IdahoSpud viewpoints on Issues of the Day
(and pretty much everything else)

I have opinions, and my opinions are correct.  However, we live in a free society, and I treasure the freedom that others have to espouse their differing (and therefore incorrect) opinions.  What a boring place the world would be if EVERYBODY were right!  (grin)

These are all the opinions of Steve Hulme unless otherwise noted.  Your responses are always welcome, and I would gladly give them my thoughtful consideration.  (I hope for the same from you.)

(At some point in time, I anticipate categorizing into topics, but for now, I'll put my most recent opinions at the top of the heap.)

More topical opinions can be found on my Motorcycle page, and on my Bikeboy page.

A minimum-wage proposal
(Submitted by "California John")
(February 23, 2005)

I have concluded that nearly all problems in our country can be easily resolved by accepting the cure recognized by so many inspired "liberals" in our country. SIMPLY RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE TO $500 per hour.

If everyone collected $500 for each hour worked, they would have plenty of $$$ to live on even when working fewer hours each month. Ted Kennedy and other intellectuals in our government get it. Why don't George Bush and his cronies recognize this simple solution?

In just 4 days per week by a single worker, family income is $16,000, or almost $50,000 per month. Surely all families can survive on this with excess to fund their own retirement, eliminating the need for social security.

Besides, gaining a full free day weekly, plus the week-end allows fathers to focus on other family needs. Mothers will no longer need to work for family income, so both parents can focus on "parenting," eliminating delinquency and other social problems.

If a health crisis occurs, the mother or one of the healthy children can work just a few hours each month to cover these new expenses.

Homelessness will become a thing of the past--those who now steal shopping baskets for "mobile storage use" can work a few hours each week collecting and returning the same baskets for various grocery stores, etc. If paid $500 for each hour they spend, they should be able to afford a real home.

Total income available to be taxed by the IRS will have a much higher base, so our deficit will become a thing of the past.

Anyone who doubts the truth of this simple principle should be made aware that hourly production workers in China can be hired for $0.61 per hour, and the poverty there is profound. Our workers in USA earn $7.50 per hour minimum. They live much better than Chinese workers, but still have financial stress. It simply isn't enough to meet the needs of all families. A minimum wage of $500 per hour will totally change the picture.

A few in our government understand and continually propose this simple solution. Why do so many others fail to open their eyes??

American Society's illicit affair with our automobiles
(February 12, 2005)

What am I babbling about?

Is there any denying that the selection of one's vehicle is a very emotional and image-aware thing?

Just look at the teevee commercials for cars and trucks.

What do they depict?

Even if it's a sporty little car, it's rarely portrayed as a practical, economical mode of transportation.  Instead it is shown on a smoothly-laid stretch of perfect asphalt that snakes through the best of God's Country.

If it's an SUV or pickup truck that's being hawked, it's always a rugged or macho thing.  The pickup is being loaded with a 10-ton block of concrete, while a bunch of actors portraying construction workers, or smoke jumpers, or lumberjacks, surround it with hardhats and lunch boxes.  Or if it's an SUV, it's shown pulling a huge boat to the lake, while the kids all watch the rear-seat DVD console in a state of blissful harmony.  Or it's a beautiful shiny new rig rolling down a dusty back road with a jagged mountain-scape in the background.  (And amazingly, there's NEVER a speck of dust on the car!)

The closest thing you'll see to "practical transportation" in a TV commercial is Soccer Mom loading her antiques-shop finds into her minivan.

Let me go back to the truck/SUV thing for a minute.  They are my favorites, by far.

The soundtrack is always interesting.  Sometimes it's patriotic music – "We're driving America."  Is it more patriotic to buy a big SUV than, say, a Camry?  (Don't tell me it's because the SUV is made in America – so is the Camry.)  Sometimes it's various flavors of "classic rock."  Speaking of rock, "Like a Rock" by Bob Seeger comes to mind.  Remember "Like a Rock"?  Is "like a rock" a good thing… when it comes to your vehicle?  Perhaps I'm being to analytical here.  And then how about the guy who hollers "Hit it!" followed by a little porn-bass riff?  I thought "Hit it!" was a water skiing term.  What does it have to do with a truck?

The latest round of pickup commercials (circa Super Bowl 2005, the time of this writing) has taken an interesting, albeit not totally original, twist.  If I'm not mistaken, I've seen similar commercials from two different pickup manufacturers.

In one commercial, a pack of "menacing" shiny-new black pickups with deeply tinted windows comes up the road in one direction.  A pack of bad-ass bikers comes up the road in the other direction.  (Everybody knows that Harley riders are the baddest of the bad… right?)  At the point where they converge, there is some kind of standoff.  (Huh?  I don't really understand, since they're going in opposite directions in adjacent traffic lanes… but it makes for great teevee romance!)  Anyway, the bikers quickly determine that they are no longer the kings of the road, and go around the pickups, with tails 'tween their legs.

In the other commercial (and I sincerely believe it's for "the other" brand of pickup), the bad-ass bikers come rolling up to the roadside cantina.  But much to their chagrin, they discover the row of shiny black (menacing) pickups parked out front already… backed in with their grilles in perfect alignment.  (Biker-style.)  The bikers ride on forlornly, realizing that they're too wimpy for the crowd at THAT bar (and that they are no longer the undisputed Kings of the Highway).

I just saw a printed ad for the "Harley Davidson F Series" Ford pickup (I am NOT making this up!) in a magazine.  The caption reads, "It says 'Look at me' and 'What are you looking at?' simultaneously."  Isn't that what you've always really needed in a pickup truck?  That is one BAD truck!  It oughtta be illegal - just too dangerous in the hands of a girly-man!

Hilarious!

May I wax nostalgic for a moment, and fondly remember a couple of SUV commercials from recent past?

There was the one with the Birkenstock Granola Yuppie couple in the "practical" SUV in the wilderness.  (If I’m not mistaken, it was a Subaru Forester - NICE vehicle, even if the commercial is ludicrous.)  They are communing with nature, looking at Bambi, when all of a sudden the tranquil scene is sullied by the arrival of a big, noisy, "Bigfoot" type SUV that rolls through, throwing up mud and spoiling everything.  Hmmm… a bit of sibling rivalry?  (Those wusses better not show up at the black-pickup-truck bar!)

In another one, it is stated that the wimpy SUVs are painted bright colors so that the search-and-rescue people, naturally driving Jeep SUVs, can spot them during rescue operations.  Ha!

Love affair!

Why illicit?  Because most car buyers vigorously deny that they buy a vehicle because they were turned on by the commercial, or for the "image" it might convey to everyone surrounding them.  They like to insist that they bought it for practical purposes.

So, we have a guy who drives himself and his sack lunch to work in a 9000-pound, 20-foot, 10mpg Ford Excursion, which is "practical" because 8 weekends a year he transports the soccer team, and twice a year he drags his boat to the lake.

Or Wally Cox, driving himself and his briefcase to the office in his big black Terminator crew-cab dually-equipped supercharged-turbo diesel pickup truck.  Which is "practical," because he can make a couple runs to the dump in it each year.

The Social Security Crisis
(January 26, 2005)

We have a Social Security crisis.  The president is proposing a band-aid fix; most of Congress seems paralyzed, like the deer – or rabbit – in the headlights.
 
According to my last statement from the Social Security Administration, I've contributed $45,906 out-of-paycheck into the fund, so I have a stake in the outcome.  (My employers over the years have contributed the same amount on my behalf.)

The harsh reality - it looks like they hope to collect another $20 or 30 thousand from me before I retire, which they would prefer I do at age 80 instead of 65, and then they hope I die before they have to start mailing checks to me.
 
I don't know what the answer is - but I have a proposal for a bold first step.
 
Eliminate the Congressional Pension Fund, along with taxpayer sponsorship of retired congressmen's offices, staffers, stationery, etc., and start kicking those millions, or more likely billions, into the Social Security Trust Fund.  (Congress doesn't participate in Social Security, you know.  So their interest in it is limited.)
 
If they want an office and a secretary when they're retired, they can pay for it out-of-pocket, just like Joe Sixpack and Jane Taxpayer.
 
And I'm betting if they looked forward to collecting Social Security, rather than a very handsome and independent pension, Social Security would get a lot more attention.  (Isn't this government "of the people, by the people, and for the people"?  Shouldn't our elected "representatives" be willing to take what they provide for their constituents?  I've got much more confidence in congressional pensions than I have in Social Security.)
 
Besides, they should be able to contribute handsomely to a non-government retirement account, since their salaries run about three times the median.  (And since many of them earn even more in their "second career" as Beltway Influence Peddlers.)
 
Or, let's dismantle the whole thing.  Just give me that $92,000 that's been paid by my employers and me - I'll shut up and won't say another word.

Is Health Care a Right?
(January 22, 2005)

There was a letter to the editor in our local newspaper yesterday (January 21, 2005), from some lady in Nampa, stating that "… health care is a right, not a privilege."

Is health care a right?

Like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Sorry, lady.  I STRONGLY disagree.

Health care is neither a right nor a privilege.  Health care is a service that is available to those who can afford that service.

What's next?

Refrigerator repair is a right – not a privilege!

Cable TV is a right – not a privilege!

Why should my kids have to wear crummy Wal-Mart shoes?  We have a right to Nike!

There is rightful concern about how expensive health care service is getting.  And it should be a matter of concern to everyone that there are many who cannot afford top-level health care (and the taxpayers end up with the bill).

There is also much discussion about what is driving the incredible increase in health-care costs.  Obviously there is some cost to innovation.  If you want to have the best, most advanced, health care, products, equipment and drugs available… somebody has to pay for that stuff.  Some argue that it's a result of our litigious ways – that doctors and hospitals have to pass on their malpractice protection to their customers.  Some claim that health care professionals are making an unreasonable profit.  Particularly drug companies.

(And I join in questioning why a drug purchased in the USA is five or ten times as much as the exact-same brand-name drug, purchased five miles away on the other side of the border.  What's with that?  Why should their fellow Americans be gouged by the drug companies?)

I believe the government could be taking many more steps to controlling the costs that the TAXPAYERS shoulder, for those who can't afford health care.  When you're spending billions, perhaps trillions, on services and products, you should be able to exercise a bit of buying leverage.  (Just like Wal-Mart or Home Depot – they can buy their products for less than Mom and Pop's General Store.)

But – we (we being the American taxpayers) CANNOT afford to provide free health care for all.  And if you think it's a right… please move to Canada, or England or some other country where your opinion is embraced.  (And compare the quality of health care you receive there, with what's available here.)

"Support our Troops" Car Magnets
(January 22, 2005)

I'm sure you've seen 'em, unless you're Osama, or othewise living in a cave.

"We Support our Troops" – in traditional yellow, in patriotic red white and blue, and even in gung-ho camouflage.

Some cars have one.  Some cars have two, or even three, and frequently in multiple flavors.

Now… it's a long-established tradition in our culture to express 3-word opinions and rants on our car bumpers.

And there have even been more formal campaigns.

One of my favorites was "Baby on Board."  Remember that?  It is such an important part of our history that Homer Simpson and his quartet even sang "Baby on Board" in barbershop style.

I never really understood the "Baby on Board" message.  Does it, in its classic warning-sign configuration, imply that readers of the sign will take extra precautions to avoid an awful, steel-wrenching collision with a baby-on-board car?  It would be interesting to gather some statistical information from that era – to discover if auto accidents involving baby-on-board-warning cars were lower than cars in general.

The follow-up was pretty good, too.  "Grandpa on Board," "Mother-in-law in Trunk," etc.

I don't remember if "Baby on Board" signs were ever offered as factory-supplied options on new cars.

But I digress.  Back to "Support our Troops."

Those signs raise so many questions for me.

Does someone who has three "Support our Troops" magnets really support them three times as much as somebody who only has one?  And how about the people who don't have one at all?  Are they Commies or something?  (Can somebody support our troops in some way besides with the car magnet?)

I feel inferior.  I don't have a car – I ride a bike.  If I had a "Support our Troops" magnet on my bike, it would be so small as to be unreadable by my fellow citizens.  (I wear a bright yellow jacket – I wish everybody who sees that jacket could somehow realize that I, too, support our troops.)

How do I feel about our troops?  In Iraq, you mean?

Honest question... since I don't have one of those magnets!

I support them.  Now that the Weapons-of-Mass-Destruction thing didn't pan out, I support the notion of trying to establish a stable, friendly, government in Iraq - one that has the interests of the citizens at heart - and then getting out of there!  But in the meantime, I support our troops, and I support their mission.

I'm afraid I'm somewhat skeptical about the "Support our Troops" magnets.  (Although I'm aware of exceptions – people with the magnets, who have husbands, sons and daughters serving in Iraq, etc.)  I'm thinking that many who buy the magnet (and my hat is off to whoever is making a killing selling the things!) slap it on the trunk lid, and then relax, confident that they've done their part to support our troops.  Kinda like those who "support peace" with a bumper sticker, or by making a quilt, or getting together with their peace-loving friends and singing "Kum-ba-ya."