• Jan 6, 2008: Fare are increased for the first time since 2004.  The average increase is about $0.50
• Jun 28, 2009: Bus fares are increased by $0.10 on average
• Feb 28, 2010: Fares are “temporarily increased” by $0.10 on average

There are other fares that were increased but were not included.  Service was also trimmed several times in the last two years.

WMATA, unlike most other subway systems, does not have any dedicated funding from local governments.  Ignoring the fact that they get money from the federal, VA, MD, and DC government every year, the fact is that there is no law saying that these agencies will fund WMATA.  WMATA likes to bring this up every so often to remind people that this is why cuts must be made and fares should increase.

I say bull.

WMATA is what most people call a private-public partnership.  While technically, they are their own “company”, they are still managed by the rules and laws that are passed by the various jurisdictions.  Now, you may be saying the fare increases are not a lot of money.  And in many ways, I’d agree with you.  What this boils down to is transparency.  Is WMATA really strapped for cash?  Is that why they cannot afford to upgrade its oldest 1000-series cars, which were responsible in the June  2009 crash?

WMATA has yet to release their actual expenditures for 2009.  When they do, I will update my spreadsheet.  In the mean time, below, you’ll see the actual expenditures for 2008 in a nifty chart format:

The chart was made in Google Docs.

Anyway, salaries and benefits (the blue) made up 77.6% of their budget.  That’s a lot.  According to the Society of Human Resource Management, the sector with the highest salary to operating expenses percentage is the health care services, coming in at 52%.  Within health care, there are a lot of specialties, many of which command very large salaries.  But most of WMATA’s jobs are not that specialized.

It is my belief and contention that the Amalgamated Transit Union (part of the AFL-CIO, which is pretty much a mafia-like force that controls most of the government) has negotiated rather large salaries for its members at the expense of the safety of the public.  If the graph above does not say it, maybe the following will.

So a couple of days ago, I drafted a letter to WMATA’s Office of the General Counsel.  Even though WMATA isn’t an official government agency, they have something similar to the Freedom of Information Act called the Public Access to Records Policy.  PARP is modeled after the FOIA in many ways, but with a few restrictions.

My request to WMATA for Salaries –

If approved, I will share my findings here on my web site.  What I find sad is that it takes a private citizen to report this, not the Washington Post.  The liberal toilet paper has proven that it either is a willing participant in allowing unions control the government work force or is being bullied in not covering union-defacing news.  But, no matter.  Individual blogs like mine are showing that we have the uncanny ability to uncover news that the mainstream news outlets either refuse or choose ignore.

Norma Rae Webster is a minimum-wage worker in a cotton mill that has taken too much of a toll on the health of her family for her to ignore her Dickensian working conditions. After hearing a speech by New York union organizer Reuben Warshowsky, Norma Rae decides to join the effort to unionize her shop. This causes conflict at home when Norma Rae’s husband Sonny assumes that her activism is a result of a romance between herself and Reuben. Despite the pressure brought to bear by management, Norma Rae successfully orchestrates an election to unionize the factory, resulting in victory for the union and presumably capitulation for the demands. When Reuben first comes to the factory he tries to get all the workers to start a union, but is soon chased out of the small town. Days later, Norma Rae shuts down her machine and stands on top of her work table striking. Soon the whole factory is with her and a union starts.

Back in the day, companies like the one depicted in this movie, abused and mistreated their workers.  In many ways, they were slaves, working for pennies while management lived like kings.  Unions helped correct this wrong by organizing workers against the company.  This was a very good move because it forced companies to do the right thing.  Back then, there was very little justice.

Unions were needed back then to remind owners and managers that the working class deserve better.

But I’m not so sure unions are needed today.

In a fast-moving world, there isn’t a company in the United States that could hid from this kind of mistreatment.  The ones that can hid are usually criminal in nature, but I’m talking about legitimate companies.  Company owners and managers today are looking to do their best for their company as well as their employees.  But today, unions enjoy a power they shouldn’t have gotten in the first place: political clout.

Unions made sense back when information was closely guarded and living standards were low.  They did their patriotic duty to make sure that no one was getting hurt on the job and if someone was hurt, the company would take care of them.  They did their civic duty by encouraging all union members to help out each other in times of need.

Today, all employees, whether they are in a union or not, enjoy workman’s compensation.  All employers are required to pay a federally-mandated minimum wage.  Finally, there are laws on the books now for employers to provide a safe working environment.

So, what exactly do we need unions for now?

Unions today have too much power.  In fact, their ability to fund-raise on behalf of an entire party (Democrats) is mind-blowing.  When unions have the ability to bully a company into either unionizing or having a protest outside their doors, it shows that they are no longer interested in helping their fellow workers.  They’ve become what they sought to fight: a big organization that takes advantage of those less fortunate.

Why are unions heavily invested in the health care bill?  Most union workers get health care either through their company or through the union itself.

Why do unions care if an Eagle Boy Scout cleans up park?

Why do unions want to punish good teachers to reward bad teachers?

Are unions still needed in some sectors of the market?  Probably.  But when unions start doing things that are counter-productive and only care about their own self-interest, they stop being community advocates and become thugs that feel entitled to the world.

For something to be a right, it must be free and cost nothing to have.  For example, the right to free speech costs nothing to exercise.  Well, actually, there are form you fill out and probably a permit fee but the actual cost is very minimal and usually covers administrative costs.  The right to face your accuser does not cost you, the state, or even the accuser anything except time.

I could go on and on but these two examples will suffice.

To say that healthcare is a right is like saying having a TV is a right.  The government doesn’t buy everyone a TV simply because they have the right to a free press.  Healthcare not only costs money but requires people with specific skills.  These skills are learned over several years.  That education is not free.

The best and brightest doctors go to the most prestigious hospitals because they are willing to pay a premium for their knowledge.  Most of these hospitals will take lower-income patients on a case-by-case basis, usually factoring patient income along with total cost of care.

The list goes on and on.  The problem with healthcare as a right is who pays for it.  If we assume that healthcare is paid by taxes, what happens when taxes run out?  All the sudden, something that is a right can no longer be provided.

Right of the press, the right to free speech, the right to not have your property searched…these don’t cost anything.  These are rights that are held because they do not require finite resources.  However, healthcare not only costs money, but costs supplies.

Don’t get me wrong: everyone should have access to healthcare, regardless of who you are, your wealth, your race, or creed.  Access to healthcare should be a right!  Healthcare by itself cannot be a right simply because it is a finite resource.  This is the same reason why having gas in your car is not a right.

Reform needs to happen.  Do insurance companies profit unfairly? Probably.  Do hospitals overcharge? Possibly.  But creating a government healthcare system simply will not change this.  Look at medicare. It’s consistently over-budget, corruption beyond what is reported, and abused beyond measure.

If the government can’t handle the 15% of the population that’s under medicare, how do they expect to cover 100%?

Violence has it’s time and place.  We as a people should only use violence as an absolute last resort.  I completely disagree with the notion that violence is only for “barbaric people” who can’t use words to express their ideas.  Sometimes violence, war, and blood are the only tools left to a society.  They feel so oppressed that their voice is never heard.  These people get labeled as “extremist” by those who oppress them so others can oppress them even more.  Thomas Jefferson once said that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Obama’s favorite president Abraham Lincoln said:

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.

Congressmen all over the country are getting the full brunt of the anger that is brewing in the hearts of America.  And many of these people (myself included) feel completely left out of the conversation.  With Obama calling on his followers to report people who disagree with him to Pelosi calling protesters un-American, you can see why people are getting even more angry.

In an effort to help out my fellow conservatives, I’d like to offer some thoughts and questions you should ask your Congressmen.  Let’s leave the chanting and the angry mob outside the town hall.  If you have the chance to ask your congressmen questions, use the opportunity to ask them the hard questions, questions no one wants to ask.  Questions that the media should be asking but are too scared or too lazy to ask themselves.

Congressmen ultimately answer to you.  Here are some hard questions to ask:

1. When GM and Chrysler were begging for a bailout, Congress reamed them for flying in on corporate private jets.  However, the House recently approved $550 million to upgrade their own personal jets.  Why should the American people approve these private jets for congressmen but not for taxpayer-owned GM?  Furthermore, what will you do to correct this?
2. Obama has consistently said that the health care bill will improve health care.  If this is the case, why has no congressmen agreed to go on the public option?  Will you mandate, and not ask, all congressmen who vote for the bill to use the public option?  Why or why not?
3. Obama has consistently promised that public option health care will give people a choice, and not force people to choose the public option.  However, page 16 (section 102) clearly states otherwise.  Who should we believe? The bill or the President?  If the bill, why haven’t you accused the President of lying to the public and when will you draw up impeachment proceedings like congress did for President Bush?
4. Obama fired Gerald Walpin, a special independent prosecutor, who found fraudulent activity between Obama and a supporter.  Why hasn’t Obama been charged with hindering prosecution, which is a federal felony?
5. Obama has consistently broken many of his campaign promises and looks like he will have to raise taxes on the 95% of the people he said he would protect.  What will you do to prevent this from happening?  Additionally, why hasn’t any democratic congressmen charged Obama with this very fact?  He said “lobbyist will not have a job in this administration” and no less then 24 hours later a lobbyist has a job in his administration.  Why are congressmen, especially democratic congressmen afraid to confront this president when they were not afraid to with the last president?

There have been many reports of congressmen filling the audience with unions who support Obama.  And many of these reports show that these union thugs have become violent toward conservative protesters.  Due to this fact, I am recommending any protester who has a gun to go armed.  You should be prepared to protect yourself.  Since the White House has even encouraged violence, I expect these thugs to be even more violent in the weeks to come.  Remember the rule of self-defense: Do not shoot unless they threaten you.  Virginians: Our state is not a retreat state.  You may stand your ground if you are being threatened.  Do not be afraid of these thugs but at the same time do not be afraid to defend your self.

Please respect all laws in your state when carrying a weapon.

The White House wants people to report “disinformation” to flag@whitehouse.com.  Barack Obama has even said he doesn’t want people who disagree with him to “do a whole lot of talking“.

This is nothing short of a desperate “President” trying to scare his critics into backing down.  But, hey, if he wants to get a whole bunch of e-mails, that’s his business.  I think We the People should report our neighbors for spreading disinformation.  And I say we start with the Obama supporters.

No doubt that this community activist has enlisted a large army of kool-aid drinkers into doing his bidding.  To level the playing field, we should do the same.  In the next week, I’ll be debuting a website where fellow conservatives can report Obama supporters.  Upload pictures of their bumper stickers (including license plates).  Use the Freedom of Information Act in your state to obtain their address, phone number, and any other identifying information.  That information will be publicly displayed for people to see.

Unlike the White House, this list will not be illegal since the information is publicly available.  What people decide to do with the information is not up for the state to decide.

Once I have the website up and running, I’ll make another announcement on this site and on Twitter.

Enter Rep. Jim Moran, who represents me and my district in Northern Virginia.  This guy has never represented any of my views.  His responses are always the party line.  I don’t think this guy even thinks for himself.

I sent the form letter that was available on a website to Rep. Moran.  Here’s his “response”:

Dear Mr. Soh:

Thank you for contacting me to register your opposition to legislation (H.R. 2454) to curb greenhouse gas emissions. I appreciate your comments but regret that we may disagree on this issue.

There is almost complete consensus on the science of climate change. The International Panel on Climate Change states in its recent report that there is a growing body of evidence which demonstrates that increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, due to human emissions, have caused most of the warming observed over the past half century.

Both the spatial patterns and trend of warming can only be explained by the inclusion of human emissions. The rapid increase in global temperatures seen over the past half century could not have been caused by natural factors alone. The warming effect of human emissions is around ten times that of solar variations. I would encourage you to read the statements of the International Panel on Climate Change and the Academies of Science of the 11 largest countries in the world. There is also a good website with YouTube videos that effectively refute some of the more popular claims that global climate change is not occurring or the result of human activity: http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610.

If you accept that humans are the cause of global climate change, then it is hard not to argue that as the largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions on a per capita basis and the second largest by country, the U.S. should take a leadership role in reducing emissions. I believe we also have a moral obligation to consider what cost future generations will bear for our impact on the environment. Concerns about the cost to the economy should be secondary to the welfare of our children and future generations.

The legislation approved by the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday, June 26, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) seeks to reduce greenhouse gases below 80 percent of their 2005 levels by the year 2050. The act achieves this objective through a combination of mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from major sources, a clean renewable energy standard for electricity production, greater energy efficiency, and conservation measures and subsidies to support the development of carbon sequestration technologies. The mandatory reductions are achieved through a cap and trade program that is modeled after the market-based program enacted under the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. This program successfully reduced sulfur dioxide emissions from coal-fired plants that were responsible for acid rain that acidified lakes, destroyed aquatic wildlife and fresh drinking water sources. Within seven years of its implementation, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that compliance costs were 75 percent below those originally predicted by EPA and far below what opponents at the time of its passage claimed. EPA also found that within that seven-year period acid deposition in the eastern United States had declined by as much as 30 percent, resulting in marked improvements in lakes and streams.

There is no doubt that transforming to less carbon intense energy sources will have an impact on the economy. The Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act places the cost at less than 50 cents per family, per day for the first ten years. While there will be economic disruption and job losses, there will also be new jobs and industries created. We currently spend more than $700 billion annually on oil imports. By comparison, the total cost of the war in Iraq is estimated at $2 trillion to $3 trillion when the health care and retirement benefits of returning veterans are included. Bearing the cost of transitioning toward a less carbon-intense society is possible, appropriate and necessary.

There are also significant costs for doing nothing. And, we do not need to wait a generation to measure the impact of inaction. We have already begun to bear these costs. Arid subtropical climate zones have already expanded by about 250 miles, endangering native plant and animal species.  The European heat wave of 2003 is estimated to have killed 35,000 people. In 1998, floods in China adversely affected 24 million. The World Health Organization estimates that as of the year 2000 the annual death toll from climate change had reached more than 150,000.

Looking into the future, extraordinary heat waves, storms and floods will kill many people and harm many others, and this increasing toll of death and destruction will not be limited to developing countries. Tropical diseases will increase their range of infection and exact their toll in human lives. Changing patterns of rainfall and mountain runoff will lead to local water shortages and crop failures in California and the Southwest. Ocean acidification will destroy coral reefs and the chain of sea life they support, endangering a leading food source for up to one-third of humanity. If coastal ice shelves in the Antarctic continue to disintegrate, sea levels will rise several meters in a century. At such a rate, almost half of the world’s great cities will disappear. Large-scale human migrations in response to rising sea levels and other climate-induced stresses will impoverish many people. In general, an increasingly harsh climate will greatly endanger future generations’ life expectancy and diminish everyone’s quality of life. Some warn that mass extinctions of species may occur, leaving a far more desolate planet for our descendants than the world that we inherited.

While there are a number of provisions that cause me concern, this legislation sets in play an ambitious program to transform the way we produce and consume energy and moves us away from the precipice of environmental and ecological disaster. The current debate, which I welcome, is long overdue.

Thank you again for contacting me.

Sincerely,

James P. Moran

There is just so much wrong with these “facts”.  It’s been said that facts should never get in the way of political change.  And you, Mr. Moran, embody that.

Outside of the fact that many of the statements he made are soundbites from various organizations, not one of his sources are acedemic.  Since I’m enrolled in grad school, I did a quick search on scientific journals that contained articles showing global climate change as natural.  I found hundreds of sources — all peer reviewed and referried.

Here is my reply to Mr. Moran:

Mr Moran

I appreciate your reply, but I’m deeply troubled.

First of all, there is no complete consensus on global climate change.  If there was, there would be no scientific debate and there clearly is.  Many, many well-known organizations such as the Meteorological Association as well as renown scientists have shown that there is no causal link between carbon dioxide and global climate change.  Furthermore, data from the NOAA has shown that global temperatures have gone up and down throughout the course of history and have not significantly changed because of carbon emotions.  In fact a new study was released in the Journal of Geophysical Research that shows that that global climate changes are a result of naturally occurring elements such as southern oscillation than human-made carbon dioxide

I’m shocked and appalled that you offer YouTube videos as your evidence to global climate change.  And most of the sources you site are not academic.  In a quick search at my local university, I found numerous academic papers (which are not clouded by political gain) that show that changes in climate are natural.

Mr Moran, if you are using YouTube videos to vote on policy instead of listening to your constituents, you should not be a congressman.

I’m deeply troubled that you are failing to represent my views.  I hoped that you would be a politician that thought critically about all bills, and not simply went along with the party line.  I’ve looked at your voting history and you’ve voted with the party 97% of the time.  This tells me you’re a party candidate and not my candidate.  I’ve asked you to vote on my issues but you have repeatedly let me down.

Your re-election is fast approaching.  If you do not start representing my views soon, I will actively campaign against your re-election.

Sincerely,

Michael Soh

Mr. Moran is up for re-election next year.

On July 1, a new law came into effect that made reading or writing a text message while driving illegal.  According to the statute, this is a secondary offense, meaning that as long as you’re not speeding, driving drunk, or doing anything else that would normally get you pulled over, you can’t be ticketed for reading or writing a text message.  Furthermore, the law is written such that it is next to impossible to enforce.  While it’s illegal to read a text message, it’s not illegal to read a news article on your iPhone.  It’s illegal to “manually enter multiple letters or text in the device as a means of communicating with another person” but nto illegal to look for a song on your iPod.

Even if you got pulled over, ticketed, and proven to have written or read a text message, the fine is only $20 for the first offense and $50 for any subsequent offenses.

Why did the VA assembly waste their time on a law that would do absolutely nothing?  Because it absolves them from doing nothing.  Parents worried that their little snowflakes will get killed by someone text messaging are now glad that there’s a law in place that makes this act illegal.  Nevermind the fact that it’s not going to be enforced.  When these politicians go up for re-election, they have something on their resume that says, “Hey, I care!”

Yeah, but you didn’t care enough to actually protect anyone.

They didn’t take food stamps, or WIC, or anything like that.  They just worked hard to raise my sister and me.  Save as much money as they could, bought a house in the suburbs, and sent us to college.

This is the American dream that I know.  You come from nothing and raise a family.

I don’t understand why people see the government as someone to take care of them.  My parents didn’t have to get help from the government.  Why should anyone else?

Today, we have social security (the biggest Ponzi scheme in the history of the WORLD), medicare, medicaid, Section 8 housing…and now, the government is going to offer healthcare.  Why should this be a government responsibility?

No where in the Constitution does it say that the government is supposed to be a rich uncle who provides everything for you.  People have used the preamble in Section 8 to justify these programs (“Congress shall…provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”, emphasis mine).  This never meant individual welfare.  While the government does have a vested-interest in the health and wellbeing of it’s citizens, it must do so by providing the environment to thrive, not just hand out help.

Allow me to digress a bit to illistrate this point.  Late last week, I attended a neighborhood watch meeting.  A few of the residence in my community came by and heard an officer share what’s going around the neighborhood.  What was interesting was that this was the first time any of us met each other for the first time.  One resident, who lived there since the community was built, said that this was the first time for her to meet me.  (I moved in about a year and a half ago.)

This is very common: people who are neighboors have never met each other.  Only see each other as they pass by.  Only see the need to talk to them because their music is too loud or the grass hasn’t been cut.  Sometimes, they won’t even do that!  To avoid confrontation, many will just call the police and make a complaint.

So instead of walking over and asking kindly as a neighbor to cut the grass, turn down the music, they call the goverernment.  This woman who had lived in the community since it was built said, “It’s a sad reflection of our society.”

I say it’s a sad reflection of ourselves.  We wouldn’t need the government to babysit us if neighbors helped each other eagerly.  We’d help eacher eagerly if we got to know each other personally and not just by an address.  Everyone goes through hard times.  The government should not be the first place someone turns to for help: it should be their neighbors, friends, and family.

If we simply took the time to get to know each other, we wouldn’t need any of these government programs.  If anything, the government would look at our communities and say, “Wow, what can I do to make sure these communities flurish?”

I’d answer, “Absolutely nothing.”

Despite what you’ll hear from either the libs or the conservatives, the case is about the constitutional right of the people amending their own constitution.  It was not about gay marriage.

The court decision to uphold the initiative is the correct one.  The court, ruling 6-1, said:

In a sense, petitioners’ and the attorney general’s complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California Constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it.

This brings integrety to the constitution.  It means that any measure approved by the people would be amended as voted.

Consider the opposite: let’s say that the court ruled that the constition cannot be ammended by the people.  Prop 8 is void.  So what if the LGBT community wanted to pass an amendment saying that marriage is for anyone and everyone?  Because the court ruled that amendments by the people must first be approved by the court, people can say that amendment isn’t really the will of the people, fosters racism, insensitivity, etc.

This was a good decision not because it protects marriage, but because it protects the constitution of California.

But the one thing that American students know more than any other country is how to put a condom on.  They can tell you the difference between an STD and a blister.  They can’t tell you how many amendments the Constitution but they have no problem telling you that having safe sex is better than no sex.

I grew up in the public school system.  They taught me math, science, some grammar, very little history.  But where they didn’t skimp was the sex-ed.  I always thought that public education was free from politics but I realized way too late that I was wrong.

The government has a vested interested in the education of the youth.  Afterall, these are the people who will one day be the leaders of our nation.  But why in the world does little Timmy need to know where his penis goes?!

The reason why abstinence-only sex education doesn’t work is not because of it’s perceived morality.  Frankly, I don’t understand the morality behind it.  Abstinence just makes common sense.  If you don’t have the means to support a baby, then don’t have sex! You can have all the protection in the world.  You can even get a vasectomy but there is still a chance that you can get pregnant.

Teachers that teach abstinence-only teach it like it’s something you don’t really want.  They tell you what sex is, how it “benefits” a relationship, why it’s natural…and then they tell kids, “Oh, but you should only have sex when you’re ready.”

I don’t understand how we allow teenagers who are still understanding who they are and don’t know the full extent of the consequences of their actions to do some stupid things.  Not only do allow them to do stupid things, we actually teach them to do stupid things.  “Sure, go to an unsupervised party.  Stay up all night!  Touch the cornballer!”

I wish more parents today became an active participant in their children’s lives.  Not to the point of becoming a helicopter parent, but enough where they know what’s going on in their kids lives.

The only 100% way of not getting pregnant or getting an STD is by staying abstinent.  Period.