First time I've ever been able to show the replacement word and the error notation in the same brackets.
-Grammar Nazi

digg

First, who spends the time digging through the Congressional Record for this kind of stuff? Congress considers thousands of ideas every year, from the brilliant (health care reform) to the idiotic (Bridges to Nowhere). Most are DOA. Second, this bill would establish a "pilot program" for alternatives to a fuel tax. What's the harm in trying out some different ideas? Third, check opencongress.org and you find that this bill has (OMGWTFBBQ!) been referred to three committees. What a scary threat to our rights!

If you read some of the other comments, you'll see that the problem is in the way medical devices are paid for. Right now, the government approves specific devices rather than providing a cost allowance (perhaps based on the most inexpensive option). I'm not sure why that is, but you can get some idea from the other comments ("I have ADHD, give me an iPhone"). Private insurers follow the lead. I think it's a bit inaccurate to say that a private, for-profit company provides cheaper health care, because here we're comparing Apples (iPhone) to Oranges (the regulated medical device industry). Apple does not make medical devices and their device's utility as a medical device is coincidental. Should medical device policy be changed? For sure, especially when the cost differential is so dramatic. But at the same time, this is not an issue of massive corruption, but of a well-intended policy gone sour.

But wireless networks are DIGITAL. Those 1's and 0's...1010010101010100... oh noes!

That's because unions exist to protect the WORKER, not the BUSINESS. Business wasn't in the habit of providing 8 hour workdays or 40-hour weeks until unions came along.

I think you might want to work your numbers some more. Even with all the amazing efficiency worked in, I'd imagine that a space launch of the solar panels, plus necessary systems for keeping them in stable orbit, will far outstrip the cost of doing earth-based solar PV panels.

From a personal standpoint, I'm sorry you feel overtaxed.

From a political standpoint, I'd say the majority of Americans don't share that perspective, as we've elected a president and Congress who intend to invest in public goods like health care with your/my tax dollars.

From an informational standpoint, as a portion of GDP, total taxes in the U.S. are among the lowest of developed nations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP

So, overall, I'd say you are on the losing side right now, and from the other side, I'd say it sounds a lot like whining.

The bill in Congress could easily establish a federal sales tax that has a pass-through to the relevant state (via whatever formula of residence and nexus they want).

Don't kid yourself that the interstate commerce clause is going to save you from sales taxes on Amazon.

God, you are so wrong it's sad.

In most of the electricity-consuming world, power usage peaks for just a few seconds on the hottest days, when air conditioners are running. It's so important to shave off just a small slice of demand at that time that utilities will pay you to participate in a program where they can switch off your A/C for up to 15 minutes. Xcel Energy's program in the U.S. is called Saver's Switch.

The reason behind these programs is that peaking electricity is so expensive, entire power plants are built just for those few seconds. A networked system of appliances would be a godsend to reducing total infrastructure costs.

The Democratic and Republican parties did submit the required papers by the deadline, but with blanks where the nominee names would be, since neither had been officially nominated. As soon as the conventions were over, both parties submitted amendments to their filings to fill in the names.

According to at least one source I found, this kind of amendment is legal in Pennsylvania (where it happened before), but may not be in Texas.

What's clear is that both major parties did make a good faith effort to comply with the law, but with the dates of the conventions, they were not able to.

So, who's at fault? Texas, for having too early a filing deadline? The major parties, for having late conventions?

I would argue that to take them off the ballot would be the fairest option, in principle, but in practice, it will merely create a major headache for election officials who would then have to tally millions of write-in votes for Obama and McCain.

Prediction: If the court even hears the complaint, they dismiss it because of the implications for the actual election.