A solution to the issue of Poverty among American Citizens

First, a training update.

I’m continuing to think about riding and running, but have yet to take serious steps to accomplish either.  My son is just too damn cute.

 

And now for something completely different…

 

**Warning:  The following content contains satire.  Viewer discretion is advised.**

 

Ok, there are a bunch of American citizens who make less than the magical “poverty line” as described by the US government.  For a single person household that income figure is somewhere near $10,000.  The number goes up with a spouse and goes up again if you have children—more and more the more kids you pump out under the same roof.

Several solutions have been proposed, not the least of which is some form of short term governmental assistance to smooth over the hard times while you retrain, regroup, and re-employ yourself.  A broader solution is permanent government assistance that guarantees anyone, anytime food and/or money to get through the hard times no matter how long the hard times last.  Still another solution is perpetually available education assistance so that you can increase your knowledge and skill base all during your life in order to avoid or escape the poverty cycle.

What nobody has ever suggested—at least as far as I know—is revoking the citizenship of anyone who drops below the poverty line and granting them citizenship in any other country.  This will essentially be what the Europeans did in the 18^th and 19^th centuries and what the Mexican and other governments are doing to the US today, except in reverse.

Let me explain.

It used to be when you fell on hard times—crops failed, perpetual unemployment, religious persecution, xenophobia—you simply picked up and went to greener pastures.  During the great potato famine in Ireland Irish immigrants flooded to our shores or stayed home and died.  The pilgrims came to avoid religious persecution (and ironically enough immediately began a cycle of religious persecution, but that’s another satirical piece all together).  Political refugees still flock to our shores today.  Economic refugees “flood” across our southern borders and used to wash up at the feet of the Statue of Liberty quite literally by the boat full.

When these folks fell on hard times they came to the land of opportunity and found their footing and made a life for themselves and a country for their children.  They landed and hit the ground running.  Meanwhile, the lands they came from had the opportunity to unload their poorest citizenry—sometimes even their not-so-poor citizenry—and refocus their own economies on the more moneyed classes and have set up largely capitalist/welfare states that combine the best of free markets while ensuring that most folks don’t get too rich or too poor (which is partly why the flat tax works in Europe).  So, while the shores their poor citizens flooded to created a capitalist utopia that has a hard base of impoverished citizens that is hard to crack and/or remedy, the countries they left largely have a broad welfare state that ensures their most impoverished citizens never again have to leave to go to greener pastures.

The time has now come to reciprocate the exodus.

If we end our welfare programs and revoke the citizenship status of the poorest of our poor and offer them expedited citizenship to any of the capitalist/welfare states in the world that they choose to be nationalized to we will be doing for them what they did for us in the 18^th and 19^th centuries.  This would eliminate the burden on society that the poor represent.  This will increase the capital available to the rest of us to build bridges, planes, rocket ships, and make war (in the interest of peace, of course).  Additionally it will bolster the flagging populations of the very nations these people’s ancestors came from to begin with.  Considering the increased birthrate that the poorer segments of the population tend to have, this would be a population boom for these stagnating nations economies.

All around it’s a win/win situation.  The US keeps the most productive segments of the population and the welfare states that took advantage of the land of opportunity that the US represented to build their top-notch caretaker systems can put their benevolence to even greater use.  Without having to worry about looking back or throwing money away at the persistent problem of poverty in the US, our capitalists can continue to make ever greater innovations and spread the wealth to all parts of the globe, a wealth that even the nanny-state cousins will benefit from thanks to our constant hunger for ever cheaper products that these newfound foreign citizens can produce under the largess of their new nation’s benevolence.  The fact that everyone in the US will be richer and richer means that we will overpay more and more for ever cheaper goods and these foreign governments will reap more and more profits.

It will be a truly perfect exchange.

Training update and Sales tax and the math

Training update:

I’m fighting a bit of an illness.  There is no training being done except the occasional coughing fit which is great to tone the abs.

This is even less fun than running.

 

--

 

And now for the final bit on taxes…

 

First off, the math says that a flat tax raises taxes on low and middle incomes and lowers taxes on the higher incomes.  There’s no disputing the math.  Additionally backers of a flat tax tacitly admit that it isn’t exactly fair by offering rebates to lower income groups functionally making it a graduated tax where a disproportionate burden falls on the middle rather than the top.

 

After reading the article from “the only guy who has it right” 2 quick things come to mind.  First he’s a politician.  He’s the guy who was formerly from Oklahoma and was moved—by his party—to Illinois to run for an open seat in the Senate because a guy from Oklahoma who just moved to Illinois is far better equipped to represent the people of Illinois than someone who, oh, I don’t know, actually lived in the state for any significant time at all.  He is one of the symptoms of a broken system that we are enjoying in these fine United States. 

 

Second he’s presenting what appears at first glance to be an idea to help me.  Never mind the fact that the premise behind the idea is based in unfounded paranoia, is entirely unsustainable, and impossible to implement.

 

My primary rule of politics is to always—ALWAYS—be wary of politicians who want to help me.  Invariably what happens is their proposals tend to help themselves—such as the flat tax, or in this case, the national sales tax.

 

There is no dispute that a wide swath of the American population believes that the government’s money is the government’s money and their money is their money, while in fact the government’s money is THEIR money and their money is their money.  The vast majority of people get their refund check at in April and think they’ve gotten free money rather than the reality that they’ve given their oh-so-responsible government an interest free loan for the last 12 months.

 

But the assertion that thanks to the withholding from your paycheck the government is letting you have the net portion of the paycheck is plain wrong.  You control your withholding.  The simple fact that a withholding system is necessary should tell us that income taxes are too high.  The only reason to have it is the same reason you pay your property taxes into escrow each month—the vast majority of people are simply not responsible enough to put away enough money to pay their income taxes at the end of each year.  That’s all.  Nothing more.  If the choice is to have a withholding or subsidize the slack minded idjits who can’t manage to leave what is owed to Caesar well enough alone with a higher tax rate on my own income, I’d rather have the withholding.  If you don’t like it, adjust your W2, but don’t complain when the tax man comes calling.

 

Secondly, extending the 501c3 status to churches—all non-profits, for that matter—is not some “government control” scam and you and I both know that revoking the tax-free status will not only not prevent real believers from gathering but will provoke a nationwide revolt.  To play off the fear and paranoia of the general populace is bad enough.  But to suggest that by extending tax exempt status to non-profit organizations is equivalent to exerting control over the free conscience and expression in these institutions is detestable.

 

Third, he completely misrepresents the theory behind a graduated income tax.  Simply put, the graduate income tax taxes lower incomes less than higher incomes.  It’s not because some people are too rich so their money must be taken away.  Certainly some socialist thinking people subscribe to this, but the truth is that simple math and logic demonstrates that a graduated income tax is more fair than any other system.

 

Why? 

 

The first money through the door is spent on necessities.  The richest of the rich and the poorest of the poor spend their first dollars on the same thing—housing, food, utilities, transportation, usually in that order.  When money is left over there are luxuries purchased.  The last dollar through the door pays for the fancy new rocket ship to the moon.  Therefore it is patently unfair to tax the money spent on necessities at the same rate as the income that can be used for frivolity such as $20,000 bed sheets.  You should never, ever have to forgo food in order to pay the tax bill, but I don’t consider the decision to buy a mere Lexus rather than an Aston Martin a sacrifice.  And those who suggest a flat tax agree by proposing discounts for the lowest of income brackets.  They suggest no premium for upper brackets mainly because, I suppose, they are members of that bracket.  I’d wager there are very, very few people in the upper income brackets who have fallen out of those brackets because of their tax bill and an equally miniscule number who would voluntarily give up their riches for the life of a single mother of 2 in order to pay less taxes.

 

But Mr. Keyes doesn’t propose a flat tax.  He proposes a sales tax (that didn’t exist before the income tax was instituted in 1906 yet claims to want to return to the system our founders intended, even if it slipped their mind to institute it).  A similar proposal can be found at www.fairtax.org.  These people calculate a 24% sales tax on everything purchased, but the withholding system will be ended entirely.

 

Time for math:  The average income is $34,000.  An assumed 15% withholding between medicare, fed tax, and SS removes $4971.94 from the annual tab.  Assuming you save 10% of your remaining income you’ll spend $26,125.25 for the year and have $2902.81 in the bank.  Federal tax withholdings is about $3000 of that $5000 withheld, so lets just assume that all of that is the tax bill and you either get no refund, or you get some small pittance back or pay some small pittance in April to make the math cleaner.

 

Under the 24% sales tax you’re going to keep your withholdings.  Lets also assume you’re completely different from the average person and your spending level doesn’t increase with all those extra dollars and we’ll keep the spending level at $26,125.25.  Your total savings is $4971.94 (saved withholdings) plus $2,902.81 for a total of $7874.75 in the bank at the end of the year.  Except you have to add 24% to the spending tab which amounts to $6270.06 which actually reduces what’s in the savings account to $1604.68.  Everywhere I go $1604.68 is less than $2902.81 AND $6270.06 is larger than $4971.94.  The math says that a sales tax is a tax increase for the average guy.  Maybe prices will go down—I doubt it.  Maybe spending will go up—very likely thanks to the added dollars on the paycheck, even more so if prices drop a fraction.

 

Additionally, the argument that you can control how much tax you pay with a sales tax is bogus.  Only those with plenty can control the amount of tax they pay.  As noted before the first money through the door is spent on necessities.  The last money through the door pays for the new rocket ship and $20,000 bed sheets.  Someone making only 10k cannot decide whether or not to pay federal taxes when 100% of their money goes out the door.  In fact, try telling your children that you’re not having dinner tonight because you’ve paid enough to the federal government today.  Or go to the office naked because the feds have simply gotten enough this year.

 

It just doesn’t work that way.

 

And for what it’s worth the fairtax people agree by offering the “prebate” to lower income earners.  This offer not only admits that the “fair tax” isn’t fair at all (at least not to the lowest income brackets), but it establishes a graduated tax based on income which is the very system they’re trying to abolish.

 

For my own part, I hate the income tax with a fiery burning passion.  But unless the income tax is going to be abolished all together, the revenue replaced by other means, and a more regressive tax is not implemented in the void, then the graduated income tax is the fairest system out there.  I don’t like it.  I’d love to see it gone.  But I’d hate to have a flat tax or sales tax replace the graduated income tax even more.

Training update and Sales tax and the math

Training update:

I’m fighting a bit of an illness.  There is no training being done except the occasional coughing fit which is great to tone the abs.

This is even less fun than running.

 

--

 

And now for the final bit on taxes…

 

First off, the math says that a flat tax raises taxes on low and middle incomes and lowers taxes on the higher incomes.  There’s no disputing the math.  Additionally backers of a flat tax tacitly admit that it isn’t exactly fair by offering rebates to lower income groups functionally making it a graduated tax where a disproportionate burden falls on the middle rather than the top.

 

After reading the article from “the only guy who has it right” 2 quick things come to mind.  First he’s a politician.  He’s the guy who was formerly from Oklahoma and was moved—by his party—to Illinois to run for an open seat in the Senate because a guy from Oklahoma who just moved to Illinois is far better equipped to represent the people of Illinois than someone who, oh, I don’t know, actually lived in the state for any significant time at all.  He is one of the symptoms of a broken system that we are enjoying in these fine United States. 

 

Second he’s presenting what appears at first glance to be an idea to help me.  Never mind the fact that the premise behind the idea is based in unfounded paranoia, is entirely unsustainable, and impossible to implement.

 

My primary rule of politics is to always—ALWAYS—be wary of politicians who want to help me.  Invariably what happens is their proposals tend to help themselves—such as the flat tax, or in this case, the national sales tax.

 

There is no dispute that a wide swath of the American population believes that the government’s money is the government’s money and their money is their money, while in fact the government’s money is THEIR money and their money is their money.  The vast majority of people get their refund check at in April and think they’ve gotten free money rather than the reality that they’ve given their oh-so-responsible government an interest free loan for the last 12 months.

 

But the assertion that thanks to the withholding from your paycheck the government is letting you have the net portion of the paycheck is plain wrong.  You control your withholding.  The simple fact that a withholding system is necessary should tell us that income taxes are too high.  The only reason to have it is the same reason you pay your property taxes into escrow each month—the vast majority of people are simply not responsible enough to put away enough money to pay their income taxes at the end of each year.  That’s all.  Nothing more.  If the choice is to have a withholding or subsidize the slack minded idjits who can’t manage to leave what is owed to Caesar well enough alone with a higher tax rate on my own income, I’d rather have the withholding.  If you don’t like it, adjust your W2, but don’t complain when the tax man comes calling.

 

Secondly, extending the 501c3 status to churches—all non-profits, for that matter—is not some “government control” scam and you and I both know that revoking the tax-free status will not only not prevent real believers from gathering but will provoke a nationwide revolt.  To play off the fear and paranoia of the general populace is bad enough.  But to suggest that by extending tax exempt status to non-profit organizations is equivalent to exerting control over the free conscience and expression in these institutions is detestable.

 

Third, he completely misrepresents the theory behind a graduated income tax.  Simply put, the graduate income tax taxes lower incomes less than higher incomes.  It’s not because some people are too rich so their money must be taken away.  Certainly some socialist thinking people subscribe to this, but the truth is that simple math and logic demonstrates that a graduated income tax is more fair than any other system.

 

Why? 

 

The first money through the door is spent on necessities.  The richest of the rich and the poorest of the poor spend their first dollars on the same thing—housing, food, utilities, transportation, usually in that order.  When money is left over there are luxuries purchased.  The last dollar through the door pays for the fancy new rocket ship to the moon.  Therefore it is patently unfair to tax the money spent on necessities at the same rate as the income that can be used for frivolity such as $20,000 bed sheets.  You should never, ever have to forgo food in order to pay the tax bill, but I don’t consider the decision to buy a mere Lexus rather than an Aston Martin a sacrifice.  And those who suggest a flat tax agree by proposing discounts for the lowest of income brackets.  They suggest no premium for upper brackets mainly because, I suppose, they are members of that bracket.  I’d wager there are very, very few people in the upper income brackets who have fallen out of those brackets because of their tax bill and an equally miniscule number who would voluntarily give up their riches for the life of a single mother of 2 in order to pay less taxes.

 

But Mr. Keyes doesn’t propose a flat tax.  He proposes a sales tax (that didn’t exist before the income tax was instituted in 1906 yet claims to want to return to the system our founders intended, even if it slipped their mind to institute it).  A similar proposal can be found at www.fairtax.org.  These people calculate a 24% sales tax on everything purchased, but the withholding system will be ended entirely.

 

Time for math:  The average income is $34,000.  An assumed 15% withholding between medicare, fed tax, and SS removes $4971.94 from the annual tab.  Assuming you save 10% of your remaining income you’ll spend $26,125.25 for the year and have $2902.81 in the bank.  Federal tax withholdings is about $3000 of that $5000 withheld, so lets just assume that all of that is the tax bill and you either get no refund, or you get some small pittance back or pay some small pittance in April to make the math cleaner.

 

Under the 24% sales tax you’re going to keep your withholdings.  Lets also assume you’re completely different from the average person and your spending level doesn’t increase with all those extra dollars and we’ll keep the spending level at $26,125.25.  Your total savings is $4971.94 (saved withholdings) plus $2,902.81 for a total of $7874.75 in the bank at the end of the year.  Except you have to add 24% to the spending tab which amounts to $6270.06 which actually reduces what’s in the savings account to $1604.68.  Everywhere I go $1604.68 is less than $2902.81 AND $6270.06 is larger than $4971.94.  The math says that a sales tax is a tax increase for the average guy.  Maybe prices will go down—I doubt it.  Maybe spending will go up—very likely thanks to the added dollars on the paycheck, even more so if prices drop a fraction.

 

Additionally, the argument that you can control how much tax you pay with a sales tax is bogus.  Only those with plenty can control the amount of tax they pay.  As noted before the first money through the door is spent on necessities.  The last money through the door pays for the new rocket ship and $20,000 bed sheets.  Someone making only 10k cannot decide whether or not to pay federal taxes when 100% of their money goes out the door.  In fact, try telling your children that you’re not having dinner tonight because you’ve paid enough to the federal government today.  Or go to the office naked because the feds have simply gotten enough this year.

 

It just doesn’t work that way.

 

And for what it’s worth the fairtax people agree by offering the “prebate” to lower income earners.  This offer not only admits that the “fair tax” isn’t fair at all (at least not to the lowest income brackets), but it establishes a graduated tax based on income which is the very system they’re trying to abolish.

 

For my own part, I hate the income tax with a fiery burning passion.  But unless the income tax is going to be abolished all together, the revenue replaced by other means, and a more regressive tax is not implemented in the void, then the graduated income tax is the fairest system out there.  I don’t like it.  I’d love to see it gone.  But I’d hate to have a flat tax or sales tax replace the graduated income tax even more.

2 quick shots and a tax rant

1—The Texas Triple is on.  No question about it.  Training for the bike portion begins this weekend with a nice “little” 40 mile ride.  The running portion will begin concurrent with the bike portion but I won’t be ramping up the miles until probably after the marathon.  There will likely be t-shirts involved.  There will likely be sponsorships involved.  There will even likely be a story in the daily fishwrap.  This is going to be so wicked cool!  And yes, Vic, I know it’s insane.  I expect to see you at the finish line.

 

2--Beautiful days are wonderful.  I love them.  Except…  People seem to check their brains at the door on beautiful days.  Yes, it’s wonderful to go out driving on a beautiful day, even if you’re driving to work.  BUT DRIVE LIKE YOU HAVE SOME PLACE TO GO DAMNIT!!!  Quit meandering across the freeway.  When you turn on your blinker, merge already.  Some of us may actually have to get to that gas station before we run out of gas and you going 15 mph is not helping either my stress level nor my patience.

 

3—The flat tax is a scam.  I used to be a big fan of the flat tax—just slap a percent on it and I’ll send you a check—but that was before I actually did math on this thing.  It’s a flat out scam.

 

Currently we work under what’s known as a “progressive tax” where increasing amounts of money are taxed at increasing rates.  The first x,000 is taxed at rate A, the second x,000 is at rate B, etc. etc.  The logic is that necessities are bought with the first money that comes in the door and luxuries are bought with the last money that comes in the door.  With the first, say, 10,000 people buy rent, food, utilities, transportation.  With the 10^th 10,000 people buy nicer houses, nicer clothes, nicer transportation, and big fancy super yachts.  While more actual dollars are spent by those who make more on the basic necessities, the added expense is a luxury expense, not a necessity expense which is why Randalls can afford to price things 20% higher than Foodarama.  Foodarama is not including a “luxury premium” on their foodstuff since folks who shop at Foodarama generally shop there on a budget and can’t generally afford to shop at Randalls.  You don’t have to believe me.  I’m right and that won’t change with you believing me or not.

 

So, if you do math and plot out progressive income increments of 10,000 going all the way to 100,000 and tier a mythical tax system on top of that of 1% per 10,000 (.01 for the first 10k, .02 for the second, .03 for the third, etc.) you have a model of a “progressive” tax system.  In the US ours is only 4 “brackets”—it used to be 5—and they’re not tiered in the same way, but I’m making a model, not a replica.

 

Add up the numbers across the board and you have the total tax bill for each income “bracket”.  Divide the bill by the income figure and you have your total tax percent.  Under the model the higher incomes are taxed at a higher rate, but the first money in the door—necessity money—is always taxed at the same rate.  The “luxury” money is taxed at a progressively higher rate.  With the model I described above the tax rates go from 1% (for 10k) up to 6% (for 100k).  This may look odd, but the math holds up because only the last 10,000 is taxed at 10%.  So, the vast middle class in the model that makes between $30k and $60k pays a tax bill of between 2% and 4% (30k = 2%, 40 and 50 = 3%, 60k = 4%).  Opponents to this idea call it subsidizing poor, lazy, unproductive people and punishing hard work and higher education.

 

Under a flat tax, however, it doesn’t quite work that way.  The flat tax says all money is taxed the same whether it’s necessity money or luxury money, so if you’ve only enough to buy toothpaste and dinner, you’re paying the same percent of your income to the government as if you’re shopping for 100ft yachts.  Instead of the last 10k being taxed at 10%, it’s taxed at the same rate as the first 10k.  For the purposes of my model I’ve decided first to set the rate the same across the board so that the last 10k is taxed the same as the first 10k—1%.  The tax income plummets from 22,000 model bucks to 5,500 model bucks.  In order to bring tax income back to the 22,000 figure, the rate has to be quadrupled so the first 10,000 in the door—the part that pays for toothpaste, soap, rent, diapers, food, etc—is taxed at 4% and all money across the board is taxed at the same rate.  The net effect on the top 3 tiers, of course, is a reduction in the tax bill from 5, 5, and 6% respectively to—you guessed it—4% (it’s a flat tax, simple math).  Opponents say this is jacking taxes on the poor in order to lower taxes for the rich.

 

In order to make the idea more palatable to the masses, a modified flat tax has also been suggested where the first dollars through the door—the necessity dollars—are not taxed at all.  The first tier is 0% or there’s a refund or some such so that there’s actually a tax CUT for the poorest in the system.  Well, if you take the first dollars out of the equation the balance has to be made up somewhere and that somewhere is—you guessed it—every other tier gets their rate increased…  except for 3.  Can you guess which 3?  Yup, the top 3.  The net effect across the board is an increase in the 20k, 30k, 40k, 50k, and 60k tiers but a reduction in the 70k, 80k, and 90k tiers.

 

The other thing the flat tax does is shift the income spread from the top 3 tiers to the other 7—as can be expected from the math described above.  Under the “progressive” system 62% of the income comes from the top 3 tiers and 34% from the middle 4 with 5% from the bottom 3.  With the flat tax system the burden shifts to 53% for the top 3 tiers, 40% for the middle, and 7% for the bottom.  (Of course, this does NOT take into consideration the concentration of wealth or the relative populations within the strata.  That’s a whole ‘nuther level of analysis, but I can assure you that the wealth is more concentrated toward the top than the bottom and middle.)  Opponents say this is shifting the burden from the rich to the poor.

 

I’m not going to say what’s fair.  Some will say that those who are using the government services and system are those who should be paying for it—a pay-to-play type of system.  Others say that those who have benefited the most from the “system” should be paying the most.  As a matter of principle I don’t like taxes, but I know they a reality and a necessity.  As for the question of fairness, I’m going to let the math speak for itself.

Double centuries and such

Well, it seems double-century bike rides are a little hard to find.

Why?  Is it because it’s so unfathomably insane to even consider it?  It’s so astonishingly foolish to embark on one of these that people just simply don’t bother?

No.

It’s because they seem to be measured in metric units.

There are centuries (100 miles), metric centuries (67 miles), double centuries (200k, or roughly 125 miles), and then there’s the 300k ride (roughly 187 miles).  No, 187 miles is not 200 miles any more than 25k is “about 16 miles”.  16.8 miles is NOT 16 miles.  Period.  And 187 miles is NOT 200 miles.

So, I’m looking at the 400k rides (250 miles, for those of you who have busted calculators) and thankfully there are crazies in Houston, Dallas, AND Austin who do these things.  There’s even a group of people who do the MS150—both directions.  That’s right, Houston to Austin and back.

Pure lunacy.

 

This thing is looking more and more realistic by the hour.

Update on the Texas Double Triple (and Kalu kalei!)

Ok, I’ve found double centuries to ride in Houston, Dallas, and Austin and San Antonio-both.

I’ve officially signed up for the MS150—a training ride, if you believe that.

That’s going to count toward my 2000-2500 miles on the bike that I’ll be riding.  I’m going to have to figure out how to work in some running with the riding over the first few months.  It probably won’t be anything too terribly intensive on the trails since the first marathon won’t be for another 12 months, but I’m going to be able to key back the intensity a little in favor of some good, solid quality runs.

More logistics will be put together as the year rolls to a close.

 

---

(Kalu kalei!!

 

Ding dong, Rumsfeld is gone.

 

That was quick.  Maybe the dems really are serious about leading and governing and maybe the Prez really can be a leader and not just the mouthpiece for his party.  Of course, the actual term hasn’t begun yet.  As of right now, we have reason for hope.  It may be very small hope, but there can be hope.)

 

 

Prediction

The Rs keep the senate by a safe 5 seat majority and lose the house, but only by 2 seats.

Meanwhile, America loses.

 

I’ve all but decided to attempt—no, complete, the Texas Double Triple.

 

Texas Double Triple

I’m getting closer to the point where I’ll know 1. if the Texas Double Triple can be done logistically and 2. if I’m interested in doing what it takes over the course of 2007 to get it done.

 

The Texas Double Triple (TDT) is a 3 city “tour” that will involve a marathon in each of the major metropolitan areas in Texas (Houston, Dallas/Ft. Worth, and San Antonio/Austin) and a double century bike ride in each city/region.  A double century bike ride is a single ride that is 200 miles long.  The most literal definition of the designation is 200 miles in one single ride-day, but a looser view of the event is a single ride of at least 200 miles.  For example, 2 days and 200 miles is technically a double-century, though it’s not a “pure” double century.  And to be completely fair, since I’d be running 26.2 miles in a single race-event, I should probably ride 200 miles in a single ride event.  Of course, that makes for some hard math.  200 miles at 16mph is 12.5 hours, plus stops to refill and rest and eat it makes for a 15 to 18 hour day.  Even at 20mph you’re looking at 12 to 15 hours.  That’s a long, long day in the saddle.  The longest/slowest MS150 I’ve ridden was 10 hours in the saddle.  Doing that distance at 24mph makes it a “reasonable” 12 hour day, but 200 miles at 24mph is, like, really, really fast.  There was a time when I could do 20 miles at 24mph, easy.  I can still sprint up to 30mph and hit 40+ going downhill.  But 200 miles at 24mph?  That’s far… and fast.

 

I’m suddenly less worried about the marathon aspect and more worried about the DC aspect.

 

The TDT may simply be 3 marathons and 3 Centuries (plus) in 1 year.  Although that doesn’t sound nearly as manly.

 

Tomorrow or the next day either here or at the other forum (sportjunkie.blogspot.com) I’ll ponder out loud whether Rev. Ted the Meth Head is a hypocrite or not.

Leave it to the Dems

I got to hand it to these guys.  Every time they’re given an opportunity, they manage to flat out screw it all up.

 

I’ve bemoaned the fact time and again that there is no LEADERSHIP in the races we’re left to vote in next week, there’s only finger pointing and harsh declarations that “We’re not that guy!” and “We’re different!” or “They’re a bunch of sissy panty waists!”  Well, that all may be true, but whether they think they’re “not that guy” or that they’re “different”, they’re all a bunch of sissy panty waists and they’re not all that different. 

 

We’re left with asking the question “Which party will do the least damage?”

 

I guess there should be a second question to ask, and that would be “Which party really believes that I can think for myself?”  The answer to that one may be “neither”, and they both may be counting on that, but it seems that only one really has the nerve to say out loud that they think the average person is an idiot.

 

Fine, you’ve got your big fucking brain and your big fucking IV league education and all your old money and all your connections.  You think you’ve got all this shit figured out.  Fine.  I get it.  But when you start saying that out loud and insulting the intelligence of everyone out there, then you don’t deserve to be in office—anywhere.

 

I’m fine with you thinking you know everything and pandering to the intellectual midgets out there and tossing a little bit of this and a little bit of that to the plebes to make them think you’re responsive, as long as you go on with the charade that everyone is equal and blah blah blah.  You and I both know that while everyone may have equal intrinsic worth, everyone is not equally valuable to society. 

 

Some people produce more than others.  Some people consume more than they produce.  Some people have abilities that are more valuable both to society as a whole and to their particular industries than others.  If you don’t believe me then ask yourselves why there aren’t more homeless people being hired to fill executive positions?  The answer:  there’s a reason they’re homeless and it’s not because they’re in between CEO posts.  Conversely, take a CEO and put him on the streets and see how long he’ll last there.  Chances are pretty good that he’ll either die on the streets or get off the streets pretty damn quick.

 

But that’s a little beside the point.  The point is that we’re not all socially equal, but when you get up on your high intellect and start talking down to me like you believe that I really am a knuckle dragging moron just because I don’t have the same fucking Massachoosits librul peduhgree as you do then I start getting a little pissed off. 

 

I’d rather have policies and programs set up on the assumption that I do have a couple of functioning brain cells and maybe a couple of loop holes in the tax law that I can find if I am inquisitive enough to actually dig into the information and find them.  I don’t want everything written and made for the stupidest of the stupid just because they need to be protected.  It’s their fault that traffic sucks and everything costs 10% too much because they’re the ones changing lanes without looking and smashing stuff up and grabbing unprotected wires and electrocuting themselves and suing the store for not telling them not to grab the unprotected wires while everyone else in the world has the good sense to look before changing lanes and not grab unprotected wires!!!!!!

 

But when you believe that you’re the smartest person on the planet and you believe that everyone else doesn’t understand what you do and you need to explain it to us mental light-weights—or even not bother explaining it at all since we’re too stoopid to understand—then you start making policies to protect us from ourselves.  Like insuring investment decisions.  Or a guaranteed social security payout because we’re too stupid to invest our own money and take the risk and consequences of those decisions.  Or a law demanding that we wear helmets when anyone with good sense would wear one anyway.  Or maybe a law limiting what we’re allowed to say because some things may be offensive.  Or maybe a law telling us what jobs we’re allowed to have because you know better how to utilize our skills in the market than we do.  Or maybe a tax system that redistributes wealth from the haves to the have nots because we’re not capable of making decisions on where to spend or give our money.

 

There’s a difference between protecting the population from predators and protecting the population from themselves.

 

At this point I’m convinced that the culture in one party is convinced that I’m not capable of making informed decisions on my own.  At this point I’m convinced that the leadership in one party has absolutely no faith in the ability of the general population to do for themselves what is in their own best interest.  I’m thoroughly convinced that the leadership in one party sincerely believes that if given the choice between eating bread that costs money free Styrofoam, the average person will make sandwiches out of Styrofoam.

 

That sickens me.  You got to hand it to these guys, though.  They must be pretty damn smart to figure out how to lose even this election.

 

Now the only real question is for who should I vote for in the Governor race, Kinky or Carol?