Here’s how I’m voting:
PROP 30 TEMP SALE TAX INCREASE FOR EDU. = NO
Also would increase income tax over $250,000 = This part would be ok, but we certainly don't need more sales tax.
PROP 31 STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT = NO
Allot of good from this, but giving the governor unilateral power to cut budget in a "FISCAL EMERGENCY" scares me.... any unilateral power scares me. Who gets to decide what a " FISCAL EMERGENCY" is?
The governor with the unilateral power?
PROP 32 POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS BY PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS. = NO
I wouldn't vote for any bill that farther weakens union power.
PROP 33 AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY PRICE BASED ON DRIVERS HISTORY OF INSURANCE COVERAGE = NO NO NO
Bad idea... We already have a crisis of no customer service in this country.
I would take steps in the opposite direction. I would propose a bill to prohibit companies from charging a fee to reinstate after a laps in anything. Insurance, cell phone, cable.. you name it, they all charge a fee to re-instate a customer who messed up and allowed things to expire.
The law already requires us to stay insured. Let’s leave it at that.
Prop 34 DEATH PENALTY INITIATIVE STATUTE = WHO CARES
As long as the murderers are not walking the street, I don’t' care if they die or not.
PROP 35 HUMAN TRAFFICKING, PENALTIES. INI. STATUTE = NO
We already have laws against this. If it gets out of control, then we need to improve law enforcement. A longer prison sentence doses nothing to people who aren't caught in the first place.
PROP 36 THREE STRIKES YOUR OUT LAW. INITIATIVE STATUTE = I WON'T VOTE ON THIS.
To unclear, I don't understand it.
PROP 37 GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS. LABELING INITIATIVE STATUTE = SURE WHY NOT...
That will be spooky huh.
PROP 38 TAX TO FUND EDUCATION AND EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS = NO
When does it stop... We already are taxed for this... just make it work.
PROP 39 TAX TREATMENT FOR MULTISTATE BUSINESS. CLEAN ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENT FUNDING INITIATIVE STATUTE = YES
If you do work here, you pay here.
PROP 40 REDISTRICTING. STATE SENATE DISTRICTS REFERENDUM. YES
Why not.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Prop 16 and 17
Prop 16: Would require a 2/3 vote from the given surrounding populous before municipal agencies could get into the retail power business.
According to (www.ballotpedia.org) Pacific Gas & Electric has sunk $46.1 million into promoting this prop. The opponents have only raised about $50,000 .
What does this mean to me? Well… for starters obviously the commercial utility giants are not in a hurry to compete with more municipal power agencies. Any time it takes two thirds of any group to agree it rarely happens. What this law would do is allow the propaganda from the big money to further their cause by brainwashing the population with lies and one-sided truths. Unfortunately freedom of speech only grants the freedom to speak. Not the realistic opportunity to be heard.
The thought that Pacific Gas & Electric has sunk $46.1 million opposing the prop means there is definitely money to be made in energy distribution. Yet the commercials would have you believe that municipal power agencies are a threat to the taxpayer.
Wouldn’t the acquisition of more municipal power companies act to help with the given cities bottom line? Wouldn’t adding a real moneymaker help the tax burden?
Prop 17: Basically it would allow insurance companies to offer discounts to customers coming in who have been continuously insured. Personally I was not aware that a prop needed to happen for this to be able to occur. That being said… and with the knowledge that Mercury Ins. Is a major sponsor of the bill I have to think about it.
My fear… Hypothetically: And from the most naive perspective... If the prop passes it would allow the insurance giants to gobble up and recruit more and more of the good customers by offering superior rates. Making it harder and harder for the smaller companies to continue. This in the long run would leave the smaller companies to continually take on more and more risky divers. Those people with loyalty who stayed with their original insurance company would be stuck subsidizing the bad driver by paying ever increasing rates as the ratio continues to be tilted.
According to (www.ballotpedia.org) Pacific Gas & Electric has sunk $46.1 million into promoting this prop. The opponents have only raised about $50,000 .
What does this mean to me? Well… for starters obviously the commercial utility giants are not in a hurry to compete with more municipal power agencies. Any time it takes two thirds of any group to agree it rarely happens. What this law would do is allow the propaganda from the big money to further their cause by brainwashing the population with lies and one-sided truths. Unfortunately freedom of speech only grants the freedom to speak. Not the realistic opportunity to be heard.
The thought that Pacific Gas & Electric has sunk $46.1 million opposing the prop means there is definitely money to be made in energy distribution. Yet the commercials would have you believe that municipal power agencies are a threat to the taxpayer.
Wouldn’t the acquisition of more municipal power companies act to help with the given cities bottom line? Wouldn’t adding a real moneymaker help the tax burden?
Prop 17: Basically it would allow insurance companies to offer discounts to customers coming in who have been continuously insured. Personally I was not aware that a prop needed to happen for this to be able to occur. That being said… and with the knowledge that Mercury Ins. Is a major sponsor of the bill I have to think about it.
My fear… Hypothetically: And from the most naive perspective... If the prop passes it would allow the insurance giants to gobble up and recruit more and more of the good customers by offering superior rates. Making it harder and harder for the smaller companies to continue. This in the long run would leave the smaller companies to continually take on more and more risky divers. Those people with loyalty who stayed with their original insurance company would be stuck subsidizing the bad driver by paying ever increasing rates as the ratio continues to be tilted.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Jim's Credit Recovery Act
Ever since Lewis Tappan created the first credit reporting system in the mid 1800s,the concept has continued to grow and evolve. Today the credit reporting agencies continue to fine tune as they try and make the system more accurate and reliable. It is based upon the theory that people’s habits and characteristics repeat them selves. I don’t have an argument with that.
I’d like to do away with the current credit system though. I’d like to do away with the number. I’d like to set strict limits on how much people can borrow based on their income level. Then I’d like to make it easier for the creditors to get their money back.
According to an article I read the main reason Lewis Tappan started to track credit worthiness, is because he realized that if he was to sell product he needed to offer credit. He needed a way of assessing who would pay back and who would not.
This economy has been tough. People all over have been pushed into situations where their credit score has been negatively affected. People who have traditionally maintained good credit relations have found them selves laid off, under worked, re-employed at lower salaries, or taken advantage of by their mortgage holders. Many have been forced into bankruptcy.
It’s not fair to let the collapse of the economy, attach a scarlet letter in the form of a number to peoples lives making it harder to get started again. This number can affect getting a job, getting services such as cable or phone. Of-coarse the credit score affects getting a loan and the amount of interest paid if the loan is approved.
When a person has a lower credit score, it raises the interest paid on the loan, which makes the loan that much harder to pay back. The cycle continues. So yes peoples characteristics seem to repeat them selves, but how could they not. Even if a person has the best of intentions, all it takes is one lay off or an employer who bounces paychecks to mess them up. The cycle has now begun. To make matters worse, the person with the chronic poor credit subsidizes the cost of the loan for the person with the good credit.
As said before, I’d like to get rid of the number. To protect the investor I would make it easier to get their money back. To make it reasonable for the consumer and to make sure credit doesn’t allow prices to skyrocket, apply the limits on income to debt. What I would suggest is a scale where a person is allowed to borrow a small percent for miscellaneous expenses, a larger percent for a vehicle for transportation, and more for a house. Creditors and investors would be required to invest in this system. In return for the cooperation from the investors, they would be given easier access to garnish wages from workers. In extreme situations such as a death or imprisonment of a debtor the principle would be guaranteed by the government. The reasonable interest would be taxed at a 50% rate and the revenue from that would go into a pot to provide small business loans and recover the loss from bad loans.
Luxury items such as privately owned RVs, boats, and aircraft would be subject to more traditional credit rating systems and traditional interest gouging. These loans would also be subject to traditional bankruptcy programs. Third party companies such as the for-mentioned utility companies would be forbidden from asking for or accessing this 2nd level credit monitoring system.
The new credit system would only contain information about current payment status, current balance status, balance history and time in grade for income reliability purposes. There would be no dinks for inquiries. These inquiry dinks stand in the way of adequately shopping for a better interest rate. With exception of extraordinary circumstances a person would not be allowed to borrow more from any of the categories unless at least 55% of the debt in the category has been re-paid.
Yes I’m crazy. Perhaps I’m idealistic and un-realistic. But the current system is terrible and people need to recover. At this point bankruptcy is the only reset switch and it screws both sides. We need to fix the system.
------------------------------------------------------------------
PS: Do me a favor and if you read this send me an e-mail. I am trying to get an idea how many are reading this. njg03tj@yahoo.com
Thanks, Jim
I’d like to do away with the current credit system though. I’d like to do away with the number. I’d like to set strict limits on how much people can borrow based on their income level. Then I’d like to make it easier for the creditors to get their money back.
According to an article I read the main reason Lewis Tappan started to track credit worthiness, is because he realized that if he was to sell product he needed to offer credit. He needed a way of assessing who would pay back and who would not.
This economy has been tough. People all over have been pushed into situations where their credit score has been negatively affected. People who have traditionally maintained good credit relations have found them selves laid off, under worked, re-employed at lower salaries, or taken advantage of by their mortgage holders. Many have been forced into bankruptcy.
It’s not fair to let the collapse of the economy, attach a scarlet letter in the form of a number to peoples lives making it harder to get started again. This number can affect getting a job, getting services such as cable or phone. Of-coarse the credit score affects getting a loan and the amount of interest paid if the loan is approved.
When a person has a lower credit score, it raises the interest paid on the loan, which makes the loan that much harder to pay back. The cycle continues. So yes peoples characteristics seem to repeat them selves, but how could they not. Even if a person has the best of intentions, all it takes is one lay off or an employer who bounces paychecks to mess them up. The cycle has now begun. To make matters worse, the person with the chronic poor credit subsidizes the cost of the loan for the person with the good credit.
As said before, I’d like to get rid of the number. To protect the investor I would make it easier to get their money back. To make it reasonable for the consumer and to make sure credit doesn’t allow prices to skyrocket, apply the limits on income to debt. What I would suggest is a scale where a person is allowed to borrow a small percent for miscellaneous expenses, a larger percent for a vehicle for transportation, and more for a house. Creditors and investors would be required to invest in this system. In return for the cooperation from the investors, they would be given easier access to garnish wages from workers. In extreme situations such as a death or imprisonment of a debtor the principle would be guaranteed by the government. The reasonable interest would be taxed at a 50% rate and the revenue from that would go into a pot to provide small business loans and recover the loss from bad loans.
Luxury items such as privately owned RVs, boats, and aircraft would be subject to more traditional credit rating systems and traditional interest gouging. These loans would also be subject to traditional bankruptcy programs. Third party companies such as the for-mentioned utility companies would be forbidden from asking for or accessing this 2nd level credit monitoring system.
The new credit system would only contain information about current payment status, current balance status, balance history and time in grade for income reliability purposes. There would be no dinks for inquiries. These inquiry dinks stand in the way of adequately shopping for a better interest rate. With exception of extraordinary circumstances a person would not be allowed to borrow more from any of the categories unless at least 55% of the debt in the category has been re-paid.
Yes I’m crazy. Perhaps I’m idealistic and un-realistic. But the current system is terrible and people need to recover. At this point bankruptcy is the only reset switch and it screws both sides. We need to fix the system.
------------------------------------------------------------------
PS: Do me a favor and if you read this send me an e-mail. I am trying to get an idea how many are reading this. njg03tj@yahoo.com
Thanks, Jim
Sunday, June 14, 2009
$4500 VEHICLE PURCHASE BRIBE
Recently congress passed a bill that people are calling "Cash for Clunkers". I don't know the intricate details, but in essence this will provide a subsidy of up to $4500 to those willing to trade their car in for a more modern and fuel efficient car. From what I understand, the amount of the subsidy is in direct relation to the gain you would be getting in fuel economy by upgrading.
For example, I could trade my 87 Grand Wagoneer with it's 9-11 mileage in on a 2009 Ford F150 pickup with it's 17-20 mileage and possibly get the full amount. Where as most people would be looking at offloading something like a F150 in favor of a hybrid.
It is an interesting program aimed at both promoting new car sales and reducing fuel consumption. I see two problems with this, first is that most of the people who have an older cars have them for a reason. Either they can't afford a newer car or they are a collector. If they are in either category this $4500 potential will not do any good. A collector wont let you peal their fingers off with a pry bar and a poor person will not be able to make a car payment with or with out the $4500. Possibly the only people who this would really persuade are those who can afford a new car but for some reason have chosen not to, or people who have a extra car. If it is a extra car with worse mileage, then it is likely not to be driven daily. Will the person with the extra car really want to adopt a new payment? Will getting the parked car off the street really improve the parked cars emissions and fuel consumption?
I've always had a problem with vehicle buy back programs. My first car was a 1971 Mercury Monterey it cost about $350 . This was around 1989 and affordable cars grew on trees. Not long after that Shell Oil Co. started it's buy back program. They offered a $1000 dollar check for the 1970s and older guzzlers and then had them destroyed. This instantly set the price floor at $1000 for any older car. Young kids and poor could no longer afford to buy a car.
Where is the automobile historical preservation society? Even dining cars on trains have a group.
In the bay area of California the B.A.A.Q.M.D. currently has a buy back of $650. So there is a price floor for cars there. As if it is not expensive enough to live in the bay area. The B.A.R. has a program called V.A.V.R. (voluntary accelerated vehicle retirement). This gives older vehicle owners who's vehicles failed a smog check an opportunity to sell their cars to the government. In previous years, this would be an opportunity for a kid to buy a fixer upper at a good cost.
The B.A.R. realized recently that their V.A.V.R. was not working on the poor, because pass or not the poor need to drive something. So in an effort to curtail smog the B.A.R. offers to pay for up to $550 in smog related repairs for qualified owners. This one actually makes sense.
Closing:
I would say in closing that buy back programs may have some positive effect on the environment and may encourage car sales. At what cost to the poor and kids? How effective are they? What if they banned the drive throughs at fast food restaurants because of idling cars in the line? This could have a negative effect on the fast food industry and make getting a job harder for the kids and poor. These types of side effects should be taken into consideration when laws are made.
For example, I could trade my 87 Grand Wagoneer with it's 9-11 mileage in on a 2009 Ford F150 pickup with it's 17-20 mileage and possibly get the full amount. Where as most people would be looking at offloading something like a F150 in favor of a hybrid.
It is an interesting program aimed at both promoting new car sales and reducing fuel consumption. I see two problems with this, first is that most of the people who have an older cars have them for a reason. Either they can't afford a newer car or they are a collector. If they are in either category this $4500 potential will not do any good. A collector wont let you peal their fingers off with a pry bar and a poor person will not be able to make a car payment with or with out the $4500. Possibly the only people who this would really persuade are those who can afford a new car but for some reason have chosen not to, or people who have a extra car. If it is a extra car with worse mileage, then it is likely not to be driven daily. Will the person with the extra car really want to adopt a new payment? Will getting the parked car off the street really improve the parked cars emissions and fuel consumption?
I've always had a problem with vehicle buy back programs. My first car was a 1971 Mercury Monterey it cost about $350 . This was around 1989 and affordable cars grew on trees. Not long after that Shell Oil Co. started it's buy back program. They offered a $1000 dollar check for the 1970s and older guzzlers and then had them destroyed. This instantly set the price floor at $1000 for any older car. Young kids and poor could no longer afford to buy a car.
Where is the automobile historical preservation society? Even dining cars on trains have a group.
In the bay area of California the B.A.A.Q.M.D. currently has a buy back of $650. So there is a price floor for cars there. As if it is not expensive enough to live in the bay area. The B.A.R. has a program called V.A.V.R. (voluntary accelerated vehicle retirement). This gives older vehicle owners who's vehicles failed a smog check an opportunity to sell their cars to the government. In previous years, this would be an opportunity for a kid to buy a fixer upper at a good cost.
The B.A.R. realized recently that their V.A.V.R. was not working on the poor, because pass or not the poor need to drive something. So in an effort to curtail smog the B.A.R. offers to pay for up to $550 in smog related repairs for qualified owners. This one actually makes sense.
Closing:
I would say in closing that buy back programs may have some positive effect on the environment and may encourage car sales. At what cost to the poor and kids? How effective are they? What if they banned the drive throughs at fast food restaurants because of idling cars in the line? This could have a negative effect on the fast food industry and make getting a job harder for the kids and poor. These types of side effects should be taken into consideration when laws are made.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Introduction Continued
When I wrote my previous post, I was focused on Cedarpines Park because I always have to answer questions as to it's location when I mention it to people I run into. I completely forgot to mention the family.
My wife Sara and I got married on Halloween in 1998. We are now the proud parents of two boys, Dakota age 9 and Shepard age 5. Dakota will be going into the fourth grade and Shepard will be starting kindergarten.
I am a cnc machinist and am luckily kept very busy at an aerospace shop in Ontario. Sara was unfortunately laid off in November from her job where she handled the books at a auto accessory place affiliated with GM. She is enjoying her role as a home maker at the moment.
My wife Sara and I got married on Halloween in 1998. We are now the proud parents of two boys, Dakota age 9 and Shepard age 5. Dakota will be going into the fourth grade and Shepard will be starting kindergarten.
I am a cnc machinist and am luckily kept very busy at an aerospace shop in Ontario. Sara was unfortunately laid off in November from her job where she handled the books at a auto accessory place affiliated with GM. She is enjoying her role as a home maker at the moment.
Introduction
Here I am on a cold June day (50 degrees). I'm more or less kept inside do to the dense fog and tree rain. Most people don't associate this kind of weather with Southern California. Who would have thought we would have a fire in the fireplace in June. Ironically, the forest service is battling a growing brush fire on the face of the mountain my family and I are trying to stay warm on top of.
I decided to start a blog in hopes that someone might find it interesting. This first entry is really nothing more than a trial run and more of an introduction to my self. My future blogs will be more of an opinionated and political nature.
I am going to answer one potential question right now. Cedarpines Park where we live, is the western most community on the mountain top in the San Bernardino mountains. If you start at the well know Big Bear and start following the mountain top around to the west you run through all sorts of cool mountain get away towns you may not have heard of.
Following the famous Rim Of The World Scenic Byway, you'd go through and see the names of places like Blue Jay, Twin Peaks, Lake Arrowhead and Running Springs. If you keep going and stay on the byway you would never know where we are and would miss out on the unique nature of our mountain community. Finally farther to the west, you are getting closer to us. If you divert off of the beaten path that the byway provides, there are more areas like Lake Gregory/Crestline where the county has paddle boats and fishing. Continue west and drive through Valley Of Enchantment and at the top of the hill you have arrived at Cedarpines Park.
We sit at about 5500 feet and the neighborhood streets curve all around and look off the mountain at various points to the south, north and west. Our house faces east which means out our back windows and from various locations around the property we get a nice sun set.
Why all of this useless information? Because I love my mountain and wanted to share it with you. My mentioning of the sunset was not any intention to gloating. We live in a small 900 square foot cabin built it 1934. To live here takes a serious commitment. Evey summer we are faced with the threat of wild fire and need to be ready to evacuate at any moment. In the winter we actually get one, unlike most of Southern California. But the truth is that by the time you get sick of the snow it melts. When it's not threatening to burn us down or freeze us, the mountain gives us thick fog that clings to the leaves on the trees and falls from there like rain.
It's not all bad though, probably 8 months of the year it is clear and blue. We are definitely above the smog line and the schools are certainly better for the boys. Unlike when we lived down in Colton the boys can play with the neighborhood kids and the neighborhood looks out for them. All of the parents here seem to take an active role.
Well that's enough for this week. The introduction is done. Hopefully I will get time to post something new once a week.
I decided to start a blog in hopes that someone might find it interesting. This first entry is really nothing more than a trial run and more of an introduction to my self. My future blogs will be more of an opinionated and political nature.
I am going to answer one potential question right now. Cedarpines Park where we live, is the western most community on the mountain top in the San Bernardino mountains. If you start at the well know Big Bear and start following the mountain top around to the west you run through all sorts of cool mountain get away towns you may not have heard of.
Following the famous Rim Of The World Scenic Byway, you'd go through and see the names of places like Blue Jay, Twin Peaks, Lake Arrowhead and Running Springs. If you keep going and stay on the byway you would never know where we are and would miss out on the unique nature of our mountain community. Finally farther to the west, you are getting closer to us. If you divert off of the beaten path that the byway provides, there are more areas like Lake Gregory/Crestline where the county has paddle boats and fishing. Continue west and drive through Valley Of Enchantment and at the top of the hill you have arrived at Cedarpines Park.
We sit at about 5500 feet and the neighborhood streets curve all around and look off the mountain at various points to the south, north and west. Our house faces east which means out our back windows and from various locations around the property we get a nice sun set.
Why all of this useless information? Because I love my mountain and wanted to share it with you. My mentioning of the sunset was not any intention to gloating. We live in a small 900 square foot cabin built it 1934. To live here takes a serious commitment. Evey summer we are faced with the threat of wild fire and need to be ready to evacuate at any moment. In the winter we actually get one, unlike most of Southern California. But the truth is that by the time you get sick of the snow it melts. When it's not threatening to burn us down or freeze us, the mountain gives us thick fog that clings to the leaves on the trees and falls from there like rain.
It's not all bad though, probably 8 months of the year it is clear and blue. We are definitely above the smog line and the schools are certainly better for the boys. Unlike when we lived down in Colton the boys can play with the neighborhood kids and the neighborhood looks out for them. All of the parents here seem to take an active role.
Well that's enough for this week. The introduction is done. Hopefully I will get time to post something new once a week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
