Kade is apparently an Evil Republican...

The past few weeks The Mrs. and I have been introducing Kade and Payton to the world of allowances. Now...seeing as how we are both well educated people who work honestly to put food on our table, we are vehemently opposed to the concept that our children are "Entitled" to an allowance. There are many people out there proffering advice on how to handle the whole allowance issue. One mainstream opinion seems to be that you should always give the allowance at regular intervals, like a paycheck. But...here is the rub that I have with this theory. That assumes that your child is as responsible at doing their chores as working adults (or...far yet worse, it simply assumes that your child is "Entitled" to an income because they walk the planet - something that far too many adults also currently believe). Reality is that a 3 year old and a 6 year old are not 100% dependable to do their chores every day. So...the Mrs. has fashioned nice chore charts which, when completed, can be redeemed for their allowance. I know...we are mean parents... expecting that they actually "do something" to earn some money....

Anyway, both Kade and Payton completed their first chore charts last night. This was the moment that they had been waiting for...they were very excited to be "getting their money". Coincidentally, Kade's school has been collecting $1 Haiti donations from students. So we asked Kade if he

would like to give $1 of his $5 allowance to Haiti. His response: "No........who is Haiti?" - [since his first response was "No", there is no question that he is an Evil Republican]. Jen took the time to explain that it was a place near Costa Rica that had a terrible earthquake, most of the houses and buildings collapsed and many people were hurt and even died. She then took him to the computer and showed him where it was on the map...and pulled up some pictures of the aftermath. At that point, she asked if he would like to help the people he saw on the computer by donating one of his hard earned dollars at school the next day. And being the Evil Republican that he is...he naturally said..."yes!". And thus, he just contributed 20% of his first paycheck to charity... very evil indeed (and don't forget to look at Obama's and Biden's charitable track records)!

Oh...on a separate note...in case you didn't catch Obama's pledge to "focus on Jobs and the economy" at the State of the Union...here is a great article about how his administration is "considering several steps that would review the legality of the controversial Bowl Championship Series". I am dying to hear how that is going to stimulate

the economy...unless they are planning to begin taxing collegiate sporting events. Oh wait...don't laugh...Doogie and the CBO are already working on it! (FYI - The CBO was asked to look at this by the Senate Finance Committee...chaired by...you guessed it...Max Baucus...who just happens to be trying to find revenue to fund...what was that...oh yeah...ObamaCare!! Hmmm...interesting...if you go all the way to the end you will see this (emphasis mine):

"Even reclassifying certain types of income might fail to be effective if the policy was intended to apply only to athletic departments. Unless the treatment of such income was consistent across the entire university, strong incentives would remain to shift income taxable to the athletic department to the nontaxed portion of the university. However, reclassifying certain types of income as unrelated, and therefore taxable, would have the advantage of focusing directly on the types of revenue that are associated with the relatively few highly commercial athletic departments rather than on the majority of athletic departments that engage in little commercial activity. "

Read that as...you need to make sure that you classify certain high income streams (from pg. 10: "such as corporate sponsorships or royalties from sales of branded merchandise") as taxable (and oh by the way...make sure there is a law preventing those slimy universities from unscrupulously shifting that revenue to other tax-exempt buckets)...and then bleed them dry. Wow - if that were the case...then why not double the fun by super concentrating those "high income streams" in something like...say...a prolonged playoff system where the highest grossing universities get to play...say...5 games instead of one??? Hmmm...now that sounds like an effort to tax universities...that should be good at lowering the cost of education. Ans as for all that new found revenue? It would obviously be immediately put to work generating JOBS! And there you have it. My 20 minute conspiracy for the night.

Just your ordinary trip to the SSA

Let me preface this entry by saying that this one is for senor J.T. (yes, Mr. Kentucky Royalty). I really hope a lion or tiger has not gotten him yet...

Yesterday I finally made the trip that I have been dreading. I needed to head on down to the local Social Security Administration branch to apply for a SS#/card for Avery (you see, it is kind of hard to do your taxes without it...well, at least correctly - unlike our Treasury Secretary...). To start...I had to sit in the waiting area for a little over an hour. That was an experience in and of itself. A couple of observations. First, there was the obligatory Purell dispenser at the door - which nobody used despite being in the grips of the worst epidemic of ALL time. Second, there were two beautiful portrait pictures of both Obama and Biden staring at me - as if they were personally there to re-assure me that this would be an efficient government operation. Third, there were about 20 signs on the walls telling people NOT to use their cellphones for security reasons - apparently the Framingham SSA office is a prime terrorist target in the making. Fourth, there was not a single sign in just one language...they were all in English and Spanish....go figure, no Mandarin or French. Fifth, there was a really annoying Chubby Checker sign staring at me ... I am very glad I can share that one with you. Lastly, there were a LOT of loud Latino ladies in the waiting area jibber-jabbing in Spanish as we waited. Their conversations were really interesting. Mainly stemming around how they were here to "get their money". Lovely. One even went so far as to tell the others that she needed to get into a car wreck so she could "get her money"...too bad she didn't buy a Toyota huh. Hmmm...knowing Spanish does have it's uses after all ;-)

But the real meat of the matter was what happened next when I was finally beckoned by the almighty SSA agent. I am sure that they saw me and thought...trouble! You could see it in the ladies eyes...she had me pegged as one of those folks trying to game the system. Don't worry...I had had over an hour with Chubby and Obama 2.0 to prepare ... I was ready for the fight!! (cue theme music from The Good, Bad and the Ugly):

Agent: She opens with a challenge. A flat toned statement of "What do you want?".

R: "A social security card for my daughter. She was born overseas and so I need to get one issued"

Agent: "How old?"

R: "11 months."

Agent: "She doesn't have one already?"

R: "Nope."

Agent: "Birth certificate."

R: "Well, here is her CRIBA..."

Agent: quizzical look...slight head tilt...

R: "Her Consular Report of Birth Abroad..."

Agent: Looks at CRIBA..."This is a birth certificate."

R: "Uh...ok." (I was tempted to ask her if it was the same kind of birth certificate that the fine gentleman with his picture on the wall also possesses ... you know...Obama 2.0's...but I didn't dare up the ante too fast here...)

Agent: "I will need a form of identification for her."

R: "Sure - here is her passport."

Agent: "No sir, I need a valid form of identification."

R: "I am pretty sure that a passport is valid identification, ma'am."

Agent: "Don't you have something like an immunization record?"

R: "Huh? You are aware that a passport is proof of citizenship and allows you to enter this country right? That is why we needed to get her a passport - issued by the very same government you work for - so we could come back to the US. Are you confused by the fact that she has a passport and not a SS#? "

Agent: "Yes. Are you sure she does not have a SS# already?"

R: "I am sure. You see, the state department is not in the business of issuing social security numbers. They are pretty busy making sure that the good guys get to come to the country and the bad guys stay away. They were focused on the CRIBA and the passport. The rest is your job."

Agent: "hold on please"...she goes to the back to check with here superior...comes back..."ok sir, you are right. A passport is an acceptable form of identification."

R: "Good to know."

Agent: I think she is starting to pick-up on some sarcasm at this point. "Sir, now I need to see your identification."

R: "Sure...here is my passport." I am pretty sure that she detected my delight as she looked into the big ass grin on my face when I said that!

Agent: "Ok, everything looks in order this should just take a minute."

Personally, the ignorance I can look past. I mean...come'on. How many times are they ever confronted with a situation like mine...you know...the kind where everything is actually done right? Judging from the Latino ladies conversations...I am betting it is a pretty rare occurrence. The piece that really grated me the wrong way was the fact that an immunization record was considered valid proof of identification. Are you kidding me? I am pretty sure I have a suggestion for my new state Senator...Senor Brown...maybe we should take a closer look at how easy it is to get on the Social Security gravy train???

Gotta love the good old SSA!

Kade's 6th Birthday (20 photos), by Jennifer Cavagnaro

I'd like to share my Snapfish photos with you. Once you have checked out my photos you can order prints and upload your own photos to share.
Click here to view photos

Let's not get ahead of ourselves...but...DAMN!

First, let me say that I am proud of the Mrs. She made a point of getting out and voting in the MA special election yesterday. Last night Kade asked her who she voted for and she unabashidly stated who she voted for....wonderful for the kiddos to see! (in fact, the Mrs. and I decided that we will start taking the kiddos to the polls...so they understand the process and all that which it represents).

To be honest, I NEVER would have thought that our move to MA would have resulted in any chance to actually cast a vote that materially mattered - but thanks to "X" I was pleasantly surprised!! (Mad-Lib time ... you fill in the "X")

Backing up for a minute...people wonder (ok - mainly the Mrs. wonders) why I love politics so much. Mainly, I love democracy...and politics is the engine of democracy. I love the fact that "the poeple" really are the boss at the end of the day (despite what the power-drunk politicians in DC think - yes BOTH parties)! So it was tremendously exciting to see so many people in MA discussing the canidates and the issues.

What I want to talk about --> a simple message to the Republican party. Don't misread the mandate. ObamaCo greatly misread 2008. They assumed that thier sweeping victory meant that they had the correct agenda. Wrong. All it meant was that people were not happy with what Bush/Cheny were doing (people forget there was a Democrat Congress at the time...it is just easier to blame Bush). Many conservatives voted for Obama...do you think that really meant they subscribed to something that bordered on socialism? Hardly. So Repubs...don't get all hyped up that this means your platform is solid. It means that Scott Brown's message of the moment was right-on the mark.

• Do not spend money "we" do not possess.
• Cut taxes to create jobs.
• Kill the runaway health-care reform bill (that doesn't mean "no reform at all"...just not "reform like this").
• Giving constitutional rights to terrorists is a bad idea.
• Listen to the people.

Please, please don't embarass us by over-reading this vote and doing something stupid. Just be happy that you are less wrong than ObamaCo and work towards real compromise for the country!

BUT...dear ObamaCo. Please do not UNDER-READ this vote. It does mean that your agenda sucks. We do not like you spending our children's money at breathtaking speed. We do not like your healthcare monstrocity...it is too focused on the uninsured. We would like you to focus more on jobs. We do not want higher taxes {like you promised} (even the veiled kind - like pass-through taxes from corporations). Don't protect terrorists - they are not our friends. You know...stuff like that.

Since I am a junkie...and completely unable to restrain myself when it comes to data...here are the lenses through which I am looking: The picture on the left is Obama/McCain 2008 and the picture on the right is Coakley/Brown 2010. You may notice some patterns. Obviously Boston/Lowell/Worcester continue to be blue...they have the most to gain. But Cape Cod (home of the Kenedy's)? Both South and North shore? This clearly demonstrates that the current entitlement agenda at the national level is resonating with a smaller and smaller base. You may be interested in why Western Massachusettes (sic) is so blue. I had to ask a few people myself. Apparently it has something to do with what I will call "granola-gravity theory" (something which returns 0 hits in Google...I should trademark that...) ...which is drawing hippies to the Berkshires. But I am not expert on this topic...

Anyway, I have already seen the liberal media starting to paint a predictable picture..."Republicans voted and Democrats sat out --> that was the reason for the loss". Hmm...that is really interesting seeing as how Republicans represent ~11% of the population per the Boston Globs own admission (I am betting that will not be their final answer - just look at the scale on the bottom of the chart for heaven's sake). I seem to recall that the same media pre-election day was saying that "higher turnout favored Coakley" because the state is largely Democrat (shock). Ok - so how many people showed up to vote? About 2.2M according to state records. And how about in 2008 (the biggest turnout ever)? 3M. That's right...about 54% voted in this special election vs 73% in 2008. I would not call thems small potatoes. So the Glob expects us to believe that higher turnout of 11% of 2.2M (or 242K) means victory in MA!! If this were the case, then shouldn't all elections in MA be competative? DUNCES! Clearly the Boston Globs analysis (while it may be factually correct) is a little off target in answering the question of "what happened to my seat?". So let me show you what I see...when I plot voter turnout vs. "% for Brown" town by town...there is a VERY weak correlation (note the R^2 of only 0.03!!). That means turnout was basically irrelevant. DANGER-DANGER Boston Glob...your thesis is flawed. Tie this in with the delta in "support for Obama" vs the "support for Coakley" and you start to see something more telling. I compiled a town by town comparison of the delta in support for the democrat canidate (2010 vs. 2008). You already know the answer wrt the overall average. Obama won with 62% and Coakly only took home 47%...a net loss of 15 percentage points across the board. Ok...that is distressing but the really bad news comes in the town by town breakout. Not ONE single town in MA gave Coakly a higher % than Obama got in '08. Even in the most liberal of liberal places like Cambridge/Provincetown/Amherst, with their backs against the wall (remeber this was the 41st vote after all), saw D supprot errosion...and the more independant towns had striking movement, upwards of 30% cross-over.

So what does this mean...ObamaCo really pissed off a huge chunk of people...it was not just Martha. Martha's terrible campaign is not enough to turn off people in democrat stronholds in a democrat state. After all, they would follow any D anwhere. This is reinforced by the Ramnussen data:

In the end, Brown pulled off the upset in large part because he won
unaffiliated voters by a 73% to 25% margin. The senator-elect also picked up 23%
of the vote from Democrats.

Coakley also barely carried a usually reliable Democratic constituency.
Union workers went for her by just six points, 52% to 46%.

Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters in the state say health care was the most
important factor in their voting decision.

Twenty-five percent (25%) of Massachusetts voters say the economy was most
important.

So yes ObamaCo. your agenda stinks. Loud and clear. If I were your advisor...I would advise you to get out in front of this and deep-6 the current health care plan at the State of the Union. Be seen as leading us ALL away from this disaster which you can claim "Congress has created". You will look stronger...NOT weaker. I doubt your advisors are telling you this and that is too bad for the country.

And I re-iterate my warning to the Repubs: You better stay out of the cool-aid and realize that this is a great opportunity to get a seat at the table and contribute. It is not validation that you should OWN the table.

And if you made it all the way to the bottom...let me know :-)

Starigh from the horses arse

Every couple of days I try to check out the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) director’s blog. For those of you unfamiliar with the CBO (kind of a stretch if you are in following the healthcare train wreck)…they are a group chartered by the following mandate (from their website):

CBO's mandate is to provide the Congress with:
- Objective, nonpartisan, and timely analyses to aid in economic and budgetary decisions on the wide array of programs covered by the federal budget and
- The information and estimates required for the Congressional budget process.

Anyway…back to the director’s blog. It is usually filled with loads of crap that most Americans wouldn’t give a rat’s turd about. But every now and then…a real gem of a nugget comes along that I just can’t resist. The director’s latest entry is a particularly juicy morsel for those of us who have reached deep (really deep) to resist the temptation of simply ignoring this mess.

The current director is Douglas Elmendorf … but I think I am going to call him Doogie from here forward. Anyway…Doogie goes on for about 6 paragraphs laying down the pretext for their latest analysis – an attempt to find the best policy option moving forward to create jobs - noble effort indeed. Basically, all you need to know is that bigger numbers on the graph are better, since that means more jobs created. Before we even go into what constitutes the top ten best policy options identified…look at the scale: 0 to 20. Well now you are probably asking yourself…what does 1 unit of “years of full-time-equivalent employment per Million Dollars of Total Budgetary cost” really mean? My interpretation:

• Worst Case = 1 job created for $1M “spent” --> $1M / job. (ok – technically it could be zero…but our congress would never do that…)
• Best Case = 20 jobs created for $1M “spent” --> $50K / job

…oh this should be veeeery interesting indeed (FYI - the median US salary is ~$35K with median household income of ~$50K).

Ok…on to the top items (their graph and my summary):

#1 “Give money away”
#2 “Cut taxes”

#3 “Cut taxes”

#4 “Cut taxes”
#5 “Give money away”
#6 “Cut Taxes”
#7 “Spend”
#8 “Spend”
#9 “Cut taxes”
#10 “Cut taxes”
#11 “Cut taxes”

Please note: “Increase taxes” is not on the list.

Good work Doogie! Too bad the only thing the Hill will hear is that "give money away" is in slot #1.

As an aside: If you had to chose between the two best rated policy options of "Increase aid to the unemployed" or "Reducing employer's payroll taxes for firms that increase their payroll" which would you choose? (or maybe we could do both if we didn't have the healthcare albatross on the table...)

Christmas 2009 - MA (59 photos), by Jennifer Cavagnaro

I'd like to share my Snapfish photos with you. Once you have checked out my photos you can order prints and upload your own photos to share.
Click here to view photos