Thursday, April 03, 2008

None of the above

How did we get to this position again? We are down to three potential presidential candidates, none of whom, in my opinion, are good for the people of this country. The two Democrat candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, both have health care plans that if enacted I feel could bankrupt the country. On the Republican side is John McCain, who today's Chicago Tribune printed that he would repeal the alternative minimum tax saving tax payers $60 billion in one year, make President Bush's tax cuts, which are set to expire in 2011, permanent, make it harder to raise taxes by requiring a 3/5th majority in Congress to pass any tax hike, cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%, ban Internet taxes and new cell phone taxes, and create a permanent tax credit to spur research and development.

Now I don't like taxes any more than the next guy, but what I do like is what taxes provide. Taxes pay for roads and bridges, fire protection, police protection, environmental protection, grants for research and development, education, museums, libraries, public transportation, and many many more things. The current administration has cut taxes and local spending (they're spending more than we can afford on a war that will never end) and as a result all of our public works are falling apart. Bridges are collapsing, roads are in the worst shape I've seen in years, we're falling even further behind in education to other countries, environmental issues are falling by the wayside, and the list goes on and on.

I agree that our current health care system has problems. There are far too many people who can't afford health care including those who work full time jobs, and those that can afford health care are paying far too much money for mediocre service. What this country needs is a leader that can bring these two extremes together. Someone who will not cut taxes (especially to those who can most afford it) to the point where our public works collapse yet at the same time reduce wasteful spending and provide services for the public good that the country needs and can afford. Unfortunately such a person is nowhere to be found and I'm sorry to say the looser of the next presidential election will once again be the American people. Oh well, let's hope we have better choices in 2012, if this country can last that long.

Monday, December 17, 2007

No money for transit, but always money for sports

The CTA is still in crisis mode due to state politicians still unable to come up with a plan to properly fund public transportation. Yet as reported by the Chicago Tribune last week, that didn't stop them from discussing a possible purchase of Wrigley Field. So my question is, how will Cub fans get to Wrigley Field if public transportation falls apart? Sounds like another bad idea from politicians that hopefully won't get reelected. The January 20th funding deadline is fast approaching. Do you think the CTA will get its much needed funding? I don't.

Here's another idea. Since the rest of Illinois doesn't think they should have to pay anything for transit in Chicago, why not cut all state taxes of Chicago residents and have that money go to the city?

Saturday, August 11, 2007

A step to the right and a step to the wrong

Today's Chicago tribune had a front page article that the mayor of London will impose a $50 a day tax on SUVs and other gas guzzling vehicles as a way to reduce congestion and carbon emissions. The new fee will roll out in February. Currently all cars entering the city's congestion zone between 7 AM and 6 PM must pay a $16 a day fee. It's an interesting concept, but I'm not sure the mayor will be able to pull it off.

On the other side of the world... in yesterday's Tribune it was reported that Illinois lawmakers finally put together that state budget proposal, a day late and a dollar short. The new budget doesn't include any new money for the CTA which is in dire need of funds. The CTA is proposing to cut service and increase fees as a result. This will only increase congestion and frustration as people taking public transit will have to wait longer for more crowded buses on slower routes to get to work. It will also increase the number of people that choose to drive resulting it even more congestion, more pollution, and more carbon emissions.

All of this talk about expensive, gas guzzling SUVs made me come up with a new idea. How about a fancy, expensive, luxury vehicle with zero emissions? The current problem with fuel-cell vehicles is they're too expensive to produce. But what if you could make a zero emission vehicle that was targeted specifically at the wealthy who could afford it. Those people would be able to show off their status while at the same time not contributing to the pollution. Think about it. The BMW Zip, the Porsche Zero, the Ferarri Terra. OK, the names need some work, but I still think it's a neat concept.