Author: Jack
I retired in 2008 and so I have more time now to devote to several of my interests The blog here is mainly for my interests in some current events but may have the occasional rant on other subjects. I have also decided to keep my genealogy posts and book reviews here instead of 2 additional blogs (and so simplify my life a little).

The Etch a Sketch man with the sketchy plan

The Etch a Sketch man with the sketchy plan

Posted on by Jack

In the second debate we learned a bit more about the Romney tax plan on which he has been extremely vague. It is still very vague but a few more details were added during the debate. The plan involves a multi-trillion dollar tax cut and closing of unspecified loopholes and elimination of unspecified deductions.

The Romney plan also includes mostly unspecified spending cuts on the non-military and non-security parts of the budget and large increases in military spending. I guess that is related but strictly speaking not part of the tax plan.

In the first debate, Romney added a bit more and we learned that he will not cut education but will cut PBS and he will not add to the deficit.

And then in the second debate, he also promised that the rich will pay the same portion of the income tax that they pay now. And he also said –

I want to make sure we keep our Pell grant program growing. We’re also going to have our loan program, so that people are able to afford school.

One does wonder how he is going to do all these things.

He was asked which would be his priority if he could not do all at the same time. Governor Romney seems to not even consider that possibility. After all, he is a businessman and he would never make a mistake with money.

Below is that portion of the exchange. The entire transcript is on the ABC news website.

OBAMA:…We haven’t heard from the governor any specifics beyond Big Bird and eliminating funding for Planned Parenthood in terms of how he pays for that.

Now, Governor Romney was a very successful investor. If somebody came to you, Governor, with a plan that said, here, I want to spend $7 or $8 trillion, and then we’re going to pay for it, but we can’t tell you until maybe after the election how we’re going to do it, you wouldn’t take such a sketchy deal and neither should you, the American people, because the math doesn’t add up.

And — and what’s at stake here is one of two things, either Candy — this blows up the deficit because keep in mind, this is just to pay for the additional spending that he’s talking about, $7 trillion – $8 trillion before we even get to the deficit we already have. Or, alternatively, it’s got to be paid for, not only by closing deductions for wealthy individuals, that — that will pay for about 4 percent reduction in tax rates.

You’re going to be paying for it. You’re going to lose some deductions, and you can’t buy the sales pitch. Nobody who’s looked at it that’s serious, actually believes it adds up.

CROWLEY: Mr. President, let me get — let me get the governor in on this. And Governor, let’s — before we get into a…

ROMNEY: I — I…

CROWLEY: …vast array of who says — what study says what, if it shouldn’t add up. If somehow when you get in there, there isn’t enough tax revenue coming in. If somehow the numbers don’t add up, would you be willing to look again at a 20 percent…

ROMNEY: Well of course they add up. I — I was — I was someone who ran businesses for 25 years, and balanced the budget. I ran the Olympics and balanced the budget. I ran the — the state of Massachusetts as a governor, to the extent any governor does, and balanced the budget all four years. When we’re talking about math that doesn’t add up, how about $4 trillion of deficits over the last four years, $5 trillion? That’s math that doesn’t add up. We have — we have a president talking about someone’s plan in a way that’s completely foreign to what my real plan is.

In that last paragraph, Mitt very quickly refused to consider the possibility that he could be wrong and then changed the subject.

Since there has been talk of his Etch a Sketch campaign which he clearly demonstrated in the first debate and his sketchy deal was demonstated by Presdent Obama in the second debate (see quote above), should we call Gov. Romney the Etch a Sketch man with the sketchy plan ?

Pro-life and Anti-Choice: VP abortion debate

Pro-life and Anti-Choice: VP abortion debate

Posted on by Jack

Abortion is a issue on which Americans disagree. One side believes it should be legal. The other believes it should be illegal.

In last night’s Vice Presidential Debate, Vice President Biden and Representative Ryan pretty much expressed positions on opposite sides of this issue. The quotes below are from NPR which has the video and transcript online. Those interested in the whole exchange can find it there.

Representative Ryan:

“That’s why — those are the reasons why I’m pro-life.

Now, I understand this is a difficult issue. And I respect people who don’t agree with me on this. But the policy of a Romney administration will be to oppose abortion with the exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.”

Of course if you think about, it Rep. Ryan is saying that he respects people who disagree but the favors a law that would force them to comply with his belief. Or more accurately, they must comply with Gov. Romney’s belief because Rep. Ryan doesn’t believe in exceptions but does defer to the top of the ticket

Vice President Biden:

“With regard to — with regard to abortion, I accept my church’s position on abortion as a — what we call de fide (doctrine ?). Life begins at conception. That’s the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life.

But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews and — I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the congressman.”

I am with Joe Biden on this one. I don’t think I should impose my beliefs on others. I think it is a difficult decision but I would rather see individuals involved decide rather than the government.

I can understand why some people will have positions very different, even opposite, from my positions. But I think there is a lack of consistency in taking positions that highlight individual free choice for most aspects of life but take the anti-choice position in others.

Then there is a practical issue. Abortions will occur whether legal or not. Would it not be better to have them occur in plain sight where they will be safer?

Lesser of two evils and the evil of two parties

Lesser of two evils and the evil of two parties

Posted on by Jack

Quite often our choices in elections come down to picking the candidate we believe to be the lesser of two evils. We just don’t like our choices. Pick 1 of 2 but you dislike both.

So who do you dislike least ? Who do you vote against ?

The choices we make in each election seem fairly important. And this election could be very important.


But in the long-run a perhaps it is just as important or maybe even more important that we find a better election system. I have written in this blog about this. I cite one post here but click on the tag “partisanship” to see a long list.

Mickey Edwards has written a fine book about it, The Parties Versus the People: How to Turn Republicans and Democrats into Americans which I read and reviewed several months back. This book really started me thinking that we have given up too much control to the 2 major political parties.

You might be interested in Mickey Edwards’ Atlantic article which explored this before he had expanded the argument to book length.

I ran across this series of articles which also explored this problem. The link is to one article in the series but you can easy find the others on the website.

The first step is to think about it. And if you think it is a problem, lend your support to those who would like to do something about it.

National elections – so many votes

National elections – so many votes

Posted on by Jack

We tend to concentrate on the big one. All of us as Americans get to vote for President. Well all most all of us. You do need to be 18 or over and register to vote. And you must have a proper ID in some states. But my point is there is one president for the entire country and there will be millions of us voting.

But there are other elections that are just as important. Collectively, they may be more important. On the national scene we will be voting for all members of the House of Representatives (all 435 of them) and about a third of the 100 Senators. And all although singly each of these has limited power, collectively they have lots of power.

A President can only do so much without the support of many of them. So when you decide who you think would be the better President, you may want to consider these other elections too.

It is not only important to pick someone who will work with the President of your choice but consider that this person may need to work with the other candidate. Someone who will try to do the right thing for all constituents and for America is clearly the better choice than the strict ideologue or party loyalist.

Just say no to the dividend tax break

Just say no to the dividend tax break

Posted on by Jack

I recently received a statement for a stock I own in a DRIP account. Not a big account, I think, but I suppose that is relative. Anyway, an enclosure with the statement urged me to contact my Members of Congress to ask them to extend the current low tax rate on qualified dividends .

If the tax break is not extended, dividends will be taxed at the same rate as ordinary income. Ordinary income is the type of income you make at your job. Well, I won’t be calling Congress to extend this tax break. In fact, I may do the opposite and call or email to oppose the extension.

It seems to me that if any income is to be treated differently, there should be a good reason.

The only good argument I have heard in favor of this break is that the money was taxed once at the corporate level and then again at the individual level. But then this tax break is given at the individual level whether or not the corporation paid tax. And there are quite a few companies that make a good profit but pay little or no tax.

Of course, it would be a logistical nightmare to try to match dividend taxation to the taxes companies pay. But if this issue is of concern we should either find a way to do it or adjust the corporate rate in some way. Ideally it seems that either the corporate rate should be zero or the rate on dividends should be zero if the corporation paid tax on all profits.

But I don’t understand why this is a problem. By the same logic when I pay taxes and then hire a contractor to paint my house, shouldn’t his tax rate be reduced as I have already paid tax on the money.

Who needs science? We have the Bible and Republicans.

Who needs science? We have the Bible and Republicans.

Posted on by Jack

Our U.S. House of Representatives has “The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology” to help our lawmakers sort through some of the difficult scientific issues. As a scientist, I know some of these issues can be extremely complex.

One member of that committee [Rep. Paul C. Broun (R., Ga.)] has stated:

“God’s word is true. I’ve come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior. You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don’t believe that the earth’s but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says.

“And what I’ve come to learn is that it’s the manufacturer’s handbook, is what I call it. It teaches us how to run our lives individually, how to run our families, how to run our churches. But it teaches us how to run all of public policy and everything in society. And that’s the reason as your congressman I hold the Holy Bible as being the major directions to me of how I vote in Washington, D.C., and I’ll continue to do that.”

The quote is taken from http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/06/1140947/-Rep-Broun-R-Evolution-is-from-Pit-of-Hell which has not only the quote but a link to the YouTube video of these remarks.

I don’t have a problem with someone holding these views. I believe they are wrong but if someone wants to believe them we do have that freedom as Americans. I would not elect someone like that but apparently the voters in his district are OK with those beliefs. Broun is apparently not clarifying or commenting on his remarks.

But I do not understand how the House leadership can appoint someone with those beliefs to The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. This is not the only odd appointment to that committee. Todd Akin (R-MO) is also on that committee.

Todd Akin has taken back the “legitimate rape” comment he made back in August but still maintains many of his beliefs and is still in the Senate race with GOP backing.

But there are differences between Broun and Akin. Akin seems to think the world is about 6000 years old while Broun favors a number around 9,000. One the other hand, most who follow science suggest the numbers is billions.

Those with an interest in these two might enjoy the writings of a science teacher on Todd Akin and Paul Broun.

So how powerful is a committee in its area? According to the House of Representatives website :

“Laws begin as ideas. First, a representative sponsors a bill. The bill is then assigned to a committee for study. If released by the committee, the bill is put on a calendar to be voted on, debated or amended.”

So if a bill is assigned to The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, it seems it is only considered by the whole House if and when it is released by that committee. So these committee members are more than an advisory board, they are gatekeepers of sorts and nothing gets to the House without going through them. So it is frightening that the Republican leadership would appoint people who don’t seem to understand science to this job.

But who needs science? We have the Bible and Republicans.

Protect the kids or why people do dumb things

Protect the kids or why people do dumb things

Posted on by Jack

Last year I read a good book, The Panic Virus: A True Story of Medicine, Science, and Fear by Seth Mnookin.

But for some reason I did not review it on my book review site. But here is a review of this and some related books from New Scientist. I don’t recall why I didn’t write a review but Mnookin’s book came back to mind when I saw Parade magazine this weekend.

Seth Mnookin wrote an article “Why So Many Parents Are Delaying or Skipping Vaccines” which covered some of the ground he covered so well in his book but the emphasis was clearly on the problems parents cause for both their children and other children when they do not vaccinate their children as recommended. [Update: The link went bad. Looks like Parade reorganized the site. The new link is given.]

Study after study has show vaccination to be safe, yet many are hesitant. How can people ignore the evidence and do a dumb thing ? I am not calling people dumb. Even smart people can do dumb things.

Mitt Romney gets almost specific

Mitt Romney gets almost specific

Posted on by Jack

Mitt Romney has been a bit short on details when it comes to his plans. For example, he will cut taxes by 20% (that does sound specific) but he wants to keep revenue about the same and will do so by cutting deductions and loopholes (which are not specified). He has said on a few occasions that this cutting of the deductions will not cause the middle class to pay a larger portion of taxes than they pay now. At the October 3 debate he added that he will not increase the deficit or cut education.

He will lay-out a few broad principles such as the above and congress will find the answer. As I have said before trust him and trust congress. It is certainly a plan but not one in which I have much faith.

He has also said he will cut federal expenditures. He has not given many details. But a the debate, he did tell us that he would “stop the subsidy to PBS”. This despite loving Big Bird.

There is about a trillion dollar deficit. The PBS subsidy is 450 million dollars. For most of us (even Mr. Romney) this is a lot of money. But it is only a very small portion of the deficit .0005 or one twentieth of a percent).

Does Mr. Romney have any specifics on the other 99.95% of the deficit he needs to cut? One specific he has managed to come up with solves about one two-thousandth of the deficit but may result in killing Big Bird.

Slippery Mitt moves toward the middle in the debate

Slippery Mitt moves toward the middle in the debate

Posted on by Jack

It has been widely said that Mitt Romney clearly won the first presidential debate held on October 3, 2012. Here is a transcript of the first presidential debate.

How did he do it? It comes down to that President Obama was unprepared for another shake of the Etch a Sketch when Slippery Mitt was asked about the tax plan that he has been proposing for a year or so. President Obama asked how it was possible to have to have this large tax cut and greatly increase military spending without adding to the deficit. Yes, old Mitt slipped away while denying any increase in the deficit was possible under his plan. He said that he would not increase the deficit. He said it, so it can’t happen.

“My plan is not to put in place any tax cut that will add to the deficit.”, said Mitt Romney. This seems to be something new. Before it was a kind of article of faith that if you cut taxes the economy would boom and revenue would pour into the federal coffers. But does this mean that if the massive tax cuts look like they might cause a deficit, that the tax cuts are off the table? Are they conditional on Congress agreeing to end enough deductions to offset the lower rates. Do we have any particulars on which deductions will be lost?

Further, it is widely assumed that this severely conservative budget will be a decrease over the present budget. So if we massively increase military spending and decrease taxes rates (although that will be wholly of partly offset by decreasing unspecified deductions), it stands to reason that some pretty big cuts must come out of the other stuff. But when President Obama questioned Slippery Mitt on how he would cut education, Mitt slipped away again by saying he would not cut education. So now it seems like the cuts elsewhere would be more severe.

You may have noticed that he did not agree to any of Obama’s expansions to education (more teachers and so forth), he just said he would not cut. Exactly what that means, I do not know. But it does sound much more moderate that previous stances.

So I think most of us figured Mitt Romney would eventually slip away from some of the more conservative positions he has taken and try to move toward the middle but he surprised me and maybe the President by his quick and bold moves during the debate.

But the lack of specifics in his proposals has been maddening. Of course, for most of these changes he has to work with Congress. So it would be foolish to say “this is what will happen”. But it would be nice if he took a position and said “this is what I propose”. Instead all we get are vague statements like – I know how to create 12 million jobs or I will cut the budget.

So trust in Slippery Mitt and trust in our highly-regarded Congress. It seems like such a good plan.

William Riedy (Reidy) of Rathkeale, Limerick, Ireland to NYC

William Riedy (Reidy) of Rathkeale, Limerick, Ireland to NYC

Posted on by Jack

One of my intentions with this blog was to publish genealogy information – both general genealogy and stuff about my family. I noticed that I’ve been neglecting that in favor of politics these days. So here is some genealogy at last.

My great grandfather (GGF) William RIEDY of Rathkeale, Limerick, Ireland was born around 1861/1862 and emigrated to New York about 1880. We have not found a birth or baptismal record so the years is only our best guess. Hsi father Edward or Edmund RIEDY or READY married twice. First to Margaret CONWAY and then Mary SCANLAN in 1857. William was of the second marriage and we believe he traveled to New York city with his half-brother John. The surname has been recorded as REIDY, RIEDY, REEDY, and READY.

On December 24, 1895, he was injured in a blasting accident. My GGF was a wagon driver working on a construction site. A blast went off a few minutes early and a 150 pound rock was thrown 200 feet and landed on my GGF. The foreman was arrested and charged with reckless blasting. I actually saw a microfilm of a news article about this this summer in the NYC Public Library.

I have no idea how the foreman fared. My GGF never left the hospital and died about a month later.

More information is on my website at http://www.jackreidy.com/genealogy/family/reidy.htm

Political parties and government dysfunction

Political parties and government dysfunction

Posted on by Jack

I have previously written much about the “cancer at the heart of our democracy”, often citing Mickey Edwards book The Parties Versus the People: How to Turn Republicans and Democrats into Americans.

Mr Edwards has another piece on The Unraveling of Government due to the excessive power of political parties. This appeared online last week on the New York Times website and a version appeared in the Sunday NY Times.

I have cited other examples of party ridiculousness and I’m sure almost any reader can think of others.

Ronald Reagan got it partly right, the problem is not government per se but how we run our government. The political system, and in particular the power we give to political parties, is making our democracy dysfunctional.

Are polls biased in favor of Obama?

Are polls biased in favor of Obama?

Posted on by Jack

Several new polls show President Obama with a wide lead in many swing-states. Some say there is a bias.

Of course, the polls could be wrong. But it seems unlikely that the people who do the polls would show a deliberate bias as this would tend to destroy any credibility in the long-run.

But there could be all sorts of unintentional bias. Younger voters tend to have cell phone rather than landlines and so might not get the call. I have a landline but tend to look at my caller-ID and not pick up calls from numbers I don’t recognize and that don’t attempt to leave a message. Some who indicate they are probable voters might not actually vote.

There are probably quite a few other reasons. But the one that came to mind is voter suppression as a consequence of the Voter ID laws mainly sponsored by Republican legislatures. This seems to be a factor here in Pennsylvania.

Mitt Romney may know something we don’t know about Voter ID

Mitt Romney may know something we don’t know about Voter ID

Posted on by Jack

Most of the polls I’ve seen indicate that President Obama is widening his lead in Pennsylvania but Mitt Romney has campaigned here in an attempts to turn things around. I know of at least 2 events yesterday (Friday).

I try to remember not to answer my phone without checking my caller-ID. Today unknown caller was calling so I figured it was a political or maybe a sales call and I’d listen to the message if there was one. The message was inviting me to a victory event for the Romney campaign tomorrow.

Does Mitt Romney know something we don’t know? Maybe the pollsters (except those working for the Republicans) are not figuring on an extensive suppression of the democratic vote by the new voter ID law passed by the republicans in the state house?

Writing off the 47%

Writing off the 47%

Posted on by Jack

Yesterday, I noted that Mitt Romney is writing off the 47% who don’t pay federal income taxes as Obama supporters. I pointed out that if this is correct, it pretty much insures an Obama victory and Romney loss. But there is more to the quote than that.

Governor Romney said:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. These are people who pay no income tax.

Quite a few of these people are responsible, despite what Mitt Romney thinks. The figure would include many on Social Security and Medicare who probably saved and paid taxes for much of their lives. There are the working poor. Leonard Pitts, Jr. profiles several of these in his “True stories of the 47 percent”. Interesting one of the comments is from the wife of a soldier who paid no income taxes because he was deployed to Iraq. There are people on disability.

There are many reasons people do not pay income taxes. What most have in common is that they make too little money. And many of them do pay other taxes. Some may be irresponsible. But it is probably not many and certainly not all.

There are even rich people who somehow avoid paying income tax (but that is another discussion for another day).

The President is president of all Americans, not 53% of them.

Mitt’s Math adds up to a Romney Loss

Mitt’s Math adds up to a Romney Loss

Posted on by Jack

Mitt Romney apparently believes that 47% of the population will vote for President Obama no matter what. It he is right (which is doubtful), he needs to find all his votes from the other 53%. So if he can get 95% of that 53%, he can eke out a victory in this election. Since you don’t really need a majority to win it may not be quite that bad but it is close. And then the figures may vary a bit from state to state so maybe he has written off fewer people in swing states but still his figures pretty much predict a Romney loss.

So here is an exact quote of Mitt Romney’s remarks on the subject:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. These are people who pay no income tax.

So if Mitt Romney is anywhere close to being right about the 47%, he will clearly lose. I don’t think he is right. But then I don’t think he is the right man to be President either.