Parallel Universe?

I have come to the conclusion that the American Society in 2010 is traveling down a road of self-destruction. Mostly because of a lack of desire to work. That's right, I believe that as a society we are no longer willing to perform physical work. In many cases we're not even willing to engage in mentally challenging work.

What's my evidence you ask? Mostly the 100 employees I've hired, fired and seen walk off the job over the past five years. Added to that the countless employees prior to those five years that I witnessed in many different work environments.

Here's where this gets real scary. For many of these people, the major problems won't be felt immediately. You see, many of them fall back on Mom and Dad or Grandparents. Once they infiltrate the family home they start sucking the finances and life out of the parents who've worked years to attain a certain level of comfort. These parents and/or grandparents are living off of Social Security and possibly some pension or retirement savings. At some point, that money is going to run out, or the parents/grandparents are going to die. At that point, the gravy train ends and these leeches will realize the results of their lazy ways.

So what's the parallel universe issue? If you were raised to be a hard-working productive member of society who helps his fellow man, you have difficulty imagining anyone being so lazy they'd just quit working with no plan and start living off of their family and government handouts. There are people like this who've been raised in "the system" and who now have become experts at living in the system. Somehow they get by and eat, drive cars and watch cable television. They have cell phones. Meanwhile, you're struggling to make sure your bills are paid and you'd take the last penny from your savings to ensure no blemishes on your credit report.

Another example of parallel universe; every state that institutes a lottery sells the idea to the voters of that state (who eventually approve it) on the idea that it'll add millions to the state education funds. Then, years after the lottery is in full swing, state education administrators claim they don't have enough money. We've spent gobs of money on public education, yet everyone still claims we're behind the rest of the world in education.

Need another example of parallel universe? Just a few years ago our government officials were warning Americans that we were living on too much credit, that Americans weren't saving enough money. All the while our government was spending us into oblivion and all that spending was borrowed money. Yep, we lowly serfs were borrowing too much, but it somehow was okay for the federal government to do just that.

Aren't We All Compassionate?

A recent back and forth on Facebook got me to thinking about how ugly political arguments have become. I was just as guilty as the other guy.

The argument typically has one side saying the other doesn't care about the less-fortunate. The accused says the accuser is just sympathetic to a bunch of freeloaders. And the argument goes downhill from there. The truth is both sides care about the less-fortunate.

The error in the argument is that "less-fortunate" is a subjective term and therefore, the definition changes from person to person. Is a person capable of working, but unwilling to take some jobs "less-fortunate?" My opinion of "less-fortunate" was always someone incapable of doing at least as well as me for reasons outside of their control, usually a mental or physical disability or sudden tragedy. Whether or not this is an accurate statement of "less-fortunate" is debatable.

Today many people consider anyone out of work to be "less-fortunate." Part of the reason I don't like that definition is that I don't have much more to offer this world but my labor and love. If I choose not to work and others suddenly consider me "less-fortunate" I may allow myself to fall into a lazy attitude and then all I have to offer the world is love. If I become a burden on society and continue to take without giving back, I fear that my love for the world would soon wane. In such a case, I would no longer have anything to offer this world. How sad that would be.

So, the next time someone wants to get into a political argument, maybe definitions should be clarified before the debate begins. This allows both sides to focus on the issues and eliminate the ugly name-calling.

Thanksgiving 2010

I give thanks for the wonderful family I am blessed to be a part of. I have a wonderful wife who looks for the positive in everything. She is full of the life I can only wish I had. Bryant is a wonderful son who is more man than even he knows. Lena is the precious joy that God has blessed Stacye and me with. She brightens every room she enters. She holds so much promise for this world.

During these holiday times we often reflect and I am no exception. This Thanksgiving I am grateful and thankful for the memories I have of a great childhood spent with the most amazing brothers and sister. A brother I've always looked up to as a Concertmaster, Football Hero, Business Icon, Dreamchaser and keeper of great knowledge (though he thinks he is none of these). Another brother who looked up to me, but taught me much about myself at times he didn't know it. He taught me to look for things that only God can bestow on this world (the Northern Lights) and made me feel awesome by joining me on a Navy ship bound for the North Atlantic. And how about a sister who introduced me to KitKats? To this day I think of my mother taking us to pick her up from her volunteer hospital job (candy striper) and she always gave us KitKats. At the time it was the candy bars I loved, today it is the love that she was showing and sharing that mean so much.

All three are married to wonderful people; a man who introduced me to some of my favorite Eagles music and broadened my musical tastes, a woman who showed me more about life than she'll ever understand and another who was there at the end of my mother's life and the beginning of my brother's.

I am thankful for all that my parents did to make my childhood good and memorable. Mom is waiting for us in Heaven and I cannot wait to relive the good times with her. Dad is out there and I'm eternally grateful for the sacrifices he made for my well-being wherever he may be.

When I lay down my head at night I am grateful that there are two incredible beings looking out for me; God and my Wife. We know the wonders of God and it was Him who delivered Stacye to me (or me to her, I'm not sure which). I am thankful for her perseverance and incredible patience. As someone not worthy of the love Stacye has shown, I am forever grateful that through thick and thin, she remains faithful, loyal and loving.

I am grateful for the friends I have and for which it would take a book to describe.

For all these things I thank God. My wish for you is that you have a life as blessed (if not more) than mine.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!!!

Crook CEO's vs. Crook Government

If you have ever wondered why so many opponents to big government don't freak out over corporate executive salaries, it may just be that we see many government employees as more corrupt than the corporate executives. Remember; corporate boards of directors can fire CEO's. Government managers rarely get fired and usually have a pretty nice retirement/benefits plan compared to the private sector.

I give you the following example.

Recently the Florida Dept. of Revenue (DOR) conducted an audit of Energy Services of Pensacola (ESP) records. ESP is the natural gas company owned and operated by the City of Pensacola. The DOR found that many ESP accounts were coded "tax exempt" and therefore no sales tax had been collected on those accounts and paid to the state. The state demanded that if ESP couldn't prove those accounts were rightfully tax exempt, ESP would have to pay all of the back sales tax they had failed to pay to the state. ESP doesn't know how the problem occurred. They suspect it was a computer error and it was unbeknownst to the customers.

Now, if I failed to collect and pay to the government, taxes on goods or services sold to you, you'd probably tell me that's my problem and be done with it. You certainly wouldn't want me to come back to you and say you're responsible for those taxes, right? Ah, but whenever government has a shortfall, they find a way to make taxpayers pay the increase as opposed to cutting their expenses, yet that is what we always ask of businesses/corporations.

Back to the story; this happened to my dry cleaning business. I happen to be an ESP customer in my business and am now being forced to pay over $5,200 in back sales tax. To you who say; it's no big deal, just pay it, you owe it. I say; when was the last time you scrutinized your utility bill to be sure they were charging you all the appropriate fees and taxes? There is nothing on the bill indicating "tax exempt." Do you ask who's head will roll at the ESP for the error? You'd ask that question of a private sector company. Who's pocket do you think this money will come out of given the current economy? If the business doesn't have the money and will have to fire at least one person and possibly go out of business (thus putting 6-7 people into unemployment) would you prefer more people on unemployment?

What is really disgusting is that now, the gas company (which everyone acts as if is a separate entity from government) gets to act as both a monopoly and thug government; two things we all want the our government to protect us from. They say pay up or we shut you off and you have nowhere else to buy your natural gas and they say fight us and we'll bring the full power and authority of the government to bear. Can you say thug-ocracy?

So when you hear about some "crook" CEO or businessman who got paid more money than you think he should've, just remember that in government they never seem to get fired and you rarely hear about them. They just get moved to a new job, keeping all their benefits and pay.

Is There Historical Perspective Anymore?

This past weekend someone wrote into the local paper that the current economic and overall problems in America took ten years to get into and therefore, would not likely be resolved in the next few years. I find this kind of statement assinine. Mostly because our current situation started more than ten years ago.

If people will take the time to look back at history, especially focusing on the time prior to their birth (which is the basis for most people's perspective), they will see that we've had a slow decline into a society of entitlement and class envy. I don't know when it all started, but somewhere way back there we started to think there was something wrong with rich people. We (as a society) have promoted the idea that rich people somehow got rich by stealing from others. We then started re-defining rich. Now we seem to think if someone is making a salary far above our own, they're rich and somehow not deserving of the fruits of their labor. How arrogant is that?

People just don't pay attention to the truth and civil debates are rare. Proof of Americans not paying attention is that today our president said we need a $50billion infrastructure plan for roads and bridges. How many Americans remember roads, bridges and other "shovel-ready" projects were what the $787billion stimulus package was supposed to pay for?

As I'm beginning the last quarter of the book Atlas Shrugged, I cannot help but see the slow destruction of a once-great nation and wondering if enough of us have the will to fight back.

Business 2 Jobs

Too many companies have "shipped American jobs overseas." That's the mantra that we hear time and time again. More recently even the President of the United States said businesses aren't hiring because they can't get bank loans.

Well, let's set the record straight; the jobs belong to the company that offers them, not to a country, person (or group of persons) or any locale. Wherever the jobs are or go, they don't belong to us, the employees. They belong to the company. We in America, used to understand this. As far as bank loans relating to hiring, here's a clue for those that buy that logic; businesses don't like to borrow money to hire people. Businesses hire people because there's enough demand for the product or service that justifies hiring workers.

As an employer, I often tell candidates that I can give them a job but it is up to them to keep it. You might be surprised at how many people in America think it is the employer's responsibility to provide jobs and conform to wishes the employees dictate.

The mentality in America has shifted and many believe that if a business moves its operations out of the U.S., the company is just being greedy.

If we understand nothing else about the jobs situation, we must know that many business decisions have to do with government regulation and market competition. I.e. if my company makes widgets in the U.S., complying with all governmental regulations and makes a profit of 1% per widget and a competitor manufactures overseas, ships to the U.S. and is able to sell for less than my company I won't stay in business long. And if you say that government regulation in the U.S. exists to ensure safety and quality standards exceeding the rest of the world you would be dead wrong. Yes, those regulations were originally intended for such reasons, but today many government operations are so inept they exist for the mere purpose of justifying someone's job. I have seen this first hand. If you still think I'm wrong about this ask yourself the following; why do many U.S. corporations send quality and safety inspectors to their overseas plants to ensure proper procedures are followed? I'll tell you why; they want the best quality, but not to put up with bureaucratic hassles so prevalent in America.

The United States of America was founded on the basic principle that government should have limited power over the governed. Over the years, we've demonized businesses and come to believe that all corporations make significant profits and therefore, should be able to bear the costs of many of our expenses (both private and government, i.e. healthcare, retirement savings, education, road construction, etc.). Businesses, like families, don't have an unlimited amount of money. Therefore it might be better to rid the country of many of the onerous laws, restrictions and regulations that hinder businesses from growing. I'll get into some of that in a future post.

For now, we should remember that it is cost and demand, for goods and services, that dictate whether businesses hire, fire or move their jobs.

Burning the Koran?

Okay, if you've read any of my other posts, you'll probably be a little surprised by this one.

What an absolutely idiotic idea in Gainesville, Florida, to have a Koran burning day. Here's why the story is so idiotic;

1. To think you're accomplishing anything good by having a Koran burning day is about as stupid a thought as anyone could ever have. Yep, Rev. You're an idiot.

2. Somehow the news media gave traction to this church of 50. That's right, a whopping 50 members.

3. There are idiots in Afghanistan who actually believe this represents America. Yes, I read the AP story this morning where a young Afghan boy (I think 18 years old) said they knew this was the opinion of America and the president. Proof that there are idiots all over the world.

Now, you might ask; what's the difference between foreigners thinking that this represents all of America when we have idiots here in America that think the 9/11 attackers represented all of Islam? NOTHING! And that's the point.

The dumb masses (say it quickly) continually fall for the crap put out by "the media."

God save us all.

Business 1 Profit

This is the first in a series of posts written from my perspective as a small business owner. It is intended to pass along insights into the world of small business by someone who's lived it.

Here are a few ground rules. This information is gleaned from my experience and limited research. While readers and commenters may have questions and points that I'll attempt to answer in a timely manner, it is not a discussion forum (in the style of instant messaging) where you should expect immediate responses to every question/point. While I will attempt to keep all references generic, I ask that commenters/responders do the same. I have 9 years of business ownership experience (first as a sole-proprietor and the last 5 as a corporation which employs people). Prior to that experience I have 9 years in the corporate world where I rose from front-line employee to department manager and where I was responsible for operations and the hiring of operational employees.

So let's get to it.

Profit; businesses exist to make a profit. Pure and simple. Profit shouldn't be a dirty word. Profit offers the opportunity to expand business, offer additional benefits to employees, charitable contributions and guarding against future economic downturns (that require the use of cash reserves to maintain operations). Before any charitable contributions can be made, employee benefits can be purchased or expansions considered, a business must make a profit.

While some would say that employee benefits are a cost of doing business, tax deductible and the right thing to do, they aren't usually required (literally) for the business to produce its product or service and they are only the right thing to do if in so doing it doesn't bankrupt the business (thereby putting everyone out of work).

Tax deductibility is often mentioned by those wishing to part businesses from their money, as a benefit/reason to give up said money. What many of those people often don't get is that deductible or not, the business must first receive the revenue before it can be expensed. I.e. if a business has an annual net income of $50,000 it does no good to be able to deduct a health care benefit (as an example) of $60,000 since it would cause the business to incur a loss of $10,000.

The next time you catch yourself (or others) bemoaning the corporate world for concentrating on profits, consider your personal life. By that I mean we all think we don't get paid enough and we often don't have "enough" money left after paying the bills. We want profit in our personal lives and we often don't care what that means to the business. Oh I know, we are charitable in our giving (how many of us actually give the 10% the bible suggests?) and we "care" about others, but we still think we're owed a certain amount of profit. Well, businesses do care about its people and charities. Many CEO's will tell you they'd be nothing without a good workforce. Therefore, they are willing to pay competitive wages, offer whatever benefits they can and generally treat their people well. Also, many corporate executives and board members actively participate with different charities locally and nationally.

"Profit isn't so bad, but we all know that some businesses have profits that are ridiculously high." How many times have you heard a statement like this? Even if you buy into this philosophy, I ask how much profit is too much? What if an insurance company reports a $10billion profit this year. Do you think that's too much? What if next year that same insurance company has to pay out $12billion in damage claims because a hurricane caused that much damage? Would you still say the company's previous year $10billion profit was too much? If some government agency came along and limited an insurance company's profits to, say $5billion per year and then one year couldn't pay your damage claim because they didn't have the reserves because of the cap on profits, how would you like that?

Next posting will focus on jobs.

Dumbest argument I've heard in a while...

has to be the people now saying President Obama is a Muslim.

I don't care what his religion is and I think the longer people focus on that issue, the less time and energy are used to deal with the real issues (like jobs, legislation, economy and taxes) that our elected officials desperately need to resolve.

Yeah, concentrate all your energy on the president's religious preference while the congress passes laws that will have an impact on your lives.

Hello people!

Mosque in NYC debate

I am quickly coming to the realization that the United States of America has gone from the greatest nation on earth to a whining community of do-gooders afraid of doing the right thing for fear it might offend someone.

Our president urges Israel to cease building Jewish settlements in Jerusalem because it may offend Muslims. Then right here in America he refuses to speak out against the building of an Islamic "community center" two blocks from the site of the 9/11/2001 attacks on America (carried out by radical Muslims and celebrated by many Muslims around the world).

Many people seem to think building this "community center" is a "local issue" or a matter of religious freedom. I say this and many other actions in America are more about doing the right thing, than whether or not they are legal or within local building codes. Any municipality can let things happen because they're legally allowed. Any person can watch while a man stands in public and calls a woman names (freedom of speech anyone?). We get outraged when large companies make "obscene" profits or take their jobs overseas. We cry, "yes it is your right, but its not the right thing to do?"

I say the one thing that has always been a hallmark of America was that legal or not, we strive to do the right thing. We reach out to the downtrodden. We give of ourselves to help those in need, even extending that help to include risking our own lives for the freedom and liberty of those we may never know. We are Americans and this is what we do.

I ask those who support the building of an Islamic "community center" two blocks from "ground zero" to consider that this will foster ill will toward peaceful, law-abiding Muslims. That may sound like ignorance to some, but it is reality. Consider that at the same time this center is proposed, we have groups actively seeking to silence Christians who wish to pray in public or display their religious symbols. Don't believe me? Look at the activism to shut up any religious expression by Christians in public schools, at events and any other function that can be remotely considered government endorsement of a specific religion.

I have no beef with Muslims or any other religions, but history should be teaching us lessons we (as a society and/or individually) seem to ignore. Ask the Europeans how happy they are with their religious freedoms. I have heard of a certain mosque in Germany that was shut down because of the tourist attraction it became for muslims...and oh yeah, it was a mosque where the masterminds of the 9/11 attack are said to have met to coordinate the attack.

For the sake of continuing the great nation our parents, grandparents and great-grandparents built, stand up for doing the right thing!

Gays Dissed by YMCA?

Recently a local YMCA was criticized because they told a gay couple that the "family membership rate" didn't apply to them. That the rate was reserved for married couples as recognized by the state of Florida.

Of course there is outrage amongst some, but this raises a few questions for me. Especially since the YMCA is a private business and was started as the Young Men's Christian Association.

My biggest question is; who is attempting to impose their will on others? The YMCA, as a private business, has the right to set its prices and policies. Those policies are not secret. As a private business it is certainly within its rights to consider the best interests of its existing membership and owners. It is the gay couple (and the gay-supporting community) that insists the YMCA should extend family pricing to "life partners."

The gay couple (and supporters) said other gyms and workout facilities allow family pricing to "life partners." I say, go there. It is a business decision the YMCA has made and if it is to their detriment, so be it.

In the end, I find it interesting that we think "fair and equal treatment" is our own definition. In reality, very little in life is fair and in America we go to extremes to attempt fairness; often times leaning unfair in the opposite direction of the original mis-treatment, just to prove how "fair" we are.

The truly great move aggressively without worrying about whether or not they are treated fairly. Their motivation is excellence, not who has wronged them along the way. We should all aspire to such heights.

Scientists or Political Activists

Front page headline in the local newspaper; "Feds pull oil over our eyes." The gist of the article has a college professor of oceanography calling into question a recently released federal report on what has happened to the oil. The professor says "the way it was presented was more of a public relations campaign than trying to estimate the real impact." Another university oceanography professor says; "This is a shaky report. The more I read it, the less satisfied I am with the thoroughness of the presentation...there are sweeping assumptions here."

Here's my question; did these same scientists have the same skepticism toward global warming?

In this article, a University of West Florida biologist says of the report; "Scientifically, it's a very disappointing piece of work. They are putting a good face on this, and it's not BP. It's the federal government." Really Mr. Scientist? You really believe the federal government might be involved in political spin?

I just find it fascinating that these learned individuals would believe that the federal government would not put spin on information released to the public. Furthermore I find it interesting that we've not seen this type of skepticism (by scientists) in mainstream media about global warming, even though there have been many questions raised about the validity of reports and information regarding the same.

Or, could it be that these scientists aren't satisfied with a report, stating that the threats from the spilled oil are not as great as first believed, because it doesn't meet their political agenda? I mean, never mind that the oil spilled in the Gulf of Mexico was light crude, much different than that spilled from the Exxon Valdez in Alaska. Just one of the many things that could've played a role in minimizing what we all thought would be a much bigger disaster.

Just some thoughts. Yours?

Marriage is now a Political Football?

Did you ever think you'd see the day?

Let's get right to it. My Webster's Dictionary defines marriage as the social condition under which a man and woman live as husband and wife through legal or religious commitments. That's not a bunch of right-wing wackos defining it. Marriage has been recognized this way throughout the world for millennia.

It is my understanding that the states that have had a marriage amendment on the ballot in the past few years sought to uphold the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. Now we have judges (the latest one in California) saying that this definition is unconstitutional.

If marriage cannot be defined as it has for thousands of years, who is to determine the definition? If marriage cannot be defined, how can we find the bigamist guilty if those involved agree to multiple marriage partners? How far does this go? What about underage runaways who say they should be allowed to enter into a marriage to an older person? You say there are laws to protect the underaged, the victims of bigamy and other crimes, but I say who's to decide?

If you've read this far, thank you. Please know that I have no desire to dictate or legislate what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home or bedroom. I truly understand there are sometimes privileges afforded family members that some would like extended to their "life partners." I get that and see no reason why that can't be done. In fact, in many places these privileges have already been afforded to those people designated by the insured or cared for.

What we are now seeing is the (previously called) "politically correct" becoming the impetus for a literal battle. I know that's a bitter pill for many to swallow, but whether it is now or 100 years from now, there will come a point where the people of the United States of America will no longer stand for the governing class dictating as if government people are the all-knowing that they think they are.

We were formed as a nation of, by and for The People. The People were to decide for themselves and The People limited the powers of government so as to foster a society that would prosper or fail on the decisions made by The People. Slowly, we have elected people who've eroded our freedoms and liberties to the point that I fear the founding fathers would hardly recognize the form of government now practiced in America.

It is time to take America back. I encourage you to read books that expose what our government is doing to us. Please recommend these books to others. I encourage you to read fictional books that have surmised the things now happening, keeping in mind that many people (at the time of those writings) didn't think the fictional stories were even remotely possible. I say to you; here we are. What say you?

Have We Made Ourselves Unaffordable?

Just as products can be made too expensive for there to be a market for them, is it possible for people to do the same with their labor skills?

Over the past 20 years I've listened to people complain that companies are taking jobs overseas to avoid paying "reasonable" or "living" wages. Recently I've read an article saying that Harley-Davidson motorcycles (now built in Milwaukee) is considering a move to cut labor costs.

Here in America we enjoy so many luxuries and it is almost as if we think we're entitled to low prices and top quality on everything we buy. We give little thought to what someone should be paid when we purchase a good or service, we just want the lowest price. But let the manufacturer or service provider say they're moving away because they're losing money and suddenly they are a greedy corporation motivated only by profit.

Where we go from here is going to be a real challenge because the United States of America is fast losing its claim as driving the world's economies. Countries like China and India are becoming bigger consumers and at a rapid pace. Therefore, manufacturers will need to produce the goods and services those consumers will buy at a price they can afford. Since those consumers are already lower-paid than American workers, product prices will have to be low.

Hypocritcal?

Locally we had a judge (in an elected position) who decided to give short notice that he was retiring. He did this so he could take his retirement funds lump-sum and pay off debts his wife's business had. Her business was failing and facing bankruptcy. By doing this, the judge would have used nearly all of his retirement funds to make good on those debts.

The judge gave his notice after the deadline for opponents to file that they were running against him in the election (this being the election year). Since nobody else filed, the judge would have run unopposed and been able to move back into the position provided he had not held the position for the prior six months.

The timing of the judge's announcement has caused many (especially the news media) to express outrage. Some in the community complain the judge "left the taxpayers holding the bag" for his pending cases that would now have to be handled by other judges. Recently I've heard complaints that the judge "gamed the system" and shouldn't be allowed to retain his seat. Rest assured, Florida Governor Charlie Crist has said this judge won't be allowed to retain his seat.

Basically the state system works like this (with regard to the judge's job);

1. Judge has spent enough years in the job to retire and receive benefits.

2. Judge can retire and receive his retirement benefits without penalty provided he doesn't fill the same position within six months after retiring.

3. After retirement, Judge is free to run for re-election if he so chooses.

Here's where I wonder if we (as a society) aren't hypocritical about these matters. Many government jobs allow for this same scenario and some of the people complaining about the Judge's actions are government employees. In fact, our local school employees can retire, take six months off and then are eligible for rehire. This is the proverbial "double dipping." In 2010 the state of Florida finally changed the law so that those employees, while being able to be re-hired, can no longer start earning a second set of retirement benefits (yep, they used to be able to do that).

Back to the Judge. Do you find it great moral character that the Judge was going to use his retirement funds to make sure that all the creditors and vendors were going to get their money or do you think he was "gaming the system" as many others do? If you think it was great moral character, but he shouldn't be allowed to retain his seat, isn't that moral character the kind you want sitting behind the bench should you need to go to trial? If you think he was abusing the system, do you actively seek the end to all government employment agreements that allow for this?

By the way...don't you wonder why we always hear government officials purporting that we must pay top wages for government jobs to attract "the best and brightest" yet when government doesn't operate efficiently or effectively, those same "best and brightest" don't get their pay cut?

Knowing The Fair Tax

You'll notice in many of my writings I refer to the Fair Tax. Since there is some confusion about what this is, I recommend you read The Fair Tax by John Linder and Neal Boortz or look up the issue at http://www.fairtax.org/.

The Fair Tax IS NOT the VAT (Value Added Tax).

The Fair Tax is an actual piece of legislation and has been researched much more than probably any other legislation in our nation's history. It is a tax that replaces the current income tax system and would eliminate your current income tax (as well as many other taxes).

I would write in more detail about The Fair Tax, but the two books (The Fair Tax and Fair Tax: The Truth) are easy reads, fairly short and explain it much better than I can.

So, if you're reading one of my posts and you get the idea I am promoting an additional tax, please know that what I'm an advocate of is something that replaces the existing system and gives more power back to the people instead of the politicians.

Pensacola Beach Genius

The BP oil spill prompted Jimmy Buffet to give a free concert on the beach in Alabama and the Doobie Brothers did the same just to our east. This has prompted a local developer and the director of the local island authority to start a move to set up a gulf-front stage to attract musical acts to Pensacola Beach.

I usually get fully behind economic improvement moves, but I have serious reservations about whether or not this will truly boost the area economy;

1. It is focused on increasing tourism only, a seasonal business.

2. Although it will be a "portable" stage it will be where hurricanes like to come ashore, when they come ashore in Florida.

3. We have a little thing called the Community Maritime Park project that has been "in the works" for four years and the only visible signs are some earth moved and signs promoting the park "coming soon." This project was a $40million project when it started. Who knows what it'll be if it ever happens.

4. Orange Beach, Alabama has a little 10,000 seat concert venue (The Wharf) that has been attracting major acts for over a year now. I'm no entertainment expert, but I doubt they'll be lining up to book their act on a small stage on Pensacola Beach when there's better potential so close by.

When investing your money, most money managers will tell you to diversify to some extent. The old "don't put your eggs in one basket" philosophy. I suggest the same applies when it comes to adding industry to a local market. I.e. if our economy is based 80% on tourism, the weather and many other factors dictate the success or failure of our economy. If however, we have 40% based on tourism, 20% on military, 30% based on manufacturing and the remaining 10% on small business, we suddenly don't live or die on the success or failure of tourism.

I've only lived in Florida for 11 years, but I noticed long before moving here that a guy by the name of Disney knew that people would come to your location for more than the sunshine and beaches. So, he built an empire around that thought. His was family entertainment. We could apply the same logic to other industries. Imagine that; attracting people to the area for something other than the beach.

If a simple guy like me can figure this out, why can't the elected officials and paid "experts" tasked with economic improvement?

The New America

Some things that don't make much sense to me;

How we got to be so great a nation must be completely changed in order for us to continue our greatness. Huh? That's right. The politicians and many activists keep telling us we need to have more government control of our financial system/institutions, factories/industries and our healthcare providers/system. This is not what got us to our greatness. Look back at history.

What seems uncanny to me is the fact that we've had over 235 years of history telling us which systems work and which don't. All we have to do is look at our own history and that of the rest of the world. I submit to you that a simple truth for forming a new country 234 years ago is justification today for distancing ourselves from the European ways; a tyrannical government will always keep the governed at it's mercy. Think I'm nuts? Some European countries (and others) have tried everything we're moving toward; open borders, nationalized medical care and government "partnerships" with industries. The Europeans are now moving away from these. France is trying to find a new way to handle their medical system since they can no longer afford the "free" or "universal" healthcare system. Question for all these "do-gooders;" did you grow up, get educated and experienced in the freest society on earth or the type of socialistic society you so willingly promote? If the answer is the former, why would you impose the latter on your children and grandchildren?

Flouride is bad for us. Well, here in the "redneck riviera" we actually have a few political candidates who are pushing for a new debate over whether flouridated public water is good. We finally got it added to the water supply in 2001, but now they want to argue it again. Yep, it can be toxic...if you are drinking the chemical in large quantities, undiluted. Well, duh. But hey, why should we want our kids to grow up with healthy teeth?

I am amazed that protecting illegal immigration is at the top of the federal government's priority list. Yeah, never mind that the federal government cannot or will not enforce its own immigration laws, to the detriment of law-abiding citizens' safety.

Firsthand Impressions of Oil on the Beach

After growing tired of all the doom and gloom, I just had to go see for myself. Yes the "tar balls" are there. I stepped on some. I walked a long way to see if it was just a small area. It wasn't. The surf was rough and seaweed was washing up along with tar balls. This was all directly in front of the main tourist areas of Pensacola Beach on the gulf side. While there was still plenty of sugar white beach, the oil residue was closest to the water, making it difficult to go into the water to cool off (though that was risky with the rough surf anyway).

I then took a drive East (about five miles) to the less populated area just before the Gulf Islands National Seashore. There I found pure sand, the same rough surf and just some washed up seaweed. No oil. My visit there confirmed that if our local visitor's bureau and hotels would coordinate shuttle bus service to these pristine areas (where there are also restroom facilities), tourists could still enjoy Pensacola Beach. I tried this past week to notify the Visitor's Center of my suggestion. They told me to call the Santa Rosa Island Authority. I did and they told me to call the National Park Service. At that point I got so frustrated, I gave up...for now.

This past week, the personal impact of this disaster showed itself in the suicide of a charter boat captain in Alabama. The man grew tired of taking orders from people that had never operated boats, let alone captained them. He grew tired of trying to figure out 50 page applications for reimbursement. It was all too much for a man who'd met numerous challenges in the past and could no longer fight. May God have mercy on Allen Kruse's soul.

As I have observed the effects of this disaster I am struck by the absurdity of all of it. Like many in my area, I am angry. I am angry at BP for not having sufficient safety procedures and protections in place to keep those eleven men from being killed in the explosion. I am angry that BP didn't have sufficient protections to keep the oil from gushing into the gulf the way it has. I am angry that our federal government is so inept and self-serving that possible remedies get tied up in red tape.

I ask why we have a Department of Environmental Protection? Why do we have an Environmental Protection Agency? Doesn't anyone else think it is absurd that once this spill happened, our federal government has dragged its feet on allowing different remedies because some of them might leave some contaminants in the water? Duh! If they're less toxic than the oil, approve them with lightning speed.

I am absolutely disgusted that anyone is dumb enough to think our federal government is the best at managing much of anything beyond our military. How ironic that the one thing our federal government is best at is tasked with killing people and breaking things. Sorry if that offends you, but that's what war is.

It may surprise many of you to learn that my heart broke as I walked the beach today and experienced the oil residue first-hand. Though I'm not much of a beach goer, it breaks my heart that so many have been so powerfully affected. It breaks my heart that this disaster has caused a man to take his own life. I think that one is the most painful for me.

This disaster is NOT the end of the world. There are solutions both short term and long term. We CANNOT give up the fight to help our local economy recover and prosper.

Thank you for reading.

The Oil Disaster Fallout

As of this writing, we're into the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, for two months now. I continue to be amazed at the absolute ignorance of the American people in dealing with this. I'd like to discuss just a few points regarding the disaster.

First, from a technical standpoint, I admit that I had earlier wondered why all attempts to cap the well involved capturing the oil and none seemed to involve just dropping a concrete block (though a very large and heavy one) on top of the well. I've since learned that because of the pressure at which the oil is being pushed out of the ground, to drop an immense block on it would cause an underground explosion which could then cause multiple oil leaks from the sea bed.

Since just about everyone has turned this thing political, I would like to address some of the most ridiculous arguments.

1. Believe it or not, we Americans are blaming our "addiction to oil" for this disaster. There have been incentives (offered by the government) for the development of alternative fuel sources. None have proven cost-efficient. You can't power your car on a windmill. And has everyone forgotten that many plastics and other lightweight materials depend on petroleum?

2. Even our president has touted a statistic that we have 2% of the world's oil reserves, but consume 20% of the world's oil. I don't know where this statistic comes from, but I doubt the validity of it for a number of reasons. None-the-least is the fact that much of the world depends on the United States of America for humanitarian, military or financial aid. That's right, when tragedy strikes anywhere in the world, who always provides aid? The good ol' US of A. Those ships we send with food and medical supplies, weapons for protection and troops all need feeding. Our ships, weapons and medical supplies are usually made in America. That takes petroleum and a lot of it.

3. While everyone recognizes BP's responsibility for the spill and paying for the damage, few seem critical of the regulatory agencies' failure to ensure safety measures and virtually nobody is holding the current executive branch responsible for failing to move quickly in the early days since the explosion of the oil rig. I mean, why do we have a Department of Environmental Protection and an Environmental Protection Agency?

If you've read this far and think I'm all for drilling wherever and whenever, please know that's not the case. I am all for using different sources of energy. I believe that diversity in fuel sources could reduce the price because the demand on each type would be reduced. I believe that if this disastrous accident could have been prevented, then it happened because of a combination of compromised procedures on the part of the operators and a failure to enforce the regulations by the government's regulatory agencies. If that's the case, I think both should be held accountable for their dereliction of duty.

As for boycotts of BP; even if that succeeded in running BP out of business, it would hardly help anyone. Millions of Americans have stock in BP through 401(k)'s (even some government employees) and running BP out of the Gulf of Mexico wouldn't stop the other countries from drilling in the international waters (the same area as the Deepwater Horizon). Does anyone really believe those other countries have better safety requirements than us, or do they just enforce them? Or neither? Hmmm.

Your thoughts?

Term Limit Alternative

As more people read this blog and provide input, it really gets the creative juices flowing. Ergo, I offer the following in response to a recent comment.

Although I am currently for term limits, I believe the passing of The FairTax could greatly reduce the need for them. Please follow me on this. The FairTax changes from the many different taxing strategies we have today, to one consumption tax. Thus our federal government could not (under the FairTax) easily make changes to the tax code and this would reduce the politicians' power. Combined with the fact that elected officials, at the federal level, have a very attractive compensation package, it is possible that they might return to more effective and efficient governing (if they want to keep their jobs). The key is we the people must continuously engage and hold our representatives accountable.

It was suggested that lobbyists' influence be limited "in some way." I submit to you that the FairTax does some of this because government's spending would be limited to the taxes received through the consumption tax. I.e. the federal government could not increase spending by imposing an increase to some other tax (since there'd be no other taxes).

I also would like to address the notion that the political elites will not let changes be made to the current system. I refuse to buy into this. We have had an income tax for less than 100 years (16th amendment, ratified February 3, 1913). If someone had said 30 years ago that we'd elect a president with no business, military or executive experience most people would have said "no way." Look at all the career politicians who had to get out of the way for a 40-something senator (with less than one term in office) to be elected President of the United States.

If we believe in it we can do it. But we must be willing to work for it. I welcome your debate.

Let's Get Our Economy Going!

Once again I am reading a book about the U.S. economy (FairTax: The Truth, Neal Boortz & Congressman John Linder). Look folks, we can have all the government programs we want, but that doesn't grow the economy and the U.S. economy has grown when we (the workers of the United States of America) manufactured the goods the world wants. Why? Read on.

In the eras of booming U.S. economies, we had one of two advantages; either we offered goods that nobody else had or, we offered goods at a quality and/or price level that nobody else could touch. From a consumer standpoint you either buy the product because 1) nobody else has it 2) you can't beat the price or 3) the buying experience is worth the added cost. Okay, occasionally you buy purely out of loyalty, but that's rare. Now consider that most of what we buy is made outside of the U.S. That's got to be the combination of quality and price being better than goods manufactured here.

I submit to you that if we could adopt The FairTax here in America, we'd create an incentive for companies to come back here and manufacture products again. Think about this; in order for us to be buying products made overseas the cost of manufacturing AND importing those products must still make it significantly less expensive than if it were manufactured here. Pardon me for being a little bit biased, but WE ARE AMERICANS! We have been known for being some of the hardest-working, most innovative and efficient workers in the world. When and why did we give up that honor?

Furthermore, any downside (and I don't see any) to adopting the FairTax would be short-lived. If you have not read these two books and you are interested in seeing America become THE leader in manufacturing and innovation, you MUST read them. I know lots of people think that companies went overseas because they are greedy. Well, many of us have 401(k)'s and IRA's invested with these companies. Why? Because we want maximum profits and growth in our savings and retirement plans. Yeah, we're greedy too.

If you think we can't make a difference, remember that the founding fathers of our country (and Martin Luther King Jr. for that matter) could've taken the same approach.

Please read these books and contact your Senators and Congressmen. Let's take America back!

Should "Minimum" Wage be "Livable" Wage?

While reading a book on how we (as a country) move toward eliminating poverty in America, I was struck by the author's push for "livable wages."

As an employer in the service sector, I wonder how proponents of the "livable wage" argument would define "livable wage." Do we say $10 per hour ($20,800 per year)? Why stop there? Should it be $25,000 per year? Without giving any consideration to market forces, picking an arbitrary dollar amount could kill many businesses. If you think that's rhetoric, consider the following;

The cost of labor is always the single biggest expense in the production of goods and services. My business is dry cleaning. The jobs I offer don't require a great deal of education and training. In today's marketplace, we can charge $2.40 to launder and press a shirt, $5.50 to dry clean a pair of slacks, skirt or blouse. Now let's just say that I'm required to hire people at $10 per hour instead of the current $8.00 per hour I offer (which is above the federal minimum wage). That is a 25% increase. Service industry profit margins are typically low. A 25% increase in wages would have to be passed onto the customer. Based on this, a shirt would now cost $3 to launder and press and dry cleaned slacks, skirts and blouses would now be $6.88 each (before any taxes). I wonder how long the proponents of "livable wages" would be willing to pay such an increase in goods and services.

If we were to mandate a "livable wage" the cost of all goods and services would increase. Since the poverty level is some calculation that incorporates the cost of goods it seems that the poverty level would also increase. Ergo, if we were to make the "minimum" livable wage some percentage of the poverty level, the calculation would continuously change. I.e. the cost of goods goes up, causing the poverty level to change, causing the "minimum" livable wage to increase, causing the cost of goods to increase and the cycle goes on.

While I recognize there are poverty issues in America and around the world, most of the "poor" in America have lifestyles well above the middle class of other countries. I visited a "middle class" neighborhood in China in 2009. They didn't have indoor plumbing.

I believe it is very important for us to raise up the disadvantaged and the downtrodden. The problem I have with this in America is that we seem to have redefined poor. We rail against "the rich" and cry that the poor should have all the same accesses as the rich. We want to walk into Walmart and buy big screen TV's for rock-bottom prices yet Americans aren't willing to work for the low wages it would take to manufacture/assemble that same TV for the price we are willing to pay.

I think we are fast approaching the time when we're either going to be forced back to letting market forces dictate costs and pay (which may mean many of us give up many of the things our parents considered luxuries), or we will be forced to pay more in taxes to subsidize basic living expenses for the majority of Americans.

What do you think?

Are You a One-Issue Voter?

I am reading a book about politics and religion. The book seems to center on how both the "right and left" (politically speaking) get "it" wrong; that we are called to be good stewards of this earth and care for each other while we are here because it is God's creation and not just a stopping place before we're united with God in Heaven.

The author of this book claims that Hurricane Katrina (which devastated the Gulf Coasts of Louisiana and Mississippi, in case you've been sleeping the last 5 years) exposed the tragic way we in America, treat our poor.

I for one am growing weary of the tired arguments of the "do-gooders" who think America is to blame for everything. Consider the following;

1. These people that were considered the watchers and keepers of the environment were the ones that were driving the Range Rovers, Land Cruisers and Grand Wagoneers when I was growing up.

2. From the time I was young I've been told how we need to recycle (I do and agree with) and work toward solar (now alternative) energy. Hey, it's been more than 30 years working on it and its still more expensive to produce than it can take in. Thus, all the government subsidies of it.

3. We live in a country where being poor often means you only have one TV (maybe big screen), free food and no requirement that you work. Our poor in America have way more than many wealthy people in third-world countries.

4. Oprah Winfrey went outside the U.S. to open a girls' school because we have numerous programs that already provide for the poor.

5. We (America) have freed more nations from oppression than any other single country. And we usually don't ask for much in the way of repayment. We certainly don't conquer nations and keep their land for ourselves.

I am convinced that personal responsibility and work ethic are all but forgotten terms in America. Why else would our factories and manufacturing jobs have gone away? Greedy businesses you say? How about greedy government, greedy employees (yep there are lots of those) and greedy regulators that only care about what advances their power over others?

While the author of the book I'm reading never really comes out and says it, America must return to a nation that is more than "one-issue" voters. You can't base your vote only on the anti-abortion movement, gun rights or any other single issue. We must return to being hard workers, willing to take whatever jobs we qualify for and producing the best products and services the world will want and need to buy.

If we're not willing to serve the customers, someone else will!

Gulf Oil Spill

I couldn't help but think about just a few things as the news worsens.

1. Oil Companies get a lot of support from many who believe they will "do the right thing" given all the focus on environmentalism and the government regulations they have to follow. So, what the hell went wrong? I mean c'mon, why didn't the backup safeties work?

2. Where were the government agencies that are charged with (and paid handsomely for) ensuring all safety mechanisms are in place and operable? They've targeted a little ol' dry cleaner like me. I guess they should've been payin' attention to the big boys.

3. Are all you opponents to nuclear (and no all you hardcore right-wingers, it's not nucular) energy feeling a little less threatened by the possibility of nuclear energy? No? Okay, how about drilling in ANWR where this kind of a spill would be easier contained?

4. I wonder how many problems with oil wells foreign countries have that we never hear about. Hmm. I would bet your paycheck it is a lot more than we think.

5. In case you're not aware, the lawsuits have already started. That's right, some fishermen who make their living in the Gulf have found ready and willing lawyers to argue the potential loss of revenue. I wonder if these are the same fishermen that often support rigs in the gulf because of the sea life they attract.

Thanks for reading. :)

Racism in America

Today I listened again, to another claim of how white people don't "know what it's like to be a black man in America." That's right, the caller to a national radio broadcast made this claim while discussing the recent passing of Arizona's law addressing illegal immigration.

I have lived my entire life hearing about how tough life is for minorities in America. While I realize there have been injustices in the past by people of all colors, we live in a time where we go out of our way to accomodate minorities even if it means discriminating against whites. That's right, I said it. We all know it. Minorities are given additional points on government jobs/applications and special considerations are made for minorities when granting government contracts.

So I say to the minorities; you have no idea what it is like to have to watch everything you say, lest it be construed as racist. Most "minorities" living in America today don't know what it's like to work their asses off, only to lose the job or contract to someone else because we want to award it to a minority. To grant someone or some business a job or contract BECAUSE they are a color other than white is just as racist as awarding the job or contract to a white person because they are white!

My parents raised me not to be racist. If I work harder than you, I expect to reap the benefits of that work, regardless of what color you are. Martin Luther King Jr. fought for EQUAL treatment, not special treatment.

Consider that as long as we fight amongst ourselves over these petty issues, the idiots in Washington don't have to improve the laws and policies of America to attract businesses and jobs to improve our economy (which would improve everyone's situation).

Here's a suggestion; instead of arguing over race, let's join together and demand our federal government repeal onerous laws and get moving on facilitating economic improvement!

Class Warfare?

The next time you hear about how "the rich" don't "pay their fair share" or how they need to pay more in taxes, please consider the following;

Here are some reasons I'm glad some of you here in America are "rich;"

1. You provide me and my employees with work. I am in the dry cleaning business and you buy clothes that require my services. You are busy working, earning a living and require my delivery services. I and my employees appreciate that you need us.

2. You buy goods and services that keep other people busy at work and they also need my services, again providing us with work and an income.

3. You buy expensive products. I am grateful to you for buying things like plasma tv's when they were $10,000 and personal computers when they were thousands more than they are now. Your purchases at higher prices allowed the manufacturers to improve technology and production so that now, many of the rest of us can afford the same products at a fraction of the cost you paid.

4. You buy cars (and maintain them) when they are brand new that years later, I can afford. It may sound silly, but because you bought that Cadillac years ago and maintained it well, I was able to buy a luxury car in great condition and with low mileage that I would have never been able to consider if I'd had to buy it new.

5. You are willing to spend your hard-earned dollars on medical procedures that later become affordable to the rest of us. Thanks to you, I could afford Lasik surgery that prevented me from spending hundreds of dollars a year on bi-focals (and possibly tri-focals later).

6. You pay much more than me in taxes. Because of the taxes you pay on all of your purchases and property, it reduces my liability. I don't mean I wish you to pay more (on a percentage basis) than I do, but I realize that if we both paid 20% income taxes, you'd pay more than me and I am grateful to you for that.

7. When my church has big-ticket repairs/improvements needed, you often step up to help out. This helps ease the burden on the rest of us that may not have the resources to pay for the repairs/improvements.

I could continue with many other reasons to thank the so-called rich. There will always be those better-off than me and some less-fortunate. We should be willing to offer a helping hand to the less-fortunate while not begrudging the more-fortunate.

Amazing New Jobs Bill

Wow! The congress and president are excited that they passed a "bi-partisan" jobs bill. Yep, they say it will inspire businesses to hire people by giving them a "tax holiday" on the Social Security Tax employers pay.

Just how will it work? Well, you hire someone who's been unemployed for 60 days or more and the business is exempt from the 6.2% (of annual salary on this employee) for the remainder of 2010. Sounds great doesn't it? Until you consider; on a $20,800 annual salary ($10 per hour), it would result in a $1,290 (annual) saving for the company, but it is still costing the business $20,800 to pay the employee, plus unemployment and workman's comp that are both based on payroll, and oh yeah, there may or may not be the actual work there to support hiring an employee...duh!

And here's the kicker; the uncollected revenue will have to be made up by the taxpayers (you and me). When will the idiots in D.C. understand that you need customers buying goods and services to justify hiring workers?

Man and "Environment" Can Coexist

I was struck by forest ecology supervisor Craig Iverson's statement in an article in the May 10, 2010 Pensacola News Journal (www.pnj.com, Coldwater Creek Feels the Burn). The statement had to do with the demise of a woodpecker species during the 1970's, '80's and 90's. The woodpecker species was disappearing because "there was too much brushy understory in Blackwater. We were not burning enough."

Disclaimer; I know Craig Iverson and he is a very intelligent man. My entry here is no indictment of him or his statement.

What struck me about the statement was that we've been told for years (by those purporting to protect the environment/earth) how man is "destroying the environment." We are threatening the habitat of numerous species. To listen to the reports it often sounds as if the planet would somehow be better off without mankind.

So I ask the following;
1. How arrogant must we humans be if we think that we have the power to destroy the earth? Think about that. If you believe in God, you've got to believe that He wouldn't give us the power to destroy His creation. If you believe the earth is greater than us mere mortals, how could you possibly believe we would have power over the earth?
2. What if we didn't protect some of the many "protected" species? Many other countries put no such restrictions on themselves. What would happen? Would new species be created?
3. How much money do we spend every year to "protect" species that have no apparent value to the environment?
4. Isn't man part of nature? If the lion is part of nature and eats when it wants (killing its prey with no regard for the endagerment of a species), why does man have to worry about preserving certain species (other than to maintain a food supply)?

Just for the record; I don't support the senseless killing of various species for no reason. I'm just asking questions.

I say; we can coexist, but we humans are higher on the food chain than the animals and plant life. What do you think?

Are We Underpaid?

Two things really stuck with me over the weekend;

1. In a story about Fortune magazine's number one place to work in America, CBS Sunday Morning cited some poll that stated most American workers are overworked and underpaid.

2. A customer complained that dry cleaning prices are much lower in Houston. This was the second complaint (in one week) about Pensacola dry cleaning prices being higher than dry cleaning prices outside the area.

On the idea that most workers are underpaid and overworked, I tried to imagine how that polling went; Gee, do you think you get paid enough? Do you think your employer expects too much work from you, the right amount or not enough? Is it any surprise how these were answered?

The people I've met that think their pay is adequate can be counted on one hand. You may wonder how this ties into the number two issue; dry cleaning prices being too high. Well, read on...

I am fascinated with people's inability to understand that the private sector typically prices goods and services based on cost and adding some profit. Contrary to popular belief, most small businesses are not adding anywhere near the 100% profit some would have you believe. By the way, our dry cleaning prices are lower than the two larger dry cleaners in the area.

In the Pensacola area we are unable to hire people at minimum wage. We may pay more for supplies than some areas because of transportation costs (e.g. different geographic areas have different fuel costs and that affects the cost of supplies and wholesale goods). Since labor is the single biggest expense in most businesses, it seems to me that complaining about pricing is almost like saying "your people get paid too much."

We want to buy big screen tv's for under $1,000, computers for less than $500 and we expect to get our shirts cleaned and pressed for $1.99. But we don't even consider taking a job that requires significant manual labor or getting dirty. We wouldn't dream of working in a factory. When we do consider a job with a big company, we expect tons of benefits, great salaries and great working conditions. Then when all the manufacturing jobs go overseas, we get mad at the companies for "giving our jobs away."

The next time you hear someone complain about the prices of some good or service, ask them if they'd be willing to take a pay cut in order to keep prices down.

Government Waste

Thank goodness our government is finally gonna get a handle on the U.S. deficit. What? You're surprised? Well, consider that this week our president announced the formation of a "bipartisan" panel to focus on reducing deficits. Yep, you can rest assured that they'll get to the bottom of our deficit issues.

Now I don't know about you, but I thought that was the job of our elected representatives. And who do you think will make up that "bipartisan" commission? Do you think it will be independent auditors that have no ties to the elected morons who've helped create this mess? I doubt it.

So once again, the federal government will pay people lots of money to tell us what we already know; the idiots responsible for oversight of our federal spending have been derelict in their duties for many years and it needs to be stopped. But no one will be fired, tried or even slapped on the wrist. The final report probably won't even be shown to the public. If it is, it will only be after somebody twists the findings to show that the irresponsibilities were the fault of people no longer in office ('cause God-forbid one of our esteemed politicians be held to account).

Please encourage your friends to pay attention.

Healthcare "Reform"

If you read nothing else in this posting, please read and heed the last paragraph.

Our local daily newspaper has been printing regular letters to the editor, touting the need for a government healthcare option or immediate healthcare reform. These writers say we have got to get control over the glutenous insurance companies.

Here's the problem with the current healthcare system; it relies too much on insurance. Think about the following scenario (PLEASE FOLLOW THIS THROUGH); patient goes to doctor when too sick to remedy with an over-the-counter medicine. The doc visits with the patient for five minutes, writes a prescription and sends the patient on their way. Patient pays the $20 copay (usually before even being seen) and goes off to the pharmacy. When the patient sees the "explanation of benefits" he sees the following; doctor's office charged $115, insurance allowed $85, patient paid $20 copay so the insurance covered the remaining $65. Sounds okay until you remember the patient is paying $200+ per month for his insurance premium. So the patient is paying $2,400 per year, employer is paying (at least) another $2,400 per year for health insurance. $4,800 per year for single coverage health insurance and the patient maybe goes to the doc 2-4 times per year.

Now, let's say we started buying health insurance like we do car insurance; only for the unusual or unexpected expenses that would cause us unusual financial hardship. Now the doctor's offices would have to charge "market rates" or fees that patients can afford out of pocket. Thus, maybe the doctor visit only costs $35-$50 which sounds like much more than the $20 copay until you realize that now the monthly insurance premium might be more like $75-$100 because it is only covering major medical expenses. In this example the patient is paying half the annual premium, thus saving $1,200 per year. Even if he goes to the doc 4 times during the year, at $50 per visit, he is still saving over $1,000 per year. The employer is also saving on the premium, allowing them to invest that money in development/growth of the company.

I submit to you that anyone demanding a "government option" health insurance to lower the cost of insurance has never fully understood the disastrous homeowner's insurance situation in Florida. Basically, the state got into the insurance business to be the insurer of last resort. But the state required the private insurers to keep rates artificially low. Ultimately all but one of the major private insurance companies left the state. Thank you politicians!

There is not one federal government program that has proven to be at least as efficient or beneficial as promised. We are supposed to be The United States of America, not the Federally Dictated States of America. Think about what that means.

Educated people have said to me they don't voice their opinion because they think it doesn't matter. Thank God the founding fathers of our country (and all the militia men) didn't think this way!

Free Speech & Campaign Finance

How precious it is that the local newspaper (Pensacola News Journal, or PNJ) is outraged at the Supreme Court's finding that corporations and unions cannot be limited in their expenditures to promote political candidates (Buy The People, PNJ Opinion page, January 24, 2010). The PNJ states the word "people" is included in the First Amendment, not "corporations or unions."

The First Amendment actually reads; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Bold is added by me. The word "people" is in the phrase regarding assembly, the freedom of speech phrase doesn't exclude anyone. Congress did make a law that abridged the freedom of speech within 30 days of an election (commonly known as McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform).

The PNJ makes the claim that elections will now be paid for by the highest bidder. Hmm, how strange it is that the one thing newsies report to us during elections is how much money each candidate has raised. They use this as a basis for how likely the candidate is to be a contender. Funny also that we've all known politicians have been bought by lobbyists for years and more recently they've been so bold as to buy each other's votes on bills with outright bribes using taxpayer money.

Every time a "news organization" is accused of anything, they cry "free press, free press!" PNJ is owned by Gannett corporation. Should they be limited in their opinions prior to an election?

We all know there's a lot of funny business when it comes to campaign finances, but for a newspaper, owned by an often opinionated corporation that thrives on it's protection under the First Amendment, to then cry foul when other corporations are given the same protection is laughable to say the least.

If We Are At War With Al Qaeda...

When the President gave his speech this week on the failure to prevent the Christmas Day underwear bomber, he said "we are at war with al Qaeda, a far-reaching network that attacked us on 9/11, killing 3,000 people and is plotting to attack us again."

This statement raises a question that I've heard no one, not even Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity raise. That is; if we are at war with al Qaeda and they attacked us on 9/11 and Khalid Sheik Mohammed has admitted to being the mastermind of that attack, why is he not classified as an enemy combatant and tried as such instead of going through the civilian court system here in the United States. Our elected representatives should be demanding this from our president.

God Save America should replace God Bless America as our new slogan.