Tax The Bullets

After the senseless tragedy in Aurora, Colorado, the gun control debate is renewed. Perhaps the only distinction is that we’re highly unlikely to see the Obama Administration jump on the traditional Democratic bandwagon on this issue—not SOON, anyway.

After all, it’s an election year—and the certain alienation of a large voting block is something the President cannot withstand in what’s expected to be a tight race.

A guest commentator on MSNBC’c “Morning Joe” had an interesting alternative to traditional gun control this morning, namely:

TAX THE AMMUNITION.

Ok, guns don’t kill people—people do. The tired old argument of the NRA can therefore be further refined:

BULLETS KILL PEOPLE.

The deranged shooter in Colorado was able to purchase, among other things, an assault rifle—completely legally. He also purchased over 6,000 rounds of ammo, much of it on the internet, also completely legally.

The commentator, John Heilemann of New York Magazine, suggested that we drastically increase the tax on ammunition, especially bullets for assault weapons.

While it stretches the bounds of rational thought to assert that the typical American gun owner “needs” an AK-47 to protect himself, the Second Ammendment protects ownership of this high-powered weapon of death.

So, how many bullets do you need to…uh….”protect yourself”?

Will a draconian tax on assault rifle ammo eliminate the threat of wackos shooting at innocent victims in theatres?

No.

Could such a tax be an economic disincentive to choose that particular method of killing?

Perhaps.

Would the perpetrator in Aurora have been able to afford such quantity had there been a 100% (or even higher) tax applied?  Who knows?

 

If the rapid-fire barrage of bullets were reduced to single-action firing, there still would have been death, but were it YOUR son or daughter spared because the danger quotient were reduced, you’d be grateful for the difference.

Maybe a red flag on quantities ordered would…pardon the pun...trigger an alert to the Feds to investigate. Had this safeguard been in place, who knows what might have happened? Maybe the good guys win before the bad guy has a chance to inflict his carnage.

The line-in-the-sand, zero-compromise stance of the National Rifle Association will likely comeback to bite them. Cracks in the armor won’t come from their philosophy of “give an inch, they’ll take a mile”. It’s more likely to come from the increased isolation and irrelevance demonstrated by an organization whose inflexibility on ANY reasonable discussion of limits will eventually doom them.

Keep your guns, Americans, but can we not agree on SOME limit to sheer firepower? Those protecting themselves or hunting and sporting enthusiasts don’t NEED to own an assault rifle. Merely possessing enriched uranium is a federal crime—and the human race is safer as a result. If a specialized handgun could deliver an atomic bomb, would the NRA still fight to protect its open sale to the public?

In their current posture, I think we all know the answer.

And that is pathetic.

 

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: timgrantmoore@gmail.com

Made In China

The bi-partisan flap over the American Olympic uniforms is both amusing and pathetic.

In case you’ve been on vacation and righteously away from TV news and internet exposure, it appears the uniforms that the American Olympic team will wear to the opening and closing ceremonies were manufactured in……OMG…..China!!!

The Ralph Lauren company apparently won the bid from the U.S. Olympic Committee to provide the threads for our team.

You are no doubt aware of the Polo brand----mostly from the snooty ads of spoiled blue-bloods posing in their Polo gear on the decks of their sailboats or on the grounds of their summer homes in the Hamptons. Don’t count on any of the Polo models to be actually SMILING in these ads. No, a smug “I deserve to be in the one percent” smirk  is all you’ll get.

Since the bombshell information on uniforms took Capitol Hill by storm, there have been few smiles from either Democrats or Republicans too, some even going so far as to say we ought to BURN the uniforms and start from scratch.

Please.

Is the news re: the uniforms slightly embarrassing? Yes.

Does it matter in the least? No.

With Congress facing incredibly important issues, it is absurd that the only consensus we can get in this election year is over such a non-starter of zero consequence. Republicans blame President Obama for making it hard for businesses to make things in the good ‘ol USA. Democrats use the issue to blame Republican-backed fat cats for shipping jobs overseas.

Here’s my question:

If it is UNPATRIOTIC to wear uniforms manufactured in another country, is it somehow OK for the US Team to use ANYTHING produced overseas?

With no specific knowledge to rely on, my bet is that it’s highly likely that MUCH of the gear that the U.S. Team is travelling with is made elsewhere. From the soccer balls to the athletic shoes to the spandex suits to you-name-it, a moratorium on imported goods would likely leave our athletes arriving in London nearly naked and without equipment.

But at least they would be patriotic.

And while we’re condemning the U.S. Olympic Committee for this HORRENDOUS error, let’s take inventory of the personal possessions of those who are criticizing, namely the vaulted United States Senators and Congressmen and women who are quick to point the finger.

Again, without benefit of any specific knowledge, I’d bet my last dime that 100% of Congress owns and wears many items produced in other countries. If any of them own an iPhone, an iPod or iPad, they are using devices assembled in China. Horrors!

Can you BELIEVE that a UNITED STATES ELECTED OFFICIAL would betray their country by financially supporting a foreign one?

Enough!

We are living in a GLOBAL ECONOMY. Your Dell laptop is comprised of hundreds of parts either manufactured or assembled in a dozen countries. Get over it.

Jobs disappearing overseas and a shrinking U.S. manufacturing base are real issues that need to be addressed. We need healthy debate on this problem.

What we don’t need are hypocrite politicians posing as patriots.

If you’d like my blog in your inbox, please let me know: timgrantmoore@gmail.com

Scanning The Horizon

I guess it stands to reason that my primary activity—looking for a job—would dominate my blog posts.

Hell, with unemployment at over eight percent and that’s not counting those who have given up, at least there’s potentially an interested audience, right?

In addition, there are A LOT of people who are looking to get out of their present job—some of whom are living vicariously through me—expressing a mixture of jealousy and pity over my present situation!

Jealous because they long for a respite from the crappy jobs they now have ---and pity, knowing that for me, it could be a LONG time before I see anything resembling a paycheck.

The last time I was unemployed was back in 1990. I am astounded by the contrast that exists in looking for work between then and now:

THEN

1)      Virtually all job listings were through the newspaper. I anxiously awaited the arrival of the daily fish wrap to scan for openings.

2)      Application to any opportunities was a matter between you and the post office. A resume and cover letter are prepared—TYPED—and then carefully folded, stamped and mailed. Postage, gasoline and time expended—multiplied by the number of trips you made.

3)      Your method of contact back then was generally via your home telephone. Smart job-seekers usually replaced the silly voicemail greeting on their home phone (“Hi…we’re out drinking naked in the backyard-please leave a message!”) to one that conveyed your businesslike approach (“Hello, this is Tim Moore—please leave a message with your number and I will immediately return your call!”) Children were restricted from answering the phone at all hours.

NOW

1)      Virtually job listings are online. The zillions of websites catering to the unemployed—or those seeking to upgrade their jobs are rife with features that sort, categorize and present the position, the link to the company website and information on the opening. They also have bonus features like resume writing tips, keys to successful interviewing—and will automatically forward job listings to your smartphone.

2)      Application to these opportunities is just a few clicks away. Write a cover letter in WORD (most of it copied and pasted from the last one) and upload your resume and voila! You have entered the applicant pool!

3)      Your contact back is now your cellphone—either for a call or for e-mail!

The net result of this advance in technology is nothing short of the complete liberation of the job seeker.

Where once afraid to leave home for fear of missing a call, today’s jobseeker can apply to everything known to be out there within minutes---and then be free to go about their lives, carrying the lifeline that is their smartphone along with them!

This is huge.

Of course, none of it actually makes that phone RING or your inbox fill up, but going about your daily activities can surely distract you from fixating on the desert wasteland that is today’s job market.

If you’ll excuse me, I have an important tee time to make!

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: timgrantmoore@gmail.com

I’m Supposed To Be Worried, Right?

When I left my job of 21 years as the Operations Manager and Program Director at WHOM and WJBQ, I was the happy recipient of much advice, virtually all of it well intentioned.

Beyond the premise of good intentions, however, the similarities ended. Those of you who have been unemployed in the past or who are now can attest to the sheer volume of “tips” offered by family, friends and former co-workers. They usually fall into one of the three following categories:

1)      Death In The Family- These are the folks who will ONLY offer advice if you bring up the subject. They are uncomfortable around you, not knowing what to say, as if there has been a death in the family. I suppose for some people this is an understandable approach, but not for me. In fact, I have found that kidding about my lack of a job works wonders in loosening everyone up. It’s OK…it really is!

2)      Take It Easy- These are the people who look at unemployment as a vacation, advising the unfortunate slob (in this case, me) to “relax, kick back and enjoy the time off”. Actually applying for work doesn’t usually enter into the conversation.

3)      House On Fire- Related to Death In The Family, these well-meaning folks are all about a full frontal assault on the job market in order to get back into the game ASAP. From giving job leads to contact names to help with resumes and the like, these people are committed to getting you off of the beach.

I love you all! And believe me when I say that I appreciate any and all advice for landing somewhere else.

 My personal approach is really a combination of Take It Easy and House on Fire. I am REALLY enjoying the time off, but am also working simultaneously to “plant the seeds” of future employment.

One thing certainly happens when employment ends---you assess where you are, where you have been—and maybe where you want to go. With a job, the crazy rush of work, family and other obligations made weeks seem like hours and months feel like days.  What did that mean? For me, it meant that many of the important things in life were either not appreciated---or, in some cases, not attended to at all.

This is a mistake I vow not to make going forward. While my former job was all-demanding in terms of being “on call” 24/7/365, I could usually work in family stuff. This, luckily, meant being able to attend school meetings and activities (even during the day) and sports practices and games with my children. Many dads and moms don’t have this luxury---and I am grateful that I did.

However, there were hundreds of times where I was present in body only. There physically, but with a brain totally preoccupied with work. Not optimal.

After some time off, it finally hit me:

I’ve been a damn workaholic all my life.

It all began on Wednesday, December 1, 1971. That was the day I started my first job, delivering the Washington Post in my hometown of D.C. That job was seven days a week, 365 days a year, Christmas, holidays, rain or shine—all starting at about 5am. I worked every single day for nearly five years, until I went off to college.

In addition to school and the paper route, I also work other part-time jobs through high school. In college, I volunteered at the campus radio station at Ohio State, worked  PT at commercial stations in Columbus and in the cafeteria at OSU. I never went on Spring Break to Florida, never took vacation days off---all because I always “had work to do”.

After college, I was working and living at home when my “big break” came—an offer to become Program Director at a brand new radio station—WKSQ in Ellsworth, Maine. That was in 1982. So, with essentially two all-encompassing jobs  in the last 30 years, I realize that life has been one big happy BLUR!

Since May 18^th ( my last day at WHOM and WJBQ), I have been playing golf, doing household chores ignored for years, getting reacquainted with my family and enjoying myself like nobody’s business.

And, yeah, I’ve been applying for work, too.

Knowing that the job market sucks, that radio jobs with humane and reputable employers are far rarer and that the employment “process” is long,  I am settled in for the long haul. I know that any reasonable person should be concerned if not worried, but I am not.

Is it conceit?

Maybe, but I don’t think so. Knowing full well that my next job is likely to NOT be in broadcasting, my resume with 30 years of radio may be scaring some employers off…..that said, I know that I do have a lot to contribute and feel certain that someone, somewhere will recognize it. Irrational, perhaps ,but as  unrealistic as it may be, that’s where my head is at.

I also know from being on the OTHER side of hiring that no response for a week or two can be traumatic to the applicant, but to the hiring manager, it is literally the blink of an eye.

So….I have some laundry and dishes to do. I need to walk the dog and clean the basement and garage. But I will also play golf, revel in my family and take the time to smell the roses.

And after years of NOT doing the last couple enough, I feel it’s high time to catch up! It’s all good—and definitely getting better.

That said, if you hear of a good job, let me know. I AM a workaholic, remember?
:>)

If you’d like my blog in your e-mail, just let me know: timgrantmoore@gmail.com

Get Government Out of Our Lives

Get Government Out of Our Lives

The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the so-called “Obamacare” laws are being attacked by those on the right who claim that it’s just another example of the government eroding your freedoms.

This is true.

It seems, however, that this righteous indignation is not all encompassing. The same folks who deride the incessant intrusion of Uncle Sam into your business are also the first to cry foul if their own precious entitlements are threatened. Be it social security or oil subsidies, there are SOME government handouts that even Republicans can love, no?

Some mandates seem quite reasonable, do they not? For instance, states that require mandatory car insurance don’t inflame these conservatives. Why? Is mandatory health insurance not the same?

The simple fact is that ALL of us use health care, but only the insured are actually paying for it. If you get hit by an uninsured motorist (and you don’t have comprehensive coverage), you are out of luck in getting your car repaired at no cost to you. If that same accident injures a person without health insurance, he or she is not left by the roadside to die. They are transported to the hospital—where---you guessed it---the costs of caring for that individual are borne by everyone who IS paying health insurance premiums.

The healthcare law would have been stronger had there had been a PUBLIC OPTION. This was scuttled for the sake of compromise, but without a government option (to keep prices reasonable), the health insurance companies can truly charge whatever they like.

But I digress.

So, let’s take the side of conservatives—and propose that government get OUT OF OUR LIVES!!!!! The only rule of this game, though, is that you cannot pick and choose which government programs you’d like to survive---to do so would brand you to be the hypocrite (albeit unknowing) that you are. Here goes:

1)      Social Security---It’s the BIG ONE folks! No more government checks to keep Grandma from living on the street. She will now be unable to remain independent—and will be moving in with YOU or will be homeless. You pick.

2)      Medicare/Medicaid---here’s another big one. Who ARE these people anyway? Someone will take care of them…right?

3)      FDA—the long and arduous process of getting SAFE drugs to market is killing jobs. Let’s adopt the Chinese model of letting anyone market anything. This will surely kill people, but not jobs. And with fewer people looking for jobs (after dying from unsafe medicines), the unemployment rate will go down.

4)      EPA—let’s forget for a moment that a Republican (Nixon) gave us this one. Scrap the pesky requirements that companies refrain from poisoning our air and water. The costs associated with protecting our environment are hurting corporate profits. What more reason do we need?

5)      FAA-Forget the airplane inspections and the excessive air traffic control. The resulting fatalities that accrue from unsafe planes or congested skies are merely the cost of doing business.

I could go on and on forever, but you get the idea.

Someday, we will all cease to be afraid of labels and realize that the most efficient AND ethical form of government is neither capitalism nor socialism. It is the hybrid of both.

Social democracy. 

Say it.

Social democracy.

It’s not evil.

It’s essentially what we have now—a partnership between government and free enterprise. Each needs to keep the other in check.

No one advocates for totalitarian government----we know it doesn’t work. From corruption to lack of incentive and sheer inefficiency, communism or socialism has been tried—and the verdict is in. It has failed.

However, just as excessive government is a threat to our freedom, unbridled capitalism (while arguably “efficient”)—has as its hallmark feature the reality of: zero compassion. Its Darwinian approach surely rewards winners, but makes no concessions for the loser—in this case, the most vulnerable in our society. Capitalism doesn’t care about the poor, the infirm, those out of work or in need of job training or a helping hand.

Every single government agency has appeared as the direct result of bad behavior on the part of capitalists. Few fat cats investing their riches would ever think to do so without the safeguards put in place by the SEC, a government agency created in the wake of excessive fraud in the securities and public markets—even these anti-government types know that this is a service to investors. While not perfect by any means, the government is merely trying to stay one step ahead of those whose primary objective is finding loopholes---a nice term for cheating the spirit of the regulation, whatever it is.

The interstate highway system, built in the 1950’s, may be the best example of private/public partnerships to build something that no private entity could or would undertake. The boost to our nation’s economy was across all sectors—and it took a government project to make it work. Horrors!

Healthcare is another sector where government involvement is absolutely necessary. The primary reason is because without someone watching the store, there is no pressure to keep prices down—and the consumer’s choice is either severely limited by geography or circumstances (sudden, expected illness or injury).  No one following a catastrophic health episode is in a position to “shop” for the best deal.

A $100 plastic bedpan (whose true “value” may be $1) causes no worry, because “the insurance company” is picking  up the cost. Unlike shopping for, say, a new car, people don’t generally shop around for a doctor. Thus, the physician has little incentive to keep fees low. In fact, the insurance company’s nebulous “ceiling” for appropriate charges for each conceivable service (ever on the rise) is the sole consideration.  A lack of competition and inability to move from insurance company to insurance company (due to employer’s choice of provider or pre-existing conditions or both) means that the carriers have free reign to jack up premiums.

Which of course, they do, with impugnity.

That’s why a public option makes so much sense. Insurance companies need to make money. It’s not in the country’s best interest to squeeze them so hard that they exit the system. If that happens, we truly do have socialized medicine—not optimal.

Here’s what should happen:

1)      A panel of industry experts settles on a “fair” rate of return for insurance companies. It may be 10%, it may be 20%. A level of ROI that would satisfy any shareholder. Add a percentage or two above that—and we have competitive wiggle room. Incentive for staying in the game and incentive to deliver efficiencies to the marketplace.

2)      The public option is established with costs that would be above this level. This way, the U.S. Government makes itself intentionally non-competitive, but serves the role of insuring against price gouging. Private insurers cannot raise rates above the government levels without losing their customer base. That’s why building in a fair rate of return makes it attractive to be competitive.

3)      The public “shops” for coverage, with Uncle Sam acting merely as a safety net and option of last resort. As the highest cost provider, their role becomes one of “watchdog” rather than that of “provider”

Maybe someone more learned than I can shoot holes though this, but I see no reason why it wouldn’t work. Fair prices for services, incentives for insurers to stay in business and a mandated government threshold that discourages participation in the federal program.

We cannot “opt out” of healthcare---our society demands it be provided, no matter what your means. Why, then, do conservatives argue for freedom of choice to carry or not carry health insurance?

The system described above would represent the social democracy model at its best: providing a safety net while encouraging competition and discouraging price gouging.

But maybe it cannot be implemented because it makes too much sense.

It’s too rational to be embraced by politicians on either side of the spectrum. That’s because the ends of the spectrum are all that remains. There is no one left in the middle, where reasonable people can compromise and “progress” isn’t a dirty word.

If you would like to receive this blog, just let me know—NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS!!!!!

timgrantmoore@gmail.com

A New Beginning

Sorry to be so remiss in posting blogs…the last one being April 19^th

A lot has changed in that time, not the least of which is my personal employment situation. After 21 years at 94.9 WHOM and WJBQ(Q97.9), I have left what used to be for me a dream job. Over the past half year however, it became increasingly difficult to sustain a pace that left little time for family or what could be called “a life”. In short, it was simply time to do something else.

I appreciate all of the calls and e-mails—incredible support from friends, family and colleagues. I love you all!

And while I can’t promise to return to almost daily blogging, I do plan to post from time to time. Now in my seventh week of unemployment, it’s not because I don’t have the time!

So I will take a stab at posting, with the only differences being the Blog title (94.9 WHOM is out!) and my new e-mail address:

timgrantmoore@gmail.com

Maybe I’m too dumb to be worried about the future, but the last six weeks have been nothing short of a blast for me. Who knew that unemployment could be so much fun? Nevertheless, I’m ready for the next adventure, be it in broadcasting or perhaps something completely different.  If you hear of anything job-wise, please let me know!

Onward!!!