This past week during the Vice Presidential debate, Sarah Palin, the Republican nominee for the Vice President said and I quote, "Enough is enough with looking backward and playing the blame game. There's a time, too, when Americans are gonna say, 'Enough is enough,' with your ticket constantly looking backwards and pointing fingers and doing the blame game. There have been huge blunders in the war, there have been huge blunders throughout this administration, as there are with any administration, but for a ticket that wants to talk about change and looking into the future, there's just too much finger-pointing backwards to ever make us believe that that's where you're going.
Well, it all sounds quite ironic when the same Sarah Palin today brought up the topic of Barack Obama's links to Bill Ayer's a 1960's anti war activist. Why is Sarah Palin talking about something that happened in 1960 when Barack Obama was just 8 years old. For someone who as recently as last week wanted to talk about the way forward and not backwards, what made her change her mind into talking about something that has not happened in the recent past.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Financial Crisis Explained
If your head is spinning hearing about the financial crisis, the $700 Billion bailout of Wall Street or even some of the financial terms that have been thrown around, you are not alone. This American Life a show on NPR had a great episode today which explained why we are in the mess we are, and how the most sophisticated Ponzi Scheme ever invented by the most sophisticated of investors has brought us to the edge of a financial abyss.
If you want to know more about Commerical Paper, Credit Default Swaps, and how these seemingly obscure terms led to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression then this show is a must miss.
Click here to listen to the show.
If you want to know more about Commerical Paper, Credit Default Swaps, and how these seemingly obscure terms led to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression then this show is a must miss.
Click here to listen to the show.
May Be Tina Fey Should be Vice President
Watching this weeks SNL and Tina Fey's impersonation of Sarah Palin makes you wonder if John McCain picked the wrong maverick to be his running mate...
Watch the most recent Sarah Palin i.e. Tina Fey SNL clip....
Watch the most recent Sarah Palin i.e. Tina Fey SNL clip....
Friday, October 3, 2008
The Expectation of Mediocrity
Clarence Darrow once said and I quote "When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President; I'm beginning to believe it." I guess Clarence was right as apparently even today these words hold true.
When Sarah Palin, the Republican Vice Presidential nominee, floundered her interview with Katie Couric last week, the expectation of her was so low for the Vice Presidential debate that if she came up with one coherent sentence which made sense, it would mean that she did just fine. The American people would accept her for who she is, a hockey mom, a maverick, and folksy who can relate to ordinary Americans. Her lack of knowledge on matters of importance like the economy, foreign policy, domestic policy would not matter.
Why is it that, at-least one third of the country comes to accept mediocrity when it comes to electing the President or the Vice President? Why is it that we don't demand the best out of the candidates who are going to lead us in these tough times both domestically and internationally? When we as individuals always try to do our best at work, school, with the family etc and expect the same from others in these areas, how can we accept mediocrity when it comes to the most important job in the world?
When Sarah Palin, the Republican Vice Presidential nominee, floundered her interview with Katie Couric last week, the expectation of her was so low for the Vice Presidential debate that if she came up with one coherent sentence which made sense, it would mean that she did just fine. The American people would accept her for who she is, a hockey mom, a maverick, and folksy who can relate to ordinary Americans. Her lack of knowledge on matters of importance like the economy, foreign policy, domestic policy would not matter.
Why is it that, at-least one third of the country comes to accept mediocrity when it comes to electing the President or the Vice President? Why is it that we don't demand the best out of the candidates who are going to lead us in these tough times both domestically and internationally? When we as individuals always try to do our best at work, school, with the family etc and expect the same from others in these areas, how can we accept mediocrity when it comes to the most important job in the world?
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
John McCain's Health Care Plan
In all of the economic events of the recent days, a key topic for discussion has been put on a back-burner. Yes I am talking about health care. Both of the current presidential candidates want to reform the costly and highly inefficient American health care system. Of the two candidates, John McCain is proposing a completely radical approach to how individuals get health care coverage in this country.
Most Americans get their health insurance through their employer. Employees pay certain portion of the premium and the remaining tab is picked up by the employer which is substantial. According to a recent Kasier Foundation Study, employer contribution for the health insurance premium for a family is about $9300, while the employee contributes about $3300 towards the premium. See exhibit A for details on the breakdown.
Now coming to John McCain's radical proposal. According to John McCains health care plan, he wants the employer contribution (which is about $9300 for an average family) to be taxed as income. Remember this benefits are currently not taxed at all. In order to offset the stick of taxing the employer contribution, as a carrot, his plan offers a $5000 tax credit per family, which can be used to buy additional health insurance if needed.
Here is my question. If your employer contribution is taxed every month wouldn't your employer be withholding additional money from your paycheck to cover these taxes thus reducing your take home pay significantly depending on how much your employer contribution is. And if you are somebody who is living pay check to pay check every month, this reduction is monthly/weekly pay can make a significant difference. So wouldn't these individuals, even though knowing that they will get $5000 back at the end of the year, try to opt out of the employer based insurance all together to make ends meet?. Granted, these individuals can shop around for cheaper health insurance in the market. But what are the chances of of finding a cheaper option, as a individual compared to a group rate from your employer, which pays the same benefits. Pretty slim I would guess. Wouldn't this add to the number of uninsured?
All in all I think it is bad idea to tax the employer contribution of your health care premium.
Also read Bob Herbert's column on the same topic in the NY Times.
Most Americans get their health insurance through their employer. Employees pay certain portion of the premium and the remaining tab is picked up by the employer which is substantial. According to a recent Kasier Foundation Study, employer contribution for the health insurance premium for a family is about $9300, while the employee contributes about $3300 towards the premium. See exhibit A for details on the breakdown.
Now coming to John McCain's radical proposal. According to John McCains health care plan, he wants the employer contribution (which is about $9300 for an average family) to be taxed as income. Remember this benefits are currently not taxed at all. In order to offset the stick of taxing the employer contribution, as a carrot, his plan offers a $5000 tax credit per family, which can be used to buy additional health insurance if needed.
Here is my question. If your employer contribution is taxed every month wouldn't your employer be withholding additional money from your paycheck to cover these taxes thus reducing your take home pay significantly depending on how much your employer contribution is. And if you are somebody who is living pay check to pay check every month, this reduction is monthly/weekly pay can make a significant difference. So wouldn't these individuals, even though knowing that they will get $5000 back at the end of the year, try to opt out of the employer based insurance all together to make ends meet?. Granted, these individuals can shop around for cheaper health insurance in the market. But what are the chances of of finding a cheaper option, as a individual compared to a group rate from your employer, which pays the same benefits. Pretty slim I would guess. Wouldn't this add to the number of uninsured?
All in all I think it is bad idea to tax the employer contribution of your health care premium.
Also read Bob Herbert's column on the same topic in the NY Times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
