Many of us have been lucky enough to have visited places and seen sites that will become less accessible in the future, or simply no longer there. In 1956, my parents took us across the United States by car and I had the opportunity to see this country before the Interstate Highway System bypassed the “real America.” Since then I have traveled around the country, by super-highway and local roads seven times, seeing places that I could never imagine. Now, though, many such locations are no longer accessible, generally due to the volume of visitors and the results of this human invasion.
The first, to my knowledge, popular tourist site to disappear was Mesa Verde, the Anasazi dwellings in Colorado. While it used to be totally opened to visitors, access has been restricted since the late 1960s. “Mesa Verde is first and foremost an archaeological preserve, which means that access to the park's natural resources is restricted out of consideration for its many ruins. All hiking within the park is restricted to six marked and paved trails.” (Mesa Verde National Park)
In 1962, my parents had the opportunity to see the Lascaux Caves in France. Although opened to the public since its discovery in 1940, damage caused by visitors caused the closure the year after my parents were there.
“The work carried out at Lascaux shortly after the Second World War made access to the cave easier. At that time, the entrance was considerably enlarged and the floors lowered to enable the constant flow of tourists (almost 1,200 people per day) to circulate more easily. But, in 1955 the first indications of deterioration of the paintings appeared. A thorough study found that the cause was an excess of carbon dioxide in the air brought about by the visitors' breath.” (The Caves at Lascaux)
There are hundreds of other examples, from the overcrowding at US National Parks causing reservation requirements (some having to be made a year or more in advance) to the damages done at the Galápagos Islands from oil spills and heavy visitation.
Our generation was the first mass-visitors to the glaciers in Alaska and in Glacier National Park. We will also be the last. The glaciers are diminishing at a rate that, only ten years after my visit to Glacier Bay and 30 years after ice fishing in July in Glacier Park’s Quartz Lake, there are few of these ice wonders still accessible.
Perhaps, even if we knew our presence at these places were causing damage, we may still have gone. Perhaps, even if we knew the damage we were doing to the environment, we would still have caused the pollution that has ruined many locations of our planet. We can, though, hope not.
Now, armed with this knowledge, we can and should do all we can, even sacrificing trips to such tempting and inviting locations, to preserve nature and our archeological heritage. As today we may no longer visit Lascaux in person, in fifty years our grandchildren may be unable to visit Venice, the low-lying Pacific islands, or even much of Florida, New York City, or the Netherlands as the melting ice caps cause a dramatic rise in ocean levels.
No more excuses.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Fed Insults Health Mileage
For years, the Internal Revenue Service has recognized that traveling costs money. Thus you can deduct mile expenses (at a set rate per mile) for traveling to find a job, traveling for business purposes, for charity work, for household moving expenses, and for obtaining medical care. Actually, it’s Congress that sets the rates, or simply ignores reality.
While energy prices, across the board, are rising at a rate never before seen, and this started more several years ago, and while Congressional candidates (this is an election year) have known about the rising cost of energy, not only have they not increased the deduction to match, but they have actually reduced the write-off in one major category. And this reflects the power of the business lobbies.
If you are traveling for business purposes, you could deduct, for 2008, 50.5 cents a mile. Even at $4 a gallon that seems a huge amount – it assumes you get 8 miles to the gallon or that your car is in such bad shape that it needs other repairs. You can also deduct for tolls and parking separately and above the mileage rate. Thus if you are traveling from my house to New York City on business (not commuting, but, for example, going from your work place to another), you can deduct the $95.95 for distance.
Yet, as my wife travels to the Hospital for Special Surgery several times a month for care of her fractured hip, and soon for a knee replacement, she can only deduct 19 cents a mile. (Charity work is set at 14 cents a mile.) Last year Congress was gracious enough to grant medical distance at a 20-cent rate – with the huge increase in prices at the pump, what was the reason for the decline this year?
Taking the same distance, my house to New York City, the medical deduction only comes to $30.40 round-trip.
Considering the already high cost of medical care and prescriptions, and that the elderly (retired on a fixed income) are more likely to need medical care and that most businesses actually pay mileage for business trips so it can not be deducted anyway, does it make sense for this large disparity? Top that off by remembering that you first have to reduce your combined medical deductions by 7.5% of your income prior to taking it off your income when calculating taxes and business expenses do not face any reduction.
Thus, a businessman making $100,000 a year can take his entire travel expense (including food and any overnight stays) while a retired person, on a fixed $50,000 pension, Social Security, with perhaps some investment income must reduce his medical expenses by $3,750 without any meal reduction.
Assuming 20 such trips a year, as described above, the businessman gets an annual travel-related tax adjustment of $1,919, and the retired person gets nothing. His 20 trips result in an IRS deduction of $228, far below the $3,750 adjustment reduction.
Do any of the Presidential or Congressional candidates want to address this issue? If you have the opportunity, ask them. While you’re at it, ask why there is no tax adjustment for home heating fuel, while businesses get to write it off as an expense.
(How to contact your Congressional member)
While energy prices, across the board, are rising at a rate never before seen, and this started more several years ago, and while Congressional candidates (this is an election year) have known about the rising cost of energy, not only have they not increased the deduction to match, but they have actually reduced the write-off in one major category. And this reflects the power of the business lobbies.
If you are traveling for business purposes, you could deduct, for 2008, 50.5 cents a mile. Even at $4 a gallon that seems a huge amount – it assumes you get 8 miles to the gallon or that your car is in such bad shape that it needs other repairs. You can also deduct for tolls and parking separately and above the mileage rate. Thus if you are traveling from my house to New York City on business (not commuting, but, for example, going from your work place to another), you can deduct the $95.95 for distance.
Yet, as my wife travels to the Hospital for Special Surgery several times a month for care of her fractured hip, and soon for a knee replacement, she can only deduct 19 cents a mile. (Charity work is set at 14 cents a mile.) Last year Congress was gracious enough to grant medical distance at a 20-cent rate – with the huge increase in prices at the pump, what was the reason for the decline this year?
Taking the same distance, my house to New York City, the medical deduction only comes to $30.40 round-trip.
Considering the already high cost of medical care and prescriptions, and that the elderly (retired on a fixed income) are more likely to need medical care and that most businesses actually pay mileage for business trips so it can not be deducted anyway, does it make sense for this large disparity? Top that off by remembering that you first have to reduce your combined medical deductions by 7.5% of your income prior to taking it off your income when calculating taxes and business expenses do not face any reduction.
Thus, a businessman making $100,000 a year can take his entire travel expense (including food and any overnight stays) while a retired person, on a fixed $50,000 pension, Social Security, with perhaps some investment income must reduce his medical expenses by $3,750 without any meal reduction.
Assuming 20 such trips a year, as described above, the businessman gets an annual travel-related tax adjustment of $1,919, and the retired person gets nothing. His 20 trips result in an IRS deduction of $228, far below the $3,750 adjustment reduction.
Do any of the Presidential or Congressional candidates want to address this issue? If you have the opportunity, ask them. While you’re at it, ask why there is no tax adjustment for home heating fuel, while businesses get to write it off as an expense.
(How to contact your Congressional member)
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
New York City Traffic: On Purpose
Although I was born there, I do not live in New York City. For medical treatment I have to drive a family member there at least once a month, occasionally more frequently. We try to schedule the appointment for 11:00 so that we miss the morning commuter traffic and resulting delays, but have no option as to when we return as the visits can take from one to five hours.
During the last eight months we have made eleven trips and have gotten caught in what I would describe as a serious traffic situation six times. Only once was this due to an accident. The other five occurrences were due to “construction.”
Today’s trip was a typical example. The total distance from our house to the hospital is around 80 miles, most of it done on highways where the speed limit is 55 or higher. It took 55 minutes to get to the George Washington Bridge, two minutes to cross it, and ten minutes to get to 125th and 2d Avenue where we get off. For the first twenty blocks, traffic moved smoothly, along with cooperating lights. Then a total stop.
I know about the Second Avenue Subway construction, and it’s usually not a problem, Today, rather than the usual diverted three lanes, two construction workers were standing in the road talking, waving the traffic around them, so only one lane was opened. I have no idea how long they were there; there was no equipment, no tricks, no traffic cones, just two men talking. It took 15 minutes to move from 97th to 91st street since only one lane was opened.
On the way home, the Major Deegan was at a standstill. We left the doctor’s office at 1:00, took First Avenue without even one red light, and got into the Bronx at 1:12. For the first 200 feet, the Deegan was moving at 20 MPH. Then it stopped. WCBS reported a car fire on the Cross Bronx just being cleared and construction on the Major Deegan at the Cross Bronx turnoff.
One hour later we saw Yankee Stadium… four miles in one hour. The car fair was long cleared up and the Cross Bronx was moving slowly but with reduced delays. Twenty minutes later we were still at Yankee Stadium. As we were heading upstate, I stayed in the left lane to avoid the heavy turnoff traffic at the Cross Bronx. But the right lane was moving, so that was not the problem.
Eventually we reached the “construction site.” Three construction trucks blocking two lanes, the only one that was opened was the exit lane. We all moved over, one car at a time. 2:45 in the afternoon, and they were painting a sign pole. Two lanes blocked for painting a sign pole. A two-hour delay for the painting of a sign pole. The pole was in the medium, not in the middle of the road. They could have parked the trucks on a side street, walked onto the highway, had one flagman taking precautions and the other painting (he was standing on the ground with an extension ladder nearby.
Can we blame the insurance companies, the unions, the Department of Transportation for not scheduling this at night?
Two incidences where the traffic was severely delayed, considerable fuel used up, time wasted, and no reasonable explanation.
During the last eight months we have made eleven trips and have gotten caught in what I would describe as a serious traffic situation six times. Only once was this due to an accident. The other five occurrences were due to “construction.”
Today’s trip was a typical example. The total distance from our house to the hospital is around 80 miles, most of it done on highways where the speed limit is 55 or higher. It took 55 minutes to get to the George Washington Bridge, two minutes to cross it, and ten minutes to get to 125th and 2d Avenue where we get off. For the first twenty blocks, traffic moved smoothly, along with cooperating lights. Then a total stop.
I know about the Second Avenue Subway construction, and it’s usually not a problem, Today, rather than the usual diverted three lanes, two construction workers were standing in the road talking, waving the traffic around them, so only one lane was opened. I have no idea how long they were there; there was no equipment, no tricks, no traffic cones, just two men talking. It took 15 minutes to move from 97th to 91st street since only one lane was opened.
On the way home, the Major Deegan was at a standstill. We left the doctor’s office at 1:00, took First Avenue without even one red light, and got into the Bronx at 1:12. For the first 200 feet, the Deegan was moving at 20 MPH. Then it stopped. WCBS reported a car fire on the Cross Bronx just being cleared and construction on the Major Deegan at the Cross Bronx turnoff.
One hour later we saw Yankee Stadium… four miles in one hour. The car fair was long cleared up and the Cross Bronx was moving slowly but with reduced delays. Twenty minutes later we were still at Yankee Stadium. As we were heading upstate, I stayed in the left lane to avoid the heavy turnoff traffic at the Cross Bronx. But the right lane was moving, so that was not the problem.
Eventually we reached the “construction site.” Three construction trucks blocking two lanes, the only one that was opened was the exit lane. We all moved over, one car at a time. 2:45 in the afternoon, and they were painting a sign pole. Two lanes blocked for painting a sign pole. A two-hour delay for the painting of a sign pole. The pole was in the medium, not in the middle of the road. They could have parked the trucks on a side street, walked onto the highway, had one flagman taking precautions and the other painting (he was standing on the ground with an extension ladder nearby.
Can we blame the insurance companies, the unions, the Department of Transportation for not scheduling this at night?
Two incidences where the traffic was severely delayed, considerable fuel used up, time wasted, and no reasonable explanation.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Gas Tax Vacation? Bad Idea
Although two of the 2008 presidential candidates and several other officials that face election in November have come up with the idea of suspending the Federal Gas Tax for three months this summer, it's an idea that will hurt all of us. We believe that the proposal is a ploy to earn attention and support from those who need help getting elected. Realists, like dozens of top economists and New York Mayor Mike Bloomburg, are not only against the idea, they give valid reasons why this proposal will be harmful in the long run.
For the average driver, the elimination of the tax will cause a reduction of 30 cents per gallon at the pump. That is assuming that the oil companies, the gas station owners, or others involved in the process, do not simply raise the prices artificially to increase their profits even more. (Does a quarterly profit of $6 billion seem "disappointing to anyone?) Over three months, if the entire tax savings is actually passed on to the consumer, we may see an extra $30 in our pockets. But what will we lose?
The Federal gas Tax is earmarked and actually goes to the repair of roads and bridges. Those three months loss of funds will either result in a lack or repair (and thus dangerous conditions) or the money to handle these projects will come from some other tax increase. Or perhaps Congress will simply add to our National Dept so that we pay for this "saving" next year. Typical -- Congress, and the current president, have a history of pushing the financial load on the backs of those who follow them, with no real long-term savings to the consumer.
Alternately, Congress may simply decide to suspend the road and bridge repairs that the three months of Tax Free Vacation would have paid for. How many construction workers and related industry jobs will be lost? One estimate puts it at over 300,000. Can our already hurting economy, with so many housing construction workers out of a job, afford that?
More to the point, do we want to encourage people to drive, to use gas, to own and use low gas-mileage vehicles? Especially during the vacation months?
If Congress has extra money to spend, rather than eliminating the gas tax, why not give the transportation industry a break? The vast majority of good in this country travel by truck, and some truckers are facing $1,000 tank fill-up costs. The increase to them is passed on to all of us in the form of higher prices, and thus reduced consumption. You want to stimulate the economy, then do it by giving gas vouchers for reduced fuel costs to truckers (companies and independent drivers). This savings, passed on to consumers, will halt the decline in retail purchasing. (Assuming, of cause, that the savings is passed on by the trucking industry.)
For the average driver, the elimination of the tax will cause a reduction of 30 cents per gallon at the pump. That is assuming that the oil companies, the gas station owners, or others involved in the process, do not simply raise the prices artificially to increase their profits even more. (Does a quarterly profit of $6 billion seem "disappointing to anyone?) Over three months, if the entire tax savings is actually passed on to the consumer, we may see an extra $30 in our pockets. But what will we lose?
The Federal gas Tax is earmarked and actually goes to the repair of roads and bridges. Those three months loss of funds will either result in a lack or repair (and thus dangerous conditions) or the money to handle these projects will come from some other tax increase. Or perhaps Congress will simply add to our National Dept so that we pay for this "saving" next year. Typical -- Congress, and the current president, have a history of pushing the financial load on the backs of those who follow them, with no real long-term savings to the consumer.
Alternately, Congress may simply decide to suspend the road and bridge repairs that the three months of Tax Free Vacation would have paid for. How many construction workers and related industry jobs will be lost? One estimate puts it at over 300,000. Can our already hurting economy, with so many housing construction workers out of a job, afford that?
More to the point, do we want to encourage people to drive, to use gas, to own and use low gas-mileage vehicles? Especially during the vacation months?
If Congress has extra money to spend, rather than eliminating the gas tax, why not give the transportation industry a break? The vast majority of good in this country travel by truck, and some truckers are facing $1,000 tank fill-up costs. The increase to them is passed on to all of us in the form of higher prices, and thus reduced consumption. You want to stimulate the economy, then do it by giving gas vouchers for reduced fuel costs to truckers (companies and independent drivers). This savings, passed on to consumers, will halt the decline in retail purchasing. (Assuming, of cause, that the savings is passed on by the trucking industry.)
Are You "Slightly Creaky?"
What happened the last time you used a search engine? 23,000 entries on 10,000 pages? There is a huge amount of information on the Internet, but it's not always easy to find just what you are looking for.
Slightly Creaky has been developed by a former AOL manager with considerable online research experience. We spend hundreds of hours every month searching through thousands of links looking for the ones slightly creaky people would use. Besides the obvious medical and health links, we provide information on travel, lifestyles, and home repair, while providing hundreds of suggestions for new hobbies, activities, and ways of being productive and keeping busy.
The index to the left shows an overview of these things, but we go far deeper. For example, in the "On the Table" category we include links to recipes, caloric counters, nutrition articles, and, well, whatever we may find and like. Many of the items have been submitted by viewers.
We annotate every entry so you know what the site contains before you click. Our 800-plus support group and medical information links provide alphabetical lists of ailments, including "orphan" diseases, with links to support and informational sites. Since it's doubtful you could tell what the "The Magic Foundation" is, for example, simply by its name, we give you an in-depth description. In most cases we copy the mission statements or purposes directly from the site. We try not to editorialize.
More than just links, Slightly Creaky wants to provide first-person experiences of slightly creaky people, those who are feeling the ailments of their age, but still remain active. Thus we seek volunteers to write brief (200 to 400 word) columns on a variety of topics, from geocaching to storm chasing, to thoughts on medical practices and pharmaceuticals. In fact, we encourage all of our readers to submit articles on any topic at any time.
Suggestions are always welcomed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)