Any Bad Guys attending the Gun Buyback Program Event?

Based on the Gun Buyback Program coming up it is pretty obvious the Mayor of Long Beach California wants to feel good.   Because that is all this program is really going to do…..make some well-intentioned elected city officials feel good.

In reading an article in the “Long Beach Post” about the Gun Buyback Program, the Police Chief said “The Gun Buyback Program allows members of the community to turn in weapons they no longer want to own”.   Does that not bother any taxpayer whose money is being used to buy all these guns?  Is it not true that if you no longer wish to own a gun you can call the police department and arrange to voluntarily surrender the gun? 

How about this idea?  If the gun is unwanted then create a program to take it off the owner’s hands for free!  How about establishing the “Gun Take It Off Your Hands For Free Program?   What in the heck are you doing paying some guy for an object he does not even want?

There is absolutely no need to use hard earned and scarce tax dollars to pay someone for an object they do not wish to own.

The Police Chief also states in the article “Every gun that is taken off the street decreases the chance for it to end up in the wrong hands”.    Mayor Bob Foster was quoted in the article as saying “Getting unwanted guns off the street securely is a good thing for the public’s safety”.   What would you think if the Police Chief or Mayor said that for every unwanted car taken off the streets the chance for a car theft and a serious car crash decreases? 

We must assume that the majority of those selling unwanted guns to the city of Long Beach do not need them to commit crimes.   We must also assume those who need guns to break our laws can do the math and figure that the price paid by the city of Long Beach for their gun would not be as profitable as keeping the gun to rob people.  Secondly, you would think that the bad guys will not be selling their guns to the city because they need their guns to protect themselves and to injure and kill people.

It feels good to believe you “may” have taken a gun out of the “wrong hands” but there is no way to know or measure that.   If you could prove that guns secured in the Gun Buyback Program were actually taken out of the hands of the bad guys then maybe it should be considered.   

Politicians, no matter their level of government, seem to have a need to feel good that far outweighs their ability to think a problem through. 

Does anyone know a bad guy who will be attending the event?

Internet Sales Tax Discussion is Back

Dear Editor,

The Internet Sales Tax Bill is coming.  The Bill will require all internet retailers to collect sales taxes under the same laws that brick and mortar business operate.  In other words, those of us who live in Los Angeles County will be paying the same sales tax whether we buy a book from our local book store or if we decide to make the purchase from an on-line retailer such as Amazon.  Right now California law requires us to pay the tax when we make on-line purchases, but consumers rarely voluntarily send the tax to the state.

I believe the government already takes too much from all of us in the form of taxes and fees.  Way too much.   If I had my way, we would lower the sales tax as I believe it would actually increase revenues to the state in the form of increased business activity.  However, that is for a different discussion and it will probably never happen. 

This Bill is a tough one for me.  In spite of my feelings, I am leaning in the direction of encouraging my elected representatives to vote yes on this bill. The tax is not going away, so it should apply to all retailers no matter their business model.   I can’t believe I wrote that, but it is the right thing to do.

I am all for competition on as level a playing-field as possible without government involvement.  Many consumers visit brick and mortar businesses (businesses that rent or own property and buildings to provide a storefront) with no intention of purchasing a product from them.  The shopper may want to touch, see, and examine the benefits of a certain product, but knowing they can save close to 10% in sales tax (in California) by going on-line once their decision has been made, they make the purchase from an internet retailer and neglect to send the sales tax to the state as required by law.

Suppose I wish to purchase a new laptop computer and I visit my local Best Buy to examine what is out there.  I walk in and start looking and then questions regarding each model and brand come to mind.  I approach a sales person to ask my questions.  Great, after some time I make a decision.  The laptop and other equipment and programs will cost me about $1,500.  Instead of paying the extra $140 or so in taxes I decide to go home, log onto the internet and make my purchase from an on-line retailer. 

In my mind I am bordering on being a thief.  Why?  The brick and mortar business must pay rent for the sales floor space, provide property and liability insurance, employee product training, employee insurance, hire a cleaning service, pay property taxes directly or through rent, pay transportation costs, tie capital up in inventory and take care of maintenance issues.  The internet retailer may have some of those costs, but not to the extent of the brick and mortar store.   The shopper took advantage of the store when the store allowed him to shop, compare products,  take knowledge from the company trained sales person all in the comfort of an air conditioned environment.   The shopper actually pocketed all that with no intention of making a purchase in the store.

If I enter more than one store to shop and learn more knowing I will make a purchase from one of them, then the store and their sales person have an equal chance to convince me to acquire the product from him or her without the worry of me going on-line to make my final purchase to avoid paying the sales tax.  Visiting car dealers to test a vehicle and get the best price is fair, but visiting car dealers to take a test drive and then going to some auto broker you will never meet in person to make the purchase for you is deceitful.  It is taking earned commission from the auto dealer sales person and delivering it to some guy with no skin in the game.

One of the arguments against the internet sales tax bill is the added costs to small on-line retailers in trying to accommodate the thousands of tax jurisdictions in collecting the sales taxes.  It will add costs to the product.  But then again, maintaining a brick and mortar store have extra costs too.  You can bet there are already some smart programmers designing systems to peddle to on-line retailers that will make sure they can collect and distribute the taxes collected in an efficient manner.

Sales taxes apply whether we use the internet or a brick and mortar store to make the purchase.  It is the law.  The new bill will insure the law is applied fairly.  If you are against the sales tax, fight to lower or get rid of it, but don’t give one retailer an advantage over another by breaking the current law.  Passing the Internet Sales Tax Bill is the right thing to do.

New Gun Ban Proposals - Make NO Sense, but they sure do Feel Good!

Problem solving.  Suppose a group of people have two issues affecting them in a negative manner.  Problem #1 is responsible for .02% of their problems.  Problem #2 can be attributed to .98% of their negative results.  Now suppose the leader of the group decides to place the majority of the group’s efforts and resources into solving Problem #1.  Does that make sense?  Not to me.

Assault weapons have accounted for only 2% of gun violence, yet many of our elected officials are struggling to ban them.  Efforts by Senator Diane Feinstein to ban assault rifles and President Obama’s   struggle to create even stricter gun control laws are presented to us with good intentions.   Who would not want to take steps to prevent the terrible incidents such as the Sandy Hook school shooting in Newtown Connecticut, the Aurora Colorado movie theater attack and others that seem to come out of nowhere and end in death and sorrow?   

No matter the good intentions of our elected representatives, their efforts are purely “feel good” proposals that would have had no impact whatsoever on the incidents mentioned above.   Again, it looks to me as if the well intentioned representatives are in denial regarding facts and they are wasting time, energy and resources based on pure emotion.

In 2009 FBI background checks increased by 30% and sales of firearms in large retail stores increased by almost 40 percent.  Applications for concealed carry permits increased in the U.S. as well.  Yet, murders as a result of the use of firearms have decreased over the same period by 14%.  In other words, according to the FBI, gun sales have been increasing while over the last four years gun crimes are decreasing. 

Yes, gun crime is decreasing in the United States, and since the states of Florida and Texas created “right to carry” laws their murder rate has been lower than before their laws took effect.   When Washington D.C. had a handgun ban and trigger lock law the murder rate was 73% higher while at the same time the U.S. murder rate was averaging 11% lower.   Murders increased in Chicago by 40% after the city created their handgun ban.  The murder rate in England and Wales was 52% higher after establishing their 1968 gun control laws and it increased 15% after they began their handgun ban in 1997.

I am wondering why we do not simply do a better job of enforcing our current laws.  In 2010 the FBI processed over 6 million “transfer” of guns checks.  Of those 6 million applications they denied 72,659 requests.  There were 34,459 denials for “felony convictions/indictments” and 13,862 were denied listing “fugitive” as the reason.  Those two reasons represent 48,231 of the 72,659 denials, yet the government had only 44 prosecutions which is less than 1% of the denials!  Do you really believe more “feel good” laws will be enforced?  History indicates the new laws will not be applied as proposed.

The assault ban lasting about 10 years in the 1990s made no difference in statistics.  The strict gun laws in Connecticut did nothing to prevent the mayhem in Newtown.   Think back to the terrible shooting of U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords and others who were shot at nearly point blank range.  Do you really trust that the person bent on committing that heinous act considered whether the laws allowed him to carry a gun?

Gun violence has nothing to do with whether we are allowed to own a gun.  It has everything to do with people making decisions.  Think about it.  It is quite foolish to allow only law-breakers to have guns.  If a person is denied a gun permit due to being a past felon or having a mental issue do you really think that person would not be able to obtain a gun?  If you do, you are naive or in denial.

There is certainly no way we can restrict a person from taking possession of a firearm if they so desire.  Assuming all these laws being debated were passed, we should all acknowledge that anyone who wants to obtain a gun illegally can and will do it.  There are bad guys amongst us.

We must praise the NRA.  The NRA promotes the education of all gun owners to use their guns in a legal, responsible and safe manner.  I doubt the guy using a gun to rob a bank is paying dues to the NRA and adhering to the NRA’s code of conduct.

President Obama and those in his camp regarding the gun debate, please stop with the “feel good” stuff.   Think it through.  History and data will tell you your efforts are a waste of time.

Three Questions for President Obama

Other Thought:

President Obama said in 2006, “Raising American’s debt ceiling is a sign of leadership failure”.

President Obama said in 2009, “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits-either now or in the future”

President Obama said in 2011, “The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion dollars for the first 42 presidents --number 43 added $4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion dollars of debt that we are going to have to pay back -- $39,000 for every man, woman and child.  It’s irresponsible.  It’s Unpatriotic”.   See his quote for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CMy2M32g4k

President Obama said in 2013, “Not raising the debt ceiling would be absurd and irresponsible”.

President Obama added $5 trillion dollars to the national debt in less than 4 years and he is growing our debt at an astronomical rate.

Question # 1: When you were addressing our national debt in 2006, 2009 and 2011 were you sincere in your statements or were you saying whatever it took to get elected?

Question #2: When you stated in 2013 that not raising our debt ceiling would be absurd and irresponsible were you Unpatriotic?

Question #3: Are you unpatriotic, a poor leader, a liar or a combination of the three?

Burdening Students with Debt Feels Good

Great Deal!  How about I sell you a car?  Never mind that the price of automobiles has risen 73% since your last purchase back in 1999.  Don’t worry.  There is a new program.  The government will give you a very low cost loan to cover the price of the car so there is absolutely nothing to lose sleep over.  Drive it home today, the price does not matter because the loan is painless to obtain and you can make those so very low payments later.   You need the car to get to work, here, take the keys; it’s an offer you can’t refuse!

Sound ridiculous?  It is.  However, our President, elected representatives and education administrators are offering the scam to students every day.  Oh yeah wait….it feels good and feel good legislation is A-OK no matter the consequences.

Government sponsored student loans are another example of our legislators trying to improve programs or take care of perceived needs while unnecessarily raising costs.  The intentions are noble, but it is not thought through and, in my opinion, these programs actually hurt those our elected representatives are intending to assist.

According to The Christian Science Monitor, the cost of public four-year colleges from 1999 - 2009 rose 73% on average and tuition at private non-profit colleges increased 34%.  Yes, universities have fixed costs such as maintaining large campuses, even during the months students are away, along with improving facilities, insurance and accommodating the increase in salaries.  I can understand increases based on inflation and taking care of the school in general, but why the drastic rise?  Maybe the huge cost hikes coincide with easy to acquire loans.

I recently read an Associated Press story documenting that roughly 3500 colleges and universities raised $31 billion in 2012.  Stanford University raised the most at $1.035 billion and the tenth highest amount raised was the Massachusetts Institute of Technology at $379 million!  The basic cost of a year at Stanford can exceed $50,000 and they have approximately 15,000+ students when you figure in their undergraduate and graduate programs.  When you add tuition along with housing fees, etc and gifts received from the public the money received on an annual basis is astronomical.

Public colleges and universities are in need of funds because of budget cuts and therefore tuition must increase.  However, again, no worries, because the government (whoops, I mean taxpayer) will provide low cost loans to cover what the student can’t pay up front.  What does that represent?  It means our elected state officials know that no matter how they spend taxpayer dollars they can cut money for higher education and use it for other projects such as the Bullet-Train-Money-Pit knowing full well there are government low interest rate loans out there for students to commit to.  In fact, schools have staff on board that do nothing but assist young adults in accumulating tremendous debt.

What a deal.  I, the business owner, can provide a product or service devoid of any market influence because I know my customer will be able to easily secure a loan from the taxpayer for the price I feel like charging.  I can use the profit for making my business look beautiful, pay higher than market wages or simply put the customer’s government sponsored borrowed money in my bank account.  I love this racket!

Schools receiving large amounts of gifts can afford to attract the high in-demand professors, administrators and fund raisers and in so doing they can also command very high tuition.  Students who are drawn to those schools will be able to proceed into debt in amounts of up to $200,000 with ease.  No price competition here.

Imagine if a student was not able to obtain those easy-to-get loans in such high amounts from you and me.  The student may want to attend a college, but if the tuition is too high they may elect to pass on a college degree.  In that case, the school’s football team has no student section cheering for them…..or the college can lower the price of tuition to what the market will bear and fill the stands with hard working students.

As it is now, universities and colleges would be nuts to lower tuition as long as the taxpayer is providing all the money the student needs to pay the tuition demanded and to hell with the student’s debt burden after graduation.  Helping others feels good!

President "WAS" Correct

Other Thought:

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better." 

~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006

Sometimes wishes DO come true

Good Luck in your game today Son.  Love Dad

L

Women DO Earn Equal Pay

Dear Editor

It seems to me that the only legislation coming from the Democratic side of government is purely “feel good” legislation leading to absolutely nothing. Take for example Senate bill S. 84: Paycheck Fairness Act introduced by U.S. Senator Barbara Mikulski that has 41 co-sponsors who include California Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein. This waste-of-time bill is meant to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 “in order to provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wagers on the basis of sex, and for other purposes.”

Section 2 (2) of this new bill states “women continue to earn significantly lower pay than men for equal work” and it further states that the “disparities can only be due to continued intentional discrimination or lingering effects of past discrimination.” I believe that if that is the case, authorities should use the power of the original bill of 1938 and throw those discriminators in jail. Why do we need another bill?

I do understand there may be instances of discrimination by foolish employers, but in general I do not see a need for another bill to address what is already law. Is this law being proposed to continue the manufactured “Republican War on Women” rhetoric President Obama started in his last campaign for president? I believe it follows a pattern.

I just do not see it. I have worked for quite a few companies and individuals and I have never seen a woman receive less pay than a man for doing the same work with the same responsibilities. I have seen both women and men earn more than their counterparts due to working harder and contributing more to the bottom line.

The last report by the Census Bureau indicated women made 77 cents for every dollar earned by a male in 2008 and that statistic is referred to on a regular basis by supporters of this new bill. Sounds bad. However, any rational person would look deeper to determine what that bit of information actually represents. At least you would think the President and his followers would want to present the truth regarding the background on that number, but they don’t because the facts would not support their effort to deceive.

Think about it…..businesses exist to produce a needed and desired product for consumers in order to earn a profit. If the numbers above were correct, then would the United States employment rate not reflect 100% employment for women and pretty much close to zero percent employment rates for men? An employer would be nuts to pay a man a dollar if he could get away with paying a woman 77 cents.

In general, it is a fact that more women than men take time to stay at home to care for children. If a woman is taking care of children at home, then she is not in the workplace gaining experience or going to school to receive more education. Again, in general, men are not interrupting their careers and education and therefore their experience is leading to higher paying jobs. Employers can’t be blamed for personal decisions workers make to take themselves out of the marketplace or assume lower paying part-time jobs in order to take on the difficult and demanding task of caring for a family at home.

Those, whether men or women, who complete their education or remain employed on a full-time basis to obtain experience and showcase their work will receive the promotions and higher pay schedules.

If an employer is discriminating we already have laws to address it. Workers of any gender are earning equal pay for equal work thanks to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Senators, please bring some clarity to your statements and stop the deception to earn votes. I hope the voters take the time to look deeper than what is presented in sound-bites by any political candidate before making decisions.

Bill S. 84: Paycheck Fairness Act is not needed and it is a shameless prank to deceive and divide us again.

No Saturday Delivery - Whatever it Takes Congresswoman Waters

Here we go again with another wise Congressperson delivering another “feel good” statement and piece of legislation regarding the proposal by Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe to eliminate Saturday first-class mail delivery. 

Congresswoman Waters has suggested her constituents will be disadvantaged and businesses will be in jeopardy of operating successfully if the Postmaster’s proposal is initiated.  I am trying to figure out why I would be disadvantaged if my mail stops arriving on Saturdays.  To be honest, I can’t think of one reason.  Besides the normal “big” holidays most businesses observe, I have never worked for a company that also gave us a paid holiday for the four additional holidays government workers receive.   Come to think of it, when returning home from work I never felt disadvantaged when my mail did not arrive on Veteran’s or President’s day and I don’t think the business I worked for felt that way either.

The Congresswoman then implies future employment at the USPS could be affected by going to a 5 day delivery schedule.  She even suggests the recession’s recovery period could be hindered due to lay-offs at the postal service.   Of course lay-offs hurt the economy.  However, forcing an organization like the USPS to keep losing money is not going to do any good if they continue throwing billions of dollars away.

In 2012 Congresswoman Waters produced the Protecting Post Offices Act (H.R. 3916) to reduce USPS operating costs which included keeping many rural post offices open and saving 28,000 jobs.  She says that her legislation was supported by the American Postal Workers Union along with the AFL-CIO.  Surprised?   Is it not amazing that she and the unions can understand and suggest corrections for one of the largest operations in the world to bring operating costs onto the positive side of the balance sheet and save everyone’s job?    She is either wise beyond comprehension or she just knows in her heart (thinks) her bill will work and she can save $15.9 billion.

Fact, the USPS lost $15.9 billion last year, most of that due to the health and retirement benefits the USPS is committed to maintaining.  Here is a scary number too.  In 2011 they lost $5.1 billion, which means in 12 months their losses increased by more than 300%!  The removal of Saturday mail delivery will save about $2 billion, but the rest requires other cost savings in addition to addressing employee benefits.  With losses like that, no business, no matter what an elected official determines, can survive without drastic changes.  Another fact, first-class mail delivery has decreased 37% since 2007 and delivery of first-class mail has never shown an increase during that period.  

Fact.  The need for all current employees and equipment to remain has diminished.  Cuts must be made.

The post office makes the claim they do not use government money to operate.  Neither do the several companies I worked for in my past who have had to lay me off due to the decrease in business.  It is one of the ways business survives in order to compete on another day.  The time to think of the post office as another agency we must support no matter the cost is gone.  If they want to operate like a business and be proud of the fact they do not use taxpayer dollars, then they must adjust to the marketplace as any other business must.

Congresswoman Waters thanks to both sides of the political spectrum, the U.S. government is very near the point of no return regarding the national debt we have incurred.  Even though the USPS does not take taxpayer money, they must adhere to rules and regulations established by Congress.  Wow, the government agencies who have incurred $16 trillion in debt are providing direction to the Post Office.   That fact alone is mind-boggling.

Congresswoman, I would suggest you keep your hands out of the business of delivering mail and let the Postmaster do his best to move his organization back to the positive side of the ledger and compete.  You have no business attempting to escort the USPS down the same stupid road of debt the Congress, Senate and past Presidents have taken us.

Postmaster Donahoe, tell Congress to pound sand so you can get back to improving your business.  

Disabled Students - Lower Expectations?

Dear Editor,

I understand the U.S. Department of Education is directing schools to give disabled students the right to play.  They want schools to include students with disabilities in sports programs and/or provide alternatives.   According to an article by the Associated Press “schools would be required to make reasonable modifications for students with disabilities or create parallel athletic programs that have comparable standing as mainstream programs”.   The article also says officials suggest schools cannot exclude students based on their disabilities if they can keep up with their classmates. 

Before I go further and create a picture of me as a very cold hearted person I would like to say here that I do support disabled students, no matter their interests.  My very first real job was working for the Easter Seal Society at a summer camp in the local mountains above southern California.  I learned to understand disabilities and I learned that some of the strongest and most inspirational persons in our society are the very people we refer to as disabled.

In my opinion, this new directive is a classic example of more “feel good” legislation and it is completely worthless and a waste of time.  I have referred to other feel good legislation as worthless and a waste of time in the past because….it is.  There is nothing keeping disabled students from competing in sports programs just as there is nothing keeping non-disabled students from competing for those same limited spots.

If I am a high school coach my goal is to win all the games on my schedule and to do that I need the best players available for each position.  Think about the coach who placed baseball pitcher, Jim Abbott, on his team to reach his goal.  Jim Abbott went on to play major league baseball from 1989 to 1999 with one hand!  Obviously you would think his high school coach did not discriminate because Mr. Abbott had only one hand.  However, the coach did discriminate when you think about it.  He discriminated against players with two hands who, in his opinion, could not help the team as well as the one-handed player.

This may sound ridiculous, but this feel good legislation could lead people who did not make their high school team to file court papers complaining that they were discriminated against because their physical abilities limited their opportunity to play on the varsity baseball team.  Should the school create a parallel program for anyone who was not good enough to “make” their school’s varsity team?  Maybe non-disabled athletes fighting for spots on teams should ask the government to create programs for them based on the fact that disabled athletes displaced them.

Besides Jim Abbott, remember Tom Dempsey who played professional football as a kicker despite being born with no toes on his kicking foot.  Consider Kyle Maynard who went 50-0 as a high school varsity wrestler despite having no legs or arms.  Recently Natalie du Toit from South Africa executed a strong performance representing her country at the Beijing Olympics missing most of her left leg? Anthony Robles was born with only one leg, but several years ago he was one of the top Division 1 wrestlers in the country.   I doubt these athletes mentioned above would have considered lower expectations or a “parallel” program instead of competing at the highest levels possible.   

Instead of our government representatives attempting to make everything fair and equal for all of us they should concentrate on the real concerns our constitution requires.  It is not up to our government to make life fair.  I can’t imagine depending on some elected, and some not so very bright representatives, determining what is and is not fair for all of us.  No one can make life fair.  We as citizens should know that life in America provides a chance to compete and use our God given gifts to pursue happiness and achieve all we set out to accomplish. 

Life is not evenhanded and part of being a strong and responsible person is to understand how to deal with real life and what it dishes out…that is part of becoming mature.  Being mature does not include asking the government to make “all” things on par with my neighbors.

No matter my physical and mental capacities, dealing with and adjusting to life is up to me.

Voting for Higher Taxes & Rich Guys

Dear Editor,

Based on my opinion presented in this paper shortly before the November elections, I consider more than half the voters in California to be enablers. They are enablers, because voting to increase taxes has allowed our state representatives and Governor to increase expenditures, and discard our need to live within our means. Just over half the voters wanted to give the government more of their own money and force the rest of us to send money to the state and allow historically higher spending.

We were in a fiscal crisis and the Governor, after convincing some of us to send him more of our money, has proposed increased expenses and presented a budget that is the largest in California’s history. There is no other word to describe voters wanting to pay more in taxes than labeling them as “enablers”. How could the the majority of voters have not known that our democratically controlled state government would do what they do best……splurge instead of being fiscally responsible? Maybe that is what they wanted.

I am one of those who believe that decreasing taxes does increase revenues to all our government agencies. The past actually supports the theory that leaving more money in personal and business checkbooks will stimulate our economy and increase government revenues. Would it not be better if additional revenues actually came from a booming economy and not from forcing us to give legislators more of our cash to waste? I have read there are indications that “wealth builders” are beginning to leave California. Why wouldn’t they with California’s current fiscal conditions and with elected “spenders” in control?

The majority of voters in California not only voted to increase personal taxes on themselves through higher sales taxes, but they also decided to increase taxes on the “rich”. Our wise Governor jumped on President Obama’s campaign to demonize the rich and used it to succeed in increasing taxes in California, whose residents are already the 3^rd highest taxed population in the United States. The President placed us in three categories: rich guys, the middle class, and poor people. He pretty much pitted two of the three groups of people against the rich guys and in doing so convinced a majority of people that rich guys were unfair.

Here is the deal for me. I am not a rich guy, but I love rich guys. I believe they DO pay their fair share in so many ways. Not only do they support most of us in paying the majority of taxes, but they also employ us and, to put it plainly, they buy stuff…..lots of stuff.

Several years ago I worked for a small company owned by a rich guy who bought stuff. He bought stuff I could only dream of purchasing. He once spent over one million dollars on a motor home. Some may find that extravagant. I didn’t because he could afford it. Take a moment to consider the astounding chain reaction he caused with that purchase.

The resources required to create that motor home using raw materials from the earth are astronomical. From loggers, miners, engineers, landlords, heavy equipment and their operators, computers, energy providers, office staff, laborers, tool makers, delivery drivers, makers of trucks and automobiles, etc. The list goes on and on in job creation.

We fail to understand that over time, most people move into and out of the three classes of people described above. If you look at the numbers, I believe you will find that most people who were poor ten years ago are no longer poor and some of those who were rich during the same period have moved down to one of the other classifications. The President does a very good job of ignoring the fact that most of us were poor once and we moved up because of our desire to produce and have more. Just because you are poor today does not mean you will be poor tomorrow. That is what our form of government is all about…..it allows us to use our own initiative to improve ourselves. Pitting a poor guy against a rich guy today may very well find them in reversed rolls ten years from now.

Government please stop over spending and expecting us to provide more money as our taxes are high enough to support a responsible government. President Obama, do not come down so hard on rich people….you must celebrate them and create a climate where they can thrive, employ us, and BUY STUFF!

Take a moment to enjoy this piece of beautiful music

Please do yourself a favor by closing your eyes and take a moment to listen to this piece of beautiful music....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmIUYBFbXs4

Update on Non-violent Crimes & Abortion

Dear Editor:  (Update on two past blog entries)

You may have noticed that my thoughts on these pages are based on the old fashion idea that all of us must take personal responsibility for ourselves. We must do our best to obey the laws of our society, help one another and pass along good values to the next generation. I get the feeling now-a-days that many of us are trying to be an exception to the premise that personal responsibility is a trait to view as valuable. Doing whatever we please and not facing the consequences for our actions is becoming more acceptable. It reminds me of the 60’s when the beautiful flower people were promoting the idea of doing whatever “feels good” as a worthy rule to follow.

As an example, I continually read articles, editorials and letters regarding drug lawbreakers being referred to as “non-violent” offenders. I wonder if those authors use or used drugs, which would lead to classifying drug users and dealers as non-violent as a way to feel better about themselves. Or, perhaps they assume everyone feels drug users are non-violent.

In my opinion, referring to people arrested for using or selling illegal drugs as “non-violent” is very shallow thinking. Are legislators, judges and the public in general in denial of the tremendous number of killings on both sides of our southern border and in our cities further north due to the industry of moving drugs to “non-violent” criminals?

According to “The Guardian” during the period of December 2006 through November 2010 as many as 7 Mexican cartels were responsible for 34,612 deaths due to the production and distribution of drugs. In 2010 they recorded the highest number of deaths at 15,273. I wonder if the “user” living in average town U.S.A. thought about all those dead people while enjoying his non-violent dinner party?

No matter the illegal product, whether drugs, stolen cars, televisions, etc., if a person knowingly accepts illegal or stolen property that person is a very guilty party in a crime. At the end of 2010 California was holding approximately 25,000 drug offending prisoners. I can only imagine all the carnage involved in supplying 25,000 people illegal substances.

A person involved with buying and using illegal drugs contributes to the loss of property, life and the well being of our individual communities. That person can only be described as an active participant in a violent crime and should accept the consequences.

I must take a moment to address several letters to the editor responding to my article regarding the question on when life begins and abortion. One letter led the reader to believe I wanted to force women to have unwanted babies and then went on to explain in detail how simple minded my thoughts were regarding abortion and adoption and touched on many social issues I did not take into consideration. Another letter writer suggests I stay out of the abortion discussion because it is something only a woman, her doctor and God should decide.

I also received some very positive feedback from people who actually took the time to understand the point of the article. I never suggested a woman does not have a right to make the choice and I never proposed women should have unwanted babies. As a matter of fact, I specifically stated I would not address whether abortion was right or wrong.

Whether I believe in abortion or not, my point was that it is a fact no one can tell at what precise moment between conception and delivery a cluster of cells become a life. Therefore, the action to abort must be considered a gamble. Viewing abortion as a gamble on whether a life was taken or not may not feel good to some readers and I can understand how those feelings could stir strong thoughts of anger. As I stated at the beginning of the article, the idea was to encourage the reader to think.

Lastly, I know families and individuals whose personal experiences would lead anyone to consider adoption a good option and gamble.

House, Senate & President = Pathetic

Other Thought

Payroll taxes went up yesterday on ALL of us.
No significant spending cuts yesterday.
The U.S.A. continues to borrow 42 cents of every dollar it spends.
The President has never had a budget as required by law.
The President wants the debt ceiling to rise with no limit.
The majority of the House of Representatives = pathetic.
The majority of the Senate = pathetic
The President = worst leader in American history.

Second Hand Smoke Is NOT Dangerous

Other Thought:

The television ad I saw regarding second hand smoke was the final straw for me.  They picture a smoker in front of an apartment building while the camera follows the second hand smoke up several stories, through an open window and then finally landing over a baby in a crib.  Of course, there is a warning at the end of the commercial indicating how dangerous second hand smoke is.

I started researching trying to find the back up stats on how deadly second hand smoke is.  I found plenty of websites, including the EPA's, telling me how many people die from second hand smoke, but it was very difficult to find out how they came to those conclusions.

I believe second hand smoke is not good for anyone with breathing difficulties and it is also irritating to anyone forced to breath it, but I do not believe it causes cancer or death.  My common sense has always told me that the bad chemicals in smoke are too diluted, even in close range or in continual repeated instances, to concentrate enough chemicals to kill.  It has never made sense to me.

It is my opinion that if we hear it enough we will believe it....kind of like "man-made" global warming.  Yes, the earth may be warmer, but it is not man-made...see my blog entry regarding climate change and common sense again ( http://www.lettertotheeditorblog.com/2012/07/man-made-climate-change-not.html ).

The author in the article link below backs up his premise regarding second hand smoke by listing his resources for your own research.  It is worth reading before the next time you blame a smoker for a non-smoker's cancer or death.

Check it out:  http://yourdoctorsorders.com/2009/01/the-myth-of-second-hand-smoke/

By the way......I do not smoke and have never smoked.  In the 50s & 60s I grew up in a home that always looked like the fog rolled in due to smoke and have had no ill effects.  I do not like being around smoke because it is irritating, but I never worry about it being hazardous to me.

Other Thought:

Great day ahead.  Six grand-kids coming over to make presents for their dads.  Wood, saws, screwdrivers, goggles, drills, paint, screws, glue and a bunch of fun.  Makes it easy to count my blessings.

Merry Christmas.

Gambling with life......

I decided to look at abortion from a different angle this week in my article in The Beachcomber Newspaper.  Check it out at www.longbeachcomber.com OR at http://www.longbeachcomber.com/story.aspx?artID=3545 OR at http://www.webpublished.com/gallery/view.asp?seq=205980&path=121214153819

It is about gambling with life.....

Disgusting = California Federation of Teachers

Other Thought

The California Federation of Teachers is a disgusting group of people OR their decision makers are a disgusting group of people.  Either way, the video they produced and now display on their website (http://www.cft.org) and You-Tube is revolting.

First of all, it is beyond me how a group of so-called educated people could fabricate and actually believe the false statements made in the video.  

Secondly, depicting a rich person urinating on a poor guy is nauseating.  I pray they do not plan to present this piece of filth to California’s school children.

I have to believe there are dues paying teachers out there who find this video full of completely made-up and bogus facts a waste of union dues and I hope there are union members who find this as offensive as many of us do.  If so, they should speak up!

You can view the video via the link below and after you do, why not contact your local school board and verify they will not be presenting this lie and depiction of terrible behavior to their students. 

Oh yes, it is beyond me how Mr. Ed Asner could agree to perform in this film, but then after watching him in an interview I can understand.  Mr. Asner asked the interviewer if he had money and when the interviewer responded “yes”, Mr. Asner asked if he could pee on him?  He must be so very proud of his work and interview.

California students deserve better!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cwg4DB-EeEA

Employer & Union, Partner or Adversary

Other Thought,

I wanted to start this blog entry off with a little quiz. What do all these “job” situations that I experienced have in common?

§        I was asked to pay an initiation fee to work in one part of town on a new job. A week later when my new employer decided to move me 15 miles away to a different office in another county I was required to pay the same fee again.

§        I was invited to attend a meeting on my own time and when I did not attend I was assessed a fine.

§       When a fellow employee of mine who was caught stealing (and admitted it) from a customer and the company we worked for, the company was convinced by some rather persuasive people to move him to another position and allow the thief to keep his job at a higher rate of pay.

§       I was employed on a base pay plus commission basis and after working on a day off to increase sales in my territory I was scolded and appraised a fine.

§       I was reprimanded for consistently doing more work than my co-workers in an 8 hour day.

§       The same people who reprimanded me for dong too much work and were in the same job classification as me, actually made more per hour than me while sleeping on the job because they had more seniority.

§        I showed up at 7:00 a.m. for my first day of work at a new employer and was denied access to the driveway to the property by beer drinking, TV watching and a “let’s tip the box car over” group of soon to be new co-workers.

§       When finally being allowed access to my new job some of my co-workers who were actually working in the plant on the “tip the box car over” day were mysteriously injured on the job that shift.

§       I was not allowed to negotiate for higher wages based on what I considered I was worth.

§       I arrived at a location just after a delivery driver deliberately drove over another worker’s legs.

§      While working as a management employee to help craft people complete a job with a deadline I worked all night and the very next day a complaint was filed.

§       When picking up a piece of discarded paper that missed the waste basket I was admonished for doing someone else’s job.

§      And of course….all but one of these jobs required me to pay a monthly fee to stay employed.

Right, you guessed it…….I worked for companies that required me to belong to a Union, three different unions to be exact. The first thought you might have would be to tell me that I was not forced to work in a union shop and I could seek employment elsewhere. Agree. However, when you need a job, you need a job.

I do “get” unions and I have read history. I understand the brave people who collected their power into one strong organization to fight for better working conditions and pay. They changed history and should be commended. I also understand unions do good work in the community.

Good work in the community cannot continue if unions allow any of the above to take place. Unions should do some internal soul searching and housecleaning to get back to basics. If the unions of today do not look at employers as their partner in keeping the company healthy instead of considering them an adversary, the enterprise will falter and the union member will lose a job.

Based on my experiences above I know that if I were an employer and was approached to allow my staff to bring the union into a partnership with me I would definitely say no, I can’t afford it. By afford it, I do not mean specifically the hourly rate…..it is the other stuff that can raise the cost of doing business.

On another subject…..I wanted to share my opinion on what I consider the real key to being happy is. I believe that for a person to be happy they, without a doubt, must be “grateful” for all God has provided them. I am grateful that my wife and family love me, grateful I have friends and family to offer love to and care about, grateful for being able to work hard to provide for my family and thankful for the ability to help someone or just do something nice for another person. When feeling down or going through tough times, as all of us do at one period or another, take a moment to reflect on all you possess.

If there is anything that I wish I could pass on to my loved ones it is knowing that I was able to assist them in understanding that being grateful for all one has in life does lead to happiness.

I hope you had a wonderful Thanksgiving!

Exceptional Speech & American Exceptionalism

Please consider reading this speech sponsored by Hillsdale College given by Norman Podhoretz titled "Is America Exceptional"?  

No matter what party you affiliate with it is very much worth reading.  Of course, I believe America is truly exceptional, but Mr. Podhoretz expresses and supports his thoughts beautifully here in his speech.

Do yourself a favor, read it, and I guarantee it will make you think.....

Speech:   https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2012&month=10

Hillsdale College: https://www.hillsdale.edu

President Obama Won - No Changes - Including Values

I mentioned the day after the election in my blog that I want President Obama to succeed in bringing our country together and take the correct course for our economy, debt, foreign relations, defense and all the other issues we need to steer us in the right direction. Based on his few speeches since the election and the direction he is still planning to go it seems President Obama feels his victory is a mandate to stand his ground and do all he can to move others to see things “his” way. The President definitely knows how to fight. Even after the defeats the Democrats experienced in the 2010 mid-term elections the President stayed on his message and directed it with a laser beam on the groups of people he wanted to convince to vote for him.

I also read and hear ideas on how the Republican Party must learn to sway minorities, Latinos, single women and young people to join their cause. It seems these wise people with all the ideas want the Republicans to consider changing their values in order to gain votes from the groups mentioned above.

I am conservative first and republican second. It is my belief that values do not and cannot change. Republicans must keep their values, however, they must transform the manner in which they deliver their principles and demonstrate to all voters the benefits of voting for the conservative agenda. Republicans must illustrate and explain that what they believe will be more beneficial for the United States.

Here are some examples of misdirection by voters in my opinion:

California’s Proposition 30 that Governor Brown fought for to pass to raise taxes on the rich and increase sales tax revenues in order to boost income for the general fund and education succeeded. California residents and businesses are one of the highest taxed populations in America and now the voters are enabling our legislators to continue to waste money. Voters in California decided to pay more for the cost of living, take money from the rich guys who employ them and send the money to the state who they obviously believe can spend it more wisely. Voters became Enablers. Voters are enabling our legislators to continue to ask for money to cover their miserable attempt at spending our money.

California’s Proposition 39 directing more corporate profits to the state’s checkbook also passed. Again, Californians decided to make it even more difficult for businesses to succeed in California. Raising the cost of doing business will drive jobs away.

In Long Beach, California, measure “N” passed which requires all hotels with 100+ rooms to pay a minimum and artificial wage of $13.00 an hour unless they agree to enter into a contract with a labor union. Again, voters decided to take personal responsibility for earning higher wages away from the wage earners and now are forcing a business to raise its cost of doing business. This can only hurt the business and the very employees it is meant to help.

President Obama won. The President’s health care bill won. His desire to spend money at a rate never before seen in history was validated by voters. The health care bill will increase taxes on ALL of us directly and indirectly. Medical care is going up and just over half the population is OK with it. He has no idea on where the money is going and the voters favor a President who has never had a budget. He does not have the ability to present a budget both sides of the aisle deems valid.

Here is a hint everyone, history shows that California is continually raising taxes on citizens and businesses, spends ridiculous amounts of money and California continually asks for more taxes at every single election. The lesson learned for all of us is, despite the above, California continues to be BROKE!

Bottom line: As a conservative, I must hold by my values and continue to fight for them. I could not look in the mirror or in my grandchildren’s eyes if I changed my values to fit in. I still believe conservative values will be what keeps our nation together and insure our prosperity.

The discussion will continue and I pray.