The Death of Backyard Invention?

I suppose to some extent we should have surmised that this would happen.  That is, that the process of invention, by and large, becomes more cumbersome and more needing of resources as the inventions made become more complicated.  I could go home tonight and build a new model for a working toilet.  If I wanted to of course.  I don't.  Equally, if I went home tonight, and even if I needed to, never mind wanted to, I could NEVER build the next greatest computer chip.  It is physically impossible.  8, 10, 12 nanometers?  You lose me by a factor of a thousand at least.  You need to be a large corporation, with billions of dollars of equipment to be able to create then next big advances in computer chips.

The same is true for most things today.  All?  Not quite.  But most.  Certainly more so than ever before.  There's really nothing of consequence to the world today that I can improve, alter, build off of, or be inspired by that can lead to the invention of a new, amazing, hi-tech advancement.  Nothing.

So is it the dead of backyard invention?  Are we relegated now to hypotheses and Time Machine / Frankenstein types of literature?  Have we lost the ability to individually create and moved into a more collective, or "hive", humankind?  Is it possible to take an idea today and make something out of it?

For the vast majority of people the answer is an astounding no.  People do not, by and large, have that ability anymore.  We are blinded by the bright light of our current innovations and have not yet been able to fully wrap our heads around them.  Additionally, companies still hold valuable patents/copyrights on inventions that have come out in the past few decades.  Companies have the collective brain power and resources to do what was considered unimaginable just decades ago.  Yet, I fear we are losing something too.

I'll sit here now and then and be struck by amazing ideas.  Some of them could change the world.  Back in the day, with such an idea, you had a better chance, it seems, of being able to do something about it.  You didn't need to mobilize dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of people to get it off the ground.  You could do it yourself.  But science and scientific research is changing.  There will be no DaVinci's or Wright brothers of the future.  Arguably there never were, but for chance.  A hundred thousand people try flight and two succeed.  Whereas today you have a hundred thousand working for the space program worldwide, and they all might eventually succeed at something.  Or they could fail.

There has to be something so simple, so intrinsically plain left that someone can create.  Imagine though, that the billions of minds that thought before you missed it.  You could be the only one to ever have had this idea and decided it was merit-worthy.  After billions of tries already, humankind still hasn't found something so simple?  No wonder we are seeing the death of backyard invention.  Is there that few simple ideas left to invent?

Don't Cut LIHEAP Funding!

US monthly propane Residential price (per gallon):

January 2004: $1.496
January 2007: $1.992
January 2011: $2.782

Increase from January 2004-January 2011: 86%





US monthly heating oil Residential price (per gallon):

January 2004: $1.566
January 2007: $2.369
January 2011: $3.431
Last month: $3.913

Increase from January 2004-January 2011: 119% (Until present: 150%)




US monthly natural gas Residential price (per thousand cubic feet):

January 2004: $9.71
January 2007: $12.17
January 2011: $9.76

Increase from January 2004-January 2011: 0.2%





US monthly electric Residential price (per kWh):

January 2004: $8.24
January 2007: $10.06
January 2011: $10.99

Increase from January 2004-January 2011: 33.4%

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/query/mer_data.asp?table=T09.09


--------------------------

Percent of LIHEAP Households Using Major Types of Heating Fuels, United States, April 2005

Natural gas
60.0%

Electricity
19.0%

Fuel oil
12.0%

Kerosene
2.4%

LPG
5.2%

Other2
1.2%

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/liheap/publications/liheap07rc.pdf

--------------------------


"The National Energy Assistance Directors' Association was set to announce February 9 that 8.9 million households are expected to qualify for financial help this winter, up from 8.3 million last winter."

http://liheap.ncat.org/news/feb11/record.htm

The amount of funding for 2011 is... $5.1 billion

In 2007 LIHEAP provided $2,467,475,108 in funds for 4,925,646 people

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/liheap/publications/liheap07rc.pdf


------------------------------

So onto analysis.... Home heating oil has risen the most over the past six-eight years. It was not triple as I said during the winter... although it is slightly higher than the 150% that it is in the winter during the summer months, of course you use less. Doubling the funding for heating assistance is a good thing and that shouldn't be belittled. However, with the costs of other things also going up, people are increasingly dependent on home heating oil assistance plans.

Funding per person in 2007 was $500.94 per person (dividing the money available by the number accepted to the program that year from above). However, there is overhead on the 2.4+ Billion funded in 2007 as well as assistance given for cooling and other issues... LIHEAP claims to have given an average of $265 per person for heating in 2007 or 53% of the funding available. (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/liheap/publications/liheap07rc.pdf, p.51)


If the same funding model holds true today (and it should), that means that using the same math but on this year's numbers... There is available $573.03 available per person before overhead (et. al.). After overhead and non-heat funding on the current model (47%) you are left with $303.71 per person this year.


NOW.... This is a 14.7% increase in funding over 2007!!


HOWEVER...

1. People using natural gas on LIHEAP (60%) have seen a 19.8% decrease in prices for a net gain of 24.5% in gov't aid.
2. People using electric heat on LIHEAP (19.0%) have seen a 9.245% increase in prices for a net gain of 9.76% in gov't aid.
3. People using propane heat on LIHEAP (5.2%) have seen a 39.66% increase in prices for a net LOSS of 24.96% in gov't aid.
4. People using oil heat on LIHEAP (12%) have seen a 44.83% increase in prices for a net LOSS of 30.13% in gov't aid.


So, data shows that the current rates of coverage for LIHEAP families has gotten better for those using natural gas and heat (79% ofL IHEAP homes). But, it is still lagging for the 17.2% of families that use either propane or oil heat.

Cuts in government aid will shrink the amount of money that each family gets. Some families are doing worse than they were in 2007, some are doing better. Either way, these cuts are going to hurt. Taking into account that food, health care, and so on also costs more than it did in 2007 and that wages are stagnant or have fallen (depending on industry) since then, that unemployment is still very high and a large number of people are out of unemployment insurance, ANY cut in funding for this vital program is detrimental to our LIHEAP Americans. Those who will be hurt most are those that use propane and heating oil. But everyone will still be hurt.

Well this place certainly has changed!

I bet that I am the last person to realize the format change for blogger.  Well, as I mentioned years ago, all hail our google overlords.  At any rate at least they haven't deleted my blog, to their credit.  Although I suppose they never actually delete anyone's.  Regardless and such and another forty dozen phrases people use to mean something they should just say or omit instead of saying unclearly.

Let's not beat a dead horse.  I've been gone for quite a while.  At least the good news is that I am more apt to be back than ever before.  We'll see how well that goes, but here's hoping I suppose.  As I was saying, or at least as I am intending on saying, I had tried too hard to tackle big issues or to wrap things up in neat little packages.  I realized this evening that this isn't my style.  It isn't what is effective for me.  Writing is a tool that helps me relax and it should not be restrained by what others may think, by rules or structure, or anything else for that matter that will inhibit me from expressing myself in a satisfactory manner.  In short, I cared too much for the trees and forgot about the forest.  Without the rewards of the beautiful vistas that I was originally rewarded with, this place lost its meaning to me and became more of a chore than a hobby.  Well, at least now I know the problem, or think I do.  Of course, two weeks from now I could realize it's a completely different issues, but that's fine too.  It's best not to get too worked up with the how and the why when things are starting to work out in the writing category.

Of course, writing has always been part of my life.  I am very expressive in that way.  It provides me with pleasure and relaxation.  Of course I always look to grand and then dump the project when it gets to cumbersome.  At this rate I might use Twitter or something... of course then I'd worry that my hundred odd characters aren't special enough and will logjam my mind with the same pressure to write and my actions with the inability to follow through with it.  Let's hope that doesn't happen again.

So let's let this place be somewhere I can be the person I am.  Not perfect by any means, but happy and content.  Who knows where this might take us?

And, as always,

FlyFreeForever!

Balanced Budget Amendment Hurts Americans- Revise Free Trade Instead

You know, at first the idea of a balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution seems like a good idea, maybe even a cure all great idea that will end our debt issues for good. This is what small government Republicans want you to think. And, consequently, it is completely FALSE.

As near as I can tell, the purpose of this amendment would be to be a budgetary safety net during bad economic times. It would keep spending at or below revenue in times of low revenue.

Those words are key "in times of low revenue". It also needs to be stated that constitutional amendments supersede all laws .

So let us apply it to our federal budget today. We are in a place where revenue is much lower than expenditures. It seems that this kind of amendment would be helpful now right?

Wrong.

In balancing the budget currently, it is clear that cuts need to be made and/or revenue needs to be found. It is a mathematical certainty that to balance the budget (as required by our fictitious amendment) that one or both of these two things need to be done.

Let us start by looking at "raising revenue". In the short term, this can only be accomplished by raising taxes or selling assets. I think we would agree that selling assets is the shortest term solution we can come up with as it is finite in quantity. The United States did this historically with lands in the Western United States for a variety of reasons. But, it really isn't a viable long-term option. We can't make land to sell.

Raising taxes will also raise revenue if done correctly. But, raising taxes on the consumer will actually harm the economy further. We currently have an economic situation in this country where there is plenty of supply of goods and not enough demand for those goods. Taxing the middle and working classes will cause them to have less money to spend, causing the government's revenue to decline in other areas (corporate and small business tax revenue).

Taxes can be raised on the wealthy and on corporations. However we also run the risk of businesses fleeing the country or else sending jobs over seas if it is raised too high. In the short term this is bad, but in the long term it can be good, IF we as a nation revise our import tariffs.

In theory, free trade is the best thing we can have. HOWEVER, the table isn't balanced. So long as foreign nations have the ability to undercut American businesses, free trade agreements are a catastrophic failure. We need a free trade affirmative action plan to balance the tables. We need to raise prices on goods that are imported so that American companies can compete. Detractors will say that this makes things more expensive for Americans. It does. BUT, it also provides them with the quality income that they will use to pay for it by creating higher paying jobs in America. The way it is today, a lot of people can't afford what is imported either. They have no job. There is plenty of supply but no demand.

Getting back to the budget amendment, we have a second option in regards to our hypothetically existent balanced budget amendment, and that is to cut spending. So where do we cut spending exactly? We can end tax subsidies to companies that undercut American producers. That would be a very good idea. We could remove tax loop holes which allow corporations like GE to pay NOTHING in taxes while receiving BILLIONS in federal subsidies. This would help, but it wouldn't solve the entire problem and it wouldn't solve the immediate debt issue.

We need to balance the budget this year (in our hypothetical). We have several major expenditures that we can cut that will solve the remaining budget shortfall. Those include in alphabetical order: disaster aid (FEMA et. al.), education, federal law enforcement agencies (including the CIA, DEA, FBI, and TSA, etc.), Medicaid, Medicare, military spending, Social Security, and other similar sources.

The question is where are we most likely to cut funding? I contend that with our current Congress, funding is most likely to be cut ON SOCIAL PROGRAMS first, leaving a vast majority of federal agencies and military spending completely or essentially intact. I believe that a balanced budget amendment will FORCE GOVERNMENT TO SHRINK.

With a balanced budget amendment kiss the following programs goodbye: federal student loans, heating oil subsidies (for consumers), public school funding, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security payouts, food stamps, welfare funding, national parks, free and reduced school lunch and dozens more.

The wars will continue. Military spending will continue. Federal subsidies of corporations will continue. The American people will bear the brunt of this proposed amendment. WE WILL BE HURT AND CORPORATIONS WILL CONTINUE TO PROFIT.

There are other solutions, as I have mentioned above, we need to create a sort of affirmative action plan for free trade agreements that balances the table for us. This will bring jobs back to this country, bring consumption back to the middle and working classes (as they will have the money to do so again), and the government will return to a budget surplus as tax revenue will soar. With this extra money we can pay off our debts, protect our elderly, children, and under-served, AND leave this nation in a good economic condition for our children and our children's children.