Hi Everyone:
I am pretty sure that all of you are painfully aware of the newest dirty word in the English language. The newest dirty word is..... compromise. As the world watches, it appears that our elected officials in Washington, from both sides of the aisle, can't come up with a compromise solution to our country's debt ceiling. Our country's debt is the result of years and years of overspending by both Republicans and Democrats alike.
It used to be that both sides of Congress were able to sit down, talk and negotiate a deal. Both sides having to compromise their positions to get a completed deal that was agreeable to both sides. Now Washington is so paralyzed by partisan politics (and it gets worse every day and week and month and year), that nothing is getting accomplished on our deficit and raising the debt ceiling. Obviously, the only common sense and logical solution to the debt ceiling debacle is compromise. Previously, Republicans and Democrats were the two sides debating the issues, but today there seems to be a third side. The tea party within the GOP, which is a minority of Republicans and freshmen to congress, has held the talks hostage by their demands and their intentionally forgetting about the art of compromise. One can not compromise if one is not willing to ease up on their demands.
If compromise is not obtainable within two days, the U.S. will default on its bills that are owed. Unfortunately, the tea party thinks that it is ok for the U.S. to default, which would be devastating to every person and company in this country for a myriad of reasons. For a minority of Republicans to hold such power is very troubling for House Speaker Boehner to put together a bill that would pass the house. I give him credit for trying. But remember, compromise means not getting everything you wanted but some.
Since our deficit is the fault of both parties, both parties must concede on some of their positions to reach an agreement. I remain hopeful that a compromise will happen, but the result should not be a political, short term, band-aid solution, but a longer term solution. Why can't politicians worry first about us instead of their re-election.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Bureaucracy Out Of Control
Hi Everyone:
Where we live, about 50 miles north of New York City, the majority of homes use a septic system for all household waste water. For those of you not in the know; a septic system consists of a septic tank (holding tank) where the solid waste sinks. The water then overflows into a septic field where it leaches into the ground. The current law states that the size of a septic system is based on the number of bedrooms contained in a house.
That said, the Putnam County Health Department in New York decided to make its own rules regarding septic systems and home improvements. The health department required homeowners who planned to increase their living space by 50% or more to upgrade their septic system, regardless of whether new bedrooms were added. Such a law was never passed by the county Legislature or the Board of Health. To make matters worse it violates county and state law.
But that didn't stop the health department until they were sued by a couple who wanted to add a second floor to their ranch and relocate their 3 existing bedrooms from the first floor to the new second floor addition. Last September, the health department denied the owners a permit for the work because the addition was over 91% of the size of the existing 1,832 square foot home and therefore a septic system upgrade was needed.
This past Friday, a state Supreme Court justice ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and told the health department to issue the permit. Time will tell if and when they will issue the permit. But how can an agency in a county government go against current law and dictate their own "law"? It is apparent that the health department had no common sense whatsoever to issue such a "law". The bureaucracy had gotten out of control. How could a small agency in a small county of 100,000 people do this and go unnoticed until the lawsuit?
It boggles the mind that this could and did happen. Where were the checks and balances? Why did this have to go court at all? If common sense had been used from the onset, the taxpayers of Putnam County would not have had to pay lawyers to defend a losing proposition.
Til next week.
Peter
Where we live, about 50 miles north of New York City, the majority of homes use a septic system for all household waste water. For those of you not in the know; a septic system consists of a septic tank (holding tank) where the solid waste sinks. The water then overflows into a septic field where it leaches into the ground. The current law states that the size of a septic system is based on the number of bedrooms contained in a house.
That said, the Putnam County Health Department in New York decided to make its own rules regarding septic systems and home improvements. The health department required homeowners who planned to increase their living space by 50% or more to upgrade their septic system, regardless of whether new bedrooms were added. Such a law was never passed by the county Legislature or the Board of Health. To make matters worse it violates county and state law.
But that didn't stop the health department until they were sued by a couple who wanted to add a second floor to their ranch and relocate their 3 existing bedrooms from the first floor to the new second floor addition. Last September, the health department denied the owners a permit for the work because the addition was over 91% of the size of the existing 1,832 square foot home and therefore a septic system upgrade was needed.
This past Friday, a state Supreme Court justice ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and told the health department to issue the permit. Time will tell if and when they will issue the permit. But how can an agency in a county government go against current law and dictate their own "law"? It is apparent that the health department had no common sense whatsoever to issue such a "law". The bureaucracy had gotten out of control. How could a small agency in a small county of 100,000 people do this and go unnoticed until the lawsuit?
It boggles the mind that this could and did happen. Where were the checks and balances? Why did this have to go court at all? If common sense had been used from the onset, the taxpayers of Putnam County would not have had to pay lawyers to defend a losing proposition.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Trivial? Maybe!
Hi Everyone:
Last week, my wife went to our local post office to buy a stamp and mail a bill. What she got in return amazed her so much that she brought it to my attention. She handed me a receipt from the USPS for the one stamp. The receipt is unbelieveably 11" long by 3" wide. More then half of the receipt are ads for the USPS; i.e., phone numbers, multiple web sites, get a post office box and guaranteed services. I am pretty sure that most Americans know how to contact the USPS either by their web site or in person to get the same information. Why the need to advertise it on the receipt? Seems to me to be a waste of paper.
I am also pretty sure that most Americans are aware that the USPS hasn't been profitable in a long time. FedEx, UPS and email has cut heavily into their buisness and hence their bottom line. The USPS is no longer and hasn't been the only kid on the block in a very long time. In order to cut costs, which is vital to their survival, the USPS must look at every aspect of their business, including something as trivial as the length of their receipts. With all the USPS locations all over this country, reducing the length of the receipts could potentially save millions of dollars on saving receipt paper alone. Instead, what I have heard is that the USPS is thinking about reducing deliveries from 6 days a week to 5 days a week, maybe eliminating Saturday delivery.
It is apparent to me that the USPS is in dire need of some good old fashion common sense. They need to open their eyes wider to look in the microscope to find all the common sense opportunities that would lower their operating costs. Why they haven't done that does amaze me.
Til next week.
Peter
Last week, my wife went to our local post office to buy a stamp and mail a bill. What she got in return amazed her so much that she brought it to my attention. She handed me a receipt from the USPS for the one stamp. The receipt is unbelieveably 11" long by 3" wide. More then half of the receipt are ads for the USPS; i.e., phone numbers, multiple web sites, get a post office box and guaranteed services. I am pretty sure that most Americans know how to contact the USPS either by their web site or in person to get the same information. Why the need to advertise it on the receipt? Seems to me to be a waste of paper.
I am also pretty sure that most Americans are aware that the USPS hasn't been profitable in a long time. FedEx, UPS and email has cut heavily into their buisness and hence their bottom line. The USPS is no longer and hasn't been the only kid on the block in a very long time. In order to cut costs, which is vital to their survival, the USPS must look at every aspect of their business, including something as trivial as the length of their receipts. With all the USPS locations all over this country, reducing the length of the receipts could potentially save millions of dollars on saving receipt paper alone. Instead, what I have heard is that the USPS is thinking about reducing deliveries from 6 days a week to 5 days a week, maybe eliminating Saturday delivery.
It is apparent to me that the USPS is in dire need of some good old fashion common sense. They need to open their eyes wider to look in the microscope to find all the common sense opportunities that would lower their operating costs. Why they haven't done that does amaze me.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, July 10, 2011
What Took Them So Long?
Hi Everyone:
The grocery store that my family uses a lot is called ShopRite. My background search on ShopRite revealed some interesting facts. ShopRite began in 1951 as a cooperative. By 1961 it had lost half of its locations when a retail owner took his locations out of the cooperative and started Pathmark. Presently, ShopRite has approximately 278 locations in 6 states: CT, NY, NJ, PA, DE and MD. Another fact that I discovered is that ShopRite is the largest employer in New Jersey with approximatey 162 locations. And finally, ShopRite is the largest retailer-owned cooperative in the US.
So it would appear that ShopRite is a survivor and knows how to run a business. But I question that. Why? For years my local ShopRite used open top floor freezers for all of their frozen food products. Additionally, they used open front refrigerating units for all their dairy and refrigerated products. Where we live, we used to have numerous power outages throughout the year. The 3 or 4 times that I was actually in the store when the power went out, the routine was always the same. Employees quickly placed layers of cardboard over the exposed frozen products to try to keep them frozen. At the same time, another group of employees were also quickly taping pastic over the front of the refrigerated products.
About 4 or 5 years ago, my ShopRite installed upright freezers with doors. I did wonder why it took them so long to have freezers with doors. To me that was a no brainer and should have been there a long time ago. Fast forward to about 2 to 3 months ago, in the year 2011. My ShopRite finally installed doors on the pre-existing open front refrigerators. I walked up to one of the people installing the doors and I asked him how come ShopRite decided to install the doors now? He told me that ShopRite had done a 6 month study in a New Jersy location and found out that having doors on the refrigerated units saves electricity and helps to keep the products cold when the power goes out. Well duh!!!! I can't believe that they had to do a study to make that determination.
It is pretty obvious that you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that having doors on freezers and refrigerators will save electricity and help keep products cold during a power outage. ShopRite seemed to be lacking common sense on this issue due to the length of time it took them to figure out doors work. Go figure.
Til next week.
Peter
The grocery store that my family uses a lot is called ShopRite. My background search on ShopRite revealed some interesting facts. ShopRite began in 1951 as a cooperative. By 1961 it had lost half of its locations when a retail owner took his locations out of the cooperative and started Pathmark. Presently, ShopRite has approximately 278 locations in 6 states: CT, NY, NJ, PA, DE and MD. Another fact that I discovered is that ShopRite is the largest employer in New Jersey with approximatey 162 locations. And finally, ShopRite is the largest retailer-owned cooperative in the US.
So it would appear that ShopRite is a survivor and knows how to run a business. But I question that. Why? For years my local ShopRite used open top floor freezers for all of their frozen food products. Additionally, they used open front refrigerating units for all their dairy and refrigerated products. Where we live, we used to have numerous power outages throughout the year. The 3 or 4 times that I was actually in the store when the power went out, the routine was always the same. Employees quickly placed layers of cardboard over the exposed frozen products to try to keep them frozen. At the same time, another group of employees were also quickly taping pastic over the front of the refrigerated products.
About 4 or 5 years ago, my ShopRite installed upright freezers with doors. I did wonder why it took them so long to have freezers with doors. To me that was a no brainer and should have been there a long time ago. Fast forward to about 2 to 3 months ago, in the year 2011. My ShopRite finally installed doors on the pre-existing open front refrigerators. I walked up to one of the people installing the doors and I asked him how come ShopRite decided to install the doors now? He told me that ShopRite had done a 6 month study in a New Jersy location and found out that having doors on the refrigerated units saves electricity and helps to keep the products cold when the power goes out. Well duh!!!! I can't believe that they had to do a study to make that determination.
It is pretty obvious that you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that having doors on freezers and refrigerators will save electricity and help keep products cold during a power outage. ShopRite seemed to be lacking common sense on this issue due to the length of time it took them to figure out doors work. Go figure.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, July 3, 2011
What's The Difference Between 1986 and 2011?
Hi Everyone:
So there I was last week cleaning out the basement, when I came across some old Consumer Reports magazines. As I was placing them in brown paper bags for recycling, I found the 1986 Cars issue. I was curious so see the difference between cars made in 1986 and today.
I know that major safety innovations such as anti-lock brakes, stability control, computers and air bags etc. that are available on almost all new cars today weren't available 25 years ago. So I decided to check out the fuel economy of 25 years ago. What I had forgotten was that there were a lot of cars that got very good gas mileage. Granted the down side was that some of those high gas mileage cars were not all that good overall. But check these out:
Small cars:
Chevy Chevette- 24 city / 48 highway
Chevy Nova - 24 46
Chevy Sprint- 37 59
Dodge Colt- 23 45
Ford Escort- 21 41
Honda Civic- 22 39
Mazda 323- 22 42
Nissan Sentra- 24 45
Toyota Corolla- 23 48
Compact cars:
Chevy Cavalier- 16 35
Ford Tempo- 19 41
Honda Accord- 19 40
Mazda 626- 20 38
Toyota Camry- 23 46
Medium cars:
Audi 5000S- 15 25
Buick Century- 15 39
Dodge Aries- 19 32
Ford T-Bird- 16 29
Pontiac 6000- 15 29
The list goes on and includes large cars. I realize that with new safety features, computers, larger wheels and tires comes added weight, which in turn has meant less fuel economy. But in 25 years of technological advancements, why can't car manufacturers make cars that get at least 50 mpg? Yes, I know that there are a few hybrids and pure electric cars that get that kind of mileage, by not including them, we seem to be stuck at the 35+/- mpg. Why? I believe that the issue is the higher horsepower of our new cars. Cars with high horse power get worse gas mileage. The introduction of SUV's, minivans and huge high output V8 engines didn't help gas mileage either.
But one would think that 25 years later in 2011, we would have more cars that get better mileage then previously. Unfortunately that is not the case and now we are more dependant on foreign oil then 25 years ago. With the price of gasoline hitting $4.00/gallon twice in the past 2-3 years, I am pretty sure that the American public is now ready to buy higher mileage cars. Common sense should now dictate that car manufacturers think outside the box to develop very high mileage cars. My own belief is that hydrogen fuel cells are the way to go. Only time will tell though.
Til next week.
Peter
So there I was last week cleaning out the basement, when I came across some old Consumer Reports magazines. As I was placing them in brown paper bags for recycling, I found the 1986 Cars issue. I was curious so see the difference between cars made in 1986 and today.
I know that major safety innovations such as anti-lock brakes, stability control, computers and air bags etc. that are available on almost all new cars today weren't available 25 years ago. So I decided to check out the fuel economy of 25 years ago. What I had forgotten was that there were a lot of cars that got very good gas mileage. Granted the down side was that some of those high gas mileage cars were not all that good overall. But check these out:
Small cars:
Chevy Chevette- 24 city / 48 highway
Chevy Nova - 24 46
Chevy Sprint- 37 59
Dodge Colt- 23 45
Ford Escort- 21 41
Honda Civic- 22 39
Mazda 323- 22 42
Nissan Sentra- 24 45
Toyota Corolla- 23 48
Compact cars:
Chevy Cavalier- 16 35
Ford Tempo- 19 41
Honda Accord- 19 40
Mazda 626- 20 38
Toyota Camry- 23 46
Medium cars:
Audi 5000S- 15 25
Buick Century- 15 39
Dodge Aries- 19 32
Ford T-Bird- 16 29
Pontiac 6000- 15 29
The list goes on and includes large cars. I realize that with new safety features, computers, larger wheels and tires comes added weight, which in turn has meant less fuel economy. But in 25 years of technological advancements, why can't car manufacturers make cars that get at least 50 mpg? Yes, I know that there are a few hybrids and pure electric cars that get that kind of mileage, by not including them, we seem to be stuck at the 35+/- mpg. Why? I believe that the issue is the higher horsepower of our new cars. Cars with high horse power get worse gas mileage. The introduction of SUV's, minivans and huge high output V8 engines didn't help gas mileage either.
But one would think that 25 years later in 2011, we would have more cars that get better mileage then previously. Unfortunately that is not the case and now we are more dependant on foreign oil then 25 years ago. With the price of gasoline hitting $4.00/gallon twice in the past 2-3 years, I am pretty sure that the American public is now ready to buy higher mileage cars. Common sense should now dictate that car manufacturers think outside the box to develop very high mileage cars. My own belief is that hydrogen fuel cells are the way to go. Only time will tell though.
Til next week.
Peter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)