August 14th marks the 80th anniversary of the signing of the Social Security Act by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1935. The program has done much to alleviate poverty among the elderly. Unfortunately, the system itself is showing its age. The Old Age and Survivors Insurance program (OASI, retirement benefits) is now running cash deficits as the baby boomers are retiring. The Disability Insurance program (DI) has been running deficits for several years, and is about to exhaust its trust fund. The recently released Trustees Report shows that only 93% of current OASI costs are covered by tax revenue, and that when the OASI trust fund runs out in 2034, benefits would have to be cut by more than 20% from projected levels. Longer term, OASI has a funding gap of four percent of payroll, meaning that would require more than a four percentage point rise in the payroll tax to close the funding gap over the next 75 years, or benefits would have to be reduced below promised levels by 27% by 2090.
The system’s ills have been driven in part by demographics, as the number of workers per retiree has been falling for decades. When the system was young, there were many workers paying into the system for each person drawing benefits. For example, there were 16.5 workers per OASDI beneficiary (retired and disabled workers combined) in 1950, as if each suburban block was supporting one retiree. Today, there are only 2.8 workers per OASDI beneficiary. By 2060, the ratio will be only 2 to 1, as if every two worker couple will be supporting someone’s grandmother in their attic.
The demographic challenge would be manageable except for the System’s formula for paying benefits. Currently, a worker’s lifetime earnings are averaged, after adjusting for wage growth, and a benefit formula is applied. The benefit formula, which sets the benefit a worker gets upon retirement, keeps benefits growing without limit over time in line with average wages (wage indexing). Over time, wages generally rise in real terms, that is, faster than prices. Under the current formula, benefits will rise in real terms too, to ever higher real levels. As workers earn more over the decades, but there are relatively fewer of them, it will impossible for the system to make ends meet. The benefit formula has put benefits on autopilot, with a course set for a collision with the demographic mountain range ahead.
Table 1, excerpted from a table in the Social Security 2015 OASDI Trustees Report, shows the projected growth in real retirement benefits under current law. These numbers are after inflation. Wage indexing of the benefit formula, coupled with a projected increase in average real wages by 2090, will send real benefits soaring by about 150 percent, to 2.5 times their current levels. The benefits would be fifty percent more for married couples getting a spousal benefit, and twice the benefit for a two-worker married couple each earning the illustrated levels.
Thus, in 2090, a single average income earner would receive the equivalent of $47,927 in annual benefits in 2015 dollars, a median income couple with the 50% spousal benefit would receive $71,668 ($47,927 with an extra 50% spousal benefit), and a two worker median income couple would receive $95,584 ($47,927 each). Upper income couples with two workers could be getting annual benefits equal to $155,444 ($77,722 each) in 2015 dollars. Surely, some trimming of benefit growth could be done without injuring future cohorts.
In the absence of reform, funding these expanding benefits will require a significant increase in the payroll tax rate by 4.28 percentage points for OASI by 2090, or by 4.69 percentage points to cover DI as well (over and above the 12.4 percent already charged today for the retirement and disability programs), which would be a major blow to low income workers.
An alternative to raising the payroll tax or finding other sources of federal funding for the system is to trim the expansion of future benefits. As the table indicates, there is substantial room to trim benefit growth while still allowing for a large rise in future retirees’ incomes. If phased in gradually, slowing the growth in promised benefits is the best outcome for people who must work and retire over the next three generations.
One convenient, gradual method is to switch to price indexing the adjustable elements of the benefit formula and the earnings records of future retirees. Under wage indexing, the formula for calculating initial retirement amount is adjusted each year in line with the increase in average wages. Under price indexing, it would be adjusted according to the rise in the consumer price index. A worker’s earnings history, currently adjusted for wage growth from the date earned to age 60, would continue to be indexed for wage growth up to the date of conversion to the new method, and would be adjusted for prices thereafter. In the tables, I assume an effective switch in 2023.
Normally, wages rise faster than prices, at least over extended periods. Under price indexing of the benefit formula, real benefits would still grow as real wages increased, but a bit more slowly than wages, as shown in Table 2, attached. Real benefits in 2090 would be between 58% and 78% higher than benefits of corresponding workers today, instead of 150% higher. The savings would be about 34% of currently promised benefits, a bit more than needed to bring the system into long run balance.
Under price indexing, in 2090, a single average income earner would receive the equivalent of $34,057 in annual benefits in 2015 dollars, a median income couple with the 50% spousal benefit would receive $51,086 ($34,057 plus an extra 50% spousal benefit), and a two worker median income couple would receive $68,114 ($34,057 each). Upper income couples with two workers could be getting annual benefits equal to $98,962 ($49,346 each) in 2015 dollars.
The shift to price indexing would handle the OASI long run deficit, but the savings would take time to build. Taxes would catch up with benefits by about 2055. Meanwhile, some transitory near term deficits would remain as the baby boom retires. The gap would largely be covered by using general revenues to redeem the trust funds, which would be drawn down more slowly than under current law, but additional funding might be required for a few years. If so, the best solution might be to bite the bullet and provide the system with a temporary loan from general revenues.
Because less of a bad deal is better than more of a bad deal. Social Security offers a poor return on the “contributions” it exacts via the payroll tax. The benefits represent a very low “yield” on the tax payments, about 1.5–2.0 percent over the long term. Real rates of return over long periods of time on personal saving in pensions, IRAs, and other retirement savings plans invested in a diversified stock and bond portfolio can be expected to yield 7 percent or more, before taxes, which is three or four times the rate of return as the tax transfer system. Consequently, future workers would be better off with current tax rates and less growth in future benefits than with higher tax rates and currently promised increases in benefits.
Back in 1976, when the new benefit formula adjustment methods were first being considered, a distinguished panel of experts was appointed by the Senate Finance Committee to weigh in on the issue of how to index the benefit formula. Chaired by Professor William Hsiao, the panel’s report warned that wage indexing would be a mistake, due to the projected demographic changes. It recommended price indexing. Instead, Congress adopted wage indexing in the 1977 Social Security Amendments. The Greenspan Commission in 1983 has another chance to recommend price indexing before the 1983 Social Security Amendments, but failed to do so.
Had Congress chosen price indexing in 1977 or 1983, and added the rise in the normal retirement age that was enacted in 1983, the OASI system would be living within its means today. The system’s formula would have been reigned in before the surge in retirement related to the baby boom generation, saving about $3 trillion in promised outlays (valued as of 1983 by Treasury staff). We would now be in a situation where the payroll tax could be cut, or some of it transferred to cover a portion of the Medicare program, which is projected to run heavy deficits in the years ahead, requiring large premium increases.
We have paid a stiff penalty by waiting nearly 40 years to adopt price indexing. The baby boomers have begun to retire, and the OASI system is already in deficit. Nonetheless, the projected OASI deficits would be brought down to manageable size with price indexing. Without price indexing or some other trimming of the growth of benefits, there can be no permanent fix to the program without substantial loss of jobs and income. Let us not wait another 40 years to do the right thing.
Last date for one time exemption given to associations for filing Annual Returns is June 14th, 2017 Government has given one final opportunity to all associations/ organizations which have applied for renewal of their registration under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (FCRA) but have not uploaded their Annual Returns from Financial Year 2010-11 to… Read More »
Section 12 of Sikkim GST Act 2017 [ Section 12 of Sikkim GST Act 2017 explains Time of supply of goods and is covered in CHAPTER IV TIME AND VALUE OF SUPPLY ] [ Enforced with effect from 1-7-2017. ] Time of supply of goods 12. (1) The liability to pay tax on goods shall arise at the time of supply, as… Read More »
IRS Approves First Group of Certified Professional Employer Organizations; More Expected in Coming Months WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service today issued notices of certification to 84 organizations that applied for voluntary certification as a Certified Professional Employer Organization (CPEO). After the IRS receives the required surety bond from an approved CPEO applicant, the IRS… Read More »
IRS Face-To-Face Help Is Now By Appointment Taxpayers who need in-person help from an IRS Taxpayer Assistance Center (TAC) need to call to schedule an appointment. All TACs provide service by appointment. They are an essential service the IRS provides when a tax issue cannot be resolved online or by phone. Consider the self-service options… Read More »
Section 194IB Income Tax Act 1961 : Payment of rent by certain individuals or Hindu undivided family
Section 194IB Income Tax Act, 1961 – FA, 2018 Summary of Section 194IB Income-tax Act 1961 Section 194IB of Income Tax act Inserted by the Finance Act, 2017, w.e.f. 1-6-2017. Section 194IB Income Tax Act 1961 1[Payment of rent by certain individuals or Hindu undivided family. 194-IB. (1) Any person, being an individual or a Hindu undivided… Read More »
Category: Income Tax Tags: 194 ib of income tax act, 1941b of income tax act, 1941b tds, 194ia & 194ib, 194ia & 194ib meaning, 194ia and 194ib, 194ia and 194ib of income tax act, 194ib for ay 2017-18, 194ib income tax, 194ib income tax act, 194ib limit, 194ib of income tax act, 194ib of income tax act 1961, 194ib rate 26qc pdf, 194ib rent, 194ib tds payment, 194ib tds rate, 194ib tds section section 194ib of income tax act, 194ib tds tds u/s 194ib, 94ib of income tax, applicability of section 194ib, difference between 194ia and 194ib, income tax section 194ib, sec 194 ib, sec 194 ib of income tax, sec 194 ib of income tax act, sec 1941b, sec 194ib, sec 194ib of income tax act, sec194ib, section 1941b, section 194ib in the income-tax act, section 194ib notification, section 194ib of income tax, section 194ib section 194 ib of income tax act, Section 194IB Income-tax Act, tds 194 ib, tds 194ib, tds 194ib means, tds for rent, tds form for rent, TDS on Rent, tds on rent 194ib, tds on rent 194ib limit, tds on rent limit, tds rent 194ib, tds rent section, tds u/s 194ib applicability, tds under section 194ib, u/s 194ib, what is section 194ib
USA IRS For Letter Rulings and Similar Requests: Electronic Payment of User Fees Starts June 15; Replaces Paying by Check
For Letter Rulings and Similar Requests: Electronic Payment of User Fees Starts June 15; Replaces Paying by Check WASHINGTON — Beginning June 15, taxpayers requesting letter rulings, closing agreements and certain other rulings from the Internal Revenue Service will need to make user fee payments electronically using the federal government’s Pay.gov system. Pay.gov allows people… Read More »
I was pointing out that grinding can be made much more efficient if you know what you’re doing, and realized the results screen had spoilers. Spoilers: I fixed it.
At some point an NFL team has to make a decision on it’s quarterback and it’s season. Are we going to win this year or are we building for next year?? Is this our quarterback for the future or do we look to draft someone new?? Well after four weeks, Dallas Cowboy fans are up in arms over the play of Tony Romo and the team is mired with a 2-2 start. The interesting thing is the Cowboys were well ahead in each of their four games and collapsed late punctuated by interceptions from Romo. Yesterday’s game squarely landed on Romo’s shoulders with 2 of the interceptions being returned for touchdowns. Yet this year Romo has had his moments. The win on Monday Night last week was one where he willed his team to win amidst injuries and having to play with second string players.
Yet what happened to a balanced attack?? Do you realize the 2011 Cowboys have run 40% of the time and passed 60%?? See for yourself: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/dal/2011.htm Show me when that was true during the Aikman era?? We looked already..so surprise us. So which is the player in Dallas wearing #9?? Is he the leader that emerged in weeks 2 & 3, or the one Hollywood Henderson labeled a choke artist for throwing straight to Darelle Revis to end game one? That’s before we get to yesterday’s outing.
To be frank, he’s both. He has come back from his injured season more of the leader brass envisioned when they let Terrell Owens go several years back. He has to be the man by virtue of the contract they presented him. It’s his team and his late interceptions cannot be excused. Everyone of those throws he’d want back. Yet at this time we have to take a step back and figure if he is the quarterback of the future for the Dallas Cowboys. Now when this season began we were critical of Romo’s attitude and leadership ability https://taylorblitztimes.wordpress.com/2011/06/08/2011-dallas-cowboys-preview/ and he’s grown in that realm. Now he has to work on not playing with nervous feet near the end of games. Is it all his fault?? He deserves alot of the blame.
Whatever happened to running out the clock to end games?? Everyone is up in arms that he is no Troy Aikman, yet short sighted fans don’t remember that those 90’s teams weren’t throwing at that point of the game for Aikman to throw any late game interceptions! Case and point: Remember the famous drive in Super Bowl XXVIII when the Cowboys took the lead on the Buffalo Bills, and they ran 8 straight times and Aikman didn’t throw one pass?? You can still hear Brad Sham on the highlight film “Smith for 7, Smith for 3, Smith for 8, Smith for 9…etc” Ask Jason Garrett because he was standing there signaling the calls in. Which brings us to the real issue…
While it is true that a coach is to put his players in the best possible situation to be successful, it’s also his job to put you in a position to minimize your chance at making mistakes. What is the number one thing that Hall of Famer Bill Walsh was lauded for when it came to game plans?? He would pass the football early and run late on a tired defense. Not only did the 49ers base a dynasty off that premise, so too did the 80’s Redskins, 90’s Cowboys and 00’s Patriots with Corey Dillon. So that’s 14 Super Bowl wins by dynasties in the modern era. How about the 2000 Ravens who won with rushing the football and Trent Dilfer?? They threw vertical routes and hooks because Dilfer threw terrible down the middle and made poor decisions on out routes. So Brian Billick called plays that were his strengths and didn’t ask him to do what were known weaknesses.
Now let’s cycle this back to the present situation in Dallas. We warned you when the Cowboys drafted DeMarco Murray and were going to get rid of Marion Barber that they were going to be a true passing team only. https://taylorblitztimes.wordpress.com/2011/06/08/2011-dallas-cowboys-preview/ Did we not? Where was the heft to blow the Lions off the ball when the score was closed down to 30-27?? You remember when Dallas was pinned to their own 3 yard line with 5:00 to go in the game. Funny, our CEO remembers the 1995 NFC Championship when the Packers had the Cowboys pinned to their own 1 and Emmitt romped them out of there. Yesterday?? Two paltry attempts that couldn’t gain 1 yard from Felix Jones. Critical time in the game to run out the clock and that’s all the Cowboys could muster?? This illustrates why on previous drives Romo was still passing when the team clearly needed to be running. Had they been running out the clock the game would have been over in Dallas. Continued passing stops the clock and allowed Detroit the chance to get back in the game. Albeit off of terrible throws by Romo, but he shouldn’t have been passing that late in the game. This was the death knell to the Run n Shoot as an offense over a decade and a half before!! Systemic factors that leave blame squarely on the shoulders of Coach Jason Garrett and Jerry Jones.
The hiring of Jason Garrett was one for us that wasn’t the best decision and it’s showing in the game plans he’s presenting and not masking team deficiencies well enough. In the first game against the Jets, it had been noted and discussed, how many injuries the Cowboys had to their defensive backfield. The Cowboys kept throwing and didn’t milk the clock to protect their struggling with fatigue defense. Don’t you realize it’s those injuries and tiring defenders that make up the punt block team that allowed the punt to be blocked in the first place?? Coaches do!! Or should we say coaches are supposed to!! Romo and the team were in a panic by the time he threw his interception yet look at what set that up??
Its Garrett’s job to put his team in the best possible position to win and also to get word to player personnel (Jones) that he needs a running back to close games. He has to sell that to Cowboys brass just as he has to sell the gameplan to his players. What’s worse is he knows better. He was standing right there watching Emmitt Smith close all those games for the Dallas Cowboys. Many times during that era, Aikman wouldn’t even attempt a pass under 8:00 to go. So quit the Aikman / Romo comparisions because it shows a lack of football knowledge to all aspects of the game. Furthermore, as we watched the Cowboys offensive line not be able to create a hole or a push when they had the ball at their goal line illustrates something further. They aren’t even practicing true running plays enough. We keep using that sequence in our analysis because the team knew they needed to run and couldn’t do it. Moment of truth and they were knocked on their ass.
As for Romo, he has played better and will flirt with 5,000 yards passing this season because the Cowboys UNDER GARRETT will not run. Not in the traditional sense. Just tricky draws and screens and not enough power plays to weaken an opponents defense. Hence the Lions defense was still breathing fire in the 4th quarter… yet I digress: Romo has to take a sack or throw the ball away when the throw isn’t there. He is taking some chances and making some throws that have put the Cowboys well in front. He’s maturing into a leader yet has to stop short circuiting in the 4th quarter and it’s up to his coach and game plans to aid that. Some blame needs to be placed there. Cowboy fans want to scapegoat all of the losses to Tony Romo but forget he was the central reason they won games 2 and 3. So without him where would the Cowboys be?? They’d be 0-4. Throwing in a rookie next year isn’t saving the Cowboys either. We watched the demise of the run and shoot for these exact same factors. It’s systemic. Know your history. Our blame is landing on Garrett’s shoulders more than it lands on Romo’s. How much?? How about the 60/40 pass ratio from before…Garrett gets the 60%
This entry was posted in 2011 NFL Regular Season and tagged Dallas Cowboys, Jason Garrett, Jerry Jones, NFL, nfl football, NFL Players, Tony Romo. Bookmark the permalink.
I agree the blame for the loss of Sunday’s game does need 2 get spread around but I still see Romo as the cheif one 2 blame its been year after year with two different coaches so when will this end? I don’t think if a rookie QB is bought in doesn’t mean an 0-4 start. We just don’t know how it would help or harm but I’m willing 2 take that chance.
For all the romanticized hyperbole when The Ice Bowl is brought up, The Freezer Bowl is largely forgotten about. The 1981 AFC Championship between the Cincinnati Bengals and the San Diego Chargers was colder from a wind chill factor at -59*. This was where Air Coryell unceremoniously crash landed.
One man that happened to be in both games was Hall of Famer Forrest Gregg. He was the starting Tackle for the Green Bay Packers in the ’67 NFL Championship. Then he was the Head Coach of the Bengals in 1981 when they advanced to the AFC Championship Game. In a game where the winner would make the trek to Super Bowl XVI, they first had to endure the coldest game in NFL history.
One reason this game wasn’t remembered with the reverence of The Ice Bowl is it didn’t produce a champion. Another reason is it was buffered against 2 other memorable playoff games in January 1982. One was the Epic In Miami where the Dolphins and the Chargers played in 81* weather for 6 quarters in a 41-38 thriller. The other was The Catch or the NFC Championship between San Francisco and Dallas later that same day.
If you’re keeping score at home, yes the San Diego Chargers had to play in 140 degree temperature difference in one week’s time. Cincinnati won the game and went on to Pontiac, Michigan to face the 49ers in Super Bowl XVI. Yet it’s hard to forget -59* below zero.
I love the New York Times. Really, I do. Not only is it the world’s leading newspaper, it speaks my language–the language of liberals. As much as it might not want to admit this, it does. However, I’m sometimes miffed by their reviews. They often miss the mark. For a paper as erudite as this one, it seems, their reviewers should “get” whatever they’re reviewing.
Case in point: Taylor Swift’s latest album Red. In a piece titled, “No More Kid Stuff for Taylor Swift,” Jon Caramanica (an expert on pop music, perhaps?) provides a glimpse into what he believes Red is all about.
He erroneously begins the review by stating that Taylor’s sole two subjects are love and heartbreak. Has he not heard “Eyes Open” or “Ronan”? Surely, a New York Times reviewer would do their research prior to stating “facts” all over the place. But, no, not Caramanica. Strike number one against his piece.
To frame his perspective that he’ll later support, he states, “Her growth is largely musical, not experiential.” Here’s where I mostly disagree with Caramanica.
What’s strange about his review is that he actually cites lyrics from Red that support the opposite of his thesis. For example, he picks up on the mini-conversation Taylor has with herself during “We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together.” I believe this aside reveals Taylor’s true sense of humor, which, in turn, shows her evolution from serious country star to someone who’s willing to laugh at herself–an adult trait. Carmanica says, “There is something different in Ms. Swift’s voice here: it’s serious and deep, and also shrewd. She has been through this before. She sounds like an adult.” Right, she sounds like an adult–so how does this prove that her growth is solely musical, not experiential?
Caramanica also cites “I Knew You Were Trouble” as misplaced evidence of his own thesis. Instead of proving that it’s just the music that has evolved, he pins Taylor as someone who has pointed the finger at herself as the “culpable” agent in the rocky relationship she sings about. Isn’t that something an adult would do? Isn’t this self-implication unique to Red? I think so.
Providing insight into previously uncharted territory for Taylor, Caramanica discusses Taylor’s foray into the sensual experience of love. How does this not show her evolution has been experiential? “On ‘Treacherous,’ written with the pop savant Dan Wilson, she sighs, ‘I’ll do anything you say if you say it with your hands,'” he writes.
Beyond Caramanica’s lyrics examples, there are other lyrics that reveal Taylor’s newfound journey into adulthood. In “The Lucky One,” a piece rife with commentary about being in the spotlight, Taylor sings,
These lyrics signal to the reader that Taylor has had a revelation about her celebrity. “Yeah, they tell you now you’re the lucky one,” she sings, about herself. She is the lucky one, and she knows it, but uses the story of the ex-celebrity as a cautionary tale for herself and her own trajectory. If this doesn’t show “experiential” maturity, I’m not sure what does.
And the fact that Taylor, a seasoned songwriter in her own right who has had 50 Billboard Top 100 hits, made the adult move to collaborate with her “dream” industry songwriters and producers proves she doesn’t need to take full credit for her songs–an egoless decision and something not many songwriters who have had the success Taylor has had would dare do.
An element of Caramanica’s review that I enjoyed was his observation that country cannot define Taylor and that she’s driving her own terms in the pop arena. “That’s because Ms. Swift is post-gatekeeper: country radio no longer gets to define her, and pop radio has accepted her novel terms,” he writes. I believe this is true, and I appreciate his pointing it out. Taylor Swift has had an unparalleled career–from country darling to pop sensation, she’s struck out with her own style and flair in every album she’s put together.
I also agree when Caramanica writes, “Almost everything here is corroded in some way.” From the musical to the lyrical, Red is filled with less-joyful innuendo than her previous albums.
And, Carmanica’s summary of Taylor Swift’s evolution is apt: “Ms. Swift has come a long way from ‘You Belong With Me,’ one of her biggest hits, in which she was the outsider throwing barbs at the more conventional, pretty, popular girl. ‘I’m listening to the kind of music she doesn’t like,’ she sang, wearing her individuality as a badge of pride. But now that other girl, she listens to Taylor Swift. She might even be Taylor Swift.” It’s true.
So, New York Times–you kinda, sorta didn’t get at the heart of Red, but part of what you said was spot on.
My Dining Partner and I decided to take a trip up to Bar Harbor, ME for a few days. We needed a getaway spot that wasn’t too far and wasn’t too expensive. We chose Bar Harbor because of its proximity to Acadia National Park, which is known to be beautiful in fall.
Now, the most important thing about our trip to Bar Harbor was, of course, the lobster we would have. So, where would we go for such lobster? Guidebooks weren’t exactly useful and Yelp, well, you know the issues I have with that website, but a combination of these guides, along with the help of the world wide web, pointed us in the direction of Side Street Cafe.
Located on a quiet street in downtown Bar Harbor, Side Street Cafe is an unassuming fixture among bakeries and Mexican restaurants (who would trust Mexican in Maine?). When we arrived at Side Street Cafe, the wait for a table for two was about an hour, so we walked around Bar Harbor, checking out local stores and freezing our tails off. At last, we were seated, and our waitress was beyond delightful.
For an appetizer, I ordered the lobster macaroni and cheese, which is easily the best thing I ate all weekend. It was creamy with shards of parmesan cheese on top and big chunks of lobster throughout. It was, in a word, divine.
My Dining Partner opted for the New England clam chowder, which was also delicious. Creamy and clammy, this clam chowder was mild and did not disappoint.
For my entree, I ordered the lobster roll–one overstuffed roll filled with chunks of lobster dressed in mayonnaise and old bay seasoning. I loved it!
A trip to Maine wouldn’t be complete without a slice of blueberry pie. We ordered it warm with a scoop of delicious vanilla ice cream with whipped cream on top. The blueberries in the pie were whole and amply distributed throughout the pie shell.
Side Street Cafe is well worth the wait, if you find one when you go there. You can order just about anything with lobster, so I advise you to do so. You won’t be sorry!
I rarely make it to the Upper West Side any more. Having gone to college in Morningside Heights (aka White Harlem) and having worked at my alma mater, I’ve had my share of westside snobbery and exorbitant lunch prices to last me a lifetime. But this morning, My Dining Partner and I decided to go to the marvelous Jacob’s Pickles, on Amsterdam near West 85th Street. With the 7 train only partially running, we trekked all the way up there, taking nearly an hour to arrive, but brunch was well worth the trip.
Boasting a clean aesthetic on the interior, Jacob’s Pickles is across the street from The Mathnasium, an academically struggling child’s ultimate nightmare. MDP and I sat outside, gazing across the street at The Mathnasium, and wondering who would actually take their child there. I wanted to know what child would ever consent to going to such a place. “Maybe it’s for kids who really like math,” I said. “I think it’s for the opposite,” said MDP. I guess he’s right.
Anyway, back to Jacob’s Pickles (JP). The delightful waitress seemed surprised to see us so early. JP opens at 9 am, and we were there five minutes after. I didn’t know if there’d be a crowd, so I thought it best to brunch on the early side. Our waitress informed us that JP makes its own pickles and bakes its own homemade biscuits. As an aside, I never understand why restaurants claim to make “homemade” anything. It’s not homemade. It’s made in a restaurant. But I digress.
Ample, delicious coffee flowed our way for the fifteen minutes that we spent waiting for our food. The waitress was good about that and even gave us our own bottle of water to pour at the table. Overall, I was impressed by the service.
I knew I had to get a biscuit, so I inquired as to whether the western-cheese omelette was accompanied by one. The waitress said no, but could put one on the side for me. This reply pleased me.
My omelette came out looking rather well done for my taste, but it was scrumptious. Packed with ham, green peppers, onions and scallions, the western omelette also featured a handful of aged Vermont cheddar cheese. Though the homefries’ texture was right (crisp on the outside, soft on the inside, as MDP observed), they were overseasoned and lacked any real bite. I generally prefer diner homefries. And, as for the biscuit, well, it seems that JP bakes a sheet of biscuits and cuts them into giant squares (as you can see in the above photo). They are fluffy and require consumption by fork, rather than by hand.
MDP ordered the sausage gravy smothered chicken biscuit, which generously came with two pieces of chicken and a side of cheddar grits. I tried the chicken, and it was fantastic. I highly recommend this dish. Plus, the grits were so smooth and creamy, I couldn’t believe they cooked them up in just 15 minutes. They certainly weren’t instant grits, but a magical creation.
We didn’t try the pickles, but there’s always next time. And I’m fairly confident there will be a next time. MDP and I may try JP for dinner some night. MDP says he’d like to try some of the drink offerings at JP. I concur.
As for the prices, they were reasonable, especially for the UWS. We walked south along Amsterdam and noticed a long line outside Good Enough to Eat, a much-heralded brunch spot. I felt like telling the waiting schmucks to walk uptown a bit and try out JP for a hearty, delicious meal at a more palatable price point. Oh well, I’m sure, by now (two hours later), they’ve finally gotten a seat.
Take the 1 to 86th street. Walk east one block and south 1.5 blocks. JP is on the east side of Amsterdam.
Superbly written at every turn, Taylor Swift’s latest single, “Red” (which is also the title track of her forthcoming new album), will blow you away. It’s a combination of country and rock and pop, and the ping of the banjo is undeniably relentless. “Red” will have you tapping your foot and dancing in your seat. And, if you listen closely, you’ll find an entire English lesson’s worth of similes and metaphors to mine.
Though different from “We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together,” her first single off Red, “Red” shares the same forward-moving rhythm that makes “We Are Never…” so catchy. The banjo plucking at the beginning is ghosted by what sounds like a synthesizer sounding fake strings, as My Dining Partner observed. A departure from the true country hit “Begin Again,” her second single from Red, “Red” has a country feel that’s updated to Taylor’s new pop-rock sound.
Taylor Swift infuses a true country-pop song with such golden word-nuggets. Imagine driving an old Maserati down a dead end street–the thrill of it would end so suddenly, as she sings. What I love best about this stanza is the bit about autumn leaves. This sentiment–that they’re so bright right before they lose their color–is especially poignant because it paints a highly articulate picture of what loving him is like. That is, a splash of greatness followed by a fall or emptiness.
How true is her portrayal of what these colors feel like? How aptly conveyed are their emotional colors? Blue = feeling a loss, feeling down. Dark grey = all alone. Red = intense passion that spouts like lava from a volcano. That’s what her love for this individual was like–fiery, impassioned, red. And it’s brilliant.
The rest of the song continues with these ingenious similes and metaphors, explaining the many facets of her love for this person. Now, as alluded to in my review of “Ronan,” songwriting like this makes you wonder what Taylor could do with non-love-story content. Like, what if she wanted to write about lofty subjects like world peace and war? And the human condition? Well, as for the latter, we know she can write beautifully about that (see “Ronan” and “Eyes Open”).
Think of the evolution of the Beatles. They started out writing about love and ended up writing about metaphysics. I’m betting Taylor’s subjects will, over time, evolve, as well. You may think I’m crazy for comparing the Beatles to Taylor Swift, but I truly believe her songwriting ability is of that high caliber. She can do it. I know she can.
I look forward to October 22, the release date of Red. Are you going to download it or buy it in the store? I’m going to Best Buy on my lunch break to get the album, but I’m tempted to download it to my iPhone. Decisions!