Cabbagism

There is a little-known religious group here in America that is very misunderstood. I would like to take a few moments to explain these people and their belief system. Many people scoff at the religious beliefs of others, but it is important to keep an open mind when dealing with other people's beliefs. Just because they are different than yours does not make them any less.

These people belong to the World Wide Church of the Holy Cabbage and are known as Cabbagists, for short. Their religion is often referred to as Cabbagism, although they prefer to call themselves the WWC of the HC. Cabbagism is what I shall use in this writing, whether they like it or not.

The principle tenet of Cabbagism is that God is a giant head of cabbage existing somewhere out in the universal and bestowing blessings upon his followers, but no one else. In respect to their deity, Cabbagists refrain from eating cabbage in any form, and feel that cole slaw is the destruction of their Creator and is therefore blasphemous. The eating of cole slaw is a grave sin, and an even more grave sin is the eating of sauerkraut. As the Cabbagists say, "the road to hell is paved with sauerkraut."

In certain states of this country, Cabbagists get together in the middle of the night and raid local farms where cabbage is grown. They strike while the plants are still young and easily transported, but wait until far enough into the growing season that a new crop could not be started before the seasons change. This has caused quite a bit of consternation among the local farmers, many of whom have resorted to hiring security guards to patrol their cabbage patches at night. This has resulted in an increased price of cabbage at local supermarkets.

No one is quite sure what the Cabbagists do with the cabbage plants they dig up, since they certainly can't eat them. If they tossed them into a landfill that would be tantamount to killing them, which is certainly just as bad as eating them. In all likelihood they are using them in their own gardens, but as ornamental plants rather than food crops. They use them as hedges and borders, for example. Cabbagists have very strange looking front yards, and often an inordinate amount of rabbits.

Now as it happened, one day a Cabbagist succeeded in being elected to public office, since most voters don't take the time to thoroughly check out their candidates. This one was particularly good-looking, and that might explain how he won by such a large margin. At any rate, he was not only elected to a post, but that position was as United States Senator. This was indeed a prestigious position and one that had never been held by a Cabbagist previously. This particular Senator spent his time garnering favors from both sides of the aisle, and was successful in getting both houses to pass the Cabbage Reform Act. This Act made the growing of cabbage for human consumption a crime, and outlawed the possession, sale or use of cole slaw and sauerkraut throughout the United States.

You can imagine what the outcry was against this Act, but the government passed it into law and therefore the people were forced to obey it. It wasn't long before cole slaw was found on the black market, and whole divisions of police forces were set up to fight the War on Cabbage. Many United States citizens were known to cross the borders into either Mexico or Canada where they could enjoy cole slaw without fear of retribution, since neither of these countries passed a similar law.

The economies of several major cities suffered from this legislation, as the sales of hot dogs at sporting events plummeted without the benefit of sauerkraut to put on them.

With the passage of this law came much rejoicing among the Cabbagists, as you can imagine. They could now worship their God peacefully knowing that cabbage was sacred among all the peoples of this nation.

This story comes with a moral; all religious beliefs are valid, and everyone is entitled to their own spirituality, but no one has the right to force their beliefs on anyone else. Forcing others to conform to your beliefs only invites others to do the same to you. Treat others as you would have them treat you. Respect their beliefs.

This story also illustrates why religion and politics need to remain separated. Our elected officials all have their own beliefs, but when they are acting in their official capacities, they represent us. All of us. As such they need to remain balanced in their decisions. Failure to do so might result in the loss of sauerkraut and cole slaw.

My Retirement

Tomorrow is my 50th birthday. As I sit here I can't help but wonder what the next third of my life will be like. I also have to start thinking about retirement, and what the economy will be like in my future. Many pundits tie the economy in this country to the office of the president, and there might be some merit to that. While the president certainly cannot single-handedly change the economy, he (or one day she) does have influence over it.

I was able to find historic Dow Jones Industrial Averages going back to when Jimmy Carter first became president, and the numbers are quite interesting. When Jimmy took office the DJIA was at $962. When he left the White House the Dow had dropped to $950. Granted this is a slight drop in the Dow, but it's still a loss.

Ronald Reagan took over from Jimmy and his presidency saw the Dow increase from 950 to $2,235. This is a sizable increase, and over the entire term of his presidency it averages an increase of $160 each year.

George Bush, Sr. increased Reagan's $2,235 to $3,241. Since Bush was only in office for one term, this equates to an increase of $251 per year, which was even better than Reagan's impressive increase.

Bill Clinton took office in 1993 when the Dow was at $3,241 and left in 2001 when the Dow towered at $10,587. His presidency saw the Dow increase an average of $918 each year of his presidency. This is more than George Bush and Ronald Reagan combined.

George W. Bush was sworn in on January 20, 2001 and left office on January 20, 2009. He took Bill Clinton's $10,587 and reduced it to $7,949 or a loss of $329 per year average for his eight years in office.

What does this mean for my retirement? It means if I invest in the stock market I need to hope for another leader like Bill Clinton if I want to be able to enjoy my golden years. Another George Bush, Sr. or Ronald Reagan would allow me to retire with security, although I might not have extra money. Another presidency like George W. Bush means I won't be able to retire until I'm well past my 100th birthday.

Let's see what Barack is able to do.

Update; October 10, 2013 - Well, so far Barack is doing just fine.  The $7,949 when he took office has grown by 90% to 15,126.  Since he's been in office less than five years, that's a staggering $1,435 increase per year, better than any other presidency in this survey.  And all of this in spite of the fact that he has to deal with a majority in the House who refuse to work with him.

No wonder the American people love him so much!

What's Wrong With Being Right?

When I was a younger man attending my first college (there have been seven so far, but that's another story for another day), Arlen Specter was elected to the Senate.  Like me, he was a Pennsylvanian, and like me he had firm beliefs on various topics.  Those beliefs didn't always agree with mine, but that's how life goes.  The only way to get all of your beliefs represented is to get elected yourself.  And, like me, Arlen Specter was a Republican.

That was back in the early 80s.  When I first registered to vote I registered as a Republican, using reasoning that now makes no sense at all, but actually using my registration as a means of attempting to break out of a family mold.  All of my family were democrats, going back for as far back as I can find, and all of my beliefs align with the Democratic party, so what caused me to be a Republican?  Looking back, I can only believe that it had to do with being a closeted homosexual.  That through my political affiliation I was "striking out" against the status quo.  That I was trying to make a statement, albeit in a feeble voice.

I soon came to my senses and changed my affiliation to Democrat.  This decision was easily made since I had never once voted for a Republican when I had any other option.  Now, like me, Arlen Specter has seen the light and changed parties.  No, I don't think this means that he's a closeted homosexual.

When I registered Republican, I was young and impetuous, and I didn't remain a Republican for more than a few years.  With Specter, that's not the case.  He's been in the Senate for over 25 years, always as a Republican.  He's considerably older than I am, and yet he is now switching parties, and I have to say, I'm not surprised.

The Republican Party has continued a downhill slide that has grown into an avalanche.  The party that existed when I joined no longer exists.  The current party has become one of malicious lies and those lies will continue to cause the party to implode.  The sad thing is, it's not just the elected officials who are spreading lies.

Much of America sees the Republican Party as represented by the likes of Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck.  These men are ruining the Grand Old Party.  By spreading lies about America and her leaders they cause a rift in our society, and a rift that does nothing to help ease the wounds of this nation, but lines their own pockets.  By sowing the seeds of discontent they further their own careers at the detriment of our society.

I have to wonder when the rest of America will join the likes of Arlen Specter and wise up to the antics of these ultra conservatives and their petty antics.  It is my fervent hope that one day, all of America will join in a boycott of any companies that advertise on any of their programs, or in any newspapers that give them column space.  Perhaps then, when the liars are silenced, America will have a chance to become truly, one nation, with liberty and justice for all.

The State of the State

California is in a terrible state right now, at least financially.  Our state has become a joke in this country due to our legislature's unwillingness to work together to pass a budget and stick with it, and this has caused our state to become one of the lowest in the nation in terms of credit worthiness.  

When you find yourself in financial difficulties there are several things that need to be done; first, increase your income; second, spend less and third, spend better.  Let's look at these three areas:

Increase your income: This means raising taxes, which no one likes, but if the taxes are fair, then they're acceptable.  Taxes have been increased on cigarettes, which means that smokers will pay increased taxes, but that same logic must be applied to other areas.  Alcohol, whether consumed at home or at another location, must be taxed as well.  If smokers are paying their fair share then drinkers should as well.

A tax increase has been suggested for golf courses, and this makes sense, but what about baseball fields?  How about bowling alleys?  Perhaps Miniature Golf establishments?  Why should golfers have to pay more and not people taking part in other recreational activities?  Let's make it fair across the board.

Spend less: This makes perfect sense, and I have to agree with the governor when he puts California employees on furloughs and makes them take two days off a month.  This action reduces the amount we spend on salaries, but let's look at other areas as well.  State office buildings need to be climactically controlled to keep the temperature at a fiscal level, which might not be the most comfortable setting for those people working there.  

We also need to look at our programs and see which ones can be cut and would be better funded by the private sector.  Our highways are in a deplorable condition, and they need to be repaired as they keep this state moving.  What money is already in the state budget for things less necessary?  Let's see what can be eliminated and put to better use.

Spend better: This is actually the easiest of the three and yet the most over-looked.  Looking at state employees, we never look for the best candidate for a position, but we look for the best minority, as we feel that we must follow the Equal Opportunity in Employment laws beyond their reasonable interpretation.  This needs to stop.  It's not that we shouldn't hire minorities, but that should not be the main criteria.  In all state employment the number one criteria needs to be education, and we must mandate that all employees of this state must hold a minimum of a bachelor's degree from an American college or university.  Such school must be listed in the Database of Accredited Postsecondary Institutions and Programs of the U.S. Department of Education.  This move would ensure that the employees of this state are the best for the position, and not merely minorities.  Note that this move does nothing to impede the EOE laws, as minorities are just as able to achieve degrees as anyone else.

By following these simple suggestions, you will help our state to regain its glory, and to once again proudly be known as The Golden State.

Response to A Pastoral Message to Homosexual Catholics in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles

This writing is in response to a letter from Cardinal Roger Mahony and the bishops of Los Angeles.  They wrote a letter to gay Catholics that can be read here: 

http://www.the-tidings.com/2008/120508/homosexuals.htm

Dear Roger:

I am truly quite surprised at the lack of understanding and caring in this matter.  You stated that homosexuals are "cherished members of the Catholic Church" and that you value us "as equal and active members of the Body of Christ."  What kind of equality is it where you worked to rid us of one of our rights?  How cherished are we?

You stated that the passing of Proposition 8 does not diminish our importance, but you fail to recognize that it takes away one of our rights.  If the same were to be done to you, how important would you feel?

You said that Proposition 8 was not intended to ban gay marriage, yet that is exactly what it was for.  Heterosexual marriage was never in jeopardy, and is not diminished by allowing same sex couples to wed.  

You use the United Nations' Declaration of Human Rights as part of your argument, yet when has the Catholic Church ever been dictated to by the UN?  This argument is totally without merit and only shows the homophobia within the church.

You stated that "If we had ever thought that the intent of this proposition was to harm you or anyone in the Sate of California, we would not have supported it."  This is a lie, and you know it.  You knew full well that this initiative was anti-gay and yet you supported it fully.

You state that you began pastoral outreach to gays 20 years ago, yet you fail to mention that you closed down the office designed for this purpose, or that only four parishes throughout the entire archdiocese have gay ministries.  If you were so intent on being inclusive of us, why wasn't the creation of gay ministries made mandatory throughout Los Angeles?  Obviously, this is nothing but lip service to our community.

You stated that "Supporting marriage as it has always been understood diminishes none of us."  Please explain to me how supporting same-gender marriage diminishes any of us.  It does not.

What you did was discriminate against a group of people, some of us who happen to be Catholic.  I have retaliated by submitting empty collection envelopes into the basket each Sunday.  The money that would have been used to support the church is now being used to fund the lawsuits against Proposition 8.  What this means in practice is that money that would have gone to the Catholic Church is now going to fight the Church.  

Congratulations, Roger.  You took money away from a church that needs it in order to fight for rights that you wanted to deny.  I hope you realize what a mistake this was on your part.

Bailing Out the Auto Makers

The latest buzz in the news is that added to the bailout of the financial industry, the auto makers now want a piece of the pie.  In fact, they want a rather large piece, asking for $25 billion in loans from the federal government.  In the grand scheme of things, this amount only equals about 3.5% of the total $700 billion bailout that Congress has already approved, but for those of us who live in reality, $25 billion is a lot of money.

The main question that needs to be answered is, do the auto manufacturers deserve our help? Should we add them to the growing list of industries that need money to keep from shutting their doors?  Political talk show host Stephanie Miller feels they do, and she states it openly on her program every morning.  Her reasoning is that the health benefits of the workers are in jeopardy. She and her team expound daily on the need for the government to help out these people.

I have to disagree with her on this.  I think bailing out this industry is not in the best interest of America because this industry should be in the financial position to help itself, and if it's not, then we shouldn't be rewarding an industry that bankrupts itself out of its own greed, arrogance and ignorance.

Allow me to explain my position by looking at the city of Detroit, Michigan.  Detroit has traditionally been the home of the auto industry, so it seems to me to be a good place to start.  For this discussion, I am looking at the three automobile manufacturers who recently sent their CEOs to Washington to ask Congress for money; GM, Ford and Chrysler.  The CEOs are Rick Wagoner (GM), Alan Mulally (Ford) and Robert Nardelli (Chrysler).

According to City-Date.com, the median household income in Detroit in 2007 was $28,097, below the state level of $47,950.  As a comparison, the median household income in Los Angeles for the same period was $47,781 and for California it was $59,948.  Detroit, then has a rather low household income when comparing it to the rest of Michigan, or to my area.

Using these numbers, the median worker in Detroit is earning $13.50 per hour, assuming they work full-time (2,080 hours per year) and are not earning overtime wages.  Higher than the minimum wage, certainly.  Using an assumption from the housing industry, that houses should cost four times the annual median income, would mean that the median price of a home in Detroit should be no more than $112,388.  The median home price for 2007 was $88,800, which means that a salary of $28,097 is a livable wage.  (As a comparison, the median home price in Los Angeles for 2007 was over $660,000).  $13.50 an hour may not sound like a lot of money (and it's truly not), but it would allow the average person to purchase a home and enjoy the benefits of a being a homeowner in Detroit.

http://www.city-data.com/city/Detroit-Michigan.html#top

According the Los Angeles Times, the average autoworker for the three automakers named above earns $73 per hour.  Assuming this person works full-time for a year without overtime, they would earn $151,840 per year.  The UAW (United Auto Workers) has negotiated a two-tier payment system where persons employed in the industry who do not actually work on automobiles earn considerably less; $27 per hour, or $56,160 annually.  Note that in either case these workers earn well above the median average for Detroit.

What do the workers do with this money?  Apparently, they spend it.  Pundits like Stephanie Miller are calling for the government to bail out these people because their health benefits are in jeopardy, but my question is, why can't they afford to bail themselves out?  With a salary of over $150,000 they should certainly be able to put money away for emergencies such as this.  Added to this, while they were earning these wages, what were they doing to prepare for their futures?  The majority of jobs in the auto industry don't require a college education, but many industries do.  At a salary of $150,000 annually, why weren't they attending college in the evenings to earn a degree?

Now we (the American taxpayers) are being asked to bailout an industry that has paid higher than average wages to people who have not done anything to earn them.  I don't see the logic in this.  I do agree that CEO compensation is insane, and that legislation to curb such earnings would be beneficial to our country.  I think that CEO and other executives should cap their salaries at five times the wages of the lowest paid person within their company.  I also believe that this cap should extend to any perks that come with the job, not only on the salary itself.  This would mean that if the lowest paid person earns $27 per hour, the highest-paid executive would make roughly $280,800 per year.  That's a far cry from the millions they currently make, but I'm sure most people would agree that one can live quite comfortably on a quarter of a million dollars annually.

It should be noted that the salaries paid in Detroit are not necessarily indicative of the remainder of the industry.  Toyota pays an average of $48 per hour, which equates to $99,840, still more than enough money to live on.  Toyota is not asking the government to bail them out, so before Stephanie Miller and her ilk jump on a bandwagon, perhaps she should investigate the cause of this dilemma.  Greedy unions, over-paid executives and a lack of personal betterment are not reasons for the rest of us to incur further debt.

The Bailout

As I see it, the bailout of the financial industry is caused by the deregulation of said industry, and practices involving bad loans to homeowners.  If this is true, then we need to explore the cause more deeply before we can solve the problem.

From the looks of it, it appears that the initial mistake was made by the banks (and other lenders) in writing mortgages for people who truly could not afford to buy a home.  Take an example; John makes $35,000 a year.  His wife stays home to care for their two children.  A family of four making $35,000 a year is not a wealthy family.  After taxes John makes about $28,000 annually, which is $2,333 monthly.  Following the formula that his housing should cost no more than 25% of his income, he needs a mortgage at $583 per month.

Here in Los Angeles, where homes go for huge amounts of money, it's not possible to find such a mortgage.  Let's say he finds a house for $300,000 and gets a 4.5% loan with nothing down, his payments will still be $1,500 a month for 30 years.  If he extends the loan to 60 years he would only lower his monthly payment by $300.

So, the big huge bank loans John the $300,000 he needs to buy the house at 4.5% interest.  His wife takes a part-time job to help pay the mortgage, and for the next two years they struggle to make the $1,500 payment each month, but they manage to get by.  Then the "teaser" rate adjusts and their 4.5% interest rate jumps to 7.5%.  which means over $2,000 a month for their mortgage payment.  This is impossible for John and his wife to handle, and they try to raise the money, but simply can't.

Now, at the same time the house has increased in value from $300,000 to $450,000.  This gives them $150,000 in equity in the home.  If they were to sell the house they could use that equity to either put a down payment on a smaller house, or simply bank the money and have the start of a nest egg for their future.  Unfortunately, like many of these borrowers, John and his wife don't understand the market and didn't realize that selling the house was an option.  Worse, they waited until the foreclosures had started, and now the market is saturated with houses, so no one is buying.

Enter the bank (again).  This time with a notice of foreclosure.  John and his family vacate the property and move into an apartment.  The bank takes over the property, which has now fallen in value (because of the large number of foreclosures in the area) and is currently worth about $200,000.  John bought the house for $300,000 (the original loan) and paid on the loan for two years.  He paid $1,500 a month for a total of $36,000.  If the bank sells the house for $200,000 the bank will lose $64,000 on the deal.

What the bank calculated was a) interest rates rising (which they did) and b) the economy remaining so strong that John would receive raises that would allow him to meet the higher interest payments, which did not happen.  The bank was counting on getting it's $36,000 in the first two years, and then getting higher rates for the remainder of the loan.  Let's assume that it remained at 7.5% for the next 28 years, and the payments were $2,000 per month.  That would be $672,000 plus the $36,000 paid in the first two years for a total of $708,000 on a $300,000 loan.

There is a third possibility.  When the market turned bad, the banks could easily have converted the 4.5% adjustable rate mortgage into a 4.5% fixed rate mortgage.  This would mean that the payment would remain $1,500 for the entire loan (30 years), and the bank would be paid a total of $540,000.  This would show a profit of $240,000 or $8,000 annually.  Granted, not much of a profit, but still better than a loss of $64,000.  The banks chose not do this, however, because they wanted their entire projected profit.  

This crisis was brought about by greed.  As such, it should not be up to the taxpayers to bail out the banks.  Let them work out their own mess.  Sell the houses they currently hold below market value to get their cash flowing.  This would also allow more people to buy homes, stimulating the economy.  If our congress wants to do something constructive, work on keeping jobs in America.  Pass legislation to disallow tax breaks to companies that send jobs oversees.  Deny tax breaks to companies that have automated voice answering systems instead of human beings answering their phones.  Cut tax incentives to companies that outsource their customer service departments to India or the Philippines.

Our Congress needs to work on legislation that would benefit all Americans, and let the banks take care of their own messes.