Image by most uncool via Flickr

Unemployment is over 9%, with 14 million people out of work, and the situation is not likely to show marked improvement in the near future.  On top of this is the unknown numbers who are underemployed or have simply given up looking for a job.  The extended unemployment benefits have or are running out for these folks. 

Many of those who have been hit hard by the recession are uninsured, so this becomes a drain on the nation’s already over-stressed health care system.  Those of us who are insured find our health insurance premiums are on the rise. 

These people, and those who are working but are financially overextended, find themselves having to walk away from their homes or living in them without making mortgage payments.  That means more houses are on the market at lower prices in order for the banks to recoup some of their losses.  At the same time, it is difficult for people to qualify for financing.  For current homeowners, this translates to reduced equity and less likelihood of being able to sell their property even at a bargain price.

Nobody can deny that many people are hurting.  As Americans, we want to help the less fortunate, but there comes a time when trying to save a drowning person will result in our own demise as well.  Why can’t those receiving unemployment benefits earn the money by engaging in state or municipal work?  This would help communities and may encourage folks to worth harder at getting a job.

Consideration ought to be given to the food stamp issue, since more people use them than ever before.  Welfare in general needs to be reformed.  If a recipient has smart phones, video games and a flat screen should they qualify?  And, if someone is going to check on what the money is buying, they might find out what kind of car is in the driveway.  This is not a matter of the government poking its nose into private matters, rather those taking public money must be responsible for what they do with the dollars taxpayers are spending on their behalf.

Reducing waste, fraud and abuse will help if coupled with good stewardship by our elected representatives.  However, the current financial crisis won’t be fixed until people are willing to let the government rework the two major entitlements: Social Security and Medicare.  Until citizens accept the fact that these programs are not sustainable in their present form, the government will fall deeper in debt.  It’s time to put aside party politics and unite to solve common problems that sooner or later will affect every American.  Scaring us won’t fix things but caring will.    

Image via Wikipedia

We are allowing a minority fringe to hijack America by changing our accepted and preferred way of life to fit their agenda.  And, it affects a great deal more than shooting off fireworks one day a year in the local park.  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the federal government’s arm for setting rules and regulations to keep American clean, safe and beautiful for all its inhabitants, human and otherwise.

Has this agency become more interested in control than it is for the total welfare of the more than 300 million people living here?  Take the three inch long smelt that is endangered by the irrigation system in California’s Central Valley farm area.  Billions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs have vanished because the government has closed down the canals.  No wonder food prices are going through the roof.

There’s a species of lizard in West Texas that is dwindling in numbers.  If the environmentalist get their way oil drilling there will be put on hold.  Add that to the lack of drilling licenses issued for the Gulf of Mexico after the BP oil spill, along with the administrations refusal to drill offshore in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans or tap into the rich reserves in Alaska and it is understandable why we are being held hostage by those unfriendly countries (Canada excluded) that export oil to us.

The effort to get Americans to switch to other forms of fuel has been spectacularly unsuccessful.  Ethanol costs more to produce and results in corn shortages worldwide.  Without this commodity, many will die.  Electric cars have been proposed, but coal is frowned upon as an energy because it pollutes, even though it is a highly cost-effective energy source and abundantly available within the borders of the continental US. 

However, neither the facts nor the current financial straits we are experiencing seem to stop the government from blindly forging ahead with plans to immediately take America off oil and change the country to renewable energy, sort of like they way it wants us to instantly change our eating habits.  How do they intend to make this happen? Wind and solar power are still a more expense form of energy. Plus, depending on how the energy will be used, power grids and charging stations must be built – a long and expensive process.  And, nuclear energy became taboo after the disaster in Japan.

The energy situation is just one of the areas where the environmental activists, the EPA and the administration appear to be working at cross-purposes with the will and needs of the people.  It’s time we took a stand and said no more regulations until America gets back on its feet.  Maybe the place to start is by being sure we can celebrate the country’s birthday with a rip-roaring, patriotic display of fireworks.

Image via Wikipedia

Jennifer Garner, actress turned advocate for Save the Children, thanked the administration for the funding but warned, “this is not enough.”  She went on to tell reporters, “I have a child entering kindergarten and believe it or not, a huge part of why you are successful and bright and cheerful, clean, pretty looking people is because you were able to sit in a circle when you got to kindergarten – that is kindergarten readiness.”

So let’s get this straight, Ms. Garner and others like her believe that being able to be still and sit in a circle is kindergarten readiness?  Try selling this concept to the parents of any healthy, active 5 year old boy or even some girls.  Could the objective of the program be to produce a bunch of cookie-cutter kids that behave the way they are told and, therefore, can be trained in a way that will allow the government to teach young absorbent minds what it wants them to learn?

Isn’t it the parents responsibility to provide the early instruction, basic training if you will, for the children?  They teach the toddlers by example, reading to them and exposing them to society.  Family values are a big part of a child’s development.  Should parents leave this up to the state?  What about the notion of religious teaching?  No school receiving federal funding will be permitted carry out the wishes of all parents, so whatever the children are taught will necessarily be religion-free. 

By taking the child out of the home environment the parent forfeits the early nurturing contact with the youngster and deprives the children this basic need.  Operating under government regulations will mean all children must receive the same degree of care and attention in order to provide equal treatment.

Some may argue that many families are comprised of working couples or single parents, which justifies the need for toddler schools.  This is outweighed by the potential loss of parental control and authority government run facilities the will occur.  If you doubt this, look at today’s public elementary schools compared to when we were young.  Bible reading and prayer are out, but revisionist history and gender diversity education are in.

This new program is designed to establish the government as the super-parent, the all-knowing and all-providing entity that will take care of everyone’s needs from the cradle on, and do it fairly as opposed to the way a living, loving parent does.  Is this what America is becoming?  If you like this, go with it.  If you question this approach to raising our kids, contact your elected representative and let them know that you believe parents must have responsibility over their children.

Image via Wikipedia

The forerunner to the company was established in the 1880s when the firm’s founder invented a machine that helped the US Census Bureau complete the tabulating task in two rather than ten years and saved the government millions.  In 1911, this firm combined with three others to form the Computing Tabulating Recording Corporation (CTR).

In 1914, Thomas J. Watson joined the company as general manager and became president a year later.  He was innovative and believed in team work as well the motivation and retention of good employees.  Soon after he arrived, the first disabled employee was hired.  He started training programs.  And it was Watson who coined the famous company slogan: “Think.”   Ten years after his arrival, the company changed its name in order to more accurately reflect the company’s mission and goals to International Business Machines (IBM).

Even during the Great Depression, IBM continued to hire people and was among the first companies to provide group life insurance, survivor benefits and paid vacations.  All the while, Watson saw to it that the firm reinvested in its future through research and development activities.  He strongly believed in “world peace through world trade” and had that statement inscribed on the headquarters building in New York.  But, when WWII broke out, he offered his company’s facilities for the production of military ordnances.  It was during the war that the first woman became an IBM vice president.  Immediately after the war ended, the company hired its first black salesman.

As the post war recovery took place, the company was faced with making the transition from mechanical counter devices and systems to the electronic age.  This effort was interrupted with Watson’s death at age 82.  His son, Tom Watson, JR., took over and completely reorganized the company while keeping his father’s philosophies and policies in place.  After his retirement in 1971, IBM continued to flourish.

The shift to PCs and an influx of new technology in the early 1990s had a devastating effect on IBM.  It had to shed old products and seek new areas of opportunities. The firm lost nearly half its workforce, but continued to practices the proven principles for success.  

Today, less than two decades later, IBM is back up to about the same number of employees and revenues have increased to well above previous levels.  This demonstrates that a commitment to excellence at all levels within a company can payoff for everyone involved, in spite of setbacks.  Other companies could learn from IBM’s performance.  And, the government might learn a thing or two as well, if it were so inclined.    

Image via Wikipedia

According to the Rasmussen report, 44% of Democrats believe the economy will be stronger next year.  This is in sharp contrast to the 23% of Republicans and 26% of Independents (or those with other political affiliations) expecting the coming year will show a stronger economy. 

There are significant differences by race, as well.  About half of black adults (49%) think the economy will improve next year, which is the highest sub-cell within the study.  And, 43% of the other category (primarily Hispanics and Asians) say the economy will be stronger in 2012, while only 28% of whites were optimistic.

Looking ahead to 5 years out, the sub-groups come closer together and show greater confidence in a stronger economy, with Democrats at 55%, Republicans 43% and Independents 39%.  The racial disparity is even closer, 48% of blacks, 54% of others and 44% of whites expecting a stronger economy.

Two economic barometers were also part of the study.  When asked how long it will take for the stock market to recover, the respondents answered as follows: 1 year 14%, 2 years 16%, 3 years 15%, more than 3 years 27% and not sure 28%.  With 55% of respondents saying more than 3 years or they were not sure, the attitude of most Americans seems to be fear or frustration.

The findings involving the real estate market are even more discouraging.  When asked how long it will take housing prices to recover, the respondents said: 1 year 6%, 2 years 11%, 3 years 14%, more than 3 years 48% and not sure 20%.  That means 68% think it will take more than 3 years or were not sure how long it would take before the housing market is back in the black.

In spite of the continued concerns voiced by all segments of the population in all parts of the country, politicians are either incapable or unwilling to fix the lingering problems that keep the economic recovery from becoming a reality in the lives of most Americans.  Both sides of the aisle are to blame as is the administration along with the various agencies serving it and the activist judges who turn their backs on the law by trying to legislate from the bench.

It is up to us to get better educated about issues and more deeply involved in the political process in order to put elected representatives’ feet to the fire.  If the politicians won’t put party issues to the side and start working on the peoples’ behalf, we’ll elect new ones.

Image by José Goulão via Flickr

As part of the president’s health care plan that was signed into law, we were told that the half-trillion dollars would be realized by eliminating waste, fraud and abuse within the system.  These cuts will include paying less money to doctors and force them, along with hospitals, out of the Medicare system in the future, making it increasingly difficult for older Americans to find health care providers willing to accept Medicare.

The good news is that both the president’s health care law and congressman Ryan’s proposed plan will not affect anyone 55 and over.  The bad news is if something is not done to reduce the growth of health care costs the tax burden will double within the next two decades. 

Under the current plan, reducing the amount of money the government spends for Medicare will eventually result in fewer benefits.  At the same time, taxes will increase to pay for the growing number of people who will qualify for Medicare coverage.  Younger Americans will have to shoulder the rising costs from an already out-of-control system.  And, they will wait longer to receive whatever benefits that can be squeezed from a shrinking budget allotment for each individual.

The only thing left to do is reform the system so it still exists for those now under 55 when the reach the time for Medicare to kick in.  A combination of some form of medical saving account and boosting the age for qualifying will likely produce the best results.  Younger adults will complain.  Do you remember when the Baby Boomers were faced with moving the age for full Social Security benefits?  They may not have liked it, but now it’s simply the way the program works.

Don’t forget, under the president’s law an additional 32 million people will be insured.  They were previously uninsured, so the money has to come from somewhere.  Some will come from the $500 million being cut from the Medicare budget. Higher taxes, yes.  More efficient system operations, doubtful (after all the government is running this).  Fortunately, the folks under 55 will have several years to save for what will certainly be increased health care costs when they reach retirement age.

So, today’s New Seniors have little to worry about, right?  Wrong!  There will be more health care regulations in place, which could adversely affect those 65+.  One major concern is the establishment of a government run Independent Payment Advisory Board.

This panel will have the responsibility to approve when to get health care, where to get it and whether to extend care or not.  That’s why it is incumbent upon all New Seniors to contact their elected representatives and say, “No death panels.”     

Image via Wikipedia

Surveys indicate that Americans in general have an inflated estimate as to how much money this country gives to other nations around the world.  The median estimate is 25% of the federal budget, while 10% is considered appropriate for those polled.  Yet, less than 1% of Washington’s annual budget is earmarked for foreign aid.  That’s about $50 billion.  When discretionary spending is added in, the percentage jumps to 2.6%.

However, the question of late has become who get the money more than how much they should receive.  For instance, Israel receives about $3 billion each year, Egypt gets $1.5 billion and $1 billion goes to Pakistan for counterinsurgency activities. 

With Israel being a democracy, our closest ally and strategically located in the Middle East, it is easy to understand why they receive our aid.  But Egypt has been under the control of a dictator and appears headed for dominance by factions that are unfriendly to us.  The government of Pakistan is less than cooperative with us and the country is home to terrorist groups that are determined to destroy the Western way of life.

There was a time when America thought by propping up government’s run by strong-armed regimes the citizens could be kept under control.  Those days are over.  And the suppressed people of these countries are angry that we supported their oppressors.  The people want to be free but not in the way we understand freedom. 

In Central and South America, the people are likely to choose socialistic or even communistic governments.  Citizens in Islamic countries are more comfortable turning things over to religious leaders or a quasi-secular government backed by religious law, which results in a different kind of oppression such as can be found in Iran.  Africa is too volatile to be included in these considerations at this time.

We can’t buy respect for the United States and we certainly can’t buy friendship.  In fact, we were not able to buy help from Pakistan after pouring more than $8 billion in aid to them during the years that Osama bin Laden was hiding out in a compound within a stone’s throw of that country’s version of West Point.

Isn’t it time to review America’s foreign policy and the dollars being spent?  As a country, we are broke.  We can’t afford to waste money here or abroad.  Maybe cutting back with foreign aid would result in fewer countries taking us for granted.  Maybe the folks in congress will realize that those who take our dollars must do something in return.  And, maybe this kind of thinking will start to be applied for the dollars spent here at home.  Just maybe.     

Image via Wikipedia

The storms and flooding that have devastated the South and Midwest are not due to climate change according to leading meteorologists.  These pronouncements have not kept activists from heating up the debate once again over global warming.  Getting their message out is not a problem, since a willing press stands ready to cooperate. 

Images remain fresh in our minds of the destruction caused by countless tornados and the Mississippi River overflowing its banks like we have not seen in 75 years. However, a Rasmussen poll conducted in early May shows that only 39% of respondents believed the weather in their area was the worst in recent memory. 

When asked if you or a family member has been affected by severe weather an overwhelming 76% said no, 15% said yes and 8% were not sure.  Clearly, the media coverage made people aware of the problem but relatively few were impacted by it.  As to who should have the financial responsibility for weather related disasters, 36% say the federal government, 26% believe this should fall on local agencies, 22% felt individuals should and 16% were not sure.

Age and political affiliation and, to a lesser extent, gender separate the issue as to who is to blame for the weather.  About one in three of those 18 to 29 years of age say long term planetary trends are the reason for the extreme weather conditions, but six in ten of the 30 to 49 year olds point to planetary trends as do about half of those over 50. 

More men (55%) say planetary trends are the cause of weather conditions compared to women (46%).  Not unexpectedly, politics plays a role in responses with 69% of the Republicans and 50% of the unaffiliated believing long-term planetary trends are the causes.  Democrats are split on this but, should tragedy occur, a plurality (48%) looks to the federal government to intervene financially compared to 28% of Republicans and 31% of Independents. 

Half those surveyed thought the government was doing a good to excellent job in responding to the disasters.  In addition, 49% have or will donate to relief fund for victims.  And, 64% of respondents say the economy will be hurt in the aftermath. 

So it appears that Americans will continue to talk about the weather and its consequences but the majority of them don’t believe they can do anything about changing the climate.  However, politicians being what they are will surely find ways to try to convince us that our thinking is wrong so they can spend money trying to fix an unfixable problem.  Haven’t they ever heard of the laws of nature? 

Image by Tathi Sobroza via Flickr

Proposed standards announced in late April are said to be voluntary.  However, there will be a combined effort by powerhouse government agencies to get marketers to adhere to the administration’s wishes.  The FTC (Federal Trade Commission), FDA (Food and Drug Administration), CDCP (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and the USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) are all expected to exert pressure in order to obtain compliance with this plan.  Marketers realize the gauntlet has be thrown.

Food products marketed to children between the ages of 2 and 17 would need to have a “meaningful contribution” to a healthy diet.  That means items such as fruits, vegetables, whole grains, beans and lean meat while limiting sodium, sugar and saturated fat (no trans fats) in each serving to comply with the government guidelines or the product cannot be advertised.  This will affect more than sodas and junk food.  Staples like soup, juices, cereals and others that were once thought of as healthy foods may not qualify either, even though these products are not illegal.

Clever advertisers won’t be able to get around the issue by advertising to the parents, because the government wants to apply the rule (make that guideline) to all television programs were 30% of the audience is made up of kids between the ages of 2 to 11 or 20% of those 12 to 17.  Where in the world did these percentages come from?  According to trade groups, this includes some 1,700 programs.

There are those who believe cutting back on advertising opportunities is simply the first step in the eradication of all foods deemed by the government to not be healthy.  Sort of a slow but steady prohibition.  This movement starts by enlisting the gross offenders such as fatty snacks, sugary junk food and fast food to voluntarily stop advertising.  It will likely continue beyond fun foods until all foods consumed by America’s children are in compliance with what will be new government standards in the form of laws rather than merely suggestions.

When New Seniors (those 65+) were kids, there were plenty of sweet, fatty and salty foods around.  The differences were that in those days kids played hard every day, ate what was put in front of them and treats were an occasional bonus.  There were no nutritional facts on labels; in fact, many products had no ingredients listed.  And, generally, the decisions as to what we could or couldn’t eat were made by parents.  It should be that way now rather than allow the government to usurp this responsibility.  And it must be remembered, if the government can dictate what the children can or can’t eat, maybe adults will be next on the list.  

Image via Wikipedia

The Bay State, long a stronghold for unions, is experiencing financial woes.  Just as in Indiana, Wisconsin and Ohio it has been pushed into a corner by union leaders to pay benefits that are unsustainable.  The difference between these state and Massachusetts is they are governed by Republicans.  So it was a bitter pill for the unions to swallow when the Dems decided to take a page from the GOP’s book.

There is still time for the tides to shift.  The unions will be negotiating with local officials throughout May.  The state’s Democratic Senate must agree with the proposed legislation.  And, the governor, also a Democrat, has yet to indicate whether he is prepared to sign such a bill.  In the meantime, the head of the state’s AFL-CIO remains incensed and vows to fight this to the “bitter end.”  He claimed, “These are the same Democrats who we contributed to in their campaigns,” and “Massachusetts is not the place that takes collective bargaining away from public employees.”  This is expected to be an interesting battle.

Next door, in Connecticut, the Democratic governor has chosen to announce a huge tax increase instead of reforming public employee payrolls, benefits and pensions.  The budget has some 20 tax increases in all including alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, gasoline and Internet sales as well as higher property taxes.  In addition, all residents earning over $50,000 will find themselves in a higher tax bracket.  This will be the fourth time in 20 years that personal income taxes have increased in Connecticut.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the governor also wants to raise the sales tax and add a surtax to a range of services such as parking, cosmetic surgery, yoga classes, pet grooming and manicures.  He also wants to impose a sales surtax on certain “luxury” goods from yachts, private planes and classic cars to expensive clothing and jewelry, not  unlike the plan that failed a couple of decades ago when tried on a national basis.  In many ways, the Connecticut approach is similar in some ways to the Illinois plan to tax rather than reel in spending, particularly for state employees’ salaries and benefits.

In the private sector, Boeing has built a plant in South Carolina giving the company a second line to build 787 airliners.  Since this is a right-to-work state, there are financial reasons to select South Carolina for the new assembly line rather than add another line at Boeing’s Washington facilities.  The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has asked the courts to force the company to stay in the state of Washington and use union labor.  This should be a warning to all 22 right-to-work states that the unions and their political cohorts are prepared for a fierce fight at the expense of jobs for the average worker.