Post Office Genius

Today, during a news report about cutting US Post Office services a "spokeswoman" said something that I just couldn't believe. She said that even though they were considering cutting some services and may have to close some locations, employees wouldn't be laid off, but given opportunities at other locations. In fact I believe I heard her say they "never" lay people off.

This was unbelievable to me because every business owner knows the largest single cost of operating any business is usually the cost of labor. Therefore, if you are trying to reduce expenses, the most significant impact can usually be felt by cutting labor costs. In the private sector, this has been going on for a number of years now as companies try to stay afloat. Sidebar - I realize that the US Postal Service may technically not be a government operation, but whether it is or isn't public sector is debatable.

If the USPS refuses to lay people off, I fail to see how it will resolve its financial woes. In fact it has been the USPS's antiquated employment practices that has led to strict regulations requiring them to pre-fund retirements (which has caused many to say the USPS has been set up to fail by the Federal Government). How precious is it that an entity so heavily dependent on the Federal Government for so many years finds itself frustrated by regulations imposed by the same Federal Government?

Back to the original point; the USPS seems to think it is okay to just move people around even though the work isn't there to support the number of employees. You don't have to be an Honor Grad of the Wharton School of Business to see the fallacy in that.

Optional Tax for Fire Trucks?

Today, the fire truck rushed by and I noticed the following plastered on the side; "paid for with local option sales tax." For those who don't know, the Local Option Sales Tax (LOST, how ironic) is an additional sales tax voters approved to help the municipalities.

Here's the thing; taxes should pay for essential services first and I can think of no government services more essential than fire and police protections, yet they both have numerous vehicles paid for with this tax money. Ergo, each time the LOST comes up for a renewal vote, we're told it is needed for these essential functions. Well I have one question; Where the hell is the money going that's supposed to go to these services? Our property taxes are levied to cover these functions as well as schools.

I was told by a very knowledgeable newsman that these vehicles are paid for from that tax because that tax revenue can legally only be used for those purposes. Again though, I don't understand why we don't start with a zero budget every year and justify all expenses, prioritizing the most essential first. Of course everyone thinks their department is the most important and we've got contractual obligations with government employees that must be kept and there are capital improvements needed and blah, blah, blah.

Just one more thing about government that is bass ackwards.

Veteran's Day Thoughts

As Veteran's Day came and went last week, I reflected on my military service and gave thanks for all who've served. But as people made a big deal of the day, the attention started to wear on me. Sunday morning, sitting in church Veteran's Day just seemed to lose most importance for me.

I know this is gonna make many people mad (although this blog isn't read by many anyway), but I find many veterans braggadocious about their service. I support and appreciate the special parades and memorials put forward each Veteran's Day, but as a veteran who did my job and was compensated for it, I need no special recognition.

I believe Veteran's Day is a day of remembrance for those who've given their all in service to our country and suffered as a result. Veteran's Day is not a happy day. For those of us who were paid, clothed, fed and housed by a grateful nation appreciative of our service, no additional special recognition is needed. If you want to say thank you, I'll respond with a polite, "you're welcome" and you are. Thank you to the United States of America for the opportunities you gave me and the support you continue to offer us veterans.

I am glad I served and feel honored to have done so. I appreciate that like many, my superiors and nation took me, faults and all, and used me as they needed.

For those who think I'm being silly, consider that the military is a microcosm of our society with good and bad. Therefore, not all who served were the romantic heroes we so often portray them to be. I know I wasn't one. I have the perspective of more than 12 years of military service in two branches and I know some were people who had the choice of jail or military, some joined to learn discipline, some stayed in because the retirement benefits were better than they could get anywhere else and some joined to gain an education.

For me, I joined for three reasons; 1) I was patriotic and wanted to be in the US Military, 2) I wanted some education and wasn't going to college to get it, and 3) the military would pay me while I got that education.

You see, I believe I was just doing my job. The heroes were the other guys. One of the heroes was a 17 year-old I saw die from exhaustion in Army Boot Camp. Two other heroes were the guys badly burned from a boiler blow-out onboard my first Navy ship. Other heroes (for me) include the helicopter pilots who took me safely from land to a carrier in the Persian Gulf. Another hero is my deceased Uncle who flew missions during Vietnam. The Drill Sargent (Ellis) who wouldn't give up on me is a hero (I wonder where he is today).

But as for the rest of us, and there are millions of us, we were just doing our jobs.

Government Competition Again?

Recently local business owners expressed their excitement over a "prime" piece of Gulf-front property being developed for a resort. These business owners feel this will bring more business to their area. Sounds great right?

So who is offering the property for development? The US Air Force. That's right. According to the news report, the Federal Government is looking to make better use of "it's" properties. In this case, apparently they'll charge rent for a private company to develop and use the beach property for a resort. What's wrong with that, right?

Here's the thing; is our Federal Government supposed to be in the business of land development? If the land is sitting idle, why not turn the property back over, completely, to private industry. In addition to this, many private enterprise operations (especially off-shore oil rigs) get denied for the area because they'd have an "adverse impact" on the military's ability to perform training missions in the area.

I've ranted on this before and I believe few people see the actual long term damage done by government that controls more and competes more with private sector businesses. Just look at the local trend; city rents prime office space to private company, city gives property to local company and now, Air Force rents out prime beach property for resort development.

Though this issue will probably have little affect in my lifetime, I keep on this because the slow disappearance of free enterprise will eventually lead to the total loss of freedom of the people to conduct commerce without significant government competition.

Pay attention, the returns on your investment are great!

Competition Part II

If you read the previous post about government competing with private sector, you should find this consistent with that story.

Recently the city offered a piece of real estate, valued at $750k, to the company next door...for free. The conditions require the technology company to hire 100 employees at an average salary of $40k over the next five years. Currently the company employs less than 60 people. The property is a little used parking lot owned by the city.

Here's the problem; there is an abundance of available, privately owned, commercial space available in the city. It is one thing for a government to offer tax breaks, but to offer the actual product in direct competition with the private sector...well, I can't help but wonder if this is the beginning of the end of the free-market-private-enterprise system as we know it.

Opinions?

Government vs. Private Sector Competition

A recent local newspaper article touted how the natural gas company, owned by the city, was awarded a $6.5million contract for a complete upgrade of the "energy management and control system" at the National Naval Aviation Museum. To be fair, the gas company is using Siemens, a private company, as a subcontractor. But here's the thing; the gas company is heating and we're in Florida, so the portion of the "energy management and control system" they'd logically be involved in would be the least utilized.

My issue with this is that a public utility, it seems, shouldn't be in competition with private sector contractors for this type of work. I.e. I think of public utilities being set up because providing that utility is somehow cost prohibitive for a private company, but is still needed. Following that logic, it seems that the natural gas company's services should end with the providing of natural gas to the end user, not being a general contractor for entire energy management system upgrades to a national museum.

This may seem trivial to a lot of people, but consider that within the last 6 months the city leased one floor of its main building to a private company. Some local owners of commercial real estate saw that as the city competing in the commercial real estate business. I must admit that until the issue of unfair competition was brought up by one of those owners, I hadn't given it much thought. But now, with this latest contract award, it seems the city government grows ever more controlling.

The more I considered both of these situations, the more it seemed that a trend has begun and if not squelched, this may lead to more government control being the norm.

I am very interested in hearing what you think of this.

Small Victory

God is good, all the time.

Today I had a scheduled meeting w/the Dept. of Environmental Protection (DEP). I was accompanied by two good friends and brothers in Christ. They were there primarily to help me maintain my temper and ensure that, should I misunderstand something, they could set me straight.

The meeting lasted less than 20 minutes. That's right. When I asked if I could record the meeting, the DEP supervisor questioned why I'd want to do this. Then he asked who these people were that I brought with me. Keep in mind that the letter of invitation I received to attend this meeting contained the statement that I could bring with me anyone I wish "that may be able to help resolve the matter." Upon learning that one of my friends is an attorney, the supervisor lost it...okay, he didn't throw up, but it was clear he was uncomfortable and stated that if I was going to have an attorney at the meeting, he was going to have one also and therefore, the meeting would need to be rescheduled.

Now, rescheduling may not sound like a victory to you, but if you could've seen this play out, it looked like a scene from a sitcom. I've never seen someone escape so quickly, I mean shazzam! He was gone.

I'm no Hank Reardon (Atlas Shrugged), but I sure felt like it.

All the time, God is good.

United STATE of America?

I cannot help but wonder what happened to the United States of America I grew up in and learned about in school. The United States of America I served to protect and defend, was built on the perseverance of people who relied on their skills and abilities to carve out a life in an otherwise brutal existence. The one underlying value was self-reliance. People made mistakes and took responsibility for their actions. Your word meant something and there was shame in building your family before you had the means to provide for them. Friends banded together to help each other when necessary. Sounds like some far-removed religious group, right? Essentially the idea was that you were free to pursue life, liberty and happiness. The least amount of government intervention the better.

Fast forward; you are not responsible for your actions if it is because you drink too much, life dealt you a difficult hand or your parents were tough on you during your childhood. Financially, if you don't have the means or discipline to save a down payment for a house, the government considers that unfair and puts into place regulations requiring lenders to make concessions in order to spur home ownership, "the American Dream."

Fast forward again; the federal government sues banks for questionable mortgage decisions after the government put the rules in place ordering the banks to make the very mortgage loans the federal government now condemns. The federal government sues an employer for removing an employee from a position requiring the utmost safety, because the employee admits to being an alcoholic, public safety be damned. A federal government organization (the National Labor Relations Board or NLRB) files suit to stop an aircraft manufacturer from locating a new plant, which will provide jobs, in a state that is less favorable to unions. So now states can't even compete with each other for job creation, lest the federal government block the move.

Have we not turned over so much control to the federal government that we're teetering on the verge of becoming one state? States used to maintain departments for education, health and human services and employment services. Now many of these same departments rely on the federal departments for funding and must comply with federal regulations. As an example of how profound this move to federal statism is; the United States existed for nearly 200 years before having a federal department of education. Since the creation of that organization 40 years ago, the nation's education system has gone through many changes, but arguably student performance has not improved, yet the federal Department of Education continues to cost many millions of dollars to operate.

I submit that if all states must comply with never-ending federal regulations and rely on federal funding, this may be the end of a nation of "united states?"

Furthermore, I ask why so many people think a "federal government" really cares about individuals? You take any organization, make it big enough and it starts to feed its own purposes, based on the people running the organization. Don't believe me? Attend any organized sports organization for kids, neighborhood association meeting or "town hall" put on by an elected official. People care about themselves first and politicians are no different.

There was a time when the elected officials understood their primary purpose in office was to better the nation and put the best interests of the nation ahead of their own political careers. I believe that no longer exists as a primary conviction.

Show me where I'm wrong.

Extra Strength God

We all have points in our lives when we learn something we should've known all along. This post is about one of those for me.

During this week I had to deal with changing a flat tire that gave me a deeper understanding of God's power. This may seem fairly benign or routine for many people but please let me explain.

As most readers of this blog know, I own and operate my own business picking up/delivering dry cleaning. Since growing that business into a full fledged dry cleaning plant with all the overhead, expenses and employee issues, there've been numerous financial difficulties. It seems that when employee issues get resolved, then there's equipment issues. One issue after another.

So, often times when I get going in the delivery van, there's a sense of relief and normalcy. Thursday was one of those days; started out a little early and was ahead of schedule. Then at 8:30 a.m., in front of the City building, I notice the left front tire very low on air. I hop back in and move the van to a parking spot where I'll be able to either change the tire or have the van towed.

Once out of the van, I looked at the tire and it was almost completely flat. Decision time. I chose to go deliver the clothes I needed to deliver first. Upon coming out of the building the tire is completely flat. I'm not driving the van anywhere and I immediately start the process of changing the tire. If you've ever changed the tire of a vehicle with the spare mounted underneath the rear, you know it isn't an easy task. You have to get the tools out (and these aren't the standard tools you'd keep in your garage), lower the spare, get the retaining bar out from the middle of the spare, jack up the vehicle and that's all before turning the wrench on the first lug nut. Keep in mind the temperature @ 8:30 a.m. was about 90, with about 80% humidity.

The process of removing the lug nuts seems like it shouldn't be a big deal, but all of my tires were last rotated by professionals and they use power tools to secure those lug nuts. I had a couple that were really difficult and at one point, I said; God, please just give me a little more strength. He did and the next attempt was just enough to loosen the nut. From there, it was a matter of putting the spare on, tightening the nuts and putting the spare in the back of the van

By now, my arms were filthy and fortunately the City building had a bathroom that had good soap. I was able to clean up quickly and go on about my business. My customers never even knew.

Here's what that experience taught me. Don't ask God for material things. Ask God for that which will have bigger affect. By granting me the little extra strength I needed to loosen that lug nut, I was able to go about my day with renewed optimism. Although I should've known for a long time, that God is by our sides when we need him most, this situation proved that truth.

He is an Extra Strength God, just ask Him for it and have faith.

Mea Culpa? Of sorts.

So over the weekend a facebook post was put up asking why politicians call themselves Christians while supporting laws that hurt the poor the most. Admittedly, my initial response was wrong; I posted that if I believe in Jesus Christ as my lord and savior, doesn't that make me a Christian, regardless of what else I do? Duh, yeah, I agree that you've gotta walk the walk, not just talk the talk. Much in the same manner that giving birth to, or fathering a child doesn't make you a Mom or Dad.

I then went on to post that the Ten Commandments were all we need and something about the government passing laws that require us to feed and clothe the poor.

Clearly this was not what I should have said and I was justly berated for some of my comments, but I was taken aback by the intensely personal way some people chose to attack me. Quite frankly I thought it was very UN-Christianlike. I know those people have no concern for me, my opinions or my feelings, but it still was very interesting how quickly things can decline into condescension, disrespect and even hatred. Especially by those who believe they are more Christian than the rest of us.

When faced with the question of why politicians call themselves Christians while supporting laws that hurt the poor the most, maybe I should've asked; you mean the same politicians that have made it possible for "the poor" to obtain cell phones at taxpayer expense? Or; you mean the same politicians that have made it easier for "the poor" to obtain food, housing and healthcare? Or; you mean the same politicians that have made it possible for "the poor" to obtain up to 99 weeks of unemployment benefits?

As for my comment about the Ten Commandments being all we need, sorry if it offends some people, but it sure seems to me that if we all followed the Ten Commandments, we might not need any other laws. I can't say that's fact, but it is my opinion. Naive as it may be to some, I am still allowed my opinion.

I was even ridiculed for being "simplistic." Wow! Much of what I've read in the Bible seems awfully simplistic. In fact, I get the very distinct impression that if we put God above all else and if we "walk in his ways," we will find true salvation. Yet, I'm berated by people half my age for such simplicity.

In the end, I find it disheartening (at the least) that people who've never created a job and/or never had to struggle with the regulations/restrictions of government think they should take, by force, from someone who has more than they do.

So I ask one question; why is it okay for government to pass laws that harm ANYONE?

Protecting the Environment?

Again I have had the pleasure of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) making sure my small business is in compliance with their guidelines. Tell me what you think of this;

After conducting an inspection of my facility, the DEP Hazardous Waste representative decided she needed to test the dispersants from my treatment machine (a machine they suggested I purchase four years ago). Fair enough. On test day, three people from the DEP show up, all in different vehicles. Two of them arrived in separate, very large, diesel pickup trucks with crew cab and "EMERGENCY RESPONSE" plastered all over them. I point this out because these are the people tasked with "protection of the environment." Yet, they are driving anything but fossil-fuel-saving-low-emission-vehicles.

The three DEP representatives proceed to spend the next three hours to obtain a few samples of water vapor. At a time when all levels of government seem to be operating on tight budgets with no room for unnecessary expenses, this just seems wasteful.

To make this situation even more insulting, the DEP representative has informed me that if the test results are out of compliance guidelines, I'll be expected to pay for the test AND she cannot tell me what the cost for that test is. But if the test results are in compliance, the state (taxpayers) pay for the test. Since state and federal governments are hurting for money, do you think there's any incentive for them to make sure the test results are out of compliance? Oh yeah, and I was told they couldn't give me a sample because of custody and control guidelines.

Stay tuned to see how this turns out, but tell me what you think.

The World In Which We Live

I read this morning about a lemonade stand, operated by kids raising money for a water park trip, being shut down by the police. Their offense? Not having a business license and "proper permits." This is the second time in the past six months, I've heard of this happening.

I grew up in a world where we drank from garden hoses. We would play in dirt, barely washed our hands before eating and never even thought of using something called hand sanitizer. Now we live in a world where it seems every bathroom has sinks and soap dispensers that don't require touching the controls and, as if washing your hands wasn't good enough, there's hand sanitizer by the door to use on the way out.

Demanding that kids go get a business license to operate a temporary sidewalk lemonade stand is just plain stupid. And what purpose would permits from the health department serve? The kids are buying lemonade mix, adding water (probably from the city supply), and selling it in disposable cups. Oh yeah, making the kids apply for and obtain licenses and permits ensures the city gets some revenue. This is proof again that government is more about process than purpose. More about making sure everyone follows the rules than the rules making sense.

Just some thoughts.

The Moocher Mentality?

I have come to the conclusion that when it comes to taxation, the issue really boils down to one thing; whether or not one person has the right to take from another and, if so, to what extent.

For me, much of this comes back to a person's historical perspective which, I submit, begins the day that person is born. I.e. people who've lived with an income tax all their lives, assume it is necessary. Many times those same people don't even research enough to realize that this nation existed for well over 100 years without an income tax. In fact the income tax is less than 100 years old as of this writing.

While I understand the government needs to be funded, I question the manner in which we fund it and the logic that our government is empowered to take from anyone it so chooses. I further question the logic that so many people subscribe to; that some people have too much and don't have a right to that which they've earned.

I come from the perspective that I have no more right to take from my neighbor through taxes as I do through theft. But that is what so much of taxation is; voting to take from my neighbor because he has more than me.

Additionally I am disgusted that people jealous of those who EARN a certain amount want to TAKE more from those people. I say; how much is too much? And aren't earnings what we want from a productive society? EARNINGS are not "ill-gotten gains."

Just so commenters of this blog know, I am a business owner paying myself less than $40,000 per year and with everything I own on the line. But I DO NOT begrudge those who earn more than me. I applaud those who've achieved greatness or great financial success.

Again, I have no right to take from others that which I have not earned. It is as simple to me as "thou shalt not steal."

Simple Math and Income Taxes

So today a friend says he agrees with the President and why shouldn't the rich pay more? So I got to thinking; if I made $50,000 in annual (taxable) income and I paid 15% in income tax, that would be $7,500. If the rich guy I think gets way too much money and lives large on his $1million annual taxable income pays 28% income tax, that works out to $280,000 in taxes paid. Can't we at least agree that the millionaire IS already paying more in taxes?

Then the friend says; "don't these rich people get enough tax deductions? They don't need any more deductions." This got me thinking after I left, that the main deduction (accelerated depreciation on private jets) the President targeted in his press conference is the same deduction both my friend and I have been able to take (albeit on a much smaller scale) because we're both business owners and we can take the deduction on equipment purchased.

This further prompted me to think of the following possibility. Imagine the economy so bad that many people are losing their jobs and homes to foreclosure. Imagine that so many people are suffering financially that some news reporter or politician posits the idea that only the wealthy can afford to own their homes anymore. Now imagine that idea becoming such a widespread belief that the federal government suggests the mortgage interest deduction be eliminated from the annual income tax filing. Imagine homeowners being called the greedy and wealthy. Imagine that.

Many people wonder why I would support giving tax breaks to businesses, rich people or anyone else. Again, simple math; let's say we "get even" with some really, really rich guy who has an annual income of $10million and we increase his tax rate from 38% to 40%. Doesn't sound like much of an increase, right. In fact it is a $200,000 increase. That is $200k now taken out of the economy. That high-income person might have bought goods and services with that $200k which would have employed many people. He or she might have invested it into a business which would have employed people, or invested it in stocks that would have employed people. Instead, through the tax increase, that money will be put into the government which is much less efficient than the private sector, much of it will be eaten up by administrative costs and any jobs that would be created (if any actually are) would be short-term maintenance jobs.

As I've said in the past, I am glad there are wealthy people. They buy our goods and services. They keep many of us employed. They buy products when new inventions are made so that later on the rest of us benefit from better products at affordable prices.

The upper-income earners are not the enemy.

Your thoughts?

Time To Address US Wages

In a previous post, I said I'd discuss this subject so...here goes.

Most people in the United States are overpaid for the job they're doing. How do I know this and on what basis is this statistic founded? Very simply; we now compete with the world for our jobs and many of those jobs have left the United States. When we said (back in the 1980's and 90's) that we were a global economy and had to think that way, we never even considered our wages were not competitive with the rest of the world.

You can fight my logic on this, but if we want to have the jobs that have moved to other countries, one of the things we have to do is make the finished product competitively priced with comparable quality. In order to do that, labor costs here will have to be closer to what they are in other countries. Notice I didn't say they have to be the same.

I believe we can achieve an objective of comparable quality with lower labor costs (than today) by doing the following;

1. Being willing to work for a lesser wage.
2. Removing some labor expenses for employers.
3. Removing or limiting liability damages/expenses for employers.

This might require us, the labor force, to accept a lower standard of living for at least a period of time. Unfortunately, the competition is already doing this. I'm not saying we all need to be willing to move into huts with outhouses, but we may have to forego the "mcmansion."

Maybe we phase out automatic payment of Social Security Income for different groups if they don't have a financial need for that income. Maybe we cut back on the amount employers have to pay into Medicare and Social Security. Maybe instead of Medicare paying for every type of healthcare issue, it only covers emergencies and major medical.

Maybe we move to a "loser pays" legal system so that frivolous lawsuits would be reduced. I.e. the loser in a liability suit pays their own legal expenses AND that of the party that wins the suit.

These are just suggestions and you may have better suggestions.

My statement of most people being overpaid may be offensive to some, but I walk into numerous offices each day to see people playing solitaire or shopping online. Granted, many people are hard-working and there's nothing wrong with a little down-time, but we have gotten to the point where we have flat screen tv's in many households, at least two cars in the driveway and our toughest daily decision is figuring out which fast food restaurant will get our lunch dollars. Meanwhile, workers in other countries build the tv's, furniture and toys we play with.

Consider that whenever we want to buy something, we think we should get the lowest price, but then we think our own pay should be higher than whatever it is today.

Reality; the United States is not the emerging economy it once was. India, China and others are taking over that spot. Somebody has to make the goods and services these people will want to buy. Why shouldn't we be able to produce those goods and services? Eventually, they'll be wanting to watch movies at home, take lavish vacations and eat like pigs. Start now and we can be the ones raking in the dough when they start buying the toys en masse.

What do you think?

Conservatives?

Not too long ago I heard a radio commentary where the guy said conservatives seem to be for everything except conservation.

My immediate reaction was to say out loud; my idea of conserving is turning the light off when you leave the room, recycling whenever and wherever possible and using hand-me-downs. I say what's wrong with buying a used luxury car that gets better gas mileage than most cars that were on the road when I was growing up? I say, go ahead and buy up all the "electric" cars you want, but those electric power plants will have to be powered somehow, many by coal.

I'm all for reducing, recycling and reusing, but for crying out loud, do we have to take it to the point where we denigrate anyone who's fortunate enough to enjoy some luxuries? For years when I was growing up, I saw those who were considered conservationists, driving Range Rovers, lived in pretty nice houses and wanted for nothing. These people were driving gas guzzlers, didn't ride bicycles anywhere (unless they first toted them on the back of the SUV) and had the lawn service using every chemical (enviro-friendly or not) to keep the yard green.

I'm all for taking care of the beautiful earth that God has blessed us with, but you should see my yard when I leave it to nature; the entire lawn and plants die off due to a lack of water, weeds take over and the soil quality is more like rock.

So yes, I consider myself a conservative and yes, I drive a big car. But gee, my business allows me to provide a service to people that saves them running some errands and thereby saves time, gas and money. Some of us conservatives are for conservation, but we just don't think that means we all have to go back to the days of horse and buggy.

Response to Comment on Taxes...

Comments submitted anonymously came through to my email notification, but for some reason they didn't show up on the blog, so I will post them now with my responses.

Anonymous wrote:
I agree on much of what you have proposed. JOBS, I believe, is very important; no question about it. I think that putting people to work should be the main priority. I also agree that if more people are working, the more revenue the country brings in. Jobs also helps self-esteem. I believe that it makes people feel that they contribute to society and it is important that the message get across that all need to contribute.

I resepectfully disagree with you on one point. I don't believe that the only reason that companies went overseas was to avoid taxes. I believe they went for that AND cheap labor (that is discussion for another time). If I understand you correctly, you advocate for lowering corporate taxes to entice them to come back. I am not sure I agree in that GE was owed money because of the tax breaks already given. This may be an extreme case. Oil companies are making record profits and getting assistance from the Federal Government. I would also refer you to a 60 minutes piece done several months ago in which the owner of the Horizon Oil rig moved the company overseas to a post office box in Europe and now pays no U.S. income taxes. I hope this is not getting off the mark but wouldn't lowering taxes not make a difference because being offshore, they don't have to pay any taxes?

My response
You are right that companies didn't only leave America because of taxes, but taxes and regulations are a huge impact on businesses in America. There are numerous compliance issues businesses must deal with here, that don't exist in many foreign countries. Cheap labor is another reason for companies leaving and I would love to discuss that further another time.
I agree that the GE scenario of not paying taxes seems extreme and unfair. However, I call that a failure of the current tax system to apply taxes to all entities if all entities are supposed to be taxed. I don't necessarily blame the company for exercising all of its rights under the tax code. It also emphasizes how The Fair Tax would resolve this; i.e. a consumption tax would mean that corporations purchasing goods and services from other businesses would pay taxes on those goods and services, not based on the net income of the business. As for the idea that it wouldn't matter if businesses were here or not because being already "offshore" they pay no US income taxes, it actually would benefit them to return here because US would be a tax haven. Yes, there'd still be issues of labor to resolve, but it would be a good starting incentive. And for those thinking of leaving, it would deter them from doing so if the decision to leave was based on income taxes.

Anonymous wrote:
Would you agree that with all the rhetoric of cutting federal jobs would add more people to the unemployment lines resulting in more jobs needed to make up for the losses. Would you also agree that language of the government "goinng back to 2008 spending levels," makes no sense? It suggests that things cost the same as they did three years ago and does not take into account price increases? I know it is off topic but just wondering what your thoughts on that were.

My response
I agree that cutting federal jobs adds more people to unemployment if there are not private sector jobs for them to fill. I guess the question I have is; if we don't need those positions (and please don't tell me the jobs being lost are all law enforcement officers and firefighters), aren't we just using a different form of welfare? Again, shouldn't we focus on increasing private sector jobs?
As for "going back to 2008 spending levels," I say why stop there? We're talking about government spending, not yours and my grocery bills. The unfortunate reality is that if we keep spending more, there's no plan to pay that money back. Sort of like me saying; "I've maxed out my $10,000 credit card and even though my income has gone down, I want the credit card company to give me another $5,000." Since that makes no sense, why do we accept it from government?

Anonymous wrote:
Again, I think your idea of more people going back to work would be one way to help increase revenue. More also has to be done because there are more people in the country. The population has not remained neutral. I think there is much more that needs to be done. I think this arguing on both sides does no one any good. It appears that it is like children fighting that if neither one can get their way, they call each other names; ridiculous! I also believe that there are people in society that need our help and we need to help them.

My response
I'm not for all the name calling. What I fail to give into though, is the idea that increased government spending on numerous programs is good. We keep spending more and it is NEVER enough. As recently as the last 2-3 years we were told TARP and Stimulus HAD to be done to save the economy. Well, it didn't save the economy. It saved some government and auto worker jobs for a while. Then they did "Quantitative Easing" and that wasn't enough.

I agree that there are people in society that need help and we should help them. I don't believe it is the job of our government to offer so much help that it means people can continue to procreate, overeat and generally do nothing at the expense of someone else. To those who're handicapped beyond working capability, I say I will help you. To those capable of working and are living free at the expense of the taxpayers, I say; get to work and make yourself useful, like helping the handicapped.

Taxes? Or...something else?

I drafted the following on April 18 of this year. Given some recent reports, I believe my musings are particularly relevant. Additionally I believe that; for those who don't normally follow economics, it is very informative. Please enjoy and consider with respect to the United States' current economy.

Recently the US Governing bodies have been wrangling over budget and tax issues. There seems to be two prevailing opinions put forth by the news media; either raise taxes on some or cut taxes.

I believe the falicy is that neither of these is the real issue.

The real issue is JOBS! Hold on. Before you go sayin' they're two different issues, just follow my logic. The reason we have budget problems is simply spending more money than the government takes in. I happen to believe that cutting spending is a problem that must be addressed. However, as any business owner can attest to, even if you cut spending to the bare minimum you will likely be left with a need to increase revenue. Even if not for immediate needs, you'll certainly need increased revenue going forward.

If we can agree that we'll eventually need greater revenue, the question is how to get it. Since the current tax code places heavy emphasis on income tax, we would do well to have more wage earners in the system than trying to tax more on a dwindling work force. If we overhauled the tax code to move to a "flat" or "consumption" tax, we'd still be better off having more wage earners paying into the system.

Think of it this way; if you want more of an activity, make it less expensive. If you want less of an activity, increase the expense (or taxation) on that activity. That's right, we tax wages for services performed. Is it any wonder then that people have figured out how to do less (or no) work and collect a paycheck from the government?

Once we agree that we must increase revenue to the government, and if we can agree that increasing the number of jobs would do that, we can then focus on bringing those jobs to our shores.

Now that we've agreed that we want jobs here in America, we have to give businesses good reasons to come back here. Our labor costs may be more than other countries, but we have an extremely efficient (don't laugh, it's true) work force. If we were to get rid of many onerous taxes on businesses and roadblocks that prevent businesses from getting permitted in a timely manner, it would go a long way to improve the marketability of the U.S. as a manufacturing haven.

Who's Greedy? :(

I have been thinking over this posting for more than a week. I've read and heard many comments regarding businesses and how greedy they are. I've pondered statements that corporations only care about profit, regardless of the fallout.

I feel qualified to speak to this because I've been an entry-level employee, middle management, upper management and now a business owner/operator.

I believe that as a business owner/operator WITH employees, I have a perspective many do not. Lack of that perspective prevents many of the business critics from getting past the sound bites provided by the nightly news media.

People should understand the following;

1. Businesses exist for the purpose of achieving profits. We all want the companies that we have our 401k's, IRA's and other investments in, to achieve the maximum profits, thus resulting in our good fortune.

2. Most businesses are not large multi-national corporations employing thousands of people. We are often times small operators who've risked our own money, the money we've borrowed and our own credit. Many people might think we don't care about our employees because we don't provide lavish benefits. Those people don't realize that many of us would offer such benefits if the money were there. Additionally, if these businesses go under, there will be no customers, employees or critics willing to lend us a hand to get back on our feet.

3. Often times, the very businesses that are criticized as being greedy donate huge sums of money to charity.

4. Businesses also often pay large sums of money in taxes just because they're corporations. E.g. in my own business, I pay higher rates on electricity just because I'm a certain type of business. I get nothing for that money. Also when government owned utilities raise fees (such as "customer fee"), they often make the businesses pay a higher rate, so as to give the impression that government is "sticking it" to the evil businesses.

I find it offensive that so many people think it is okay that they demand high pay for mediocre work, yet the corporations, focused on profits, are the evil ones. I take offense to those people who want to lecture me about the few corporations who've been bankrupted by greedy execs, while they ignore the thousands of businesses that have worked tirelessly to offer goods and services that consumers will need and want.

What most people never realize is that the businesses (especially the small ones) will move heaven and earth to keep their people employed, keep the lights on and keep the customers coming back. These businesses will beg and borrow for enough money to make payroll and ordering needed supplies. These businesses will sacrifice everything on the desire for future prosperity of the business. Essentially these things will all be done because businesses are made up of people. People make the decisions and no business owner or CEO, worth their weight, would want the business to fail. Might we have to cut back on expenses, salaries or personnel? Yes but most of the time those cuts are necessary to prevent the total collapse of the business which would result in everyone being unemployed and investors (including those with company stock in their 401k's and IRA's) going broke.

There will be the occasional CEO or business owner highlighted in the news, who is still enjoying their yacht while the company goes down the tubes. While those are the exceptions, I say people should then be upset with the board of directors that negotiated a salary package that allowed for this.

I believe it is well past time that we in America, quit demonizing businesses as being greedy. Everyone is greedy. It is just a matter of how greedy. None of us "needs" individual houses, two cars in the driveway and big screen televisions. We "need" food, clothing and shelter. That's it.

We are hypocrites when we decry the corporation as greedy while we hold out for higher pay, surf the internet at work or demand the maximum return on our mutual fund investment.

What say you?

Isn't Teaching "All Abut the Children?"

With the recent Wisconsin "sick out" of teachers and protest marches by public sector union members, I can't help but wonder; what happened to public education being "all about the children?"

I hear no one asking the question; what about parents having to make arrangements for their kids during the day, while mom and dad go off to earn a living, from which taxes will be taken to pay for the very teachers who refuse to work?

What lessons are the teachers giving to the Wisconsin kids? That you can lie about why you're taking a day off work? Is that okay? Is it okay if the kids lie to the teacher about why they didn't do their homework? And how about those state politicians who just decide to leave the state to avoid dealing with tough issues.

And for all the public sector employees around the country who are protesting over the weekend "in support of their Wisconsin brethren," do you not understand there is a lack of money in the system? Are the people who pay the salaries just supposed to keep ponying up more and more while the salary providers (taxpayers) continue to face tough economic times themselves?

I again ask you; if big government is such a good thing, why do government employees need to unionize? And the next time you hear teachers screaming (during budget negotiations) about how the children will be denied a quality education, remember what is happening now in Wisconsin and being supported by unions around the country. Make no mistake, the strongest supporters of the protesters are not concerned about the quality of education provided the students. It is all about themselves.

What do you think?

Anonymous Posters?

I respectfully request that anonymous commenters please give your name. Here's why;

I respect your opinions and welcome debate. I hope that anonymous posters have noticed that I don't call names and I do my best to keep my arguments/points focused on the topic and not the individual.

I'd very much like to learn more about you. I recently read comments on a local newspaper website where the commenters were on opposite sides of an issue and previous arguments were heated between the two. But in this case, they came to common ground on an issue, but respectfully debated the issue. It was refreshing and something I'd love to see happen on my blog.

If you choose not to set up a profile or become a follower, so be it, but please give your name. You know who I am, I'd like to know who you are.

Where Do The Constitutional Rights End?

Today the local newspaper ran an Associated Press story about stimulus money being used to provide broadband access to rural areas. The story highlighted a woman in Vermont who had dial-up access, but that it's too slow for a business (medical transcription) she has started. By the way, she only moved there five years ago and has since started her business.

Notice she has access to the internet, but now the federal government is going to use your tax dollars to provide faster internet access. This under the guise of "economic stimulus."

While I don't claim to be a constitutional expert, I'm pretty sure this one isn't provided for in the original document. I mean, let's be serious people; not only doesn't the constitution provide for funding of fast access to the internet, we're to accept that providing this service somehow "stimulates" the economy. Hence the use of "stimulus" funds.

I freely admit that it might be a nice gesture to offer broadband service to rural areas, but vital to the security of our nation or its commerce? I don't think so. Thank you to all the idiots that voted FOR the stimulus bill from BOTH parties!

Political Discourse?

The recent tragic killings and attempted killings in Arizona have prompted many to call for a "more civil" political discourse. I find it disgusting that these same people (many of them politicians) had no problem when elected representatives said our military had "lost" the war in Iraq. No problem when politicians called GW Bush an idiot. No problem when politicians said GW Bush "needs help" referring to psychiatric help. No problem with pornography paid for with tax dollars being classified as art (as in some displays paid for by the National Endowment for the Arts).

Now, some idiot with an axe to grind and who has previously been identified as being unstable, decides to shoot people and we're somehow to believe this moron acted because of heated political rhetoric by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck? Anyone who believes that is just not paying attention to the facts. This guy was not a follower of any of these people. And what about those "targets" on Sarah Palin's website? I say so what? Politicians and activists (on both sides of the political aisle) put bullseye targets on maps all the time. Does that mean it should translate into an order to kill? I don't think so.

I say it is high time our moronic society wake up and face the facts. Our elected officials lie to us, the media lies to get us to believe what they want and many people vote for the person who promises the most freebies.

Should the Arizona shooter have been locked up long ago? Yes! Why wasn't he? I don't know; maybe we believe there's too much good in people to lock them up. Maybe we don't want to stigmatize the poor loser. Maybe we don't want to spend the taxpayer's dollars to put away people who show a penchant for violence but might be rehabilitative.

In any case, it wasn't the "political discourse" that caused this. Right is right and wrong is wrong. It is high time we live up to that moral standard. This country used to. Not now. Now we blame everyone but the guilty. Well sorry people; as a member of the village, I am not responsible for the actions of this crazed lunatic. If it had been up to me we would have kept a few asylums open for nut-jobs like this guy.

Comments?

Responsibility?

So a friend suggested...no, urged me to file a BP claim from the oil spill that happened in April, 2010. I had always considered this person fairly level-headed. Not because I've known him for a long time, but he's educated, a professional and has held positions of authority at companies in various locations here in America.

Not wanting to ask for handouts, but realizing that my business had dropped off significantly, I set out to look at my numbers and what transpired in 2010 compared to 2009. I came to some interesting conclusions; primarily I discovered that when faced with adversity, you do whatever it takes to survive.

I believe that there were three types of casualties (economically speaking) from the oil spill. I believe these three types happen in any disaster. First are the true, authentic casualties. These are the people who's income or business was directly impacted and there's no denying their plight. In the BP situation they were primarily fishermen, fishing and charter boat operators, the local tourist sites such as hotels, restaurants and retail shops. Second are the businesses who decided to milk every opportunity to get money regardless of their experience or level of expertise. Many times these are just people who show up to get the high pay that disasters bring. They come in and as soon as a disaster hits another area, they are off to cash in on that one. They travel the country and follow in behind every disaster. If you've never experienced a natural disaster that leaves long-lasting effects, trust me, these people exist. Third are the people and businesses who weather the difficulties and grind day in and day out to survive. Their revenue/business may suffer, but on paper their losses will be relatively minimal.

I believe the third group is the heart of America's greatness. Throughout American history it is people like in the third group that have persevered to build manufacturing plants, invent innovative products/services and support the development of various arts. This is the group of people we need to promote, encourage and reward.

Back to the claim process. Yes revenue was down. But I had taken action to significantly reduce expenses as well. So the profit & loss statement (though claims adjusters will rely on it) doesn't tell the whole story.

I believe that years from now, we'll learn that relatively little of the $20billion that BP is setting aside for claims, will have been applied for. But I find it interesting that our local newspaper is doing everything it can to keep this story in the front of people's minds. All while ignoring investigative reporting that would expose the sorry state of affairs within our local government, which is killing jobs and businesses.

I hope that someday, I will have been considered to be one of those that was in the third group of people. As for my friend's advice to file a claim, the moral dilemma goes on. No claim filed.