A Little Insight Into How Government Spends: Widening Of The 405 Freeway

Here in Southern California, we have this wonderful monument to the achievement of the humans called the Interstate 405, or “the God-damned 405” to the locals. It runs from mid-Orange County right up through Los Angeles County into the San Fernando Valley. It was originally designed to be a bypass to the heavily congested Los Angeles-area portion of Interstate 5 that runs from Mexico to Canada through California, Oregon and Washington. But, if you know anything about Southern California, you know there are two cars for every person and a God-given right to never carpool so we have congested the crap out of the bypass artery too. As a result, we are continually widening the 405.  In fact, since the Orange County section of the 405 opened in 1969 as an actual Interstate, the 405 has been widened time and time again. It literally seems like as soon as we finish adding a lane, we start adding the next lane. Adding a lane in each direction one at a time, each new lane basically becoming obsolete by the time it is finished.

Each time a widening is needed, there is wrangling among Orange County officials, transportation budgets, city councils and citizens. The most recent widening project proposals even included the possibility of adding toll lanes to the 405. Pulled from a recent newsletter from one of the County Supervisors, here are the options that were being considered:

Option 1: Add one general purpose lane in each direction between Costa Mesa and the County line in Seal Beach (14 miles from SR-73 to I-605) at a cost of $1.3 billion that is already fully funded.

Option 2: Added two general purpose lanes in each direction with an approximate $100 million funding gap that raises concerned that trying to find $100 million could potentially jeopardize other scheduled freeway projects, such as upcoming I-5 improvements.

Option 3: Add one general purpose lane in each direction and one high-occupancy toll (HOT) lane in each direction. In addition, the current high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane would have been converted into an HOT lane to create a two-lane toll facility (“managed lanes”), similar to the 91 Express Lanes. Toll revenue bonds would have helped fund this $1.7 million project.

So, government, in it's infinite wisdom, has decided that Option 1 is the way to go. Our existing toll roads and toll lanes are not turning out to be as profitable as everyone thought they were going to be, so I can understand their reservation about Option 3, though I must admit that when stuck on the 405, I sure as hell would be willing to pay $5 to get into a lane that is actually moving.

So, even with Option 3 tossed out, when you look at Option 1 and Option 2, I find myself a little surprised, yet at the same time completely not surprised, that government is going with Option 1.

Government is going to add one lane in each direction to the 405 from the 73 to the 605 at a cost of $1.3 billion with the entire cost completely covered.  For just $100 million more – that’s $1.4 billion dollars instead of $1.3 billion – government could add a second lane in each direction at the same exact time.

I think all of us, as well as our County Officials, are familiar with the concept of a volume discount, where by buying more at the same time, you save money over buying the same amount at two separate times. One lane for $1.3 billion or two lanes for $1.4 billion is a hell of a volume discount!

I understand that the $100 million is not funded right now, so government would need to come up with the money somewhere, but government seems to be able to find billions and billions of dollars to waste nationwide each and every year. I am sure one of the most lucrative counties in the country could come up with a mere $100 million, right?

The worst thing about this lack of desire on the part of County Officials to try to find this $100 million is that if history is an indication of the future, as soon as this lane is done, we’re going to need another lane and within a matter of a few short years, we’ll be building that additional lane under a new construction project that is definitely going to cost a hell of a lot more than the $100 million that we could spend now. 

So, a government that seems to have no problem spending and spending, and spending frivolously at that, won’t spend $100 million today to save $1.3 billion, or probably even more than that, ten years from now. In what world does this make sense?  Definitely not the world that we idiot taxpayers have to live in!  We, unlike government, have to make sound and common sense financial decisions because our future income is not guaranteed by law or and ability to jail someone for refusing to provide us with our income.

The single largest threat to government is a lack of government growth and the single largest threat to government growth is efficiency and common sense. I believe, whether intentional or not, this is why government opts to spend 13 times more money down the road on a future project than make a sound financial decision today.

Respect The Military, Peace-Mongers, They Make Your Existence Possible

Despite the fact that in the 60 years that NORAD has been tracking Santa Claus on Christmas Eve each year Santa has received a fighter jet escort through Canada and the U.S., the animations this year actually show the fighter jets, and the peace-mongers are all up in arms about how seeing the fighter jets are going to traumatize America’s children. Oh, the children….Won’t somebody please think of the children!

First off, when you wake up tomorrow morning in the safety of your secured home on land that is privately owned by you or the person you are renting from, and you use your running water and on-demand electricity, then put on your nice or comfy clothes and your warm jacket either before or after you get into your automobile that you own or the bank has leant you the money to own, and either drop the kids off at school or go straight to your job, just remember one thing….None of that would exist without the United States Military.

So if NORAD wants to give Santa Claus a fighter jet escort in its animations, then NORAD should get to give Santa Claus a fighter jet escort in its animations. NORAD is not crazy for using its military might to protect Santa Claus. These peace-mongers are crazy for not recognizing that their right to whine about Santa Claus having a fighter jet escort has been secured for them by well over two hundred years of the United States Military.

Peace-mongers, be thankful that you have a military that lives in the shadows of your life; one that stays on its bases and airfields and is not roaming through the streets picking people up and bringing them in for questioning. Be thankful that you have a military that fights overseas and never here at home among us, or with us. Be thankful that we have the damned fighter jets to protect Santa Claus (and you) in the first place!

Trust me, America, your kids know guns exists. They know we have a military. They know there are fighter jets, and the role they play in this world. They also know there are threats out there in the world to their safety. It is not a foreign concept to them. They do what you tell them because they are afraid of you – either what you will do to them, or what you will take away from them. There are challenges in their young lives of which they are afraid, and there are bullies at their school that strike fear into their little hearts. They might not tell you about it, but trust me, there are things of which they are afraid, so a fighter jet escort for Santa as a security measure is very practical and non-life-altering concept for your little ones to understand and process, despite what you might think or choose to believe, peace-mongers.

If you have not yet leveled with your children about Santa Claus, and they think he’s real and visits the house of every good child in the world in a single night, then do you not think it is a very practical measure with all the threats to our safety out there in the world, that the United States Air Force protect Santa Claus as he flew over the United States? I bet your kids would think it is a good idea.

If any one even sneezes the wrong way on a commercial plane these days, we call in a fighter jet escort. If Santa Claus were real, would he not be a fantastic target for a terrorist organization? Think of the damage to the economy and the mental strife shooting Santa out of the sky would have on all of us if he were real.

So, if your kids think Santa is real and they are going to hear about Santa being tracked by NORAD this year, take comfort in knowing your kids are going to know Santa is completely safe with the highly-sensitive, bomb-detecting, gift-scanning x-ray machine all the presents go through before they get put on the sleigh, the top-notch security screening and background checks all of the elves and supporting personnel have gone through before being allowed to pass through the metal detectors and body scan machines at the entrance to the North Pole Compound, and two of the most deadly and accurate aerial weapons ever created by man escorting him through the sky.

I, for one, am just glad we have the ability to track Santa Claus and his fighter jet escort throughout his journey right on a website. Maybe once they are done tracking Santa for the year, the people who are running www.noradsanta.org could go to Washington to help President What’s-His-Name with that Don't-Name-It-After-Me-Anymore-Care website.

Guess What? Less Than 1/3 Of You Are Going To Get To Keep Your Plan You Liked.....Whoops!

Here is the bottom line - Obamacare said over and over again that if you liked your current plan, you got to keep it, right? I know I am not the only one that heard him say that. We all know that we all heard him say that.

Here is the thing, though: the only way that you can ACTUALLY keep your plan is if you have a plan today that has not changed in any "significant" way - deductible, co-pay, benefits - otherwise, your plan becomes subject to the new Obamacare minimum coverage requirement, and if it does not meet those new minimum requirements, guess what? You don’t get to keep that plan after all.

Original estimates that were out while Obamacare was still saying that you could keep your plan stated that up to 67% of you were not going to get to keep your plan. Today's estimates are now stating that it could be as many as 80% of you who will get a policy cancellation notice within the first year of Obamacare.

It is what it is, and we are where we are now, but you have to admit that whole “you can keep your plan” line was a complete and total lie for over 2/3 of the people who were supposedly going to be able to keep their plan, and maybe even more people than that. Oh, and to make it worse, not only are you going to lose your plan, the plan that you have to buy instead is going to cost you up to twice as much. Welcome to Obamacare's America.

Oh, and for anyone who wants to brush this off as being the reporting of crazy right-wingers, here's an excerpt from an NBC investigation:

Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”  

That means the Obamacare administration knew in July 2010 that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them. 

Yet President Obamacare, who had promised in 2009, “if you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan,” was still saying in 2012, “If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance.”

“This says that when they made the promise, they knew half the people in this market outright couldn’t keep what they had and then they wrote the rules so that others couldn’t make it either,” said Robert Laszewski, of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, a consultant who works for health industry firms.

Taxation Without Representation Across Time

We continually hear from politicians and political commentators that they are worried about the debt and other problems that we are currently creating for future generations.

I was thinking today that while that is a valid concern, we ourselves are already part of a “future” generation that is saddled with the legislation of the past.

I didn’t vote to elect the people that passed the laws that enacted things like the income tax, social security, and medicare, yet I am impacted by those laws every other week when I send a nice chunk of the money I have worked for to the federal government to blow a good chunk of on stupid, wasteful spending.

The biggest problem with this is that I have no way to go back in time to see how things were before income tax, social security, and medicare were enacted.

Is the country a better place with these things in place? I’ll never know firsthand and for sure, will I? Well, at least not until one of us builds a time machine and starts selling tickets.

Just as I am sure that a baby born tomorrow will feel taxed without representation when they are forced to have healthcare coverage whether they like it or not when they roll off mommy and daddy's plan at the young age of 26, I sit here today, feeling that I was taxed without representation when the income tax, social security and medicare were passed long before I was born.

A Message To Print Media...Get With The Times Already!

I just wanted to drop you a line, print media. I just wanted to tell you to get with the times already! And coming from slow-to-change Old Man Savastano, that is sayin’ a lot!

As my loyal readers will tell you, print media, I have this long-running (since 1998) obsession with posting articles for others to read, originally in my e-newsletters, later on blogs, and now on social media. Marketing and business articles across the board go on my personal and business sites and pages, and funny stuff and political ranting go solely on my personal sites and pages (as to only offend my closest friends).

So, guess what is really annoying to me, print media?  While 98% of what I read and deem to be post-worthy comes to me by electronic means, every once in a while, I actually pick up a piece of, you guessed it, print media. And believe it or not, quite often I find an article that I really like and would like to post.

But, when I pick up my electronic device and set out to find the article in your antiquated and dying medium, guess what I have a really hard time finding, or never find at all? That’s right! The article in your printed piece of media that I wanted to share with hundreds, if not, by Facebook’s friends of friends or LinkedIn’s connections of connections calculations, thousands of people.

I get that it costs money to produce your printed piece that is riddled with advertising, but at the same time, in today’s age of digital sharing, not posting the same articles that are in your printed piece to your website as well so that people who find them interesting can share them seems crazy to me. We all know that you should be transitioning as much as you can to digital right now, print media.

At a time when my hundreds of magazines per month has dwindled down to just a few print stragglers, at a time when I have decided to never again renew another print magazine subscription, and at a time when the last thing in the world I would ever tell someone to do is to buy a copy of a magazine so they could read an article that I liked as opposed to just posting it and giving them the ability read it instantaneously, it is time for you, print media, to get with the times, otherwise, next time, I will remember that I cannot find the articles that are in your print version also in a digital version online, and immediately, without bothering to look at it, put your piece of print media right where it belongs…in the recycle bin.

What Abercrombie & Fitch Should Be Teaching Us About America

There’s been a bit of a fabricated buzz in the news about Abercrombie & Fitch that has been going on for a while, and I thought I’d chime in, because, hey, if there is anything I am an expert on it is hip (is that word cool again? – Sorry, still cannot bring myself to use the word “sick” because frankly, I am too old to use that word) fashion for teens, young adults, college kids, older people trying to look younger, etc.

First off, let me say that the biggest and only role Abercrombie has played in my life is the raised eyebrow I gave to how close and friendly the dudes in their ads and those huge pictures at the entrance to their stores always seemed and how hard I laughed when Saturday Night Live finally made fun of them for those ads and pictures. I have never stepped foot in one of their stores (frankly, they are too loud and smelly), would never invest in the company (unless it was in a fund, of course), and honestly would never want to do work for them, but I am here today to do something that you might not have thought I would do…defend them…defend their right as Americans and an American business to sell whatever they want, market to whoever they want, not sell whatever they want, not market to whoever they want, and to be as biased and condescending as they want to be.

Get to 315 pounds and then go out and try to find clothes, worse yet, clothes at a reasonable, non-full-retail price. It is not easy in the least bit! Now that I am back down to about 260, it’s still not that easy, but trust me, it’s getting easier as I get smaller. But, where does it say that I have a right to find what I want in my size, and it is up to society, the government, activists, and whiners to force businesses out there to manufacture and sell the clothes that I want in my size? I believe it does not say that anywhere, nor should it.

We have a wonderful free-market system that allows you, the consumer, to buy what you want, and the businesses that you buy from to sell what they want as long as it meets certain safety standards, and I personally think that is a great system. If Abercrombie doesn’t sell clothes in my size, then hey, they don’t get my money. If Abercrombie wants to come out and say they don’t want fat or unattractive skinny people in their stores, then they have a right to say it, just as you have a right as a fatty or unattractive skinny person, or any person for that matter, to not spend money in their stores if you don’t like what they are saying. You also have a right, like I am exercising here, to open your mouth and get the word out about what you think of it so others can get on board and be aware of how a company like Abercrombie actually thinks and the values that the company represents.

Does Abercrombie have a right to sell only sizes “God, you look like a skeleton, please eat something” on up through “Holy crap, you’re a size 10 and the size of a house so you should never eat again”? Yes, they do. Does Abercrombie have a right to say that they only want certain types of people in their stores? Here in America, I honestly think they do, and should have that right. Do they have a right to sell shirts that say, “Blondes are adored, brunettes are ignored” or “Do I make you look fat?” They sure do, and they should. Do I have a right as fat and someone who prefers brunettes to never shop there, and ask other people to never shop there? I sure do, just like I still have a right to tell everyone in the world to never buy anything from Jennifer Convertibles because they hosed me on some tables I bought one time.

Do I have a right to loop Abercrombie in together with a guy that is selling t-shirts that say, “Hitler is Great!”? I sure do. If you’re concerned enough that you want to stand outside an Abercrombie store and hand people walking in a copy of a news story or transcript from the CEO’s interview in which he said, “A lot of people don’t belong [in our clothes], and they can’t belong. Are we exclusionary? Absolutely,” should you be able to do so? Absolutely, you should be able to – just remember to bring a filter mask for that horrible cologne-y smell and some earplugs if you don’t like club music! Does their CEO have a right to say what he said in that interview and steer the business in that direction? Here in America, he does, and he should.

Now, I know where you are going, loyal reader…You are about to quote Helen Lovejoy and say, “Think of the children! Won't somebody please think of the children?!” I think this Abercrombie story and the company’s stance is, in fact, a great lesson for your children. It is a lesson in the rights of individual liberties, diversity, economics, morality and the free market system.

We should be using this story to teach children that when you grow up, life is not necessarily going to be fair. Not everyone wins, not everyone gets a trophy, and not everyone gets to wear #1 on their jersey – only one guy on the team gets that number. It is a lesson that some people are skinny, some people are fat, some people are tall, some people are short, some people are considered to be gorgeous and some people are considered to be far-from-gorgeous, but that all of these judgments can either affect their lives, or not affect their lives.

It is a great lesson that some people are kind and considerate to everyone, and other people are frankly, just self-centered asses. It is a lesson in being responsible for your own life and not forcing people to live your way, or feeling that you have to be responsible for and control the lives of others. It is a lesson in the fact that we as consumers have the power to use our dollars as we see fit, and we as Americans have the right to free speech, no matter how hate-filled or stupid, or benevolent and intelligent the things we might say turn out to be. But most of all, it is a lesson in the ideas that America was founded upon, and the rights that we as Americans are assured by the greatest combination of liberty, democracy and capitalism that the world has ever seen.

So, shop at Abercrombie if you’re small enough to fit into their clothes and don’t mind their philosophy and values. You won’t get any flak from me for doing so. Hey, more power to you. But, when you’re wearing one of their shirts and the uglies, the fatties, the non-trendies, the un-cool moms, the un-cool dads, the old-folks, and the like, are snickering at you, don’t get mad at them. They have just as much of a right to protest against Abercrombie as you do to shop there.

A Perfect Waste Of A Damned Good Shark

I know that most of you, especially the ones who live in Southern California, may have already heard about the recent harvesting of an 11-foot shortfin mako shark that weighed 1,300 pounds from the ocean off Huntington Beach by a group of fishermen from Texas, but I wanted to use this occasion to once again get up on that proverbial soapbox that this wonderful invention called the Internet has given us. Thank you, Al Gore.

As some of you may know, I spent a period of time as an amateur marine biologist, taking courses, working at aquariums, and heading out on research vessels from time to time. Some of you may also recall the story I love to tell about the time I got to see a 17-foot great white shark that was caught by some fishermen off San Pedro while I was working at the Cabrillo Aquarium, where I helped care for a number of much smaller and less sinister sharks. To this day, I still donate money to some of our Southern California aquariums and oceanic causes I believe in.

That being said, quite honestly, when I read this story, it really bothered me. Let me explain. While you won’t catch me passing up on the wonderful meat products that nature has to offer us humans on very many occasions, it’s not like we’re running out of cows, chickens and pigs any time soon, but things like whales and sharks are a different story. While some populations are rebounding, others are still in decline and under threat of extinction, so killing them just for fun might not be a great idea. Wow, now I sound like the Greenpeace people.

Don’t get me wrong, I at times think about, perhaps even struggle with, the fact that my chicken sandwich, cheeseburger, and the bacon I put on them or eat as a side dish, used to be a living, breathing creature, but I handle it. It is much easier when you never have to go out and meet the animal that you’re eating or actually see it in any way, shape, or form that is close to being alive because of grocery stores and restaurants, and living the life of readily-available food here in the grand ol’ US of A, isn’t it?

But where I do start to draw my own personal line is when it comes to hunting, fishing and things of those sorts. Now, before you take away my Conservative card, again, let me explain. Mountain men up in Alaska hunting so they can eat? While I wish we’d figure out a way to get them some pre-packaged food so they didn’t have to kill their next meal, all right, I can live with that. Killing a wolverine because it’s hungry and trying to get at the food you’re storing for the winter? I have a harder time with that. It’s not the wolverine’s fault you have to live in the mountains in the middle of nowhere. Native people killing some whales every year for food and tradition? I kind of have a problem with that in this day and age, but OK, I can live with that. Killing a big bear, elk, whale, shark or other animal for the quote-un-quote fun, sport, or thrill of it? Yeah, I have a problem with that. Hunting just to hunt, killing just to kill? Yeah, that, I believe crosses the line, especially when it is an animal whose numbers in the wild are just not what they used to be.

Japan killing whales? Completely pointless, and a waste. People out in the woods or on the ocean just out killing? Completely pointless, and a waste. These people killing this shark while out here on vacation? Completely pointless, and a waste. Though these fishermen did donate the dead shark to since, I just do not believe there is much science could learn today about this shark they don't already know, or could have learned by capturing then releasing it.

It all boils down to one thing. Some people just enjoy killing things. Some people step on spiders. Some people pick them up with a napkin and put them outside. Some people will go their entire life without killing a bear, elk, whale or shark, and some will not. It is the nature of the human problem. Some people will go their entire life without killing another person, and some will not. There’s billions of humans. But each one of us is an individual, right? Spend some time with an animal, any animal, and tell me they are not an individual with their own traits and behaviors.

I’ll let you stew on that for a bit. Either way, this particular shark is now dead and on its way to be hacked up for science so that some humans on vacation could have a thrill and have a story to tell, and I personally think that is just sad, completely unnecessary, and a perfect waste of a damned good shark that quite frankly, the world and its inhabitants needed more alive and swimming in the ocean than dead on a lab table.

Leave Me Alone, Greenpeace...

On any given day, you may find me walking across the street from work at the Irvine Spectrum, just out for a stroll, then all of the sudden, there they are…the Greenpeace guys and gals…carefully positioned at a precise bottleneck in the walkway as to maximize their ability to bother passers-by.

“Do you like the ocean?” they ask. “Nope,” I say, shaking my head as I pass by. “You look like you care about the environment,” they say. “Nope,” I say, smiling, but walking fast. “You look like an activist,” another tries. “Yeah, but I am sure you don’t like the causes I support,” I retort, still briskly walking, and of course, always smiling.

My biggest issue here is not necessarily Greenpeace, per se, but, much more the fact that people are at the Spectrum do to one thing…enjoy themselves. Whether it’s a walk, a movie, a meal, or just spending time with people they care about, bottom line, they are there to enjoy themselves. I believe the last thing they want to do is be bothered by money-hungry activists.

My secondary issue is that the root of their presence is to not get an actual heat-of-the-moment donation, but to get you to hand over your precious account information and make a recurring donation. From what I have heard, if you try to offer them $20, they won’t actually take it. No cash, please. What they want is your personal financial information so that you can make a recurring gift, each and every month.

Now, you won’t catch me out on a Sea Shepard boat, though you will catch me rooting for the whales if I am watching Whale Wars. You won’t catch me down at the beach picking up trash any longer, though I am annoyed when I see people littering while we’re down there. You also won’t ever catch me giving money to Greenpeace because every day when I am on my walk and I get to where they are stopping people, even if just for a few seconds, I am quite literally forced to avoid them.

I know there are probably things Greenpeace does that I might not necessarily agree with, and I am sure there are things they do that I would probably support, but I also believe that each of us has a right to donate as we see fit and not be pressured into donating money we do not want to, even by the most well-meaning organizations.

When I see Greenpeace folks at the Spectrum, trying to corral people that are just there to spend a few moments away from whatever stresses they may have in their lives, quite frankly, it bothers me. And once you have bothered me, the last thing you are going to get is my money.