Or is it Bigfeet?

I know I’ll never live there (it’s way too cold for me), but I would love to visit Montana. Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks are the most famous, but everything I’ve seen about Big Sky Country indicates it’d be a beautiful place to visit.

Plus, it appears that they breed the rarest of rare animals in Montana — politicians I could actually like.

I’ve mentioned the Consumerist before. It’s a fairly large blog that gives customers another method of fighting back against bad customer service. All in all, I think it’s a pretty good blog, but occasionally, I find something on there that annoys me a bit.

For example, this post, which calls out T-mobile for poor (potential) customer service. While I will admit that T-Mobile probably could’ve helped this customer a bit better, I don’t think that the customer service in question was quite as bad as it many other examples that pop up on The Consumerist, and it certainly wasn’t as bad as the post’s title suggests.

The title is “T-Mobile: We Can’t Help You, Sell Your Brand New Defective Phone On eBay”. Reading the article, though, you’ll see that, at the time the customer service representative encouraged selling the phone on eBay, he had no way of knowing the phone was defective.

Here’s a summary of what happened:

• The writer of the original post (quoted at the Consumerist), whom I will simply call the OP from here on out, got a phone for Christmas, decided she didn’t want it, and asked the gifter to take the gift back.^[1]
• Because the return attempt was more than 14 days after the purchase, T-mobile wouldn’t take back the phone.^[2]
• The OP asked the gifter to send him the phone, and attempted to return it himself, with no more success — the T-mobile rep suggested selling the phone on eBay. At this point, no one involved had any clue whatsoever that the phone was defective
• The OP sold the phone on eBay, and the recipient discovered it was defective. OP refunded the money and took the phone back to T-mobile again.
• T-mobile again says that they can’t take the phone back.^[3]

Pay special attention to the bolded section above. The title of the piece suggests that T-mobile or one of its employees suggested that the OP knowingly sell defective merchandise on eBay, when the truth was that T-Mobile simply suggested selling what was (as far as they knew) a perfectly functional phone that the OP simply didn’t want.

1. Note that the gifter gave the OP a $350 phone. I’m assuming this is because the OP asked for it, or the gifter had reason to expect that he would like it. Asking the gifter to take back such an expensive gift seems very tacky to me, but I’m just weird like that, I guess.
2. This is the only time I really feel like T-mobile did something wrong, and even this isn’t wrong, just kind of short sighted. In the interest of good customer service, I’d probably extend these timelines around Christmas time, if I was a retailer.
3. At this point, I believe the OP should probably have tried to send the phone back to the original gifter and have him attempt to return it, though I’m not sure that would’ve helped — this far in, it would be impossible for T-mobile to know if the phone was defective or if it had been broken after the fact, I’d think

Shiny.

When I insist that I will not vote for John McCain (despite my appreciation for his health care plan vs. the plans of the Democratic candidates), I usually cite the fact that he has such disregard for the First Amendment that he allowed his name to be put on a bill that tramples all over it. Several of my friends seem to believe that I’m exaggerating how bad the McCain-Feingold travesty is. I don’t think it’s possible to exaggerate how bad it is.

One proponent of annexation sued them. This tactic - wielding campaign finance regulations to suppress opponents’ speech - is common in the America of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

The complaint did not just threaten the Parker Six for any “illegal activities.” It also said that anyone who had contacted them or received a lawn sign might be subjected to “investigation, scrutinization and sanctions for campaign finance violations.”

Here’s the thing — it doesn’t really matter who wins this suit. The fact that this suit (and others like it) is even possible stifles political discussion. It is entirely unreasonable to say that I can’t get together with a few neighbors and friends, pool our money, and attempt to persuade others to share our stances on the issues unless I first register with the government.

That citizens should not need the government’s approval to share political positions was one of the biggest motivators to drafting the First Amendment in the first place. That McCain-Feingold gives various levels of government the authority to register “issue committees” is completely unacceptable. McCain-Feingold is abhorrent from the principles upon which this country is founded, and because of McCain’s support of this violation of our rights, I will not vote for him.

Via The Consumerist, I found the story of a Minden, Louisiana police officer who was arrested for stealing gasoline. The Consumerist writer knows exactly where the blame for the theft lies — gas prices.

Yes, gas prices are high, and yes, it sucks, but the source of this problem isn’t the high gas prices. The source of the problem is the honorless police officer, whose dishonesty and lack of integrity unfairly tarnishes the image of the entire department.

A few days ago, Rachel Lucas had a post about a ““Real Woman manifesto, in which she said:

So there’s really not a lot of mystery about what everyone agrees a “real” man is. We all know “real” men are:

Mentally, emotionally, and intellectually strong, even if not physically (crippled and elderly men can still be “real” men). Hardworking, honorable, honest, dutiful, protective of family and country. Brave, courageous, rational, reasonable, kindhearted, and respectful. Knowledgeable about how to survive in rough times and how to solve problems. And so on.

What I started wanting to know when I was about 16 was just how in the hell any of those things were (or should be) exclusive to men. I realized even then that in fact, they are not. All adults should have every one of those personality and character traits as a matter of course.

Bolded emphasis mine. (The Italics are all Rachel)

The former officer who (allegedly) stole gasoline in this case was not a “Real Man”, and, now, thankfully, he’s not even a real cop. That gasoline prices are high don’t even enter into the equation.

Senator Jay Rockefeller wants to give low-income families $100-165 a month to offset gasoline costs.

According to the West Virginia Democrat’s plan, recipients would have to show that they drive 30 miles a day, or 150 miles a week, for work, education or health care. Recipients also would have to fall between 110 percent to 150 percent of the federal poverty level. In West Virginia, that means a family of four could receive the gasoline stipend only if the household income was less than $26,845. For an individual, the cutoff point would be $13,273.

I wonder what Jay Rockefeller thinks is a fair price for gasoline for these individuals? Let’s see what the $100-$165 per month will get them.

The average gas price in WV is $3.71 per gallon, according to this article. One hundred sixty-five dollars would buy about 44.5 gallons of gasoline. One hundred dollars would buy about 27.

There are a lot of SUVs and pickups in the state, but I’m going to be generous and assume that everyone gets an average of 30 miles per gallon. Eligible people use at least a gallon per day by necessity (work, education, health care). We’ll say that the maximum that individuals drive for necessities is quadruple that, so that’s 1-4 gallons per day. (est. 23 work days in a month)

With these assumptions, the people receiving Rockefeller’s stipend would be burning 23-92 gallons per month (see below), spending $85.33-$341.32 on gasoline (These people are also, according to Rockefeller, only making trips that are absolutely necessary — see below). He wants to give them a $100-$165 stipend, which is a discount of 48% to 117%. Obviously, Rockefeller believes that poor Americans should pay between $1.93 and $-0.63 per gallon (Meanwhile, he thinks that rich Americans should pay more, because he wants to pay for this increase by taxing them more).

Rockefeller isn’t worried about lowering fuel prices for Americans. All he’s worried about is winning votes. There are a lot more people who’d receive this stipend than who would be paying for it if he wants to make the nation’s top 1% of earners pay for it — especially if you only look at the population of West Virginia.

One other item of note from the same article:

The senator also noted that the high cost of gas is keeping West Virginians indoors and away from contributing to the local economy.

“People pretty much have canceled the occasional splurge for a movie,” he said. “In other words, if it is a non-emergency purchase, they bypass it. It takes away from their happiness, their stability as a family, but they have no choice.”

I went to see Iron Man this weekend with a friend, and we then drove around Southridge looking for a video game. Based on the traffic and parking lots I saw, there are either a lot of emergencies that require going to Toys-R-Us, Circuit City, and Marquee Cinemas, or the Senator is wrong about these cutbacks.

Also, I’m not aware of any familial instability caused by not getting to go to the movies. Staying home and interacting with your family is generally seen as something that causes bonds to grow stronger, not weaker. And it’s not like West Virginia families wouldn’t find some benefits in staying near to home and enjoying some of the beautiful scenery in our state by walking, fishing, swimming, etc. — West Virginia tops the list of states for childhood obesity^[1]. I can’t find any listings of overall obesity levels, but I’m guessing we’re probably up there, too. It certainly wouldn’t hurt us to walk a little more often^[2]. Maybe high gas prices could be a boon to West Virginia instead of a curse.

1. As a quick aside, Miss West Virginia USA, Skylene Montgomery, is very concerned about obesity in her home state
2. Full disclosure: I’m as guilty as anyone here. I could certainly stand to lose a couple dozen pounds. I live about a mile from work, and it’s not a bad walk at all. Still, I often choose to drive out of sheer laziness. I readily admit that I need to eat better, walk more often, and drive less often.

I mentioned in an earlier post that I was a fan of McCain’s health care plan, especially over the plans of the two Democratic candidates. Here’s something I think should go hand-in-hand with it — pay stubs must be made more transparent. Bear with me. I promise it’s relevant.

We all know that certain bills (like Social Security tax, for instance) are “split” between us and our employer. Some percentage of those costs come out of our paycheck, and the rest is “paid by the employer”, which is a useful little lie that allows the government (or whoever is collecting the bill) to hide exactly how much money is being spent.

Much like corporations don’t really pay taxes (either their customers do, via higher prices, or their employees do, via lower wages/benefits), none of these bills are really being paid by our employers — they’re effectively being paid by us.

Think of it this way. Let’s imagine you gross $60,000 a year. On your paystub, you see that you pay $3,500 in Social Security tax a year. You know that the company matches that amount, and paid another $3,500, but it doesn’t appear on your paystub, so the company paid that money, not you, right? Technically, the company sent their $3,500 to the government, it also sent “your” $3,500 — so you could look at it as though they paid $7,000, and you paid nothing^[1], but you could also look at it the other way around.

When a company hires an employee, they budget a certain amount of money that pays for that employee. This includes their benefits and their salary, including any of the “shared” costs like the “employer’s” half of the Social Security tax. It’s not a huge stretch to consider all of that money to be the employee’s money, and I think it’s only fair that we get an accounting of that money. I want to see everything that’s budgeted for me, not just the amount that the company decides to let me see.

If employees saw that, they’d be more capable of making decisions about whether they thought certain benefits were really worth it. Maybe I’d decide that the “free” lunch benefit^[2] is nice, but that I’d rather pocket the $75 every two weeks and bring my own lunch from home. Or, maybe U.S. citizens would see exactly how much of their money is going straight to the coffers of Big Brother and realize that smaller government was much more palatable.

Okay, now that I’ve had my little digression, what does any of this have to do with McCain’s health care plan?

As I mentioned, McCain’s proposed tax credits would cover the difference in costs if I chose to purchase my own insurance (and if I chose to invest the difference, I’d be quite a bit ahead). But the amount shown on my pay stub is not the amount my company really pays for me to have health insurance. If I choose to opt out of the company’s health insurance now, I get my $100 per month (minus taxes) back in my pocket, but I’ll never see any of the other money the company has set aside for my health care expenses.

But what if I could see the other money on my stub every week? What if I could see that another $100 a month^[3] was set aside to pay into my health insurance every month? I might complain, but the likelihood that my complain alone would mean anything is nil in this case. But what if McCain’s plan (or a similar one) took lots of people out of the employer-chosen plan? Would our complaints be more likely to be heard if there were five of us? Ten? A Hundred?

Employers should be required to inform employees of all the money that is budgeted for us so we have the right to decide how much our various benefits are costing us. I’m not saying employers should have to offer all benefits a la carte, but informing all employees of how money is spent would give us more information on which we could base decisions when looking for employment or when discussing benefits and salaries with our current employer.

1. In fact, politicians are (quite literally) banking on you seeing it this way — you don’t feel the hurt of the money that doesn’t come directly out of your pocket, so you accept much higher taxes than you would otherwise. That’s why so many politicians are so very, very opposed to the FairTax proposal
2. No, my company doesn’t really offer this
3. I’m estimating this number, but I think it’s a fair guess

As anyone who reads this blog knows, I’m really not a fan of John McCain. Still, I have to say, he’s got the best health care plan of any of the Presidential candidates that’re still in the race.

McCain’s prescription would seek to lure workers away from their company health plans with a $5,000 family tax credit and a promise that, left to their own devices, they would be able to find cheaper insurance that is more tailored to their health-care needs and not tied to a particular job.

Under McCain’s plan, $3.6 trillion worth of tax breaks over a decade that would have gone to businesses for coverage of their employees would be redirected to individuals, regardless of whether they are covered by a company plan.

“Insurance companies could no longer take your business for granted, offering narrow plans with escalating costs,” McCain said. “It would help change the whole dynamic of the current system, putting individuals and families back in charge, and forcing companies to respond with better service at lower cost.”

I’m not a huge fan of the idea of government subsidizing health care in general, but this is the best plan I’ve heard so far, in no small part because it at least minimizes the direct involvement.

• People whose employers don’t currently offer insurance would be able to afford to get it on their own
• It doesn’t hurt the currently insured
• Currently insured individuals would be able to get plans that better suit their needs

Individuals who can’t afford insurance now would be able to do so under McCain’s plan, because the tax credit would take care of the cost. Those who don’t earn enough to pay $5,000 in taxes would get a refund check (I assume) to cover the difference.

Right now, my pay stub shows that I pay about $100 per month on health insurance. A more-or-less equivalent plan purchased on my own would cost me about $230 a month (based on a couple of quotes I got from the web). That’s a difference of $1,560 per year. Given that my $100 is currently tax free, we’ll bump that up to $1,600 a year. McCain’s plan would provide a $5,000 tax credit, which puts me $3,400 to the good. If I saved or invested all of that money, it’d be a good jump on meeting my health plan’s deductible or any other costs that may come up in an emergency. Even if I just had to abandon that $3,400 (that is, if the tax credit only covered the cost of my plan and no more), I’m still breaking even with McCain’s plan. This is much better than any single-payer system, where I am almost guaranteed to be hit with higher taxes that would cost me more than my current plan does.

McCain says that putting individuals and families in charge of their own insurance would force insurance companies to respond with better service at lower cost, and that’s likely true. But a plan that allows me to choose between the plans currently available to individuals without additional cost would be more than welcome. The company I work for is a national company, and while their current health care plan is accepted pretty widely in this area, that hasn’t always been the case. At one point early in my tenure here, the company had a plan that many employees seemed to really like, but there were next-to-no participating doctors in this area at all. The company had chosen the plan because it was the best benefit for the largest number of its employees, but because all employees are different, it completely failed some of us. Giving individuals the power to purchase their own plans (without taking a severe hit in the wallet) is a great idea.

Unfortunately, it seems as though we are pretty much stuck with the idea of government-sponsored health care coverage. If that is the case, I think this plan or one like it may be the best of a whole spectrum of horrible choices.

Yesterday, I mentioned Venomous Kate’s take on dealing with Gas prices. Over at Say Anything, Penguin explains some of the things Bush wants to do to deal with rising gas/energy prices and how Democrats react.

On a slightly, but not really, related topic, I also wanted to comment on a post by SarahK, in which she takes on environmentalists whose motto seems to be “do as I say, not as I do”, but I just haven’t had time. Besides, she says it all better than I could anyway.

One of the few things I remember from my Economics classes in college is that gasoline isn’t like a lot of other products in that the demand for it doesn’t change with its price much, especially not in the short term. Gas prices are getting higher and higher lately, but how many of us are doing anything but whining in response?

Venomous Kate has a slightly unusual take on gas-price whining: