PFP author

Read Manny's articles

5K for a baby?!!!, I’m sorry, matching retirement funds?!!

Posted on October 11th, 2007 in Partisan Free Politics by Manny

I took some time before I put up this post since I wanted to see how this story would do. Well, Hillary Clinton finally stated that she was no longer wanted to give each newborn 5 grand.  Now she wants federal matching funds for savings.

Under policy, Americans who open up a 401K and put up to 5,000 grand annually and the federal government will “[match] refundable tax credit—dollar for dollar—for the first $1,000 of savings done by every married couple making up to $60,000 a year”.

This of course will cost the same annually as the baby bonds would’ve been. Now it is aimed for married couples as of now.

The sad thing is this will be paid for by implementing a higher death, I mean, estate tax. So, to encourage savings, we will discourage people to save for their children or their inheritants because they will pay a higher tax to encourage others to save.

Sometimes, presidential candidates will say anything for a vote or fundraising money and this unfortunately is one of them.

Below is my other comments on the now defunct baby bonds:

Hillary Clinton today suggested that the U.S. give each newborn $5,000. This fund can be used for college, a down payment for the house, or maybe a way to pay for her health insurance.

The math is this: 5,000 x 4,000,000 = $20,000,000,000 per year. Of course, add that for a couple of years. By year 5, it will have cost the U.S. over a trillion dollars. Plus, those babies are approx.

Now there was no formal policy regarding this nor any plan on the specifics.

This is the best part of the plan since interests hasn’t put in their input. Like, taking out funds early for clothes or medical expenditures and also making this retroactive. Why should someone born on Jan. 1, 2010 get a bond while someone born on Dec. 31, 2009 doesn’t.  

Still, it is  amazing how these presidential candidates will say anything for a vote or fundraising money.

The greatest threat isn’t terrorism

Posted on September 11th, 2007 in Partisan Free Politics by Manny

On this day 6 years ago, Al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked 4 passenger airplanes and slammed them to the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the heroes of Flight 93 sacrificed themselves by preventing their plane from striking DC.

On that day, terrorism was the biggest threat. It was literally chaos as people wondered if their loved ones were still alive and others fearful if their city was next. To some, reality didn’t set in as they couldn’t believe that within an hour on a clear Tuesday day, the world was suddenly changed. Nobody knew what else would happen in the coming days.  Episodes such as  the anthrax scare and the would-be shoebomber on flight close to Christmas 2001 made people wonder if we would ever live our lives the same ever again. 

Though our government policies have been more intrusive and some have literally violated our civil liberties, the American people are still living the American way of life. We work, play, travel, go shopping on the weekends, etc. For many, we are more appreciated of life and others give or serve their community more. While everyone changed one way or the other (in their thoughts or beliefs), the American way of life hasn’t.

I write this in light of the heading and from former Secretary of State Colin Powell recently stated in a GQ interview.

“What is the greatest threat facing us now? People will say it’s terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat we are facing?”

An interesting question on this day of rememberance.

Check out the rest of the interview at:

http://men.style.com/gq/features/landing?id=content_5900

Making my doctor appointment for this year

Posted on September 7th, 2007 in Partisan Free Politics by Manny

The big topic in the campaign is health insurance. Various different presidential candidates have offered their stance on this issue. Some want market forces, others want full coverage. In some states, there are plans for universal health insurance in California and in Massachusetts, taxes is the stick to force companies to give their workers health insurance.

Well, John Edwards recently told of his vision of health care and its a little frightening.

Here is the story link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070902/ap_on_el_pr/edwards_2

Under his plan, he will require all Americans to have a yearly doctor visit. Now preventive care has its good qualities. But having it forced is a different issue. Now for a short media plug, it sounds all nice and dandy, but there is a reason why there is no specifics.

Because if so, then one will see the unintended consequences of requiring mandatory yearly doctor visits.

First, is the rise of strictly physical examination doctors and the possible decline of other types of doctors. Because over 300 million people are going to see a doctor at least once a year, you are going to have to have the supply of doctors to do that. One will also see that supply for other types of doctors might or have their jobs transfer in order to make sure supply is available to cover Edwards plan. A person who might need more test for something may have to be delayed depending if the doctor is busy checking up on an already healthy person.

Next is how does this effect the Patients Bill of Rights. I believe third party interference can be refused by patients in thier medical care and I bet you can add the government there.

Third, is if everyone has to have a yearly check-up, then will there be a schedule for people to go to the doctor or will the government allow Spring Breaks and summer be a time of people going to the doctor for their check-up and long lines to wait.

Fourth, what type of check-up will be needed to ensure a “check-up” under Edwards’ plan.  Because his plan covers dental and vision, will one be forced to have a yearly dentist visit and vision appointment?

I can come up with many more questions, but by doing so, I’m getting chills and I’ll probably get a cold from thinking about it.

 I believe preventive care should be left to the individual and/or their doctor, not some bureaucrat in DC. I think people will decide whether they want to have a yearly check-up or wait every few years. But that should left to them to decide.