Here's to You, 2013

An Open Letter to the Year of Our Lord 2013
from Curtis Dean

Dear Year;

You suck.  I know it's not your fault that you suck, and I'm sure you've been plenty good to lots of people.  But in my selfish little realm, you can kiss my ass.

You see 2013, it was during your dubious reign that I lost my marriage of 27 years.  27 years and 364 days to be specific.  To be fair, your predecessors share the blame, with 2012 right behind you in the lineup of shame.   I know, I know...the seeds of dissatisfaction were sown well before your decade even began.  But you finished the job, you son of a bitch.  You also just sat there and watched as valuable friendships seemed to disintegrate before my eyes.  Mostly a side-effect of the marital breakup I know, but still enough to push you past 1982 on the "Shitty Year Hall of Fame" for me.

The funny thing is, you little jerk, is that as your life winds down to its inexorable conclusion at midnight, I will have the last laugh.  You see, while you weren't looking-while you were busy creating Karma for future deployment-I managed to sneak in one good thing.  And I'm going to take that one good thing and use that as a foundation upon which I will build a much happier and brighter 2014.  And you can go join 1982 in the dustbin of history, you miserable bastard.

Good riddance,
Curtis

Health Insurance

It ain't over until its over, but based on the snarly attitude of several Supreme Court justices yesterday, it appears that "Obamacare" or "Romneycare 2.0" or whatever you want to call it will probably come unravelled. It appears the individual mandate component of the law will be ruled unconstitutional by the SupCo, and without the mandate the rest of the law will fall like a house of cards.

The death of Obamacare will not affect most people with good jobs and good, employer-provided health plans.  The component that directly affected my own family-allowing adult children to stay on their parent's health plan until age 26-will not be affected by the court ruling directly.  But if you know of anyone who has struggled to pay for coverage in the past, you should be worried.  Without the mandate (which spreads the burden across a wider base of people), it may be impossible to keep insurance premiums affordable for the people that need it the most.  The healthy and the young will continue to "choose" not to get insurance, and with only sick people in the pool, rates will be higher.  Of course when those healthy young people do need care, we will all pay for it.

It's ironic that conservatives are fine with mandating other things, such as requiring women to get a vaginal ultrasound before an abortion, but not the things that really matter.  But I digress,

What's funny about the whole debate over Obamacare is that the insurance companies WANT the individual mandate to survive.  You may think that they were against the whole idea of the "Affordable Care Act", but they were actually licking their chops at its passage.  Why?  Because it ensured that they would stay in the loop, and that they would continue to be able to collect their profits while paying for some of American's health care.

I read an interesting statistic yesterday.  Medicare-the national single-payer health care system for senior Americans-has an "overhead" of around 3%.  That means only 97% of the premium dollars go toward paying for direct care.  Only 3% is used to pay employees, logistics, paperwork, etc.  That's pretty efficient.  Meanwhile, the overhead of the average private insurance company is up to 40%.  FORTY PERCENT.  40 cents of every dollar that comes out of your paycheck for health insurance is NOT going to your doctor, hospital, chiropractor, etc.  It is being used by the insurance company for employees, logistics, paperwork, and-oh yes, I almost forgot-PROFITS.  

The politicians wring their hands and complain about agricultural subsidies, but they don't seem to care about hidden subsidies like our premium dollars going to create profits for insurance companies.  I consider myself a capitalist, but I believe that capitalism must, in the end, serve some public good.  I guess you could argue that 40% profits by insurance companies serves some public good (they employ a lot of people, many at very good wages).  But if we're paying their salaries, I think I'd rather have those folks doing something other than stamping "DENIED" on a claim.

The silver lining behind the unravelling of Obamacare may be the fact that it forces us to have a real debate on the only way to do it right...a single payer health care plan.  And the beauty of it is, we don't have to re-invent the wheel.  We have a system in place that has been working (mostly) well for 40+ years for a (growing) segment of our population.  It's called Medicare.  And it could become "Medicare-For-All" without having to reinvent the wheel.  In fact, it may be our last and only hope for putting an effective system into place before the broken system bankrupts us.

Ctrl-Alt-Del

If you own a PC, you understand what the title of this post means. The "three-fingered salute" as my friend Joe calls it is what you do when your computer isn't working correctly.

What if we did the same thing for our federal government?

What if we passed a Constitutional Amendment saying that every so often (say, every 20 years), all incumbent federal office holders are forced to leave office.  From the President down to every Congressperson and Senator, we just hit "Ctrl-Alt-Del" and replace them all?

I've never been a big fan of term limits because I believe that they already exist...they're called elections.  Unfortunately the American people have not proven to be very attentive to making good choices for their elected officials.  It's just too easy to vote for the incumbent.  So I've come around on my thinking and believe that, at least on the federal level, it's a damn good idea.  We've been limiting presidents to two terms for 40 years.  What if we did that for senators and congresspersons?

But I'm not sure that's enough.  I think we need to start the process of enacting term limits with a clean slate.  The atmosphere in Washington is so poison that it takes much more than an injection of new blood to change it (as has been proven by the past two elections...2008 with Obama and the Democrats, 2010 with the Tea Party and the Republicans).  Instead, we need a complete transfusion.

So, here's my proposal.  Let's pick a date in the not-too-distant future.  Perhaps 2020 since that's a presidential  election year and would give a Republican a chance to serve two full presidential terms if elected this year (the world should NOT be denied a full 8 years of Newt, Rick, or Mitt).  All persons serving in federal office in 2020 would be forced to leave office at the end of the year.  EVERY federal office would be open to a newcomer (100 Senate seats, 435 House seats, President and Vice President).  Let's also say that the people who leave office that year cannot work for any company that lobbies in Washington.  Throw the bums a bone and tell them they could run for federal office again after at least a four year absence.  But let's not only make them leave office...let's make them leave Washington altogether.

I know what you're saying..."We'll lose some good people".  Indeed, we would.  Some excellent public servants would be forced to retire before they would have liked.  But guess what...they can continue to serve our nation in other ways!  Let them come home and run for school board, city council, county supervisors, or even state offices.  If they are good, bright, well-intentioned people, we could use them closer to home.

Who's with me???

Gas Prices...Here We Go Again

The definition of stupidity is to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.  Welcome to the "gas price crisis", 2012 version.

In 1973, our nation experienced its first energy crisis.  It was really not an energy crisis, but a gasoline crisis.  Supply disruptions in the Middle East led to a spike in gas prices, and helped drive the US economy into recession.  And for awhile we as a nation responded.  The 55 mile per hour speed limit was enacted.  We enacted tougher mileage standards for cars.  People insulated their homes, many for the first time.

President Jimmy Carter wore a sweater during his energy
speech in 1977.  Rick Santorum, eat your heart out.

In 1976 we elected a president, Jimmy Carter, because he was an outsider and that's what we thought we wanted after Watergate.  But we also elected a person who realized that the oil shocks of the mid-1970's were just a warning of bigger problems to come unless our nation began to wean itself from dependence on oil in general, and foreign oil in particular.  Carter called America's energy dependence "the moral equivalent of war" and tried to push a national energy policy that would have begun to reverse our wasteful trends.  In a televised speech (CLICK HERE to read...regardless of political persuasion, I think you'll agree it was amazing).  But aside from a few elements, Carter's energy policy was rejected by the American people and Congress.  Gas prices had gone back down to more reasonable levels.  The economy was weak, and we weren't in the mood to sacrifice for the benefit of future generations.  Round One.

That was 35 years ago, and since then we have repeated the same cycle over and over again.  Gas prices go down and we resume our wasteful habits.  Our elected leaders move on to more pressing issues and don't enact a comprehensive, long-term energy policy that reduces our dependence on foreign oil.  BOOM!  There's a war, or a crisis, or some other world event (inevitably centered around the Middle East), and gas prices rise. We all bitch and moan and blame EVERYONE but ourselves.  We start chanting "drill, baby, drill" while we fill up our SUV's and drive 2 hours to save $2 on a pair of designer jeans.

In this latest iteration of repeat stupidity, we are crying foul that gas has gone back up close to $4.00 a gallon, and this time we're going to blame President Obama because....well, because he's there!  The actual causes of the newest "crisis" don't really matter...he's the one who has to accept responsibility!  And here go the politicians saying that if we just drilled in more areas, or build a pipeline from Alberta, etc, we'll be able to get back to the cheap gas we need to afford our unsustainable lifestyles.  And guess what?  We all nod our hands in agreement because we LIKE it when politicians tell us what we want to hear.

Even the dumbest animal in the wild learns from their mistakes.  A cow may touch an electric fence once or twice, but they will eventually learn not to go there...even if their is yummy grass just out of reach on the other side.  But as a society, we are not that smart.  We've nudged the electric fence over and over in the past 35 years, yet we still keep dreaming of that green grass on the other side.  We think maybe this time we won't get shocked.

If you search the interwebs to try to find out how much oil is left in the world, you'll get a variety of opinions. Even if you accept the most optimistic projections of how much is left in the ground, it's still less than 50 years.  And most of that is STILL in the Middle East.  We've fought at least two wars and counting to keep these precious hydrocarbons flowing, and I have no doubt that we will fight more.

And remember, our modern world uses oil for a lot more than just gasoline.  The keys of the laptop I'm writing this on right now are made of oil (plastic).  So is the carpet my rubber-soled shoes are resting on.  Oil is part of every ounce of food we eat since it is the primary component for fertilizer.  So, do we keep using it all for gasoline now or do we save some for our future food supplies and manufacturing?

So many politicians talk about the future.  They rant about how much they care about making the world a better place for our children.  They usually use this as an excuse to promote policies that actually benefit us today.  If they REALLY wanted to help future generations, each of us would be asked to sacrifice a little comfort, a little convenience, and some of our treasure to make it happen.  Instead, they insist that we can achieve this brighter future without pain.  Let's take our current fiscal crisis as an example.  Most politicians say we should solve this problem through spending cuts and not by raising taxes.  They say this because it's what WE want to hear.  After all, few of us would raise our hand and say "let me chip in".  And since most of us don't benefit from much of the government spending responsible for the fiscal crisis, we want to naturally take the path of least resistance.

"Dear Americans of 2012...give
me a break."--Adult of 2032

If a newborn of today could come back in time to 2012 from his home in 2042, what do you think HE or SHE would say?  I bet they'd say something like this.  "If you guys would just sacrifice a little bit of your immense wealth today, we'll be in a lot better shape in 30 years."  Because remember, if we don't do anything, that baby won't have access to Social Security, or Medicare.  That baby will have less than 20 years of oil left for EVERYTHING, not just gasoline.  That baby will probably be living a lifestyle that has more in common with his or her great-great grandfather than it does with how we live today.

The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.  We're stupid.  And unfortunately in 2012, ignorance appears to be bliss.

Blogger Envy

My wife has an amazing character trait that I just can't seem to emulate.  She writes in her blog regularly.

That's not her only amazing trait, mind you, but its the one on my mind today.  I don't know what it is, but I have a hard time writing on this blog unless I feel like I have something important or profound to say.  This post is an exception to the rule since it is simply a blog post about my inability to write blog posts.

At various points of the average day, I do have profound thoughts...ones worthy of sharing with others.  But by the time I have an opportunity to sit down before a keyboard and transfer those thoughts into words, POOF, it's gone.  So instead I write nothing at all.

Perhaps its the title of my blog...What's Buggin' Curtie...that puts too much pressure on me to only blog when things are "buggin" me.  So I've decided, as part of my New Years Resolutions, that I'm not going to let the title stop me from writing regularly as a way to keep my brain active.  There's almost no chance that many of these posts will be interesting, but what the heck.

I kind of like how Rhonda's posts are not centered on a specific topic, like the ones I've written in the past, but have different categories (what I read, what I watched, etc).  So maybe that's an approach to take for me moving forward.  I'm sure there will be royalties to pay for stealing her idea, so I will modify it just enough that I can't be accused of thievery.

The Weekend

We had a great weekend with the Roberts' kids.  I have to admit...I was a bit nervous about it.  Why?  Because we hadn't spent a lot of time around them in at least a couple of years, and I was worried that they had changed enough (grown up that is) that it would be awkward.  I need not have feared!  Zach and Hannah are just slightly older versions of the kids that I spent so much time around during some of the best years of our lives.  Yes, Zach's voice has dropped an octive (and he's now taller than me, although that's not considered an Olympian feat).  But he's still the same kid I knew, and he still laughs at almost everything that comes out of my mouth.  Hannah is still the quiet one, the observer, who only occasionally allows herself to crack a smile or a chuckle at her godparent's silliness.  And David....well, he's one of the most clever 7 year old's I've ever seen.

I have to hand it to Brett and Trish.  They are obviously amazing parents.  I'm especially proud of Brett, who is one of the most patient and giving fathers I have ever known.  He's managed (with Trish's help of course) to transition his two children through a stunning tragedy of five years ago and somehow bring they out the other side stronger than before.  I hope we get to spend more time around them moving forward.

The Week Ahead

This should be a fairly uneventful week in the Dean home.  While Rhonda spends her evenings working on coursework, I plan to start the painful process of sorting through tax documents.  Piles of Music Man Productions receipts await my attention.  Every year I start the process determined to hand the materials to the accountant on or before February 1st, and every year I fail miserably.  Here's hoping I can stick to that plan better this year.

The end of the week will see a return to the classroom to teach "Dealing With The Media".  I'm teaching it in the Omaha area on Saturday, and Rhonda and I are turning it into a weekend away.  It sounds like Saturday night will be a "girls thing" with Joan and Keetah.  Maybe they'll let me join in their reindeer games.  If not, I'll curl up with the Nook and read "Steve Jobs" that I just downloaded over the weekend.

The So-Called "Light Bulb Ban"

What's Buggin' Curtie...light bulbs.

If I hear one more person complain about the "light bulb ban", I'm going to scream.

Yes, its true that on January 1, 2012 a new law takes effect that general purpose light bulbs that today put out light equivalent to a 100-watt incandescent lamp use no more than 72-watts of electricity.  Yes, that means that eventually you won't be able to pick up a 100-watt "Thomas Edison" light bulb at your local Menards.

But there has been SO MUCH distortion from people, mainly on the far right, who equate the new efficiency standards to some denial of our essential rights as Americans.  So here are some facts:

FACT:  The law that includes the new light bulb energy efficiency standards, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, was approved by bi-partisan margins in both the House (314-100) and Senate (86-8) and signed by President George W. Bush.  It is NOT some socialist conspiracy, unless you consider W a socialist.  And it's certainly not "Obama taking away our light bulbs!"

FACT:  Incandescent light bulbs are not banned.  ANY technology that can meet the efficiency standards can continue to be manufactured and sold...including incandescents.  Most people think they are going to be forced into replacing their beloved Edisons with CFL's, but they won't.  First of all, the ban only affects 100 watt light bulbs in 2012, and even then they will continue to be on store shelves until they are out of inventory.  Secondly, you can buy an incandescent light bulb that looks EXACTLY like your old favorite but only uses 72 watts.  It's called a halogen lamp, and it produces the same amount of light as the old standby.

FACT:  You can continue to buy old fashioned Tom Edison light bulbs during 2012 (75-watt and 60-watt) and 2013 (60-watt).  After that, smaller lamps such as 40-watt bulbs will still be on sale, and specialty bulbs will also still be available.

This is not government taking something away from you, this is government enforcing standards designed to help save energy and the environment.  There's a reason why you can't buy a car that gets 10 miles per gallon anymore...because fuel efficiency standards mandated it.  There's a reason why you can't shoot ducks with lead shot anymore...environmental standards mandated it.  It's called progress people.

Are YOU Better Off Today Than Four Years Ago?

Soon the politicians will start asking us if we are personally better off today than we were four years ago.  It's a typical question posed on the electorate during a presidential campaign.  With a Democrat in the White House, the question is most likely to be posed by the GOP nominee (once one emerges from what's likely to be a long and bloody battle).

First of all, I've always considered this question to be at best moot and at worst insulting to the intelligence of the American voter.  If you want to ask whether or not THE COUNTRY is better off today than it was four years ago, that's a topic that we can have a reasoned and logical argument about.  But does it really matter if I personally am better off?  It doesn't, and here's why.

My personal well being has nothing to do with Washington, D.C.  It has everything to do with our own hard work (or lack thereof), our intelligence (or similar lack), and good old fashioned luck.

I can personally say that I am better off today than four years ago without reservation, and it matters not a bit whether Barack Obama or John McCain was my president.  What matters is that, together with my partner Rhonda, we have taken control of our lives like never before.  In 2008 we began a concerted effort to rid debt from our lives.  We have a long way to go, but we've already disposed of a good portion of it.  Our goal is to be completely debt-free (except our mortgage) by August 2014.  And I think we'll get there.

We are working toward our financial security using two methods that our leaders in Washington ought to be looking at...by increasing our income and reducing our spending.  We've made some sacrifices, but we can most closely credit our reduced spending by simply paying closer attention to it.  Money used to just fly out of our bank account without leaving any value to our lives.  Now that we know where our money is going, we control it better.  We also increased our income by working harder, making ourselves better employees and business owners, and eventually finding new careers.

Depending on which wingtip you occupy politically (far right or far left), you either espouse all spending cuts and no tax increases, or no spending cuts and all tax increases, to improve our country's fiscal situation.  GUESS WHAT...it's gonna take BOTH!