Here I go again on electric cars and saving gas. Another way to look at this whole thing is to look at the "Total" impact on energy, not just gas. Consider that every thing is made up of energy in one form or another. Further, cost or money is the best way to measure how much energy was consumed in the "Total" process. If you follow this line of thinking, I think you will understand how screwed up our political logic is on the subject.
First take the "Cash for Clunkers" program and compare it to how much affect that it has on total energy use. Under the program someone with a 8 year old car with 80,000 miles on it could trade the old car in on a new one and get a $5,000 rebate. The old car was really worth about $5,000 and the new car had a cost of about $50,000. Now the old car was still good and could have been driven at least another 100,000 miles. Given that the car was only worth $5,000, it would cost only $0.05 per mile for the car capital cost. As I explained above, consider this $0.05 per mile as an energy cost. Now take the new $50,000 cost car that can be driven about 200,000 miles. The capital cost for the new car is $0.25 per mile. This means that the new car consumes 5 times the amount of energy as the old car. The bottom line on energy savings is to drive cars until they fall apart, not trade them in on new cars. I don't know if you have ever looked at energy savings like this, but this is really the right way to calculate total energy cost.
Electric cars are a similar example. All electric cars cost more than standard type cars. Based on the above, this means that they required more energy to produce. If they have any savings during their life, it is never enough to compensate for the higher first energy cost to build them. Do your own calculations on the Volt or Tesla. All of these are losers.
I have never seen an analysis like this one, but I think that you can see that the logic is correct.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
Katrina Revisited
Seems Obama just made a visit to New Orleans five years after the storm Katrina. As you might expect, I have some comments on the situation. This is a theme that I have Blogged on before, but with any universal theme, it is applicable in many different circumstances. The basic theme is that "all rights and responsibilities are individual". This means that there should be no group rights. Everyone should be treated equally under the law no matter what group they do or don't belong too.
This brings me to the situation in New Orleans. Is there a 4th grader in the USA who does not know that New Orleans is prone to hurricanes and flooding? Is there a 4th grader who does not know that much of New Orleans is below sea level and is surrounded by dikes like jolly old Holland? I don't think so. Do you think the people who have lived in New Orleans for the past 300 years understand the area is subject to flooding? They should. My point is that if a hurricane hits New Orleans and floods the place, what does a person in Iowa owe the people of New Orleans? I would think that they all had flood insurance just like people who live in San Francisco should have earth quake insurance. If they chose not to buy flood or earth quake insurance, do I owe them anything. I don't think so.
I was out deer hunting about half a mile from the nearest road when I came upto a stone fence that was all over grown with trees and brush. It was clear that there had been a farm in this spot many years ago. So what happened to the farm? The land was poor and there never should have been a farm there in the first place. Isn't this much like New Orleans? The farmer must have seen the light and moved off the farm many years ago, so why not the people who lived in flood prone areas of New Orleans? Do you feel that you owe this farmer anything because he tried to farm in the wrong area? I don't.
Now this was just one farmer. In the case of New Orleans, there were many families who made the same wrong decision to build and live in the flood prone area. Does the fact that there were more stupid people in New Orleans given this group more rights than the single farmer? I don't think so. What if a single home burns to the ground and at the same point in time 100 other homes in dispersed areas also burn down. Do these people have special rights? What if all the homes are on the same street. Does that make a difference. What if the homes all burn down on the same street, but only at the rate of one per year. Does that give any of them special rights? I don't think so.
One branch of my family started the town of Hall Town in Missouri in about 1835. I went there to check it out and found that most buildings were falling down and the people had mostly moved away. How is Hall Town any different than New Orleans? Just because the town was there at one time does not mean that as things change the town doesn't have to change. Through out history, we have cities large and small that existed for a while and then were abandoned. How is this any different with respect to New Orleans?
I once heard a joke about a farmer who had this old broken down work horse that he kept out in one of his fields. He did it because he felt sorry for the horse and did not what to have to put him down, but one morning he looked out in the field and the horse was dead. The next day, he went out and bought another horse and put him into the field. This is Obama and our government. If we don't change it, then this is what we deserve.
This brings me to the situation in New Orleans. Is there a 4th grader in the USA who does not know that New Orleans is prone to hurricanes and flooding? Is there a 4th grader who does not know that much of New Orleans is below sea level and is surrounded by dikes like jolly old Holland? I don't think so. Do you think the people who have lived in New Orleans for the past 300 years understand the area is subject to flooding? They should. My point is that if a hurricane hits New Orleans and floods the place, what does a person in Iowa owe the people of New Orleans? I would think that they all had flood insurance just like people who live in San Francisco should have earth quake insurance. If they chose not to buy flood or earth quake insurance, do I owe them anything. I don't think so.
I was out deer hunting about half a mile from the nearest road when I came upto a stone fence that was all over grown with trees and brush. It was clear that there had been a farm in this spot many years ago. So what happened to the farm? The land was poor and there never should have been a farm there in the first place. Isn't this much like New Orleans? The farmer must have seen the light and moved off the farm many years ago, so why not the people who lived in flood prone areas of New Orleans? Do you feel that you owe this farmer anything because he tried to farm in the wrong area? I don't.
Now this was just one farmer. In the case of New Orleans, there were many families who made the same wrong decision to build and live in the flood prone area. Does the fact that there were more stupid people in New Orleans given this group more rights than the single farmer? I don't think so. What if a single home burns to the ground and at the same point in time 100 other homes in dispersed areas also burn down. Do these people have special rights? What if all the homes are on the same street. Does that make a difference. What if the homes all burn down on the same street, but only at the rate of one per year. Does that give any of them special rights? I don't think so.
One branch of my family started the town of Hall Town in Missouri in about 1835. I went there to check it out and found that most buildings were falling down and the people had mostly moved away. How is Hall Town any different than New Orleans? Just because the town was there at one time does not mean that as things change the town doesn't have to change. Through out history, we have cities large and small that existed for a while and then were abandoned. How is this any different with respect to New Orleans?
I once heard a joke about a farmer who had this old broken down work horse that he kept out in one of his fields. He did it because he felt sorry for the horse and did not what to have to put him down, but one morning he looked out in the field and the horse was dead. The next day, he went out and bought another horse and put him into the field. This is Obama and our government. If we don't change it, then this is what we deserve.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
The Solution, Chapter # 3
This might not be the best solution, but it is the best that I have been able to come up with. I already covered that we should treat elected officials like part time or temporary employees because that is exactly what they are. Also, the people who they hire who work for them at their pleasure are also part time or temporary employees and should similarly be treated the same. These two groups are ripping off the tax payers. This Blog is along the same line.
Now consider this. These elected officials set their own salary. Is that sick or what? In any other situation except where the person is the owner of the company, this type of conduct would not be tolerated. So why do us tax payers accept it? What our elected officials do is to set the salaries and benefits of the full time regular civil service employees. That I can accept because that is their job. The problem comes in when they get the same or even better benefits package. In the case of the elected officials in Washington DC, they get an even better benefit package than the regular full time government employees. Us tax payers should not put up with this corrupt scheme for a minute. They also set up a smoke screen by giving regular public employees a better package than similar jobs in the private sector. This has the affect of making the elected officials package less bad by comparison. Right now public employees get paid twice what the same job would pay in the private sector and this is before their job was discounted for loss of job risk. To my thinking, full time public jobs should pay no more than about 85% or 90% of what the private sector job would pay. The fact that they are twice means that the public sector is over paid by at least 150%. It is not just the 100% you see reported in the news. We have the same thing with public schools and the pay of our teachers. They should make only 85% or 90% of what a similar private sector job would pay, but that is another Blog.
The point is that government workers at all levels are killing this country and us tax payers. The solution is that we have to make the kinds of changes that I am Blogging about here.
Now consider this. These elected officials set their own salary. Is that sick or what? In any other situation except where the person is the owner of the company, this type of conduct would not be tolerated. So why do us tax payers accept it? What our elected officials do is to set the salaries and benefits of the full time regular civil service employees. That I can accept because that is their job. The problem comes in when they get the same or even better benefits package. In the case of the elected officials in Washington DC, they get an even better benefit package than the regular full time government employees. Us tax payers should not put up with this corrupt scheme for a minute. They also set up a smoke screen by giving regular public employees a better package than similar jobs in the private sector. This has the affect of making the elected officials package less bad by comparison. Right now public employees get paid twice what the same job would pay in the private sector and this is before their job was discounted for loss of job risk. To my thinking, full time public jobs should pay no more than about 85% or 90% of what the private sector job would pay. The fact that they are twice means that the public sector is over paid by at least 150%. It is not just the 100% you see reported in the news. We have the same thing with public schools and the pay of our teachers. They should make only 85% or 90% of what a similar private sector job would pay, but that is another Blog.
The point is that government workers at all levels are killing this country and us tax payers. The solution is that we have to make the kinds of changes that I am Blogging about here.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Prime Rib
You might have noticed by my profile that I am interested in cooking and eating too. I have not had a blog on cooking for a while so I thought that I owed you all one. This is on prime rib roast. When you get a good one, you really appreciate it. The problem is why are some so bad? Most of us have tried to cook one at home for a special occasion and were very disappointed. As both a cook and an engineer, I look at the cooking process from a little different angle. He goes what I think.
First you have to understand basic heat transfer. From the simplest stand point, heat transfer depends of temperature gradients. That is, the difference in temperature from point "A" to point "B". Heat will not travel between "A" and "B" if they are both at the same temperature. You need a difference in temperature to get heat to travel. The second point is that the rate of travel of the heat from point "A" to point "B" is directly proportional to the difference in temperature. As the temperature difference gets greater and greater, the faster the heat travels. That is why your heating bill for you home is higher in winter than summer. The heat loss thru your walls is greater because the temperature on the inside and outside is very large. It can be just the reverse in the summer when you are trying to keep cool. Now that you have the basic idea about heat transfer, let's see how it applies to cooking a prime rib roast.
I am going to explain a couple of cooking examples to show how the above applies. First, let's try cooking in a hot oven of about 400f. The roast starts out at about 60f all the way thru. When it goes into the oven the outer most surface of the roast is quickly heated upto 400f while the center is still at 60f. As time goes by heat is gradually transfer ed to the roast from the outside toward the center. After a short time the outside is still at 400f and a short distance inside the roast, the temperature starts to rise. Let's say that the roast is now at about 300f a half inch inside and still at 60f in the center. It takes a lot of time before the center temperature starts to rise. By the time the center temperature starts to rise, the area a half inch in that was at 300f has gone up to 325f. By the time that the center is upto 140f, the outside layers of the roast are much higher than 140f and climb gradually from 140f at the center to the original 400f on the outside.
What we have here is a roast that has a small rare spot in the center and the rest is all well done. This is the kind of prime rib roast that all know we don't want. The problem is how to get the roast just right?
We all like to have a prime rib roast that is nice and brown on the outside yet rare in the middle. By using our understanding of heat transfer, we can get just what we want and not the first roast above. Notice that soon after we put the roast into the oven, the out side temperature of the roast went to 400f or well done and by the time the center was 140fs, we had over cooked the roast most of the way thru. The only things that we can control in the cooking process are the oven temperature and the time that the roast is in the oven. We can't change the laws of heat transfer, they stay the same no matter what we do. What if we put the roast into an oven that was only 140f? Since the roast started at 60f, we would have heat transfer, but at a much slower rate than with the first roast. Now it is going to take a lot longer to get the center of the roast upto 140f. The fact is that theoretically, the center of the roast will never actually get to 140f. It will gradually get very close, but not theoretically to the 140f temperature. Now I think you are starting to get the idea. Remember, we can only control oven temperature and time in the oven.
After all this, just how do we get the perfect prime rib roast? First, put the roast into a 500f oven until it is well browned on the outside. This will not take too much time and by not taking too much time, the center of the roast will get very little heat. Only the very outside will be well done while most of the center is still raw. Now how do we cook the center? We reduce the oven temperature to about 250f and put the browned roast back into the oven. Now with the outside at 250f and the center at 60f, it is going to take a lot longer to gradually get the center temperature upto 140f. Let's look at the math. In the first case we had an oven temperature of 400f and a roast temperature of 60f. That is a difference of 340f. In this last example we had an oven temperature of only 250f and the same inside temperature of 60f for a difference of 190f. Recall that the rate of heat transfer is proportional to the temperature difference between inside and outside. In this case it is going to take twice as long to cook the roast, but when it is all finished, most of the inside of the roast will be rare. Theoretically, if you used second oven temperature of only 200f and more time in the oven, you could increase the amount of rare roast in the middle.
I think that from this, you should understand why cooking a perfect prime rib roasts takes multiple oven temperatures and different amounts of time at each. Now a second point is the fact that cooking continues after the roast comes out of the oven. I think we all knew this, but did not fully understand why. Now when the roast comes out of the oven, the temperature is "not" the same through out the roast. It is hotter on the out side than at the center. When you take the roast out of the oven, the temperature inside the roast has to even out. The hotter areas get cooler and the cooler areas get hotter. That is why when your thermometer reads 140f on the inside when you take it out that the center turns out to be over cooked at 155f when the roast is served. As a cook, you have to compensate for this fact by when you take the roast out. It you cooked the roast at 400f, you would have to take the roast out earlier, while if you cooked at 200f, you could take the roast out later. It might start to seem complicated, but is not. All you have to do is to follow the laws of heat transfer.
Simple and good eating.
First you have to understand basic heat transfer. From the simplest stand point, heat transfer depends of temperature gradients. That is, the difference in temperature from point "A" to point "B". Heat will not travel between "A" and "B" if they are both at the same temperature. You need a difference in temperature to get heat to travel. The second point is that the rate of travel of the heat from point "A" to point "B" is directly proportional to the difference in temperature. As the temperature difference gets greater and greater, the faster the heat travels. That is why your heating bill for you home is higher in winter than summer. The heat loss thru your walls is greater because the temperature on the inside and outside is very large. It can be just the reverse in the summer when you are trying to keep cool. Now that you have the basic idea about heat transfer, let's see how it applies to cooking a prime rib roast.
I am going to explain a couple of cooking examples to show how the above applies. First, let's try cooking in a hot oven of about 400f. The roast starts out at about 60f all the way thru. When it goes into the oven the outer most surface of the roast is quickly heated upto 400f while the center is still at 60f. As time goes by heat is gradually transfer ed to the roast from the outside toward the center. After a short time the outside is still at 400f and a short distance inside the roast, the temperature starts to rise. Let's say that the roast is now at about 300f a half inch inside and still at 60f in the center. It takes a lot of time before the center temperature starts to rise. By the time the center temperature starts to rise, the area a half inch in that was at 300f has gone up to 325f. By the time that the center is upto 140f, the outside layers of the roast are much higher than 140f and climb gradually from 140f at the center to the original 400f on the outside.
What we have here is a roast that has a small rare spot in the center and the rest is all well done. This is the kind of prime rib roast that all know we don't want. The problem is how to get the roast just right?
We all like to have a prime rib roast that is nice and brown on the outside yet rare in the middle. By using our understanding of heat transfer, we can get just what we want and not the first roast above. Notice that soon after we put the roast into the oven, the out side temperature of the roast went to 400f or well done and by the time the center was 140fs, we had over cooked the roast most of the way thru. The only things that we can control in the cooking process are the oven temperature and the time that the roast is in the oven. We can't change the laws of heat transfer, they stay the same no matter what we do. What if we put the roast into an oven that was only 140f? Since the roast started at 60f, we would have heat transfer, but at a much slower rate than with the first roast. Now it is going to take a lot longer to get the center of the roast upto 140f. The fact is that theoretically, the center of the roast will never actually get to 140f. It will gradually get very close, but not theoretically to the 140f temperature. Now I think you are starting to get the idea. Remember, we can only control oven temperature and time in the oven.
After all this, just how do we get the perfect prime rib roast? First, put the roast into a 500f oven until it is well browned on the outside. This will not take too much time and by not taking too much time, the center of the roast will get very little heat. Only the very outside will be well done while most of the center is still raw. Now how do we cook the center? We reduce the oven temperature to about 250f and put the browned roast back into the oven. Now with the outside at 250f and the center at 60f, it is going to take a lot longer to gradually get the center temperature upto 140f. Let's look at the math. In the first case we had an oven temperature of 400f and a roast temperature of 60f. That is a difference of 340f. In this last example we had an oven temperature of only 250f and the same inside temperature of 60f for a difference of 190f. Recall that the rate of heat transfer is proportional to the temperature difference between inside and outside. In this case it is going to take twice as long to cook the roast, but when it is all finished, most of the inside of the roast will be rare. Theoretically, if you used second oven temperature of only 200f and more time in the oven, you could increase the amount of rare roast in the middle.
I think that from this, you should understand why cooking a perfect prime rib roasts takes multiple oven temperatures and different amounts of time at each. Now a second point is the fact that cooking continues after the roast comes out of the oven. I think we all knew this, but did not fully understand why. Now when the roast comes out of the oven, the temperature is "not" the same through out the roast. It is hotter on the out side than at the center. When you take the roast out of the oven, the temperature inside the roast has to even out. The hotter areas get cooler and the cooler areas get hotter. That is why when your thermometer reads 140f on the inside when you take it out that the center turns out to be over cooked at 155f when the roast is served. As a cook, you have to compensate for this fact by when you take the roast out. It you cooked the roast at 400f, you would have to take the roast out earlier, while if you cooked at 200f, you could take the roast out later. It might start to seem complicated, but is not. All you have to do is to follow the laws of heat transfer.
Simple and good eating.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
The Solution, Chapter #2
How did you like Chapter #1 on how to compensate elected officials? In Chapter #2, I go into the people who serve at the "pleasure" of one of these elected officials. to my way of thinking, these people are really not different from the ones that we elected. They should not expect to be treated like full time employees when they know that they are only temps' and can lose their jobs at anytime for any reason. Are you starting to see how this whole thing works now?
Most of us have had part time jobs at one time or another and know that these jobs do not carry the same kinds of benefits as regular full time jobs. We never expected to be paid by who ever we worked for long after we quit or lost the part time job, so why do these political appointees expect special treatment? Take Obama for example and the staff that looks after his wife. I think she has about 50 or so people who work for her at her pleasure. You can bet that all of these people will be getting paid by us tax payers long after the Obama's are out of office. Do you think that is logical? I don't. These people should be compensated like normal part time employees. When I worked part time, I did not get paid holidays or vacation pay, so why do these government appointees expect to be treated like regular full time employees. As I explained in Chapter #1, all these people should have had some kind of regular job that they came from and could go back too.
I know people at the local political level who held elective offices who are now on the public dime full time in retirement. How could some thing like this happen? Well,it happens all the time at all levels of government. I also know people who had summer jobs in trucking or some thing like that where everyone was in the union except the part time summer help. If this is the case, then why do all these elected or appointed people expect to be in the union and get special benefits?
Let me know what you think about eliminating all these elected or appointed people from continued public financial responsibility? This is a very big deal and it is happening right under our noses and we are not doing anything about it. I have some additional chapters on the subject.
Most of us have had part time jobs at one time or another and know that these jobs do not carry the same kinds of benefits as regular full time jobs. We never expected to be paid by who ever we worked for long after we quit or lost the part time job, so why do these political appointees expect special treatment? Take Obama for example and the staff that looks after his wife. I think she has about 50 or so people who work for her at her pleasure. You can bet that all of these people will be getting paid by us tax payers long after the Obama's are out of office. Do you think that is logical? I don't. These people should be compensated like normal part time employees. When I worked part time, I did not get paid holidays or vacation pay, so why do these government appointees expect to be treated like regular full time employees. As I explained in Chapter #1, all these people should have had some kind of regular job that they came from and could go back too.
I know people at the local political level who held elective offices who are now on the public dime full time in retirement. How could some thing like this happen? Well,it happens all the time at all levels of government. I also know people who had summer jobs in trucking or some thing like that where everyone was in the union except the part time summer help. If this is the case, then why do all these elected or appointed people expect to be in the union and get special benefits?
Let me know what you think about eliminating all these elected or appointed people from continued public financial responsibility? This is a very big deal and it is happening right under our noses and we are not doing anything about it. I have some additional chapters on the subject.
Friday, August 13, 2010
The Solution, Chapter #1
I am back on the air after lightning hit my computer. I still have good stuff and am ready to go. This is the first in a series of ideas on how to get the USA back on track. The ideas are not complicated, but I am sure they will work and get the job done. All will deal with different aspects of public employee compensation including those elected. Once you see the logic of my plans, you will wonder why no one has made these proposals before. They might look radical at first, but hear me thru and I think you will come to agree with me.
First, let's take a look at our elected officials. I am talking about elected officials from all levels of government. These elected officials are not regular workers who hold regular jobs. These are elected positions. They don't have to work 8 hours a day or be at their positions from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. They are elected for a set term and there is no assureance that they will be re-elected. It is only for the one term. Many feel that they won the position much like winning a football game. What they won was the trust of the electorate for them to represent the interests of the people who elected them. They don't have the right to handle the position anyway that they feel. I think you are starting to see that these elected officials are not regular hired workers. They are more like one time consultants.
Here is where I have my first problem with elected officials. They know that they might be tossed out at the next election when they first elected, but for some reason we still have to keep paying them in the form of continued benifits for the rest of their lives. Now why do you really think we owe these one time elected officials any kind of continued pay when we just voted them out of office? That's the problem. If you were to hire a kid down the block to mow your grass for the summer, do you think you still owed him after he stopped mowing your lawn and went off to college? I don't think so and it is the same for these elected officials. It would seem to me that they would have had some kind of regular job before they decided to run for this elected position and could go back to that job when they were voted out of office. Think about the cost to the voters if we turned over our congressmen every two years. Given some get elected when they are only 30, after 30 years we could have as many as 15 collecting from the tax payers at the same time for the same job. It would be costing us more for the benifits of the 15 than for the one person who now held the position. You have to agree that that would be crazy.
Notice also that these same elected official can set their own pay. Where in the world did that idea come from. What if everyone in every job were able to set their own pay? It would be a mess and that is exactly what we have with our elected officials. They set their own pay and we don't do anything about it.
In the case of our federal officials, they exempt themselves from social security in favor of a much better system for themselves. Dave Obey from Wisconsin was in the Congress for over 40 years. He did not have a position, he felt that he had a regular job and should be paid like a regular job. That's is the problem. We should deal with elected officials much like one time consultants. They have a specific thing to do for a specific period and thus should get a single fixed fee for their services. There should be no continuing pay or benifit requirements for the elected official when he is voted out.
We have cases where an elected official is in prison and not in office ans still gets continued pay and benifits. If there was not continuing compensation requirement, then when they went to jail or resigned, any compensation would stop too.
Why don't you rethink all this business about how we compensate elected officials and see if we can come up with a plan that is more logical. I think from what I have shown above, what we are now doing is crazy. I would like to hear your comments.
First, let's take a look at our elected officials. I am talking about elected officials from all levels of government. These elected officials are not regular workers who hold regular jobs. These are elected positions. They don't have to work 8 hours a day or be at their positions from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. They are elected for a set term and there is no assureance that they will be re-elected. It is only for the one term. Many feel that they won the position much like winning a football game. What they won was the trust of the electorate for them to represent the interests of the people who elected them. They don't have the right to handle the position anyway that they feel. I think you are starting to see that these elected officials are not regular hired workers. They are more like one time consultants.
Here is where I have my first problem with elected officials. They know that they might be tossed out at the next election when they first elected, but for some reason we still have to keep paying them in the form of continued benifits for the rest of their lives. Now why do you really think we owe these one time elected officials any kind of continued pay when we just voted them out of office? That's the problem. If you were to hire a kid down the block to mow your grass for the summer, do you think you still owed him after he stopped mowing your lawn and went off to college? I don't think so and it is the same for these elected officials. It would seem to me that they would have had some kind of regular job before they decided to run for this elected position and could go back to that job when they were voted out of office. Think about the cost to the voters if we turned over our congressmen every two years. Given some get elected when they are only 30, after 30 years we could have as many as 15 collecting from the tax payers at the same time for the same job. It would be costing us more for the benifits of the 15 than for the one person who now held the position. You have to agree that that would be crazy.
Notice also that these same elected official can set their own pay. Where in the world did that idea come from. What if everyone in every job were able to set their own pay? It would be a mess and that is exactly what we have with our elected officials. They set their own pay and we don't do anything about it.
In the case of our federal officials, they exempt themselves from social security in favor of a much better system for themselves. Dave Obey from Wisconsin was in the Congress for over 40 years. He did not have a position, he felt that he had a regular job and should be paid like a regular job. That's is the problem. We should deal with elected officials much like one time consultants. They have a specific thing to do for a specific period and thus should get a single fixed fee for their services. There should be no continuing pay or benifit requirements for the elected official when he is voted out.
We have cases where an elected official is in prison and not in office ans still gets continued pay and benifits. If there was not continuing compensation requirement, then when they went to jail or resigned, any compensation would stop too.
Why don't you rethink all this business about how we compensate elected officials and see if we can come up with a plan that is more logical. I think from what I have shown above, what we are now doing is crazy. I would like to hear your comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)