Taxing Subjects and The Last Drip

OK…this is really politically incorrect. But, I agree.

Americans drink and Americans drive, and sometime they do both in the same evening. This can cause problems, although in the vast majority of instances it doesn't. That's why it's not against the law to drink and drive. It is against the law to drink too much and drive, as it should be. In other words, it's OK to drink and drive up to a point. The public policy debate centers on where that point is defined under the law.

Just a small part of a reasoned rebuttal to a hare-brained idea, to wit: Colorado Rep. Joel Judd’s (D-Denver), proposal to “…pull your license for five years for a first DUI offense and 20 years for a second - even if there were no damage or injuries involved.” Aside from rejecting Rep. Judd’s proposed bill the author discusses how the gubmint measures impairment:

It used to be set at a blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.10 percent. Under political pressure from groups like MADD, the level was tightened to 0.08. Single-minded zealots, like MADD, would like to tighten the standard even more. (In Sweden, it's 0.02.) They argue that, "Even if it would save only one life, wouldn't it be worth it?" The rational answer to that question is, "not necessarily." There would be no end to paranoid, risk-averse, nannyist control of your life if that were the only criterion for any law or public policy.

I think the 0.10 percent is a reasonable standard. The wiki, for what it’s worth, defines a 0.10 BAC standard in this manner:

Number of drinks: 5… BAC: .10 -.15… Effect: Person obviously intoxicated, delirium.

And I have a problem with that, because that rather loose definition doesn’t specify (1) Five drinks over what period of time? (2) Five drinks consumed by a 225 pound male, or a 110 pound woman? And (3) the variance between .10 and .15 is huge, and “delirium” as a result of five drinks seems a bit hyperbolic! My objections to the wiki’s definitions aside, I still think 0.10 is reasonable.

Like the author of the Rocky Mountain News article, I’m not advocating drunk-driving. I’m simply saying there’s no rational reason to make a felon out of me if I’ve had two glasses of wine with dinner and a drink after… over, say, a three hour period of time…and then drive home. I’m not impaired at that level of consumption. And most other folks aren’t, either. If you “blow” 0.10 under those circumstances (making a DUI conviction technically feasible), should you lose your license for five years, assuming it’s a first offense? I think not. (I don’t really know if my example—two glasses of wine and a beer—would result in a 0.10 BAC; I’m assuming.)

Just sayin’.

Here’s an article worth saving…or at least the links herein are worth noting, especially if you’re in the job market: How Much Should You Be Paid? There are also a few fun facts:

PayScale, which gets about a third of the traffic that Salary.com does, says it has information on jobs not usually found in corporate salary surveys like pornographic film actor (average salary: $63,275), rabbi (average salary: $98,610) and crossing guard (average hourly wage: $9.21), but so far no chick sexers, mimes or bloggers are in its roster. “We don’t get many boiler makers, but we get the jobs that are out there in volume,” Mr. Giordano said.

Hmmm. The fringe benefits in at least one of those “jobs not usually found in corporate salary surveys” are considerable. But then, so are the risks. But I digress.

I know I left a considerable amount of money on the table when I took my first job after I got out of the Air Force. I also know it took me damned near five years to recover. When you start low, you remain behind the power curve, no matter how many raises you get. I only wish there had been web sites like Salary.com when I went looking for my first job out of the military.

Speaking of money…here’s an interesting article on the Alternative Minimum Tax, which is gonna start hitting a lot of folks in the very near future, unless Congress does something about it.

If April 15 looms before you like a bad dream, we offer this troubling insight – next year may be a full-blown nightmare. That is, unless Congress kills the alternative minimum tax.

This insidious tax hike will slap an average $3,000 onto the bills of 23.4 million mostly middle-class families this year. In 2006, it nipped just 3.5 million taxpayers, because lawmakers temporarily raised an exemption.

But like a zombie, the tax is back, lurching toward the middle class to reverse the Bush tax cuts. And this levy loves children: It kicks in at $52,000 for couples with five kids. That's just a notch above San Diego's median income of $46,000, by the way. Childless couples escape the tax until their income reaches $75,000.

If this seems unjust, blame the stale Democratic war on the “rich.”

The article goes on to say it’s ironic that the current Democratic-controlled Congress are the ones who will have to do something to relieve Americans, middle-class Americans, of this egregious and unparalleled-in-the-Western-World tax. And, as one might suspect, the editors aren’t hopeful that change will actually happen.

Which reminds me: I gotta start thinking about taxes. April 15^th happens next month. Aiiiiieeee!

Today’s Pic: Another view of that oh-so-fascinating drip (to me, anyway, but as all y’all should know by now: I’m easily amused). This pic is 100% resolution but considerably cropped. I told you I took 17 pictures of this thing. But this pic will be the last one I’ll post. Aren’t you glad?

Click for larger, of course.