Why not every time a government worker wants to charge a personal expense to the taxpayer, it is first listed on a webpage at utah.gov, And, it stays there long after the money has been spent?
Those not only in government agencies, but also quasi-government agencies would be required to list any personal expense charged to the government, kind of like the public notices we already have.
I do wonder but what too much spending occurs for personal matters. Accountability could help rein this in.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Seeking Not to be Qualified by Money
The Lieutenant Governor's Office posts profiles of the candidates, and it asked me what qualifies me for office. I wrote:
What should be the qualifiers to serve? I am strong in morals and ethics. I have worked at becoming a lover of all people, including those who have different beliefs and values. I know the art of persuading by reasoning, instead of tearing others down, and this will serve me in getting bills passed.
My views on the issues qualify me.
My status in life can also be a plus. I am working class, not management. I am not well off financially. I drive a beat-up car. I do think we could elect more people from this class of our society.
One of my biggest qualifiers is that I am not accepting political contributions. It does strike me as wrong that the biggest campaign contributors are often the same people seeking legislation. I'm sorry, but no legislator should have money coming to him (or her) from those seeking legislation, even if the money supports a good cause.
Nor do I like it that the person who spends the most is often elected. I would to be elected without placing lawn signs, or sending mailers, or making robo calls.
What are my qualifications? Not money. For once, elect someone who refuses to be qualified by money.
What should be the qualifiers to serve? I am strong in morals and ethics. I have worked at becoming a lover of all people, including those who have different beliefs and values. I know the art of persuading by reasoning, instead of tearing others down, and this will serve me in getting bills passed.
My views on the issues qualify me.
My status in life can also be a plus. I am working class, not management. I am not well off financially. I drive a beat-up car. I do think we could elect more people from this class of our society.
One of my biggest qualifiers is that I am not accepting political contributions. It does strike me as wrong that the biggest campaign contributors are often the same people seeking legislation. I'm sorry, but no legislator should have money coming to him (or her) from those seeking legislation, even if the money supports a good cause.
Nor do I like it that the person who spends the most is often elected. I would to be elected without placing lawn signs, or sending mailers, or making robo calls.
What are my qualifications? Not money. For once, elect someone who refuses to be qualified by money.
If Elected, I'd Take from the Rich
If elected, I'd take from the rich, not from the rich corporate executives, but from the rich publicly-funded executives.
Only $109,900 for a governor? That's not overly bad. But, just to be ornery, I'd trim it some, though not as much as I'd slice off other officials.
Like the head of UTA. He's making more than $300,000, and that is way to much.
Like school superintendents. It's late, and I'm not going to google them, but I'm thinking they are in the $150,000 range. That, too, is too much. I'd half them.
You can guess I'd chop the salaries of state university presidents.
Just 15-20 years ago, the CEO of the Workers Compensation Fund of Utah made $226,000 in total compensation. Surely, he doesn't still. Surely, a correction has been made. But, if he does, I'd first cut it, then chop it and then I'd slice it some more.
Axes were not so intended for chopping wood as they were for chopping such salaries.
Only $109,900 for a governor? That's not overly bad. But, just to be ornery, I'd trim it some, though not as much as I'd slice off other officials.
Like the head of UTA. He's making more than $300,000, and that is way to much.
Like school superintendents. It's late, and I'm not going to google them, but I'm thinking they are in the $150,000 range. That, too, is too much. I'd half them.
You can guess I'd chop the salaries of state university presidents.
Just 15-20 years ago, the CEO of the Workers Compensation Fund of Utah made $226,000 in total compensation. Surely, he doesn't still. Surely, a correction has been made. But, if he does, I'd first cut it, then chop it and then I'd slice it some more.
Axes were not so intended for chopping wood as they were for chopping such salaries.
Monday, September 3, 2012
Part of Money for UTA World Traveling Comes from Poor
UTA's lead official makes in excess of $300,000, and to some of us, that seems scandal enough.
But what if, to top it off, he were to take an out-of-state trip every 20 days, at the public's expense, of course.
Lee Davidson story in the Sunday Salt Lake Tribune deserves more than to end up a one-story-and-done thing. Yes, the UTA officials, who have run up $610,000 in travel expenses in just a year-and-a-half, can say they are only going out and about in order to learn about transit systems elsewhere.
But, this does seem too much. If you are making as much money as they make, take vacations to those places at your own expense and see the transit systems while you are there. Don't run up tabs on the public, which includes a lot of poor people. Some of them not only can not only afford visits to Hong Kong and Italy, but have to scrape just to come up with the bus fare across town.
Belgium, Hong Kong, Italy, Mexico, Sweden, Switzerland . . .
If you make a portion of your income on the backs of the poor, think twice before visiting these places at their expense.
But what if, to top it off, he were to take an out-of-state trip every 20 days, at the public's expense, of course.
Lee Davidson story in the Sunday Salt Lake Tribune deserves more than to end up a one-story-and-done thing. Yes, the UTA officials, who have run up $610,000 in travel expenses in just a year-and-a-half, can say they are only going out and about in order to learn about transit systems elsewhere.
But, this does seem too much. If you are making as much money as they make, take vacations to those places at your own expense and see the transit systems while you are there. Don't run up tabs on the public, which includes a lot of poor people. Some of them not only can not only afford visits to Hong Kong and Italy, but have to scrape just to come up with the bus fare across town.
Belgium, Hong Kong, Italy, Mexico, Sweden, Switzerland . . .
If you make a portion of your income on the backs of the poor, think twice before visiting these places at their expense.
Sunday, September 2, 2012
At Point of Death, Mother Teaches Greatest Lesson
I place this blog before the world, but am well aware I have few readers. I post daily, or almost daily. (That might soon end.) The posts are most all political, except maybe on Sunday.
And, with the Sunday post comes the thought that it might be read -- despite the small readership -- by those not of my faith.
Read on, if you are one of those I have just spoken off. Read, if you will the Sunday posts, as well. Today's is not likely to offend you. It is religious, of nature, but the thought I have tonight shares well with all Christian faiths.
My mother is ill, even to the point of dying. Some mornings I wake, and she is the first thing I think of. Most any day -- if not absolutely every one -- my thoughts turn to her throughout the day. I call her daily, earnestly telling her of my love for her.
Somewhere during the course of this past day, or perhaps it was last night, I realized this type of attention, this type of love, this type of devotion, is due to my God. Why should He not be my first thought in the morning? Why should not my thoughts turn to Him throughout the day? Why should I not tell Him daily of my love for Him?
Is there not a scripture saying, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength."
And, does not that scripture mean something? Does it not mean just what it says?
If I truly love the Lord in such fashion, I should think of Him first thing in the morning, and throughout the day. I should speak to Him daily, uttering my love for Him, and being earnest and fervent about it.
Perhaps my Mother is teaching me one final lesson, even as she possibly heads towards the grave. Love of the Lord is the first and greatest commandment. Perhaps, then, Mother (though admittedly unintentionally) is teaching the greatest lesson of all as the grand finale of all she has taught me.
And, with the Sunday post comes the thought that it might be read -- despite the small readership -- by those not of my faith.
Read on, if you are one of those I have just spoken off. Read, if you will the Sunday posts, as well. Today's is not likely to offend you. It is religious, of nature, but the thought I have tonight shares well with all Christian faiths.
My mother is ill, even to the point of dying. Some mornings I wake, and she is the first thing I think of. Most any day -- if not absolutely every one -- my thoughts turn to her throughout the day. I call her daily, earnestly telling her of my love for her.
Somewhere during the course of this past day, or perhaps it was last night, I realized this type of attention, this type of love, this type of devotion, is due to my God. Why should He not be my first thought in the morning? Why should not my thoughts turn to Him throughout the day? Why should I not tell Him daily of my love for Him?
Is there not a scripture saying, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength."
And, does not that scripture mean something? Does it not mean just what it says?
If I truly love the Lord in such fashion, I should think of Him first thing in the morning, and throughout the day. I should speak to Him daily, uttering my love for Him, and being earnest and fervent about it.
Perhaps my Mother is teaching me one final lesson, even as she possibly heads towards the grave. Love of the Lord is the first and greatest commandment. Perhaps, then, Mother (though admittedly unintentionally) is teaching the greatest lesson of all as the grand finale of all she has taught me.
A Little 30-Day War A Coming?
How close to war, Israel and Iran?
Seems I read a saber-rattling quote from Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recently. But, I suppose you could say, What do you mean, recently. He is always threatening Israel's destruction.
As the arms confrontation escalates -- Iran seeking nuclear weapons, and Israel fearful of Iran's having them -- a pre-emptive strike from Israel certainly seems possible.
“Time is running out,” Israel's Binyamin Netanyahu warned the U.S. ambassador to Israel just days ago, urging the U.S. to do something. The pair reportedly had a extremely heated exchange.
Also in the news, this quote: "The home front is ready as never before," said an Israel cabinet minister. He said Israel is bracing for a war that will last about a month after Israel knocks out Iran's nuclear-making capacities.
So, all this news has a good side: It shouldn't be nuclear war. Israel would knock out Iran's potential nuclear weapons and would not then need to use its own.
Seems I read a saber-rattling quote from Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recently. But, I suppose you could say, What do you mean, recently. He is always threatening Israel's destruction.
As the arms confrontation escalates -- Iran seeking nuclear weapons, and Israel fearful of Iran's having them -- a pre-emptive strike from Israel certainly seems possible.
“Time is running out,” Israel's Binyamin Netanyahu warned the U.S. ambassador to Israel just days ago, urging the U.S. to do something. The pair reportedly had a extremely heated exchange.
Also in the news, this quote: "The home front is ready as never before," said an Israel cabinet minister. He said Israel is bracing for a war that will last about a month after Israel knocks out Iran's nuclear-making capacities.
So, all this news has a good side: It shouldn't be nuclear war. Israel would knock out Iran's potential nuclear weapons and would not then need to use its own.
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Don't Kill the Child that Isn't Loved
So, there's this theory that legalization of abortion in 1973 has led to a reduction in crime. And, it's pretty well substantiated.
Just what are we anti-abortion types to do?
My thought is that we shouldn't be surprised that abortion might reduce crime. After all, isn't it a given that lack of love affects a child's upbringing? Many of the aborted children are in homes that do not want them. Lack of love. So, if a nurtured and loved child is less likely to grow up to be a criminal, then, of course if we get rid of these children, it leads to a reduction in crime.
But, does that mean abortion is the answer? Does this mean we should abort children to reduce our crime? No. Concluding abortion is an answer to crime is the same as saying we should take all children who aren't loved and kill them, as that will just as surely reduce our crime rates.
The answer isn't to abort the child, but rather to increase the love for it once it is born. How can we place the unwanted child in a better home? Adoption, surely, is one answer.
The unborn children are victims if they are unwanted. Why victimize them more by killing them?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk6gOeggViw&feature=related
Here's four of my posts from the Facebook thread that presented this video. No need to read them unless you want, as they say little more than what I have already said. They do give a little of what is in the video, though, so read that if you want.
Just what are we anti-abortion types to do?
My thought is that we shouldn't be surprised that abortion might reduce crime. After all, isn't it a given that lack of love affects a child's upbringing? Many of the aborted children are in homes that do not want them. Lack of love. So, if a nurtured and loved child is less likely to grow up to be a criminal, then, of course if we get rid of these children, it leads to a reduction in crime.
But, does that mean abortion is the answer? Does this mean we should abort children to reduce our crime? No. Concluding abortion is an answer to crime is the same as saying we should take all children who aren't loved and kill them, as that will just as surely reduce our crime rates.
The answer isn't to abort the child, but rather to increase the love for it once it is born. How can we place the unwanted child in a better home? Adoption, surely, is one answer.
The unborn children are victims if they are unwanted. Why victimize them more by killing them?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk6gOeggViw&feature=related
Here's four of my posts from the Facebook thread that presented this video. No need to read them unless you want, as they say little more than what I have already said. They do give a little of what is in the video, though, so read that if you want.
John Edwin Jackson Interesting, I say, making three of us. Just with a listen-through of the video, no more, his evidence seems good, his assertion correct. He appears to be putting it beyond coincidence by noting that the five states that legalized abortion ...
three years before Roe v. Wade experienced a drop in crime three years quicker than the rest of the nation, and noting how the states that made abortions easier to get experienced a 30 percent greater drop in crime. It would seem all that is left is, did he do a fair study, and was the methodology fair? Off the top, I see no reason to think he wasn't fair, though.
John Edwin Jackson Though three of us say, "Interesting," perhaps we shouldn't be surprised at the study at all. Don't we already assume nurturing and love affects how the child turns out? Isn't that a given? Levitt's study is but a statistical verification of that. Parents who show love for their children are going to have better children. No surprise there.
John Edwin Jackson One could argue that by concluding abortion is an answer to crime is the same as saying we should take all children who aren't loved and kill them, in order to reduce crime nationwide. The answer isn't to have abortions, but to increase the love for the at-risk children, find a way to bring them into earth in a better environment.
John Edwin Jackson We don't kill already-born children because they aren't loved, so why should we kill those who aren't yet born because they will be brought into a world that will not love them enough? They are already victims. Taking their lives only increases the degree of being victimized. Though it be difficult, we must find ways to place the children into better environments. Adoption is probably the best answer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)