That Was Quick
I ordered a RRA 9mm upper, mag block, buffer, and hammer last week from Adco Firearms. The website said the uppers were backordered, and I asked them to hold the rest of my order until the uppers came in.
The whole ordered arrived today. Coolness. Now I just have to get the rear sight and wait for Oly to make my lower receiver. It's my wife's birthday present, so I'm getting some engraving done on it.
Whither New Orleans?
I've seen recent articles in both Time and U.S. News speculating on the rebuilding of New Orleans. One of the topics discussed is the cost of repairing and levees, and possibly improving them to withstand a Cat V hurricane, even going so far as to say the New Orleans "deserves" such protection.
What I haven't seen is any proposals for how such things would be paid for, except by federal tax dollars, which means taking money from taxpayers who live in Montana, Maine, and other places not New Orleans to protect people who live in New Orleans.
Now, I'm not going to say that Uncle Sam isn't in some part responsible for New Orleans' predicament, since Federal programs to keep the Mississippi River navigable for ocean-going ships have raised the level of the river by keeping it from spreading out through the delta as it normally would. So there should be some federal money, at least if the feds insist on channelizing the river-and doing otherwise would cause major economic disruption.
But that money should have limits-restoring the level of protection to what New Orleans had before. If the citizens of New Orleans want more protection, they should pay for it themselves. But how to do this?
Why not with a publicly owned corporation responsible for the levees? Shareholders would be anyone who owns real estate in New Orleans. The number of shares owned by each person would be determined by how much property they own, with the smallest lot in the city being one share. Shareholders could vote on how much protection they would be willing to pay for. Cost to each shareholder would be on a per share basis, multiplied how far below the normal water level each lot is.
This way, New Orleans would be able to have as much protection as it's willing to pay for, at the minmum cost to the rest of the country.
More Stupidity from Seattle
I've been meaning to get to this for almost two weeks...I'm surprised AnalogKid didn't beat me to it...
Members of Seattle city government seem to be once again demonstrating their complete ignorance of basic economics. Having recently approved an increase in hieght for residential buildings, they are now worried that low and middle income folks will be priced out of the market:
The gap between what it would cost to build housing for those workers downtown -- and what they can afford to pay in rent -- amounts to about $22 a square foot, the study found.
Their solution? Tax those new developments, of course. $10 per square foot according to a proposal by Mayor Greg Nickels, $20 per as proposed by Councilman Peter Steinbrueck.
Now, my degree isn't in economics, but by my reckoning, that means the city
fathers non-gender specific parental figures want to actually increase the gap between what these new residences will cost to build and what low income workers can afford-making the gap between $32 and $42 a square foot.
That's it, raise taxes and make housing even more expensive. No thought of looking into why exactly it costs so much to build housing in Seattle in the first place. No thought of doing things to reduce those costs-things like lowering taxes, or reducing burdensome and costly regulations and red tape. I don't know if Seattle has rent-control (but I'd say it's a good bet), but if they do, I'm sure they wouldn't even think of getting rid of it, and thus encouraging contruction of new rental units instead of condos.
How do people this dumb ignorant actually get elected?