According to the NPP, Taxpayers in Florida will pay $565.9 million for proposed ballistic missile defense in FY2010.

For that same money, Florida could have provided:

9,040 Music and Arts Teachers for One Year
OR 129,412 Scholarships for University Students for One Year
OR 101,968 Students receiving Pell Grants of $5550
OR 4,174 Affordable Housing Units
OR 312,781 Children with Health Care for One Year
OR 77,217 Head Start Places for Children for One Year
OR 9,649 Elementary School Teachers for One Year
OR 397,999 Homes with Renewable Electricity for One Year
OR 199,677 People with Health Care for One Year
OR 13,036 Public Safety Officers for One year

Now, Imagine if only 10% were retained by Florida for it’s citizens:
Florida would keep $56.59 million in FY2010.
For that same money, Florida could provide:
904 Music and Arts Teachers for One Year

OR 12,941 Scholarships for University Students for One Year

OR 10,197 Students receiving Pell Grants of $5550

OR 417 Affordable Housing Units

OR 31,278 Children with Health Care for One Year

OR 7,721 Head Start Places for Children for One Year

OR 965 Elementary School Teachers for One Year

OR 39,800 Homes with Renewable Electricity for One Year

OR 19,968 People with Health Care for One Year

OR 1,304 Public Safety Officers for One year

THAT IS A LOT OF NEW JOBS!

Find out about your State, Congressional District, or Community.  When you look at our tax money at use in this way, it sure does seem that a 10% cut in just one area could made a world of difference for ALL our communities!

Yesterday I posted my opinion on where the Comcast decision would take consumers on the Internet – based on my past experience,  watching the FCC’s decisions over the last year,  and knowing (thanks to past experience) that the “stars were aligning” for the Big Telecoms to gain a monopolistic edge over the consumer’s use of the Internet.  Ultimately, this would reverse the “affordability” of its use at a time when Americans can least likely afford the additional costs.

Today, the Washington Post adds to my concerns of yesterday about how the ruling might affect the Internet: http://bit.ly/ComcastRulingSpeculation and consumers in the near term.  One thing I disagree with in this article is their correction remark where they say that ISPs cannot choose to throttle or block based on “type” of service.  To a degree that is correct, but to a larger degree what the ISP is able to do is block ports that types of traffic specifically use. For instance, VoIP uses specific ports to transmit it’s traffic.  If those ports are blocked and filtered, it is true that an ISP could exclude Skype, Vonage and other VoIP provider’s service, while at the same time, permitting the ISP’s choice of providers (who are paying their way) or simply allow only their own offering.

My post on Facebook yesterday was a warning, a ‘shot over the bow’ from a former “last mile provider”, or “Local LEC” as they called us small competitive ISPs who resold major carrier lines using our own routers and created unique special services.  Those days were great – we were the R&D for the ‘big boys’ in the ISP world.  If we succeeded, they copied.  Eventally they shut us out by lobbying the FCC hard and long to overturn the original ruling that allowed us to co-op their lines at wholesale rates.  This Comcast lawsuit, and the Appeals Court ruling, are just another “nail in the coffin” for that kind of growth and ingenuity.  It also does not bode well for the Consumer who will soon find themselves being nickled and dimed for eveything they want to do online…or worse simply being told “sorry, we don’t support that”.

This is not a “property rights” ruling, it’s a ruling that creates a future monopoly of the Internet by large ISPs, (think MaBell and the phone industry before it was broken up and prices were regulated), as they slowly and almost silently slink through the night, negating any gains that the consumer achieved in the “early days” of the Internet prior to 2006.  I sincerely hope that the FCC works fast to try to stem this tide.

Choosing a beverage can be a complicated decision.  In this economy, every decision is complicated!  You need to squeeze every benefit you can from every penny you spend.  This got me thinking about what is in my fridge to drink.  Really it was based on a comment that was made earlier in the week about not having enough milk on hand.  I countered the complaint with “milk is too expensive!”.

I am a firm believer that food = fuel, and that health care starts in my own kitchen and in what we put in our mouths.

Unfortunately, as firmly as I believe that, I am like everyone else who succumbs to packaged foods and fast meals, and I have for years.

Something got me thinking about that this morning.  I was trying to figure out WHY I was always giving in…and I realized that it was just EASY. Too easy, in fact.

Growing up as a kid, my parents worked every day and Saturday was our ‘chores day’.  We ate out occasionally – and by that I mean once or twice a month.  There was no McDonalds in my home town (circa 1960- 1973).  The only “fast food” were a few burger joints in the 15 mile radius that actually cooked REAL meat on a grill. Stopping at a place like that was a major treat – usually reserved for a summer night, after one of my little brother’s “away” baseball games.  Otherwise, we only went out for a “fancy” dinner on Easter Sunday.  I didn’t know how lucky I really had it back then.

That is what got me thinking this morning.  I have fallen prey to buying a couple 2-litre bottles of soda when I shop (usually amounting to 4 a week) as an alternate beverage to the standard glass of water in our house.  It seemed cheaper than, say, an extra gallon of milk.

Today, I decided  to really VERIFY that was true.  So, while making a speedy run to the store this morning, I first checked out the prices of other things I tend to buy for my family to drink other than the water I push continously with each meal.

The soda aisle:  my experiment today proves that this aisle can, single-handedly, rob us blind – both financially over time, and nutritionally.

What I discovered this morning at my favorite store was:

2 litre bottles of soda today were priced at $1.79 (brand named).

Milk was priced at $3.19 a gallon.

I don’t know about your family, but if I am going to buy soda, I want the name brand.  If I want Coke, then “cola” will not do. $1.79 for a 2-litre bottle seems like highway robbery to me for a bottle of water and sugar mixed with chemicals.

One 2-litre bottle of soda = approximately 2 quarts.

Thus, two 2-litre bottles of soda = a little over a gallon.

$1.79 per 2-litre of soda x 2 bottles = $3.58

I gallon of milk = $3.19

Value for my dollar:  Sugar and water with zero nutrients  vs. calcium and protien and lots of nutrients?    NO CONTEST!

From now on, if we crave a soda, we will have to go buy one from the $1 menu and enjoy it like fine champagne. My house will no longer include soda and my  family is getting milk, water, real fruit juice (I squeeze myself) or ice tea (I brew myself)  for their choice.  Yeah, it takes work on my part, but then so does scheduling dental and doctors visits and driving to them!

Hey Pete – YOU WIN!

Next up:  COMPLETE elimination of “packaged foods” from my house.  THIS should be interesting – and it seems a daunting task, so check back with me the next 6 successive Fridays!

Located throughout the United States – no restrictions – food stamps accepted. Restaurant Quality Food!!

Click the banner to ORDER & PAY ON OR BEFORE 2/18/10 for pick up at end of Feb. Buy online or in person, pick up locations throughout the U.S.