You’re going to have to keep working, ya slackers! At least more of you than had planned on it anyway. A recent survey found that 1 in 5 Americans now say they plan to never retire. While some of that 20% is surely the people like me who just don’t plan to stop working at any point as long as they can help it, I am sure there is a good percentage that are not going to be working straight to the grave by choice.
With a growing number of Americans facing this same choice, or fate, maybe it is time for us to take a good, long, hard look at our socialist retirement system. By the time I am at retirement age, there will be huge segments of the population that will not be able to survive on the gub’ment checks alone and will either be forced or choose to keep working. What’s wrong with that? Well, the way the socialist retirement system is currently set up, the more you earn, the less of the social security money you paid into the socialist system you get to keep. At one point, you can earn so much that you get absolutely no social security money at all. I hope to be in a spot where I have this problem one day.
Regardless of where I may end up in the year 2041 (the year the socialists want me to retire), I really think now is the time to reconsider all of this socialist retirement craziness. Perhaps there was a time in this country where we needed to ensure that people retired by penalizing them for earning money once they reached social security age, but I think the landscape of America, it’s economy, the world’s economy, and life here on planet Earth have all changed so much that we need to rethink this antiquated non-sense about incentivizing people to stop working when they get to a certain age.
I am paying money into Social Security right now, but if I choose to keep working, especially if I am in a spot where I continue to earn more and more with each passing year as long as I am of sound enough mind and body, I will be earning the most in my lifetime, right at the time that I am supposed to start getting back all of the money that I will have paid into Social Security for 52 ½ years. The more I earn, the less I get back, so how much is that going to suck? I get it – once I’m destitute or disabled, and what not, it will be money I can live off of, but let’s say for instance, I keep working, keep earning money, keep living life like I am planning to do right up until my number is up (it does happen, people)… I may be in a spot where I don’t ever get a dime of MY social security money back (It is MY money, you know). That means that I will have been one huge benefactor to the U.S. Taxernment and its socialist Social Security retirement program.
I get that most of you are going to retire – some of you may even take the hit financially to retire early – and more power to you – but me, the crazy nut-job who wants to keep working ponders….Shouldn’t I have a choice? Shouldn’t I have some other option rather than giving all of this money to the socialists in Taxington. Expecially when you consider the very real possibility that I may get only 85 cents on the dollar back if I actually do stop working, and possibly, no cents on the dollar back if I actually do keep working? Don’t penalize me for working, America! In what world does that make sense?
Monday, December 12, 2011
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Happy Two Days Before Black Friday!
You know when I don’t work? Nights and weekends. Well, actually I do, but I’m not required to go into the office at that time. You know why? Because I found a job that doesn’t require me to go into work on nights and weekends. You know why? Because I used to have a job that required me to go in on nights and weekends, and I didn’t like that so much, so I got a different job. You guessed it…a whole series of jobs that did not require me to go in on nights and weekends.
I’m not trying to be heartless here, but again, I go back to the debate about working part-time at Wal-Mart with no health insurance. At any point when you were applying for the job did they tell you that you were going to have health insurance, then all of the sudden, take it away? No, they did not. I am sure they told you all along that your part-time job at Wal-Mart did not come with health insurance. So, why, then, are you sitting there with a part-time job at Wal-Mart, surprised that you do not have health insurance?
You work in retail. That’s the job you have. For whatever reason, that is the fact (I spent the first three years of my working life in retail, full-time while going to school, and even had to join a union for my first job, so there’s where I get off talking about working in retail). The store you work at is open on Black Friday. You can’t, at this point, sit there and be surprised that the store you work at wants you to work nut-shit-crazy hours on Black Friday. You didn’t see that coming? You somehow work in retail and do not understand what Black Friday is, and somehow never took notice that the starting gates open earlier and earlier each year? You somehow surprised? Really? The 5AM sale that became the 4AM sale that became the 3AM sale? You didn’t see where that was going?
Ask all the folks who are not in retail about a job that requires them to work nut-shit-crazy hours once or twice a year, and trust me, you probably won’t get a lot of sympathy from them. Just to clarify what I am getting at, most of us non-retail employees, especially those on salary instead of hourly, end up having to do that a little more than once or twice a year. Ask us about overtime pay and our 15 minutes breaks through the day too, so we can laugh at you. Do I even need to bring up the whole you work in retail and are lucky to be one of the 85% of people who do who actually still have a job in this economy thing? And don’t get me wrong, I get it’s a holiday. I missed many a holiday, birthday, etc. when I was working retail, but I also understood that it was part of the job I had at the time. Again, you can’t take a job working retail and be surprised when you are working nights, weekends and holidays at this point.
And while I’m on the soapbox, I have a little message for the consumers who are complaining on behalf of these retail workers. Really? So, year after year, you buy into the whole Black Friday deal, allowing these retailers to bait you into the store in deplorable, dangerous, and in some cases, deadly conditions, allow them to bait you into stampeding over each other to save some money on let’s face it, crap you don’t need to survive anyway, and now this is the line? Making someone miss part of Thanksgiving Day so they can work that night? If there was no one willing to show up at a Wal-Mart at 10PM on Thanksgiving, the stores wouldn’t be doing this. Yet, they can drop the prices on some key items, call it Black Friday, and there you go, off to camp out in front of Best Buy for three days. But this is the line that they can’t cross? 3AM was OK, but, no, not midnight or 10PM, huh? Sorry to break it to you folks, but consumers that buy into the concept of Black Friday are just as much a part of this as the retailers.
Again, America, we cannot sit here and be surprised that this year some of our largest retailers are opening as early as 10PM on Thanksgiving night, expecting their employees to work and expecting consumers to come in, risking life and limb, to save some money on all the stuff that they think they need to have in order to live. Like you didn’t see that one coming, America.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
How Dell Changed A Brand Loyalist's Mind...
Customer loyalty boils down to personal experience. No matter what a business’s size, who is on its executive team, its market cap, etc., etc., consumers become loyal to a brand and company based on their own personal experience. I started reading an article about Michael Dell that starts off with his story: Founded the business as a computer upgrade firm in his dorm at U of Texas when he was 19; at 27, in 1992, he became the youngest CEO ever on the Fortune 500; started with personal computer upgrades, moved to selling personal systems, moved to customizing those systems, then into selling personal systems over the net at the same time as expanding into servers. Now, in 2011 with $26.6 billion in market cap, Dell Computer is getting ready to expand into the Cloud and software markets. That’s a great story, and I’m not knocking Michael Dell for his success, but the fact remains that before I could even finish reading the article on Michael Dell, I find myself typing my own article out on an HP Compaq laptop that I had to buy when my fifth and final Dell laptop took a crap on me during its manufacturer warranty period.
So, regardless of Dell’s success, and regardless of Michael Dell’s fantastic, successful story, I am a customer who purchased five dell laptops from 2001 to 2011, yet I am also a customer who went out in 2011 and bought an HP Compaq instead. Why? Well, because I finally had it, that’s why. I truly believe that my Dell Inspiron 8200 that I bought in 2001 would still be going today had I not spilled a bottle of water in it. I only wish I could say the same about the subsequent four Dells I purchased after that. Each time, the screen failed on me, once at three years, once at two years, once at a year and a half, and now, this last time, after nine months. So, in a decade, a decade that saw immense growth and expansion for Dell, my personal experience has been the opposite – the other direction – my laptops have been lasting a shorter and shorter period of time – a reduction, not an expansion, in my own personal experience with Dell.
Top that off with two other things I have a problem with, and I have made my case for why, while being one of the strongest brand loyalists I know, I have changed my laptop brand after 10 years. Thing #1 – Customer Service. I remember way back when, when I had to call Dell customer service and it was a pleasant, easy experience. “Yes, sir, no problem, sir, right away, sir, we’ll get that fixed for you immediately, sir. That power cord failed under warranty, we’ll send you one out at no cost immediately and I apologize for the inconvenience, sir.” Ten years later, while the customer service people did their best, I could also tell their hands were tied by new policies that probably didn’t exist ten years ago. “Well, while your laptop is in warranty and covered, I can only send someone out to look at it if you pay for an additional year’s warranty, or pay for the service call. Other than that, you are going to have to send it in to us, but the good news is that it will only take 10 days!” Ten days? In today’s business world, I am without a laptop for 10 days? Thanks, Dell.
Thing #2 – Dell’s Philosophy. This philosophy changed, and I think that is the reason for the dip in quality and Thing #1 above. Every Dell laptop has the Dell logo on the lid. My first and second Dell both had the logo positioned in a manner that when the laptop was closed and in my lap, the logo was right-side up for me, but was upside down to the person walking by or standing in front of me (the person who had not bought a Dell laptop yet). My third, fourth and fifth Dell laptops were the opposite – the logo was right-side up when opened and being seen by the non-Dell-owner-passer-by and upside down to me, the idiot who had purchased the laptop when it was sitting closed in my lap. What does that tell me? Somewhere along the way, Dell became much less interested in servicing the customer who had already purchased their product and much more interested in selling the next laptop to the person who had not purchased one yet.
As I said…Personal experience. Ten years ago, I was so excited to buy that first big $2000 laptop from Dell that was just as fast and robust as a desktop. The day before I spilled water in it, I would have told you to buy nothing but Dells. Yet, two years later, after Dell #2 crapped out on me, I was a little bit less vocal with my praise for Dell. By Dell #3 and #4, I had stopped talking about the brand. And now, as Dell #5, freshly back from the repair shop and its 10 day vacation sits collecting dust as my back-up machine, and I sit typing on this HP Compaq, singing a very different tune. So, guess what I am going to say if someone asks me if they should buy a Dell now?
So, regardless of Dell’s success, and regardless of Michael Dell’s fantastic, successful story, I am a customer who purchased five dell laptops from 2001 to 2011, yet I am also a customer who went out in 2011 and bought an HP Compaq instead. Why? Well, because I finally had it, that’s why. I truly believe that my Dell Inspiron 8200 that I bought in 2001 would still be going today had I not spilled a bottle of water in it. I only wish I could say the same about the subsequent four Dells I purchased after that. Each time, the screen failed on me, once at three years, once at two years, once at a year and a half, and now, this last time, after nine months. So, in a decade, a decade that saw immense growth and expansion for Dell, my personal experience has been the opposite – the other direction – my laptops have been lasting a shorter and shorter period of time – a reduction, not an expansion, in my own personal experience with Dell.
Top that off with two other things I have a problem with, and I have made my case for why, while being one of the strongest brand loyalists I know, I have changed my laptop brand after 10 years. Thing #1 – Customer Service. I remember way back when, when I had to call Dell customer service and it was a pleasant, easy experience. “Yes, sir, no problem, sir, right away, sir, we’ll get that fixed for you immediately, sir. That power cord failed under warranty, we’ll send you one out at no cost immediately and I apologize for the inconvenience, sir.” Ten years later, while the customer service people did their best, I could also tell their hands were tied by new policies that probably didn’t exist ten years ago. “Well, while your laptop is in warranty and covered, I can only send someone out to look at it if you pay for an additional year’s warranty, or pay for the service call. Other than that, you are going to have to send it in to us, but the good news is that it will only take 10 days!” Ten days? In today’s business world, I am without a laptop for 10 days? Thanks, Dell.
Thing #2 – Dell’s Philosophy. This philosophy changed, and I think that is the reason for the dip in quality and Thing #1 above. Every Dell laptop has the Dell logo on the lid. My first and second Dell both had the logo positioned in a manner that when the laptop was closed and in my lap, the logo was right-side up for me, but was upside down to the person walking by or standing in front of me (the person who had not bought a Dell laptop yet). My third, fourth and fifth Dell laptops were the opposite – the logo was right-side up when opened and being seen by the non-Dell-owner-passer-by and upside down to me, the idiot who had purchased the laptop when it was sitting closed in my lap. What does that tell me? Somewhere along the way, Dell became much less interested in servicing the customer who had already purchased their product and much more interested in selling the next laptop to the person who had not purchased one yet.
As I said…Personal experience. Ten years ago, I was so excited to buy that first big $2000 laptop from Dell that was just as fast and robust as a desktop. The day before I spilled water in it, I would have told you to buy nothing but Dells. Yet, two years later, after Dell #2 crapped out on me, I was a little bit less vocal with my praise for Dell. By Dell #3 and #4, I had stopped talking about the brand. And now, as Dell #5, freshly back from the repair shop and its 10 day vacation sits collecting dust as my back-up machine, and I sit typing on this HP Compaq, singing a very different tune. So, guess what I am going to say if someone asks me if they should buy a Dell now?
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Heartless Republicans By Congressman John Campbell
Those of us who have spent our political careers trying to keep taxes low and rein in government overspending are often called "heartless" by the opposition. I remember a time in the California Assembly when a Democratic colleague went to the floor and accused me of killing children, an accusation which she was forced to retract. Another time on that same floor, a different Democrat inquired how blood ran through my body since I clearly had no heart to pump it.
It is unfortunate that many in society seem to find fiscal responsibility and caring for the needy to be mutually exclusive objectives. It is so unfortunate because it is not true. In fact, I firmly believe that one is necessary to do the other.
As regular readers of this missive know, I believe that it is our moral imperative to care for those in need around us. But, where I differ from some of our more liberal friends is on the means to accomplish that goal. President Lyndon Johnson declared "war on poverty" back in the 60s. Tons of new programs were set up and tens of trillions of dollars have been spent on this "war" in the intervening 40+ years. And, after all this time, effort and money, the poverty rate in the United States is only down 0.4% from where it stood when Johnson made his declaration. Had this been a shooting war, we would have withdrawn or regrouped years ago. Had this been a business objective, the strategy would have long since been thrown out and restructured.
Democrats and Republicans do not have disparate objectives here. We only differ on how to accomplish the objective. Frankly, whether it’s the needs of the poor or a military matter or an environmental policy, throwing money at a problem without achieving results does not exhibit compassion. In fact, doing so can even be counterproductive to the very goal we all wish to achieve.
Therefore, there are 3 principles which I use to guide my decision making on caring for the needy in our communities:
1. Accountability: We always talk about providing for the poor, the sick and the disabled. Again, there is no disagreement that this is a worthy goal. But, the fact is that many programs set up to help these people are taken advantage of by the corrupt, the dishonest, and the lazy. It may come as a shock to some of us, but not all human beings are good and honest. When someone who is able to work simply decides not to and takes money intended for those who cannot work, he or she takes that money directly from the mouths of the needy. Programs must have the ability to actively exclude the one group in order to provide for the truly needy, or they will not succeed in their mission.
2. Community: No matter where you live in America, you have needy people nearby. It could be a homeless person or a person whose home was just destroyed by natural disaster. It could be the victim of a crime or the victim of a terrible disease. It could be an orphan or a widow. And, yes, there is tremendous human suffering occurring all over the world. We have compassion for it and we want to stop it. But, charity begins at home. I have always felt that our first obligation is to our family, our friends, our neighbors, and our community. Afterwards, we can look to the rest of the world. America is a wealthy nation. But, it is abundantly clear that we are not rich enough to police the world with our military or to feed and clothe the world with our tax dollars. Federal policy should not ignore starving children in Africa, but our first obligation should always be to hungry Americans. Those of us who believe in strong borders and firmly enforced immigration laws hold this as a fundamental maxim. We cannot have every needy person from other countries come to America illegally and then demand free benefits or expect to be taken care of for life. Our boat will sink if we do that, and then we cannot help anybody.
3. Private Partnerships: Government organizations give aid to the needy. And, faith-based organizations give aid to the needy. I have closely observed both. The faith-based organizations, because of the depth of commitment and passion guiding their service, are undeniably more effective and deliver a much more personal and lasting impact than a bureaucratic program. That is not to say that all aid should be dispensed by faith-based groups. But, we should certainly be supporting, and not hindering, private and faith-based aid groups so that they can grow and expand their philanthropic mission in this nation.
The Democratic Party does not have a monopoly on compassion. When Democratic politicians accuse Republicans of "heartlessness" because the latter are merely disagreeing about effective methods of help, they are wrong. It is just as wrong as when Republicans accuse anti-war Democrats of not being patriotic. The fact is that it is neither unpatriotic nor cruel to have a different view on how to deal with threats to our security or the problem of poverty.
And, yes, my doctor has recently confirmed the existence of a heart beating within my chest.
Until next time, I remain respectfully,
Congressman John Campbell
It is unfortunate that many in society seem to find fiscal responsibility and caring for the needy to be mutually exclusive objectives. It is so unfortunate because it is not true. In fact, I firmly believe that one is necessary to do the other.
As regular readers of this missive know, I believe that it is our moral imperative to care for those in need around us. But, where I differ from some of our more liberal friends is on the means to accomplish that goal. President Lyndon Johnson declared "war on poverty" back in the 60s. Tons of new programs were set up and tens of trillions of dollars have been spent on this "war" in the intervening 40+ years. And, after all this time, effort and money, the poverty rate in the United States is only down 0.4% from where it stood when Johnson made his declaration. Had this been a shooting war, we would have withdrawn or regrouped years ago. Had this been a business objective, the strategy would have long since been thrown out and restructured.
Democrats and Republicans do not have disparate objectives here. We only differ on how to accomplish the objective. Frankly, whether it’s the needs of the poor or a military matter or an environmental policy, throwing money at a problem without achieving results does not exhibit compassion. In fact, doing so can even be counterproductive to the very goal we all wish to achieve.
Therefore, there are 3 principles which I use to guide my decision making on caring for the needy in our communities:
1. Accountability: We always talk about providing for the poor, the sick and the disabled. Again, there is no disagreement that this is a worthy goal. But, the fact is that many programs set up to help these people are taken advantage of by the corrupt, the dishonest, and the lazy. It may come as a shock to some of us, but not all human beings are good and honest. When someone who is able to work simply decides not to and takes money intended for those who cannot work, he or she takes that money directly from the mouths of the needy. Programs must have the ability to actively exclude the one group in order to provide for the truly needy, or they will not succeed in their mission.
2. Community: No matter where you live in America, you have needy people nearby. It could be a homeless person or a person whose home was just destroyed by natural disaster. It could be the victim of a crime or the victim of a terrible disease. It could be an orphan or a widow. And, yes, there is tremendous human suffering occurring all over the world. We have compassion for it and we want to stop it. But, charity begins at home. I have always felt that our first obligation is to our family, our friends, our neighbors, and our community. Afterwards, we can look to the rest of the world. America is a wealthy nation. But, it is abundantly clear that we are not rich enough to police the world with our military or to feed and clothe the world with our tax dollars. Federal policy should not ignore starving children in Africa, but our first obligation should always be to hungry Americans. Those of us who believe in strong borders and firmly enforced immigration laws hold this as a fundamental maxim. We cannot have every needy person from other countries come to America illegally and then demand free benefits or expect to be taken care of for life. Our boat will sink if we do that, and then we cannot help anybody.
3. Private Partnerships: Government organizations give aid to the needy. And, faith-based organizations give aid to the needy. I have closely observed both. The faith-based organizations, because of the depth of commitment and passion guiding their service, are undeniably more effective and deliver a much more personal and lasting impact than a bureaucratic program. That is not to say that all aid should be dispensed by faith-based groups. But, we should certainly be supporting, and not hindering, private and faith-based aid groups so that they can grow and expand their philanthropic mission in this nation.
The Democratic Party does not have a monopoly on compassion. When Democratic politicians accuse Republicans of "heartlessness" because the latter are merely disagreeing about effective methods of help, they are wrong. It is just as wrong as when Republicans accuse anti-war Democrats of not being patriotic. The fact is that it is neither unpatriotic nor cruel to have a different view on how to deal with threats to our security or the problem of poverty.
And, yes, my doctor has recently confirmed the existence of a heart beating within my chest.
Until next time, I remain respectfully,
Congressman John Campbell
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Were We Oversold On The American Dream Of Home Ownership?
A recent Wall Street Journal article gave an example of the dramatic difference a disciplined investor would have experience if he would have invested in the stock market in 1980 instead of buying a home:
"In 1980 an investor considered buying a $99,550 home that by 2010 would have increased in value by an average of 3.6 percent per year to $296,820. If that investor would have put his 20 percent down payment of $19,910 and the normal homeownership expenses (above the cost of renting) over the years into the Dow Jones Industrial Index instead, his portfolio in 2010 could have been valued at $1,800,016. To put it plainly, the stocks would have been worth more than the house by $1,503,196."
"In 1980 an investor considered buying a $99,550 home that by 2010 would have increased in value by an average of 3.6 percent per year to $296,820. If that investor would have put his 20 percent down payment of $19,910 and the normal homeownership expenses (above the cost of renting) over the years into the Dow Jones Industrial Index instead, his portfolio in 2010 could have been valued at $1,800,016. To put it plainly, the stocks would have been worth more than the house by $1,503,196."
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Unemployment Numbers Not As Bad For College Graduates
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment numbers are much lower for those who graduated from college. While unemployment among those who did not graduate from high school is at 13%, that number drops to 10% for high school graduates, and then down to 4.5% for those with a bachelor's degree and higher.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
From Assemblyman Donald P. Wagner: Tax Increases Fuel Job Growth?
I have a question. I mean this in all sincerity. I ask it without intending a drop of cynicism. My question is this: How do tax increases create jobs?
The question is prompted by the governor's news conference on August 25. It is no secret that California has a serious jobs problem. Our unemployment rate is the second highest in the nation, and that understates the problem as our jobless rate does not include (1) those who have given up searching for jobs, and (2) those who are underemployed and seek full time work but cannot find it because of our anemic economy. Persistent joblessness destroys our economy, our communities, and our families. For that reason, the governor and Democrat leadership have promised to focus on the jobs problem in the last two week of the legislative session.
It is about darn time. Months and months ago, the GOP proposed dozens of pro-jobs and pro-economic growth bills. But, as I detailed in my last column, the Democrats killed all of those bills. And now they want to focus on jobs? Welcome to the issue, guys. Better late than never.
Except maybe not so, which brings me back to taxes. The governor and Democrat leadership held a news conference on the 25th to announce this new-found concept of focusing on jobs and to outline their jobs recovery plan. Amazingly, it amounted pretty much to just a call for new taxes. Sure there were a couple of targeted tax cuts in the package, but overall, it is more of the same from the Democrats.
So I ask, how do tax increases create jobs? Forget for a moment that raising taxes was the governor's plan to solve California's budget crisis, and then the solution to the prison overcrowding problem, and then, said the governor, was the way to attack our so-called "wall of debt." Now, apparently, tax increases are the way to create jobs.
In short, Jerry Brown and the other Democrats finally have a "jobs plan" and it looks a lot like their other plans to solve our other problems: raise taxes.
Who knew one simple idea could do so much? Sadly, though, it will not work. Raising taxes is not a serious policy to grow the economy. It is only a serious policy to grow government. Raising taxes does not create jobs. It merely transfers wealth from the productive class to a growing government. If tax increases create jobs, why not confiscate all private wealth - one hundred percent tax rates for all income levels should just about do it - and watch the jobs explosion.
Of course, the idea is preposterous, as preposterous as the latest Democratic jobs plan.
Government "creates" productive, private sector jobs only by leaving more money in the hands of . . . the private sector. Individuals know better how to spend their own money than does the government. Sacramento should get out of the way of entrepreneurs and business owners. Let them keep their money to hire more workers or make capital improvements to grow the company. That is a real jobs plan, one that will work and one that my Republican colleagues in the Legislature and I have gotten behind. Democratic business as usual, i.e., their single idea with its repeatedly failed promise to solve all of societies' problems, has not worked and will not work. I suppose it's good that the Democrats at least notice the jobs problem now. But like so much out of Sacramento, hold on to your wallet while government tries to fix that problem.
Assemblymember Donald P. Wagner
The question is prompted by the governor's news conference on August 25. It is no secret that California has a serious jobs problem. Our unemployment rate is the second highest in the nation, and that understates the problem as our jobless rate does not include (1) those who have given up searching for jobs, and (2) those who are underemployed and seek full time work but cannot find it because of our anemic economy. Persistent joblessness destroys our economy, our communities, and our families. For that reason, the governor and Democrat leadership have promised to focus on the jobs problem in the last two week of the legislative session.
It is about darn time. Months and months ago, the GOP proposed dozens of pro-jobs and pro-economic growth bills. But, as I detailed in my last column, the Democrats killed all of those bills. And now they want to focus on jobs? Welcome to the issue, guys. Better late than never.
Except maybe not so, which brings me back to taxes. The governor and Democrat leadership held a news conference on the 25th to announce this new-found concept of focusing on jobs and to outline their jobs recovery plan. Amazingly, it amounted pretty much to just a call for new taxes. Sure there were a couple of targeted tax cuts in the package, but overall, it is more of the same from the Democrats.
So I ask, how do tax increases create jobs? Forget for a moment that raising taxes was the governor's plan to solve California's budget crisis, and then the solution to the prison overcrowding problem, and then, said the governor, was the way to attack our so-called "wall of debt." Now, apparently, tax increases are the way to create jobs.
In short, Jerry Brown and the other Democrats finally have a "jobs plan" and it looks a lot like their other plans to solve our other problems: raise taxes.
Who knew one simple idea could do so much? Sadly, though, it will not work. Raising taxes is not a serious policy to grow the economy. It is only a serious policy to grow government. Raising taxes does not create jobs. It merely transfers wealth from the productive class to a growing government. If tax increases create jobs, why not confiscate all private wealth - one hundred percent tax rates for all income levels should just about do it - and watch the jobs explosion.
Of course, the idea is preposterous, as preposterous as the latest Democratic jobs plan.
Government "creates" productive, private sector jobs only by leaving more money in the hands of . . . the private sector. Individuals know better how to spend their own money than does the government. Sacramento should get out of the way of entrepreneurs and business owners. Let them keep their money to hire more workers or make capital improvements to grow the company. That is a real jobs plan, one that will work and one that my Republican colleagues in the Legislature and I have gotten behind. Democratic business as usual, i.e., their single idea with its repeatedly failed promise to solve all of societies' problems, has not worked and will not work. I suppose it's good that the Democrats at least notice the jobs problem now. But like so much out of Sacramento, hold on to your wallet while government tries to fix that problem.
Assemblymember Donald P. Wagner
Thursday, October 6, 2011
From Congressman John Campbell: The Song of the Shopkeeper
During the August recess, the captivating Mrs. Campbell and I always go to Carmel for the annual car show. Early one morning up there, I watched several shopkeepers sweeping the sidewalk in front of their stores. I got to thinking that shopkeepers must have been doing this for centuries, if not millennia. Several weeks later, I was down in Fredericksburg, Virginia and watched another shopkeeper carefully rearranging a display in the window. It struck me that these acts represented pride in one's work and one's place of work. No work rules made them do it. They just did it because those shops were theirs and they take pride in what is theirs. And, I thought, it has ever been thus.
When Mr. Obama talks about the economy and jobs, he invariably mentions teachers and firefighters. Fine. Those are noble professions. But, I can't help but think that he does so because teachers and firefighters almost always are employees of some government entity and are almost always compelled by law to join a union as a condition of having the job. And, they pay forced union dues, some of which will be involuntarily sent to the campaign coffers of politicians they do not support. It seems the President favors those who work for the government or are in a union, or preferably, both.
Well, Mr. President, most of America does not work for the government nor are they members of a union. They are salesmen and clerks and mechanics and…yes…shopkeepers. And, their contribution to society is no more or less than that of those other professions.
Now, most of you know that I spent most of my working life in the retail car business. I did that for more than twice as long as I have been serving in politics. Maybe that explains my affinity for the shopkeepers. A car dealership is, after all, a shop.
But, no one ever talks about that guy on the corner selling yogurt or the independent bookstore run by that woman who is still making a go of it in the face of Kindles and such. The shopkeeper has a heck of a job. They take a lot of risks. Signing a lease on the bet that they can sell enough stuff to pay the rent. Choosing what they think you will buy for more money than they paid for it. Figuring out how to spend limited advertising dollars and how to track whether the ads actually bring people to the store. Investing money they saved for years to buy the inventory. Selling at a loss the things that didn't sell the way they thought they might. And, of course, they have to hire employees and do all the paperwork the government requires for taxes and worker's compensation insurance and God knows what else. They often work 6 or 7 days a week, because their shops are usually open all those days. They create a pension by saving enough of what they make. They buy their own health insurance.
Nothing guarantees their job except their own personal effort and industry. They still have a boss - it’s called the customer who can put them out of business in a moment.
When others in my current profession talk about their defense of those powerful interests that represent certain professions, I think that's fine for them. But for me, the unsung shopkeeper represents those Americans who take risks, work hard, take care of themselves and maybe someone else too, and want the opportunity to succeed. They are small businesspeople. It is they who make the economy run. And, I hold them up with the greatest of respect. It is they who are ever in my thoughts as I make decisions on those cold and lonely nights in Washington. It is that entrepreneur for whom I fight the daily fight against socialism, blind ideology, and those who would steal their independence and freedom.
So, I sing the song of the shopkeeper. Their job is not a new one. It is as old as civilization. They are our neighbors, friends, and family members. They don't make noise. They make growth. They are a part of the fabric of society. And, their toil is every bit as honorable in God's eyes as anyone else's.
Next time you walk past a clean sidewalk in front of a store, remember that it didn't get that way by itself. Behind those windows, someone is putting their all into what is both their livelihood and one tiny, but critical part of our economy and our way of life. May we give them shelves full of opportunity in the years ahead.
Until next time, I remain respectfully,
Congressman John Campbell
When Mr. Obama talks about the economy and jobs, he invariably mentions teachers and firefighters. Fine. Those are noble professions. But, I can't help but think that he does so because teachers and firefighters almost always are employees of some government entity and are almost always compelled by law to join a union as a condition of having the job. And, they pay forced union dues, some of which will be involuntarily sent to the campaign coffers of politicians they do not support. It seems the President favors those who work for the government or are in a union, or preferably, both.
Well, Mr. President, most of America does not work for the government nor are they members of a union. They are salesmen and clerks and mechanics and…yes…shopkeepers. And, their contribution to society is no more or less than that of those other professions.
Now, most of you know that I spent most of my working life in the retail car business. I did that for more than twice as long as I have been serving in politics. Maybe that explains my affinity for the shopkeepers. A car dealership is, after all, a shop.
But, no one ever talks about that guy on the corner selling yogurt or the independent bookstore run by that woman who is still making a go of it in the face of Kindles and such. The shopkeeper has a heck of a job. They take a lot of risks. Signing a lease on the bet that they can sell enough stuff to pay the rent. Choosing what they think you will buy for more money than they paid for it. Figuring out how to spend limited advertising dollars and how to track whether the ads actually bring people to the store. Investing money they saved for years to buy the inventory. Selling at a loss the things that didn't sell the way they thought they might. And, of course, they have to hire employees and do all the paperwork the government requires for taxes and worker's compensation insurance and God knows what else. They often work 6 or 7 days a week, because their shops are usually open all those days. They create a pension by saving enough of what they make. They buy their own health insurance.
Nothing guarantees their job except their own personal effort and industry. They still have a boss - it’s called the customer who can put them out of business in a moment.
When others in my current profession talk about their defense of those powerful interests that represent certain professions, I think that's fine for them. But for me, the unsung shopkeeper represents those Americans who take risks, work hard, take care of themselves and maybe someone else too, and want the opportunity to succeed. They are small businesspeople. It is they who make the economy run. And, I hold them up with the greatest of respect. It is they who are ever in my thoughts as I make decisions on those cold and lonely nights in Washington. It is that entrepreneur for whom I fight the daily fight against socialism, blind ideology, and those who would steal their independence and freedom.
So, I sing the song of the shopkeeper. Their job is not a new one. It is as old as civilization. They are our neighbors, friends, and family members. They don't make noise. They make growth. They are a part of the fabric of society. And, their toil is every bit as honorable in God's eyes as anyone else's.
Next time you walk past a clean sidewalk in front of a store, remember that it didn't get that way by itself. Behind those windows, someone is putting their all into what is both their livelihood and one tiny, but critical part of our economy and our way of life. May we give them shelves full of opportunity in the years ahead.
Until next time, I remain respectfully,
Congressman John Campbell
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Upon Constantly Working's 11th Anniversary
Today, Constantly Working quietly celebrates its 11th anniversary. It was 11 years ago today that I made the decision that in the coming three months, I was either going to start a business or leave my job at the time for a new job. As fate would have it, I ended up going down the road of starting a business with a business partner and would be relying on that business as my sole source of income in just seven short months. Then, in just another 5 years and 9 months, I would determine that it was time to go back to working for someone else. That was not an easy decision to make, and quite frankly, I put it off for about two years longer than I should have. Today, I can say, however, without any doubt, it was the right decision to make.
Constantly Working, after a name change, a couple of address changes, and a pretty significant officer change that I can only equate to something along the lines of an extremely amicable divorce, still exists, and while it’s a very tiny amount, is set to turn a profit for 2011, the first time in eight years. While I am only serving two customers in my spare time at night and on weekends, this small, profitable year has been very therapeutic. I own a very (very, very) small business with my wife that has an 11 year history, somehow (miraculously – no thanks to a good volume of personal funding by me) has a perfect, albeit small, credit history, and as long as I can make a solid $900 a year, will be profitable.
Needless to say, my actual income earner, my job, remains my complete and total focus for about 50 to 55 hours a week, and Teresa continues to put in more hours at her job than I do, but as I sit today, our bills getting paid, the business being a pretty sizable debtee, as opposed to the pretty sizable debtor it was 4 ½ years ago, I am looking to the future with great promise. Naturally, we, like all of you, worry about the state of the U.S. economy, politics, and how long it will take to see economic prosperity again, but when I look back at how things could have gone for us over the past eight years, I think we are still sitting pretty, regardless.
While I could probably fill an entire book with the lessons I have learned on this 11 year journey (and maybe I will someday), there are a few quick points that I can make. First, never tie yourself financially on a personal level to your business or to anyone that you go into business with. I imagine you can see the reasons why. Secondly, while you may have always done everything yourself in the past, when you start a business, you cannot continue to do everything yourself. You need to rely on experts and you need to rely on expert staff to help you build and grow. My job has definitely helped to drive home that message. You cannot start a business with the intent of it being your sole source of income and then try to do everything (sales, marketing, accounting, management, delivery) with just two people. And most importantly, whatever the cost, no matter what, handle yourself in a manner by which at any given point you could sit down across the table from any given person and be able to know that you did the right thing.
So, as I look to the future, I am honestly quite happy. Happy to be working at the best company I have ever worked for (quite honestly, including the one that I own), and to be working with and for such a great group of people. Happy that this very, very, very small business is once again a positive source of joy in my life as opposed to the burden it was when it was what put food on the table; happy to have such a wonderful wife, wonderful family, and wonderful friends; happy to know that today, in every capacity, my deals are square, my cards are on the table, and my deck of cards is cut every time; happy to have my two wonderful customers that have, without knowing it, renewed my faith in this small, little business; and above all, happy to report to you that tomorrow’s dawn will be even brighter than was today’s.
Constantly Working, after a name change, a couple of address changes, and a pretty significant officer change that I can only equate to something along the lines of an extremely amicable divorce, still exists, and while it’s a very tiny amount, is set to turn a profit for 2011, the first time in eight years. While I am only serving two customers in my spare time at night and on weekends, this small, profitable year has been very therapeutic. I own a very (very, very) small business with my wife that has an 11 year history, somehow (miraculously – no thanks to a good volume of personal funding by me) has a perfect, albeit small, credit history, and as long as I can make a solid $900 a year, will be profitable.
Needless to say, my actual income earner, my job, remains my complete and total focus for about 50 to 55 hours a week, and Teresa continues to put in more hours at her job than I do, but as I sit today, our bills getting paid, the business being a pretty sizable debtee, as opposed to the pretty sizable debtor it was 4 ½ years ago, I am looking to the future with great promise. Naturally, we, like all of you, worry about the state of the U.S. economy, politics, and how long it will take to see economic prosperity again, but when I look back at how things could have gone for us over the past eight years, I think we are still sitting pretty, regardless.
While I could probably fill an entire book with the lessons I have learned on this 11 year journey (and maybe I will someday), there are a few quick points that I can make. First, never tie yourself financially on a personal level to your business or to anyone that you go into business with. I imagine you can see the reasons why. Secondly, while you may have always done everything yourself in the past, when you start a business, you cannot continue to do everything yourself. You need to rely on experts and you need to rely on expert staff to help you build and grow. My job has definitely helped to drive home that message. You cannot start a business with the intent of it being your sole source of income and then try to do everything (sales, marketing, accounting, management, delivery) with just two people. And most importantly, whatever the cost, no matter what, handle yourself in a manner by which at any given point you could sit down across the table from any given person and be able to know that you did the right thing.
So, as I look to the future, I am honestly quite happy. Happy to be working at the best company I have ever worked for (quite honestly, including the one that I own), and to be working with and for such a great group of people. Happy that this very, very, very small business is once again a positive source of joy in my life as opposed to the burden it was when it was what put food on the table; happy to have such a wonderful wife, wonderful family, and wonderful friends; happy to know that today, in every capacity, my deals are square, my cards are on the table, and my deck of cards is cut every time; happy to have my two wonderful customers that have, without knowing it, renewed my faith in this small, little business; and above all, happy to report to you that tomorrow’s dawn will be even brighter than was today’s.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
From Congressman John Campell: US Postal Service
From Congressman John Campbell on the US Postal Service"
"Neither Snow nor Sleet nor Dark of Night...: We all are familiar with the rest of the variations on this phrase describing the dedication of the US Postal Service (USPS) in delivering the mail. Well, snow and rain may not be keeping the Post Office from delivering the mail, but financial problems within the USPS may soon halt delivery.
This has not gotten much publicity, but the USPS is in real trouble. The USPS is an independent, but wholly-owned entity of the federal government. It is designed to be self-supporting such that the rates it charges will cover the costs of delivering the mail. This worked for a long time. Obviously, for over 200 years. But, not so now. After earning modest profits from 2004-2006, the agency started hemorrhaging money in 2007. Between 2007 and 2010, it has lost over $20 billion. These losses are now accelerating in 2011 with a loss, in the first 3 quarters of this year, amounting to $5.7 billion. The USPS has already borrowed the maximum $15 billion it is allowed to borrow under the law and has already deferred another $4 billion in payments to its employee retirement fund to cover these losses. The Continuing Resolution adopted by the House last week will have the federal government make another roughly $7 billion in payments for retirement and worker's compensation that the USPS does not have the cash to make. In other words, the USPS has run a deficit of $26 billion combined from the last several years, which has been covered by borrowing from various sources, and there is no turn-around in sight. The fact is that the USPS has both run out of cash and borrowing ability, and will be completely out of cash by the middle of next year.
Why is this happening? Part of the reason is the impact of e-mail, Fed-Ex and other competitors, and the general economy on mail volume. Mail volume has dropped from a peak of 213.1 billion pieces in 2006 to 170.6 billion in 2010. That's a drop of nearly 20%. Much of this drop is unlikely to be reversed as the alternatives to "snail mail" increase and as younger generations increasingly communicate online or by text or cell phone. Fifteen years ago, these missives would have been "snail mailed" to you. But, volume alone does not account for the entire problem. 80% of the costs incurred by the USPS are employment costs. Although its employees are covered under the same benefits package as all other federal employees (including members of Congress), they are required to contribute a smaller share of their benefits than all other federal employees (including members of Congress). Recent law changes now require that they “catch-up” on their pension contributions and "fully fund" their retirement plan. This will require a payment of between $5-6 billion every year through 2016. And, postal workers are shielded from layoffs. Furthermore, the law places a lot of restrictions on the USPS's ability to increase revenue through price increases, required subsidies, and permitted advertising.
OK, I know that I may have gotten a little bean-counterish on you all right there with all the numbers and such. But, many of you like this stuff! Anyway, if I lost you for the last two paragraphs, come back to me now for the bottom line here.
In other words, this is a classic business failure scenario. New technology has made obsolete much of this business’ core products. An intractable union refuses to adjust above-market benefit packages and requires unsustainable staffing levels. Government restrictions and tradition prevent the business from pursuing other avenues of income generation. New competitors are more flexible and have lower costs. Sounds just like the car and steel businesses (amongst others), huh? And, a classic business failure needs a classic business turnaround.
This means expenses have to be cut, unprofitable business units discontinued, and new profitable ones started. Services will need to be changed, employee costs reduced and renegotiated, and the USPS must become more lean and agile. Some of you may think that rates can just be raised and that will take care of it all. But, it will not. There are too many alternatives to mail these days, and increasing rates too much will result in further declines in mail volume, which will spiral into further losses. The structure of the business needs to change. But, since this is a wholly-owned government entity, many such changes unfortunately require Congressional action, which is action that rarely moves quickly.
Darrell Issa (R-CA) is chairman of the relevant committee in the House with jurisdiction over the USPS. He and Dennis Ross (R-FL) have introduced the "Issa-Ross Plan to Save the Postal Service". I will not go into detail here, but you can read details at the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform’s website. Darrell Issa is a guy who created and ran a number of businesses, and I am glad that someone with his experience is in charge here. Congress needs to vote on a bill like this in the next few months to prevent either total collapse or another huge taxpayer bailout costing many, many billions of dollars- and which will only postpone the inevitable.
I support the Issa-Ross plan as a good start. But, in order to be able to respond more quickly to new technologies and a changing environment, the USPS may need to be spun off from the government in one way or another in order to be free of the necessity of congressional action for every business plan change. Likewise, it may also need to be free of government civil service restrictions for employees in the future. However, what kind of entity this should be will be the subject of much debate in the months to come.
Now if you will excuse me, I'm going to lick a stamp now……just for old times’ sake.
Until next time, I remain respectfully."
This has not gotten much publicity, but the USPS is in real trouble. The USPS is an independent, but wholly-owned entity of the federal government. It is designed to be self-supporting such that the rates it charges will cover the costs of delivering the mail. This worked for a long time. Obviously, for over 200 years. But, not so now. After earning modest profits from 2004-2006, the agency started hemorrhaging money in 2007. Between 2007 and 2010, it has lost over $20 billion. These losses are now accelerating in 2011 with a loss, in the first 3 quarters of this year, amounting to $5.7 billion. The USPS has already borrowed the maximum $15 billion it is allowed to borrow under the law and has already deferred another $4 billion in payments to its employee retirement fund to cover these losses. The Continuing Resolution adopted by the House last week will have the federal government make another roughly $7 billion in payments for retirement and worker's compensation that the USPS does not have the cash to make. In other words, the USPS has run a deficit of $26 billion combined from the last several years, which has been covered by borrowing from various sources, and there is no turn-around in sight. The fact is that the USPS has both run out of cash and borrowing ability, and will be completely out of cash by the middle of next year.
Why is this happening? Part of the reason is the impact of e-mail, Fed-Ex and other competitors, and the general economy on mail volume. Mail volume has dropped from a peak of 213.1 billion pieces in 2006 to 170.6 billion in 2010. That's a drop of nearly 20%. Much of this drop is unlikely to be reversed as the alternatives to "snail mail" increase and as younger generations increasingly communicate online or by text or cell phone. Fifteen years ago, these missives would have been "snail mailed" to you. But, volume alone does not account for the entire problem. 80% of the costs incurred by the USPS are employment costs. Although its employees are covered under the same benefits package as all other federal employees (including members of Congress), they are required to contribute a smaller share of their benefits than all other federal employees (including members of Congress). Recent law changes now require that they “catch-up” on their pension contributions and "fully fund" their retirement plan. This will require a payment of between $5-6 billion every year through 2016. And, postal workers are shielded from layoffs. Furthermore, the law places a lot of restrictions on the USPS's ability to increase revenue through price increases, required subsidies, and permitted advertising.
OK, I know that I may have gotten a little bean-counterish on you all right there with all the numbers and such. But, many of you like this stuff! Anyway, if I lost you for the last two paragraphs, come back to me now for the bottom line here.
In other words, this is a classic business failure scenario. New technology has made obsolete much of this business’ core products. An intractable union refuses to adjust above-market benefit packages and requires unsustainable staffing levels. Government restrictions and tradition prevent the business from pursuing other avenues of income generation. New competitors are more flexible and have lower costs. Sounds just like the car and steel businesses (amongst others), huh? And, a classic business failure needs a classic business turnaround.
This means expenses have to be cut, unprofitable business units discontinued, and new profitable ones started. Services will need to be changed, employee costs reduced and renegotiated, and the USPS must become more lean and agile. Some of you may think that rates can just be raised and that will take care of it all. But, it will not. There are too many alternatives to mail these days, and increasing rates too much will result in further declines in mail volume, which will spiral into further losses. The structure of the business needs to change. But, since this is a wholly-owned government entity, many such changes unfortunately require Congressional action, which is action that rarely moves quickly.
Darrell Issa (R-CA) is chairman of the relevant committee in the House with jurisdiction over the USPS. He and Dennis Ross (R-FL) have introduced the "Issa-Ross Plan to Save the Postal Service". I will not go into detail here, but you can read details at the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform’s website. Darrell Issa is a guy who created and ran a number of businesses, and I am glad that someone with his experience is in charge here. Congress needs to vote on a bill like this in the next few months to prevent either total collapse or another huge taxpayer bailout costing many, many billions of dollars- and which will only postpone the inevitable.
I support the Issa-Ross plan as a good start. But, in order to be able to respond more quickly to new technologies and a changing environment, the USPS may need to be spun off from the government in one way or another in order to be free of the necessity of congressional action for every business plan change. Likewise, it may also need to be free of government civil service restrictions for employees in the future. However, what kind of entity this should be will be the subject of much debate in the months to come.
Now if you will excuse me, I'm going to lick a stamp now……just for old times’ sake.
Until next time, I remain respectfully."
Monday, September 26, 2011
And You Can't Figure Out How They Hacked Your Account?
A data security firm analyzed 32 million passwords that a hacker stole from an application developer called rockyou.com and published the 10 most commonly used passwords:
1. 123456
2. 12345
3. 123456789
4. password
5. iloveyou
6. princess
7. rockyou (the name of the site)
8. 1234567
9. 12345678
10. abc123
Monday, September 12, 2011
Even The IRS Knows How Bad The Tax Code Is
With Americans spending 6.1 billion hours per year preparing their taxes, the IRS has tries to help out a bit by having a national taxpayer advocate who, among other duties, reports back to Congress annually and "whose job it is to help taxpayers having problems with the agency." Back in March, it was reported in Money Magazine that the report included the following facts:
- Over the past 10 years there have been 4,428 changes to the tax code - which averages out to more than one per day.
- The code is so complex that nine out of ten Americans have someone fo their taxes for them or rely on tax software.
- The code's complexity often leads honest Joes to make costly errors, while sophosticated taxpayers find loopholes to exploit.
- The code is so long that no one is certain exactly how long it is.
- Over the past 10 years there have been 4,428 changes to the tax code - which averages out to more than one per day.
- The code is so complex that nine out of ten Americans have someone fo their taxes for them or rely on tax software.
- The code's complexity often leads honest Joes to make costly errors, while sophosticated taxpayers find loopholes to exploit.
- The code is so long that no one is certain exactly how long it is.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Why I Won't Be Crossing Picket Lines This Time Around During The Grocery Workers' Strike
Here we go again with the grocery workers’ strike, Southern California….grocery workers are set to strike against the very places that are crazy enough to hire union workers: Albertson’s, Ralph’s and Vons. Remember how it was last time? Stater Brothers was packed, the smaller independent stores saw a great uptick in business that they are still enjoying today, and people crossing picket lines to buy food for their families with their hard-earned money, or people who were out of work who were crossing picket lines to earn some money, were being accosted by the people who just weeks earlier were thanking them for shopping at that very store and telling them to have a nice day. This time around, with higher unemployment rates and company revenues down across the board, it could get even nastier and last even longer. The stores are offering compromises, but of course, the unions exclaim that none of the compromises are good enough for their members. The members have voted to strike and it seems like it is only a matter of time until they do.
I, too, once worked for one of these union shops and was a member of this very union. Granted, it was over two decades ago, and the most I could take working there was six months, but my very first job was working at the Lucky’s at Seacliff Village in Huntington Beach as a box boy, making minimum wage, working full-time at a part-time job without any benefits, bagging groceries, lifting boxes, sweeping and mopping floors and shoveling broken glass to empty the recycling machines. I had just turned 15 and needed money for a car, car insurance, not eating at home, taking girls out on dates, of course, and to put some money away to pay for college. I didn’t think much of it at the time, but when they hired me, they told me that I was going to need to join the union, but explained to me that this was a good thing. I didn’t think it was much of a good thing when my first paycheck of $137 was in my hand and $84 of it went to pay my initial union dues. I also had a number of friends who had similar experiences with this very same union and their first jobs.
With that initial chunk of my money in the hands of the union bosses and with two trips to Buena Park to vote in mandatory union votes under my belt, working a very laborious job at minimum wage with no benefits, within six months, I was ready to move on. I left that union job at Lucky’s and I never looked back. I took note when Lucky’s was bought by Albertson’s and I took note every time the grocery workers were rattling their swords at the evil bastards that employed them, but it really wasn’t until the last strike which lasted 141 days over 2003 & 2004 that I really paid close attention to what was going on. Really, that was the first strike that I had any personal involvement in, if you will. I wasn’t on the picket line, and in fact, at the time, was out on my own at an independent shop I partially owned, but I did come in contact with those picket lines and I did hear about some of the nasty stuff that was going on when people were crossing them. It is this legacy of intimidation and scare tactics laid on shoppers by the union and some of its members that I remember most about their last strike.
The six months I spent working at Lucky’s remains my one and only union job to date. So, in 2003 when the last strike began, other than having to see my grandfather who paid into a union most of his adult life have to fight that very same union for his pension money because he wanted to keep working in retirement, and the basic working knowledge of unions that I learned from unionized teachers that weren’t really all that stellar, I still had a pretty clean slate when it came to unions. Over the coming 141 days, however, that would greatly change.
I moved to Aliso Viejo in 2002, and that is when I started shopping at Ralph's. When the strike began just over a year later, we started doing more of our shopping at Wal-Mart and starting buying what we could not get there at Stater Brothers. There were a couple of times early on in the strike that I crossed the picket line to shop at Ralph's to get something in particular that I wanted that they only had at Ralph’s, and one time, I even drove to Ralph’s without thinking and just said screw it and went inside because I didn’t want to drive somewhere else. I also had a friend who cleaned up, making a lot of money working long hours at a Ralph's during that strike who I went to see at the store a couple of times. I even considered earning a little extra money there myself, though I never went through with it. Admittedly, though, I still felt comfortable enough crossing the picket line in those early days of the strike. Some of the people on the lines glared at you a little bit, but others were very polite.
But, as the strike lingered on and people burned through their savings instead of working, coming to the realization that the strike was going to be a lot longer than they figured, those picket lines started to get a little bad. Then, once it was reported that a woman was actually accosted at the Ralph’s I shopped at as she was walking into the store with her children, I learned my lesson…Cross that picket line at your own physical risk. But, I guess that was the point they were trying to make, wasn’t it? That lesson was solidified by a conversation I overheard while I was in line at the bank when a member of the union was asking everyone in line what they thought of the strike and then verbally attacking anyone who did not support it. I tried to avoid him asking me, but he finally made his way to my spot in the line. Needless to say, he and I had a little verbal exchange at the bank that I will never forget. Someone at the union should have taught him a better way to earn support for his cause.
So, looking back, while that chunk of the very first paycheck I earned put a sour taste in my mouth for the modern union, I still was very much on the fence with unions up until things started to get a little nasty with that 2003-2004 strike. Needless to say, at the time I set out to learn more, to form a much better-informed opinion of unions, and in the past 7 years, I have concluded that while the initial intention of the union was good, and that the early unions brought us into reasonable working hours and reasonable working conditions, and took children off of assembly lines and got them into schools, I struggle to see how at the end of the day today, they are actually doing near the good that they used to. Couple that with all the classic union corruption, strong-arming and mob ties from the 60’s and 70’s that supposedly are 100% gone now, and you do not have a very rosy picture of the modern union at all. In fact, when you look at the plight of non-union workers in America today, many of them are much better off than their union counterparts, even though their union counterparts have a union looking out for their best interest. Look at the unionized auto workers in America, for example, and how their union benefited most of them out of a job. By the way, I did my own personal reflecting and found myself wondering how in the hell was it that I was in a union, paying union dues, yet was making minimum wage and getting no benefits? You’ll excuse me if I don’t look back fondly at all the union was doing for me at the time.
And now, as we stare down another grocery workers strike, I can’t help but have a bitter taste in my mouth from the last one. This time around, the complaint is that workers are going to have to start paying more of their healthcare costs. Oh, you mean like everyone else in America? I had to do that for a year at my current job when the economy started to turn and I didn’t take to the streets, accosting customers as they entered the building. In fact, I paid it without question, put my head down, got to work, and with the help of everyone at the company working hard together through the economic crisis, a year later, the company turned around and starting paying 100% my health insurance premium again because it was doing so well. We supported the company and came out the other side better for it instead of attacking the company, blaming it for things that were outside of its control.
I got a job at the grocery store and I didn’t really like it, so I went out and got another job, then another job, then another job, and moved on with my life. I didn’t stay at a job I didn’t like then blame the store owner because I stayed there. By the way, grocery workers in the very worst increase percentage are being asked to pay $92 per month for family insurance; $36 per month for themselves. I had to pay $33.11 a month and I work longer hours and I am salary so I don’t get overtime or holiday pay. To top it off, I negotiate all of my benefits and perks one on one directly with the company myself because I’m not part of a union.
Everyone out there is having to make concessions, and everyone out there is having to work a little longer and a little harder. Why should that not be the case for EVERYONE? What did that last strike accomplish? To tell you the truth, I don’t even remember, but I do know that it did one thing. It completely and totally swayed my opinion in one direction when it came to unions. I am not saying that these grocery store workers don’t work hard and that they don’t deserve the same American dream that the rest of us do, I am just saying that when it comes to supporting their strike and supporting them and the place they work once they are ready to go back to work again, it is a real struggle for me.
Why is it such a struggle? Let’s just say that I think that striking workers should be out taking some business and economic classes because obviously, they do not have a basic working knowledge of how today’s businesses work, even though they work for a business and pay union dues to another business. Striking workers need to better understand where their employer, the people crossing picket lines, and yes, even their union, all stand. I’m not saying that to be mean. I am saying that they need to become better informed on how businesses work and understand that their union is a profitable business and they are a customer that is forced to shop there, even when there are better deals in the marketplace.
Again, let’s look at what happened last time. We stopped shopping at the Ralph’s where the mother walking into the store with her children was accosted. We started shopping at the next furthest Ralph’s from home, but all the stuff we were buying at Wal-Mart and other stores during the strike, we never went back to buying again at any Ralph’s, and this has actually saved us quite a bit of money. We spend far less at Ralph’s today than we did before the last strike, quite frankly, because we were forced by union members to go out and find alternatives during the last strike, and find alternatives, we did. So, when Ralph’s doesn’t have money to pay for all of these workers’ health insurance 7 years later, how do these workers not see that the effects they created with their last strike play a large part in the financial condition of their employer today? How can they not see that this looming strike over somewhere between $36 and $93 per month is going to have any even more adverse effect on their employer this time around? All of the evidence points to the fact that shoppers in Southern California did not simply go right back to their same buying habits post-strike back in 2004, but in fact, are buying less and less at the union shops because the bad taste the last strike left in their mouth.
During the strike, we discovered Henry’s and it’s higher-quality and less-expensive produce. That taught us that we needed to do more than just shop at Ralph’s…we needed to shop around. The grocery workers’ strike and the insight it gave us last time around led us to finding Henry's, and in turn, over the years, Fresh N' Easy and Growers Direct. We have now found everything we bought at Ralph's before the last strike at other stores, and at a cheaper price. I guess I should thank the union in a way, because without the last strike, we would have just continued paying more for less quality at Ralph’s. And one last point before I wrap up…While we were buying less, we were still going to Ralph’s about once a week, but since March when the union first started sabre rattling, we are going to Ralph’s much less in preparation for not going there at all. In fact, I think I may have made my last regularly-scheduled shopping trip to Ralph’s at this point.
So, in conclusion, this time I will not be crossing the picket line – not one single time. This will not be in support of the strike, but will be because the last strike opened my eyes to the options I had at local non-union shops. This time around, I no longer need to cross the picket line. This time, I won’t simply cut back on what we buy at Ralph’s, we’ll simply just stop going there from here on out. No strike in 2004? I’d still be shopping at Ralph’s. No strike in 2011? I’d still be shopping at Ralph’s. Now? I’m done shopping at Ralph’s. Regardless of how this strike turns out, if enough people reach the same conclusion that I did, union members, how do you think that is going to affect the store’s ability to pay for your health insurance?
I, too, once worked for one of these union shops and was a member of this very union. Granted, it was over two decades ago, and the most I could take working there was six months, but my very first job was working at the Lucky’s at Seacliff Village in Huntington Beach as a box boy, making minimum wage, working full-time at a part-time job without any benefits, bagging groceries, lifting boxes, sweeping and mopping floors and shoveling broken glass to empty the recycling machines. I had just turned 15 and needed money for a car, car insurance, not eating at home, taking girls out on dates, of course, and to put some money away to pay for college. I didn’t think much of it at the time, but when they hired me, they told me that I was going to need to join the union, but explained to me that this was a good thing. I didn’t think it was much of a good thing when my first paycheck of $137 was in my hand and $84 of it went to pay my initial union dues. I also had a number of friends who had similar experiences with this very same union and their first jobs.
With that initial chunk of my money in the hands of the union bosses and with two trips to Buena Park to vote in mandatory union votes under my belt, working a very laborious job at minimum wage with no benefits, within six months, I was ready to move on. I left that union job at Lucky’s and I never looked back. I took note when Lucky’s was bought by Albertson’s and I took note every time the grocery workers were rattling their swords at the evil bastards that employed them, but it really wasn’t until the last strike which lasted 141 days over 2003 & 2004 that I really paid close attention to what was going on. Really, that was the first strike that I had any personal involvement in, if you will. I wasn’t on the picket line, and in fact, at the time, was out on my own at an independent shop I partially owned, but I did come in contact with those picket lines and I did hear about some of the nasty stuff that was going on when people were crossing them. It is this legacy of intimidation and scare tactics laid on shoppers by the union and some of its members that I remember most about their last strike.
The six months I spent working at Lucky’s remains my one and only union job to date. So, in 2003 when the last strike began, other than having to see my grandfather who paid into a union most of his adult life have to fight that very same union for his pension money because he wanted to keep working in retirement, and the basic working knowledge of unions that I learned from unionized teachers that weren’t really all that stellar, I still had a pretty clean slate when it came to unions. Over the coming 141 days, however, that would greatly change.
I moved to Aliso Viejo in 2002, and that is when I started shopping at Ralph's. When the strike began just over a year later, we started doing more of our shopping at Wal-Mart and starting buying what we could not get there at Stater Brothers. There were a couple of times early on in the strike that I crossed the picket line to shop at Ralph's to get something in particular that I wanted that they only had at Ralph’s, and one time, I even drove to Ralph’s without thinking and just said screw it and went inside because I didn’t want to drive somewhere else. I also had a friend who cleaned up, making a lot of money working long hours at a Ralph's during that strike who I went to see at the store a couple of times. I even considered earning a little extra money there myself, though I never went through with it. Admittedly, though, I still felt comfortable enough crossing the picket line in those early days of the strike. Some of the people on the lines glared at you a little bit, but others were very polite.
But, as the strike lingered on and people burned through their savings instead of working, coming to the realization that the strike was going to be a lot longer than they figured, those picket lines started to get a little bad. Then, once it was reported that a woman was actually accosted at the Ralph’s I shopped at as she was walking into the store with her children, I learned my lesson…Cross that picket line at your own physical risk. But, I guess that was the point they were trying to make, wasn’t it? That lesson was solidified by a conversation I overheard while I was in line at the bank when a member of the union was asking everyone in line what they thought of the strike and then verbally attacking anyone who did not support it. I tried to avoid him asking me, but he finally made his way to my spot in the line. Needless to say, he and I had a little verbal exchange at the bank that I will never forget. Someone at the union should have taught him a better way to earn support for his cause.
So, looking back, while that chunk of the very first paycheck I earned put a sour taste in my mouth for the modern union, I still was very much on the fence with unions up until things started to get a little nasty with that 2003-2004 strike. Needless to say, at the time I set out to learn more, to form a much better-informed opinion of unions, and in the past 7 years, I have concluded that while the initial intention of the union was good, and that the early unions brought us into reasonable working hours and reasonable working conditions, and took children off of assembly lines and got them into schools, I struggle to see how at the end of the day today, they are actually doing near the good that they used to. Couple that with all the classic union corruption, strong-arming and mob ties from the 60’s and 70’s that supposedly are 100% gone now, and you do not have a very rosy picture of the modern union at all. In fact, when you look at the plight of non-union workers in America today, many of them are much better off than their union counterparts, even though their union counterparts have a union looking out for their best interest. Look at the unionized auto workers in America, for example, and how their union benefited most of them out of a job. By the way, I did my own personal reflecting and found myself wondering how in the hell was it that I was in a union, paying union dues, yet was making minimum wage and getting no benefits? You’ll excuse me if I don’t look back fondly at all the union was doing for me at the time.
And now, as we stare down another grocery workers strike, I can’t help but have a bitter taste in my mouth from the last one. This time around, the complaint is that workers are going to have to start paying more of their healthcare costs. Oh, you mean like everyone else in America? I had to do that for a year at my current job when the economy started to turn and I didn’t take to the streets, accosting customers as they entered the building. In fact, I paid it without question, put my head down, got to work, and with the help of everyone at the company working hard together through the economic crisis, a year later, the company turned around and starting paying 100% my health insurance premium again because it was doing so well. We supported the company and came out the other side better for it instead of attacking the company, blaming it for things that were outside of its control.
I got a job at the grocery store and I didn’t really like it, so I went out and got another job, then another job, then another job, and moved on with my life. I didn’t stay at a job I didn’t like then blame the store owner because I stayed there. By the way, grocery workers in the very worst increase percentage are being asked to pay $92 per month for family insurance; $36 per month for themselves. I had to pay $33.11 a month and I work longer hours and I am salary so I don’t get overtime or holiday pay. To top it off, I negotiate all of my benefits and perks one on one directly with the company myself because I’m not part of a union.
Everyone out there is having to make concessions, and everyone out there is having to work a little longer and a little harder. Why should that not be the case for EVERYONE? What did that last strike accomplish? To tell you the truth, I don’t even remember, but I do know that it did one thing. It completely and totally swayed my opinion in one direction when it came to unions. I am not saying that these grocery store workers don’t work hard and that they don’t deserve the same American dream that the rest of us do, I am just saying that when it comes to supporting their strike and supporting them and the place they work once they are ready to go back to work again, it is a real struggle for me.
Why is it such a struggle? Let’s just say that I think that striking workers should be out taking some business and economic classes because obviously, they do not have a basic working knowledge of how today’s businesses work, even though they work for a business and pay union dues to another business. Striking workers need to better understand where their employer, the people crossing picket lines, and yes, even their union, all stand. I’m not saying that to be mean. I am saying that they need to become better informed on how businesses work and understand that their union is a profitable business and they are a customer that is forced to shop there, even when there are better deals in the marketplace.
Again, let’s look at what happened last time. We stopped shopping at the Ralph’s where the mother walking into the store with her children was accosted. We started shopping at the next furthest Ralph’s from home, but all the stuff we were buying at Wal-Mart and other stores during the strike, we never went back to buying again at any Ralph’s, and this has actually saved us quite a bit of money. We spend far less at Ralph’s today than we did before the last strike, quite frankly, because we were forced by union members to go out and find alternatives during the last strike, and find alternatives, we did. So, when Ralph’s doesn’t have money to pay for all of these workers’ health insurance 7 years later, how do these workers not see that the effects they created with their last strike play a large part in the financial condition of their employer today? How can they not see that this looming strike over somewhere between $36 and $93 per month is going to have any even more adverse effect on their employer this time around? All of the evidence points to the fact that shoppers in Southern California did not simply go right back to their same buying habits post-strike back in 2004, but in fact, are buying less and less at the union shops because the bad taste the last strike left in their mouth.
During the strike, we discovered Henry’s and it’s higher-quality and less-expensive produce. That taught us that we needed to do more than just shop at Ralph’s…we needed to shop around. The grocery workers’ strike and the insight it gave us last time around led us to finding Henry's, and in turn, over the years, Fresh N' Easy and Growers Direct. We have now found everything we bought at Ralph's before the last strike at other stores, and at a cheaper price. I guess I should thank the union in a way, because without the last strike, we would have just continued paying more for less quality at Ralph’s. And one last point before I wrap up…While we were buying less, we were still going to Ralph’s about once a week, but since March when the union first started sabre rattling, we are going to Ralph’s much less in preparation for not going there at all. In fact, I think I may have made my last regularly-scheduled shopping trip to Ralph’s at this point.
So, in conclusion, this time I will not be crossing the picket line – not one single time. This will not be in support of the strike, but will be because the last strike opened my eyes to the options I had at local non-union shops. This time around, I no longer need to cross the picket line. This time, I won’t simply cut back on what we buy at Ralph’s, we’ll simply just stop going there from here on out. No strike in 2004? I’d still be shopping at Ralph’s. No strike in 2011? I’d still be shopping at Ralph’s. Now? I’m done shopping at Ralph’s. Regardless of how this strike turns out, if enough people reach the same conclusion that I did, union members, how do you think that is going to affect the store’s ability to pay for your health insurance?
Monday, August 15, 2011
From The Internet...
I quote Herman Cain (who right now, has my vote!) when he said, "America needs to learn how to take a joke" as I offer this one that made its way to my inbox:
"For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
Not fair to make judgment of this until you see what the Fire Chief says !!!!
In South Los Angeles , a 4-plex was destroyed by a fire.
A Mexican family of six, all welfare recipients and gang members lived on the first floor...they died.
An Islamic group of seven welfare cheats, all illegally in the country from Kenya , lived on the second floor, and they, too, all perished in the fire.
6 LA Hispanic Gang Bangers & ex-cons lived on the 3rd floor and they, too, died.
A lone, white couple lived on the top floor. The couple survived the fire.
Jesse Jackson, John Burris and Al Sharpton were furious. They flew into LA and met with the fire chief. On camera, they loudly demanded to know why the Blacks, Black Muslims and Hispanics all died in the fire and why only the white couple lived?
The fire chief said, "They were at work." "
"For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
Not fair to make judgment of this until you see what the Fire Chief says !!!!
In South Los Angeles , a 4-plex was destroyed by a fire.
A Mexican family of six, all welfare recipients and gang members lived on the first floor...they died.
An Islamic group of seven welfare cheats, all illegally in the country from Kenya , lived on the second floor, and they, too, all perished in the fire.
6 LA Hispanic Gang Bangers & ex-cons lived on the 3rd floor and they, too, died.
A lone, white couple lived on the top floor. The couple survived the fire.
Jesse Jackson, John Burris and Al Sharpton were furious. They flew into LA and met with the fire chief. On camera, they loudly demanded to know why the Blacks, Black Muslims and Hispanics all died in the fire and why only the white couple lived?
The fire chief said, "They were at work." "
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Where Have I Been? Neudesic Launches New Web Site, That's Where!
You may have noticed that my last blog post was over a month ago...Way back on July 5th, 2011, to be precise. Let me sum up the reason why you have not heard from me for so long in a single press release headline: Neudesic Launches New Website Built on SharePoint 2010 Platform
Over the past month, we have dotted every i and crossed every t. We have read and reread the content and visited open task lists daily. Finally, after the culmination of the efforts of Neudeic's .com Redesign Team, the new Neudesic.com is live.
According to our press release, which has been picked up by a number of national and local news sources, the "[n]ew site features [a] modern look and feel and integrates with Microsoft Dynamics CRM."
The site is built on the strength and stability of SharePoint 2010 integrated into Microsoft Dynamics CRM and showcases the power of Microsoft's latest software. This exciting new site further establishes Neudesic's reputation as the trusted provider of innovative technology solutions based on Microsoft's robust and versatile technology stack.
From initial design to final rollout, Neudesic specialists completed the site using the same project management methodology they employ when delivering successful solutions to the company's clients. Experts in User Experience, SharePoint, Dynamics CRM and Engagement Management joined forces with teams from Marketing and Human Resources to bring management's vision for the new site into focus. "By choosing SharePoint 2010 as our Internet platform, we were able to quickly integrate with our CRM and HR systems," said Simeon Cathey, Neudesic General Manager, SharePoint Practice. "Now our sales force can easily capture new leads, and managing job listings and resume submissions is a breeze for HR."
"We are extremely pleased with the results delivered by our dedicated team," said Anthony Ferry, VP of Sales and Marketing.
Neudesic recently completed a number of other public facing websites using SharePoint 2010 and FAST Search. The company will showcase these and other websites, as well as solutions based on the SharePoint platform, in Booth 509 at Microsoft SharePoint Conference 2011, October 3 – 6 in Anaheim, Calif.
Coinciding with our new site launch, Neudesic is also holding a contest to encourage visitors to spend time looking through the site's content. Visit Neudesic.com and click on the Neudesic Launch Contest link for more information on how to enter.
Over the past month, we have dotted every i and crossed every t. We have read and reread the content and visited open task lists daily. Finally, after the culmination of the efforts of Neudeic's .com Redesign Team, the new Neudesic.com is live.
According to our press release, which has been picked up by a number of national and local news sources, the "[n]ew site features [a] modern look and feel and integrates with Microsoft Dynamics CRM."
The site is built on the strength and stability of SharePoint 2010 integrated into Microsoft Dynamics CRM and showcases the power of Microsoft's latest software. This exciting new site further establishes Neudesic's reputation as the trusted provider of innovative technology solutions based on Microsoft's robust and versatile technology stack.
From initial design to final rollout, Neudesic specialists completed the site using the same project management methodology they employ when delivering successful solutions to the company's clients. Experts in User Experience, SharePoint, Dynamics CRM and Engagement Management joined forces with teams from Marketing and Human Resources to bring management's vision for the new site into focus. "By choosing SharePoint 2010 as our Internet platform, we were able to quickly integrate with our CRM and HR systems," said Simeon Cathey, Neudesic General Manager, SharePoint Practice. "Now our sales force can easily capture new leads, and managing job listings and resume submissions is a breeze for HR."
"We are extremely pleased with the results delivered by our dedicated team," said Anthony Ferry, VP of Sales and Marketing.
Neudesic recently completed a number of other public facing websites using SharePoint 2010 and FAST Search. The company will showcase these and other websites, as well as solutions based on the SharePoint platform, in Booth 509 at Microsoft SharePoint Conference 2011, October 3 – 6 in Anaheim, Calif.
Coinciding with our new site launch, Neudesic is also holding a contest to encourage visitors to spend time looking through the site's content. Visit Neudesic.com and click on the Neudesic Launch Contest link for more information on how to enter.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
To Blog Or Not To Blog?...That Is The Social Media Question...
On May 15, 2011, this missive celebrated its 10-year anniversary. Think about that for a second. A decade. Pre-9/11, back when I was in my 20's, back when I was leaving the TV manufacturing business to get into marketing, back when my wife and I were about to celebrate 3 whole years together, back when my brother was still in high school, oh, and back when I was still living at home with my parents - no mortgage, no association, no city, no utilities - whatever did I do with my money back then?
So much has changed since the day I decided that the company I had just co-founded needed a newsletter, which over time would morph from a PDF attachment to an HTML email, then finally to this blog. It had been called the WS Financial Business Update, WS Financial Update, Quietly Working Update, The Patriotism Page, and finally, just The Update.
But here I sit today, looking back over the past three weeks and I am seeing something intersting. My last actual blog post was 16 days go, yet in that time I have shared 15 articles and posts with you all on social media.
Now, we all know that a lot of folks are saying that social media is the wave of the future, but to a number of us, especially those who work in technology, social media has already been around for quite some time. So naturally, you can see, as I reflect on the past decade of The Update and all of its forms, how I might contemplate its future as a blog vs. quick and easy links and posts on my social media pages.
There are defintely advantages to the blog. Try to find something you posted on Facebook two years ago. Try to easily search or sort your Twitter posts, especially the ones you forgot to hash-tag. Quickly and easily find what you posted on your birthday, or on Fourth of July five, six, seven years ago. The historian and archivist in me shudders at the volume of data that is being lost to the world with these quick and easy post and forget social media updates.
Yet, it takes me a lot longer to write the blog posts than it does to simply shell out links to the articles that I have read, though it might take you as the reader longer to read the long articles and shorter to read the short articles. We all know that the linked articles are going to have a lot less rhetoric and ramblin' (unless they're Fox News articles) than crazy ol' man Savastano's posts, but at the same time, just a link with even a quick few words from the poster still do not do that person's own opinions justice. And, from what I have heard, my rhetoric and ramblin' tend to make some of you laugh, tend to ruffle some of your feathers, but either way, spark much more of a conversation than a simple link to someone else's article ever does.
Needless to say, a definite decision on blog vs. social media is not going to happen today. It's Sunday as I write this, and our daily agenda has afforded me the time to write and prepare a post for the next business day, which obviously, the past three weekends did not allowed me to do. So, I guess for now, I'll continue to use social media to point you to the blog and I'll write blog articles when I have the time and simply shell out links when I don't. I guess I'll have to keep an eye out for further signs that it is time to hang up the blog, but for now, it's just not time yet.
Friday, June 17, 2011
Some Email & Social Media Numbers...
According to Fast Company Magazine:
25 years ago, you had to write code to add someone to an email list. Then, Eric Thomas invented ListServ. Now, 30 million emails are sent every single day using ListServ.
In 1989, there wre 1.8 million email addresses. By 2010, there were 3 billion.
From 2009 to 2010, email use by Seniors was up 28%, but down a sharp 59% for Teens.
The average business person sends 33 emails per day.
In 1985, 90% of email was business related. Today, business email only makes up 8%.
89% of all email sent to day is spam.
In 2004, AOL had 23 million subscribers and Facebook, just 1 million,. By 2010, AOL was down to just 4 million and Facebook was uo to 600 million.
In 2010, there were 107 trillion emails sent, 170 billion pieces of actual snail mail sent, 36 million photos shared on Facebook, and 25 billion tweets.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Dismantling A Nuclear Power Plant
As you read this, what was once the world's largest nuclear power plant in Zion, Illinois (just outside of Chicago), is being dismantled. The plant, which was opened in 1973 by Exelon Corp., was moth-balled in 1998 when it became unprofitable, and has been sitting, collecting dust (and making more radioactive dust) for the past 12 years. Exelon was paying about $10 million a year just to maintain the plant, but did not wanted to handle demolition itself.
Now, in a first-of-its-kind deal, Excelon has transferred custody of the plant to a private dismantling company. It actually took an act of the federal government to make this happen. A demoltion company called EnergySolutions stands to get nearly $1 billion in business by taking on the project which is being funded by money Excelon set aside from utility fees for just this type of plant demoliton they knew would be needed one day.
EnergySolutions has developed a four-step plan to dismantle the Zion nuclear power plant that will most likely set the standard nationwide as America's earliest nuclear power plants start to age and must be dismantled.
First, the spent fuel rods that are housed at the plant are placed into steel canisters which are lowered into a concrete sleeve. This concrete sleeve can withstand temperatures close to 1500 degrees, tornado winds, and direct impacts of objects up to the size of a car, traveling 125 miles per hour. The sleeves, of which there will be 61 at Zion, each weighing 157 tons because of the thickness conrcete, are placed a three-foot thick slab of more concrete, the size of a football field. The sleeves are permanatly housed at the site of the nuclear plant. Vegitation growth will be encouraged to hide the concrete casks and slab. Armed guards will keep people away. The casks and armed guards will theoretically be in place as long as there is still civilization around to coordinate it all.
The next step is to dismantle the actual concrete containment domes that sat over the plant's reactors and the reactors themselves, down to the small components, until nothing is left. All of the dismantled material will then be transported to a radioactive disposal facility in Clive, Utah. Each reactor and dome will produce about 4 million cubic feet of material, roughly enough to fill 800 rail cars.
Once in Clive, Utah, the 4 million cubic feet of material will be pulverized into fist-sized chunks and buried in above ground graves which, like the sleeves and slabs back at the power plant, will be monitored and secured for as long as society exists.
While the materials are on their way to Utah, crews then begin dismantling all of the remaining structures - office buildings, etc. - and once all of that material is hauled away, crews will plant large expanses of grass, hopefully making it look like the nuclear plant was never there.
Now, in a first-of-its-kind deal, Excelon has transferred custody of the plant to a private dismantling company. It actually took an act of the federal government to make this happen. A demoltion company called EnergySolutions stands to get nearly $1 billion in business by taking on the project which is being funded by money Excelon set aside from utility fees for just this type of plant demoliton they knew would be needed one day.
EnergySolutions has developed a four-step plan to dismantle the Zion nuclear power plant that will most likely set the standard nationwide as America's earliest nuclear power plants start to age and must be dismantled.
First, the spent fuel rods that are housed at the plant are placed into steel canisters which are lowered into a concrete sleeve. This concrete sleeve can withstand temperatures close to 1500 degrees, tornado winds, and direct impacts of objects up to the size of a car, traveling 125 miles per hour. The sleeves, of which there will be 61 at Zion, each weighing 157 tons because of the thickness conrcete, are placed a three-foot thick slab of more concrete, the size of a football field. The sleeves are permanatly housed at the site of the nuclear plant. Vegitation growth will be encouraged to hide the concrete casks and slab. Armed guards will keep people away. The casks and armed guards will theoretically be in place as long as there is still civilization around to coordinate it all.
The next step is to dismantle the actual concrete containment domes that sat over the plant's reactors and the reactors themselves, down to the small components, until nothing is left. All of the dismantled material will then be transported to a radioactive disposal facility in Clive, Utah. Each reactor and dome will produce about 4 million cubic feet of material, roughly enough to fill 800 rail cars.
Once in Clive, Utah, the 4 million cubic feet of material will be pulverized into fist-sized chunks and buried in above ground graves which, like the sleeves and slabs back at the power plant, will be monitored and secured for as long as society exists.
While the materials are on their way to Utah, crews then begin dismantling all of the remaining structures - office buildings, etc. - and once all of that material is hauled away, crews will plant large expanses of grass, hopefully making it look like the nuclear plant was never there.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Debt Limit By Congressman John Campbell
The following is from Congressman John Campbell on spending and the debit limit:
Last week, the House voted down a debt limit increase without any conditions by a vote of 97-318. Not a single Republican voted for it. Then, last Tuesday, the President invited the entire Republican caucus to the White House for a discussion on the debt limit. Frankly, all the President succeeded in doing was angering us. His arrogance, haughty nature and his unwillingness to say anything other than his campaign talking points left us all quite discouraged about any potential agreement. Still, the debt limit looms. Treasury Secretary Geithner says that we have already technically hit the ceiling, but that he is raising cash using "extraordinary measures" until August 2nd, at which he point he predicts we will be at the end of our financial rope and run out of cash. Conveniently, that day is just a couple of days before the House and the Senate are scheduled to go on summer recess. The potential to have to cancel that recess will focus negotiators in Washington.
So, what happens if we breeze past August 2nd without increasing the debt limit? Virtually every media outlet would have you believe that we will default on our debt. Even the business press, like the Wall Street Journal and CNBC, say that we will default without a debt limit increase. That means we would stiff bondholders, which would cause the bond market to run away from U.S. treasuries for a long time to come and would have a likely catastrophic effect on interest rates and the U.S. economy. Greece is experiencing this now as they dabble with defaulting on their debt.
But, it's not true. A failure to increase the debt limit will not trigger a default. Here's why:
• Reaching the debt limit means that the government is forbidden from borrowing an amount of money which would, in combination with all money already borrowed, exceed that limit. It does not mean that we stop paying interest or principal on the debt we already have. As proof of this, the Treasury Secretary says we have already reached the debt limit. But, there was an auction of Treasury bills this morning. How could we sell new bills when we have already reached the limit? Some older Treasury Bonds and short-term Treasury Bills are always coming due. And, we pay them off by selling new debt of the same amount. That's not exceeding the debt limit. That's keeping total debt at the limit. So, if $100 billion in debt matures, we pay it off with $100 billion in new debt and the total remains the same. As I said, we are doing this right now even though we are supposedly at the debt limit. We are not defaulting.
• The Treasury Secretary has well-established and enumerated powers to allocate payments of funds. The Secretary could in theory choose to default on the debt and prioritize other payments. But, this would be a hugely irresponsible move with negative long-term implications, which no sensible administration would do. Furthermore, such action might be challenged in court as the bondholders would claim their right to the "full faith and credit" of the United States and they could likely prevail.
• Once the debt limit is reached, the Treasury has a lot of "ordinary" and "extraordinary" measures it can take to find cash to fund the budgeted and appropriated costs of government for a while without additional borrowing. Whether those measures run out at, before, or after August 2nd, I do not have the information to know.
• But, if there is no debt limit increase, at some point that cash will run out. At that point, for the reasons enumerated above, we will not default. What we will have to do is only spend that which we have cash to fund. We are currently borrowing about 40 cents of every dollar we spend. So, subject to the monthly fluctuations in actual revenue receipts, we would have to spend 40% less almost immediately. As attractive as that may sound, the effects would not be benign. We either stop paying for most of the government as we know it, potentially including the courts and the military, or we reduce Social Security and Medicare payments for all enrolled dramatically. That would be a substantial economic shock in itself. We would be truly in a "pay-as-you-go" mode, which the Democrats, at least in theory, love. The Treasury Secretary would have the power to decide what gets paid, what doesn't and when.
So, no default, but still a bad result. However, the reality is that we are headed towards a crisis right now if we don't get the deficit under control. We will have a worse collapse if we just increase the debt limit and continue deficit spending. This collapse will occur when the markets decide they won't loan us any more money because the U.S. becomes a bad credit risk and they are afraid we may not pay them back. In effect, we have 2 debt limits. One is the statutory limit on borrowing. The other is the maximum amount that the markets are willing to lend us. If we do not control the first limit, the second one will unquestionably cause a crisis soon. And, if that crisis comes, we will not be able to control its timing or its end.
I have become somewhat despondent lately at how little progress we are making in Washington on the deficit front. The 2011 spending reductions were miniscule. The responsible Medicare reforms put forth in the Paul Ryan budget are being demagogued heavily by Democrats who now believe they have found their 2012 campaign issue. Their "Mediscare" demagoguery is based on complete falsehoods. But, the point is that they are painting themselves into a corner where they cannot politically accept reforms that they have attacked so bitterly. Most Republicans won't reduce defense spending because it is defense, and most Democrats won't reduce any spending at all, including defense. So, the 2012 budget foresees a sizable increase in defense and homeland security spending. Because of this, the Ryan budget only reduces non-entitlement spending by $31 billion below actual spending for this year. Remember the deficit is $1.2 trillion. Democrats would like to raise taxes, an idea with which I obviously disagree. But, they only propose raising taxes on corporations and incomes over $250,000. Even if you do all the tax increases they are proposing, you don’t come close to balancing the budget. This is why Democrats in the House and Senate have thus far failed to even propose a budget for the last 2 years. The only budget they will vote for makes deficits worse instead of better. I had hope for the Senate "Gang of Six", but that broke up. The President is showing absolutely zero leadership as he seems to only be giving campaign speeches of late. We can improve revenue with job creation and growth (which I will write about in a future laptop), but there is no bipartisan agreement on that either. And, part of the current economic malaise is caused by the overhang of the federal debt.
Part of the problem is that both parties believe that if they wait until after the 2012 election, they may control the House, Senate and the White House, and then they can solve the problem on their terms. But, markets won't wait for our election. And, it is certainly possible that neither party controls all the levers of government after the election either and, by that point, we will be 2 years closer to collapse and have lost 2 years of potential mending.
Taking all this into account, we must use this controllable debt limit of our own making to get good enough reforms to curtail future federal spending so that we avoid the inevitable crash that will occur when we hit the market-imposed debt limit. And, if that means going over the brink, so be it. I'm not sure we have 18 months to wait past the next election, and I obviously don't have much confidence in an agreement under normal conditions before then. This would bring on a crisis, but we will control it and we can end it. Hopefully it will bring on a longer-term solution. Sir Winston Churchill famously remarked that, "Americans can be counted upon to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all other possibilities." We need to do the right thing. Let's get there sooner rather than after it's too late.
Last week, the House voted down a debt limit increase without any conditions by a vote of 97-318. Not a single Republican voted for it. Then, last Tuesday, the President invited the entire Republican caucus to the White House for a discussion on the debt limit. Frankly, all the President succeeded in doing was angering us. His arrogance, haughty nature and his unwillingness to say anything other than his campaign talking points left us all quite discouraged about any potential agreement. Still, the debt limit looms. Treasury Secretary Geithner says that we have already technically hit the ceiling, but that he is raising cash using "extraordinary measures" until August 2nd, at which he point he predicts we will be at the end of our financial rope and run out of cash. Conveniently, that day is just a couple of days before the House and the Senate are scheduled to go on summer recess. The potential to have to cancel that recess will focus negotiators in Washington.
So, what happens if we breeze past August 2nd without increasing the debt limit? Virtually every media outlet would have you believe that we will default on our debt. Even the business press, like the Wall Street Journal and CNBC, say that we will default without a debt limit increase. That means we would stiff bondholders, which would cause the bond market to run away from U.S. treasuries for a long time to come and would have a likely catastrophic effect on interest rates and the U.S. economy. Greece is experiencing this now as they dabble with defaulting on their debt.
But, it's not true. A failure to increase the debt limit will not trigger a default. Here's why:
• Reaching the debt limit means that the government is forbidden from borrowing an amount of money which would, in combination with all money already borrowed, exceed that limit. It does not mean that we stop paying interest or principal on the debt we already have. As proof of this, the Treasury Secretary says we have already reached the debt limit. But, there was an auction of Treasury bills this morning. How could we sell new bills when we have already reached the limit? Some older Treasury Bonds and short-term Treasury Bills are always coming due. And, we pay them off by selling new debt of the same amount. That's not exceeding the debt limit. That's keeping total debt at the limit. So, if $100 billion in debt matures, we pay it off with $100 billion in new debt and the total remains the same. As I said, we are doing this right now even though we are supposedly at the debt limit. We are not defaulting.
• The Treasury Secretary has well-established and enumerated powers to allocate payments of funds. The Secretary could in theory choose to default on the debt and prioritize other payments. But, this would be a hugely irresponsible move with negative long-term implications, which no sensible administration would do. Furthermore, such action might be challenged in court as the bondholders would claim their right to the "full faith and credit" of the United States and they could likely prevail.
• Once the debt limit is reached, the Treasury has a lot of "ordinary" and "extraordinary" measures it can take to find cash to fund the budgeted and appropriated costs of government for a while without additional borrowing. Whether those measures run out at, before, or after August 2nd, I do not have the information to know.
• But, if there is no debt limit increase, at some point that cash will run out. At that point, for the reasons enumerated above, we will not default. What we will have to do is only spend that which we have cash to fund. We are currently borrowing about 40 cents of every dollar we spend. So, subject to the monthly fluctuations in actual revenue receipts, we would have to spend 40% less almost immediately. As attractive as that may sound, the effects would not be benign. We either stop paying for most of the government as we know it, potentially including the courts and the military, or we reduce Social Security and Medicare payments for all enrolled dramatically. That would be a substantial economic shock in itself. We would be truly in a "pay-as-you-go" mode, which the Democrats, at least in theory, love. The Treasury Secretary would have the power to decide what gets paid, what doesn't and when.
So, no default, but still a bad result. However, the reality is that we are headed towards a crisis right now if we don't get the deficit under control. We will have a worse collapse if we just increase the debt limit and continue deficit spending. This collapse will occur when the markets decide they won't loan us any more money because the U.S. becomes a bad credit risk and they are afraid we may not pay them back. In effect, we have 2 debt limits. One is the statutory limit on borrowing. The other is the maximum amount that the markets are willing to lend us. If we do not control the first limit, the second one will unquestionably cause a crisis soon. And, if that crisis comes, we will not be able to control its timing or its end.
I have become somewhat despondent lately at how little progress we are making in Washington on the deficit front. The 2011 spending reductions were miniscule. The responsible Medicare reforms put forth in the Paul Ryan budget are being demagogued heavily by Democrats who now believe they have found their 2012 campaign issue. Their "Mediscare" demagoguery is based on complete falsehoods. But, the point is that they are painting themselves into a corner where they cannot politically accept reforms that they have attacked so bitterly. Most Republicans won't reduce defense spending because it is defense, and most Democrats won't reduce any spending at all, including defense. So, the 2012 budget foresees a sizable increase in defense and homeland security spending. Because of this, the Ryan budget only reduces non-entitlement spending by $31 billion below actual spending for this year. Remember the deficit is $1.2 trillion. Democrats would like to raise taxes, an idea with which I obviously disagree. But, they only propose raising taxes on corporations and incomes over $250,000. Even if you do all the tax increases they are proposing, you don’t come close to balancing the budget. This is why Democrats in the House and Senate have thus far failed to even propose a budget for the last 2 years. The only budget they will vote for makes deficits worse instead of better. I had hope for the Senate "Gang of Six", but that broke up. The President is showing absolutely zero leadership as he seems to only be giving campaign speeches of late. We can improve revenue with job creation and growth (which I will write about in a future laptop), but there is no bipartisan agreement on that either. And, part of the current economic malaise is caused by the overhang of the federal debt.
Part of the problem is that both parties believe that if they wait until after the 2012 election, they may control the House, Senate and the White House, and then they can solve the problem on their terms. But, markets won't wait for our election. And, it is certainly possible that neither party controls all the levers of government after the election either and, by that point, we will be 2 years closer to collapse and have lost 2 years of potential mending.
Taking all this into account, we must use this controllable debt limit of our own making to get good enough reforms to curtail future federal spending so that we avoid the inevitable crash that will occur when we hit the market-imposed debt limit. And, if that means going over the brink, so be it. I'm not sure we have 18 months to wait past the next election, and I obviously don't have much confidence in an agreement under normal conditions before then. This would bring on a crisis, but we will control it and we can end it. Hopefully it will bring on a longer-term solution. Sir Winston Churchill famously remarked that, "Americans can be counted upon to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all other possibilities." We need to do the right thing. Let's get there sooner rather than after it's too late.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
U.S. Supreme Court Orders Taxifornia Taxpayers To Continue To Help Pay For College For Illegal Immigrants
Apparently, the US Supreme Court, Taxifornia Supreme Court, Illegal Immigrant rights groups, Dream Act supporters, a bunch of bleeding-heart liberals, and the 3 to 4 million illegal immigrants living in Taxifornia are all in agreement that the Taxifornia taxpayer has a money tree in their backyard, should pay for anything and everything that society asks for, no matter how ridiculous, and that once again, the 41% of us who receive no government aid need to continue to foot the bill for the other 59% to continue to live a standard of life that frankly, they do not earn themselves like the rest of us.
According to the Boston Harold, “The U.S. Supreme Court decision Monday to uphold California’s policy of granting reduced, in-state tuition to college students who are illegal immigrants is likely to bolster similar proposals across the nation as well as a California measure to provide financial aid for the undocumented.”
This means that the Taxifornia taxpayer will need to foot the bill for a tuition discount for 41,000 students the rings up at annual costs of $23,000 at a UC school, $11,000 at a Cal State school, and $4,400 at community colleges. Correct me if I am wrong, but was not the in-state tuition discount set up so that the children of people who had lived and worked in Taxifornia – paid Taxifornia income tax, and worse yet, federal income tax, could get a break when sending their kids to college? Why then, would that discount, at the taxpayer’s expense, be extended to the non-income-tax-paying non-citizen?
Not that I was ever in agreement with the taxpayer footing tuition bills (Yes, I’m one of those nut-jobs that believes you should pay for college yourself), but this really continues to be a step too far for a state government that spends way too much money and relies too heavily on the hard work of some people, while completely turning a blind eye to law-breaking and lack of hard work from others.
You want to go to college? You want to send your kids to college? Then start saving. Start putting money away. You and your parents shouldn’t get to not plan ahead, then on high school graduation day, stick your hand out and expect us to foot the bill.
So, if this wasn’t bad enough, the Boston Harold continues with their story: “Undocumented students and their advocates said they will use the court’s action to push for passage of the California Dream Act, state legislation that would allow illegal immigrants to receive campus-based aid and the state’s Cal Grants for their bills at UC, Cal State and community colleges. It could cost about $32.2 million annually, according to an analysis by the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The measure, proposed by Democratic Assemblyman Gil Cedillo, recently passed the state Assembly and is being considered in the state Senate. The Legislature approved a similar measure but former Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it last year as he had with previous versions. Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, ‘supports the principles of the Dream Act and would closely consider any legislation that reaches his desk,’ his spokesman Evan Westrup said Monday."
So, not only is Taxifornia asking the idiot taxpayer to help foot tuition bills for illegal immigrants, but it may soon be asking them to foot the bill for state-funded financial aid as well.
No accountability, no personal responsibility, and no respect for the law of the land for some, and accountability, personal responsibility, and a shitload of taxes for others. Freedom to do what you want, when you want, all with no consequences for some, and jail time if you don’t pay your taxes for others.
Read the entire Boston Herald article.
According to the Boston Harold, “The U.S. Supreme Court decision Monday to uphold California’s policy of granting reduced, in-state tuition to college students who are illegal immigrants is likely to bolster similar proposals across the nation as well as a California measure to provide financial aid for the undocumented.”
This means that the Taxifornia taxpayer will need to foot the bill for a tuition discount for 41,000 students the rings up at annual costs of $23,000 at a UC school, $11,000 at a Cal State school, and $4,400 at community colleges. Correct me if I am wrong, but was not the in-state tuition discount set up so that the children of people who had lived and worked in Taxifornia – paid Taxifornia income tax, and worse yet, federal income tax, could get a break when sending their kids to college? Why then, would that discount, at the taxpayer’s expense, be extended to the non-income-tax-paying non-citizen?
Not that I was ever in agreement with the taxpayer footing tuition bills (Yes, I’m one of those nut-jobs that believes you should pay for college yourself), but this really continues to be a step too far for a state government that spends way too much money and relies too heavily on the hard work of some people, while completely turning a blind eye to law-breaking and lack of hard work from others.
You want to go to college? You want to send your kids to college? Then start saving. Start putting money away. You and your parents shouldn’t get to not plan ahead, then on high school graduation day, stick your hand out and expect us to foot the bill.
So, if this wasn’t bad enough, the Boston Harold continues with their story: “Undocumented students and their advocates said they will use the court’s action to push for passage of the California Dream Act, state legislation that would allow illegal immigrants to receive campus-based aid and the state’s Cal Grants for their bills at UC, Cal State and community colleges. It could cost about $32.2 million annually, according to an analysis by the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The measure, proposed by Democratic Assemblyman Gil Cedillo, recently passed the state Assembly and is being considered in the state Senate. The Legislature approved a similar measure but former Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it last year as he had with previous versions. Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, ‘supports the principles of the Dream Act and would closely consider any legislation that reaches his desk,’ his spokesman Evan Westrup said Monday."
So, not only is Taxifornia asking the idiot taxpayer to help foot tuition bills for illegal immigrants, but it may soon be asking them to foot the bill for state-funded financial aid as well.
No accountability, no personal responsibility, and no respect for the law of the land for some, and accountability, personal responsibility, and a shitload of taxes for others. Freedom to do what you want, when you want, all with no consequences for some, and jail time if you don’t pay your taxes for others.
Read the entire Boston Herald article.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Yet Another Tax...The "Crash" Tax
According to California AAA CEO Thomas McKernan, "more than 50 California cities have imposed a new fee for police, fire, and other emergency services that respond to traffic crashes." In some cities, the taxes are only imposed on those who are at fault, but in some cases, even drivers who were not at fault are forced to pay a crash tax, even though they were minding their own business being a model driver and in possession of state-mandated car insurance, paid up on their vehicle license fees.
Time and time again, this ridiculous state and these ridiculous local governments never cease to amaze me. We pay sales tax - we pay property tax - we pay business tax - we pay income tax - we pay gas tax - we pay car tax - we pay phone tax - Do I need to continue? So, now, greedy government officials are telling us that even with all of these taxes, there is no money to pay police, fire and paramedics to show up at the scene of a car accident?
To top it off, there are even more sinister forces at work with these crash taxes...the slimeballs at the collection agencies. That's right, I said slimeballs. While I have never been on the collectee end of the collection agency equation, I did at one time hire one to collect some money that was owed to me. What a mistake that was! They took my money, collected my money from my customer, then turned around and spent it without giving me a dime. Like I said, slimeballs.
So, where was I? Oh yeah, the slimeballs at the collection agencies. While local government officials might not be the dullest tools in the shed, they are not necessarily the masterminds of this tax. Collection agencies who are preying on cities strapped for cash are encouring city governments to pass these ridiculous taxes so that the collection of them can be turned over to...you guessed it...their collection agency...of course, with the agency getting a cut of the taxes they collect. A private company encouraging government to tax you, then getting to keep part of the money they collect for said government? That sure doesn't sound right, does it?
You will have to keep an eye out for a bill next time you are involved in a traffic accident here in the fine state of Taxifornia. With all of that being said, there may, however, be a slight glimmer of hope. Some of the folks that make up the Taxifornia State Taxislature are introducing a bill that would ban these crash taxes. Imagine that...the revenue-hungry Taxifornia State Taxislature even thinks these crash taxes are wrong! I guess we'll have to see what happens.
Time and time again, this ridiculous state and these ridiculous local governments never cease to amaze me. We pay sales tax - we pay property tax - we pay business tax - we pay income tax - we pay gas tax - we pay car tax - we pay phone tax - Do I need to continue? So, now, greedy government officials are telling us that even with all of these taxes, there is no money to pay police, fire and paramedics to show up at the scene of a car accident?
To top it off, there are even more sinister forces at work with these crash taxes...the slimeballs at the collection agencies. That's right, I said slimeballs. While I have never been on the collectee end of the collection agency equation, I did at one time hire one to collect some money that was owed to me. What a mistake that was! They took my money, collected my money from my customer, then turned around and spent it without giving me a dime. Like I said, slimeballs.
So, where was I? Oh yeah, the slimeballs at the collection agencies. While local government officials might not be the dullest tools in the shed, they are not necessarily the masterminds of this tax. Collection agencies who are preying on cities strapped for cash are encouring city governments to pass these ridiculous taxes so that the collection of them can be turned over to...you guessed it...their collection agency...of course, with the agency getting a cut of the taxes they collect. A private company encouraging government to tax you, then getting to keep part of the money they collect for said government? That sure doesn't sound right, does it?
You will have to keep an eye out for a bill next time you are involved in a traffic accident here in the fine state of Taxifornia. With all of that being said, there may, however, be a slight glimmer of hope. Some of the folks that make up the Taxifornia State Taxislature are introducing a bill that would ban these crash taxes. Imagine that...the revenue-hungry Taxifornia State Taxislature even thinks these crash taxes are wrong! I guess we'll have to see what happens.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
The "Instant Deal"
Get ready for the "Instant Deal", the next evolution in the technology-driven marketing offer. As you may be aware, the "Daily Deal" is a daily offer from a web site that you visit at a certain time each day when a new daily deal is announced. The deal usually is a great item at a great price, but is offered in limited quantities, requiring an immediate purchase. With the growing popularity of location-aware mobile devices and services, marketers are using that technology to take the "Daily Deal" to the next step...the "Instant Deal." Brick and mortar businesses are going to use your location to send you time-sensitive deals. Say a restaurant is experiencing a lunch-time lull that is not their usual lunch-time rush. To get people in the doors, the restaurant will send out a special deal to mobile device users that are in the area, giving them some type of incentive. Retail stores are expected to also begin using this technology to make Instant Deals as well. If you have a location-aware mobile device and you're on email lists, get ready to get some Instant Deals from local merchants.
Monday, June 6, 2011
From Congressman John Campbell: Jobs And The Economy
The following is from Congressman John Campbell:
"Things are not so good out there. The unemployment rate, already stubbornly high, climbed even higher in May. Economists are revising economic growth predictions downward. Housing prices continue to drop, thereby further reducing household wealth. Real returns on bank deposits and Treasury Bills are negative. The dollar is dropping. Gas prices are up, inflation is up. There are some bright spots, certainly, but the overall picture is that of stagnation. Unfortunately, none of this is a great surprise given what the government has been doing of late. We are printing money and artificially holding down interest rates to try and spur recovery. But, this is creating those negative real (after inflation) interest rates, which are distorting capital flows. Most of the country's tax policies expire in 18 months, so no one can do any long-term investment planning about taxes with any certainty. The government is retarding the development of almost all forms of economical energy (oil, gas, coal, nuclear), while subsidizing expensive wind and solar. We continue to run record deficits, which divert capital from other more productive uses and create the massive public debt overhang that retards growth. In almost every part of the executive branch, increased regulatory requirements and costs are driving foreign investment and jobs out of America. The causes for this exodus range from ObamaCare and the Dodd/Frank overregulation to the FDA, FCC, and just about every other agency with a federal acronym.
So, what should we do? First of all, there is no one "silver bullet". No one action will start the economy on a path to more robust growth and job creation. Instead, we need to do a lot of things. Things that will give everyone in and out of this country confidence as to our future path such that they build and create and hire again. If I were King of the Forest (not Queen, not Duke, not Earl - Wizard of Oz reference for those of you who don't know), here is what I would do right now:
1. Enact a spending reduction plan, which I think should be even more aggressive and work more quickly than the Paul Ryan Budget plan, that puts the country on a firm and credible path to a balanced budget in less than 10 years. This should be done with spending reductions, entitlement reform, and revenue growth through economic growth, not tax increases.
2. Create a new long-term tax plan that has no expiration date. This should include flatter, lower tax rates with fewer deductions, similar to the "Optional Simplified Tax" which Paul Ryan (R-WI), Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) and I have introduced for several congresses now. Also, eliminate the death tax and the tax on U.S. corporations that repatriate money earned overseas.
3. Go on a domestic energy development binge as a part of an energy policy plan to make us energy independent. Take advantage of the many untapped oil reserves we have all over this country and offshore. Do the same with natural gas and coal and nuclear, as well as some alternatives, and eliminate/streamline the regulatory requirements to make this happen. Doing so should lower energy prices immediately because markets are anticipatory. But, even if it didn't, we would create a huge number of high paying new jobs right now.
4. Create a U.S. manufacturing policy built on special depreciation rates and free trade agreements and relaxed labor regulations in order to encourage domestic manufacturing of complex devices. We are unlikely to manufacture many rubber toys in this country, but we can and should continue to make complicated things here and have the good paying jobs that come with them.
5. Repeal ObamaCare and major parts of Dodd/Frank, and ease regulatory burdens across the economy to remove impediments to entrepreneurship, new products, and new ideas.
6. Pass the Housing Finance Reform Bill that I am championing in order to give certainty to the future of 30-year home financing. The economy will never have robust growth without the housing market leading the way. My bill can jump-start that needed growth.
7. Pass a number of specific bills to remove impediments and uncertainties and create opportunities in many segments of the economy. This list includes things like reforming the FDA, rewriting the patent system, and increasing the number of H-1B visas, so that highly talented foreign individuals with advanced degrees from U.S. universities can stay and create new products and ideas here instead of doing it in some other country.
8. Put the nation on a path to universal, free internet wi-fi accessibility from coast to coast. The availability of free internet access will drive growth and jobs as the tech sector creates new products to utilize this capability. This is the technology equivalent of the interstate highway system. We can also create a new round of public infrastructure construction and rehabilitation by attracting private sector money through a new form of Infrastructure Master Limited Partnership.
OK, so that's a start. I could actually go on. There is no shortage of ideas. Just a shortage of leadership and agreement. Note that nothing I have presented will create any government jobs. We have too many of those. We need private sector job creation. And, that can only happen when the private sector can increase productivity and create new markets and new products and new industries. Right now, the government is very inward looking. Everything the government does is about the government and how to make itself bigger and more powerful and more controlling. This plan is the opposite. It is about getting the government out of the way in some cases, and having the government create an environment in which the private sector has new opportunities for growth in other cases."
"Things are not so good out there. The unemployment rate, already stubbornly high, climbed even higher in May. Economists are revising economic growth predictions downward. Housing prices continue to drop, thereby further reducing household wealth. Real returns on bank deposits and Treasury Bills are negative. The dollar is dropping. Gas prices are up, inflation is up. There are some bright spots, certainly, but the overall picture is that of stagnation. Unfortunately, none of this is a great surprise given what the government has been doing of late. We are printing money and artificially holding down interest rates to try and spur recovery. But, this is creating those negative real (after inflation) interest rates, which are distorting capital flows. Most of the country's tax policies expire in 18 months, so no one can do any long-term investment planning about taxes with any certainty. The government is retarding the development of almost all forms of economical energy (oil, gas, coal, nuclear), while subsidizing expensive wind and solar. We continue to run record deficits, which divert capital from other more productive uses and create the massive public debt overhang that retards growth. In almost every part of the executive branch, increased regulatory requirements and costs are driving foreign investment and jobs out of America. The causes for this exodus range from ObamaCare and the Dodd/Frank overregulation to the FDA, FCC, and just about every other agency with a federal acronym.
So, what should we do? First of all, there is no one "silver bullet". No one action will start the economy on a path to more robust growth and job creation. Instead, we need to do a lot of things. Things that will give everyone in and out of this country confidence as to our future path such that they build and create and hire again. If I were King of the Forest (not Queen, not Duke, not Earl - Wizard of Oz reference for those of you who don't know), here is what I would do right now:
1. Enact a spending reduction plan, which I think should be even more aggressive and work more quickly than the Paul Ryan Budget plan, that puts the country on a firm and credible path to a balanced budget in less than 10 years. This should be done with spending reductions, entitlement reform, and revenue growth through economic growth, not tax increases.
2. Create a new long-term tax plan that has no expiration date. This should include flatter, lower tax rates with fewer deductions, similar to the "Optional Simplified Tax" which Paul Ryan (R-WI), Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) and I have introduced for several congresses now. Also, eliminate the death tax and the tax on U.S. corporations that repatriate money earned overseas.
3. Go on a domestic energy development binge as a part of an energy policy plan to make us energy independent. Take advantage of the many untapped oil reserves we have all over this country and offshore. Do the same with natural gas and coal and nuclear, as well as some alternatives, and eliminate/streamline the regulatory requirements to make this happen. Doing so should lower energy prices immediately because markets are anticipatory. But, even if it didn't, we would create a huge number of high paying new jobs right now.
4. Create a U.S. manufacturing policy built on special depreciation rates and free trade agreements and relaxed labor regulations in order to encourage domestic manufacturing of complex devices. We are unlikely to manufacture many rubber toys in this country, but we can and should continue to make complicated things here and have the good paying jobs that come with them.
5. Repeal ObamaCare and major parts of Dodd/Frank, and ease regulatory burdens across the economy to remove impediments to entrepreneurship, new products, and new ideas.
6. Pass the Housing Finance Reform Bill that I am championing in order to give certainty to the future of 30-year home financing. The economy will never have robust growth without the housing market leading the way. My bill can jump-start that needed growth.
7. Pass a number of specific bills to remove impediments and uncertainties and create opportunities in many segments of the economy. This list includes things like reforming the FDA, rewriting the patent system, and increasing the number of H-1B visas, so that highly talented foreign individuals with advanced degrees from U.S. universities can stay and create new products and ideas here instead of doing it in some other country.
8. Put the nation on a path to universal, free internet wi-fi accessibility from coast to coast. The availability of free internet access will drive growth and jobs as the tech sector creates new products to utilize this capability. This is the technology equivalent of the interstate highway system. We can also create a new round of public infrastructure construction and rehabilitation by attracting private sector money through a new form of Infrastructure Master Limited Partnership.
OK, so that's a start. I could actually go on. There is no shortage of ideas. Just a shortage of leadership and agreement. Note that nothing I have presented will create any government jobs. We have too many of those. We need private sector job creation. And, that can only happen when the private sector can increase productivity and create new markets and new products and new industries. Right now, the government is very inward looking. Everything the government does is about the government and how to make itself bigger and more powerful and more controlling. This plan is the opposite. It is about getting the government out of the way in some cases, and having the government create an environment in which the private sector has new opportunities for growth in other cases."
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
It Should Never Be An Automatic Win...
I recently received an email from Democratic presidential candidate Dee Neveu, in which she made a very valid point that I hope many democrats consider as our President starts putting less and less emphasis on being President and more and more emphasis on being a Presidential candidate:
"There are some of us Democrats out here who don't agree on everything within our
Party regarding some Policies, and we deserve to be heard too. Some Democrats believe that President Obama deserves an automatic 2nd term without being debated or challenged. I believe that every Candidate, and every Party needs to be debated and challenged, its part of our Democracy here in the USA, and if a current President is a Candidate, he/she too should be included in this thought, it should never be an 'automatic' win for a rehire. Besides, citizens get more of the truth, and can make a better selection on what they would want in policy, etc.. If the Democratic party won't allow a fair and challenged debate for President Obama, I believe he may not get that "automatic" second term that they seek to achieve, and if he does, the celebrating and partying will not be as it was when he won in 2008. President Obama won in 2008 because he was looked at as 'different' & 'change', but some don't feel that he has lived up to this image yet."
"There are some of us Democrats out here who don't agree on everything within our
Party regarding some Policies, and we deserve to be heard too. Some Democrats believe that President Obama deserves an automatic 2nd term without being debated or challenged. I believe that every Candidate, and every Party needs to be debated and challenged, its part of our Democracy here in the USA, and if a current President is a Candidate, he/she too should be included in this thought, it should never be an 'automatic' win for a rehire. Besides, citizens get more of the truth, and can make a better selection on what they would want in policy, etc.. If the Democratic party won't allow a fair and challenged debate for President Obama, I believe he may not get that "automatic" second term that they seek to achieve, and if he does, the celebrating and partying will not be as it was when he won in 2008. President Obama won in 2008 because he was looked at as 'different' & 'change', but some don't feel that he has lived up to this image yet."
Monday, May 23, 2011
Facebook To Be #1 In Display Ad Revenue For 2011
There is a shift in the online ad universe on the way. According to Website Magazine, analysts from eMarketer are forecasting that Facebook's display advertising revenues are going to see an 81% increase this year. This means that Facebook will be surpassing Yahoo in online ad revenue. Yahoo is still anticipating a 16.4% growth to $1.65 billion, but they are simply no match for Facebook's projected ad revenue of $2.19 billion, roughly 21.6% of all U.S. display ad dollars for 2011. To make matters worse for Yahoo, they are not even expected to land in the #2 spot after 2011 is on the books. They will be at #3, behind Google.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Texas Passes Forced Sonogram Law
Texas (obviously, Republican) Governor Rick Perry signed a law yesterday that requires women seeking abortion in the state to get a sonogram. A woman seeking an abortion would be required to have a sonogram and wait 24 hours before the procedure. For women who live more than 100 miles away from their closet abortion clinic, the waiting period would be reduced by two hours so they didn’t have to travel back and forth or get a hotel room and spend the night while they waited. How considerate.
A woman seeking an abortion would also have some other options. Let me quote from the Huffington Post article I read: “Under the measure, women will be offered the option of hearing the heartbeat and seeing the sonogram image, which they may decline. But the woman's doctor must describe the image, explaining the size of the embryo or fetus and the presence of organs and limbs. In certain cases, including those involving rape and incest victims or serious fetal abnormalities, the woman could decline to hear the description of the sonogram.”
“Sturbanfuhrer, ist diese Frau weigerten sich, auf dem Sonogramm Monitor schauen!“ In case you don’t speak German, that’s the Texas State Government calling in its henchmen to force the patient to look at the sonogram monitor.
I am sorry, but I am appalled at the passing of this law. I know that abortion is a very touchy issue. I do hestitate quite often to bring it up. Admittedly, I sometimes question as a male if we should be allowed to have a position on the subject, or if the subject would be best decided by the gender it most affects. I must also admit that when it boils down the brass tacks, I empathize with us taking a choice away from someone, but at the same time, just adamantly feel that it is wrong. Not to re-hash the issue here, because that is not the point, but I am very well-considered on the subject – medical safety vs. moral issue, rushing into something vs. forcing someone to take a minute and pause, etc., etc., - and while I might ruffle some feathers when I say that I do not know if I am comfortable attaching the term “murder” to abortion, I at least consider it to be “killing.” I think to not at least admit an understanding that killing is involved in the abortion process is wrong. That being said, however, for me to say anything other than what I read this morning about the passage of this law is “fucking ridiculous” would not do justice to how I felt when I read it.
Conservatives call for less government and less government intrusion in our lives, especially when it comes to how we live and how we earn and spend our livelihoods, and I completely agree with that position. What I don’t agree with is conservatives then turning around and passing a law like this that clearly has no medical significance, truly steps into the realm of forcing someone to do something that they might not want to do, and leads me right into a completly justifiable Nazi reference because it allows for government intrusion when it benefits the conservative political agenda.
You won’t catch me quoting a lot of Democrats, but Texas State Rep Carol Alvarado said, "This is government intrusion atits best" as she made arguments against the legislation, holding up a trans-vaginal probe used for sonograms in early pregnancy. Nice theatrics, but still, a very good point. Now, if we could only get both Republicans and Democrats on the same page about government intrusion, we'd bet getting somewhere.
A woman seeking an abortion would also have some other options. Let me quote from the Huffington Post article I read: “Under the measure, women will be offered the option of hearing the heartbeat and seeing the sonogram image, which they may decline. But the woman's doctor must describe the image, explaining the size of the embryo or fetus and the presence of organs and limbs. In certain cases, including those involving rape and incest victims or serious fetal abnormalities, the woman could decline to hear the description of the sonogram.”
“Sturbanfuhrer, ist diese Frau weigerten sich, auf dem Sonogramm Monitor schauen!“ In case you don’t speak German, that’s the Texas State Government calling in its henchmen to force the patient to look at the sonogram monitor.
I am sorry, but I am appalled at the passing of this law. I know that abortion is a very touchy issue. I do hestitate quite often to bring it up. Admittedly, I sometimes question as a male if we should be allowed to have a position on the subject, or if the subject would be best decided by the gender it most affects. I must also admit that when it boils down the brass tacks, I empathize with us taking a choice away from someone, but at the same time, just adamantly feel that it is wrong. Not to re-hash the issue here, because that is not the point, but I am very well-considered on the subject – medical safety vs. moral issue, rushing into something vs. forcing someone to take a minute and pause, etc., etc., - and while I might ruffle some feathers when I say that I do not know if I am comfortable attaching the term “murder” to abortion, I at least consider it to be “killing.” I think to not at least admit an understanding that killing is involved in the abortion process is wrong. That being said, however, for me to say anything other than what I read this morning about the passage of this law is “fucking ridiculous” would not do justice to how I felt when I read it.
Conservatives call for less government and less government intrusion in our lives, especially when it comes to how we live and how we earn and spend our livelihoods, and I completely agree with that position. What I don’t agree with is conservatives then turning around and passing a law like this that clearly has no medical significance, truly steps into the realm of forcing someone to do something that they might not want to do, and leads me right into a completly justifiable Nazi reference because it allows for government intrusion when it benefits the conservative political agenda.
You won’t catch me quoting a lot of Democrats, but Texas State Rep Carol Alvarado said, "This is government intrusion atits best" as she made arguments against the legislation, holding up a trans-vaginal probe used for sonograms in early pregnancy. Nice theatrics, but still, a very good point. Now, if we could only get both Republicans and Democrats on the same page about government intrusion, we'd bet getting somewhere.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Housing Finance Reform by Congressman John Campbell
I am sharing another of Congressman John Campbell's missives with you today. This one is on Housing Finance Reform. The congressman is introducing a bill that seeks to fix the problems with the current state of mortgage lending and the government's involvement in the process. I believe that most of this sounds like a good idea, though I question people's ability to come up a 20% down payment on a home in Southern California.
From Congressman John Campbell:
Housing is an enormous sector of our economy. We never go into recession without housing leading us in. And, we never come out without housing recovering. Arguably, part of the reason that our current economic recovery is so tepid is because the housing recovery is very weak. When you consider the construction of new houses, the sales of existing houses, the construction and remodel and renting of apartments, the home improvement industry and so forth, it represents a tremendous amount of employment, economic activity and is fundamental to a standard of living. And, none of it moves without adequate financing. Hardly anyone buys, builds or improves a house or apartment paying cash. Pretty much everyone needs to borrow some money.
The method under which most people borrowed that money during the last 70 years was through the assistance of the "government sponsored enterprises", Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And, it worked pretty well for most of those 70 years. But, as we all well know, both enterprises failed rather spectacularly in 2008 and were a major component of the economic crash that year. The reasons for this failure are beyond the scope of this missive, but suffice it to say that the model broke down, the housing market collapsed and the federal government had to rescue them to the tune of $138 billion to date. Taxpayers now own these entities.
Today, roughly 19 out of 20 home mortgages in the United States are made by and guaranteed by the U.S. government through Fannie, Freddie or FHA.
There is a general agreement in Washington that this cannot continue and that these entities must be liquidated. However, there is not agreement on what the proper system should be to replace them.
There are some Republicans who want to replace them with nothing and let the private market handle it. This will not work. The 30 year mortgage will disappear under this option, in part because the FDIC will not allow banks to make and hold such mortgages anymore because of some of the bank failures caused by the mismatch of long term loans against short-term bank deposits. Also, all markets are subject to cycles. If you want to buy a house or sell yours at a time in the cycle when banks decide they don't want to lend money, then you pretty much can't sell your house or buy one until the banks change their minds. This combination of factors will lead to a huge decline in home values, which (because of the enormous size and impact of the housing sector discussed above) will lead to a new and deep recession. Bad idea. Very bad idea.
There are some Democrats who believe that the government should be the only maker of home loans. Furthermore, they want to charge more to borrow money on more expensive homes and subsidize certain ethnic or income groups to obtain very cheap loans that really don't have to be paid back. This is the gateway to socialized housing (to go along with socialized medicine and everything else). Equally very bad idea.
Fortunately, those two extremes (no government involvement and complete government involvement) are beliefs held by a relatively small number of congressional members.
The correct solution, the one that will work, is in the middle. To this end, last week I introduced the Housing Finance Reform Act along with my Democratic cosponsor, Gary Peters of Michigan. This bill will liquidate the failed Fannie and Freddie and replace them with multiple (hopefully 10, 20 or more) privately held and funded "associations" to guarantee mortgages. These associations will act very much like the public utility that sells you electricity or natural gas. They will be highly regulated by a newly created regulator that will be very independent of political influence. They will not be allowed to be in any other business other than guaranteeing mortgages. They cannot be controlled by entities that originate the mortgages. They will be able to purchase a limited, but explicit federal guarantee of the mortgage security, not the association. That federal guarantee is what will allow 30 year fixed-rate mortgages to continue and what will create stability in the market so that mortgages are always available to credit-worthy borrowers. But, the guarantee will be very different than what Fannie and Freddie had. There will be a whole lot of private capital that will have to be lost before any taxpayer money is at risk. As a general rule, 20% down payments will be required. The associations will also hold a lot of capital, which must be lost first. And, the money they pay for the federal guarantee will work like FDIC insurance in that the payment creates a fund to cover losses should one of the associations fail. And, even then we can assess additional money from the associations to fill up the fund should it be depleted by a failure.
OK, this is really technical stuff. I am a geek. I actually wore a real pocket protector in high school so that my colored pencils, mini-slide rule and protractor did not stain my shirt. Anyway, if I haven't lost your attention yet, suffice it to say that this is a bipartisan effort to create a private capital structure with a very well protected and disbursed federal guarantee so that we can have a robust, but sensible housing finance market again to allow housing to recover and prosper over time. For those of you who can't get enough of this, we have provided links to the bill itself, a summary of the bill and The Wall Street Journal exclusive coverage of it from last week.
The Wall Street Journal: “Bill Proposes Mortgage Shake-Up”
Text of H.R. 1859, the Housing Finance Reform Act
Summary of H.R. 1859, the Housing Finance Reform Act
As my last missive indicated, we Republicans are at loggerheads with Democrats on the budget and spending and the debt and immigration and energy and a whole host of other issues. My philosophy of politics has long been that even if you and I disagree on 19 out of 20 issues, it means there is one place where we can work together.
This, I believe, is that place. It just happens that the right solution is at the arithmetic median of the political spectrum. It is needed because Fannie and Freddie cannot continue as they are for long. It is important because removing the uncertainty about the future of housing finance will trigger significant economic growth and job creation across the country. And, this bill has the opportunity to actually pass the House AND the Senate AND be signed by the president in order to become law and not just a talking point. I, and my cosponsor, serve on the committee of jurisdiction for this bill (Financial Services Committee), and so this will be a major focus for me in the coming months.
If you agree with what I am doing, I need your help. This stuff is complicated and it is a challenge to explain to my colleagues of either party. If you want to help educate those colleagues through calls and e-mails, contact my office to indicate your willingness.
I am an excited geek. It's not going to be easy, but I think we can do this. And, by doing it, we can improve the economy and preserve the American dream of owning a home of your own.
From Congressman John Campbell:
Housing is an enormous sector of our economy. We never go into recession without housing leading us in. And, we never come out without housing recovering. Arguably, part of the reason that our current economic recovery is so tepid is because the housing recovery is very weak. When you consider the construction of new houses, the sales of existing houses, the construction and remodel and renting of apartments, the home improvement industry and so forth, it represents a tremendous amount of employment, economic activity and is fundamental to a standard of living. And, none of it moves without adequate financing. Hardly anyone buys, builds or improves a house or apartment paying cash. Pretty much everyone needs to borrow some money.
The method under which most people borrowed that money during the last 70 years was through the assistance of the "government sponsored enterprises", Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And, it worked pretty well for most of those 70 years. But, as we all well know, both enterprises failed rather spectacularly in 2008 and were a major component of the economic crash that year. The reasons for this failure are beyond the scope of this missive, but suffice it to say that the model broke down, the housing market collapsed and the federal government had to rescue them to the tune of $138 billion to date. Taxpayers now own these entities.
Today, roughly 19 out of 20 home mortgages in the United States are made by and guaranteed by the U.S. government through Fannie, Freddie or FHA.
There is a general agreement in Washington that this cannot continue and that these entities must be liquidated. However, there is not agreement on what the proper system should be to replace them.
There are some Republicans who want to replace them with nothing and let the private market handle it. This will not work. The 30 year mortgage will disappear under this option, in part because the FDIC will not allow banks to make and hold such mortgages anymore because of some of the bank failures caused by the mismatch of long term loans against short-term bank deposits. Also, all markets are subject to cycles. If you want to buy a house or sell yours at a time in the cycle when banks decide they don't want to lend money, then you pretty much can't sell your house or buy one until the banks change their minds. This combination of factors will lead to a huge decline in home values, which (because of the enormous size and impact of the housing sector discussed above) will lead to a new and deep recession. Bad idea. Very bad idea.
There are some Democrats who believe that the government should be the only maker of home loans. Furthermore, they want to charge more to borrow money on more expensive homes and subsidize certain ethnic or income groups to obtain very cheap loans that really don't have to be paid back. This is the gateway to socialized housing (to go along with socialized medicine and everything else). Equally very bad idea.
Fortunately, those two extremes (no government involvement and complete government involvement) are beliefs held by a relatively small number of congressional members.
The correct solution, the one that will work, is in the middle. To this end, last week I introduced the Housing Finance Reform Act along with my Democratic cosponsor, Gary Peters of Michigan. This bill will liquidate the failed Fannie and Freddie and replace them with multiple (hopefully 10, 20 or more) privately held and funded "associations" to guarantee mortgages. These associations will act very much like the public utility that sells you electricity or natural gas. They will be highly regulated by a newly created regulator that will be very independent of political influence. They will not be allowed to be in any other business other than guaranteeing mortgages. They cannot be controlled by entities that originate the mortgages. They will be able to purchase a limited, but explicit federal guarantee of the mortgage security, not the association. That federal guarantee is what will allow 30 year fixed-rate mortgages to continue and what will create stability in the market so that mortgages are always available to credit-worthy borrowers. But, the guarantee will be very different than what Fannie and Freddie had. There will be a whole lot of private capital that will have to be lost before any taxpayer money is at risk. As a general rule, 20% down payments will be required. The associations will also hold a lot of capital, which must be lost first. And, the money they pay for the federal guarantee will work like FDIC insurance in that the payment creates a fund to cover losses should one of the associations fail. And, even then we can assess additional money from the associations to fill up the fund should it be depleted by a failure.
OK, this is really technical stuff. I am a geek. I actually wore a real pocket protector in high school so that my colored pencils, mini-slide rule and protractor did not stain my shirt. Anyway, if I haven't lost your attention yet, suffice it to say that this is a bipartisan effort to create a private capital structure with a very well protected and disbursed federal guarantee so that we can have a robust, but sensible housing finance market again to allow housing to recover and prosper over time. For those of you who can't get enough of this, we have provided links to the bill itself, a summary of the bill and The Wall Street Journal exclusive coverage of it from last week.
The Wall Street Journal: “Bill Proposes Mortgage Shake-Up”
Text of H.R. 1859, the Housing Finance Reform Act
Summary of H.R. 1859, the Housing Finance Reform Act
As my last missive indicated, we Republicans are at loggerheads with Democrats on the budget and spending and the debt and immigration and energy and a whole host of other issues. My philosophy of politics has long been that even if you and I disagree on 19 out of 20 issues, it means there is one place where we can work together.
This, I believe, is that place. It just happens that the right solution is at the arithmetic median of the political spectrum. It is needed because Fannie and Freddie cannot continue as they are for long. It is important because removing the uncertainty about the future of housing finance will trigger significant economic growth and job creation across the country. And, this bill has the opportunity to actually pass the House AND the Senate AND be signed by the president in order to become law and not just a talking point. I, and my cosponsor, serve on the committee of jurisdiction for this bill (Financial Services Committee), and so this will be a major focus for me in the coming months.
If you agree with what I am doing, I need your help. This stuff is complicated and it is a challenge to explain to my colleagues of either party. If you want to help educate those colleagues through calls and e-mails, contact my office to indicate your willingness.
I am an excited geek. It's not going to be easy, but I think we can do this. And, by doing it, we can improve the economy and preserve the American dream of owning a home of your own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
