Hi Everyone,
I read a Gannett article last week about New York state's new, NY Safe Ammunition Enforcement Act. NY SAFE Act includes a ban on any semi-automatic rifles or shotguns with a "military style" feature, such as a pistol grip. Because of this new law, small assault weapons manufacturers such as: Olympic Arms, LaRue Tactical, York Arms, Templar Custom and EFI, LLC as well as sporting goods retailer Cheaper Than Dirt have decided that if civilians can't buy assault weapons, they won't sell to the State of New York or any governmental entity within the State of New York until the law is repealed. So this is what it comes to? Olympic said that if civilians can't buy a semi-automatic weapon, then the company won't sell them to law enforcement. Tom Spithaler, Olympics Sales Director, said the sales policy is meant to "even the playing field." What??????? Then Tom goes on to say, "We feel as though if the state legislature deems those weapons to be problematic and they're a risk to public safety, then law enforcement shouldn't have them either". The company wants to even the playing field? If they can't sell to anyone they won't sell to law enforcement? What a great way to cut off their own noses, I mean revenues. Depending on how you look at it, these are all bit players in the larger scheme of manufacturers like Smith and Wesson and Remington Arms, who are not banning sales to law enforcement. Because of Smith and Wesson and Remington Arms not banning the sales, there will be no impact on New York's law enforcement's ability to buy the weapons.
By banning assault weapons, the NRA has said that the second amendment is being taken away and that this is the first step to the outlawing of all guns. What a bunch of dung!!!! Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on which side of the issue you are on, guns will always be a part of this country. But to say that the second amendment is being taken away, I think not. People will still have their guns, but, think about this, is it really necessary to own assault weapons, that were designed for one single purpose, to kill as many people, as quickly as possible?
But why should a small, minority group of people, members of the NRA and their supporters, have such a strong say in gun control? They are obviously entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. You may not remember, but, back in 1999, the NRA was in favor of universal background checks, including gun shows. They even said that there should be no loopholes in the universal background checks. But, thousands and thousands of guns are sold, each year, right outside of the gun shows and there are no background checks done on those individual sales. That's a great place for a mentally challenged person to buy an assault type weapon. Now the NRA has backtracked and now says that they don't want those types of individual sales included in the universal background checks. So, is left alone, the universal background checks would continue to have one big, huge way around the background check system. But the NRA is now OK with that. Is their no common sense left in this country anymore. The NRA is just plain wrong!
As I have said previously, I do believe in the second amendment. But does that mean that any and all weapons should or could be owned by non mentally challenged people? I think not! Why? Again, as I have stated previously, weapons of mass destruction, such as assault weapons should not be owned by civilians and should only be in the possession of law enforcement or the military. I truly believe that common sense says the ban and universal background checks with no loopholes for individual sales should both be passed.
The tide has turned against the NRA and assault weapons. We have the power to try something new with no loopholes, to try to prevent another Newtown, CT massacre. There are no laws that can absolutely prevent another Newtown, but we have to try and not let the status quo be our guide.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Who Do They Really Help?
Hi Everyone,
One of many of the big battles currently going on in DC, is how to reduce entitlement programs like Medicaid. Both parties have their own ideas on how to reduce federal spending on programs such as Medicaid. Unfortunately, both sides don't like the other sides ideas and so the battles rage on. But wait, isn't there something that can be done right away to reduce the spending amounts? I think I have found one such avenue.
On 2/15/13, my Gannett newspaper ran an article regarding how New York state's public funds were being wasted. First let me inform you that here in New York state, our per-resident Medicaid spending is nearly double that of Pennsylvania and more than double that of California. In August 2011, The New York Times wrote about two brothers, Philip and Joel Levy, who earned nearly $1 million each overseeing the Young Adult Institute Network. YAIN cares for the developmentally disabled. Philip Levy retired and Joel Levy resigned after the newspaper looked into their spending practices about two months before the story was published. Obviously there was something wrong going on for the two of them to quit!
Well, well, well...... it seems that being an executive for a not-for-profit, here in New York
state, primarily financed by Medicaid money is still a very lucrative business to be in. The 2/15/13 article did not cover all New York state nonprofits dealing with Medicaid, but it did highlight a few. The facts are these, that at least 15 executives earned in excess of $500,000 per year. What?! The report, which is what the 2/15 article is based on is called, "Billions of Federal Tax Dollars Misspent on New York's Medicaid Program," also found another 100 executives who earned "excessive salaries" - more than $200,000 each, at New York nonprofits operating primarily to provide Medicaid health services to the poor. Five of the agencies are located in Westchester and Rockland counties. This is an outrage and every New York state resident should be mad as hell!!! Just imagine what the report would state if all nonprofits receiving this kind of money were included.
So what can a state do to try to combat these excessive salaries? New York state Gov. Andrew Cuomo did the right thing and just recently issued an executive order "capping executive salaries at $199,000 for most contractors doing business with more than a dozen state agencies beginning April 1, 2013". Congrats to our governor. Hopefully our state Legislature will pass the governor's order into law. It is a sorry state of affairs when taxpayers dollars are being so misspent. But the really sad part, is that the executives who receive these bloated salaries think it is OK.
So if New York state can cap nonprofit executive salaries at $199,000, why not the entire United States? Part of Medicaid reform should include this cap. Common sense tells me that all avenues should be looked at when Congress debates entitlement reform. These excessive salaries are just not warranted and should be stopped ASAP!!!
Greed is not a pretty accessory!
Til next week.
Peter
One of many of the big battles currently going on in DC, is how to reduce entitlement programs like Medicaid. Both parties have their own ideas on how to reduce federal spending on programs such as Medicaid. Unfortunately, both sides don't like the other sides ideas and so the battles rage on. But wait, isn't there something that can be done right away to reduce the spending amounts? I think I have found one such avenue.
On 2/15/13, my Gannett newspaper ran an article regarding how New York state's public funds were being wasted. First let me inform you that here in New York state, our per-resident Medicaid spending is nearly double that of Pennsylvania and more than double that of California. In August 2011, The New York Times wrote about two brothers, Philip and Joel Levy, who earned nearly $1 million each overseeing the Young Adult Institute Network. YAIN cares for the developmentally disabled. Philip Levy retired and Joel Levy resigned after the newspaper looked into their spending practices about two months before the story was published. Obviously there was something wrong going on for the two of them to quit!
Well, well, well...... it seems that being an executive for a not-for-profit, here in New York
state, primarily financed by Medicaid money is still a very lucrative business to be in. The 2/15/13 article did not cover all New York state nonprofits dealing with Medicaid, but it did highlight a few. The facts are these, that at least 15 executives earned in excess of $500,000 per year. What?! The report, which is what the 2/15 article is based on is called, "Billions of Federal Tax Dollars Misspent on New York's Medicaid Program," also found another 100 executives who earned "excessive salaries" - more than $200,000 each, at New York nonprofits operating primarily to provide Medicaid health services to the poor. Five of the agencies are located in Westchester and Rockland counties. This is an outrage and every New York state resident should be mad as hell!!! Just imagine what the report would state if all nonprofits receiving this kind of money were included.
So what can a state do to try to combat these excessive salaries? New York state Gov. Andrew Cuomo did the right thing and just recently issued an executive order "capping executive salaries at $199,000 for most contractors doing business with more than a dozen state agencies beginning April 1, 2013". Congrats to our governor. Hopefully our state Legislature will pass the governor's order into law. It is a sorry state of affairs when taxpayers dollars are being so misspent. But the really sad part, is that the executives who receive these bloated salaries think it is OK.
So if New York state can cap nonprofit executive salaries at $199,000, why not the entire United States? Part of Medicaid reform should include this cap. Common sense tells me that all avenues should be looked at when Congress debates entitlement reform. These excessive salaries are just not warranted and should be stopped ASAP!!!
Greed is not a pretty accessory!
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, February 3, 2013
FIRE!
Hi Everyone,
We have all been in hotels and buildings that are both publicly and privately owned. One of the things that all buildings have in common are emergency exit signs. They have been mandated for decades and decades. In case of a fire, the signs, which are always lit, have a battery back up in case of an electrical outage. But do they really help? The answer is yes and no.
Let's take a look at some important facts. I believe that the signs are red and white so they are more easily read in smoke filled areas. Where there is smoke, there is fire. But, when smoke permeates a hallway, where does the smoke go? Smoke always rises, so, depending on the length of the hallway, the smoke will start filling up the ceiling area and as more smoke continues to fill the area the smoke will move down easily concealing the signs. If the signs are concealed by the smoke, what good are they? Maybe not so much.
Have you taken a plane flight lately? For at least 15 - 20 years, planes have had red LED light strips along each side of the aisles. The lights have a battery back up in case of a power failure. In case of smoke, or a power failure, you can still see the red lights. They are smartly placed on the floor. Why? As we all know when the smoke rises, it doesn't conceal the lights, for a while at least, so passengers have a better opportunity to find an emergency exit.
So, in the case of a building, when the smoke conceals the emergency exit signs, what do you do? Crawl along the floor until you find the staircase. So what is the solution? As in the case of planes, common sense tells me that either the signs should be about 2 or 3 feet above the floor or LED strips should be installed in the floors. Since the cost of installing LED lights in the floors is probably costly, which would prohibit their installation, the less expensive and still better option than the up high on the wall signs, would be to install or move all emergency exit signs to the 2 to 3 foot height off the floor. It will then take the smoke a longer time to conceal the signs and consequently, the signs would be visible for a longer period of time. That has to be a good thing.
Ahhhhh the wonders of using common sense. It will be interesting to see how long it will take for the emergency exit signs to be mandated to a lower height level then the way they are installed presently.
Go Baltimore!
Til next week.
Peter
We have all been in hotels and buildings that are both publicly and privately owned. One of the things that all buildings have in common are emergency exit signs. They have been mandated for decades and decades. In case of a fire, the signs, which are always lit, have a battery back up in case of an electrical outage. But do they really help? The answer is yes and no.
Let's take a look at some important facts. I believe that the signs are red and white so they are more easily read in smoke filled areas. Where there is smoke, there is fire. But, when smoke permeates a hallway, where does the smoke go? Smoke always rises, so, depending on the length of the hallway, the smoke will start filling up the ceiling area and as more smoke continues to fill the area the smoke will move down easily concealing the signs. If the signs are concealed by the smoke, what good are they? Maybe not so much.
Have you taken a plane flight lately? For at least 15 - 20 years, planes have had red LED light strips along each side of the aisles. The lights have a battery back up in case of a power failure. In case of smoke, or a power failure, you can still see the red lights. They are smartly placed on the floor. Why? As we all know when the smoke rises, it doesn't conceal the lights, for a while at least, so passengers have a better opportunity to find an emergency exit.
So, in the case of a building, when the smoke conceals the emergency exit signs, what do you do? Crawl along the floor until you find the staircase. So what is the solution? As in the case of planes, common sense tells me that either the signs should be about 2 or 3 feet above the floor or LED strips should be installed in the floors. Since the cost of installing LED lights in the floors is probably costly, which would prohibit their installation, the less expensive and still better option than the up high on the wall signs, would be to install or move all emergency exit signs to the 2 to 3 foot height off the floor. It will then take the smoke a longer time to conceal the signs and consequently, the signs would be visible for a longer period of time. That has to be a good thing.
Ahhhhh the wonders of using common sense. It will be interesting to see how long it will take for the emergency exit signs to be mandated to a lower height level then the way they are installed presently.
Go Baltimore!
Til next week.
Peter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)