An amazing video about our troops

This video on YouTube shows over 18 million hits. As you watch it, you'll understand why. I especially appreciate the total lack of political overtone and total focus on the humanity of our troops. Watch.....

Go Ann Arbor!!

A recurring theme of this blog is being green. Today's news wires are carrying a story that is very exciting!! It seems that the city of Ann Arbor, Michigan is going to replace all of its street lights with LEDs. As we've discussed previously in this blog, the LED saves a significant amount of electricity (which equals $$$$$) and lasts approximately 10 years to a 2 year life for a regular incandescent bulb.

According to the story, the city expects to recover its costs of installation through energy savings in just 2 years!! This means that the next 8 years of operation (the expected life of the LED) will be money in the taxpayers' pockets. In addition, it will reduce greenhouse gas production in an amount equivalent to taking 400 cars of the road! Where is the downside on this? Why aren't all towns and cities looking at doing this?

Thoughts anyone?

Hillary = less money in your pocket

In an article from the Associated Press, Hillary Clinton is once again discussing raising taxes, but won't do it publicly. Instead, her public answer is quoted to have been, "I don't think I should be negotiating about what I would do as president." I ask you, isn't that the point of a campaign, to tell us what you intend to do as president?!?!

Could it just be that Hillary doesn't want us to know that her plan to "fix" Social Security is to raise our taxes? She apparently privately told a voter that she would leave the current Social Security limit at $97500 of income and then add an additional tax for those who make over $200000. That sounds great except that the tax limit has been raised over the years and it wouldn't take long for the "gap" between $97500 and $200000 would disappear resulting in everyone paying Social Security taxes (14.3%) on all income.

In addition, our income (my wife and myself) would be considered upper class in many parts of the country, but here in the New York metro area (where we happen to have jobs and family, otherwise we would move) we are barely middle class due to the cost of living. Given that, who is Hillary Clinton (or any politician) to say that the "rich" aren't paying their fair share. If she wants to develop a tax based on the relative income based on cost of living in a certain area, then she might be on to something (imagine THAT tax return!). Or.....she could do what was proposed by the Republicans years ago and develop a flat tax.

Thoughts anyone?