Constitutional Rights?

In light of the recent murders of teachers and innocent children in Connecticut, many politicians, talking heads and celebrities have voiced a desire for increased gun control laws.

Last week our local newspaper ran and editorial in which they said; "No civilian should have a military-style weapon capable of firing off dozens of rounds of bullets without reloading. Fortunately, in the Sandy Hook case, police arrived quickly. With hundreds of rounds of ammunition, it’s conceivable that Lanza would have kept killing. No one needs that kind of firepower to hunt deer or shoot turkeys."

I have experience firing weapons in the military, but am not a hunter. I am NOT a member of the NRA and I'm not a weapons collector. However, I have rarely heard more ignorant statements than those I've heard in the past few weeks.

The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is simply stated; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That's it. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Nothing about shooting turkeys or targets. Nothing about protecting oneself from burglars.

Some say; we have a well regulated militia. Therefore, we have no need for military-style weapons. To that I would say; if/when the government decides to confiscate your property for whatever reason, they will not do it with pistols. They will come with maximum firepower. How will you defend yourself against that if we further restrict our existing rights? 

Beyond the issue of existing laws, nobody (except the NRA President) is talking about the possibility of arming people at schools. I have no idea if that is a reasonable option, but I do think that when a bad guy with a gun is met by a good guy with a gun, the chances of mass killings are much less. Additionally, when people contemplate carrying out such horrific acts, I can't help wondering if they are less likely to attempt the act if they know their chances of carrying out the act are extremely slim?

In the end, it appears to me the people we normally look to for enlightened, educated and intelligent decisions and advice don't even care what the primary governing documents say.

Tell me what you think.

What's Wrong With Church?

I have been pondering for some time, the struggles many churches have with attracting and retaining members. See what you think of this opinion.

Years ago (and I'm talking 100-200 years), the church was a central meeting point in many communities. In many cases the church housed a school. Also, due to the fact that much of the US economy was agriculturally based, the church was a place many people went to meet with their friends, neighbors and relatives. Therefore, people had very deep roots in their community churches.

Fast-forward to the 1980's. The US economy became more heavily weighted toward business, office jobs, technology and people embraced more readily, the concept of relocating away from their families.  Suddenly we were spending long hours at work, shuttling our kids from school, to gymnastics, dance, music and other activities. People's roots in the church were becoming shallow.

Fast-forward again to 2012. We now have entire communities online. We often-times associate w/online friends more than we do in person. So-called community churches are thriving while traditional churches are trying to figure out how to grow their congregations.

So what is missing? To me it is the sense of community. These newer "community churches" are seldom affiliated with any national church. They may offer a message (the word of God), but without all the pomp and ceremony of the more established churches. They may or may not have programs in place for youth or small groups. Many people say these newer churches are shallow in themselves because they offer nothing beyond a once-a-week service. But many DO offer programs that don't cost a lot of money (e.g. small group bible study) or have daycare centers operating on-site during the week that are profit-making and help support the costs of operating the church.

In order to have a sense of community, people have to invest in their community. Whether it be financially, physically or otherwise, we must open ourselves up to being accepted into the community. Usually the community is already willing to accept us.

As well, many of the well-established "mainstream" churches have become more of a business for the national and local levels, the clergy AND the local church leadership. Think I'm wrong? Tell your Preacher you have to cut their salary. See what happens. Tell the national organization you disagree with some new policy and see what happens. Look at the many people who think that because they donated the new organ, piano or building, they have the right to dictate how it is used. The fact that these newer churches operate with significantly lower overhead cannot be overlooked.

Equally as important is parishioners or congregants who don't think they need to pony up the money or pitch in physically or administratively. Every church seems to have a core group of people who donate money, time and/or talent. Often this group is accused (quietly over lunch and out of earshot) of doing things their own way. Nevermind the accusers often haven't offered to help. Our community is OUR responsibility. The more of us involved, the more of us will understand how and why certain decisions are made. AND the more of us involved, the more ideas we can pull from and if there's a better idea, it has a better chance of being implemented.

In the end, I believe the "organized churches" in America need to return to a sense of community. There may be significant changes these national organizations must make. If they fail to make those changes, it won't end the church today, next week or even next year. But rest assured there will be a slow decline (some say it has already started) which will have the same result...barring Divine Intervention.

Reply

Great post and I appreciate it. Here's my response;

  Taxes: From the standpoint of "it won't affect me" I don't care if taxes get raised on people making over $250k/yr. My only concern there is many of those people are small businesses reporting their business income on their personal tax returns. That aside, it is my understanding that even if you took all the money the "millionaires and billionaires" make it wouldn't run our Federal Government for more than about 3 months. So somebody else is gonna have to pay. As for those people paying less than the middle class; If a person earning $500,000/yr pays a 15% (lowest rate), that is $75,000 paid in taxes. If I make $60,000/yr and paid the same 15%, that is $9,000. So how does the rich guy pay less?

  As for the FairTax, it is actual legislation and you can check it out at www.fairtax.org. It doesn't raise or lower taxes on anyone, it merely replaces the mechanism through which we fund our Federal Government (i.e. income taxes are eliminated). Those who consume more will pay more. You should read the book, it is really good (and short).

  Healthcare; I agree everyone should pay their own. I thought the original problem was healthcare costs were "getting out of control." The Affordable Healthcare Act (AHA) doesn't address that. I agree that insurance companies shouldn't be able to dump someone who then can't get coverage because of a pre-existing condition. 

  Here's my biggest problem with the healthcare system; you pay $300/month for health insurance, your employer pays in $400/month also. That's $8,400 paid to the insurance company every year on your behalf. You go to the doc 'cause you can't shake the crud. You pay your $35 copay, the insurance pays $80 to the doc for a total of $115. For that privilege the insurance co. is getting $8,400 annually for you. Multiply the company's portion times the number of employees and it can be huge. As a former employer, there was no way I could offer that for my people.

  If the Affordable Healthcare Act was such a great deal, why did the Federal Government issue waivers for over 100 employers (such as McDonald's)? Yes, something needed to be done, but I doubt the AHA is the silver bullet. Maybe I'll be wrong.

  Abortion; Just don't make me pay for it. I'm against abortion for my family, but won't tell someone else whether or not to get one. I just don't think tax dollars should be used to fund them.

 Marriage; I don't care what people do in their own bedroom. Just don't tell me I have to accept the behavior as normal. We were going along in life and with all we have to deal with a very small percentage of the population has now told us WE must accept their beliefs and conform to their desires. But my faith tells me to love thy neighbor. So I will.

  2016 Movie; I saw it, but in my opinion it only offers a perspective of why the President is making the decisions he's making. It wasn't anything new for me.

  Foreign Affairs; After our Ambassador is killed in Libya, I believe we shoulda blown the place into oblivion. I know that sounds harsh, but my experience tells me that other nations don't play nice. They don't have rational discussions and then compromise. I've seen it.

  Every person I've ever met in the military is against war (including myself). However, somebody will be the world's military superpower. If not us, who? I personally don't want our nation to be at the mercy of other nations' militaries.

  I don't think Christianity has anything to do with political choices. 

  I do not believe the President can relate to most of us. He's never held a private sector job where he had to work his way up from the bottom. He's never (until being elected where somebody else handles most everything anyway) owned/operated a business where he had to make payroll and struggle to pay the taxes, withholding, health insurance, utilities, employee issues, etc.

  The President never served in the military, so he certainly can't relate to the sacrifices those people have made.

  If you say the President CAN relate even though he's never walked in my shoes, do you also believe others who've not walked in your shoes CAN relate to you?

  I believe the fact that President Obama went off and played more golf in three years than GWBush played in eight years is an example of his lack of concern. The fact that the First Family took lavish vacations and threw huge parties at the White House early in his presidency is another example of how he doesn't relate to what the rest of us are dealing with.

  He is our President and I'm not saying what could've or would've happened under a different President. But I hope we can continue this type of discussion.

I REALLY WANNA KNOW

So here's your opportunity.

My commitment is to keep the discussion based on facts and beliefs as I understand them. If your facts or beliefs differ from mine, thank you for airing them. I look forward to discussion to better understand things I may have missed.

If you post mean, spiteful or hateful things, I likely will remove them. This isn't the place for that.

So let's start with;

If you supported President Obama in the 2012 election and/or the democrat party, please help me understand the positives of the President. Why did you support him or his party?

What Happened That Was Such A Big Deal?

August 8, 2012 was a day I will never forget and leading up to it, we had sought prayers for strength. Our friends really came through but it caused many to wonder if there was some life-threatening illness or some other life-altering event. So, here's what happened;

I (as President of my corporation) had initiated a lawsuit against a former Landlord (of the business) and August 8 was the hearing. The judge ruled against my corporation, but allowed my corporation to be compensated, minus some deductions and held that my corporation was responsible for attorney fees and costs of the defendant. So, the defendant got my corporation's property (over $30k worth of equipment) at no cost to them.

I'm not writing this to complain about the finding, but to let people know some things you should be aware of before pursuing any litigation.

1. The law can be on your side and you still lose. According to my Attorney, the law was on our side yet the judge still ruled against us.
2. The judge you get can be clueless as to the applicable laws. In our case, one judge heard all the preliminary arguments and pre-trial motions, but retired at the end of July. So, the judge who heard the case was new to the case and didn't even know the definition of some of the legal terms our side used. This may be due to our judge coming from a family court background instead of civil litigation.
3. If you are going to go all the way to trial, you should be prepared to be called every name you can think of and you should expect the person doing the name-calling to do so with great conviction. Put on your thick skin or you will feel great pain.
4. The legal system is nothing but a game to most of those who live within that system (read; lawyers and judges). Most don't really care what you like/don't like, think/don't think of them and they'll smile and give a polite "nice to meet you" while plotting the moment they'll put the knife in your heart and twist it. At the end, the judge will likely thank both sides (no matter how disgustingly dishonest they are) for their "professionalism."
5. Even when you believe you are right, when everyone tells you that you're doing the right thing, seriously evaluate whether or not you want to go down this road. Even if you win, you may not recover everything you asked for and if you lose, it can be devastating.

In our case, the judge selected certain documents to rely on, but then didn't rely on everything in/not in the documents. He said he was not relying on testimony (after about eight hours of testimony and extensive pre-trial depositions).

As this chapter in my life closes, I pray for guidance and strength going forward. My hope for anyone reading this is that you never have the experience I did.

Healthcare Act And Other Political Crap

With the recent Supreme Court ruling, upholding the Affordable Healthcare Act, there are opinions everywhere and so I post mine here and welcome all to comment, if you have the guts.

So first, the ruling. It is offensive to me that Federal Government now has the power to require anyone to purchase a good or service. Some say; you have to buy car insurance. Even the President who was a Constitutional Law Professor used that argument on tv. Really idiots? You wanna have that argument? Okay, you don't have to buy car insurance if you don't operate your vehicle on a public road. Also, you are not required to carry insurance on yourself, only to cover losses someone else sustains for your cause. The Healthcare Mandate says the Federal Government can penalize (or tax) you for NOT participating in what they think you should have.

One of the things I find absurd is that the Supreme Court found that the Affordable Healthcare Act is only legal if the penalty for not buying health insurance is a tax. But then the Obama administration and supporters go on tv and insist it is a penalty. Hey idiots; if it is a penalty, the Court said you can't have it. Duh!!!!

So, now that the Federal Government can do it regarding this, what is to stop them from telling you EVERYTHING you must eat based on their health recommendations? And we know the government NEVER gets anything wrong. Dumb Masses!

Now, some people are talking of and actually are, displaying their American flags upside down. Others are condemning this and saying it is disrespectful. Some are even saying it is disrespectful to veterans. I'm a vet and I say this is much more respectful than the President was when he was campaigning. That's right, President Obama said President George W Bush was "unpatriotic" for allowing the national debt to increase by $4trillion in eight years. Well, Mr. Obama (and all you followers of his) what say you now that the national debt has increased more than $6trillion in less than four years under President Obama? Dumb Masses!

The United States of America was born out of people realizing they didn't like living under the government's thumb in Europe. Yet now we vote for MORE government control. We watch socialist nations fall into ruin and somehow think we can do it better. 

The United States of America IS THE LAST BEST HOPE FOR THE WORLD! Some think that's arrogant to say. But I say; who does everyone turn to when they're in trouble? Who supplies the money, the humanitarian aid, the military aid? WE DO!

Many of the people who support expanding the Federal Government have never had to go to the mat with regulatory agencies. They've never risked their livelihood for anything. They've never felt the wrath of the Federal Government. I have literally had a State government middle manager look me in the eye and say; "you can fight this, but if you do, we will bring the full weight and authority of the government to bear." All you friends of big government, does that sound like old-style mob tactics? 

I believe our country is in distress. We must return to our greatness. Otherwise it is just a matter of time before our children and grandchildren see their country overtaken. If you are truly concerned about THE WORLD you leave behind, you might want to pay more attention to THE COUNTRY you leave behind.

UWF Inc ?

I am really looking for some constructive feedback on this issue.

Our local university, University of West Florida, has set up a non-profit corporation. This is the brainchild of a new Vice President who apparently has done this at other universities. The story goes that colleges and universities are suffering financially, due to cutbacks in government funding. These corporations are being set up to allow the college to operate businesses in the private sector that will bring revenue into the university iteself. In the case of UWF there are two primary ventures causing angst among many people; one is the purchase of a nearby "country club" which is really just a golf course with a pro shop, bar and banquet facilities, the other is a piece of beach property that seems to have been entrusted to the university by the State of Florida (or some other government entity) for the purposes of preservation and archaeology.

The VP @ UWF says the naysayers will be staunch supporters about a year after things get going. I'd like to be one of the supporters if this is good and a right thing to do. However, I have the following issues with this;

1. Basic Business Principles. If the university cannot survive on the money it receives from tuition, fees and other charges, shouldn't the university be questioning its very business plan (if it has one)? If you or I set up a business and couldn't fund the operations with the revenue we receive, our business would have to close up. These educational institutions have been able to pay top dollar for faculty, the grounds are always meticulously manicured. They have added sports complexes, recreational facilities and all this has been subsidized by the taxpayers.

2. Effect on Private Sector. The university says acquiring the golf course will allow them to use the club as a training ground for their business students. They say it will allow them to offer "real world experience." My question is; are you fabricating the "real world experience?" This club doesn't employ a lot of people (likely less than 50). In the real world, those people will lose their jobs. In the real world, the majority of what this club offers is golf and the occasional wedding reception. Since the university's newly formed corporation isn't required to disclose records to the general public, the current revenue and profitability of the country club is unknown. Out here in the real world, it is hard to believe the golf course would even be interested in selling if it was doing significant revenue with a good profit margin.

The university is also planning a hotel and convention center. Currently there are numerous hotels within 3 miles of the university. Many of these are either new or newly renovated. These hotels derive a significant amount of business from the various sporting events and conferences held at the university. So again, out here in the real world, which the UWF VP wants the students to experience, these hotels will see their business decline in direct proportion to the amount of business taken on at a new UWF hotel.

One question nobody has asked is whether or not prices at the operations run by the university's corporation will undercut the competition unfairly.

3. Beach development? Yep. It seems that the beach property that was entrusted to the university is now going to be opened up for development. This from the same university that has opposed a bike path at the beach previously. And if the property was entrusted by the government, shouldn't the taxpayers have the final say on what gets done with that property?

4. Who is on the hook if there are any losses? So far, we're told that the money to purchase the golf course will come from a bank loan. However, I've never heard of a bank making a 100% loan to a business with no prior year tax returns or historical profit/loss information. Remember; the university can't currently make it on the money they're generating already. What if the additional purchases through the non-profit corporation don't pan out? Are there sufficient protections for the taxpayers?

5. Who actually gets paid? The UWF VP is the President of the newly formed corporation. How much money will the executives of this new corporation be paid? Will they have "golden parachute" plans in place? Will they benefit financially regardless of profits passed through to the university? Because this is a private corporation, we the taxpayers don't get the opportunity to scrutinize those details.

In the end, I find it ironic that so often it is academia bad-mouthing the big corporate giants as greedy, yet here is academia going into the private sector to generate money they so desperately need. Maybe profit isn't the demon so many people believe it to be.

This situation appears to be a perfect opportunity to educate the general public. Instead of telling us skeptics to just believe, how about giving us an objective education on this venture.

Tell me what you think.

Does Gay Matter?

I'm gonna put this out there. Probably most people will just call me a homophobe, but I don't really care. I challenge those to enlighten my thinking.

First; I don't really care what people do in their own bedrooms. Gay, straight, bisexual, none of it matters to me since it doesn't affect me. As a religious matter, I believe that while many things are condemned in the bible, it is our responsibility as Christians to love each other no matter what. I don't think the bible says we must agree with each other, but we are to love each other.

Second; as a matter of equal access/treatment of gays, I don't think hospitals should prevent "partners" from access just because they're not legally or biologically declared family. Additionally, I've worked for companies that allowed benefits coverage for members of the household, regardless of their marital status.

It appears my family will now face dealing with the issue of having a gay person in a leadership position at our church. On the surface I don't really care about someone's sexual preference. And if this were a situation where it was, say a school teacher who comes in each day, does their job and goes home, I say it wouldn't matter. But, this will be a situation where this leader will be a member of our church, attends regularly with their partner and their adopted child and therefore my child will have significant exposure to someone living an openly gay lifestyle. Who will be the influence in my child's life on the matter of gay lifestyle/marriage? Plus all the questions about somebody having two mommies or two daddies.

Many people argue that if you're gonna restrict gay people, what about divorced people? They'll say; hey, the bible (strictly interpreted) doesn't allow for remarriage. To that, I say the big difference is that while we can love those people as Christians, it isn't so obvious on the surface whether or not someone has been divorced. This may sound crazy to some people, as in; so now we have to go back in the closet or keep quiet about facts about our personal lives? I'm only trying to make the point that there IS  a difference. A very obvious one.

Until now, it didn't really matter to me whether or not someone was gay. I find it interesting that it isn't people like me openly condemning gays. It is quite the opposite; the gay lifestyle is being forced on us. Don't believe me? Tune into the new tv show Smash. It isn't just suggestive scenes, it is full, on-camera men-on-men, open-mouth kissing. We have the freedom to change the channel when it comes to television. Not so easy with the church.

Currently we have no tolerance for adults having sex with children under the age of 18. In past centuries, people married at a younger age. What will we do if/when society decides sex with young teenagers is acceptable?

But back to the original point; I will now have to accept the gay lifestyle and agree with it in order to remain at my church. Sorry, but I've been a member of this particular church for about 8 years and am somewhat offended that WE are being forced into this.

Priorities

I feel compelled to write about this subject. It is my intention this blog can be used as an educational tool as well as a "looking glass" into myself.

First a little history for perspective. I am now 50 years old. Growing up I had a good, middle-class childhood. My parents, though eventually divorced, stayed together until after I was out of the house and I believe both did the best they could at raising us kids during the time I was there. Respectfully, my two brothers and one sister may feel differently and they'd have good reason. I am only giving my opinion for the reader's understanding that I blame no one else for the choices I've made.

I have served honorably in both the Maryland Army National Guard and the United States Navy. I have held many jobs, my first being a newspaper deilvery boy at the age of 10. Amongst my various jobs, I've moved from front line employee to manager (both mid and upper level) and have owned my own business as an owner-operator and as a corporation with paid employees.

My annual personal income has never approached the $100k mark, though it has been adequate for a good lifestyle.

I have two children, widely separated in age and both are outstanding individuals in their own right.

Now onto the Priorities.

Choices

When we're young, we believe ourselves to be invincible, able to conquer all and more knowledgeable than our peers and certainly our parents. As someone once said to me; the older we get, the smarter our parents appear to us. Agreed.

As we grow older, we have times in our lives where we're able to make choices that will have long-lasting benefits/ramifications. The choices we make are directly related to the importance we place on the matters affected by those decisions; i.e. our priorities.

Many of the choices we make when we're young are driven by a desire to have material things. And of course, we want those material things to be new, the best, the coolest and most-desired by those around us. Once we start down this path, change is increasingly difficult and often impossible.

Time Factor

In making our choices, if we go after the newest, coolest and most-desired, it is likely that we'll pay top dollar and/or finance those choices over time. Don't believe me? Read The Millionaire Next Door. Proof is there. Check the price difference between a brand new car and the same make/model, but three years old. The reason time and financing make a difference is that the longer you're paying for whatever the item is, that is time and money lost that could either be saved or going to something else. Many financial books are written on this and the bottom line is this; you want to be debt-free. I have lived both indebted and debt-free. There is less stress and more happiness in being debt-free.

Jealous/Selfish Choices (keeping up with The Joneses)

I bring this up because this mentality has caused our personal spending to spiral out of control and put us in the poor house.

We watch TV and think we should all live in a picture-perfect house. Our gardens/yards should be straight out of a home-improvement show. Our kids should play sports, take dance/music lessons and be involved in just about everything we can sign them up for. Funny how those things usually come before church attendance too...but I digress.

I'm telling you to give those up or tone them down. What?!! Now if you have a child that shows promise and/or you can afford all those things without going broke, fine. Give the kid a chance, but your kids will love you even if they don't get everything they want.

When considering all the lawn/garden projects, remember the golf course has an entire staff to make it look that way, you're one person. The home improvement shows are using skilled, experienced people with the right tools. Again, if you can swing it, great. If you can rent a tool and do the job, great. I once rented a plug aerator and did fine. The $65 sure beat buying a lawn mower attachment for $200 or hiring someone to do if for more.

McMansions

If you haven't heard of them, they are basically houses bigger than most of us can afford. Remember, you might be able to qualify for the 30 year mortgage, but do you want your mortgage payment to hold you hostage while you can't afford a vacation? Will you remember that you need money to buy that new furniture that looks nicer than the beat up sofa from your parent's basement? Remember that during the 30 years in that house, you might need a new roof once or twice. We've all been through neighborhoods that might not hold our dream house, but there are people living there who've taken great care with their yards/gardens and homes.

The Job

Ah yes, the job. We all want high pay, great benefits and status. Here's the reality; do what you're good at. If it pays well, great. If it doesn't, work on increasing your knowledge to move you into something you'll enjoy, but also pays well. If you love your job and it doesn't pay well, decide whether you're love of job is more important than the paycheck. The world will always need people to clean rooms, run errands, cook food, pick up trash, etc. You can have one of these jobs and still be a great person. In fact, I remember when people would say; I might sweep/mop floors for a living, but they'll be the best damned floors you've ever layed eyes on.

We're not all going to be financially "rich." However, many people enjoy taking their campers on vacations and weekends, riding bikes and tending to their own little piece of paradise in their back yards.

In the end, you don't have to live in a big fancy house. You don't have to be pulling down big money in a high-profile job. You just have to be you. Choose your friends wisely. They'll respect you for not giving in to whatever the latest craze is. Love your family, they're all you get.

Different Take on Gas Prices

High gasoline prices are causing lots of talk, political and otherwise. Today our local paper ran two Associated Press (AP) stories regarding the same. My point here is to raise some questions that don't seem to make it into the news stories much.

The AP stories focused on causes of high gasoline prices and made a distinct point in both stories, to say that politicians, Congress and the President can't do much about the price of gas. In fact the AP's position is that the ONLY things Congress or the President can do about gasoline prices is to reduce gasoline taxes or force more efficient cars into the new car showrooms, via higher miles per gallon (mpg) requirements.

One of the AP stories said that a 36 year study showed no correlation between increased US oil production and reduced gasoline prices. The point they were trying to make is that increasing oil production in the US would have no impact on gasoline prices. They further pointed out that there's more of a global consumption of oil products and therefore the US has a diluted impact on gasoline prices.

Okay, now you know the basis for my post. Time to call BS and talk about my point of view.

1. Why aren't we less dependent on foreign oil today than in the late 1970's? I'm 50 years old and I remember there were legitimate gasoline supply issues in the early to mid-1970's. Although the federal government imposed fuel economy standards that were meant to reduce fuel consumption and thus, our dependence on foreign oil, we remain at the mercy of other countries for a majority of our oil.

2. Why don't we have oil companies drilling for oil in more accessible places? For reasons (mostly tied to the environmental movement) United States oil exploration has been pushed to places that are very remote (e.g. the frozen tundra of Northern Alaska) and very dangerous (e.g. 5,000 feet below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico and more than 100 miles off the Florida coast).

3. Our cars are more fuel efficient (overall) and safer than ever before. Why hasn't the move to smaller, more efficient cars resulted in lower long-term gasoline prices? I know, global demand. But still, doesn't it seem that if we have adequate supply and more efficient vehicles, the prices should be more stable?

I am all for having our motor vehicles be as efficient as possible. However, we've seen our federal government throw hundreds of millions of dollars at "green energy" companies that then go belly-up. Chevrolet had to suspend manufacturing of the Volt, a hybrid vehicle that was flopping in sales because (in part) it could only travel 40 miles per electric charge and the federal government had to offer incentives just to get the price affordable.

Suspicious Study?

I find the 36-year study very interesting because the study would've started about the time the United States started to really ramp up the environmental protections against many development operations, including oil exploration. The federal government was increasing regulations during the same time the study was going on.

My Dream...Good Luck With That!

What I would love to see is the federal government easing many regulations and restrictions to encourage increased exploration, allowing that exploration to take place in less dangerous areas, but while keeping safety as the number one priority. I believe this can be done and I believe the oil companies are willing to do that. Most importantly, I believe this would have multiple benefits, the primary benefit being lower gasoline prices in the United States.

Would We Control Our Own Future?

Even if the world demand for oil remains high and results in countries outside the United States being able to put a higher price on their oil, at least we'd have some control over our own gasoline prices. It might even result in a lower oil price which impacts the production costs of many other products and services.

Government Forced Giveaways

This post is in reference to a recently debated/argued part of the "healthcare reform act," commonly called "Obamacare."

In the past few days there's been an uproar over a requirement in the act that forces employers to offer health insurance that will cover birth control pills (including the controversial "morning after" pill). The big argument recently has been that while churches were exempt from providing this, religious-based employers still had to provide it.

Today, the President announced that the religious-based employers wouldn't have to provide contraception drugs free of charge, but that the insurance companies would have to provide them instead.

People are so caught up in the religious aspect of this they miss the real issue which is; if the United States Government can tell an insurance company they must provide goods or services free to the recipient, they can do it in other areas as well. As silly as it may sound to some, what is to stop the Federal Government from telling a bicycle helmet manufacturer they must provide homeless people with a helmet free of charge? Wearing the helmet may lessen the possibility of serious injury (thus saving taxpayer dollars). Ergo, we are looking out for the safety of the homeless person and the possible high medical costs the taxpayers would bear.

Even if you buy the notion that the government is doing good, somebody WILL pay for the items being provided "free" to the recipient. Who will pay?

If you are okay with what the government is doing, how would you like it if someone came along and said you must start providing your services free? Let's say you're a nurse, or a school teacher or policeman. You've been trained, receive a paycheck and benefits for your services, but healthcare, education and public safety are basic human rights. Therefore, the government has decided that to help provide those services, you must work 8 hours per week for free in, say a home health service organization. Or if you're a teacher, you must provide 8 hours per week of free tutoring to at-risk kids, or if you're the police officer, you must do 8 hours of work in a troubled neighborhood. This is not voluntary. You must do this or be fined by the government. How would you like that?

Bottom line; the United States Constitution does not give the President, nor the Federal Government, the authority to force companies to give goods or services away. If we don't recognize this now, we willingly give over to the government the power to dictate anything and everything. It IS that important.

Ron Paul Comments Missed by Many?

During a South Carolina Presidential Primary debate this past week, Ron Paul made mention that trade with other countries was not hurting our economy and that we should not be worried about it. I believe his comments were so nonchalant that most people missed it, certainly the moderator did as there was no follow up.

To be sure, I am not a Ron Paul supporter (in fact I've never read his writings and I don't think I've ever visited his website). While I may agree with him on some issues, like many other political candidates, I disagree on some issues as well.

Congressman Paul was responding to comments made by opponents regarding overseas competition for jobs. Mr. Paul said we shouldn't be so worried about trade with countries like China because while we send dollars over there to buy their goods at cheap prices, the savings (due to low prices) stay here, in the pockets of the people buying the products.

The reason I think this is such an important point is that, as a nation, we largely ignore the elephant in the room on economics and jobs; which is that we all want to buy cheap products and services, but we think we deserve top pay for our own labor. Furthermore, we get outraged that companies take their manufacturing jobs (yes I said "their" not "our" jobs) to countries where the labor is cheap and regulations are more favorable to industry.

I believe we have raised our standards so high that it may take a full-blown crash of our economy in order to bring large numbers of manufacturing jobs back to America. Every economic money producer (e.g. housing, lending, technology creation) goes through booms and busts and labor will be no different.

We bought houses with no money down, maxed the loan payments out, maxed out the credit cards to furnish the homes, did the same with our cars, clothes, even education. Yep, with the help of society, willing lenders, educational institutions and a government willing to spend, spend, spend, we mortgaged our entire futures to the point that we require huge salaries to pay for the previous spending. Younger generations actually own very little because everything has been financed. By the time we pay our car off, we've got a new one with a new loan, the home mortgage is 30 years and we'll be retired before the mortgage is paid off, that is if we can actually someday retire.

We will need to get to the point where people are willing to work for a few bucks an hour and live at a much lower standard because the developing nations already do that and they are the ones getting the jobs. This will also require some relaxing of regulations by our government which also means people so entrenched in regulatory movements will have to forego their activism to get jobs back.

Ron Paul said in that same debate, we have a problem of morality. This got largely overlooked but the point is so true. We don't value hard work in America as much as we used to. We don't see being a hard worker as virtuous. Today, the hard worker is the sucker who just hasn't figured out how to make big money the easy way, without leaving the comfort of their recliner.

I now only wonder a)when the wage bubble will burst and b)whether there will be enough people with strong work ethic to put the nation back to work.

Ringing in 2012

Usually people ring in the new year with resolutions that may or may not be fulfilled and positive outlooks for the near future. Here at the beginning of 2012, I take a bit of a different view.

I bid good riddance to 2011. It was a year with few blessings and many defeats. Though I survived those and will continue on, I see some disturbing trends in my town and as many investment advisors will tell you, past performance is a good indicator of future success or failure.

Four years ago the local Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) brow-beat my wife and I into paying over $6,000 in penalties to the state. Again in 2011, the same DEP representative attempted the same technique. However, this time I had an attorney with me. The DEP rep immediately postponed the meeting and four months later, no more word from the DEP.

In mid-2010, the city government-owned natural gas utility (ESP) was discovered (by state auditors) to have coded numerous business accounts as "tax exempt" in their computers, unbeknownst to the business customers. Mine was one and instead of the utility paying the back sales tax, which was about $6,500, out of the $8million profit they made, they required me to make it up. I put the issue to a newly-elected city councilman, whom also happened to be an architect who had renovated some historical buildings. Ironically, considering the councilman had received tax benefits for renovating his buildings, he actually said siding with me on my issue would be unfair to the other taxpayers. Apparently what is good for some, isn't so good for others. This all came to a head in 2011 as a contributing expense the business just couldn't bear.

2011 saw our fair city lease out an entire floor of their building to a private company. On the surface this would appear a good move, but considering private sector commercial space is in such abundance, it seems to be in direct competition. Later in the year the city gave an entire piece of property to a local company with the stipulation that the business hire 100 people over the next couple of years. Again, this seems in direct competition with private commercial property owners. Tax incentives are one thing, but outright giving of property, well, that's another matter.

And near the end of the year, the county hired someone for a marketing position (Equestrian Center Marketing Director) who had no marketing experience. One of the county commissioners pushed for the man's hiring and then pushed for an increase in salary for the position before the man even started the job. Nobody within the county government could find it within them to file an ethics complaint. When the newspaper exposed this matter, the man was fired and the position re-posted. This time, the job title was changed to "manager" and voila! The man is one of the seven finalists for the job. Keep in mind that, after a statewide survey was done, the position in this county is at a higher rate of pay than any of the other Equestrian Center Marketing Directors across the state.

I now fully understand why most people who come to Pensacola, leave after about five to seven years. They realize that our town is so entrenched in the "good old boy" system it is likely to never change.

So as we begin 2012, I have little faith that our little town will show much change, but I take on the challenge to affect as much positive change as I can. This is my new beginning. If you can bear it, I beg you to work every day to meet this same challenge.

Thank you.