How Can I Clean My Windshield so I Can Actually See in the Rain?

NOT that bad

The Interstates do get flexible with their definition of 'north' because of the design and layout of the system:

• Even-numbered Interstates run across the country in east-west lines.
• Odd-numbered Interstates run across the country in north-south lines.
• Interstates are given 1-2 digit numbers only (Ex: I-55, I-94), a 3 digit number indicates a 'branch' route (Ex: I-190).
• An even leading number on a branch (Ex: I-294) indicates a Bypass, the branch will reconnect with the original route at the other end.
• An odd leading number (Ex: I-190) indicates a Spur, this branch does not reconnect to the original route at the other end, and is either a bridge between two different highways, or provides access to a 'feature' on the map, such as an airport, national park, or a large city that does not have an Interstate running through/near it.

Given those rules, I can easily say that to drive from my house, on the North Side of Chicago, to the house where my grandmother lived, in the near southwest suburbs, meant that I had to take the ramp for East I-90, go South on East I-90 until it merged with I-94, take East I-90/94 South through downtown until I could get to the ramp for South I-55, Then go West on South I-55 until I got to the exit ramp that lead to the area where my grandmother lived.

The interstate numbering looks only at the 'broad strokes,' and ignores details just as 'twisting' the route to get around a large traffic barrier (Lake Michigan) and connect with a major city. (I-90 & I-94 both continue west after traveling north through the city, and Chicago is the terminal point for I-55, which turns East to link up with I-90/94.)

The I-190 Spur is an interesting example, since its intent is to link I-90 with O'Hare International Airport (since those are the endpoints of the spur), however, it also crosses the I-294 Bypass and has ramps linking the two route, do it fulfills both uses for a spur at the same time, despite being a rather short spur to begin with.

(As a kid, I used the 'going west on south I-55' monologue as a quick patter routine to confound and impress classmates, especially if they had not learned the 'rules' of Interstate numbering yet.)

(Marking as OT for the rambling 'Cosby rant') (Can we still use that term even though the person is no longer the beloved icon he used to be?

Hmmm. Why does the I94 and I294 head north/south? Odd freeways are n-s and even are e-w.

I know the answer - I'm just giving you a hard time!

Back in the early 90's, I wrote a paper on the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956. It was for my MBA.

Back then, the government did something that was good for the people. Nowdays ...

Nowadays we need to be pushing Congress to plan and fund the next Great Works project.

But what should it be?

• We've already put hydroelectric dams across every river large enough to support one.
• We've already built an Interstate highway System to connect the country coast to coast.
• We've built a National Power Grid, that works well enough on good days, and has cascade failures when things go pear-shaped...

That's it! We need to push for a Smart Grid that can move power more efficiently, can react quickly enough to prevent a failure in one part of the grid from pulling down a neighboring part, and can possibly even 'self heal' from minor disruptions.

Either that, or we can build the National Internet Backbone⁽¹⁾ and provide fiber-to-the-home service to all Americans without having to deal with the conflicts of interest that Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T have as both service providers and content providers.

That's how we've gotten out of Great Depressions/Resessions before, we built something HUGE on the government dime, which meant taxing the 'hoarders' at the top⁽²⁾ to cover the costs.

Notes:

1. We could also call it the Neutral Internet Backbone, since it would be completely Net-Neutral; having no financial connections to content providers, it would treat all content equally, no 'fast lane' or 'slow lane' like the current 'Backbone Guardians' want⁽³⁾.
2. Nothing 'noble' or 'liberal' about it. The poor simply don't have any money for the government to take, so they HAVE to tax the rich to fund the national recovery. It's not like the old days when the rich used their money to fund 'great works' projects of their own, like Carnegie and the public libraries he built all over the country.
3. I wouldn't mind as much if the Guardians would just admit the conflict of interest in owning the Service that delivers the content as well as Content providers. If they split off the Service Provider portion from the Content Provider portion, making the content providers compete fairly with the other content providers on the internet, and having the service providers be neutral in their handling of content, then I wouldn't have as many complaints.

How about a huge water system that would take fresh water from areas that don't need it and deliver it to the southwest, where it's needed. Maybe a huge pipeline? They do it for oil, so why not water? And we could sell the water to cities or farmers, then use the funds to create more pipelines or to pay down our national debt.

Another would be to build large solar plants on unused land. The income from the sale of electricity would offset the cost of operation and the net positive could be used to pay down our debt or build more solar plants. Imagine if it got so big that we no longer used fossil fuel to generate electricity! Huge plus for our economy and the environment - not to mention having more fossil fuels for things we need it for.

How to pay for this? I say we slightly increase taxes on everyone, with the to 10% getting a slightly higher increase and the top 1% getting an even larger increase. It would have to be sold it to the public as a short term tax increase with a sunset and the funds could only be used for the project. We could ask corporate executives volunteer to do the planning. Then have companies bid on the project, with no preferential treatment for select groups of people (women business owners, minorities, etc). Simply based on competence, price and past work history.

I know quite a few people who pay very little in income taxes, due to loopholes in the tax system. Is it fair? Probably not, but tax laws were written to protect the wealthy. My significant other and I had a discussion about the top 1% paying so little in taxes. I explained it to her like this: If our income taxes are $30K this year, but I decided to be patriotic and I didn't use some deductions, so our taxes went to $60K, would you be okay with it?

You know what her answer was!

"You know what her answer was!"

Yes, but I've read journals and posts from the rich-but-not-uber-rich, and they think differently. Because their money comes mainly from investments, if the balance sheet is 10% off from projected values, they call it good enough, if it's only 5% off, they're ecstatic! They don't CARE about a 2% increase in their income taxes, because that gets lost withing the statistical 'noise' of all the other factors affecting their income. They literally cannot SEE the effect taxes has on their income, due to the high volatility of their finances.

Or to scale it down to what we can understand; income taxes on the rich are like a take-a-peny leave-a-peny tray at a car dealership.

It's only the uber-wealthy that care about cutting their own taxes, more out of greed and miserliness than any sense of fiscal responsibility. To them it's all about power, and money is what they use to keep score. They see the world as a giant Monopoly game, and they join in on the tagline "I wanna own it all."

Unfortunately, I don't rub shoulders with the Uber rich. I do business with some very wealthy people (lots of 10% ers and a few 1% ers). A lot of times, the conversation turns to taxes. We feel that much or the money we pay in taxes is wasted. If the government used it more responsibly and there was less fraud, then I don't think we'd be so upset.

Case in point; I was speaking to my business partner and we calculated the amount of taxes we pay. Including all taxes (sales tax, income tax, DMV fees, property taxes, fire taxes, gas taxes, utility taxes, county business taxes, city business taxes, etc), we figured that each of us pays between 65-75% of our gross income in taxes every year. And that's with some pretty good business deductions.

There's something wrong with the picture.

"Case in point; I was speaking to my business partner and we calculated the amount of taxes we pay. Including all taxes (sales tax, income tax, DMV fees, property taxes, fire taxes, gas taxes, utility taxes, county business taxes, city business taxes, etc), we figured that each of us pays between 65-75% of our gross income in taxes every year. And that's with some pretty good business deductions."

First off, some of those things you mention aren't really 'taxes,' gas and utility bills are charging you for the gas and electricity used. Secondly, 75% of the gross income going to taxes, and the company still makes a profit? That's an amazingly successful company.

My biggest complaint about taxes is that it's hard to tell where the money goes. if we had an itemized bill, "Property tax disbursement: 25% to local school district, 10% to 'aid the less fortunate school districts in county' fund, 15% to local FD HQ, 5% to County FD HQ, 10% to local PD HQ, 5% to County Sheriff HQ, 5% to County Board salaries, 5% to County Pension Fund, 20% to graft/corruption" then we could see what our taxes are paying for, but the money just goes unto a 'slush fund' where it's hard to tell what is being spent where, or even who has been 'dipping into the till' to steal $20s.

Illinois is putting a referendum on the ballot this year about a proposed bill that will limit the use of 'transportation taxes,' (gasoline taxes, vehicle taxes, road taxes) to only transportation-related expenses, (road maintenance, highway planning, bridge repair). The radio ads are describing it to the masses as 'improving the roads without raising taxes,' since that is a version they can understand (the bill does not raise taxes, it only locks taxes from one 'silo' into being spent only on things related to that 'silo,' and prevents those taxes from getting slushed into the General Fund).

In conclusion, increased transparency in accounting for the taxes collected and spent would probably alleviate a lot of concerns people have, as we could see where there is 'waste' that can be eliminated by referendum.

I would also like to state that I have no problem with part of my property taxes going to fund the public school in my district, even though I don't have any kids in that school (I have no kids, period). That falls under 'Promoting the General Welfare' as mentioned in the Preamble of the United States Constitution.

Our utility bills have the cost of the item (gas, phone, electricity) and a separate tax - I'm looking at my Uverse bill as I write this.

75% of our gross income (not gross sales). If you speak to successful business owners (those who turn a profit), they'll tell you that they pay 60-75% of their gross income in taxes. Heck, right off the top, we don't pay 7.65% for SS and Medicare. We pay the employer and employee part, which is 15.30%. Granted, it's only for $118,500, but still, that's $18,130.50. State income tax is around 10%. Federal income tax is 35% to 39.6% depending on income. Then there's the AMT! 35% + 10% + 15.3% = 60.3%. Though it's not linear, but add in all the other taxes and it's pretty easy to get to 65%. DMV fees, sales tax, fire tax, utility tax, property tax, payroll tax, gas tax, etc.

Remember that I sit on the Town Council and I work with the county on projects in our area. I see what they spend and how the attitude of "cost is no matter" runs rampant.

Another example: The new fire station they are nearly done building is 2,000 sq feet. You could build a pretty nice house (not including the cost of the land) for $450,000 ($225/sq ft). You could build a high end custom for $800,000 ($400/sq ft). How about $10M? That's what they will wind up paying for the new fire station.

Or our new high school, which is estimated to be over $175M. They spent $13M just for grading! If this were a commercial entity, it wouldn't be close to this much.

If you have a chance, run for your local town council or city hall. You'll be shocked at how much money is wasted - it's our tax money!

"How about $10M? That's what they will wind up paying for the new fire station."

Is that just for the building, or the equipment too?

I also suspect there is more work done on the garage foundation for the station than was done on the one behind my house. I don't park a several ton truck on my little concrete pad. That garage foundation is also bigger than my house's garage, it's probably bigger than my HOUSE'S foundation, and needs to survive for, what, 30-50 years of heavy abuse with minimal maintenance. You don't want the firemen too busy with the building maintenance to go out and put out fires, and as any homeowner knows, a 'pretty nice house' requires almost constant work to remain 'pretty nice.' Home construction and Commercial/Industrial construction are two different animals.

Let's look apples to apples here, what would a 2,000 sq ft truck maintenance shop cost to build?

You don't work with government officials, so you don't get it.

Ask a contractor what quality house you could build for $400/sq ft. I have friends who live in houses of this quality and it's nothing like the tract houses most people live in.

The concrete for the driveway and garage are maybe 8 or 9 inches deep? Stronger concrete mix? Fine, then triple/quadruple the cost of the concrete - $10,000. (normal cost is $2-3K for a house).

If a 2,000 sq foot truck maintenance shop would cost $10M to build, then rent would be $50,000/mo based on a 6% ROI. A 2,000 sq ft truck maintenance shop may cost $4,000-5,000/mo rent. We're off by a factor of 10 here - commercially unfeasible.

Today, we received a report regarding our local lake. They received $1M from the county to repair broken park benches, bathroom facilities (a half dozen 2 stall bathrooms) and patio covers. $100K, I can see, but $1M!

Government buyers are not efficient. Great for businesses to sell to, since the profits are much stronger than regular business.

"Government buyers are not efficient. Great for businesses to sell to, since the profits are much stronger than regular business."

Looks like a case where more government transparency would help. If the City Council provided the itemized bid for public review before accepting, which would include the name of the company submitting the bid (Corporations are not people, and as such they have no 'right to privacy,' especially when they are taking Public money for a Public Works project), then the company would need to balance the expected profit from 'gouging the government,' with the potential loss of future sales to outraged citizens who may refuse to do business with them, and who may demand that the City Council not use that company again.

On the other hand, there are times when local governments receive funding from higher levels, based on previous disbursements from that higher-level fund, and if the local government does not use its full allocation in the fiscal year, then the disbursement for the next year is reduced to match what was used in the previous year. That "Use it or lose it" scenario creates a perverse incentive to 'waste' the money so there is nothing to give back. Under that set of rules, overpaying for park benches this year insures that the funding will not drop next year, when the Field House is scheduled to have its roof replaced.

That's not the case here. There is no City Council involvement. The lake is the county's responsibility and they are the ones who grant the contract. We have no say in the matter.

Here's another one. Tonight we heard that the county approved a 1 mile jogging path for our local park. The cost = $143K! Yes, you heard that right. Only two of us on the Council thought it was excessive - the others were pleased that we are getting a jogging path.

When I got home, I checked the internet and sure enough, a 1 mile jogging path should cost about $20K.

If you have been involved with city/county/state/federal government, you know how bad things really are. And unlike the federal government, our county does not operate on "use or lose". I know the military not only has "use or lose", but if they don't spend the money, it goes back to the Treasury - imagine telling your sponsor that you didn't spend the money you asked for. Your sponsor sees it as money that could've been used for another project, but due to your incompetence, it was sent back to the Treasury. This is not made up - it's 100% true. That's the reason why the federal government spends everything they're allocated. State is different and County is much different. Ditto for Cities.

So we'd be talking about transparency at the County Board, not City Council, but the rest of my argument still applies. Same song and dance, just played in a different key.

If you believe you can outsmart the system, forget it! They have multiple bids for the project. Use your imagination to see who the other bidders are. And why outsiders are never granted a contract. Or why the same contractors win all the contracts.

An even playing field doesn't exist. Maybe someday in the future, but not now.

What's one of the most important things that a government official can do? Be invited to the table.

What's the best way to guarantee you won't be invited to the table? Stir the pot.

So you play the game, so you can be invited to the table. That way you'll be able to speak for you community. Or you can buck the system and you'll be invited to sit at the "outsiders" table and you'll never know how the important decisions are made.

These are the facts of working with government officials.

"So you play the game, so you can be invited to the table. That way you'll be able to speak for you community. Or you can buck the system and you'll be invited to sit at the "outsiders" table and you'll never know how the important decisions are made.

These are the facts of working with government officials."

And yet this country elected a pot-stirring, system-bucking outsider as president, an outsider who lost the popular vote by about 2.1 million votes (at the time of this writing, summary provided by Wikipedia).

Things are changing, it might be time to listen to Bernie Sanders and his OurRevolution movement: Establishment is at an all time low in popularity, time for the Common Man and Woman to run for office, starting with the lower elected offices, like City Council and County Board, the offices that actually do (or are supposed to do) things to benefit the local communities.

We start there, get in, and then fix the system from inside, them move up to higher levels. It's not going to be fast, heck, it'll probably be a multi-generational repair job, but then we've spent generations breaking it slowly.

You may think it's easy, but it's not. The people in power are not going to give in that easily.

If you're up for the challenge, run for your city council, school board or civic association. I've done them all and I'm happy to say that I've been a great help to my community. I've served a total of 14 years (add all the boards I've been on). I've helped make some positive changes and I've helped stop things that would've been bad for our community. I've learned a lot about working with other board members and it's not as easy as you'd think. There are some very smart people on these boards. There are even smarter people as you move up the food chain.

If you haven't walked in my shoes, how can you be critical or give advice on the subject? Unfortunately, you're put in the same box as the others in my community who talk about change, but aren't willing to put some skin in the game.

It may be time to take this conversation to the "breakroom"?

"How about a huge water system that would take fresh water from areas that don't need it and deliver it to the southwest, where it's needed. Maybe a huge pipeline? They do it for oil, so why not water? And we could sell the water to cities or farmers, then use the funds to create more pipelines or to pay down our national debt."

California's been talking for years about sucking the Great Lakes dry to offset their drought (which has been going on for so long, that word doesn't seem to fit anymore, it's better described as a regional climate shift due to overtaxing and depleting the local water table and fossil aquifers). They say they only want Lake Michigan water, but the lakes are connected, take from one, and it affects all. They would destroy the ecosystem of the Northern Midwest and the Mississippi Floodplain and Delta, and the water would be squandered; taken by the almond orchards that are still operating without water rationing, and taken by Nestle to bottle and ship out as overpriced Arrowhead.

It's because of frequent 'requests' like that one that the Great Lakes Charter was signed in 1985, and expanded into the Great Lakes-Saint Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement in 2005.

"Another would be to build large solar plants on unused land. The income from the sale of electricity would offset the cost of operation and the net positive could be used to pay down our debt or build more solar plants. Imagine if it got so big that we no longer used fossil fuel to generate electricity! Huge plus for our economy and the environment - not to mention having more fossil fuels for things we need it for."

This ... this is a good idea, I like where you're going with it. I was going to mention something similar, but I felt I was at the limit of examples and was at the point where more ideas would be taken as rambling.

I don't think our drought is due to anything we've done to the water table.

The reason for our drought is the lack of snow in the Sierra's. We use snow melt from the Sierra's as a huge source for the state. When there's no snowpack in the mountains, the reservoirs will not fill, therefore we continue to draw down.

Last year was a good year and there was plenty of snow in the Sierra's. Down here in So Cal, we didn't get a lot of rain. They said it was an el Nino year, but it was an average year of rainfall.

Draining the Great Lakes doesn't seem possible, because we can't use that much water. Shasta Lake (one of our reservoirs) is 5.6 km3 of water. Lake Michigan is 4,900 km3 of water. Our annual water use (for the state) is around 300M Acre Ft or about 7 Shasta Lakes (40 km3). That's the entire usage for the entire state.