Remove this ad.

TigerSly

Total Points: 1
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Landed: 9 years, 8 months ago
Last Seen: 6 years, 2 months ago
I’m very happy to have landed in the Gulch… I believe my following comments might not be well received by others here at Galt’s Gulch, but we live in a democracy. I believe Ayn Rand would not be 100% supportive of the current Republicans and the Tea Party members in government who are absolutely trying to derail America. As an example, look at their stance on one particular urgent legislative issue: they refuse to pass much needed funding for our deteriorating infrastructure -- be it roads, tunnels, railways, other rail transportation systems, etc. In Atlas Shrugged, it was a given that America had the infrastructure to successfully move resources to produce anything which filled unmet economic needs, whether consumers goods or technology to enhance business’s efficiency, and to move passengers. Yes, Dagny Taggart stepped into her brother’s shoes when she realized that he did not possess the vision and fortitude to competitively lead the family business. Atlas Shrugged, published in 1957 was released on Thursday, October 12th – a little more than fifteen months after President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed into law on Friday, June 29th the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956. I am sure Miss Rand applauded the use of tax dollars for this mid-century game changing pro-business utility and what it meant for her salon (e.g.: Allan Greenspan, et al) and fellow gentlekind to move about this great nation. We all know that Miss Rand emigrated from Russia in 1936. For a couple years in the early 1980s I worked in human resources as a salary and wage administrator supporting about 4,000 colleagues at a defense contractor for the US military and a certain ally. The negotiated price for the procured deliverables by the company and the expense to the military forces benefiting was “costs +” – the human and capital cost incurred plus a specified return. This form of agreement kept materiel costs reasonable for the specified deliverables to the military serves protecting America and its allies. Today it seems that contracts are judged by which organization submits the lowest bid because of kicking-the-can-down-the-road behavior now (please excuse the cliché) and for the new millennium. As mention, this country’s infrastructure needs will require billions in funding. It is unprecedented that in the last six years the federal legislative branch authorized eleven separate appropriation bills to fund infrastructure work. How can contractors plan and operate efficiently and effectively when tax-dollars are deployed on a six-month basis? Most construction companies encourage the use of asphalt. Yes it is less expensive than concrete – albeit not in all cases – but the expected lifecycles for the finished highways, roadways, parking lots, tarmac and ancillary road at airfields/airports, etc. are many years less than the lifecycle if concrete was recommended. Concrete simply stands-up better to wear and weather. As a result, future funds from tax paying citizens and business entities are certain only for maintenance, let alone for advancement, from whichever level of government entered into the agreement – far too shortsighted. The Earth’s known natural resources are limited to what Mother Nature took epochs of time to create for gentlekind’s use, especially for products derived from oil and oil itself. Hence it behooves us to use concrete, aggregate, and rebar which are readily abundant locally and with a much smaller carbon footprint. Another observation before I post this profile: As announced on C-Span Tuesday, July 29, 2014 the Senate voted on another short-term funding fix for America’s infrastructure. An amendment is attached to permit companies’ employee retirement plans not to funded currently the plans (called “pension smoothing”) as is now required under ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) which was established on Monday, September 2, 1972. When our founding fathers ratified America’s Constitution – now I am guessing – all appropriation bills were probably about a specific issue without amendments regarding unrelated matters. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act span over 2,400 pages. This is not how laws should be written. It is my opinion that both houses of our legislative branch need another pair of eyes to edit and copyedit the laws before the final votes and the agencies written rules. Though what I am about to give as an example is at the state level it directly applies to all levels of government. When I moved to the Chelsea neighborhood in New York City on January 1, 1982 to work for the parent company of the defense operating unit I mentioned earlier, I was unaware of the rent laws: particularly that the landlord had to provide the rent history of a newly leased apartment. It should not be the landlord’s responsibility. A better system of delivery would be for the rent histories to be generated when one informs the local post office of his/her residence, by registration with the Department of Motor Vehicles, the submission of a Voting Registration form, or by the employer’s payroll roaster. These various entities could be linked to the NYC Rent Stabilization Board. It is time we Americans communicate to our elected officials that we expect a much higher level of performance, without having to litigate after passing and signing laws what words mean in the laws. It seems like our lawmakers have the mastery of the English language equal to what the vast majority of high school graduates possess – which is subpar; let alone excelling at a college-level logic course. I welcome any feedback with goodwill – both positive and not so positive – from objectivists and others who identify with different philosophical groups. Gentlekind regards, Thomas Mark Wessel