How many southerners does it take to change a light bulb?
Actually, just one. However, it has long been a custom for gentlemen of the Confederacy to attend the changing ceremony and offer their recollections of the years of faithful service that the old bulb gave.
My favorite light bulb joke reminds me so much of West Virginia's attitude toward business tax reform -- 40 watts was good enough in Grandpa's day; 40 watts will do for ours.
"Unleashing Capitalism," Russell Sobel's collection of thought-provoking articles, makes it very clear that prosperity stops at the West Virginia state line. He has the pictures to prove it.
Some of the many reasons advanced in the book for our losing the battle of border warfare point to the state's taxation of businesses. And in this category, the business franchise tax and property tax are not really taxes at all -- they are instruments of punishment aimed at foolhardy capitalists.
Now that Sobel and his colleagues have exposed flaws in the business tax structure, the power brokers in state government have begun their defense of the status quo. This was not unexpected. But the defense they offer is pretty weak.
The party line defense is: If we cut business taxes now, the state just might need that revenue during an economic downturn in the future.
This defense for not cutting taxes works only when one condition has been met -- government spending has been trimmed to the bone, and there is nowhere else to cut. But such is not the case. Let's look at Clarksburg and Weston.
The state-owned, state-operated Veteran's Nursing Home and the public-private Stonewall Resort are two examples of the creative ways that our state wastes money. The state has no business running a nursing home, a mission that it proved it couldn't handle before the facility even opened. As a hotelier, the state had already lost tens of millions of dollars operating park lodges before dreaming up the Stonewall project.
If West Virginia politicians were farmers, they'd fertilize their fields with rock salt and then sit back and wait for a bumper crop of vine-ripened pickles and boughs of flossy sauerkraut. And when the crops predictably failed, they'd sow more salt.
We know that the business tax code is punitive. Toyota's incredibly successful engine factory in Putnam County owes its success to, in large part, special arrangements that allow for tax avoidance. The state tax code was the deal breaker -- no tax relief, no factory.
Before Toyota, we had the super tax credit model for picking winners. As I recall, this credit was the workaround for the notorious gross sales tax on business.
Whether you tax capital and inventory or a company's gross receipts makes little difference to the balance sheet. These types of taxes have the same effect in that they work against building the capital account.
Time and time again, we have seen substantial capital investment in plant and equipment as a result of the elimination (or very substantial reduction) of business taxes. Yet our state's leaders fail to comprehend the simple but obvious message -- reform the tax code for all businesses, and prosperity will follow.
My biggest concern regarding tax reform in West Virginia is the current notion that we must cautiously phase out a specific tax. This indicates to me that nobody in state government has a comprehensive tax plan. Such tentative phase-outs also can be translated as meaning that nobody understands the tax base well enough to even craft tax models for the future.
Business tax reform is the best way to create jobs. And it needs to happen sooner rather than later if we expect to keep the lights on.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Friday, February 8, 2008
Shapiro Brings Clarity to the Welfare State, Health Care
Book Review:
Is the welfare state justified?
Finally, there is a lucid answer to that question. I say lucid, because, in the past, the answer always has been given from the perspective of the bleeding-heart liberal or the "eat-cake" conservative.
The lucid answer that I refer to comes from the pen of Dr. Daniel Shapiro, professor of philosophy at West Virginia University. He has done a remarkable service for society with the publication of his new book "Is the Welfare State Justified?" (Cambridge University Press, 2007).
On seeing the book's cover, the first question I wanted Dr. Shapiro to answer was: Is the welfare state justifiable?
He dutifully answered me by defining the two most important social welfare programs that we have -- health care and retirement income. This is the first time that I have read anything regarding health and old age benefits wherein the author bothered with definitions. How novel!
Each of us will succumb to illness or injury in our lifetime, and we have come to expect medical care when we need it. The option of not helping the ill or the injured was settled long ago. We cannot stand idly by and watch others suffer.
Hippocrates offered pain relief to his patients by having them chew on willow bark. Today, the same drug (aspirin) is available over the counter. You may think my example as trivial. However, I chose aspirin for a reason. Going from doctor-prescribed herbs to self-medicating patients represents, at least in my mind, the quantum leap that has landed us in our current health care dilemma.
Once upon a time, there was one Hippocrates. Hence, health care was rationed as he could see only a limited number of patients. Today, we have Docs-in-a-Box available 24/7. Yet we believe health care is rationed too stringently. Is it?
Dr. Shapiro discusses the aspect of rationing health care in a thorough manner. But before diving in, he takes special care to educate the reader about what we refer to as private health insurance and government health care. We have neither private (market health insurance) nor government insurance (national health insurance). We have a hodgepodge system of health care options cobbled together as a result of federal and state legislation and state insurance regulations.
Make no mistake -- health care is rationed now and will continue to be rationed. Dr. Shapiro describes how both systems (market and national insurance) ration care and then makes his recommendation for the best plan.
"Is the Welfare State Justified?" also delves into the sources of retirement income. If we live long enough, we'll need some form of income subsidy. Should government (the taxpayer) bear the expense of old age benefits? Or should individuals (and their families) bear this responsibility?
Once again, the author points to a system that is neither a national plan nor a market plan. Our retirement plans have resulted from years of meddling with the tax code. And like my aspirin example, "if it feels good at the time, then chew on it" seems to be the way our government has dealt with the regulation and taxation of old-age income.
In the past 50 years, health care and retirement income have come to be viewed as entitlements. We know that Social Security and Medicare are bankrupting this nation. The situation is only going to get worse.
Medicare and Medicaid have survived this long on the kindness of cost-shifting their respective burdens to group health insurance policyholders. Social Security is failing based solely on demographics. We cannot tax today's youth enough to keep the Baby Boomers on the golf course.
Policymakers could right the ship in time before it sinks if they would consider Dr. Shapiro's analysis and recommendations. Because his arguments are based on the philosophy of social welfare, and not on the partisan politics of entitlements, Dr. Shapiro succeeds in understanding how to overhaul the welfare state.
By coincidence, I began reading "Is the Welfare State Justified?" just after re-reading "Theory of the Leisure Class" by Thorstein Veblen. Though written a century ago, Veblen understood exactly where society was headed. He coined the term "conspicuous consumption." High-priced goods and services sometimes are referred to as Veblen goods, meaning that people desire them more as their price increases. Thus, do you wonder why increases in health care costs outpace the general inflation rate?
I can only hope that our policymakers will read Dr. Shapiro's book. His insight on the philosophy of the welfare state outclasses anything that I have read prior.
Is the welfare state justified?
Finally, there is a lucid answer to that question. I say lucid, because, in the past, the answer always has been given from the perspective of the bleeding-heart liberal or the "eat-cake" conservative.
The lucid answer that I refer to comes from the pen of Dr. Daniel Shapiro, professor of philosophy at West Virginia University. He has done a remarkable service for society with the publication of his new book "Is the Welfare State Justified?" (Cambridge University Press, 2007).
On seeing the book's cover, the first question I wanted Dr. Shapiro to answer was: Is the welfare state justifiable?
He dutifully answered me by defining the two most important social welfare programs that we have -- health care and retirement income. This is the first time that I have read anything regarding health and old age benefits wherein the author bothered with definitions. How novel!
Each of us will succumb to illness or injury in our lifetime, and we have come to expect medical care when we need it. The option of not helping the ill or the injured was settled long ago. We cannot stand idly by and watch others suffer.
Hippocrates offered pain relief to his patients by having them chew on willow bark. Today, the same drug (aspirin) is available over the counter. You may think my example as trivial. However, I chose aspirin for a reason. Going from doctor-prescribed herbs to self-medicating patients represents, at least in my mind, the quantum leap that has landed us in our current health care dilemma.
Once upon a time, there was one Hippocrates. Hence, health care was rationed as he could see only a limited number of patients. Today, we have Docs-in-a-Box available 24/7. Yet we believe health care is rationed too stringently. Is it?
Dr. Shapiro discusses the aspect of rationing health care in a thorough manner. But before diving in, he takes special care to educate the reader about what we refer to as private health insurance and government health care. We have neither private (market health insurance) nor government insurance (national health insurance). We have a hodgepodge system of health care options cobbled together as a result of federal and state legislation and state insurance regulations.
Make no mistake -- health care is rationed now and will continue to be rationed. Dr. Shapiro describes how both systems (market and national insurance) ration care and then makes his recommendation for the best plan.
"Is the Welfare State Justified?" also delves into the sources of retirement income. If we live long enough, we'll need some form of income subsidy. Should government (the taxpayer) bear the expense of old age benefits? Or should individuals (and their families) bear this responsibility?
Once again, the author points to a system that is neither a national plan nor a market plan. Our retirement plans have resulted from years of meddling with the tax code. And like my aspirin example, "if it feels good at the time, then chew on it" seems to be the way our government has dealt with the regulation and taxation of old-age income.
In the past 50 years, health care and retirement income have come to be viewed as entitlements. We know that Social Security and Medicare are bankrupting this nation. The situation is only going to get worse.
Medicare and Medicaid have survived this long on the kindness of cost-shifting their respective burdens to group health insurance policyholders. Social Security is failing based solely on demographics. We cannot tax today's youth enough to keep the Baby Boomers on the golf course.
Policymakers could right the ship in time before it sinks if they would consider Dr. Shapiro's analysis and recommendations. Because his arguments are based on the philosophy of social welfare, and not on the partisan politics of entitlements, Dr. Shapiro succeeds in understanding how to overhaul the welfare state.
By coincidence, I began reading "Is the Welfare State Justified?" just after re-reading "Theory of the Leisure Class" by Thorstein Veblen. Though written a century ago, Veblen understood exactly where society was headed. He coined the term "conspicuous consumption." High-priced goods and services sometimes are referred to as Veblen goods, meaning that people desire them more as their price increases. Thus, do you wonder why increases in health care costs outpace the general inflation rate?
I can only hope that our policymakers will read Dr. Shapiro's book. His insight on the philosophy of the welfare state outclasses anything that I have read prior.
Friday, January 18, 2008
O Death, Where Is Thy Certificate Of Need?
Just before the holidays, I went to the doctor's office thinking I had a routine ailment. But while in the waiting room, I had one of those unexpected health scares -- a mortality check so to speak.
As a new patient, I had to fill out several forms. The first, of course, requests that all important personal identification information that consists of an identity thief's bonanza. The next three pages asked me "Have you ever had ... ?" With pen in hand, I checked boxes in the "Yes" and "No" columns.
The next page asked me the reason for my visit. So I wrote: ingrown toenail.
It was page six that explained the doctor's privacy policy in fine print. Though difficult to read -- the copier must have been low on toner that day -- I still had to acknowledge receiving an explanation of the policy with my signature.
At this point, I thought this podiatrist's privacy policy ought to include advice on keeping one's feet covered while in public. I have seen so many sandal-clad, ugly feet that I wish people would learn, once and for all, that Birkenstocks only make their naked feet look mangier. And then there are painted toenails, especially the ones that are half grown out, that really make me cringe.
Then came the killer. Page seven wanted to know if I had a living will and a medical power of attorney. When a podiatrist wants to know this information, then one has to confront the seriousness of any medical condition.
I had been derelict in executing a medical power of attorney because I never felt comfortable with asking someone to end my life. That is such an awesome responsibility to dump on someone else.
But who wants to live Terri Schiavo's life? Nobody wants family and friends to end up in court trying to decipher his or her last wishes.
While sitting in a foot doctor's office, I confronted my dereliction of duty and boldly selected my medical power of attorney-- the West Virginia Health Care Authority.
I didn't even know that the HCA existed until Clarksburg's United Hospital Center decided to move to a new location about five years ago. I live very close to UHC, and I was hoping that the hospital would stay put.
To move, however, UHC had to seek the HCA's approval of a new certificate of need. The process was time consuming and finally had to be decided by the state Supreme Court of Appeals. The court invalidated UHC's certificate of need because the HCA broke its own rules in granting it.
The HCA rules specifically stated that a replacement hospital had to be built within a five-mile radius of the existing facility. UHC's new location was eight miles distant. The HCA has since amended the five-mile rule to accommodate UHC.
Initially, I was mad at the HCA for approving the move. But then a paramedic set me straight. He told me that I lived too close to the hospital to be Life-Flighted. He also said that even five miles was too close to call in the Life-Flight helicopter. But eight miles meant that the chopper could pick me up.
In essence, the paramedic told me the HCA was doing me and everyone else who lived in Clarksburg a favor. I agreed with him and began thinking about the HCA in a positive way.
More recently, the HCA has been involved with deciding who can own and operate CT scanners. It seems that a bunch of greedy doctors want to take that business away from hospitals. Charleston Area Medical Center has said that it makes an annual profit of $45 million from its CT scanning business, which it uses to subsidize money-losing procedures. Doctors, if allowed to own scanners, would just subsidize their already extravagant lifestyles.
I don't know how the CT scanner issue will play out. But I do know this: Only the HCA has the ability and the wisdom to know exactly how many CT scanners we need and, more importantly, where those machines need to be located.
In short, the HCA -- and only the HCA -- knows exactly how much health care each West Virginian needs. This is why I chose the authority to implement my end-of-life directives. The HCA won't keep me alive any longer than I need to be nor will it pull my plug prematurely.
As a new patient, I had to fill out several forms. The first, of course, requests that all important personal identification information that consists of an identity thief's bonanza. The next three pages asked me "Have you ever had ... ?" With pen in hand, I checked boxes in the "Yes" and "No" columns.
The next page asked me the reason for my visit. So I wrote: ingrown toenail.
It was page six that explained the doctor's privacy policy in fine print. Though difficult to read -- the copier must have been low on toner that day -- I still had to acknowledge receiving an explanation of the policy with my signature.
At this point, I thought this podiatrist's privacy policy ought to include advice on keeping one's feet covered while in public. I have seen so many sandal-clad, ugly feet that I wish people would learn, once and for all, that Birkenstocks only make their naked feet look mangier. And then there are painted toenails, especially the ones that are half grown out, that really make me cringe.
Then came the killer. Page seven wanted to know if I had a living will and a medical power of attorney. When a podiatrist wants to know this information, then one has to confront the seriousness of any medical condition.
I had been derelict in executing a medical power of attorney because I never felt comfortable with asking someone to end my life. That is such an awesome responsibility to dump on someone else.
But who wants to live Terri Schiavo's life? Nobody wants family and friends to end up in court trying to decipher his or her last wishes.
While sitting in a foot doctor's office, I confronted my dereliction of duty and boldly selected my medical power of attorney-- the West Virginia Health Care Authority.
I didn't even know that the HCA existed until Clarksburg's United Hospital Center decided to move to a new location about five years ago. I live very close to UHC, and I was hoping that the hospital would stay put.
To move, however, UHC had to seek the HCA's approval of a new certificate of need. The process was time consuming and finally had to be decided by the state Supreme Court of Appeals. The court invalidated UHC's certificate of need because the HCA broke its own rules in granting it.
The HCA rules specifically stated that a replacement hospital had to be built within a five-mile radius of the existing facility. UHC's new location was eight miles distant. The HCA has since amended the five-mile rule to accommodate UHC.
Initially, I was mad at the HCA for approving the move. But then a paramedic set me straight. He told me that I lived too close to the hospital to be Life-Flighted. He also said that even five miles was too close to call in the Life-Flight helicopter. But eight miles meant that the chopper could pick me up.
In essence, the paramedic told me the HCA was doing me and everyone else who lived in Clarksburg a favor. I agreed with him and began thinking about the HCA in a positive way.
More recently, the HCA has been involved with deciding who can own and operate CT scanners. It seems that a bunch of greedy doctors want to take that business away from hospitals. Charleston Area Medical Center has said that it makes an annual profit of $45 million from its CT scanning business, which it uses to subsidize money-losing procedures. Doctors, if allowed to own scanners, would just subsidize their already extravagant lifestyles.
I don't know how the CT scanner issue will play out. But I do know this: Only the HCA has the ability and the wisdom to know exactly how many CT scanners we need and, more importantly, where those machines need to be located.
In short, the HCA -- and only the HCA -- knows exactly how much health care each West Virginian needs. This is why I chose the authority to implement my end-of-life directives. The HCA won't keep me alive any longer than I need to be nor will it pull my plug prematurely.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
"Why I Joined": A Soldier’s Story In His Own Words
"And so we watch with detached curiosity, from dry land, to see whether the Iraqis will sink or swim. For shame." -- Christopher Hitchens
Posted by Lt. Mark Daily at MySpace.com.
Christopher Hitchens, writing in the November 2007 issue of Vanity Fair, tells us a heart-rending story about the death of Lt. Mark Daily in Iraq. Hitchens, the liberal who pressed for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein more loudly than any conservative dared to do, was confronted with the consequences of his unequivocal call for regime change when he learned that Lt. Daily took his words to heart and considered them as reason enough to oust Saddam and his Baathist thugs.
Christopher Hitchens is my favorite writer of this age. His wordsmithing alone qualifies him for that praise. But what sets him apart from other commentators is his bravery (not bravado) in advancing his views and positions. Lt. Daily evidently admired Mr. Hitchens as well -- well enough to quote him, and more importantly, to believe in his message.
And so it happened then that when Mr. Hitchens learned of Mark Daily's fate, he felt the pain and anguish of perhaps being partly responsible for this young soldier's death. It is one thing to advocate war from within the safe confines of a typewriter carriage. But to know that a soldier took the typed page and made it part of his battle creed has to be haunting.
Lt. Daily was killed by a cowardly weapon -- the land mine. In the Iraq war, however, we do not hear the term "land mine" mentioned. In the newspeak of terror war, we refer to these bombs as IEDs -- improvised explosive devices.
Thankfully, IUD was already in use or our soldiers would have to be on the lookout for improvised underground devices.
At his MySpace.com page, Lt. Daily wrote a passionate essay titled "Why I Joined." He also was kind enough to summarize his reasons for joining the army and going to Iraq by telling his readers to watch the movie "Schindler's List" followed by "Saving Private Ryan."
The young lieutenant was not a hero in the traditional sense of the word, but I would describe him as heroic -- a more fitting word, perhaps.
Oskar Schindler was not a hero, but he was heroic. Capt. John H. Miller was not a hero, but he was heroic. And so on.
Lt. Daily went off to fight a war for a noble reason -- that of ridding an oppressed people of their dictator. He did not go off to war to loot and plunder. And that is a major difference in the pursuit of warfare that differentiates the American soldier from the hordes of masquerading butchers and thieves who permeate the history books.
Mr. Hitchens article, "A Death in the Family," recounts his meeting Lt. Daily's family. He wasn't sure at the outset whether he should even make the attempt to contact them. And if he did so, he had no idea of how to phrase his greeting.
There was no established protocol to guide his introducing himself to this family in mourning. Nor did Emily Post's provisos lend any advice specific to the situation. But he felt strongly that, given the circumstance, he needed to make the effort even if the Dailys rejected his condolences out of hand.
We are fortunate that Mr. Hitchens persevered. The story that he wrote is the final chapter that every soldier's family lives through when bidding adieu to a beloved son or daughter who was killed in combat.
"A Death in the Family" comes to a close on a windswept Oregon beach, the locale where Mark Daily wished his ashes be strewn. Mr. Hitchens joined the Daily family there for the ceremony, and he read a fitting passage about the death of a soldier from Shakespeare's "Macbeth".
This is all I want to tell you about Mark Daily in this column. His words are the words you should be reading. For regardless of your opinion of war, you should avail yourself to hear the soldier's opinion. You will find it interesting.
Lt. Mark Daily at MySpace.com http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=46348938
"A Death in the Family" can be found at http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/11/hitchens200711?currentPage=1 or www.hitchensweb.com
Posted by Lt. Mark Daily at MySpace.com.
Christopher Hitchens, writing in the November 2007 issue of Vanity Fair, tells us a heart-rending story about the death of Lt. Mark Daily in Iraq. Hitchens, the liberal who pressed for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein more loudly than any conservative dared to do, was confronted with the consequences of his unequivocal call for regime change when he learned that Lt. Daily took his words to heart and considered them as reason enough to oust Saddam and his Baathist thugs.
Christopher Hitchens is my favorite writer of this age. His wordsmithing alone qualifies him for that praise. But what sets him apart from other commentators is his bravery (not bravado) in advancing his views and positions. Lt. Daily evidently admired Mr. Hitchens as well -- well enough to quote him, and more importantly, to believe in his message.
And so it happened then that when Mr. Hitchens learned of Mark Daily's fate, he felt the pain and anguish of perhaps being partly responsible for this young soldier's death. It is one thing to advocate war from within the safe confines of a typewriter carriage. But to know that a soldier took the typed page and made it part of his battle creed has to be haunting.
Lt. Daily was killed by a cowardly weapon -- the land mine. In the Iraq war, however, we do not hear the term "land mine" mentioned. In the newspeak of terror war, we refer to these bombs as IEDs -- improvised explosive devices.
Thankfully, IUD was already in use or our soldiers would have to be on the lookout for improvised underground devices.
At his MySpace.com page, Lt. Daily wrote a passionate essay titled "Why I Joined." He also was kind enough to summarize his reasons for joining the army and going to Iraq by telling his readers to watch the movie "Schindler's List" followed by "Saving Private Ryan."
The young lieutenant was not a hero in the traditional sense of the word, but I would describe him as heroic -- a more fitting word, perhaps.
Oskar Schindler was not a hero, but he was heroic. Capt. John H. Miller was not a hero, but he was heroic. And so on.
Lt. Daily went off to fight a war for a noble reason -- that of ridding an oppressed people of their dictator. He did not go off to war to loot and plunder. And that is a major difference in the pursuit of warfare that differentiates the American soldier from the hordes of masquerading butchers and thieves who permeate the history books.
Mr. Hitchens article, "A Death in the Family," recounts his meeting Lt. Daily's family. He wasn't sure at the outset whether he should even make the attempt to contact them. And if he did so, he had no idea of how to phrase his greeting.
There was no established protocol to guide his introducing himself to this family in mourning. Nor did Emily Post's provisos lend any advice specific to the situation. But he felt strongly that, given the circumstance, he needed to make the effort even if the Dailys rejected his condolences out of hand.
We are fortunate that Mr. Hitchens persevered. The story that he wrote is the final chapter that every soldier's family lives through when bidding adieu to a beloved son or daughter who was killed in combat.
"A Death in the Family" comes to a close on a windswept Oregon beach, the locale where Mark Daily wished his ashes be strewn. Mr. Hitchens joined the Daily family there for the ceremony, and he read a fitting passage about the death of a soldier from Shakespeare's "Macbeth".
This is all I want to tell you about Mark Daily in this column. His words are the words you should be reading. For regardless of your opinion of war, you should avail yourself to hear the soldier's opinion. You will find it interesting.
Lt. Mark Daily at MySpace.com http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=46348938
"A Death in the Family" can be found at http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/11/hitchens200711?currentPage=1 or www.hitchensweb.com
Friday, December 7, 2007
David Allen’s Top 10 Predictions for 2008
10. At the request of Agriculture Commissioner Gus Douglas, Al Gore will perform rain dances in drought-stricken Mason County. Commissioner Douglas will have a cameo role in Gore’s next documentary: "An Inconvenient Flash Flood".
9. BrickStreet Insurance loses its monopoly for underwriting workers compensation coverage in July and will face heavy competition from major insurers such as Aetna (dba Cobblestone Street Insurance), The Hartford (dba Elk Crossing Guaranty), Liberty Mutual (dba Blacktopped Boulevard Insurance), and Berkshire Hathaway (Cul-De-Sac LLC). By year end, BrickStreet will have reinvented itself as RoadPavedWithGoodIntentions Insurance Company.
8. For the fifth time, President Bush will visit West Virginia on the 4th of July. When asked what he plans to do in retirement, he will answer, "I wanna work on takin’ the "Duh" out of "Dubya."
7. The Democratic primary outcome will hinge on the gun control issue. Dennis Kucinich, who claims that he has seen UFO’s, will win the WV primary presidential nomination in a romp after promising to defend the right to own and bear ray guns.
6. Come Spring, the "Rachel Ray Show" will discover ramps. Rachel airs live from the Richwood Ramp Festival. Ms. Ray will prepare garlic-fried ramps, gnocchi, and mountain oysters with Marinara sauce.
5. Wal Mart has saturated West Virginia with Super Wal Mart stores. In 2008, the retailer will expand its market share by opening 250 convenience stores and selling cheap, leaded gasoline made in China.
4. The Republican primary results will surprise everybody. Fred Thompson will be nominated for Prosecuting Attorney in all 55 counties.
3. West Virginia will retain its moniker "Judicial Hellhole" as a result of Nitro resident Arthur Treacher suing Long John Silvers for deceptive advertising. Treacher will claim that he is allergic to seafood but that his takeout order of shrimp and lobster didn’t so much as give him a mild case of hives. Long John Silvers will declare bankruptcy after being forced to reveal its food sources. The jury will award Treacher $10 million plus unlimited fries for life.
2. Ang Lee will win the Cannes Film Festival Palm d’Or award for "Brokeback Mountaintop Removal", his touching story of two environmentalists fighting to stop coal mining. Starring Rosie O’Donnell and Paris Hilton. Filmed on location at a Logan County, WV motel. (This film has not yet been rated by the Friends of Coal.)
And the number 1 prediction for 2008: David Allen will overcome his lifelong struggle with dyslexia and win the Pultizer Priez
9. BrickStreet Insurance loses its monopoly for underwriting workers compensation coverage in July and will face heavy competition from major insurers such as Aetna (dba Cobblestone Street Insurance), The Hartford (dba Elk Crossing Guaranty), Liberty Mutual (dba Blacktopped Boulevard Insurance), and Berkshire Hathaway (Cul-De-Sac LLC). By year end, BrickStreet will have reinvented itself as RoadPavedWithGoodIntentions Insurance Company.
8. For the fifth time, President Bush will visit West Virginia on the 4th of July. When asked what he plans to do in retirement, he will answer, "I wanna work on takin’ the "Duh" out of "Dubya."
7. The Democratic primary outcome will hinge on the gun control issue. Dennis Kucinich, who claims that he has seen UFO’s, will win the WV primary presidential nomination in a romp after promising to defend the right to own and bear ray guns.
6. Come Spring, the "Rachel Ray Show" will discover ramps. Rachel airs live from the Richwood Ramp Festival. Ms. Ray will prepare garlic-fried ramps, gnocchi, and mountain oysters with Marinara sauce.
5. Wal Mart has saturated West Virginia with Super Wal Mart stores. In 2008, the retailer will expand its market share by opening 250 convenience stores and selling cheap, leaded gasoline made in China.
4. The Republican primary results will surprise everybody. Fred Thompson will be nominated for Prosecuting Attorney in all 55 counties.
3. West Virginia will retain its moniker "Judicial Hellhole" as a result of Nitro resident Arthur Treacher suing Long John Silvers for deceptive advertising. Treacher will claim that he is allergic to seafood but that his takeout order of shrimp and lobster didn’t so much as give him a mild case of hives. Long John Silvers will declare bankruptcy after being forced to reveal its food sources. The jury will award Treacher $10 million plus unlimited fries for life.
2. Ang Lee will win the Cannes Film Festival Palm d’Or award for "Brokeback Mountaintop Removal", his touching story of two environmentalists fighting to stop coal mining. Starring Rosie O’Donnell and Paris Hilton. Filmed on location at a Logan County, WV motel. (This film has not yet been rated by the Friends of Coal.)
And the number 1 prediction for 2008: David Allen will overcome his lifelong struggle with dyslexia and win the Pultizer Priez
Friday, November 2, 2007
Bong Hits 4 Jesus and Other Pipe Dreams
This year, I joined the Cato Institute. Technically, I am a sponsor of Cato Institute, and my sponsor's fee qualifies as a tax-deductible donation to a §501(c)(3) educational institute.
It did strike me as odd that I was making a tax-deductible gift to a libertarian think tank. That libertarian intellectuals sought and received special tax status tells me that we have pushed the federal tax code into the Twilight Zone.
This lone, Schedule A deduction got me to thinking about all of the organizations that receive tax-exempt status and, more importantly, asking myself why do we allow tax-deductible contributions in the first place?
We as a nation have a history of convoluted court decisions regarding the separation of church and state. The courts tell us that public school teachers aren't supposed to promote religion with daily prayers. The courts say that churches can't set up Nativity scenes on courthouse plazas if the displays promote religion.
On the other hand, the government allows for parishioners to deduct their contributions to their church. Provided, of course, that the Internal Revenue Service has sanctioned their church.
If you start a church that celebrates the Deity with bong hits for Jesus, then the IRS is likely to say that your church is not a real church. On the other hand, the IRS conveniently looks the other way when politicians make political speeches from the pulpits of Atlanta's Ebenezer Baptist Church and Jerry Falwell's Thomas Road Baptist Church.
I won't pick on the political endeavors of Catholics, Jews, Hindus or Muslims at this time. Lord knows, Christopher Hitchens ("God Is Not Great") has done that dance.
But as for the tax-deductibility of contributions to churches, three things need said.
First, tax-deductibility creates an incentive to give. Second, tax-deductibility for one special group means that all other taxpayers subsidize that donation. And finally, all mainstream churches spend a portion of their domestic contributions conducting missionary work in foreign lands.
Some fair questions exist, then. Is the federal tax code really supposed to be involved in sanctioning contributions to religious entities? Is the IRS within its bounds to define a church or religion? Is it in the best interests of our tax-collection policies to subsidize the Jehovah's Witnesses membership drive in the Amazon rain forest? If religion and state are to be separate, how can the federal tax code allow deductions for contributions to religious entities? After all, these donations promote religion.
Tax-deductible charitable contributions to educational institutions have been allowed for a long time. Everyone agrees that bona fide educational expenses include tuition scholarships, distinguished faculty chairs and the cost of constructing and maintaining academic buildings.
On the other hand, it is a real stretch to say that donations for new Astroturf and a multi-million-dollar scoreboard for the football field fall under the guise of education. Contributions to the athletic fund that are made for the sake of getting good stadium seats aren't exactly educational donations either.
Currently, two Ivy League university foundations are being sued for misspending endowment money. These lawsuits arose because the universities allegedly failed to spend the money in accordance with the donors' directives. If true, should the donors lose their prior tax deductions?
Duke University will pay out millions of dollars to settle the Duke rape case. Most, if not all, of this money will come from Duke's tax-exempt foundation. Should the solicitation of money to shield the school's management from personal liability qualify as a tax-deductible educational contribution?
Tax-deductible contributions of property are rife with overvaluation of the conveyed assets. The IRS should require that donors sell the property at auction and donate the actual sale proceeds. You and I both know that appraisals in these instances drift to the high side.
Millions of lower-income Americans donate "what they can" to a church, or to the Salvation Army, or to the Humane Society. They donate to the Red Cross disaster fund. They buy the flour and sugar for the school bake sale. But these taxpayers seldom get to claim a deduction for their charity as the tax code usually persuades them to opt for the standard deduction.
Thus, a philosophical question needs answered: Does the government (via the IRS) have a guiding philosophy regarding charitable contributions, or is Form 1040 just an arbitrary, and sometimes feel-good, accounting exercise?
If I could revamp the federal tax code, I would eliminate charitable deductions altogether -- even if that means my giving up sponsorship of the Cato Institute.
It did strike me as odd that I was making a tax-deductible gift to a libertarian think tank. That libertarian intellectuals sought and received special tax status tells me that we have pushed the federal tax code into the Twilight Zone.
This lone, Schedule A deduction got me to thinking about all of the organizations that receive tax-exempt status and, more importantly, asking myself why do we allow tax-deductible contributions in the first place?
We as a nation have a history of convoluted court decisions regarding the separation of church and state. The courts tell us that public school teachers aren't supposed to promote religion with daily prayers. The courts say that churches can't set up Nativity scenes on courthouse plazas if the displays promote religion.
On the other hand, the government allows for parishioners to deduct their contributions to their church. Provided, of course, that the Internal Revenue Service has sanctioned their church.
If you start a church that celebrates the Deity with bong hits for Jesus, then the IRS is likely to say that your church is not a real church. On the other hand, the IRS conveniently looks the other way when politicians make political speeches from the pulpits of Atlanta's Ebenezer Baptist Church and Jerry Falwell's Thomas Road Baptist Church.
I won't pick on the political endeavors of Catholics, Jews, Hindus or Muslims at this time. Lord knows, Christopher Hitchens ("God Is Not Great") has done that dance.
But as for the tax-deductibility of contributions to churches, three things need said.
First, tax-deductibility creates an incentive to give. Second, tax-deductibility for one special group means that all other taxpayers subsidize that donation. And finally, all mainstream churches spend a portion of their domestic contributions conducting missionary work in foreign lands.
Some fair questions exist, then. Is the federal tax code really supposed to be involved in sanctioning contributions to religious entities? Is the IRS within its bounds to define a church or religion? Is it in the best interests of our tax-collection policies to subsidize the Jehovah's Witnesses membership drive in the Amazon rain forest? If religion and state are to be separate, how can the federal tax code allow deductions for contributions to religious entities? After all, these donations promote religion.
Tax-deductible charitable contributions to educational institutions have been allowed for a long time. Everyone agrees that bona fide educational expenses include tuition scholarships, distinguished faculty chairs and the cost of constructing and maintaining academic buildings.
On the other hand, it is a real stretch to say that donations for new Astroturf and a multi-million-dollar scoreboard for the football field fall under the guise of education. Contributions to the athletic fund that are made for the sake of getting good stadium seats aren't exactly educational donations either.
Currently, two Ivy League university foundations are being sued for misspending endowment money. These lawsuits arose because the universities allegedly failed to spend the money in accordance with the donors' directives. If true, should the donors lose their prior tax deductions?
Duke University will pay out millions of dollars to settle the Duke rape case. Most, if not all, of this money will come from Duke's tax-exempt foundation. Should the solicitation of money to shield the school's management from personal liability qualify as a tax-deductible educational contribution?
Tax-deductible contributions of property are rife with overvaluation of the conveyed assets. The IRS should require that donors sell the property at auction and donate the actual sale proceeds. You and I both know that appraisals in these instances drift to the high side.
Millions of lower-income Americans donate "what they can" to a church, or to the Salvation Army, or to the Humane Society. They donate to the Red Cross disaster fund. They buy the flour and sugar for the school bake sale. But these taxpayers seldom get to claim a deduction for their charity as the tax code usually persuades them to opt for the standard deduction.
Thus, a philosophical question needs answered: Does the government (via the IRS) have a guiding philosophy regarding charitable contributions, or is Form 1040 just an arbitrary, and sometimes feel-good, accounting exercise?
If I could revamp the federal tax code, I would eliminate charitable deductions altogether -- even if that means my giving up sponsorship of the Cato Institute.
Friday, October 19, 2007
State of West Virginia Faces a Hidden Highway Problem
My father was a registered professional civil engineer. He built highways. When I was learning the trade from him, I asked him for advice about a drainage culvert that was too small to handle the runoff from a storm.
His reply was logical and concise: "The pipe doesn't carry the water. The hole does. The pipe just keeps dirt from filling up the hole."
Since then, I have thought about pipes differently.
You probably don't think about roadway drainage, but for every mile of four-lane highway, there's a mile or so of drainage culverts. Some are as small as 6 inches in diameter -- they drain underground springs or weeps. Some are as large as 10 feet in diameter -- they allow streams and creeks to flow under highway fills.
The grassy median between divided highway lanes may look scenic to you as you drive. But the median, with its buried culverts, exists mainly to drain surface water away from the roadway.
When I was a boy, almost all highway drainage culverts were made of reinforced concrete. I grew up two miles from a concrete pipe plant. That company's salesman was Earl Brane, a man who once worked for my grandfather as a highway superintendent. I assumed at the time that concrete pipe, and Earl Brane, would be around forever. But I was disappointed on both counts.
Concrete pipe has a life expectancy of 80 to 100 years. But it is bulky, requires heavy lifting equipment to install it and it comes in short joints. The cost of installing concrete pipe eventually led to it being replaced with steel culverts. Steel is lighter and comes in more manageable sections.
But the tradeoff for steel was not based on comparing apples to apples. Corrugated steel pipe has a predicted life of 50 years or less -- half that of concrete.
Steel begins to oxidize the moment it is buried. The industry has used several types of coatings to minimize oxidation, but the laws of physics are what they are. When you bury steel, you essentially build a battery.
Older steel drainage pipes were most often coated with asphalt. Epoxy and plastic coatings also are used for certain applications. Steel pipe also is galvanized or aluminized to slow the oxidation rate. These various coatings push the life expectancy out to 50 years.
Steel also is attacked by other elements, rainwater being the most corrosive. Rainfall in West Virginia is acidic on the order of tomato juice.
As water runs off the roadway, it picks up particles of sand and grit that scour culverts over time. Salt may melt snow and ice in the winter, but the salty meltwater also corrodes steel pipe.
The effects of the elements are insidious. And like termite damage, the corrosion goes unnoticed until the culvert fails. The invert, or bottom of the culvert, rusts away first, and then the culvert collapses for lack of structural strength.
The hole that carried the water starts filling up with dirt and debris.
West Virginia's modern highways are approaching the ripe age of 50. I-81 in the Eastern Panhandle, I-70 in the Northern Panhandle and I-64 between Huntington and Charleston are perhaps the oldest Interstate highway sections. Then come I-77 and I-79 north of Charleston.
The newest Interstate sections, the Turnpike and I-64 from Beckley east, are about 20 years old. Much of the Appalachian system (U.S. 50, I-68, U.S. 460) is more than 30 years old.
In the not too distant future, the then-governor will be looking at a very expensive repair bill for culvert replacement. And that governor's successors will find themselves facing the same problem.
When a bridge collapses, any governor worth his salt has one thing on his mind -- camera time. When the replacement bridge is built, that same governor will show up at the opening with ribbons and scissors. Let's face facts -- bridges make for glamorous photo-ops.
Future governors who cut ribbons at the dedication ceremonies for new culverts obviously will be challenged. Past is prologue. And highway engineers will tell you that West Virginians have elected governors who became terribly confused when asked to identify a hole in the ground.
But I digress.
Fifty years ago, steel culverts were chosen to save construction money. However, replacing these penny-wise pipes will cost a small fortune. The task ahead will give a whole new meaning to the worn-out phrase "rebuilding the infrastructure."
His reply was logical and concise: "The pipe doesn't carry the water. The hole does. The pipe just keeps dirt from filling up the hole."
Since then, I have thought about pipes differently.
You probably don't think about roadway drainage, but for every mile of four-lane highway, there's a mile or so of drainage culverts. Some are as small as 6 inches in diameter -- they drain underground springs or weeps. Some are as large as 10 feet in diameter -- they allow streams and creeks to flow under highway fills.
The grassy median between divided highway lanes may look scenic to you as you drive. But the median, with its buried culverts, exists mainly to drain surface water away from the roadway.
When I was a boy, almost all highway drainage culverts were made of reinforced concrete. I grew up two miles from a concrete pipe plant. That company's salesman was Earl Brane, a man who once worked for my grandfather as a highway superintendent. I assumed at the time that concrete pipe, and Earl Brane, would be around forever. But I was disappointed on both counts.
Concrete pipe has a life expectancy of 80 to 100 years. But it is bulky, requires heavy lifting equipment to install it and it comes in short joints. The cost of installing concrete pipe eventually led to it being replaced with steel culverts. Steel is lighter and comes in more manageable sections.
But the tradeoff for steel was not based on comparing apples to apples. Corrugated steel pipe has a predicted life of 50 years or less -- half that of concrete.
Steel begins to oxidize the moment it is buried. The industry has used several types of coatings to minimize oxidation, but the laws of physics are what they are. When you bury steel, you essentially build a battery.
Older steel drainage pipes were most often coated with asphalt. Epoxy and plastic coatings also are used for certain applications. Steel pipe also is galvanized or aluminized to slow the oxidation rate. These various coatings push the life expectancy out to 50 years.
Steel also is attacked by other elements, rainwater being the most corrosive. Rainfall in West Virginia is acidic on the order of tomato juice.
As water runs off the roadway, it picks up particles of sand and grit that scour culverts over time. Salt may melt snow and ice in the winter, but the salty meltwater also corrodes steel pipe.
The effects of the elements are insidious. And like termite damage, the corrosion goes unnoticed until the culvert fails. The invert, or bottom of the culvert, rusts away first, and then the culvert collapses for lack of structural strength.
The hole that carried the water starts filling up with dirt and debris.
West Virginia's modern highways are approaching the ripe age of 50. I-81 in the Eastern Panhandle, I-70 in the Northern Panhandle and I-64 between Huntington and Charleston are perhaps the oldest Interstate highway sections. Then come I-77 and I-79 north of Charleston.
The newest Interstate sections, the Turnpike and I-64 from Beckley east, are about 20 years old. Much of the Appalachian system (U.S. 50, I-68, U.S. 460) is more than 30 years old.
In the not too distant future, the then-governor will be looking at a very expensive repair bill for culvert replacement. And that governor's successors will find themselves facing the same problem.
When a bridge collapses, any governor worth his salt has one thing on his mind -- camera time. When the replacement bridge is built, that same governor will show up at the opening with ribbons and scissors. Let's face facts -- bridges make for glamorous photo-ops.
Future governors who cut ribbons at the dedication ceremonies for new culverts obviously will be challenged. Past is prologue. And highway engineers will tell you that West Virginians have elected governors who became terribly confused when asked to identify a hole in the ground.
But I digress.
Fifty years ago, steel culverts were chosen to save construction money. However, replacing these penny-wise pipes will cost a small fortune. The task ahead will give a whole new meaning to the worn-out phrase "rebuilding the infrastructure."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)