Like many active internetters I receive lots of e-mails, usually forwards by my well-intentioned friends, making me aware of some horrible secret or character flaw of some politician or public figger. Now it is an interesting Human trait that we tend to accept or believe those assertions which support our particular conscious/unconscious bias while rejecting or disbelieving those that don't support the bias. I'll get an e-mail about Obama refusing to salute the flag or about Obama being a muslim terrorist or about McCain being a madman or about the U.S. heading down the proverbial path of "decline" like all great "empires" in history. OK...maybe that last one is true. However, lots, if not most, of these assertions-stated-as-fact floated by are not true. And the "average" citizen does not have the time, or interest, in checking it out. And where would one go to check it out. Snopes is ok but not fool-proof. So many, if not most, citizens take the e-mail assertion as fact, or at least semi-fact, and add it to the list of reasons why they are for or agains someone or something. And, many recipients of the e-mail will quickly and purposefully pass the e-mail on to others as if to say..."SEE....I TOLD YOU HE/SHE GAVE BIRTH TO AN ALIEN LIZARD-BABY". Now I don't have the time to check every e-mail assertion out either. And I have been guilty of this same activity...and been embarrassed when called out by a friend who did check it out. So...I am saying...BELIEVE NONE OF WHAT YOU HEAR AND ONLY HALF OF WHAT YOU SEE. Especially during an election cycle.
gotta run.....Boojang got loose................
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Monday, June 16, 2008
More Helpful Government Legislation
It appears that some legislation was recently passed that will greatly help competitive bidding in the government sector. Now when "larger/established" companies bid on, and win, contracts they must bid jointly with a "minority" contractor/bidder. I understand "minority" to be defined by either gender or race/ethnic origin ... or both.
Set-asides are not new. "Minority" advantages in government contracting are not new. More than one company has been structured to take advantage of the system. That's just "playing the game". I don't believe that it necessarily improved the quality of work that was done. In some cases, I believe, it may have cost the taxpayer more. Not because a "minority" owned business cannot be qualified to do the job but, in my opinion, because the system may attract bidders who may not be financially ready to actually handle the contract. If the qualifications for winning the contract are not the same for all those who bid then the taxpayer stands to lose. I understand the history of discrimination .... gender and race/ethnic origin.... However, in my opinion, trying to "make it up" by imposing guidelines like this on bidders does not make for a better contractor or insure that the taxpayers money is being spent wisely. It becomes just another government favoritism program...run at the taxpayers expense... whether they/we like it or not. I don't really want the government saying "We don't have any blue-eyed contractors bidding on this contract. Let's fix it so blue-eyed bidders get extra consideration." [i would only be in favor of that if i had blue eyes] The contracts should be awarded on the merit system. Who can meet the contract guideline in the most affordable and efficient manner. If I am new or small then I will have to work my way up and build a great track record. No discrimination based on gender or race/ethnic origin. Discrimination based on ability to perform. Of course we are asking our government to make these determinations which leaves me a bit uneasy.
Ok....I have worn myself out now... you get the idea .... right?????
Oh.....If the government (we) decide to follow through with the idea of increasing taxes on all those rich people, because they don't really need all that money, to pay for all of the great "give-away" programs that we need badly. What will be do when the "rich" people decide they have had enough and move away? Will we redefine "rich". Approximately 37% of collected income tax dollars come from 3% of our tax-paying population now.
Make the Fair Tax Proposal law.
........just talking Boojang
Set-asides are not new. "Minority" advantages in government contracting are not new. More than one company has been structured to take advantage of the system. That's just "playing the game". I don't believe that it necessarily improved the quality of work that was done. In some cases, I believe, it may have cost the taxpayer more. Not because a "minority" owned business cannot be qualified to do the job but, in my opinion, because the system may attract bidders who may not be financially ready to actually handle the contract. If the qualifications for winning the contract are not the same for all those who bid then the taxpayer stands to lose. I understand the history of discrimination .... gender and race/ethnic origin.... However, in my opinion, trying to "make it up" by imposing guidelines like this on bidders does not make for a better contractor or insure that the taxpayers money is being spent wisely. It becomes just another government favoritism program...run at the taxpayers expense... whether they/we like it or not. I don't really want the government saying "We don't have any blue-eyed contractors bidding on this contract. Let's fix it so blue-eyed bidders get extra consideration." [i would only be in favor of that if i had blue eyes] The contracts should be awarded on the merit system. Who can meet the contract guideline in the most affordable and efficient manner. If I am new or small then I will have to work my way up and build a great track record. No discrimination based on gender or race/ethnic origin. Discrimination based on ability to perform. Of course we are asking our government to make these determinations which leaves me a bit uneasy.
Ok....I have worn myself out now... you get the idea .... right?????
Oh.....If the government (we) decide to follow through with the idea of increasing taxes on all those rich people, because they don't really need all that money, to pay for all of the great "give-away" programs that we need badly. What will be do when the "rich" people decide they have had enough and move away? Will we redefine "rich". Approximately 37% of collected income tax dollars come from 3% of our tax-paying population now.
Make the Fair Tax Proposal law.
........just talking Boojang
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)