivers, free golf-club memberships and free money for additional personal expenses? Probably not. It is time to come back down to earth and take back some, if not most of those perks. That to me would be a common sense approach to slow down the runaway costs of free perks to SUNY presidents. They make enough money to afford to pay their own way.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Is Grass Worth It?
Hi Everyone:
A few weeks ago my wife and I went upstate New York. The weather was perfect and the drive was a breeze. I did notice something though that caught my attention. As we were heading north on the New York State Thruway, we saw numerous large tractors mowing the grass. If you have ever been on this highway, you will know that there is a vast amount of grass on the median and both shoulders. I think that the thruway is some 450 to 500+ miles long. That is huge amount of grass.
With the current price of gasoline, using those gas guzzler tractors just doesn't make sense. And with the NYS economy in the pits, it also doesn't make sense to pay all the man hours necessary to get the job done. So what to do? I believe that it was Ladybird Johnson, President Johnson's wife, who led a campaign to plant wildflowers near highways, instead of grass. I believe that would be the common sense solution for New York and other states, for all their highways and parkways, would be to plant indigenous wildflowers etc. No more gasoline needed for the tractors and no man hours paid for upkeep. And finally I think that the Wildflowers would look a whole lot better then the miles of boring grass. Problem solved!
Til next week.
Peter
A few weeks ago my wife and I went upstate New York. The weather was perfect and the drive was a breeze. I did notice something though that caught my attention. As we were heading north on the New York State Thruway, we saw numerous large tractors mowing the grass. If you have ever been on this highway, you will know that there is a vast amount of grass on the median and both shoulders. I think that the thruway is some 450 to 500+ miles long. That is huge amount of grass.
With the current price of gasoline, using those gas guzzler tractors just doesn't make sense. And with the NYS economy in the pits, it also doesn't make sense to pay all the man hours necessary to get the job done. So what to do? I believe that it was Ladybird Johnson, President Johnson's wife, who led a campaign to plant wildflowers near highways, instead of grass. I believe that would be the common sense solution for New York and other states, for all their highways and parkways, would be to plant indigenous wildflowers etc. No more gasoline needed for the tractors and no man hours paid for upkeep. And finally I think that the Wildflowers would look a whole lot better then the miles of boring grass. Problem solved!
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Did You Hear What Happened and What Didn't Happen?
Hi Everyone:
Well it finally happened about 10 days ago. The price for a barrel of crude oil dropped 15% to below $95. The price of oil has been on the rise for the past 9 or 10 months, hitting about $109 per barrel at its highest. Last week, the CEO's from the biggest oil companies were in DC to answer Senators questions as to why the prices were so high and why they should still receive the billions of dollars in subsidies, when the companies earn some $10 billion of profits each in the first quarter of 2011.
So what didn't happen? The price of gas has not dropped one cent. It has actually increased around where I live! How can that be? When we hear about a price increase in a barrel of oil, the price of gas increases immediately. But when the price of a barrel of oil drops, it takes weeks for the price of gas to drop a few cents. What's up with that? What else didn't happen? The CEO's didn't tell the truth. The CEO's of the oil companies blamed the gas price increases on anything and everything but the truth. The truth is that the demand for gas has decreased and that speculators are responsible for the increases in prices. Supply and demand economics mean nothing to them! In addition, back in 2004 0r 2005, the CEO's stated that they no longer needed the subsidies, due to the fact the a barrel of oil was selling for $55. But now when the price hovers around $100, the big oil companies say they need the subsidies to help them for more oil exploration.
Give me a break!!! If they didn't need the subsidies when oil was at $55/barrel, they certainly don't need it at almost double the price now. You would think that a company that earns $10 billion in profits in the first quarter, would use its own money for exploration. But nooooooo, they are so damn greedy that they will squeeze every drop of blood that they can get for as long as they can.
The bottom line here is that it makes no common sense to continue giving big oil companies any additional taxpayer money, period! It also makes no common sense as to why the price of gas doesn't drop when the price of crude drops. Don't believe them when they say it is a time lag factor of the oil not reaching our shores for up to 2 weeks before the price drops. If that was true, there would also have to be a time lag when prices of crude goes up. Again the correlation only works in their favor when the prices go up.
Til next week.
Peter
Well it finally happened about 10 days ago. The price for a barrel of crude oil dropped 15% to below $95. The price of oil has been on the rise for the past 9 or 10 months, hitting about $109 per barrel at its highest. Last week, the CEO's from the biggest oil companies were in DC to answer Senators questions as to why the prices were so high and why they should still receive the billions of dollars in subsidies, when the companies earn some $10 billion of profits each in the first quarter of 2011.
So what didn't happen? The price of gas has not dropped one cent. It has actually increased around where I live! How can that be? When we hear about a price increase in a barrel of oil, the price of gas increases immediately. But when the price of a barrel of oil drops, it takes weeks for the price of gas to drop a few cents. What's up with that? What else didn't happen? The CEO's didn't tell the truth. The CEO's of the oil companies blamed the gas price increases on anything and everything but the truth. The truth is that the demand for gas has decreased and that speculators are responsible for the increases in prices. Supply and demand economics mean nothing to them! In addition, back in 2004 0r 2005, the CEO's stated that they no longer needed the subsidies, due to the fact the a barrel of oil was selling for $55. But now when the price hovers around $100, the big oil companies say they need the subsidies to help them for more oil exploration.
Give me a break!!! If they didn't need the subsidies when oil was at $55/barrel, they certainly don't need it at almost double the price now. You would think that a company that earns $10 billion in profits in the first quarter, would use its own money for exploration. But nooooooo, they are so damn greedy that they will squeeze every drop of blood that they can get for as long as they can.
The bottom line here is that it makes no common sense to continue giving big oil companies any additional taxpayer money, period! It also makes no common sense as to why the price of gas doesn't drop when the price of crude drops. Don't believe them when they say it is a time lag factor of the oil not reaching our shores for up to 2 weeks before the price drops. If that was true, there would also have to be a time lag when prices of crude goes up. Again the correlation only works in their favor when the prices go up.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, May 8, 2011
When It Floods, It Pours Money.
Hi Everyone:
It is spring...... finally! With spring comes warmer weather and rain. Combine those two and you get mountain snow melt, swollen creeks and tributaries that then drain into rivers. Then as expected, the rivers overflow their banks and land gets flooded. Some flooding is good, depending on the time it occurs, for farmers, since flooding adds nutrients back into the land. But flooding is terrible news for homes and businesses in the way of the surging and rising waters.
Some of the major rivers that flood the most seem to be the: Mississippi, Arkansas and Missouri. Every year like clock work we see and hear about those rivers flooding and the millions and billions of dollars of damage that the flood waters cause. What's wrong with this picture? When I hear and see on TV about so many people affected and then they say that it is their second or third or even the fourth time that they have been flooded out, it makes my blood boil. Why? To me, it would make sense that if you are flooded due to some waterway over flowing, its time to get out of Dodge or at very least, move to higher ground. But what really gets my goat is that if you have flood insurance, whether a Federal or private plan, the company will pay you to rebuild on the same location. Then unfortunately, insurance companies increase all of their policy holders rates, to cover their losses due to floods. All bets are off if people don't carry flood insurance, for whatever reason.
In order to minimize loss of life, damage to homes and businesses and to save both taxpayers and policy holders money, my common sense says they should not be allowed to rebuild at the same location. The bottom line here should be, if you live in a flood zone and you get flooded out once, the insurance policy should mandate that you have to move. Mother nature will always win and the flooded zones will eventually be turned back into their naturalness. Then when the yearly flooding occurs and you know it will, there will be no loss of life or damaged buildings and everyone will save money in the long run. I just don't get why people want to live in a situation where they put their own families in harms way. Think about it.
On a side note, it is a very interesting fact that the Hudson river does not flood like the other above mentioned rivers. I just don't know why.
Til next week.
Peter
It is spring...... finally! With spring comes warmer weather and rain. Combine those two and you get mountain snow melt, swollen creeks and tributaries that then drain into rivers. Then as expected, the rivers overflow their banks and land gets flooded. Some flooding is good, depending on the time it occurs, for farmers, since flooding adds nutrients back into the land. But flooding is terrible news for homes and businesses in the way of the surging and rising waters.
Some of the major rivers that flood the most seem to be the: Mississippi, Arkansas and Missouri. Every year like clock work we see and hear about those rivers flooding and the millions and billions of dollars of damage that the flood waters cause. What's wrong with this picture? When I hear and see on TV about so many people affected and then they say that it is their second or third or even the fourth time that they have been flooded out, it makes my blood boil. Why? To me, it would make sense that if you are flooded due to some waterway over flowing, its time to get out of Dodge or at very least, move to higher ground. But what really gets my goat is that if you have flood insurance, whether a Federal or private plan, the company will pay you to rebuild on the same location. Then unfortunately, insurance companies increase all of their policy holders rates, to cover their losses due to floods. All bets are off if people don't carry flood insurance, for whatever reason.
In order to minimize loss of life, damage to homes and businesses and to save both taxpayers and policy holders money, my common sense says they should not be allowed to rebuild at the same location. The bottom line here should be, if you live in a flood zone and you get flooded out once, the insurance policy should mandate that you have to move. Mother nature will always win and the flooded zones will eventually be turned back into their naturalness. Then when the yearly flooding occurs and you know it will, there will be no loss of life or damaged buildings and everyone will save money in the long run. I just don't get why people want to live in a situation where they put their own families in harms way. Think about it.
On a side note, it is a very interesting fact that the Hudson river does not flood like the other above mentioned rivers. I just don't know why.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Will We Ever Learn?
Hi Everyone:
Just when you think you have heard it all, comes this tidbit of info that should get us all upset. In these times of huge deficits on both the Federal and State levels, comes the following idea from Houston Republican Rep. John Davis. He sponsored a bill that would cap the maximum sales tax the state would collect on the sale of a personl boat costing $250,000 or more. What??? Just when we need the sales tax money, this lack of common sense person wants to decrease the amount. Unfortunately and unbelievably, the House Ways and Means Committee then approved the tax break.
Have politicians lost their minds? Now is not the time to decrease sales tax revenues, which are so sorely needed. Common sense says that this issue should have never come up in the first place and if it did, it should have been defeated. But NOOOOO! How will the lost sales tax revenue be made up? Oh yea, on the backs of the middle class. Why do the rich get tax breaks and the middle class gets the shaft? Tax breaks for the rich do not work. All you have to do is check the economy's response to such tax breaks. Prior tax breaks for the rich didn't trinkle down into a better economy. What it did do was to make the rich get richer. But go figure, if it didn't work before, why not try it again? How assinine!
Will we ever learn? We are suppose to learn from our mistakes, in order to not repeat them. But I guess that all bets are off when tax breaks for the rich come into play.
Til next week.
Peter
Just when you think you have heard it all, comes this tidbit of info that should get us all upset. In these times of huge deficits on both the Federal and State levels, comes the following idea from Houston Republican Rep. John Davis. He sponsored a bill that would cap the maximum sales tax the state would collect on the sale of a personl boat costing $250,000 or more. What??? Just when we need the sales tax money, this lack of common sense person wants to decrease the amount. Unfortunately and unbelievably, the House Ways and Means Committee then approved the tax break.
Have politicians lost their minds? Now is not the time to decrease sales tax revenues, which are so sorely needed. Common sense says that this issue should have never come up in the first place and if it did, it should have been defeated. But NOOOOO! How will the lost sales tax revenue be made up? Oh yea, on the backs of the middle class. Why do the rich get tax breaks and the middle class gets the shaft? Tax breaks for the rich do not work. All you have to do is check the economy's response to such tax breaks. Prior tax breaks for the rich didn't trinkle down into a better economy. What it did do was to make the rich get richer. But go figure, if it didn't work before, why not try it again? How assinine!
Will we ever learn? We are suppose to learn from our mistakes, in order to not repeat them. But I guess that all bets are off when tax breaks for the rich come into play.
Til next week.
Peter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)