Who is Best For the Slightly Creaky?

The Slightly Creaky web site is not political in nature, but as this Blog was established as our editorial wing we feel it is our obligation to express the opinions of the editorial staff prior to what may be one of the most important presidential elections of our lives. We feel that the 2008 election will decide:

1. Health Care issues for the next 20 years.
2. Social Security’s future.
3. The reformatting of Medicare and Medicaid as well as the prescription drug plan Part D.
4. Regulations controlling the cost of prescription drugs for the next 20 years.
5. The composition of the Supreme Court.
6. Regulations controlling the excessive profits and incomes of those American companies and CEOs whose actions control prices.
7. Local taxes including property and school. As Federal taxes are reduced, local and state governments must raise their taxes to compensate.
8. Morality in government. While it may not be our business to pry into the personal lives of those in government, it is our obligation to make sure our government respects the rights of the people.
9. The way the United States is respected overseas. This affects both our safety and our pocketbook.

(Please refer to the Internet links for comparative data. The information presented here comes from each candidate’s web site, position statements, and speeches unless noted otherwise.)

1. Health Care. Whether you have medical coverage or not, whether you are uncovered, can afford your own medical insurance plan or are wealthy enough to simply pay as you need it, whatever is recommended by the next president will have a great impact on what Congress decides. Remember, the President can only suggest. It is Congress that actually passes the laws.

There is no doubt that both the Senate and the House of Representatives will have a significant Democratic majority for the next two years, possibly (and historically) for four years and longer. It is unlikely that Congress will accept John McCain’s proposal, not just because he is a Republican, but also because so many health and economic experts rejected its basic premise. Simply said, giving a tax credit of up to $5,000 per couple ($2,500 for single adults) as well as taxing the value of health care for those whose companies now provide it for free, violates all that our federal government has done in the way of social programs for the last 80 years.

In addition, the McCain proposal will add to the ever-increasing inflationary costs we have seen in medical coverage. Simply giving people money to purchase medical insurance does not guarantee that the insurance companies will reduce the nearly 7% increase we see annually. If that continues, the amount of coverage $5,000 will afford us will be negligible.

Obama’s plan has several reasons for success. In addition to having already won the support of a majority of Democrats (and some Republicans), it maintains the best of the current health coverage policies. People would have a choice of keeping the plan they already have if it works, if it is cost effective, and if it provides them with the options they want. If not, they have a second plan they can compare with what they currently have and choose to select it.

In the short run, both plans would cost around the same. Taken over a period of twenty years, though, inflation and the demonstrated greed of the health insurance industry, would make McCain’s plan considerably more expensive for the individual, the family, the American People, and inflate the government’s contributions from $5,000 to (over 20 years) an estimated $12,000. If the McCain plan’s coverage does not have an inflationary clause it simply will survive for only a few years and then be fiscally useless.

2. Social Security. It is for certain that Social Security needs fixing, yet no one wants to pay for the fixes. Those who really need this retirement and disability plan cannot afford to pay more for it. Those in the middle class who depend on Social Security for having more than a minimal of comfort (if affords them the ability to raise their winter temperature from 65 degrees to a more comfortable 68 and gives them the option of an occasional luxury such as a meal out or an extra gallon of gasoline), are having enough of a struggle with what they currently have.

There are several options for the survival of Social Security (whose inflationary COLA will result in a 5.8% increase in 2009).
> We can raise the amount everyone pays by increasing the percentage taken from our wages (currently 7.65% since 1990, 15.3% for self-employed). That hurts everyone immediately, especially unlikely at a time when we foresee several more years of international economic turmoil.
> We can eliminate the ceiling on which you pay this tax from the current $102,000 ($106,800 in 2009).
> We can reduce the benefits or set it so that people do not receive benefits until later in life.
> We can create a window of non-payment similar to the Plan D Prescription law: everyone pays until a certain amount of income (such as the $106,800 in place for 2009) and then there are no social security taxes until your income exceeds $250,000 annually.
> We can divide Social Security into two parts – one amount guaranteed and one part dependent on the stock market. This is known as “individual investment accounts.”

When Social Security was introduced in 1937, people paid 1% of their salary into the plan. This amount has been increased 25 times. The current amount has been stable for 18 years, the longest in history. In fact the second longest period of stability was 12 years (at 1%). It is unlikely that Congress will ask self-employed people to contribute more than the current 15.3%.

Individual investment accounts, as proposed by President Bush and kept alive by John McCain, have previously been rejected by Congress, by the American people, and by financial experts. Had that proposal passed in 2004, those who had contributed would have lost around 50% of their retirement investment during the last two years.

While it’s impossible to predict what the stock market will do, we cannot afford to gamble with our future economic security. The idea behind Social Security is to give the people a cushion where they know they will have an income once they can (disability) or choose to no longer work (at age 62 or later).

Those who wish to gamble with their retirement, and can afford to do so, already have several options, all more secure than the individual investment account plan: 401(k) and IRAs. A compromise plan would include maintaining social security with some payment alteration to secure its future, and adding optional retirement accounts such as the 401(k). It is likely that businesses can be encouraged to contribute to such plans, as many have, through low-cost tax incentives.

Of the options presented, increasing the wage limit on payment seems fairest to all. Congress has been increasing this amount annually anyway. At this time it makes sense to use the option that has worked with Plan B: provide a window where middle class wage earners do not have to pay. Should that prove insufficient, the window can be reduced in the future with minimal harm to the greatest amount of people.

3. Medicare. In 2007, Medicare alone accounted for $394.5 billion of the federal budget. Medicaid and other health benefits added $276.4 billion. Together they amount for $670 billion of the total $2.8 trillion budget, almost a quarter of the total Federal budget. Add to that the amount that states and local governments put into health care and it’s obvious that something must be done.

Some in Congress want to see these medical entitlement programs eliminated, combined perhaps with a new total medical coverage package (see topic 1 above). Should that be workable, without a significant increase in total or percentage costs, then it is to everyone’s benefit.

Neither candidate has expressed a definitive thought on this issue, except that Barack Obama wants all children covered either by individual plans, an improved national health plan, or through Medicaid (or SCHIP for those caught between the Medicare limits and those who can afford a health care plan). Senator McCain’s statement on health care does not offer any coverage for children nor does he address Medicare specifically.

4. Prescription Drugs. With Plan D in effect, neither candidate has addressed this issue other than stating (both of them) that they support the importation of drugs if the price from foreign countries is lower. This includes the following:

> McCain has a history of supporting health benefits for seniors, although he refused to support Plan D, and he voted against expanding it. He is in favor of income indexing Plan D so that wealthier people pay more for coverage. “Under the McCain proposal, Medicare beneficiaries with annual incomes of more than $82,000 for an individual or $164,000 for a couple would pay higher premiums for prescription drug coverage.”
> Obama wants to lift the current ban that prevents the US government from dealing directly with drug companies to increase bulk purchases and the lowering of costs.
> Both candidates are looking to reduce the time it takes for generic drugs to become available

5. Supreme Court. With three potential retirements among the Justices within the next four years, all of them with liberal or moderate tendencies, it is important for voters to decide whether they wish to support Obama and thus maintain the current equality between the liberal and conservative wings of the Court, or McCain and cause the court to drift towards conservatism for the next twenty years.

6. Excessive Profits and Taxes. One issue that Senator Obama keeps on returning to is that the wealthiest Americans can afford to pay a greater percentage of taxes, thus reducing the burden on middle class people and undoing the shift created by the Bush tax cuts. McCain would like to see the benefits given to the rich during the last eight years to remain in place.

Historically, the wealthier have paid a greater percentage of their income in taxes. This has been the backbone of the graduated income tax system used by the Federal government and most states. When the 16th Amendment was finally passed in 1913, the tax rate was set ranging from 1 to 7% of income based on how much you made, with the largest amount for those making over $500,000 (in 1913!). Less than 1% of the entire country had to pay any income tax under this original plan.

In 1916 the Federal income tax rate was change to range from 2% to 15%. “By 1917 a taxpayer with only $40,000 faced a 16 percent rate and the individual with $1.5 million faced a tax rate of 67 percent.” (Department of the Treasury Fact Sheet) Supporting the historic differential, “By 1936 the lowest tax rate had reached 4 percent and the top rate was up to 79 percent.”

Currently the difference is significantly less with far fewer tax steps than we have historically had and ranging from 10% (making $16,000 married) to 35% for the wealthiest making over $357,700.

Thus, for a person earning $10 million a year, not including the massive tax loopholes the wealthy usually find, in 2008 such an income would result in a Federal income tax of $3.5 million. Correspondingly, in 1916 such a person would have paid $6.7 million, and in 1936 $7.9 million.

John McCain wants to maintain the current 35% limit on taxes as well as reduce corporate taxes from 35% to 25%. Senator Obama would like to see a repeal of the Bush tax cut for the wealthy (over $250,000 annual income) and use the amount generated by this to give those making less than this amount a tax breaK. This is not socialism nor is it “redistribution of wealth.”

This means a return to how things were taxed throughout more than 70% of the history of federal income tax. It puts a larger burdon on the wealthiest 1% of the country, whether they are a small business owner or a corporate CEO. Under this plan, 99% of the population would see a tax reduction. In addition (according to CNN), Obama’s plan would “eliminate income taxes for seniors making less than $50,000 per year and eliminating all capital gains taxes on start-ups and small businesses.”

Both candidates are looking to help those with children. Obama wants to increase tax savings on college accounts and McCain assures that there will be no new taxes on cell phones and Internet usage (Obama has not addressed these issues).

7. Local taxes. Federal tax savings during the last twenty years have saved us nothing. For every dollar the federal rate is cut, the local and state taxes have gone up even more. The rate of increase in property and school taxes is greater now than it has ever been. The average family sees less of their income due to these increases.

While neither candidate addresses these issues, John McCain looks for an across-the-board Federal spending reduction to help balance the budget. In normal times this would be an admirable goal. However, with inflation so high, with the world in an economic tailspin, and ever increasing local government costs, an across-the-board freeze or reduction will be an income tax increase to everyone.

During the Bush years, while we paid a smaller percentage to the Federal government, the states have had to pick up the slack on education, highway (and other infrastructure costs), medical and welfare, as well as every other form of governmental program. In some locations people are paying almost twice as much for state and local taxes as they were seven years ago. McCain’s plans would feed into this frenzy of increased non-Federal tax increases.

Barack Obama recognizes several things: Federal tax rates for the majority of people have to remain the same or be reduced (reduction is planned for 99% of the population), seniors on fixed incomes need even more tax relief, governmental spending must back state and local needs so that a country-wide reduction does not result in local increases.

Obama is seeking to maintain or raise funding support in crucial areas, specifically health, infrastructure, and education. An increase of government spending in these fields will also provide stimulation to the declining job rates and economy by providing more jobs in the crucial construction and health fields. The top-down proposals that the Republicans have pushed since the 1970s has only produced income increases for the wealthy. Cutting corporate taxes and lowering the amount the wealthiest Americans pay has resulted in more income for the top 1% of the rich while others have seen their purchasing power decline.

8. Morality in Government. The talking heads and sound bites that seem to impress many people point out negativity in every candidate. Yet no person alive has ever had a pristine life. Should we judge a person’s ability to lead our nation based on a personal life, no one would qualify.

What is more important, from a governmental point of view, is whether the people in power can be trusted to be fair to all Americans. George Bush and his circle of advisors have proven many times over that they can simply not be trusted. They hide behind “executive privilege” to refuse giving testimony on issues of vital importance to this country’s security as well as whether they have violated the basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Nothing says more about the quality of a person than whether they are willing to answer questions about their actions. In many cases these testimonies are sealed and secret, yet the Bush administration, both those currently in office and those resigned, retired, and removed, refuse to do so. This is government by fiat – a dictatorial practice that is not only forbidden by the Constitution, but which has been avoided by every branch of the government since our country was founded.

There are many questions about the start of the war in Iraq and how it has been conducted that the Bush administration refuses to answer. This also applies to their actions in Afghanistan, the reasons behind the failure of the New Orleans recovery program, the toxins in the trailers used for those who lost their homes, the federal attorney scandal and dozens of other issues. The lack of trust in our executive branch caused by this secrecy has been a national disaster.

We are not just voting on a president. When a person is elected to this office, he (she) is responsible for selecting the Cabinet, judges, ambassadors, and hundreds of thousands of others. Ultimately the buck stops at the top. Any improper action by an executive official reflects on the president directly. The Bush administration’s greatest failure is the unwillingness to admit to any fault and their attempt to hide all mistakes.

Thus it is fair to look at the background of each candidate to see how each person has reacted in the past. It may seem unjustified to bring up Obama’s nebulous association with a 1960s radical or McCain’s association with several people who have gone to jail for financial impropriety. But these things must be considered, however briefly.

In all fairness, both Senators have minor instances of relationships with people of questionable character, but both McCain and Obama themselves have outstanding characters and can be trusted not to repeat the secrecy and distrust fostered by the Bush administration.

The difference, though, lies in their selection for vice-president, the person who is a heartbeat from the chief executive’s office. Although we hate to admit it, there are thousands of biased people in this country and an attempt on Barack Obama’s life, should he be elected, is not only possible, but likely. At the same time, John McCain does not have a pristine medical history, and while he is in good health at the moment there is always a chance his cancer might return and he is subject to other frailties that people his age succumb to.

Joe Biden, a man whom no one accuses of any impropriety other than occasionally saying things he should not, is respected by Democrats, Republicans, and, since no country is isolated, those in foreign countries who deal on the executive level. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, has demonstrated, through her few years as mayor and governor, that she abuses her authority and advises her assistants to hide behind executive privilege, just as George Bush does. This week’s disclosure that she billed Alaskan tax payers for non-business vacation travel with her children demonstrates that she puts her needs above the law.

While neither of the presidential candidates has named specifically whom they might appoint to their Cabinet or other important positions, we need look no further than the person they selected as their potential replacement to get a glimpse of how their administration might be run.

9. Respect Overseas. The United States is still the world’s superpower. While Russia may flex its strength attacking one of the world’s weakest nations, and China is a growing giant with poverty throughout its rural areas, no other country can match this one for military strength, the ability to move arms and men around as needed, and the responsibility to use such strength wisely. That is until George Bush invaded Iraq.

Security is a two-way street. You must do what you can to protect yourself, but you must also avoid giving cause for others to dislike you. Bush’s foreign policy of preemptive attacks, name calling, secretive prisons, torture, and unilateral actions have undermined 200 years of American fairness.

Although the next president will have dozens of significant priorities to get this country and the economy back on track, one that needs to be addressed foremost is that of international relations and internal security. You can never protect yourself from everyone; you can never foresee every potential action. You can, and should, though, minimize the risks by reducing the reasons people have to attack you.

In a marriage or any other relationship, success and friendship only come with open communications and honesty. A partner who lies, by deceit or omission, who does not play by the rules set for harmony, who insists that only his policy will work, and who advance with force rather than through cooperation, will only destroy that relationship. The same is true in international relations whether with another legitimate country or a terrorist organization.

Sarah Palin and John McCain have continuously criticized Obama’s desire to hold open and honest talks with anyone at any time. Pakistan and India still have border disputes and refuse to discuss them. China and Vietnam had a falling out over issues of trust. The two Koreas still cannot resolve issues more than 50 years after their conflict. The same is true in dozens of places throughout the world.

The first step towards working out difficulties in a marriage, in a business contract, in any dispute is to hold open and honest communications. Even Israel, whose existence depends on ever-vigilant security, this week has decided that it is time to consider swapping land for peace. One of George Bushes success stories is the result of his opening a dialogue with Libya’s Muammar al-Qadhfi. In three years this country had moved, through open and respectful talks, from one of the “axis of evil” to a country with whom we can now open diplomatic relations.

For six years George Bush refused to talk with North Korea. During the last 18 months the negotiations and communications have resulted in their dismantling nuclear facilities. There is a long way to go there, but it’s a positive step. One has to give before one can receive. One has to open communications before there can be any understanding.

Barack Obama is willing to follow the path taken by President Nixon, whose actions brought China from a reclusive threat to one which, while still not conforming to “western standards,” holds diplomatic channels opened and freely resolves many issues that made us consider them the world’s largest threat in the 1970s. Ronald Reagan used diplomacy to end the Cold War. Even the Cuban Missile Crisis, we now know, was not solved by Kennedy’s threat of war but by behind-the-scenes negotiations that gave Russia some of what they wanted in European security in exchange for removing their armaments from Cuba.

Palin seems to view the world as a wilderness. When a moose walks in front of her she reaches for her gun. McCain, in retrospect, is now saying low level talks with anyone is fine. Barack Obama repeats the Teddy Roosevelt thesis of “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” (According to Roosevelt, that was an African proverb, not an original idea.) Obama is willing to hold negotiations with anyone at any time in order to gain security for this country, but should such communications fail he is willing (and no less a person that Colin Powell believes him) to use the force of this mighty nation to protect us.

Palin and McCain want to continue the mistakes of the first six years of George Bush’s administration. Even Bush has learned from those mistakes.

Slightly Creaky is not endorsing either candidate, yet it’s obvious how we, as slightly creaky people in our 60s view the issues and the people. Please be sure to enter this election with open eyes and an open mind.

On November 4th we intend, as a group, to be at the Town of Newburgh, NY Recreation Center before 8:00 in the morning to vote in what may be the most important election since the Depression. Whoever you support, be sure you, too, accept your obligation and right to participate and vote.

Seeing is Not Believing Part 11

Stay Tuned After the Commercial

Almost every night my family watches network news after supper while cleaning up from our meal. No matter which network we watch, they use the formula introduced in the 1920s to get you to come back for the next show, or in this case, to stay for the commercial. Instead of leaving us with the heroine tied to the railroad tracks, though, they promise an amazing story immediately “following this brief break.”

Of cause the whole idea is to get you to remain attentive during the commercial. Most people, I’d venture to say almost everyone, would like to mentally block out the latest automotive sale, the coming attractions to a sit-com we’d never watch, or whatever they are pushing. But we absolutely have to remain so that we “find out if tomorrow will be even hotter than today” (no it will not be) or to “discover which Hollywood star is expecting triplets” (someone we have never heard of and could not care about).

To make matters worse, after three minutes of news they take a “brief” 60-second break, come back with another 5-second teaser (thus the break is over) and have another 60 seconds of advertising. In addition, if the story is really something you’d like to hear about, they do not show it immediately, but tease for it several times before commercials before finally showing it.

Television dramas are picking up on this, showing as many commercials as they can in the most unexpected places. At the end of an hour show (40 minutes if you subtract the commercials), you know it’s over, only the punch line is missing. “We’ll be right back,” After that final commercial, some shows are then showing a split screen with another commercial and a fifteen-minute concluding scene that is usually anticlimactic anyway.

Product placement in a movie or show used to be subtle, now it’s blatant. You know what soda or beer they are drinking, what brand cereal they are having, and the model of the chase car is clearly in focus. Look around the room and there will be perhaps a dozen brand products showing. On street scenes there are commercial billboards or buses with advertising passing by.

We have been told that it costs a considerable amount of money to produce these shows and if it were not for the commercials we would have pay-TV. Even on the “premium” cable channels that you do pay extra for there are commercials for other shows as well as an increasing amount of product placement.

Perhaps it’s time to reduce the number of channels from the over 300 now available (900 if you consider each has a Spanish, and a high definition version), to less than 50 to reduce costs. Of the 300 or so channels, perhaps you watch 10 or 12 on a regular basis and most likely no more than 25 or 30 total. If you are reading this it’s unlikely you’re the type to watch Celebrity Bowling Ball Painting or Dancing With the Inmates.

Seeing is Not Believing Part 10

We Know What You Need

Someone in your family probably has a cell phone that takes pictures, contains a GPS, provides Internet and e-mail access, records memos, provides a daily calendar, and dispenses dental floss. Next week they will discard that product when the manufacturer comes out with Model 16 that does all the above and contains a pop-out comb, toothbrush (with your choice of toothpaste), and nose hair clipper.

Around 19 years ago, we purchased a new washer and dryer with dozens of possible settings, temperature for wash and rinse, and a variety of drying options. Over the years knobs have fallen off or broken, yet it makes no difference: we only use two settings on the washer and one on the dryer. Now they have dryers that offer simulated dry-cleaning and washers that use “the power of oxygen” rather than detergent.

TV Cable companies (as well as satellite and the telephone companies’ recent entries into the field) also know what channels you want to watch, all 900 of them. Fighting consumer suggestions and complaints and using their lobbying power to keep Congress at bay, they have fought all attempts to give people the option to select and pay for only the channels they want. The TV providers claim they are only following regulations, so that smaller television stations, which have few followers, can survive. In actuality they are following profits, and everyone knows it. Most of these smaller broadcast companies will eventually move to the Internet anyway, where they will do just fine.

Commercial garbage haulers are the same. They offer one plan: once-a-week pickup of one container of trash, plus recycling, all for $30 or more a month. Fortunately, where we live, we have a trash transfer station where seniors can drop off their refuse at fifty cents a bag with no cost for recycling. It is now three years since we dropped our garbage hauler and we’ve saved over $1,100.

One industry that has not conformed to this all-inclusive party is the computer manufacturers. Even though Microsoft has attempted to force their products on to every PC, you still do best configuring your machine at the company web site, HP, Dell, Gateway, Mac, and others, just the way your family or business needs it. You can then purchase only the software that you wish to use.

Hospitals and doctors also follow the all-you-can use policy. In order to avoid potential lawsuits and cover their insurance company’s demands, they frequently order many lab tests that are not needed and avoid providing expensive ones that might save a life. Dentists demand a cleaning every 3 or 4 months now, and even veterinarians have gone to a one-size-fits-all, six-month pet checkup.

Consumers must not follow blindly. Be aware, ask questions, and demand alternatives. If a store, service company, or even your medical providers do not offer options or compromises, then go somewhere else. They treat us like this only because so many people let them.

Seeing is Not Believing Part 9

Fewer calories? Greater Profit!

They contain only 100 calories per bag: potato chips, cookies, fruit drinks, flavored popcorn, and dozens of other products. Originally this marketing trend was advertised for kids’ lunch bags – give them the snacks they want, but control the amount of calories they get. Does it work? Not at all.

The products in the 100-calorie packages are the same items that are found in the larger bags. They contain the came number of calories per ounce (or serving), the same amount of fat, the same amount of salt. The only differences are that they are packaged in smaller bags and cost considerably more per ounce.

If, as they are presented, these products are only used as a child’s snack, then one can argue that there is merit in them (if money and health was not considered). Children, and adults, that are given a full-sized bag will eat as much as they can. If the bag is of limited size, they can only eat what is in that bag. Unless they feel unsatisfied and reach for a second, or third package.

They are the lazy mom’s solution. It is far less expensive, and far better for the child, to purchase a store-brand box of zip-seal bags (around three cents each and reusable) and select only the healthy snacks you really want your child to have: low calorie, low fat, low sodium. In addition, you can give them a greater variety, including different items every day.

According to netgrocer.com (http://netgrocer.com/), here are a few comparison prices:
Chips Ahoy! Candy Bites - 100 Calorie Packs: $2.29 a bag (.59 an ounce)
Chips Ahoy! Cookies - Candy Blasts – full size bag: $3.56 (.25 an ounce)
Less than half the price

Oreo Candy Bites - 100 Calorie Packs: $2.59 a bag (.55 an ounce)
Oreo Cookies - Reduced Fat Chocolate Sandwich: $4.04 (.22 an ounce)

Pop-Secret Microwave Popcorn - 100 Calorie Premium Butter: $6.39 (.64 an ounce)
Pop-Secret Microwave Popcorn - 94% Fat Free Butter: $3.85 (.42 an ounce)
ShopRite Microwave Popcorn - Light Original: $1.79 (.20 an ounce)

In every example above, and in every 100-calorie pack we cound find, even taking into account the extra cost of packaging and shipping, the promoted product was at least twice the cost, and twice the profit, of the regular sized bag.

Better yet, provide a healthy snack with no added sugar, salt, or other things the kids (and adults) don’t need: a banana, an apple, a peach, or a 1.5 ounce box or raisins (90 calories).