Marc's Musings

I just received a pleasantly appointed piece of mail that, when I opened it, turned out to be yet another scam.

The brightly colored balloons on the outside of the “tear along perforations to open” card did not disguise the fact that there is no “from” address on the outside.

Opening the card a little slip of paper drops out that is mocked up to look like a US Airways boarding pass.

Tellingly, on the reverse side of this I see that UNI Travel is “NOT A TIME SHARE COMPANY”. Well, thank goodness! I see the disclaimer goes on to indicate that, in spite of their brands being splashed all over the inside of the card, “This promotion is not sponsored by, or affiliated with Spirit Airlines, US Airways or Budget Rental Car, but they are major suppliers” (emphasis mine).

The letter itself offers to fill my birthday (which is coming soon if you want to go to my Amazon wishlist and buy my something 🙂 ) with happiness.

This is such a typical scam that I really hope nobody falls for it, which is one reason why I’m posting it here and lampooning it.

On with the lampooning:

Have marketers given up all pretense at making an honest sale nowadays? I mean it seems that everything I look at, from new cars, to banking products to travel arrangements, requires a thorough understanding of that which each industry considers “Standard and customary practices” (“What? You didn’t realize that all these fees are charged in addition to the price we quoted you? Well, that’s just standard in the industry, you should know that.”).

I have to ask, is a criminal background *required* to enter into marketing or is it simply considered a valuable tendency?

I like the part where “Our records also indicate if you respond within 72 hours you will also receive a complimentary 7 day Rent-A-CAR From Budget”, even though their “boarding pass” tells you Budget has nothing to do with this. Besides, *what records* are they talking about?

These people haven’t even realized that we’re using Eastern Daylight time yet… I hope they’re not doing anything that’s time sensitive.

Oh, and I like the fact that, the only way to find out what conditions and restrictions apply to this offer, I’ve got to call them…

The bewildered consumer (me, for one) is always baffled why something like the purchase of a house, which I am likely to do maybe a few times over the course of my mortal existence and each of these events will be separated by many years, has so many implicit and confusing caveats all of which I need to be on the alert for? I’m *going* to take out this loan, you’re *going* to make a small fortune off of me, I’ve already reconciled myself to this reality in seeking out a mortgage so I can have my house *now* rather than save up for 30 years before buying one. Is it really necessary to try to fleece me for all those other dollars while you have me sitting there, stressed out over one of the biggest purchasing decisions of my life. All you inspire is ill will and a complete lack of loyalty toward you on my part which *will* affect my loan decision the next time around.

Anyway, watch out for this miserable attempt to play on your emotions, it’s mean and it’s evil and it tells me that I won’t be doing business with UNI Travel.

One of the biggest problems in America today appears to be the preponderance of baggage that our legal and social systems are forced to support.

What if every law, social agency, tax and other imposition by our government(s) from the Feds right on down to your local city council, had a mandatory sunset of no more than 10 years? Sure, you can sunset things sooner, but never longer.

When the sunset arrived, either the affected agency, law, tax, whatever would either be allowed to slip away – which would be good in most cases, or it would need to be re-evaluated as if it were a new bill. NO RUBBER STAMPING ALLOWED. By the way – all representative voting needs to be available on the internet in a searchable and collatable format so we can take them to task if they don’t take good care to preserve our interests.

“This would waste a lot of time that could otherwise be spent on fruitful endeavors” might be an argument one could make against this, but looking at the legislation and issues that our representatives, at all levels, devote their time to, I somehow think that the less time they have to come up with new ideas, the better off most of us will be.

Winston Churchill once said “If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law.” and he was quite right. When there are so many laws, rules and regulations that nobody, not even those in the legal profession can sort through them, then we need to make do with less of them.

Truly important laws will not take much assessment to reinstate for another 10 year term. Useless, obsolete or otherwise non representative laws will naturally fall by the wayside as legislators realize that there are more important issues to address vying for their valuable time.

It seems very few, if any, government programs are created with a defined end date. There are no criteria by which to judge the efficacy or success of these programs and no means of assessing when they have served their purpose (if they ever did) and are now obsolete. Further there is seldom a mechanism for objectively assessing them mid-course against current realities and ensuring that they continue to be effective as times and circumstances change.

You can call me naïve, but if something is so darned important, then it needs to be maintained at the forefront of our political consciousness and adjusted and amended as time goes by. If it is not that important, why are be burdening ourselves with it?

Yes, this can cause a problem as different camps are in power when reevaluation time arrives, but how different is this than having an entrenched law that was established by whatever camp was in power 20, 30 or 50 years ago?

As for abuses due to the democratic process (also, ungraciously, referred to as “Mob Rule”) well, that’s what the various constitutions are there for. If someone tries to pervert the law or extend the reach of a social program in a way damaging to society or to individuals, it needs to be struck down by our newly unburdened legal system.

Imagine having a tax system that you could understand rather than one that grows year after year with arcane and incomprehensible exceptions, inclusions and calculations? Imagine social programs that are relevant and effective or they are actually removed. Imagine laws that are possible to remember, are applicable to today’s day and age and are thoughtfully revisited on a regular basis.

We know that one of the best governments for our economy is one where one party rules the house of representatives while the other rules the senate. Deadlocked as they are in this situation, the reduction of outflow of new legislation frees up the rest of the country to actually get on with growing and becoming more productive. Imagine your representatives actually performing the service of ensuring that your country’s services, strictures and goals actually were knowable and relevant to you and the rest of the populace.

Reading this story just ticked me off. I believe our public institutions have a higher standard of operations that they need to be held to because A) they are usually monopolies, and B) they operate using public funds. That is, you and I pay for their services regardless of whether or not we benefit directly from them.

Mismanagement of these agencies, be they Federal, State, Municipal or Contracted to any level of government is not acceptable. I believe it is criminal for any of them to operate a deficit budget and that spending more than is budgeted or failing to meet their obligations, financial or charter must be dealt with in the same manner as any private enterprise. Managers – especially those equivalent to VP level or above – must be held liable for the failure of their entity to perform. Just as they enjoy the perks, power and prestige of overseeing such important institutions, so must they bear the responsibility when they – or their employees – do a poor job of it.

In the case of deficit budgets or failure to pay, why not dock the management team on a percentage basis equivalent to the overage? i.e. if an agency runs a deficit equivalent to 10% of their budget, then the management team not only needs to rectify that situation for the next year (if they aren’t arrested as this shouldn’t be legal in the first place) but they also lose 10% of their earnings – salary, bonus, equivalence in pension, equivalence in provided automobile, everything.

Having an open spigot of taxpayer funds to continue to backfill poorly managed institutions is a recipe for disaster. And why are the management teams allowed to continue doing such an obviously poor job?

Of course, the above assumes that we have generally agreed upon accounting practices which, ridiculously in 21st century America, we don’t.
I’m sorry, but our Congress, rather than wringing their hands and worrying about so much trivial legislation as they are wont to do these days, needs to get off their sorry behinds and HIRE some advisers to establish such accounting practices, amend the constitution such that the Federal government needs to balance books and follow those practices. Then they need to put before the states the option (I can’t get myself to agree to the feds forcing this upon the states by fiat) to follow suit. State lawmakers, rather than hosting silly “rain vigils” and other feelgood crap can set about cleaning out their own practices. And so on down the line through to the lowest levels of government.