Art Waganheim's Political Punditry

2011 Recap / 2012 Predictions - January 2012

2012-01-01T09:16:00.000-05:00

Last year our economy continued to perform badly, the partisan divide in Congress widened, and issues at other nations of the world continued to affect our country. My predictions for last year were somewhat on target but there were a few for which I blew it. Below please find my report card:

ECONOMY. I predicted that the Obama regime would try and implement its leftist ideals through the Executive Branch with new rules and regulations. I said the FCC would force internet providers to offer equal access to all forms of content at the expense of the consumer. And I predicted that oil and gas prices would go through the roof because of EPA regulations invoked to force people to buy Government Motors’ electric cars. WHAT HAPPENED. According to the liberal Center For Progressive Reform, Obama changed 84% of environmental regulations and 65% of regulations at other agencies. While the Center celebrates those changes, our economy continues to falter. The FCC, as I expected, did implement new rules in November 2011 forcing fixed and mobile broadband firms such as Comcast, ATT, and the dish networks to provide equal access to its cable and spatial spectrum for all content providers meaning that subscribers will have to pay for bandwidth buildout and not content firms. With regards to oil and gas prices, thankfully Obama caved and did not implement new EPA smog rules that would have notably increased production and distribution costs in the energy industries.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS. I did not post any predictions regarding international issues. But from my many columns in the past, I have not been hesitant to suggest that President Obama is weak, favors rhetoric over action, and often backs the wrong side during conflicts. WHAT HAPPENED. Obama continued to put the world at the risk of nuclear war with his failed strategy to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. He took credit for the Arab Spring which has, unfortunately, put questionable Islamic leaders in charge of Egypt. He also provided the military weaponry and advisors to help NATO rid the world of Muammar Kaddafi but left a vacuum being filled by leaders who historically do not support the interests of the west. I will give the President credit, however, for making the right decision to capture (and kill) Osama bin Laden while he took refuse in Pakistan.

POLITICAL. My main political prediction for 2011 did not happen. I had hoped that a fresh and proven face would emerge for the Republican Presidential nomination beyond Gingrich, Palin, Huckabee, and Romney. I also predicted Florida would become a key primary state. WHAT HAPPENED. Thankfully Palin and Huckabee chose not to run and at this time Romney and Gingrich continue to lead the pack of candidates. Herman Cain did bring a fresh face to the contest but his personal baggage quickly did him in. I was correct that Florida would become a key state as it moved its primary date up to January 31 meaning that its Republican voters will play a huge role in the eventual choice of the Republican nominee.

2012 PREDICTIONS
ECONOMY. Despite President Obama’s economic policies which continue to cripple our economy, the natural business cycle and pent up demand will lead to an improved economy by the end of 2012 just in time to give Obama a boost to his campaign. Unemployment figures will become a media issue as the Obama administration is accused of manipulating the numbers used to calculate the rate. But sadly, the real unemployment rate of those looking for work or giving up will stay near 17%. Our country’s debt crisis will get worse as the DC politicians punt any hard choices until 2013. The stock and bond markets will become very unstable as investors become uncomfortable with the value of US based investments but both will end the year strongly when voters elect a new President.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS. Now that the skies of Iraq are not being patrolled by the US Air Force, Israel will finally be able to launch strategic strikes against Iranian facilities building nuclear weapons. Meanwhile Iran will try to increase its influence in Iraq and continue to agitate and supply the Palestinians with weapons to threaten Israel. The European Union will continue to collapse as Germany, Great Britain, and France will give up trying to manage the weaker members whose socialist policies have bankrupted their countries. But perhaps the biggest international story of 2012 will be what happens in Russia where Vladimir Putin will revert to authoritarian type policies to dampen the efforts of those wanting a less corrupt national government.

POLITICAL
On January 31st, Florida Republican will cast the majority of their votes for Mitt Romney after watching Newt Gingrich’s pompous attitude and ego get the best of him during the campaign. Romney will go on to win the Republican nomination and I believe will be able to pull together a sufficient voting block of Republicans, Independents, and working class white and Jewish Democrats to squeak by Obama in the Electoral College. The Republicans will hold the House but fall just short of taking back the Senate. I will comment on local and state races in coming columns.

Bomb Bomb Iran - December 2011

2011-11-01T11:07:00.000-04:00

There is little doubt that the Islamic Republic of Iran is building nuclear weapons within its borders. Even the United Nation’s nuclear watchdog agency has finally publicly acknowledged the same concern that most intelligence experts have stated for years. And it has been reported that North Korean scientists are onsite assisting with the efforts.

With lunatic Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad repeatedly threatening to wipe the State of Israel off of our planet at his earliest opportunity, the world has to be concerned that Ahmadinejad will actually launch such nuclear weapons at Israel. Or others fear he will use the weapons to blackmail the world into looking the other way while he more prominently and overtly meddles in the affairs of other Arab nations.

Some like Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul have no fear of a nuclear Iran because he believes Iran has as much right to nuclear weapons as other countries in the world. Unfortunately Representative Paul is not alone in his thinking. There are other notable politicians worldwide who share his views.

President Obama has been more of an ostrich than a hawk in dealing with Iran as he continues to rattle his mouth about what he might do instead of actually doing something. You will recall that Obama sat back when the first “Arab Spring” took place in Iran early in his Presidency instead of giving public support to those Iranian youths whose goal was a more democratic Iran. Since then Obama has continued to flap his gums while Iran continues to perfect its weapon design.

Thankfully the State of Israel has not taken its eye off of the ball and has been quietly considering its alternatives to rid the world of the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons. That is until dissident members of its own leadership leaked word of such plans. Amazingly it has been reported that the former head of Israel’s intelligence agency was among the leakers.

So with the United Nation’s recent acknowledgement of Iran’s nuclear intentions and Israel’s plans to act on its own if necessary to protect its country, what should America and the world do now?

In my opinion this Iranian situation is not unlike the Syrian challenge in 2007 when the world feared that Assad was perfecting plans to build nuclear weapons which caused much unrest in the rest of the Arab world and in Israel.

According to former President George W. Bush, after he had received intelligence that Syria had secretly built a reactor with North Korean help, Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert asked Bush to bomb the compound. Bush told Olmert that the US had low confidence that the nuclear reactor was capable of producing weapons grade plutonium and preferred to publicly urge Syria to dismantle it. So Israel took out the facility by itself without asking for a green light from Bush. It has since been learned that most Arab leaders were privately thankful for that action to neutralize Syria from having nuclear weapons to attack its enemies.

You may also recall that Israel took out the Osiris nuclear facility in Iraq in 1981 being built with help from our French friends. The world reacted in horror that Israel would go after Sadaam Hussein’s peaceful nuclear energy program since he claimed it would be used for energy production rather than relying on his country’s billions of gallons of oil. Thankfully he did not have those weapons when he invaded neighboring Kuwait years later.

Flash forward to the Iranian situation. It has been reported that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta recently flew to Israel to ostensibly talk about the Palestinian peace process but actually went to discuss Iran. It was reported that Panetta wanted advance notice of any Israeli military action against Iran and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told him no.

Once again the world is warning Israel not to attack another dangerous nuclear weapons plant. And once again it appears Israel is preparing to defend itself. Certainly Iran has a more powerful army than did Syria or Iraq at the time of the Israeli attacks. But if the United States, its NATO Allies, or the other Arab nations will not step up to the plate before it is too late with other than the usual diplomatic or economic threats, then the future of our world depends on Israel.

The hourglass is running out of sand and hopefully President Obama will succeed in getting the world community behind such efforts. Unfortunately, I do not think he has it in him.

Who Is Occupying Wall Street? - November 2011

2011-11-01T09:00:00.001-04:00

It is almost laughable. If our economy was not badly suffering from Obamanomics and if unemployment was not already well over the reported 9%, the Occupy Wall Street movement would be a great Saturday Night Live skit.

The OWS movement is a combination of 1960 hippie revivalism, spoiled kids not taking responsibility for their life choices, unions looking for new members, anarchists always looking for a venue to protest against our great country, and political operatives hoping for the next great sound bite to use against their opponents.

But the reality is that our economy is suffering, millions of people are under or unemployed and the Obama administration has failed miserably in its attempt to apply academic theories to managing a dynamic economy in need of multiple solutions. Obama has created the crisis but would rather campaign against it now than solve it.

As former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel once said, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste.” So whether or not Obama operatives and sympathizers organized the OWS protesters from the beginning, they are certainly ensuring that the movement has traction as even President Obama has now added the 99% slogan of the protesters to his 2012 campaign stump speech to malign the supposed 1% who profit from their misery. Of course there is nothing that Obama the community activist extraordinaire likes better than to divide and conquer his opponents.

Depending on who in the media you ask, the OWS movement is a protest against our banking industry, against millionaires and billionaires, against greedy corporations, or against our capitalist way of life. The protesters – some of whom have been paid to participate in the OWS marches – claim to not have any organizational structure but somehow various liberal celebrities always seem to have the major media around when they give a formal holler of support. Obama’s friends in the Service Employees International Union seem to be at the right place at the right time for major events. And somebody is paying for all of the free food and sleeping gear.

Certainly in any populist protest, there will be issues which appeal to those on the left, right, and in between so it is not surprising that the American public currently supports the generic OWS “movement” when not asked for their support on specific OWS complaints. Who is not against getting rid of corruption in our economy? Who is not against a Congress unable to implement strong solutions to our economic malaise?

Even I support the OWS complaint about the big Wall Street banks that put short term profits from creating and betting on mortgage-backed securities over sound policy of making sure they only gave or backed loans to credit worthy individuals and corporations. But of course the OWS crowd does not remember that Democrats in Congress wrote the laws to encourage such behavior by forcing red line loans nor do they want to remember that Wall Street gave tens of millions of campaign contributions to candidate Obama in 2008 and that the Obama administration is full of Wall Street cronies.

And while the OWS crowd is complaining of the 99% of citizens being screwed by the so-called rich 1%, the OWSers have not mentioned the 47% of Americans who are taking advantage of the 53% who pay all of the federal income taxes. They would rather rally to have their loans written off by the big banks than worrying that their failure to pay such loans will ultimately affect bank shareholders including plenty of retired Americas.

The big question now is whether the Occupy Wall Street movement has the potential to form into a voting block to help their embattled Community Organizer In Chief next November. David Axelrod, Obama’s 2012 Campaign Chief certainly knows that a large percentage of Occupiers are the same college crowd which voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama in 2008. And with most of them now under or unemployed, the Obama campaign cannot chance being blamed for that situation so they need to ensure that youth vote now rallies around the OWS banner and votes for continued change in 2012.

In my opinion, the American public will soon get tired of an organic Occupy Wall Street movement with no practical solutions to the many problems they cite. And with a movement that is becoming politicized and organized to benefit one political party over the other.

Most Americans relish those that are successful. The OWS obsession with class warfare will soon be the reason for its demise. And if President Obama continues to support the movement with his stump speeches, he will only be hurting himself come next November.

New World Order - October 2011

2011-10-01T09:00:00.000-04:00

It has been slightly more than three decades since I earned my undergraduate business degree. But I still remember the first time I heard three simple theories that forever changed my view of the international business world and globalization.

In my Banking class, I learned of the concept of the Multiplier Effect in which money spent by a business or consumer will multiply up and around the economy to have a greater total impact than just that of the original spender. And the multiplier can have worldwide impacts when developing countries have new wealth and consumer demand for others goods.

In my Logistic class, I learned about the Economic Order Quantity in which a business can efficiently calculate when to order goods from its suppliers and how much to order to effectively meet anticipated customer demand. I was amazed at how acquisition costs from a foreign supplier could sometimes be more cost effective than obtaining goods from domestic suppliers even when Just In Time ordering became a daily management strategy.

And in my Economic class, I learned about the concept of Comparative Advantage in which a consumer or business will naturally seek the best value for any goods or services to be purchased worldwide. That is why given the total costs of natural resources, labor, and government regulations, the invisible hand of the marketplace all too often finds foreign manufacturing sources better than domestic firms.

Of those three theories, the last one on comparative advantage has been the hardest for most liberal economists and politicians to accept. My friends on the left seem to think it is almost treasonous for corporations to produce their goods or provide their services from overseas if that is where the comparative advantage can be found rather than here at home and simply will not accept that businesses are only trying to provide such goods and services at prices that consumers are willing to pay.

Whenever I ask these globalization doubters should the American consumer be forced to buy goods and services made in America through high tariffs on imported goods and the resulting higher prices in stores, they never have an answer. Perhaps my good friend Gary will answer this question in his opposing column on this topic. They usually just say if American workers cannot earn decent wages, how can we expect them to buy higher priced American goods?

Certainly many other issues come into play when evaluating the benefits of sourcing from overseas and I am not deaf to the concerns of those who believe some countries are abusing their environments and workers to be able to produce goods and services less than we can do domestically. I think it is important that their safety laws and human rights are held to the same high standards that we expect of our American corporations operating plants here.

I also believe in the necessity of having level playing fields in which foreign governments do not intentionally subsidize their industries to the detriment of our American firms. Just remember though that for all of the talk of subsidized foreign steel, rubber, and textiles causing the rust belts in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and the Carolinas, our government subsidizes plenty of industries itself including energy and agriculture.

But I draw the line when it comes to national security. I find it completely inexcusable that any of our military armament, spy satellites, or boats and planes are built by foreign firms or with foreign components. Our government and taxpayers must pay the price to guarantee that such goods are produced under the total control of American providers and suppliers without giving blank checks to those providers to rip off the American taxpayer because of protection from foreign competition.

In an ideal world, American workers would earn high wages while producing goods and services which meet the price and quality expectations of American consumers without fear of international sources. But that is no longer a reality in this 24 hour high tech world with instant internet communications which quickly help American distributors and retailers find the least expensive sources for their goods anywhere in the world.

If American workers and corporations are to succeed in the decades to come, our children must be immersed in learning engineering, scientific research, finance, and communication technologies so that our country can continue to create and design goods and services for the world which are likely to be manufactured in foreign lands thanks to comparative advantages, economic order quantities, and multipliers.

BigBadGovernment - September 2011

2011-09-01T09:00:00.001-04:00

You wake up. Breathe some fresh air. Listen to the radio or TV over public airwaves. Eat a nutritious breakfast. Drive your fuel efficient car to drop off your kid at public school then onto I-75 to work. You take a lunch break at the nearby park then make a deposit at your local bank. You return to your office to hire a new employee at the business you started from scratch years ago. You later make a phone call to the local hospital to see how your elderly parent is doing and to make sure her Medicare insurance covers her care since her Social Security income is limited. Seeing an accident outside your office window, you call 911. Finally you head home to relax in your neighborhood pool and wave hello to a member of the military sitting nearby.

Image what that day would have been like if our federal, state, and local governments did not exist or operate in the manner to which we have become accustomed. And therein lies the challenge for our American democracy as we debate what is the proper size and scope of the taxes and user fees we are prepared to pay for the provision of services and regulations affecting our air, airwaves, food, cars, roadways, schools, parks, banks, businesses, telecommunications, hospitals, public safety, national security and even our pools. And certainly there are many, more examples than these!

The question facing our country now is can we afford to have our government so entangled in every aspect of our lives? Should it be dictating our health insurance coverage? Should it be telling our financial industries what they can charge for their services? Should it be charging us for our so-called carbon footprint and tell us what light bulbs to use? Should it employ so many of our citizens at the expense of other taxpayers? And should it borrow billions and trillions of dollars beyond its means to fund such efforts?

I have always admired the state motto of New Hampshire which is “Live Free or Die”. Our colonial predecessors came to this country to gain many freedoms from their European homelands. I cannot imagine any of them wanting or expecting their new country to have federal, state, and local governments telling them how to live their lives and taxing them to pay for the public welfare of so many others. Certainly the world has changed in the past 200 years and some of the services offered by government are now needed and wanted. But where does it stop?

My above examples did not include any references to welfare, unemployment compensation, credits for child care, earned income benefits and the like. In fact, there are SO many federal benefits that in 2002, Uncle Sam actually created a website to help you find out what benefits might be available to you. At the time of the site's launch in 2002, it featured 55 programs, representing the ten Federal bureaucracies. Today, the website now includes over 1,000 programs representing 17 Federal bureaucracies. See for yourself at www.Benefits.gov and click the Start Now button. Robin Hood could never have been as efficient although President Obama’s regime is doing its best to make even more citizens dependent on the government dole!

To me it is quite simple. When there are more citizens accepting government assistance than the number of taxpayers paying for such assistance, our country will be no different than the socialist governments throughout the world which are struggling to stay solvent. Unfortunately, we are very close to reaching that point so it is urgent for our elected officials to right our ship now before it starts to sink.

Thankfully we have a national election next year in which the American voter will have the power to determine the future direction of our country. Will we go down the insane path envisioned by President Obama or will we say STOP to his nonsense and elect a candidate who believes in reigning in out of control spending and borrowing and returning to common sense government? We have kicked the can too long through Republican and Democratic administrations. It is time to elect a candidate with the guts and charisma to get the job done.

Obama's Debt - August 2011

2011-08-01T09:00:00.000-04:00

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. Americans deserve better.”

So said Senator Barack Obama in 2006. Now as President, he thinks otherwise. In fact, Obama only a few months ago requested a “clean” increase with no spending cuts or tax increases attached to it. But political reality – and poll after poll detailing voters’ disdain for our nation’s growing debt – forced him to consider cutting spending on his dear government entitlements and investments.

To me the whole conversation of increasing the debt ceiling is insane. And insanity has been described as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Our country takes in enough from general tax receipts to keep paying our current debt holders. And enough in employment taxes to currently pay our Social Security recipients and to currently pay our Medicare bills.

But our federal government will never take in enough to fund its massive government structure which is like an octopus with tentacles in every aspect of our lives. A structure in which the average federal government salary now exceeds the average salary of everyday working Americans. And a structure in which some 40% of Americans get some kind of federal government benefit. So to keep funding its well-paid bureaucracy and benefits, Uncle Sam borrows BILLIONS of dollars EACH DAY to fund its operations.

And wait until Obamacare is fully implemented in 2014 with its dozens of new bureaucracies to manage its tens of thousands of new rules and regulations. Even the Congressional Budget Office now realizes Obamacare will add to our deficit spending rather than being self-sufficient through its new penalty fees and employer taxes.
Certainly our ongoing military campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya keep adding to our financial woes. I, for one, was very candid in a previous column that such efforts should be reimbursed to a large extent from the resources of those countries in which we are involved and our government’s failure to obtain such payback is unacceptable to me.

Most importantly, the ongoing debate on our country’s debt ceiling is really a philosophical battle about the purpose and structure of our government. Do we go the direction of the country of Greece which is nearly insolvent because it has finally borrowed more than it can pay back to fund its government social programs? Or do we follow the path of the majority of our states which require balanced budgets each year?

Obama is right about one thing. This deficit spending and ongoing borrowing is not a Democratic or Republican problem. It is an American problem. And we need to face up to it once and for all before we reach a precipice which could easily result in the end of the world’s greatest democracy.

In today’s economy, most families have had to downsize their spending to match the revenues of their businesses and salaries. So why should our federal government not have to do the same? President Obama and a majority of Democratic Congressmen and Senators seem to think that Uncle Sam is immune to such situations and they can just use our nation’s credit card and printing presses to keep the party going.

Much has been written that increasing taxes on the “rich” or closing corporate loopholes can help close the deficit gap. While I have no problem in eliminating special interest loopholes – including those used by Obama’s best friends at General Electric (NBC, MSNBC, Bravo, etc.), I know that raising taxes on the rich will be biting the hand that feeds the federal coffers and pays the salaries of countless working Americans. You need to encourage the wealthy individuals and corporations to keep doing what they are doing and not discourage them with punitive tax levels.

But even if Congress and the President have agreed on long-term spending cuts by the time you read this column, you can rest assured that unless our federal government’s spending is limited to a certain percentage of our nation’s gross domestic income except in times of national emergency, new spending will quickly make those cuts purely symbolic.

Political Scoundrels - July 2011

2011-07-01T09:00:00.000-04:00

Mankind is not perfect. But what defines a person is his or her ability to take responsibility for his or her actions and accept the ramifications.

Many such imperfections are against the law and result in appropriate punishments. But others involve issues which are considered immoral or unethical – but are not illegal - for which the individual’s ultimate response upon getting caught is based on his or her character.

There has been much discussion in the media and at water coolers about the actions of Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner. It is good that he made the decision to resign from office because regardless of whether his actions eventually are found to be illegal, his behavior was simply unbecoming for a Congressman who should be a role model for our country and its children.

Although this wiener was shriveled by his public humiliation, Congressman Weiner is not alone in bringing scandal to the Capitol. As far back as the founding of our country, our elected and appointed officials have had illegitimate children, been involved with prostitutes, misused public funds, accepted bribes, and been involved in other types of pay for play scandals.

Such improper and illegal behavior is not limited to Democrats although I do enjoy watching the media always trying to defend them or rationalize their actions. I often watch MSNBC in the very early morning hours and like to hear their mostly liberal panelists citing Democratic talking points and protecting their own. Thankfully Weiner’s situation evolved as it did so those supposed experts had to finally join the chorus in condemning him.

I do need to ask though why Democratic leaders rarely or are the last to call for their misbehaving members to resign while Republican leaders do so quickly although not always successful in their efforts. Former Palm Beach Republican Congressman Mark Foley quickly resigned when asked as did former New York Republican Congressman Christopher Lee.

However, former Republican Senator Larry Craig from Idaho ultimately refused to resign his seat after being found guilty of disorderly conduct for his sexual acts in the Minneapolis-St Paul airport but did not run for re-election. Louisiana Republican Senator David Vitter refused to resign after being listed as a long-time client of a prostitution ring. He ultimately was re-elected by his constituents to his current term. And Mark Sanford, the former Republican Governor of South Carolina refused to step down after admitting to an extramarital affair and then served out his term.

But I do not recall Democratic leaders aggressively calling for the resignation of current Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts who allowed his lover to run a male prostitution ring from his townhouse. Then there is New York Congressman Charlie Rangel who has still not been asked to resign for his myriad of income tax violations and misuse of public housing. And I do not recall any Democratic leaders calling for former President Bill Clinton to step down for his salacious affair with an intern or for lying to a grand jury.

To me, this whole issue of scandalous behavior is quite simple. Elected officials – be they from the City of Weston or the Towns of Davie or Southwest Ranches, or are our representatives on the School Board, County Commission, or in Tallahassee and Washington, DC – need to be held to a high standard of decency because they represent us and are looked upon by our children as role models.

Perhaps the number one cause for unacceptable behavior by our elected officials is because the power and fame of being a public figure inflates their ego and alters their perception of right and wrong. I have seen the subtle changes in a number of candidates for whom I have volunteered or contributed in years past. And, unfortunately, I have personally known a few who went over to the dark side and were jailed for wrong doings.

This is why I have always believed in term limits for any elected position. And why I have always respected those elected officials who come from successful business and professional careers over those who have made politics their life’s calling and have only a text book understanding of the real world. Only time will tell who our next scoundrel will be.

2012 Republican Candidates - June 2011

2011-06-01T06:25:00.000-04:00

Barrack Obama can be defeated in 2012. He has disappointed and demotivated his Democratic base by not governing as far left as he originally campaigned. He has alienated most independents by piling on trillions of dollars of debt. And his ongoing trashing of Republicans has certainly lit a fire in many of them who sat home in November 2008 rather than vote for John McCain.

Now the question is whether the Republicans will be able to field a Presidential candidate who can prove to the American voters that he or she is capable of bringing our country back to common sense federal governance as opposed to big government borrowing and spending which is a core Obama belief. And can he or she again put the United States in a world leadership role rather than being a passive follower as Obama has been.

In my mind, there is currently no clear choice for the Republican nomination for President in 2012 and I am not prepared to support any candidate just yet.

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s strong business background gives me confidence he would focus the federal government on necessities and let private industry get back to leading the economy. But Mitt’s track record on healthcare reform when he was Governor is not good. He legislated a mandatory participation program in Massachusetts similar to that enacted by President Obama which puts Mitt in an odd position when trying to challenge the flailing Obamacare program although Mitt has said he would shut it down if elected.

Former Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels looks great on paper but lacks charisma. And Mitch’s marital record will become an unnecessary distraction. However, he did a phenomenal job in Indiana ridding his state of a budget deficit and slashing its operating budget. I believe his record proves he can bring common sense fiscal policy to Washington, DC which Obama is unwilling to do. Perhaps America will be happy with a boring fiscal conservative in the White House rather than a boisterous, self-centered, constitutional law professor currently serving there.
Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty was also a successful governor who did well for his citizens during his two terms. While also not very charismatic, he is capable of giving great speeches and making points at debates. He was a popular governor of a very unique state with liberal and libertarian tendencies so Tim may be able to relate very well with Americans throughout the toss-up states needed to win a presidential election these days.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich now wants to be President but I discount his candidacy for a number of reasons. While he likes to tell you he is a brilliant man, he has no common sense given his past efforts working with Democrat Nancy Pelosi regarding their belief that climate change is the fault of mankind. And his recent comments about Republican plans to overhaul Medicare did not win him friends in the Republican grass roots.

The libertarian leaning Texas Congressman Ron Paul, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, and businessman Herman Cain all sound great in debates when they focus on economic issues but their hands off belief regarding many foreign policy and safety net issues give them little chance of being elected President even if they are Tea Party darlings and may do well in Republican primaries.

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin will most likely focus on earning big money with her speaking engagements, TV consultancies, and related businesses rather than risking such by running for President. She will follow the lead of former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and billionaire Donald J. Trump by taking advantage of their popularity to earn the big bucks while they can.

There are also dark horse potential candidates like Congresswoman Michelle Bachman of Minnesota who, although a bright tax lawyer by training, lets loose too many dumb sound bites. And former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum who believes his path to the presidency is with those of strong religious beliefs. Some are also hoping that current New Jersey Governor Chris Christie or current Texas Governor Rick Perry will step into the ring.

Many current polls show a generic Republican can beat Barrack Obama in November 2012. I just hope the Republican primary voters will choose a candidate who has the heft and experience to end this disastrous Obama presidency before our country is forever changed by his policies.

America's Role In Foreign Conflicts - May 2011

2011-05-01T06:23:00.000-04:00

In 1823, President James Monroe gave a speech about when he thought the United States should get involved in events happening outside of our country. His comments became the basis for the Monroe Doctrine which stated that the United States would regard any interference in Western hemispheric affairs as a threat to its security.

In later years, that doctrine and America’s belief in its manifest destiny was used by subsequent Presidents to counter Spanish, French, and British involvement in Mexico, the Caribbean islands, and even in parts of the undeveloped western lands of North America.

In 1905, President Teddy Roosevelt expanded the use of Monroe Doctrine with his “talk softly and carry a big stick” philosophy in which he threatened other powers with military action if they did not listen to his foreign policy wishes. He used that philosophy in dealing with issues affecting Venezuela, Panama, and Cuba.

And then came Word Wars I and II in which the United States joined other nations in a defensive manner to battle Germany and Japan’s efforts to expand across Europe and the Far East. As a result of those wars, our foreign policy efforts expanded greatly beyond protecting our nearby interests to offensively fighting on behalf of democracy throughout the world.

This new philosophy resulted in our involvement in Korea in the 1950’s; Vietnam in the 1960’s; Lebanon in the 1980’s; the first Gulf War, Somalia, and Yugoslavia in the 1990’s; the ongoing War on Terrorism since 2001 in Iraq and Afghanistan; and most recently into Libya.

With all of these military conflicts costing American lives and costing our taxpayers trillions of dollars, the question must be raised whether such efforts are worth it. And are we really battling for the spread of democracy or are we simply doing so to protect the free world’s access to needed minerals and food stuffs?

To me, such a discussion is a moral one because I believe that no man or woman should live in a place that does not have basic human freedoms to speak their mind, to choose whatever path in life they desire, and to worship their choice of religion. Our country has benefitted greatly by such beliefs and I believe it is our obligation to ensure such for others wherever they live in this world.

But I also believe that such efforts should be repaid to some degree from the fruits of freedom and democracy established or protected in such lands. Certainly our efforts during World Wars I and II ensured that commerce would continue with a free West Germany and France. And our country initially benefitted greatly from the reconstruction of Japan. The ultimate downfall of the Soviet Union from our cold war efforts also opened up new bilateral trade channels which have enriched America.

Please do not think I believe the United States should be an economic mercenary always looking for a return on its military investment because the loss of one soldier is greater than any economic gain. But I do not believe that other world powers or private corporations should benefit more than Uncle Sam from whatever economic gains do come from a victorious effort in spreading democracy and freedom to a needed part of the world until our military expenditures are repaid.

Our efforts in toppling the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq have not been repaid to our taxpayers with proceeds from those country’s main sources of income. And the recent conflict in Libya regarding the stability of Gaddafi is most likely to only benefit France which counts on Libyan oil for fueling its economy yet we are the ones spending billions on military efforts.

But why have we not gone after other despots throughout the world? Certainly freedom should be just as important to our fellow mankind in Sudan, Mynamar, Cuba, Syria, Iran, North Korea, and several former Soviet states.

The bottom line, unfortunately, is the bottom line. We cannot afford to be the police for the entire world unless our economic interests or national defense are at stake. And sometimes even when national interests are at stake such as Iran or North Korea, we have to avoid possible bigger conflicts with the likes of China and Russia.

And therein lies the importance of electing a President who has the gumption and persuasiveness to rally the world to support our efforts. Unfortunately, I do not believe President Obama is the right man for that job. Let’s hope the American people choose wiser in 2012.

Economic Choices - April 2011

2011-04-01T12:59:00.001-04:00

The United States was built on a strong entrepreneurial foundation of risk taking and freedom to pursue one’s dreams and interests.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s belief in the strong role of a centralized federal government to regulate all aspects of our lives is presenting serious challenges to that foundation for success.

The latest assault on our lives is from retiring US Senator Christopher Dodd’s effort to turn our financial sector into an industry in which the government sets the rules for what products can be offered, how they can be sold, determines how financial industry employees can be paid, and limits hedging efforts by firms to balance their investment risks.

Don’t get me wrong. I find the Wild West nature of today’s financial industry and the current framework in which those firms operate to be unhealthy for the well being of our country. The 2008 collapse of many leading financial firms and the hundreds of billions of tax payer money needed to keep the financial system liquid and operating should never have happened.

Part of the problem goes back to 1999 when President Bill Clinton signed into law the Financial Services Modernization Act which repealed part of the Glass-Stegall Act of 1933 which had kept investment firm and insurance company businesses separate from commercial bank operations. In essence, our checking and savings account monies were not to be put at risk by possible losses by a firm’s investment operations.
Clinton’s former Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, who came to the Clinton administration from Goldman Sachs, lobbied hard for the law’s passage since he was angling to be the head of Citigroup which wanted to own all types of financial firms under one roof.

And with the stroke of Clinton’s pen, our savings and checking accounts were again at risk of being wiped out by failure of a financial conglomerate’s non-banking operation. But, of course, those financial conglomerates knew that the FDIC would come to the rescue of the traditional account depositors. I am sure those financial conglomerates never dreamed the government would completely bail them out of all of their losses, or coordinate their sales to other firms, which partly came true for many in 2008 after their wrong bets on risky mortgages. Or that the government would end up buying and rescuing AIG which had insured many of those risky mortgage products sold by those financial conglomerates.

Today’s financial reform proposals focus on making sure investors are fully aware of the risky derivatives market such as those mortgage backed securities and collateralized debt obligations. And by making sure the agencies which rate those investments do not have any conflicts of interest by profiting from other products offered by the financial conglomerates who offer those investments. And by possibly setting up a multi-billion dollar government fund which would be ready to rescue those firms during future collapses.

I believe failure is good for a capitalist society whether it is for an individual investor who did not do their due diligence or whether it is from a large investment house which bet its money on the wrong side of the market. I am not in favor of the current reform proposals which would also put the federal government in charge of reviewing even the smallest financial transactions such as those created to fund small businesses including funding mechanisms from so-called angel investors.

Instead, I would favor a new Glass-Stegall type law which would again separate investment firm operations from the traditional banking operations which typically fund our mortgages, small business loans, and other working capital needs. If an investment house – and its clients – make bad market bets, let them fail but do not let their fall take down banking subsidiaries which will require FDIC rescue.

And I would also take a look at reforming the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 signed by President Carter which “encouraged” banks to make loans to questionable borrowers in low-to-middle income neighborhoods. Those types of loans are partly to blame for the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which are two quasi-governmental entities created by President Roosevelt to buy loans from banks so the banks would have more money to loan to others. When the housing market crashed during the 2008 financial meltdown, it was those questionable loans which provided fuel to that fire.

Scott's Budget - March 2011

2011-03-01T06:15:00.000-05:00

Hooray for Governor Scott. While I may not agree with some components of his proposed FY 2011-12 state budget, it is great to see him taking his role seriously in proposing a budget which could cut nearly $ 5 billion from the spending levels approved by former Governor Charlie Crist who was more concerned with his Senate race than in responsibly leading our state.

Of course Governor Scott’s budget is just a proposal and the Florida House and Senate will ultimately write the budget. But the Governor has shown his intent to be a hard bargainer in ensuring fiscal sanity is brought back to our state spending levels during these hard economic times in which Floridians from all walks of life are struggling to balance their own household budgets.

These budget negotiations will also serve as the first major testing ground between Governor Scott’s outsider beliefs and those of the entrenched State Representatives and Senators who have worked their way through the legislative system and can sometimes be the protectors of the status quo. Hopefully the legislators will heed the calls from Florida citizens who need the state to justify every penny of its expenses rather than being allowed to simply budget this year based on last year’s expenditures.

I had the opportunity to listen to a talk by Florida Senate President Mike Haridopolos who said he agreed in principle with the Governor’s ideas to change the state worker pension plan so it operates like that of every other state in our country and most businesses. I am hopeful that Speaker of the House Dean Cannon will agree. Currently our state workers make NO contribution to their retirement plans as it is funded 100% by our taxes. And it bases some of the retirement benefit calculations on the last years of salary earned rather than average career earnings credits which has resulted in many infamous cases in which state workers have gotten large raises nearest their retirement age to game the ultimate benefit payments.
The biggest pension challenge will be changing the plan from “defined benefits” which are guaranteed to “defined contributions” in which the state worker needs to guide their own dollars just as private employees do with their 401K and IRA plans. State workers who are closest to retirement should be protected from such changes but those just starting out their career or who have more than 20 years until retirement should be shifted immediately into the more sensible defined contribution plan.

Among the other controversial budget proposals by the Governor are to move Medicaid recipients from fee-for-service plans to managed-care plans , to add accountable performance goals for public education spending in relation to high school graduation levels, and to fold specific “trust” funds into the general operating budget. I am not comfortable with the last idea but I am a big believer in the first two proposals.

The Governor’s public school education budget which cuts about $ 1.7 billion from last year’s spending levels will certainly be the biggest battleground. Most of that amount was funded last year by President Obama’s controversial $800 billion in borrowed stimulus spending and Governor Scott believes that lawmakers should not have accepted or spent that money in the first place and feels no obligation to replace it with fresh state tax dollars.

Governor Scott is also living up to his campaign pledge to take control of economic development in the state by giving his office control of $ 300 million to be used to for incentives to lure new employers to the state rather than allowing several state agencies to continue doing so in their own ways. Similarly, the Governor wants to abolish the state’s growth management agencies to make it easier for major real estate projects which is an idea I cannot support given how developers of The Commons megamall in Davie had little trouble getting approvals from our local politicians but could not overcome sound concerns from those state agencies.
Lastly, Governor Scott is proposing a $ 459 million corporate income tax cut which he believes will provide those corporations with the dollars to grow their businesses and their employment levels. If the Governor can ensure those monies would be spent as such and not simply distributed to shareholders, then I applaud him in doing so.

Heated Political Rhetoric - February 2011

2011-02-01T06:27:00.001-05:00

On July 11, 1804, a former Vice-President of the United States Aaron Burr killed the country’s former Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton by gunshot as a result of a political duel. While our political rhetoric has certainly calmed down since then, many on the left are trying to use the tragic shooting of Congresswoman Gifford in Tucson, Arizona, as a springboard to quash political debate.

Our local Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz – who personally witnessed the miracle of modern medicine and life when visiting Ms. Gifford as she opened her eyes for the first time since the shooting – is among those who quickly ran to the cameras to plead for a calmer America. I was disappointed shortly thereafter when Debbie then tried to tie that tragic shooting to the immigration debate by saying her daughter was fearful for her mom’s life if Florida passes an Arizona-style immigration law.

Such highly emotional rhetoric has been frequently used by leading Democrats including President Obama who during his last campaign said “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”. He also called those Americans who opposed him “enemies”. Former Orlando Congressman Alan Grayson actually said on the House floor that the Republican solution to the healthcare crisis was “Just don’t get sick and if you get sick, die quickly.”

And who can forget Ms. Wasserman-Shultz leading a protest march last November outside of the campaign offices of then Republican candidate Allen West who was battling former Congressman Ron Klein. She called West “crazy” and stated with certainty that he believes in “denigrating women” just because an article he had submitted to numerous publications was run in a biker magazine.

It was so predictable that the Democrats and their liberal media friends would try to take advantage of the tragic Arizona mass murders to rally the country back to their side after they were shellacked in the recent November 2010 mid-term elections in which the American voters put the U.S. House of Representatives back in control of the Republicans and when those voters threw out nearly 700 Democrats in state legislatures throughout the country.

Although the New York Times, CNN, and a number of liberal blogs tried to immediately tie the Tucson shooting to Sarah Palin as well as Republican and Tea Party campaign rhetoric, it currently appears that the shooter was actually a left-wing lunatic who hated former President Bush, included the Communist Manifesto and Animal Farm amongst his favorite reading materials, and had been targeting Congresswoman Gifford since 2007 when he did not like her answer to a question he asked her. Did you know Sarah in 2007? And the Tea Parties did not even exist then!

Thankfully the American public has already discounted this Democratic political opportunism which not only attacked Republican rhetoric but also Arizona’s gun laws which are a matter up to that state’s voters. I only hope that the Democratic sheriff in Tucson who blamed political rhetoric without one ounce of proof has not given Jared Lee Loughner’s attorney an angle for his defense when the Sheriff should have simply done his job and taken Loughner off the street when concerning evidence about his life was becoming known throughout the local law enforcement community.
The reality is that the internet, cable television, and instant messaging are giving ordinary Americans more of an opportunity to participate in discussions about their country and their government than ever before.
It is not time - as some Democrats are proposing - to use the Federal Communications Commission to set new public guidelines for supposed proper use of those communication vehicles. And there is no reason to bring back the unfair Fairness Doctrine which used to dictate to the then handful of media outlets how each was to showcase all sides of a political issue.

Instead, the solution starts with the politicians and their campaign operatives who set the bar for public debate by focusing on the facts and not emotional symbolism and heated rhetoric. Hopefully President Obama will remember his own words at the Arizona memorial service for those killed and critically wounded. And hopefully our Congresswoman Wasserman-Schultz will do the same.

2010 Look Back And What's Next - January 2011

2011-01-01T12:57:00.001-05:00

Should I ever choose to become a paid political consultant or a regular contributor on a political talk show, it appears my thoughts and recommendations will be worth their weight in gold if you base such on my 2010 predictions made last January in this column.

I predicted the American public would reject Obama’s big government plans and they did so this past November in a big way! I predicted that the Republicans would not win enough seats to gain complete control of Congress and unfortunately they fell a little short in the Senate but did win in a landslide in the House of Representatives and also took control of a vast majority of State Legislatures and Governorships across our great country.

I predicted that Republican firebrand Alan West would defeat Democratic Congressman Ron Klein in eastern Broward County and he did. Unfortunately my prediction that Debbie Wasserman Schultz would be returned to Congress also came true but thankfully her extreme liberalism will now only be part of a tiny minority in the next Congress. But there still is 2012 to put her on the same unemployment line that her mentor Nancy Pelosi says is a great stimulator for our economy.

On the economic front, I predicted slow growth in 2011 but I am not happy to report that I was correct since Obamanomics has affected my business and that of thousands of similar firms in our area and too many of our neighbors who are out of work and soon to be out of their houses. Thankfully, the American public and Congress did not pass Obama’s Cap & Tax plan for our energy industry as I predicted and thankfully I was correct that Climate Change would not cause the East Coast to sink into the Atlantic Ocean!

I also predicted that Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum would not win the Republican primary for Governor because he lacked charisma and was a long time career politician. Rick Scott beat him in a tight primary election and thankfully went on to win the general election where he will start implementing his “get to work” plan to help Florida recover from 4 terrible years under Charlie Crist.
As to the year 2011, I believe the American economy will start to kick into higher gear if the newly elected Republicans in Washington, Tallahassee, and elsewhere across our fruited plains stick to their guns about ensuring that our national, state, and local governments become more efficient and stay within their means.

I must admit that one of my predictions of just a few months ago is already looking wrong that Obama would not pivot to the center for the next two years in order to try and win a second term in the White House. His recent compromise with Republicans to extend the current tax rates enacted under George W. Bush and to offer additional tax breaks to businesses is a move to the middle although I did not support the reduction in the employee FICA payroll tax which is needed to keep Social Security solvent for the future nor did I support the new estate tax rates since I do not believe in any type of death tax.

In the coming year I predict that the Obama regime will still try to implement many of its leftist ideals by implementing new rules and regulations within the agencies under Executive Branch control. There is already talk about the Federal Trade Commission imposing net neutrality rules on the internet to please Google’s CEO and that the Environmental Protection Agency will drastically change the rules regarding carbon which will result in higher oil and gas prices for all Americans in order to make General Motor’s new electric Volt Car and General Electric’s wind turbines and solar panels seem more cost effective. I am sure you will remember that Google and GE have been big supporters of Obama and that Obama and his union buddies still control General Motors.

Lastly, I predict that Republican presidential hopefuls for 2012 will be all over Florida during the coming year. I do believe that none of the known names such as Romney, Palin, Huckabee, or Gingrich will ultimately be the Republican nominee to run against Obama. In the months to come, I will tell you the names of others on which to keep your eyes focused.

2010 Mid Term Elation! - December 2010

2010-12-01T12:55:00.000-05:00

The 2010 midterm elections were a historic victory for those of us who wanted to hit the brakes on the Obama leftist agenda. From federal elections to local contests throughout our country, Republican candidates touting conservative policy positions were elected nationwide.

Not only did the Republicans pick up seats in the United States House of Representatives and Senate, but Republican candidates gained 7 governorships and more than 500 state legislature seats. Several states have turned Republican for the first time in decades.

Regardless of whether such national and state victories were protest votes against Obama or were votes from citizens who wanted a conservative governing philosophy, the reality is that Republicans now control the United States House of Representatives and with the likelihood of many vulnerable Senate Democrats voting with its 46 Republicans, President Obama’s dream of a European style socialist government are finished.

The big question is whether Obama will go down fighting or accept the results of the election and work with Republicans to govern from the middle as President Clinton successfully did to be elected to a second term. Having watched Obama’s press conference and his media interviews thereafter, I think he will go down fighting since he does not believe his ideals were rejected. Instead, he thinks it was his failure to effectively communicate his achievements. He will fight because his ego requires that he be remembered for changing America regardless if such change was not wanted. And his fight will take place in executive orders and policies rather than legislation.

Outgoing Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi also believes she and her ideals were not the reason for the historic Democratic defeat. She continues to believe that passing ObamaCare, Financial Reform, and a massive stimulus plan against the will of a majority of Americans had to be done and she is quite proud at doing so. Ditto for Senate President Harry Reid who kept his seat despite the high unemployment and depressed economy of his Nevada homeland thanks to twisting lots of arms and providing free lunches to voters.

I look forward to seeing Pelosi’s protégé, local Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, back in a minority role although her commendable political skills will unfortunately keep her relevant in Washington. Perhaps we will again see her on CSPAN in the middle of the night lecturing an empty House chamber about the culture of corruption in Washington. Unfortunately her cohort in those laughable moments, Kendrick Meeks, will not be able to join her as his bid for a US Senate Seat failed to even win most Democratic voters.

Also here in Florida, Republicans now have veto proof control of both the State House and Senate meaning that the Democrats will not be able to slow down a conservative agenda with their fairness arguments. It will be interesting to see how Governor-elect Scott works with the leaders in both chambers. Hopefully they will join him in putting the state back to work rather than following the lead of lobbyists who helped finance their legislative election machines. As we all know, Governor-elect Scott virtually financed his own election and has no obligations to anyone other than the voters who elected him.

While Governor-elect Scott was not a perfect candidate given his inexcusable style of delegating at Columbia-HCA, I believe his intent for our state is commendable. The last four years of virtually nothing being done for Florida by Governor Crist was predicted by me before he was elected in 2006. You may recall I backed his Republican challenger at the time. Crist’s cowardly defection from the Republican Party to run as an Independent against Senator-elect Marco Rubio was also not a surprise to me but I was shocked at the continued support for Crist by many prominent Broward County Republicans.

Personally, I feel great about the 2010 election results and am proud to have backed the winning candidates for Governor and US Senator early during the primary and general elections. I am also proud for America to have put conservative Republicans back in control of so many important states which will yield positive results for those states and for our country today and into the next election season in 2012.

Be Thankful For Obama - Novembr 2010

2010-11-01T09:00:00.000-04:00

As we ready ourselves and our families for the upcoming Thanksgiving Holiday, it is important to sit back, enjoy a glass of wine, and starting thinking of all of the things for which we should be thankful during the past year.

For my friends on the left, I am sure you are thankful for the great job President Obama is doing with the nation’s economy, the healthcare of our citizens, and with fostering a joyous atmosphere in which all of our citizens just get along.

No doubt you are ecstatic about the millions of government jobs saved or created by Obama’s trillion dollar stimulus efforts - including the tax dollars and borrowed money spent on those shovel-ready union jobs. And I am sure you are thrilled that federal government salaries now exceed average pay of private industry employees – that is for those private industry employees not among the 10% who are currently unemployed as the business community continues to hold tight with its resources until the Obama administration finishes writing the thousands of new regulations which affect them.

And despite the overwhelming numbers of American citizens against ObamaCare, I am sure my lefty friends are still quite content in his federal government takeover of the healthcare industry. Even as you read reports on a daily basis of private companies getting exemptions from ObamaCare regulations or other companies having to raise employee insurance contribution levels, there is no doubt of your joy knowing that the private healthcare market will simply become a public utility in which all aspects are controlled by the government.

As for the great and peaceful relations between the rich and poor, black and white, gay and straight, and Christians and Muslims (let alone the Jews and Muslims) which Obama our Savior was supposed to bring to America, I am sure you lefties smile all day knowing that Barack is a rich straight black Christian who was raised in near poverty as the son of a Muslim. He is certainly our first post-racial President even if most segments of American society have not joined him in his Nobel prize winning efforts for world peace.

For those of us on the political right, we have our own thankfulness for still being able to live in a country secured by the Bush Homeland Security policies most of which Obama has enhanced to increase their effectiveness despite screams from the ACLU, George Soros, and the left wingers in the media and academia. And we are thankful for Obama allowing Bush’s surge in Iraq to succeed before pulling back troop levels when his military brass said it was safe to do so.

We righties also continue to be thankful for being able to benefit from the Bush tax cuts which Obama is trying to rename as his own even as he threatens to eliminate those lower tax rates for small business owners and others who are financially successful. Hopefully we will continue to be thankful this time next year for Obama also maintaining Bush’s low capital gains rates on our investments.

And most importantly for us right wingers, it is very easy to be thankful that the silent majority of American voters are actually waking up to the realities of what is happening to our country. And preparing to vote in all upcoming elections, to start holding our elected officials accountable, and to work together to ensure that our country returns to the basic forms of government which our founders desired. As I write this column, the November mid-term elections have not occurred but I am very hopeful that the predicted anti-Democrat wave will wash away enough big government liberals that common sense will soon return to Washington.

I am sure that your upcoming Thanksgiving Dinner will be a great opportunity to discuss how thankful we all should be to live in a democracy in which each of us can voice our opinions about how our country should be run without fear of arrest or intimidation unlike the daily threats to democracy throughout the world. And hopefully you will end that night by opening up your wallet and spending big on Black Friday so that our economy can start humming again.

Crime Pays - October 2010

2010-10-01T07:34:00.000-04:00

There is a fine line between a civilized society and pure anarchy. The only thing that keeps that line functional is the rule of law.

Fortunately America’s founding fathers produced an exceptionally brilliant constitution; and we have relatively sane legislative branches in our federal, state, and local governments; and we have a judicial system second to none other in the world. So our country’s rule of law is able to fend off anarchy on a daily basis.

Unfortunately those laws are put to the test too often by our citizens and, as a result, our country has among the highest rates of incarceration worldwide. Those on the left tend to think we have too many strict laws while those on the right typically say our enforcement of those laws is too weak.

I say the reason for our country’s high rate of incarcerations is because of educational and moral failures and because of an economy in which crime pays in too many ways.

First to the education issue. In some states including Florida more than 40% of high school kids drop out and do not seek higher education or technical school training. Statistics have historically shown that lower levels of academic achievement usually relate to lower levels of employment opportunities and income.

Since everyone needs money to pay for food, rent, recreation, healthcare, and luxuries, sometimes economic crimes become the only way to generate the money to pay for those items whether it is from selling drugs; stealing and fencing goods; participating in healthcare and insurance frauds; passing bad checks; or profiting from ID theft.

I also mentioned moral failures as a cause of our nation’s high incarceration rate. If one leads a life which follows the teachings of the Ten Commandments as they are interpreted by many different religious faiths, then he or she will live a life free of crime. Thou Shall Not Steal Or Murder could not be any clearer.

In today’s world, however, where our children are sooner to idolize the sleazy lifestyles portrayed on MTV’s Jersey Shore or stake their futures on following in the footsteps of professional athletes and entertainers, it is no wonder that the Ten Commandments are no longer the compass to life for a growing portion of our society.

Of course there are many cases of supposedly deeply religious and moral people committing both economic and physically injurious crimes but I would argue that they should not be labeled as being deeply religious or they would not have failed to follow the teachings of their church, synagogue, temple, or mosque.

I also believe that one of the biggest reasons for our high levels of incarceration is because crime pays – and I am not talking about the economic benefits for the criminals. The criminal apprehension process, prosecution efforts, and incarceration industries are amongst the largest sectors of employment in our country. Thus, there are millions of Americans gainfully employed who may have an economic incentive to keep the judicial process going.

Imagine what would happen to our economy if there was no need for Congress, State Legislatures, or local Municipal Councils and Commissions to continually write and change our laws? How many lobbyists and related professionals would be out of work?

And suppose there were fewer crimes committed? What would happen to the hundreds of thousands of government prosecutors and defense lawyers and their staffs without clients to represent? How many fewer judges would be needed? How many police?

There would also be no need for most of our jails so tens of thousands of wardens and their staff members would be unemployed. Along with the construction, foodservice, and related industries that provide needed services to those governmental and for-profit jails.

Do I think there are many dumb laws on the books and that the penal code is irrational with sentences for some offenses too long and others too lenient? Yes! But I do not have the expertise – and thankfully personal experience – to comment on any of them. I will let the heretofore mentioned gainfully employed professionals and clergy argue those points. And I will count on the school system to better educate our children so fewer see the need for breaking the laws.

Immigration Battles - September 2010

2010-09-01T08:00:00.001-04:00

There is perhaps no more difficult subject to discuss as a citizen of the United States than how to determine and control the immigration policy of this country. From its earliest explorers by land and sea to the explosion of migration during the industrial revolution, America has grown thanks to the contribution of individuals from all over the world who have chosen our country as their new homeland.

Politics, bigotry, religious intolerance, and economic competition have and always will play a part in how we Americans accept our new citizens. From Benjamin Franklin who was hesitant to allow the Hessians into colonial America, to fear of Irish Catholic immigration in the mid-1800’s, to the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 aimed at limiting southern and eastern European migration, there have been ongoing governmental efforts to control legal immigration.

Of course, I cannot discuss immigration without mentioning the tens of thousands of individuals brought to this country by slave traders which is a part of our country’s history which was regrettable even if such efforts were common worldwide at that time. Thankfully, our country is now at the forefront of providing equality to all of its citizens.

I am proud to be a descendent of my late maternal grandfather who was born in this country in the late 1800’s and was awarded a Purple Heart during World War I. And I am proud to be a descendent of my late paternal grandparents both of whom came to America because of religious persecution in Eastern Europe in the early 1900’s and who worked hard to become a part of this country by learning English, learning this country’s customs, and toiling in the garment industry of Baltimore to be able to afford a decent way of life for themselves and their three children.

Our country has also been a liberal recipient of war and economic refugees from around the world except during World War II when Japanese immigrants were kept in internment camps and European Jews were regularly refused entry including by the Roosevelt administration in 1939 to allow 800 passengers of the MS St Louis cruise ship to debark in Miami. Forty year later President Carter allowed more than 125,000 Cubans to come through those same Miami waterways in a controversial decision which changed South Florida in many ways.

Flash forward to today and our citizens are again in an uproar about migration to the United States. But this time the issue is about those entering our country illegally or staying intentionally beyond their visa expiration date. The State of Arizona even passed a law empowering its state and local police to get involved in immigration matters which are typically the sole responsibility of the federal government. That law is now being challenged in federal courts and I, quite frankly, hope that the law is upheld because of the failure of the Obama administration to meet its national responsibilities in securing our international borders be they in Arizona or in Florida.

Instead it is the goal of the Obama administration to give a path to citizenship to the estimated 20 million illegal immigrants, mostly of Hispanic heritage, currently in our country since he believes they will eventually register as Democrats and give that party a notable edge in elections thereafter. Even Harry Reid, the leader of the US Senate has said he can think of no reason why any person of Hispanic heritage would not be a Democrat. In 1986 President Ronald Reagan signed a law giving amnesty to illegals and all it did was encourage tens of millions more to enter the United States expecting amnesty would be offered again.

Our country survives because of the rule of law. Therefore, I cannot support any efforts by our federal government to allow and encourage illegal entry into the United States. I believe that employers should be heavily fined for hiring illegals and that social services should be denied to illegals except in life threatening emergencies. If we eliminate this cheap source of labor and the associated government giveaways of social and health services, there will be no incentive for illegals to stay nor for others to come to our country illegally. We cannot expect a wall to solve this problem.

Economic Woes - August 2010

2010-08-01T08:12:00.002-04:00

In 1980 Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter by talking about the “misery index” which highlighted Carter’s failed economic plans. In 1988 Bill Clinton defeated George H.W. Bush by focusing on the message “it’s the economy stupid!”

This coming November the Republicans should easily gain seats in the US Senate and US House of Representatives by simply asking “how’s that change working out for your wallet?”

The American public has come to realize that the Obama economic plan has not worked but, worse, has put our country in a grave financial condition for the years ahead. President Obama has amassed two trillion dollars in debt for our country in less than two years since he took office.

And that debt total does not include the complete – and still unknown - implementation cost of ObamaCare which the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has recently acknowledged will be at least one trillion dollars over ten years.

Obama’s so-called Summer of Recovery celebration is turning into a public relations nightmare for his administration as it continues to tell the American public it created or saved 3 million jobs while at the same time trying to dodge the fact that more than millions of jobs have been lost since the beginning of 2009 when he took office.

Many pundits are very concerned about next year when the Bush tax cuts implemented in 2001 and 2003 will automatically expire if Obama does not agree to extend some or all of them. It is being reported that many businesses are working hard to front load next year’s sales into this year to avoid the higher taxes so if you believe the stock market is based on an earnings multiplier, you should be very worried about next year when earnings could be notably lower.

So what should Obama do to get the private industry economy booming again as opposed to focusing on just growing government jobs? Of course, he could follow the wisdom of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who said that unemployment benefits are among the best ways to create jobs, and shoot for a 15% national unemployment rate.

Unfortunately, there is no easy answer for Obama. Much of the private economy is dependent on financing but such will be become tighter and more expensive thanks to the recently passed Dodd-Frank Financial Overhaul Bill. And the still unknown implementation details of ObamaCare are continuing to cause pauses in hiring efforts as business simply do not know how much to budget for healthcare anymore.

In past columns, I had predicted that normal 7 year business cycles would eventually turn positive as built-up consumer and business demand for goods and services kick started the economy. While we are seeing some signs of that in the technology industry, most other industry segments continue to be flat. There is just too much uncertainty because of so many regulatory changes and fees being created by Obama at the same time.

Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve Chairman, recently said he is so concerned about the national debt and budget deficit that it would be unwise for Congress to consider extending the Bush tax cuts. His predecessor, Paul Volcker, has stated that a national sales tax being pushed by leading Democrats may be needed to generate sufficient revenue to cover the crushing government debt being added by Obama.

Wow! For those of us who believe that lower taxes provide the necessary capitalistic incentive to produce and profit, we may not have an opportunity to again prove that strategy unless the Republicans take back control of Congress this coming November and Obama joins that job creating unemployment line in 2012.

President Obama has always admired European society and even visited several European countries in 2008 during his American presidential campaign to bask in their supposed love for him. What is so ironic now is that Obama is trying to remake our country’s economy like European socialism while most European countries are reshaping their economies to be more like ours used to be.

Hopefully American voters will show up at the polls this November and get rid of all of the big government Democrats and Republicans in Washington and put an end to this craziness.

Middle East Peace? - July 2010

2010-07-01T20:07:00.001-04:00

News spread like a wildfire throughout internet blogs last month that the Egyptian Foreign Minister supposedly said on the Egyptian TV show Round Table that President Obama personally told him earlier this year that he – Obama – was brought up as a Muslim, still had many Muslim family members, and that he would begin to change American foreign policy towards the Middle East to address Muslim concerns.

While I find it hard to believe that President Obama would have made such a comment in private to the Egyptian Foreign Minister, there is no doubt that Obama is in the process of changing American foreign policy towards Israel and towards the entire Middle East. And not for the better in my opinion.

Let’s not forget that Obama has been on the wrong side of most important foreign policy decisions since he took office. He looked the other way when ordinary Iranian citizens tried to rise up to challenge Ahmadinejad; he supported Zelaya the Honduran ex-President who was removed from office by his own government; and he wrote personal notes to North Korea’s Kim and Venezuela’s Chavez telling them that America had not been a fair partner in trying to overcome policy differences. And then there was the missile defense capitulation to Russia’s Medvedev and his ongoing all talk, no action, stance on Iranian nuclear ambitions.

Maybe President Obama thinks if America resets its Middle East foreign policy to better support the Muslim world’s preference to minimize or eliminate the State of Israel, that the Muslim world will like him - I mean our country - better. And perhaps he thinks that the Jihadists will stop their centuries old battle against non-Islamic religions. How naïve!

The Israeli government has made its fair share of mistakes in its recent actions. Letting word leak out about the status of a long-planned 1,600 East Jerusalem unit housing development while Vice-President Biden was meeting with Israeli officials, and its recent failed boarding of a ship trying to challenge the Gaza blockade, could have been handled better. But the need for the United States to solidly back its most reliable ally in the Middle East should not change.

Unfortunately Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have left no doubt about their beliefs that it is the fault of the Israelis that the Middle East peace process is again at a standstill. Perhaps each of them has forgotten that Israel was prepared to make major concessions as part of the Oslo Declaration brokered by Hillary’s husband in 1994. But Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, ultimately rejected most of the agreement because of political pressure at home.

And today, the terrorist group Hamas is in control of the Palestinian territories with little interest in making peace with Israel. And it continues to launch missiles and suicide bombers into Israel from Gaza which is why the Israelis launched its maritime blockade to prevent additional explosives and questionable supplies from reaching Hamas.

Yet President Obama believes that pressuring Israel to accept peace demands from Hamas will put an end to the ultimate goal of Hamas and its Iranian sponsors to destroy Israel. But what else can we expect from an individual who was tutored by Reverend Wright for nearly 20 years about the evils of Israel and America. Or whose Presidential candidacy was strongly supported by billionaire George Soros who actually blames Israel for anti-Semitism.

While the Republican Jewish Coalition and many leading conservative organizations have been quick to condemn Obama for his Middle East policies, there has only been a weak response from prominent Jewish Democrats such as our own Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz who usually runs to the national TV cameras to publicize her thoughts on just about any other subject. And the liberal media continues to focus on the fate of the Palestinians rather than on the security of the citizens of Israel.

Thankfully a recent Gallup poll detailed that more than 60% of Americans say their sympathies are with the Israeli people in ongoing Middle East conflict while only 19%agree that the Palestinian position is correct.

Perhaps our President will join the majority and focus his efforts on eliminating the security threats to Israel and the peace living world.

Financial Reform - June 2010

2010-06-01T10:02:00.003-04:00

The United States was built on a strong entrepreneurial foundation of risk taking and freedom to pursue one’s dreams and interests.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s belief in the strong role of a centralized federal government to regulate all aspects of our lives is presenting serious challenges to that foundation for success.

The latest assault on our lives is from retiring US Senator Christopher Dodd’s effort to turn our financial sector into an industry in which the government sets the rules for what products can be offered, how they can be sold, determines how financial industry employees can be paid, and limits hedging efforts by firms to balance their investment risks.

Don’t get me wrong. I find the Wild West nature of today’s financial industry and the current framework in which those firms operate to be unhealthy for the well being of our country. The 2008 collapse of many leading financial firms and the hundreds of billions of tax payer money needed to keep the financial system liquid and operating should never have happened.

Part of the problem goes back to 1999 when President Bill Clinton signed into law the Financial Services Modernization Act which repealed part of the Glass-Stegall Act of 1933 which had kept investment firm and insurance company businesses separate from commercial bank operations. In essence, our checking and savings account monies were not to be put at risk by possible losses by a firm’s investment operations.

Clinton’s former Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, who came to the Clinton administration from Goldman Sachs, lobbied hard for the law’s passage since he was angling to be the head of Citigroup which wanted to own all types of financial firms under one roof.

And with the stroke of Clinton’s pen, our savings and checking accounts were again at risk of being wiped out by failure of a financial conglomerate’s non-banking operation. But, of course, those financial conglomerates knew that the FDIC would come to the rescue of the traditional account depositors. I am sure those financial conglomerates never dreamed the government would completely bail them out of all of their losses, or coordinate their sales to other firms, which partly came true for many in 2008 after their wrong bets on risky mortgages. Or that the government would end up buying and rescuing AIG which had insured many of those risky mortgage products sold by those financial conglomerates.

Today’s financial reform proposals focus on making sure investors are fully aware of the risky derivatives market such as those mortgage backed securities and collateralized debt obligations. And by making sure the agencies which rate those investments do not have any conflicts of interest by profiting from other products offered by the financial conglomerates who offer those investments. And by possibly setting up a multi-billion dollar government fund which would be ready to rescue those firms during future collapses.

I believe failure is good for a capitalist society whether it is for an individual investor who did not do their due diligence or whether it is from a large investment house which bet its money on the wrong side of the market. I am not in favor of the current reform proposals which would also put the federal government in charge of reviewing even the smallest financial transactions such as those created to fund small businesses including funding mechanisms from so-called angel investors.

Instead, I would favor a new Glass-Stegall type law which would again separate investment firm operations from the traditional banking operations which typically fund our mortgages, small business loans, and other working capital needs. If an investment house – and its clients – make bad market bets, let them fail but do not let their fall take down banking subsidiaries which will require FDIC rescue.

And I would also take a look at reforming the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 signed by President Carter which “encouraged” banks to make loans to questionable borrowers in low-to-middle income neighborhoods. Those types of loans are partly to blame for the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which are two quasi-governmental entities created by President Roosevelt to buy loans from banks so the banks would have more money to loan to others. When the housing market crashed during the 2008 financial meltdown, it was those questionable loans which provided fuel to that fire.

Political Party Irrelevance? - April 2010

2010-04-01T09:58:00.000-04:00

I was born in Washington, D.C. not too far from the center of the political power of our country. Perhaps that is why I have always been fascinated by politics and politicians. And perhaps why I spent several years as a legislator in the Student Government at the University of Maryland and why I ultimately ran for the Florida Senate some years ago.

In the past few years, however, my positive feelings about the world of politics and political parties has been tainted by well publicized influence peddling and corruption on the local, state, and national levels from both Democrats and Republicans. It has become apparent to me that the needs of the voters have finally become a distant second to those of the campaign contributors, lobbyists, and political power structure.

Political parties have become no less of an industry onto themselves as are manufacturing, retail, and service companies. These political parties are major sources of job generation within their large staffs and to their favored vendors. They collect revenues from their members and vendors and they dole out those monies in the most efficient manner to yield them more members and the resulting power.
These political parties write emotional fund raising letters to ordinary citizens telling them the sky will fall if they do not win elections or if their opponents are able to pass certain bills into law. Yet in most cases both parties fail to listen to their voters anyway. The current soap opera that has been ObamaCare is the ultimate proof as a majority of voters were against the bill but the Democratic Party had too much at stake with its contributors, lobbyists, and its own power structure to not try and pass that bill regardless of the tactics used.

Much has been written about the latest trend for trying to change political parties. This so-called Tea Party movement is certainly sincere in its goal to support politicians who will again focus on the needs of the voter and on the original intent of our government. It has been a fantastic process for getting new people involved in the political process. But I am afraid they, too, will become cynical and apathetic when their efforts come up short. Despite all of the positive energy within that effort, the Tea Party groups have not had much success with their preferred candidates. Just read about the recent Texas primaries for more details. And what happened in upstate New York several months ago. While they did play a part in the election of Senator Scott Brown in Massachusetts, they did not play the deciding role – it was Democrats who crossed party lines who decided that election.
There has also been much talk about litmus tests within each party to ensure that their candidates loyally represent the party ideals and platforms. The State of Florida will be a good test for that process within the Republican Party this coming August when Marco Rubio faces off against Charlie Crist to be the Republican candidate for the US Senate in November. The grass roots activists and most of the county parties are fully behind Rubio while Crist - who has run away from the party ideals to support Obama’s stimulus plan and anti-growth environment efforts – still has the media spotlight as the sitting Governor.

But there is one other factor at play which I believe may force both political parties back to reality and may even force true bi-partisanship in Congress and in many State capitals. The fact that the largest percentage of registered voters are now “Non-affiliated” or “Independent” gives them the power to pick and choose candidates from both parties who will best serve the public. And that possible coalition of Independent supported Republican and Democratic elected officials may ignore the power structures within their political parties to work together to get the peoples’ business done. It will be up to the pollsters and media to prove to those politicians that it was the Independent voters and not their political party machines that put them in office. It may take a few election cycles but I can see the day when a party Whip will not be able to apply the traditional pressure to get its members to vote the party way without them first getting the pulse of the Independent voters.

Until that day, we will have to accept the reality of power hungry partisans controlling Congress and our State legislatures. And the probability of bigger government and higher taxes.

Obama's 1st Year Disaster - March 2010

2010-03-01T13:07:00.000-05:00

“I’d rather be a really good one-term President than a mediocre two-term President”. So said Barack Obama to ABC News last month. But he left out a more likely third option. Many believe he will actually be a really, really, bad one-term President. And if today’s poll numbers continue, he might even be known forever as the worst one-term President.

Let me tell you why. He is out of touch with the needs and expectations of ordinary Americans. Instead, Obama is trying to Rahm his radical leftist policies down their throats with his Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel leading the charge. Both came through the Chicago political machine which is known for hard ball strategies, demonizing tactics, and take no prisoners battles. Thankfully the Republicans in Congress along with a handful of Democrats, a massive number of citizen activists, and certain members of the national media have been able to slow down those efforts and hopefully defeat them.

President Obama truly believes that this is his moment in history to remake America as he envisions it regardless of what our citizenry believes. Whether it is his desire to nationalize the remaining parts of the health insurance industry not already monopolized by government programs, or his goal to force Americans to utilize what he believes are the best energy sources through mandates from his EPA bureaucracy, or his ongoing efforts to set pay and union policies in private industries by fiat from his Pay Czar, the Obama regime is out of control. And these are just his domestic policies.

Obama’s foreign policy disasters have included giving Miranda rights to foreign terrorists whose aim is to destroy our country, being on the wrong side of democracy movements in Iran, Honduras, and elsewhere. Talking softly and carrying no stick in facing the nuclear threats of North Korea and Iran. And deserting our leading ally in the Middle East in hopes of forcing peace. Of course giving back a bust of Winston Churchill - which was a gift to our country from England – to the British Prime Minister and giving a misspelled Reset Button to the leader of Russia certainly also played parts in his now laughable reputation around the world.

And if President Obama’s domestic and foreign policies are not bad enough, it is his hypocrisy on the involvement of lobbyists in his regime, his two-faced approach to Wall Street where he privately takes their political contributions while publicly using populist themes against them, and his unwarranted attempts to apologize for the past actions of our country that have really caused his enviable initial approval ratings to plummet to the lowest levels ever for a President one year into his term of office.

But Obama still does not get it. His now famous “we won, you lost” comment to the Republican Congressional Leadership continues to guide his efforts. While he publicly derides the Republicans for not being bipartisan, it is his administration and the Democratic Congressional Leadership who continue to meet behind closed doors to formulate policies and strategies. It is Obama who continues to blame President George W. Bush for his own policy failures. And it his Press Secretary Robert Gibbs who still does not miss an opportunity to taunt the Republicans during his daily press briefings.

The recent election of Republican Scott Brown to a Senate seat from Massachusetts was not seen as a stop sign to this Obama regime. Instead, it has simply caused Obama and the Democratic leaders to consider ways to by-pass Senate protocols to Rahm his agenda into law. And in a show of utter elitism, Obama’s handlers actually blamed the Massachusetts voters for electing Senator Brown rather than blaming the failing Democratic agenda. Maybe they should have blamed Obama himself whose campaign efforts have now failed in New Jersey, Virginia, Massachusetts, Copenhagen (where he lost the Olympic 2016 bid for Chicago), and in Miami (where he rooted for the Colts rather than the Saints in the recent Super Bowl).

Hopefully America will not fail as President Obama continues to do so. Despite his teleprompter speeches about fiscal responsibility and federal deficits, he continues to borrow and spend as if tomorrow will not come when our children will have to pay the piper. But thankfully voters across this great country have an opportunity this coming November to sufficiently change the make-up of Congress to put a halt to Obama’s socialist plans for America so we can again unleash the entrepreneurial spirit which built this country.

Much Has Happened In 20 Years - February 2010

2010-02-01T09:00:00.001-05:00

There have been a number of historical moments in the United States during the twenty years in which DRW Magazine has been published in the Weston, Davie, Southwest Ranches, and Cooper City areas. Among those moments have been five key events in politics and economics which are detailed below in order of significance to me.

By far, the most impactful moment in the last twenty years was the terrorist attack on New York City’s Twin Towers in 2001. For many of us on the right, it solidified our belief that our western way of life was under attack by Islamic fundamentalists. While there had been previous attacks on our embassies overseas, on the USS Cole in Yemen, at international hotels, and a botched attempt at those same Twin Towers, the well organized 9/11 suicide attack brought the war to our shores. We were fortunate to have had a President who was prepared to do what was necessary to minimize future attacks by going on the offensive against the terrorist organizations and those entities which supported or housed them.

While many people have hailed the recent election of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States as historic because of his race, I consider his election historic because of the utter destruction he has brought - and still may bring - to the fabric of this country. His populist class warfare has gone beyond a rallying cry for political points. His continuing verbal vilification of the business community along with the radical regulations being proposed by his various Czars have the potential to forever change American Capitalism in countless ways. That is if our American economy does not get dragged down first by the trillions of dollars of debt Obama has already generated in his first year in office. Saul Alinsky, the father of modern American radicalism, would be proud of Obama’s attempts to redistribute the nation’s wealth and his interest in moving our country towards a more socialistic model.

The Great Recession of 2008 which is still underway brought to the forefront the ugly side of greed. Whether it was certain Democratic Senators who protected Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from being investigated for their risky loan purchases which allowed those transactions to continue, or certain Wall Street whiz kids and hedge funds who created mortgage-backed derivatives, or those individuals who knowingly speculated in the real estate market or who borrowed more than they could afford, our country and the world is now paying for a speculative bubble that nearly brought our financial system to a complete halt. And now our responsible citizens and small business people cannot get the financing they need to improve their lives and grow their businesses. Hopefully the normal business cycle will pull us out of this rut.

In 1998, the Republican-led Congress attempted to impeach President Clinton for lying under oath about an extramarital sexual liaison he had with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office of our White House. There were many – and I mean many – reasons why I did not like President Clinton during his term of office, but that gotcha effort by the Republicans sacrificed what community spirit people of all political sides still had at that time simply to get back at the Democrats for their partisan attempts to stall the great efforts of President Reagan years before with the ridiculous Iran Contra investigations. Since those days of the Clinton impeachment attempt, our country has been split ideologically, religiously, and economically like never before in my lifetime to the point that each party and its zealots will do whatever they can to defeat their opponents regardless of the potential for common ground in governing our country.

Although Al Gore did not invent the internet, I am glad that our military experts and leading universities did so and that our country has been able to exponentially benefit from it in the past twenty years. From online worldwide commerce, to unfettered (and sometimes unreliable) news postings, to the electronic communications now popular on cellular phones and portable laptops, the worldwide interconnection of computer networks has drastically changed our ways of living – mostly for the better. Imagine our lives today without Google; eBay; the iPhone and its apps; GPS systems, and YouTube.

I could mention many more significant events if I had the printed space to do so. I can only hope that America remembers and can learn from its past challenges in the next twenty years, can heal its partisan divide, and that capitalism can continue to unleash our country’s potential.

2010 Predictions - January 2010

2010-01-01T09:35:00.000-05:00

The year 2010 has the potential to dictate the political and economic future of our country for decades to come. The upcoming mid-term elections in November could perhaps be the most significant election since 1937 when Franklin Delano Roosevelt won his second term and was able to continue his New Deal plans.

American voters will have the opportunity to show their support for the Obama-Reid-Pelosi regime if voters again elect enough Democrats to Congress to give them continued control of the legislative branch of our federal government. Such a victory would serve as a green light for a Democratic Congress to continue remaking the banking, auto, healthcare, and energy sectors of our economy along with their planned immigration and labor reform which are sure to follow.

Or the voters will reject the efforts of the Democrats and elect enough Republicans to Congress to eliminate the governing majorities which the Democrats currently have in both the House and Senate. This would put a stop to the largest expansion of the federal government’s role in our economy since FDR. Many political pundits even expect the Republicans to regain control of the House while greatly diminishing the Democratic majority in the Senate.

Personally, I am growing tired of the labels Republican and Democratic to identify our politicians. It no longer matters which party is in power since both spend too much using IOUs to our children and grandchildren. The fact that the largest segment of registered voters is now independents seems to echo my sentiments. But as far as predicting control of Congress next year, I do not believe the Republicans will regain control but will add enough new members to seriously slow down Obama’s push for a more socialist America.

Florida will also be holding several important statewide elections next year. Those who read my column regularly know that I am no fan of Charlie Crist and I believe that Marco Rubio has a very high probability of beating him in the Republican primary for United States Senator. He is a young, energetic, Hispanic who truly represents the Big Tent potential of the Republican Party. I am confident that either of them, however, will beat the Democratic candidate in November.

As for the Florida Governor’s race, I think Republican Bill McCollum is a genuine person with a great resume but I do not believe he has the gravitas to win in November. I am hopefully that a new and credible Republican candidate will come forward to win that prize although voters tend to punish the incumbent party when things are bad and nobody can argue that Florida’s economy, job market, and real estate industries are worthy of rewarding a Republican candidate with another four years. But I am hopeful that Obama fatigue will overshadow statewide malaise.

Central to the outcome of all of these elections is the performance of the American economy by November. Under normal circumstances, the depleted state of our nation’s wholesale and retail inventories should naturally cause an uptick in manufacturing and jobs. But I believe that President Obama’s trillion dollar deficit, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, and hefty new taxes being proposed by the Democrats will keep the economy in slow motion all the way through next year providing Republicans nationwide with the opportunity to pick many new seats including a victory by Republican Allan West over incumbent Democrat Ron Klein in eastern Broward County. It is too bad, however, that our local liberal poster girl Debbie Wasserman Schultz, is well protected in her gerrymandered Democratic district and will retain her Congressional seat for another two years.

And finally, I predict that the United States east coast will not sink into the Atlantic Ocean in 2010 due to manmade global warming. But thankfully, Obama’s planned Cap & Tax plan to force us to cut back our traditional energy consumption will sink under the weight of the increasing evidence of the phony science used to create that inconvenient truth. That said, I continue to encourage you to recycle and wisely spend your energy dollars since doing both will limit our dependence on foreign energy sources. Have a great year!

Right Versus Left - December 2009

2009-12-01T08:39:00.003-05:00

DRW Editor: Our debate-style column experiment continues. Each author was given
200 words at a time to make their point before the other had the opportunity to respond.

GARY LAZARUS for the left
ART WAGANHEIM for the right

ART The numbers are in. Unemployment is up. The stimulus plan did not create any meaningful number of jobs. The value of the dollar is an embarrassment to the nation. And although the Gross Domestic Product(GDP) did have a positive 3rd Quarter, it was mostly from car and new home sales pushed forward by the billions of clunker dollars and first time homebuyer credits. So it appears that Obamanomics has been a resounding failure. So the question is: What would I do if I could wave a magic wand to fix the economy? We again need to make the United States the preferred place for companies to source their labor and materials rather than seeing them outsource to less expensive countries. We can do that by following the model of Ireland and most former Soviet states which slashed their corporate taxes to attract
business investment. We also need to vote down Obama’s proposed carbon Cap & Tax program which will only chase more business overseas. And, as politically incorrect as it may sound, we need to get government out of many non-essential services and allow taxpaying private industry to handle those jobs as long as the cost to the taxpayer is low and the workforce remains sufficient in size.

GARY Respectfully, the idea that “any” President can fix the unmitigated disaster of “Bushonomics” in a mere 10 months is preposterous on it’s face. In fairness, George W. Bush was merely continuing “Reaganomics”, whose rallying cry was “Government isn’t the solution, Government is the problem.” This was the thinly
disguised “marketing ploy” of the corporate and financial elite, who perpetuated this “fraud” so that they can destroy the labor movement in this country through outsourcing, and with it, the middle class. Now, America is nothing more than a failing democracy which more accurately resembles a “plutocracy” or an “oligarchy”, evidenced by the fact that from 1983-2004, an astounding 94% of the wealth
accumulated in America went to the top 20%. Art, you correctly argue that we must return jobs to America, but I cringe at the notion that you want to reward the same corporate elite with even more tax cuts. The percentage of U.S. Government revenues coming from corporations has fallen from over 50% in the 1940’s to 7.4% in 2003, an historic low. That same year, 61% of US corporations paid NO taxes. Quite simply, the corporate and financial elite in this country, aka the “Gloablists”, have sold out America. Until we ALL unite behind this FACT, America is beyond repair.

ART I find it interesting that whenever the Left is asked for a solution to an economic problem, it always ends up first becoming an issue of class warfare. They always blame businesses and rich people for their greed in causing a declining economy. The only time they say that government may be at fault is when it did not tax those folks enough. As for Gary’s comment that corporate tax contributions are
low, it is because they moved many of their operations overseas where corporate taxes are much lower than they are in the United States. That process is no different than what the State of New York is realizing today when it increased taxes on their highest earning citizens and those folks simply moved to another state. The bottom line is that JFK, Reagan, and Bush got it right. If you lower corporate taxes as I have suggested, you will attract more taxpayers and economic activity with the end result being higher tax revenues. Our economy is fixable. Unfortunately with Obama-Reid-Pelosi in control of our federal government, their policies will only delay the normal business cycle recovery and may actually reverse it with their
quest for higher tax rates and regulation. And their plans for more government bureaucracy will cost – rather than generate – new revenues.

GARY Art, you are 100% correct. This is class warfare, which has been waged by the corporate and financial elite against the middle class for decades through outsourcing and off-shoring. Long before this “banking crisis” began in 2007, tens of millions of jobs had been sent overseas for one reason: Corporate Greed. America has lost its textile industry, furniture industry and much of its automobile industry. Even the defense industry is slowly being moved overseas. Boeing needs
parts from India to build a fighter jet. Sikorsky can’t build a helicopter without obtaining the tail motor from Turkey. Vital American technology has been sent overseas as well. Westinghouse Nuclear has gone to Japan, and Bell Labs – along with its research patents – has gone to France. IBM has moved its purchasing headquarters to China. In the last ten years alone, we have lost 1/3rd of our manufacturing jobs. America had more manufacturing jobs in 1941 than it has today. Art, we are not in a recession, we are in permanent decline which has been concealed for years by the “financial gang” on Wall Street through the use of Fraudulent Financial Bubbles. (Tech Stocks, Subprime Mortgages and Commodities.) The “Globalists” aka the “free traders” are destroying America.

ART It is not class warfare Gary. In a capitalist economy, money always flows to where it can most efficiently be utilized. If you want those American jobs back, then you need to make the cost of those jobs attractive to that money flow. And I will repeat again that lowering corporate taxes on manufacturers and service centers based in the United States is the best option for bringing back those jobs. The
only alternative is for the federal government to impose such high duties or limits on imported goods that our labor costs become attractive by default. Is that what you want to do Gary? History already proved that such actions can cause worldwide depressions. It was called the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930. I will also add that offering verifiable short-term new jobs credits to American businesses of all
sizes could spark the necessary hiring to get the economy roaring again. And such new jobs could prompt increased consumer spending levels which will generate the demand for those jobs to be ongoing. It is also important to note that American consumers benefit daily from the low prices available because of the benefits of lower-cost goods and services currently being imported. Gary, are you suggesting that
we force the public to pay more for those items to protect American jobs? I do, however, agree with you that any items dealing with national defense should not be allowed to be produced overseas and I would support any Congressional efforts to eliminate those current trends.

GARY Throughout history, whenever we defer to the elite, and allow them to operate without proper oversight and regulation, they destroy the economy. That was the lesson from the first “Robber Baron” era and that is the lesson today. Here are my solutions: 1) Repeal the IRS Code that gives incentives for corporations to off-shore and outsource. 2) Redraft NAFTA and all existing trade agreements until they are re-worded to better protect American workers. 3) Re-institute the Glass-Stegall Act so that our banking system no longer resembles a high risk casino. 3) Regulate ALL derivatives trading and stop the shenanigans on Wall Street, including the parasitic nature of private equity firms. 4) Have the federal government offer NO INTEREST loans directly to all small businesses that employ 100% Americans. That’s a
good start. However, I’m sorry to say that this is a pipe dream because it appears that both political parties are now wholly owned subsidiaries of the Corporate Globalists. Until public financing of all political campaigns is passed, very little will change.

Shining City Or Rotting Corpse? - October 2009

2009-10-01T19:19:00.000-04:00

In his column last month, my esteemed opponent On The Left said our country was no longer the shining city on the hill that President Ronald Reagan called it. Instead, my opponent said the United States was now a “rotting corpse”.

Despite my initial shock, I have actually come to possibly agree with him but for different reasons. These United States are no longer the bastion of freedom and liberty envisioned and protected by our founding fathers. Political correctness has frozen unbridled free speech. For many citizens, more than half of their earnings now go to federal, state, and local governments. And the lack of civility and respect for our fellow citizens has never been worse in my lifetime.

Despite all of the campaign talk by candidate Obama about him being The One to heal the partisan and racial divide in our country, he and his team of community activists in his regime are actually taking us back to the troubled 1950s and 1960s when every social and economic challenge had a racial or class tinge to it.
Nothing gets me angrier than hearing that those of us who are against his big government radical plans only do so because he is a black President. Or that since we have money in the bank, we are immoral for not wanting the federal government to redistribute more of it to those of lesser economic means. The lefties in the national media even tried to discredit the recent wildly successful concerned citizens’ march on Washington as being motivated by hatred for Obama’s skin color and because of greed.

And of course, Congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina was actually reprimanded by Congress at the urging of the Black Caucus for blurting “You Lie” when Obama gave another of his partisan speeches on healthcare during an unnecessary Joint Session of Congress. I think the Black Caucus would serve the country better by forcing the reprimand of Charlie Rangel, the long-time black Congressman from Harlem, who still heads the tax writing House Ways and Means Committee despite being investigated for tax fraud and misuse of rent-controlled apartments in New York City.

But our country’s current decline is from more than the Obama plague and its divisive fever. The overall political situation in Washington and in many state capitals is no longer focused on helping citizens but instead on rewarding clients of the biggest campaign contributors and lobbyists. Sadly, a Congressman’s number one job requirement these days is being able to raise enough money for their next election. Of course we always hear there is no “quid pro quo” for those campaign donations. Tell that to the head of the Service Employees International Union who has bragged about his easy access to policy makers these days.

Both of the primary national political parties in this country have mostly morphed into full time job machines for their politicians, aides, and favored vendors. Whatever happened to the belief in citizen legislators who go about their personal business most of the year and go to Washington as needed to debate and legislate. Instead, we now have many members of Congress who have served a majority of their lives on the public dole rather than staying grounded in reality with other professions as most state legislators still do. And we are asked to applaud these Congressmen upon their retirement or death. We need term limits for the Congress just as we have for the Presidency and its executive staff.

Our capitalist market system is also suffering from too much self-interest. Like when GE had all of the media outlets it owns focus on “being green” which implicitly helped its energy and lighting divisions. Or when AIG took billions of dollars of government bailout money, paid many of those same billions to repay its debt to Goldman Sachs, which then repaid billions of its own bailout debt from Uncle Sam so that Goldman Sachs could clear its account and be free to pay enormous bonuses to its top 2,000 employees. From my basic understanding of math, Goldman Sachs simply paid back the government with government money from AIG while keeping its original bailout funds for its own self-interest.

Despite my current Carter-like malaise about America, I still believe most of its people are vigilant about maintaining it proper course and will come out in droves in 2010 to get rid of most of the trouble makers in Congress so that our country can again be that shining city on the hill.

Obamacare - September 2009

2009-09-01T08:00:00.001-04:00

I have written several columns in the past few years about our country’s broken healthcare system. For those of you who may recall those columns, I opined that our healthcare delivery system needs to be improved and soon. I even remember stating that a properly designed single payer system with private industry management would be better than the current mess we have although such a system will never be my first choice.

So before I get labeled as “un-American”, “rude”, or “right wing wacko” as those who are against the proposed Obamacare program are being called by the White House spinsters and the national media, and before one of you sends my name to Obama’s new rat out your neighbor campaign being managed directly by the White House, let me explain why I am against the poorly designed government led nationalization of our healthcare system as is being proposed by the radical left of the Democratic Party in Congress and being sold to the American public by President Obama as the plan for which the country has been waiting.

To put it simply, the most recent 1,018 page version of Obamacare as passed by a key House committee is a joke. It is full of so many contradictions, ambiguities, and special interest provisions, that it will create more of a mess than we currently have and will seriously intrude on our privacy rights as citizens and will notably affect the doctor-patient relationship in ways not yet fully understood. Congress should not pass something just to say that it did so. We saw what happened with the $ 800 billion stimulus disaster which has not stopped 3 million more Americans from losing their jobs and even with the $ 3 billion cash for clunkers program which has mainly subsidized foreign car manufacturers.

With regards to House Bill 3200, aka Obamacare, you should be concerned about its passage for a number of reasons. First and foremost is its $ 1 trillion dollar cost. The last thing this country can currently afford is to take on more debt to pay for a program that even the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says will still leave nearly 20 million citizens uninsured! Wasn’t this the primary purpose of Obamacare? The second major reason for concern is the intrusiveness of this healthcare scheme into your daily lives. Were you aware that the legislation will authorize employees of a new Health Choices Administration to access your tax returns to ensure your compliance with Obamacare? Or that federal bureaucrats will be empowered to go to your home and tell you how to raise your children? And, of course, there has been much talk about Obamacare encouraging cost-saving “end of life” discussions with your doctor.

Where in the United States Constitution does it say the federal government can or should be involved in your personal health decisions by mandating your involvement in a healthcare program which it controls through its own proposed and subsidized insurance exchanges or by mandating coverage requirements for private plans? It is one thing if we voluntarily join Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA program but it is another thing to force us to ultimately join a government plan as will happen with Obamacare. No wonder the American public is delirious with anger and overwhelming Congressmen and Senators with pointed questions at Town Hall Meetings. It is amusing to see how few of these elected officials are even capable of answering the questions. Perhaps this is why our own Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz has decided to not appear at any such public meetings here. Instead, she is promising to hold a conference call by phone during which she will be able to pick the questions.

Thankfully the tide is quickly turning against this attempt to ruin the best of our healthcare system by changing it completely rather than just improving what we have. The AARP has recently reversed its position from originally supporting Obamacare after tens of thousands of its members bombarded its headquarters with letters and emails saying they want to keep their privately run Medicare Advantage HMO plans which Obamacare will eliminate. And even the national media is starting to publicize the perhaps illegal, hardball tactics, which Obama tried to maneuver secretly behind closed doors with the American Hospital Association, big PhRMA (pharmaceutical industry), the American Medical Association, and other key stake holders to buy off their support with threats to hurt them economically if they did not. Yes, we can stop this proposed disaster!

Cap & Tax - August 2009

2009-08-01T07:51:00.000-04:00

When candidate Barack Obama was asked last summer his opinion of the then $ 4.00 per gallon gasoline, he responded by saying he was surprised it had risen to that level as quickly as it had. Obama never said he was concerned about its price or its impact on the American consumer. He seemed content that the American public was capable of adjusting to that price and changing their lifestyles to limit use of their automobiles and leisure travel on airplanes.

Well, you can get ready for gasoline costing that much or more in the months to come if the Obama regime’s Cap & Tax scheme is passed by the Senate this fall, is aligned with the House bill which already passed by only 7 votes, and is signed by a President who believes he is the person the world has been waiting for to lead the United States in a new direction to combat carbon pollution and global warming.
Of course Obama and his misguided political friends still think man is to blame for current climate trends rather than Mother Nature. Then again, maybe Obama is also capable of eliminating volcanoes, forest fires, sun spots and cow farts since they are among the leading sources of carbon in our atmosphere. But first he has to get the global climate to start warming again since it has actually been cooling for the past few years!

Too bad Obama wants to move one direction on global carbon control efforts while the world is already moving away from such Cap & Trade programs. In recent months countries like New Zealand - known for its strong environmental laws - and its neighbor Australia have scrapped their efforts while France and Great Britain and other European countries are rethinking their plans due to the fact that carbon emissions have not been reduced by their cap schemes and they are now dealing with the unexpected consequences of skyrocketing energy prices and lost jobs as businesses have moved manufacturing to countries with no carbon limits. And of course Obama failed miserably at the recent G8 Summit to get his fellow world leaders to agree on anything let alone carbon control issues.

I am not against the market realities of rising prices from high demand and limited supplies changing people’s consumption behavior. But I am very much against Uncle Sam forcing such a market reaction by playing God and saying we can only use a certain amount of oil, coal, or gas or be penalized or taxed to limit our use. Obama wants to force us to use alternate energy solutions now before they are perfected. He wants to make them economically feasible only by pricing traditional sources so high with his new cap taxes that we will want to use those other sources regardless of the overall impact on our economy of higher prices for all goods and services which have energy costs built into them.

As for the actual Cap & Tax bill passed by United States House of Representatives, it will not even accomplish what Obama wants to do – if he is really concerned about carbon emissions and not just getting the hundreds of billions of dollars of expected government fee collections - since the bill only starts to require notable emission drops many decades from now. But it sure will cost jobs and the American economy well before then. It is expected that hundreds of manufacturers based in the United States will move production and jobs to Asian countries which will not have similar carbon cap restrictions.

Worse is the need for more than 30 new and existing government agencies to help regulate the Cap & Tax process and the tens of thousands of newly hired bureaucrats to do so. And who do you think will be paying for all of that? Obama’s program will also crush the existing home market as one of the little publicized provisions included in the 300 pages of amendments to the House bill will require you to get an energy audit of your home before selling it so the buyer knows the energy efficiency of your house. And then local bureaucrats will be required to make sure the necessary changes to the existing home are made to bring it up to energy saving codes.

All in all, Obama’s Cap & Tax plan is nothing more than a new government money grab to address an alleged environmental issue which has already been debunked as phony science.

Gary Was Wrong - July 2009

2009-07-01T19:49:00.000-04:00

My June column on the first 100 days of disaster thus far from Obama’s reckless regime turned out to be too kind to him. Events of the past month have already proved that his poor decisions since January have put the world in grave military and economic danger. More about that in future columns.

For now, I’d like to comment on many of the thoughts which my new opponent on the left, Gary Lazarus, wrote in his inaugural column last month. I was quite pleased to see Gary admit in his first column that the recent worldwide banking collapse was caused by deregulation efforts which started in the Carter years and picked up steam in the waning days of the Clinton administration. Of course he didn’t mention those names or that our country had Democratic presidents at that time. But I thank him anyway for his honesty and look forward to other similar admissions in the months to come.

On the other hand, Gary stated that “few Presidents in our history have faced the challenges that Barack Obama now faces”. I beg to differ and only need to remind him what our country faced that September morning in 2001. There have been few challenges of that magnitude facing any President of the United States. That one day changed the Bush Presidency and our country forever. Whether you liked Bush’s response or not, our homeland stayed safe for the rest of his Presidency. I still shutter to think what a President Al Gore or a President Barack Obama would have done.

Gary also stated that there is no more pressing challenge for Obama than the economy.
As any student of economics knows, the economy tends to move in business cycles in which every 7 or 8 eight years, the economy reverses it previous course and either retracts or expands. Obama happened to take office when a cyclical retraction was underway just as Bush did after the economy started to slide in 1999 from the bursting of the stock market tech bubble during Clinton’s final year. Certainly the banking and housing crisis add a level of severity to the current retraction but we must not forget it was Democratic protectionism for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their forcing of banks to loan in red zones which helped create the housing crisis.

The good news is that many economists believe our current recession is on the mend already no thanks to any of Obama’s planned multi-trillion dollar borrow and spend plans since even his own administration has admitted that less than 5% of those trillions have yet to be awarded or spent. And the American public understands this reality since recent polls already show that the Obama regime’s reckless economic plan has caused polls to again reflect a higher trust in Republicans than Democrats to manage our economy. But when that money starts to flow get ready for inflation we have not seen since the Carter days.

I do pity Gary for falling for many of President Obama’s campaign lies. Despite Obama promising to end the war in Iraq, Obama has already admitted that tens of thousands of troops may be needed indefinitely – just as candidate McCain had said – in order to ensure that this new beacon of democracy can be sustained. And Gary fell for media talking points that an Obama Presidency would result in an improved image of the United States around the world. So why have no other countries joined the Obama surge in Afghanistan? And why have France’s Sarkozy and Germany’s Merkel already expressed their concern for the direction Obama is taking our economy? And why have European voters recently moved many of that continent’s governments to the right while our country is sadly moving to the left?

Gary also made a point of mentioning a comment that radio entertainer Rush Limbaugh opined about wanting Obama’s policies to fail. I do not recall the Democrats rooting for George Bush’s tax cuts to succeed (thankfully the cuts did) or rooting for his efforts in Iraq to prevail (Democratic Senate President Harry Reid in an almost treasonous moment took to the Senate floor one day to say that we had lost that war). Recent polls are proving that the American public already does not like many of the actions which the reckless Obama regime is taking. Sounds to me that Rush was just reflecting what the American public has already come to think of Obama’s ruinous plans for change.

Obama's First 100 Days Distaster - June 2009

2009-06-01T09:41:00.000-04:00

Elections matter. Issues matter. Voters matter. To all of those voters who stayed home last November because they were not happy with John McCain and Sarah Palin, I hope they are happy with the drastic downward direction our country is headed under the Obama regime.

From our federal government simply ignoring years of bankruptcy law when it gave control of Chrysler Motors to the unions while giving the company’s secured lenders pennies on the dollar for their loans; to dictating to the State of California that it could not fire certain employees or it would lose federal bailout money; to its attempts to mandate what salaries can be paid in the private sector; and to its desire to create a new nationalized health plan which will crowd out private plans, our federal government is going down the slippery path to socialism if not fascism.

When I tried to educate my friends and family of the potential danger of an Obama victory to our country’s core foundation, many said we needed “change” from the Bush years. Is having the federal government expand its tax base by billions of dollars by raising the price of your electricity and gasoline to fund its healthcare plans (as opposed to its initial lie about wanting to save the environment) the kind of change you wanted? Is having the federal government borrow trillions of dollars from foreign governments to fund its porkulas and bailout plans to allegedly stimulate the economy while burdening our future generations with unbelievable debt the kind of change you wanted? I don’t think so. But with Obama at the helm and Pelosi and Reid running Congress for now, historic change is coming our way.

To me, Obama’s potential presidency was easy to predict. The guy unfortunately grew up in a broken home, has admitted being envious of other kids whose family’s had material wealth, and has written that he felt unwanted by society because of his upbringing. If only the government could make things fairer for all seemed to be his goal in life. Well now he is having his chance. From having his first opportunity to put someone on the Supreme Court who supports his belief that the U.S. Constitution is wrong to focus on limiting the power of a centralized federal government instead of his preferred mandates on what the government must do for its citizens; to trying his darndest to penalize high income workers in order to redistribute their wealth through taxes and fees to less fortunate citizens, Obama is moving full speed ahead on his lifelong goals.

But I don’t blame Obama for any of his plans and intentions. He is simply living his dream. It is the shortsighted American voters and the enamored national media that I blame for this unfortunate predicament our 233 year old representative democracy is facing. And I am especially upset at the Republican representatives in Washington from when they controlled Congress and the White House for completely blowing their opportunity to show America how our country could be run with proper fiscal and ethical controls. Instead, they spent billions on the very pork they had previously criticized and got involved in more ethical lapses than the country could stomach (not that the Democrats are currently doing any better!).

So what other damage has Obama done to this country’s reputation and future in his first four months in office? Below are just a few of his many disasters:

* Obama went on a worldwide apology tour telling foreign leaders and audiences that he was not George Bush and that our country had been bad but he would make it all better. He then showed his humility by bowing to the head of another country and gladly accepting a book from Hugo Chavez which lambasted our country for its imperialistic ways. Pardon me for remembering that our country helps fund and staff the majority of humanitarian and security efforts around the world and has nothing for which to apologize. If the world does not want our help, stop asking us.

* Obama authorized the release of certain military documents to make his point that we had been tough interrogators of terrorists while that release endangered the lives of those military personnel and private citizens whose identities were in those documents. And his ridiculous stand on ending certain types of interrogation techniques has signaled to our enemies to just stay quiet if they are caught since we will not do to them as they do to our citizens and soldiers when captured.

* Obama pushed Congress to pass his $787 billion dollar porkulas plan with no time for citizens or Congressmen to review it (which he had promised), only to leave town for a 4 day vacation before coming back to DC to sign it which again proves that the Obama regime is perfecting the Gerbel approach to public relations by learning to just keep lying about its intentions until the public starts to believe it.

* Obama promised a new era of bi-partisanship only to tell his Republican adversaries in one of their first meetings that he had won the election and they had lost. And then he worked with the national media to make it seem as if the Republicans had no unified leader or voice. Of course erroneously making fun of Nancy Reagan at one of his first press conferences wasn’t a good show of bi-partisanship either.

* Obama has yet to ask Congress for fast track international trade negotiation authority since he does not think international trade is an important issue despite our country’s need to increase its exports and obtain affordable imports to keep our cost of living low. I suppose being the successful ACORN street thug that Obama was only a few years ago (I mean community activist), he just does not understand basic economics and the importance of being the salesman-in-chief for our business community to the world.

* Obama spent the first weeks of his regime continuing to talk down our economy in order to scare the public into wanting federal government help. Even former President Bill Clinton told Obama he was being overly negative. What Bill did not realize was that Obama was just following the teachings from avowed Chicago radical Saul Alinsky’s book Rules for Radicals which stated “They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future.”

* Obama picked numerous candidates for his cabinet and top administrative offices that had not paid income taxes for years which is proof that Obama must believe in Leona Helmsley’s credo that only little people have to follow rules. And despite pledging otherwise, he hired nearly two dozen former lobbyists to serve in his administration. If a Republican President had nominated so many tainted appointees as has Obama, the media would have simply continued its well-orchestrated mantra that Republicans have a culture of corruption. But they gave another pass to the inexperienced Obama.

If the first 100 days of this disastrous Obama regime is an indication of what we can expect for the remaining 3 years, 8 months of his days at the White House, our country’s core foundation will forever be changed for the worse. Let’s hope the American public shakes things up in 2010 and elects enough Republicans to stop this train wreck of a Presidency.

Bye Bye Milt - May 2009

2009-05-01T12:00:00.000-04:00

After many years of debating Milt Blaut's On The Left Column, Milt decided to retire from writing his column in April. In May, Milt was given the honor of one final column to share his parting thoughts. As such, I did not write a column for May. But I'll be back with a June column to be sure. Obama has me madder than heck with his banking, auto, environmental, and healthcare policies and plans!!!

Our Broken Healthcare System - April 2009

2009-04-01T12:00:00.001-04:00

Our nation’s healthcare system is broken. Do you ever wonder what happened to its simplicity of the past in which doctors made house calls, charged reasonable fees which most people paid directly, required very few forms to be filled out, and did not first need preauthorization to even treat you?

We have HMOs, PPOs, in-network, out-of-network, co-pays, co-insurance, deductibles, HSAs, “boutique” docs, and dozens of other code words to navigate to locate a healthcare provider and get them paid. And what can be most frustrating is when you have a hospital visit and some of the providers (radiology, anesthesiologists, ER docs) are out-of-network for your plan and you have no choice as to whether to use them and thus pay the higher patient contributions!

There is not enough space in this column to opine about whom or what I think is to blame for this mismanaged mess and, frankly, I would rather focus on the future than the past. But I have to mention my disappointment in government’s role during the past because with Barack Obama as President there is a good chance government’s role will become even bigger except for his recently announced plan to dump veteran care onto private insurers if a veteran is eligible for such care at their place of employment.

As the owner of a new small business, I am beginning the process of finding an appropriate group plan for my employees. It is not a pretty picture since we cannot benefit from the large risk pools that large employers use to their advantage in negotiating insurance fees. I have stated in the past, and I will say so again today, that small businesses should be able to pool their employee count with other small businesses nationwide through “association plans” to benefit from economies of scale. And we should be able to shop for a plan offered anywhere in the United States and not just from plans authorized by Tallahassee.

There is also legislative movement to give employees the option to take the value of their health insurance plan benefit and allow them to buy their own individual insurance. I strongly support such free market ideas. By having hundreds of millions of people with their “own” money to spend, affordable and innovative individual plans will be offered by insurance companies seeking the business. Such large pools of potential customers would also benefit those currently uninsured as the price of entry level policies will become more affordable for them. And the employers can get back to running their businesses.

But President Obama is considering taxing the value of any health insurance benefits provided to employees which are above a certain threshold. Such an intrusion of government into setting a reasonable threshold is akin to Uncle Sam dictating salaries. I am against such plans which will interfere with the privacy of an employer-employee relationship.

As for Medicare and Medicaid, I am against President Obama’s plans to study the possibility of determining what treatments should be offered to seniors and certain others based on their health and age. That should be kept private between a doctor and his patient. Would you want your parents refused care because the government says such an expense is not cost effective in terms of extending their lives?

The Obama Economy - March 2009

2009-03-02T19:15:00.000-05:00

With unemployment at 10.8%, the country’s Gross Domestic Product down by 7.8% and mortgage rates above 15%, it was certainly time for the Federal Government to do some to spur the economy. What did the President and Congress do to get the economy moving again? The year was 1981 and President Ronald Reagan slashed tax rates to put more money in consumers’ pockets. Within two years, an economic expansion began that would last several decades.

The fact is that today’s economic challenge is not as bad as what the country faced more than twenty five years ago. Despite the fear mongering of President Obama, San Fran Nan Pelosi, Las Vegas’ own Senator Harry Reid, and the media, the sky is not falling. But that did not stop them from capitalizing on the current economic misfortunes to authorize the federal government to borrow nearly $ 800,000,000,000 to fund projects which even the Congressional Budget Office said would have little short term impact on our economy.

Thankfully virtually all of the Republicans in Congress voted against this wasteful bill. Of course my favorite Governor, our Republican Governor Charlie Crist, passionately spoke in favor of the bill while giving a nice hug to President Obama in Ft. Myers a few weeks ago which I found interesting because he snubbed President Bush several ago at one of his own political events. More on that when Crist runs for office again in 2010.

Of course, the Obama-Pelosi-Reid money train does include a reduction in payroll taxes of about $ 13 per week which is good for a couple of McDonald’s Happy Meals. But that reduction will only cause the related Social Security and Medicare tax receipts to fall which will further endanger the long-term stability of those government entitlements. Unfortunately, much of the $800,000,000,000 in government borrowings will go for “shovel ready” pork projects which will mainly put Obama’s labor union buddies back to work rebuilding schools, bridges, and questionable local government projects.

I am certainly aware of the current down cycle in the economy. The bust of the real estate market is evident where I live and elsewhere throughout the area. I witnessed an empty Dillards a few days before Christmas. I’ve noticed that Home Depot frequently now has more employees than customers. And my retirement and rainy day funds have been notably reduced as the stock and bond markets have adjusted to today’s economic news. But I do not believe the Obama-Pelosi-Reid porkulus plan will be the proper strategy to get the American economy moving again. We needed job creation credits for private industry and lower corporate tax rates to bring jobs back to America.

After 911, President Bush led an effort to ask Americans to keep the economy moving by convincing them to not let the fear of terrorism change their purchasing plans. Instead of scaring today’s consumers into sitting on their wallets, President Obama should be doing the same. Government spending will never energize our economy like you and me going out one extra night for dinner or entertainment, or starting that home improvement project, or buying a new car to take advantage of today’s great deals. And with loan interests rates at near historic lows – as compared to the 15% rates which President Reagan faced in the 1980’s, now is the time to borrow and invest in your business to ready it for the coming economic recovery. Forget Obama. Let’s do it ourselves.

My 2009 Concerns - February 2009

2009-02-01T19:47:00.000-05:00

With 2009 still in its infancy, it is amazing how many things are already concerning me this year about my country, state, and town.

Of course, my lead concern is whether American voters really understood who and what they voted for last November. Were they so tired of President Bush that they turned over our federal government to the most liberal people to lead it in my lifetime? From the man in the White House to his cabinet and key administration figures, our country is now being led by a bunch of whiny, envirowacko, pacifists who truly believe Uncle Sam needs to dictate how we live our lives.

But the American people voted and I have to accept the new order in Washington – at least for the next four years. Given the amount of corruption and ethical lapses already surrounding the administration members brought to Washington by Obama, it will certainly be an interesting couple of years. I just hope our democracy and capitalist society can survive the tsunami of leftist change coming its way.

Florida Governor Charlie Crist concerns me because he has proven himself to be a smooth talking empty suit in his first years in office. His promised major drops in insurance and property taxes did not occur. His billion dollar bailout of a major Florida sugar company in the name of restoring the Everglades and his botched negotiations with the Seminoles over casino-class gambling will hit the state’s bottom line for years to come. Maybe he will run for the U.S. Senate in 2010, instead of another term as Governor, which will let an individual with a better understanding of reality move into the Governor’s House in Tallahassee. Since Jeb doesn’t want to run for that Senate seat, maybe he can run again to be our Governor and rescue our state from mediocrity.

The Town of Davie, in which I live, also has a concerning future. The March election will not simply be a vote for Mayor. It will be a straw vote for or against The Commons regional shopping mall planned for West Davie since both candidates have opposite opinions of that project and the winner will probably cast the deciding vote when it comes back to the Town Council for final approval in the coming months. And such a spotlight on a single issue will unfortunately overshadow many other equally important topics such as which candidate will better control the growing pension and healthcare costs of Town employees and keeping tax rates as low as possible.

I have not decided for whom I will vote in the Davie Mayoral race and I plan to carefully weigh all of the issues before I cast my vote. Since I personally know, like, and respect both candidates, I might just vote for Sarah Palin as a write-in candidate instead! A few winks from her and I am sure she could accomplish anything in my town including finally getting a fire station built to serve the Shenandoah area of West Davie near where I live.

Obama's First 100 Days - January 2009

2009-01-01T17:59:00.001-05:00

In the coming weeks, our country will have a new President. I have not been a big fan of Barack Obama, otherwise known as The One by his followers, and his selection of many Clintonites including Hillary to join his Cabinet does not change my opinion of him as someone who really believes that American society is not fair and that the federal government needs to ensure the nation’s wealth is more equitably shared.

So what can we expect in Obama’s first 100 days as our 44th President? Besides overturning of many of President Bush’s executive orders regarding the environment, scientific research, and reproductive rights, I wonder what he will do with the United States attorneys throughout the country including Patrick Fitzgerald who led the charge against Obama’s friend in the Illinois Governor’s office. Will Obama fire them all as was done by Bill Clinton or selectively terminate them as was done by George W. Bush?

Much has been written about Obama’s planned trillion dollar stimulus plan which he wants to sign on day one of his administration. I am sure it will be a major jobs program for his union buddies by focusing on building roads and government buildings. He may also give tax rebate checks to more Americans who do not pay federal income taxes.

Obama’s 100 day stimulus plan will also include his first effort to please Al Gore and other environmental wackos by subsidizing Detroit to build electric cars which the American public will not buy and are not profitable unless Obama gets gas back to his beloved $4.50 per gallon. If his plan includes federal or private research efforts for developing innovative wind, solar, and hydro solutions, I will support him as I value such alternative energy projects as yielding benefits similar to those reaped from the space program of the 1960’s.

But what about Obama’s less publicized promises? He is a big believer in the “card check” elections for rebuilding the unions without the need for traditional ballot elections. Obama also campaigned on closing Gitmo without telling us where he would send the prisoners. I fear if he brings them to the United States because his new Attorney General will be more concerned about their civil rights than focusing attention on utilizing the Patriot Act to keep us safe.

In an additional gift for environmentalists, Obama will push in his first 100 days to allow his EPA head to liberalize the definition of carbon pollutants under the Clean Air Act in order to eventually force a carbon tax or “cap and trade” scheme on American businesses of all sizes.

With Obama campaigning to show a softer side of the United States to the world, how will he handle Russian efforts in his first 100 days to reintroduce itself to Cuba while it expands its Latin American influence by teaming with Chavez and Morales? Will Obama also cave to Russian demands that we eliminate our missile defenses? And how will he bring peace to the Middle East while still proving he is a strong friend of Israel?

For the sake of our country, I hope that President Obama sheds his liberal leanings in his first 100 days and maintains our leadership in the world through continued military strength, capitalistic principles, and a belief in freedoms.

Bailout Mess - December 2008

2008-12-01T11:31:00.001-05:00

Two months ago Congress and the Bush Administration, with the support of the two Presidential candidates, approved “a bill to provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure certain types of troubled assets for the purpose of providing stability to the economy”

Well my retirement account certainly has not shown any stability. Since that bill was signed into law, and more so since President-elect Obama won his election, the stock market which is typically a leading indicator of the economy has dropped thousands of points.

I am hesitant to even comment on how that financial assistance bill is being implemented because its use and abuse seems to change daily. I will admit that I was a reluctant supporter of the intent of the bill because I do believe that the federal government has the responsibility to ensure the stability of our financial system and interstate commerce.

I should have known when Secretary Paulson initially submitted a three page letter detailing his plan, and Congress increased its size to more than a hundred pages, that the intent of the plan to unfreeze Wall Street and the banking system so they could begin lending again to businesses and individuals, was doomed to failure.

Hearing that the Treasury no longer plans to use the $ 700 billion dollars in approved funding from the bill to buy and hold troubled mortgage assets as it originally planned to do, and that Congress wants to use tens of billions of those dollars to save the Detroit auto industry, I am truly starting to fear that our government is simply rolling the dice on how to safely guide our country through the current economic downturn.

So how do we put the financial assistance bill to proper use? Simply put, we need to get American consumers and businesses spending again. But how? We need to focus on ways to get money into the banking system.

I believe that the financial assistance money should be primarily used to get banks to start loaning again. As in home mortgages. Personal equity lines. And business lines of credit. Charge minimal interest to the banks for that money so they can then offer loans at below market rates to their customers. And I believe that we still need to provide funding assistance to mortgage holders so they can renegotiate their troubled mortgages with consumers to keep more foreclosed homes from further dampening the real estate market as long as the consumer has a verifiable source of income to support the new payments.

We should not, I repeat not, use the financial assistance funds to stabilize non-financial industries. At the time of writing this column, President-elect Obama and the Democrats are pressing the Bush Administration to provide capital infusions into the American auto industry which is failing because of its high labor and rich healthcare costs. I am also against money going to the troubled airline industry or other sectors lobbying for a piece of the action.

The whole idea of using taxpayer money to bailout private industry from their own mistakes is difficult for me to swallow. But since the process has started, I can only hope that our government experts will protect the taxpayers’ money while also making the safest choices on which types of financial assistance to provide.

Economic Solutions - November 2008

2008-11-01T08:19:00.001-04:00

During the recent worldwide banking panic both Presidential candidates looked completely lost and gave me little confidence that either had the personal knowledge or experience to lead this country out of the current downward economic spiral. And President Bush, despite his Harvard MBA, was unable to properly explain the situation to the American public.

Our country has worked its way through such down cycles in the past and it will do so again. But the path to that success will be impacted by the other priorities of our next President. Hopefully his advisors will provide the necessary reality check so that most of the promises made on the campaign trail become just a memory of rhetoric rather than a roadblock to recovery.

How can our country get back on track to again lead the world in the creation of prosperity? What should our next President be prepared to do in his first months in office in 2009? While I certainly do not claim to have all of the answers, I hope that many of my suggestions, which are detailed below, find their way into his economic blueprint.

Several years ago a book was published called The Millionaire Next Door. It was based on the success of people from all walks of life who had worked hard, saved wisely, and played by the rules. There are no shortcuts to success. Our next President needs to remind our citizens that those basic principles are the key to our future recovery.

The good news is that America has an opportunity to get back to those basics while also solving another major challenge to our future. And that opportunity is solving our dependence on foreign energy sources. By building more nuclear power plants now, drilling for oil and natural gas in Alaska’s ANWAR sector and off the shores of our continent, by perfecting techniques to extract energy from oil shale, and by increasing our efforts to build affordable and effective solar and wind solutions, we will create millions of new high paying American jobs.

America has also lost thousands of jobs to overseas manufacturers. Our high corporate taxes encourage firms to move their operations elsewhere in the globe where taxes are lower. Imagine how many of our producers would bring their jobs back if they could use the savings from lower taxes to invest in their plants and people rather than paying onerous amounts to our government. I propose the use of tax credits for increased expenditures on facilities and for new net jobs rather than simply lowering tax rates which might not generate similar activity.

Our next President also needs to increase personal savings by eliminating taxes on interest income while keeping capital gains taxes at 15%. Doing so will increase the funds available for banks to loan while continuing to reward investors and entrepreneurs for helping to directly fund businesses. And lastly, the next President needs to eliminate the death tax which limits the savings that parents pass on to their future generations.

Vote McCain – October 2008

2008-10-01T21:34:00.001-04:00

In August 2007, I wrote in this column that John McCain was likely to end his Presidential bid because of rejection by the Republican base of his original stand on immigration reform and because of his frequent bi-partisan efforts with Democrats. I was obviously wrong.

During the Florida Presidential primary election in January, I voted for Mitt Romney only because Fred Thompson had already dropped out of the race. McCain was not even a consideration for me. But the Republicans in Florida chose John McCain during that primary election and soon thereafter he won enough Republican delegates throughout the country to become my party’s candidate for President.

Similarly, most of my Democratic friends believed that their candidate of choice, Hillary Clinton, would be the Democratic candidate for President. Some were prepared to fight for her all the way through the Democratic convention before publicly – if not privately - coming together behind Barack Obama. Frankly, I believe many of them either plan to stay home on November 4th or vote for McCain.

I am now a changed man. Something happened to me while watching the Republican convention. I saw a new McCain. He was not stiff on stage, he talked about libertarian beliefs important to me, he gave me confidence in his background and skills to be our next Commander in Chief, and he selected Governor Sarah Palin to be his Vice-Presidential choice. And what a choice she was!

The Republican convention, and the media storm about Palin, crushed any remaining momentum which Obamamania had in Middle America and, as I write this column, the McCain-Palin ticket is basically tied in the national “likely voters” polls and is in striking distance of Obama in likely Electoral College votes according to most analysts.

But polls don’t vote. People do. So the only poll which will matter takes place on November 4th when Americans fill in those ballot circles, push those touch screens, or pull those levers. And I hope you will join me in doing so for John McCain. I also suggest you take advantage of Early Voting to avoid the long lines on Election Day.

To me the choice is clear between McCain-Palin and Obama bin Biden. Every four years candidates and their talking heads tell you that this may be the most important election in the history of our country. But this time, I agree with them. As our country continues to mature with millions of new citizens and voters who come from countries in which the government plays a bigger role in their lives than our federal government currently does, we are at a decision point as to whether our country should go down the path of those European and Latin American socialist models or continue primarily as a free market economy with the necessary regulations to keep it efficient.

Barack Obama has multi billion dollar plans to expand the role of government and has a scheme to pay for his nanny state by increasing taxes on the small businesses that are the biggest creators of jobs in this country as well as on the other most productive members of our society. He calls those folks rich. I call them evidence of the American dream that already pays the bulk of federal taxes. John McCain wants to keep that American dream alive by keeping taxes low. He knows that lower taxes actually generate more government revenue. And he knows the problem is not needing more revenue but rather simply needing to spend less. McCain will also end pork barrel spending like the nearly $1,000,000,000 (that’s one billion) that Obama requested in his three years in the U.S. Senate for his political cronies in Illinois.

Barack Obama wants to mandate that parents buy healthcare for their children or face large fines and penalties. He wants to mandate that businesses offer retirement plans for their employees or face fines and penalties. He wants to increase the earned income tax credit which is actually a government handout to those who do not pay federal taxes at the expense of those who do pay taxes. John McCain wants to give Americans the choice to determine the best health plans for their families and he wants younger Americans to be able to self-direct a small portion of their Social Security taxes.

The recent near collapse of our financial markets and the ongoing problems in the housing market are a good test of crisis leadership for both candidates. Frankly neither candidate seemed up to the test when the stock markets plunged in mid-September. Obama stuttered without having his teleprompter to guide him, while McCain failed to properly explain his comment that, despite the challenges of higher energy costs and the stalled housing market, that the American economy will pull through this current down cycle as it always does.

As to their economic ideas, if Barack Obama plans to bring back the same Clinton economic leadership team that deregulated Wall Street in 1999 and ran Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while he also raises taxes and limits international free trade, it may be time for me to move to New Zealand. Should John McCain win, I hope that he will continue to rely on the wisdom of Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke who, working in a bi-partisan manner with Congressional leaders, brought necessary calm to Wall Street and Main Street as our country finishes working through the subprime mortgage mess.

John McCain also knows that a strong military and a willingness to use that strength to battle radical Islamists and to spread democracy throughout the world is an obligation of the United States. Obama wants to pull our troops out of Iraq before we have fully secured victory and he wants to appease our enemies around the world. Even after Barack recently acknowledged that the Iraqi troop surge was a spectacular success, he said he still would not have supported it if given the chance to vote again! Obama also blew it after the recent Russian-Georgian conflict when he failed to initially chastise the Russians before finally following McCain’s footsteps in doing so.

Much has been made about McCain’s pick of Sarah Palin for his Vice-President. Even Obama admitted that her experience as a Mayor and a Governor was a tougher training ground than the “yakking” (his word) he has perfected in his brief U.S. Senate career. Sarah Palin is like a young Ronald Reagan who will bring a fresh perspective to Washington. Even the American public agrees that she and McCain will do a better job of working across the aisle in Congress than Obama who has voted nearly 100% with the positions of his liberal backers and constituencies.

The choice is clear. If you want the Washington elite to get more involved in your life at your expense, and if you want our national pride to be less important than our reputation at the United Nations, then vote for Barack Obama. If you still believe in the American dream of entrepreneurism, independence, self-reliance, and a strong military, then join me in voting for John McCain and Sarah Palin on November 4th. Our country’s future is at stake. Please remember to vote.

Retirement Crisis – September 2008

2008-09-01T00:00:00.000-04:00

As our country readies itself for the upcoming Presidential election, I hope that the candidates will go beyond their usual topics of “affordable healthcare”, “Iraqi war”, and “oil drilling” and spend a greater amount of time debating their solutions for our country’s impending retirement crisis.

With the first baby boomers born in the mid 1940’s now reaching the magical age of 62, our country is running out of time to resolve the expected funding shortage for Social Security for the rest of us and for protecting the millions of workers whose traditional employer pension plans are becoming the responsibility of the federal government when their employers go out of business.

I hope that most of you know that Social Security retirement checks are funded on a pay as you go basis as FICA taxes collected today are used to fund Social Security checks for currently retired workers whose own taxes were used to fund checks for previous retirees. Fortunately, there are still enough current workers to fully fund today’s Social Security checks. However, that is not expected to be the case in the years ahead.

Every few years, Congress holds a series of “blue ribbon commission” meetings to come up with a short term fix for this problem. But we need a long term solution sooner than later. So what plans do our Presidential candidates have for this challenge?

Barack Obama’s latest economic blueprint includes a plan to impose a new 4% FICA payroll tax on those individuals earning more than $ 250,000. But he would not implement this new tax for 10 years! Yes, 10 years from now when he is not even President! And he has a plan to have the federal government give up to $ 500 per year to every worker earning less than $ 75,000 for deposit into their own personal IRA retirement account if they will save at least $ 1,000 per year with their own money. I’ll give him credit for encouraging personal retirement accounts but I am strongly against requiring high income Peter to pay for low income Paul’s personal retirement plan since Peter’s income taxes will be likely funding those government handouts to Paul.

John McCain has no published plan for social security reform other than saying that the current program “is a disgrace”, and that “all options are on the table”. He was a supporter of President Bush’s plan to allow younger workers to self-direct a portion of their FICA taxes into their own managed retirement account which I also favor. President Bush was not afraid to touch the infamous third rail and propose such a plan which the Democrats would not permit to proceed in Congress. I just wish that Mr. Straight Talk McCain would not hesitate from discussing his specific ideas for reforming our failing Social Security program. And post his plan on his campaign website.

Barack Obama also has a plan to create Automatic Workplace Pensions in which all employers will be mandated to either offer retirement plans such as a 401(K) or Simple IRA or be required to set-up a payroll deduction plan for its employees to contribute pre-tax dollars into their own IRA plan. I applaud his economic advisers for proposing such a plan and wish that McCain would propose something similar although his plans for keeping all taxes low will provide Americans with the money to fund their own accounts while Obama’s overall higher income and investment taxes will limit the amount of money that workers will have available to save for their retirements.

Let’s hope that this important Social Security issue will be a topic of the upcoming Presidential debates. It is a known predicament and it needs to be discussed. While Obama has the edge for proposing something, his plan to delay any change in the funding mechanism for 10 years is indicative of his naivety on the seriousness on this and other issues.

Bully For McCain – August 2008

2008-08-01T12:40:00.001-04:00

Bully! Bully! So said Republican President Teddy Roosevelt whenever things were going well. What would he say now 100 years after the end of his two Presidential terms? How would he use his so-named Bully Pulpit to answer Democratic “the sky is falling” campaign tactics?

And can Senator John McCain who is running to join Teddy Roosevelt in that exclusive club of Presidents say Bully! Bully! as he defends attacks from Barack Obama on today’s economic, foreign policy and social issues?

Senator McCain recently said that he considers himself in the mold of Teddy Roosevelt who was known for tight fiscal strategies, big stick foreign policies, and leading environmental views. From what I read and hear about John McCain, he truly does share many of Teddy’s philosophies.

He, like Teddy, does not like to spend your federal tax dollars and he has rarely requested funding for wasteful government projects. Even his vote against the original Bush tax cuts was because of pork loaded onto that bill by others in Congress. Barack Obama, on the other hand, has proudly pushed for $ 930 million in pork in his brief 3 years in the Senate.

While the Democrats have tried to lampoon McCain for his economic knowledge, he fully understands the importance of not raising taxes on the middle and upper classes as Obama plans to do. McCain correctly believes that once the Bush tax cuts are made permanent, capital investment in the economy will soar while McCain will cut back the size of the federal government which grew fatter the past 8 years. Increased tax revenues from those investments combined with less government expenditures will help bring the federal budget closer to balance.

On foreign policy issues, Senator McCain has demonstrated Teddy Roosevelt’s big stick philosophy by being the leading proponent for the surge strategy in Iraq which turned the momentum towards victory resulting in the Iraqi Prime Minister saying it is almost time for the U.S. to start drawing down its troops. Senator McCain recently toured Central and South America to demonstrate his belief that NAFTA has been good for our county and to lobby for the Columbia free trade agreement with one of our best allies in Latin America. Obama was against the Iraqi surge and he is against NAFTA and the Columbia trade agreement.

In 1902, Teddy Roosevelt created the first national park at Crater Lake, Oregon. The current day Environmental Defense Fund calls him the greatest conservationist president. Will Senator McCain live up to that reputation? The EDF praised Senator McCain for his efforts to pass the Climate Stewardship Act regarding global warming. Senator McCain also continues to hold firm on his vote against expanding domestic drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. I believe that Teddy would be proud although I personally do not agree with either of those McCain positions. But at least Senator McCain will take a pragmatic approach to environmental issues as opposed to Obama who will always parrot the beliefs of the liberal media and activists.

John McCain was not my preferred Republican candidate for the Presidency but he will be a far superior successor to Teddy Roosevelt’s White House than will be Barack Obama whose policies and beliefs more closely follow the failed strategies of former President Jimmy Carter.

Obamanomics - July 2008

2008-07-01T12:30:00.000-04:00

Change! Barack Obama based his hard fought Democratic primary victory on that single word. He gave lots of speeches and issued even more talking points about how he was going to change our country for the better.

And now he is taking that campaign promise of change to his general election contest against Republican John McCain. But what are the changes he is promising and how will they impact you?

In this month’s column I will focus on several of the economic changes an Obama presidency will bring to our country. In the months ahead, I will shine my spotlight on his intended changes to other domestic and international policy issues.

Some say change is all that most tax payers will have in their wallets when Barack finishes with his restructuring of the tax code. No Presidential candidate has won a general election in recent times by promising to increase taxes on most voters. Let’s hope that trend continues.

Barack believes increasing the dividend and capital gains tax on investments on the so called rich will not affect the middle or lower classes. He believes such passive income should be taxed the same as earned wages. Of course he does not mention that the funds originally invested to earn those dividends and capital gains were already taxed once when they were earned as wages. And that tens of millions of Americans count on those ongoing dividends and gains to supplement their wages or retirement funds.

Perhaps the biggest impact of Barack’s economic plan will be its impact on small businesses. He wants to increase the annual wage level to which social security taxes are collected from the current $ 102,000 cap to a higher level or to a secondary starting point which he is still calculating. That would subject small business owners’ additional wages to the already high 15.3% tax. For their higher paid employees, the small business owner will also be responsible for paying the employer’s 7.65% matching FICA tax on the employee’s higher wages. Those increased taxes will either be passed along to customers or will lessen the pool of funds available to hire new workers, give raises, or invest back in the business.

Barack Obama’s lack of understanding of basic economics is also evident in his plan to impose a “windfall” profit tax on the oil industry. It is too bad Barack is not old enough to fully remember that concept failed during the Carter presidency. The fact is that oil company profit margins are typically lower than most other industries in this country and that any windfall taxes would simply be passed along to the consumer in higher gasoline costs. But Obama does not care about $ 4.00 gasoline since he recently said that he only wished that the increased gas prices had taken place more slowly. Apparently his plan for the greening of America is to hope that conventional energy sources get so expensive that only alternative sources will be desired by the consumer.

I wish I had more space in this column to detail the countless other failings of the Obama economic plan including his failure to talk about reducing government spending. But I have confidence that John McCain will do that job for me as the presidential campaign continues in the months ahead.

Petro Politics - June 2008

2008-06-01T13:28:00.000-04:00

For the past several years the Democrat leadership in Congress, in concert with environmentalist lobbying groups, has blasted the Bush administration for not doing anything about global warming allegedly caused by mankind’s growing demand for oil and other fossil fuels.

I have already written about my thoughts on climate change in a previous column many months ago. In that column, while dismissing the charges that man is to blame for natural climatic cycles, I nonetheless applauded all efforts to minimize our use of imported oil for national security reasons.

And when it was politically convenient, the Democrats also rushed to their microphones with ideas on how to halt our needless consumption of petroleum products and save the planet.

Last summer Democratic Congressman John Dingell, Chair of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, floated an idea to impose an additional 50 cents per gallon gasoline tax based on his economic analysis that higher fuel prices would cause consumers to buy more fuel efficient cars and, thus, less oil products.

Even back in 1993, President Bill Clinton proposed an additional 26 cents tax on gasoline as part of his planned BTU tax on fossil fuels. Then Vice President Al Gore - of more recent global warming fame - defended that proposal as a good way to start reducing the use of automobiles.

So why are the Democrats now complaining about the high cost of gasoline? They should be applauding the ever increasing price of fuel for our automobiles. Especially since it appears that Dingell and Clinton were correct in their elementary economic assumptions about the elasticity of gasoline.

Recently, the media has been reporting that the market value of gas guzzling SUVs have plummeted as American consumers start looking again at smaller, more fuel efficient, cars and trucks. Mass transportation systems around the country are reporting record ridership levels. And Washington, D.C. recently introduced a bicycle sharing plan similar to that used in Amsterdam.

I am old enough to remember the last time the American public was faced with record gasoline prices. The year was 1979 and our country was led by Democratic President Jimmy Carter. Similar to today’s cries from the liberal media and their Democratic cohorts in Congress, everybody blamed the big oil companies at that time. Back then, the issue was actually a decrease in supply from the Middle East. Once supplies increased again, gas prices returned to normalcy.

Today, it is also not the fault of oil companies. Instead, it is again a market phenomenon but this time with a twist. Not only are we are faced with an unprecedented increase in worldwide demand for oil, we also have a weak dollar which has forced the price of oil to increase so that our international suppliers can maintain their revenue streams relative to their currencies.

So while the world awaits a stronger dollar and an influx of new oil discoveries thanks to the profits possible from high oil prices, it is fun to watch the politicians – especially the Democratic presidential candidates – debate how to reduce the price of gasoline even while the high price and the marketplace are helping to decrease the consumption of oil products and their supposed impact on global warming.

Mortgage Mess - May 2008

2008-05-01T14:28:00.000-04:00

I am starting a waiting list for anybody who is interested in buying a new Bentley or Rolls Royce with no money down, 1% financing for the first few years, and no income qualifications for borrowing the money.

And the Democrats in Washington will make sure that the 1% interest rate becomes fixed if I cannot ultimately afford a true market rate. Or better yet, President Hillary Clinton will stop the financing company from repossessing the car if I cannot make my payments.

Of course, the financing wizard who arranged my loan knowing that I cannot afford the car will be protected and get to keep his high commission from the loan even if he is falsely assuring me I will be able to resell the car in a year for a large profit. And the car dealer already made their fat profit. What a deal for all!

Certainly you realize I am really writing about the housing and mortgage industries which are going through tough times right now thanks to the unchecked speculation of virtually everybody in the industry. And now Uncle Sam plans to come to the rescue.

When more than 98% of mortgages are being paid on time, why should our federal, state, and even local governments come to the rescue of the 2% who made bad financial decisions? And why should buyers of foreclosed homes get a proposed $ 7,000 tax credit which will only cause sellers of non-foreclosed homes to lower their prices by at least that amount.

And should builders be allowed to apply current accounting losses to previous years during which they happily accepted deals knowing that all real estate booms eventually come to an end? Whatever happened to the expression “those that live by the sword, die by the sword?”

There are many reasons for the current problem. From mortgage brokers and bankers who were more interested in booking loans for their commissions rather than verifying that borrowers could really afford them, to builders who presold entire condominium buildings or home developments before breaking ground without caring about the ultimate intentions of their buyers.

But ultimately the responsibility falls on the individuals who obtained below market adjustable rate or interest only mortgages that enabled them to buy more expensive homes than they could otherwise afford. Or to those who simply “invested” in the real estate market believing there would always be a market to flip their houses or condos.

I still remember attending a real estate investment show held by a mortgage broker who had tried to talk me into an interest only loan for my current home. Frankly, the folks who attended the show did not appear to be sophisticated, financially viable, buyers. But that didn’t stop the developers from Fort Meyers, Port St. Lucie, and Orlando from signing them up for deals. Interesting how those three markets are now among the leaders in the Florida real estate collapse.

So where do we go from here? Should the Democrats in Congress (with President Bush along for the ride) rescue the distressed homeowners who are in financial despair while letting their easily identified mortgage brokers and developers keep their profits? Or should we let the marketplace naturally resolve the situation? I’m rooting for the latter.

Thank You President Bush! - April 2008

2008-04-01T12:26:00.000-04:00

When did it become unpopular to believe in a strong and prosperous United States of America?

Judging by the comments of the Democratic candidates for President and from reading and listening to media pundits and my opposing columnist, it appears that the Presidency of George Walker Bush has been a failure.

During his term in office, President Bush overcame a weakening economy inherited from the Clinton administration and the 911 tragedy by implementing a series of strategic tax cuts which again unleashed the entrepreneurial spirit which had helped build America.

And President Bush rebuilt a military weakened and demoralized during the previous eight years. The armed forces under his leadership took down an oppressive regime in Afghanistan which had provided training and refuge to those who had terrorized the world. He also rid the world of a tyrant in Iraq who had killed hundreds of thousands of his own citizens and regularly threatened his neighbors.

I am thankful that President Bush has served our country well since his first election in 2000. I can only imagine what the United States and world would look like today if Albert Gore had won his own state of Tennessee during that election and had become our 43rd President.

If Gore had become President, would he have nominated such solid individuals for the United States Supreme Court as John Roberts and Samuel Alito? I think not and am thankful that President Bush ultimately submitted those names including nominating Mr. Roberts to be the Chief Justice.

To be fair, President Bush has not been without faults. I have written frequently about them including his big spending ways and tendency to be fiercely loyal or stubborn rather than pragmatic at times. Despite record tax receipts flowing into Washington from his tax cut, President Bush spent all of that money and then some to fund such time bombs as the prescription benefit plan for Medicare and other federal government mandates including the No Child Left Behind Act. I am not one to favor burdening our future generations with the debt necessary to meet President Bush’s spending sprees.

Apparently the Democrats and liberal media think that President Bush has a few more faults than I have noted. Just type President Bush accomplishments into any internet search engine and you will see lots of sites created to joke or lambast him for one issue or another including his controversial decisions to not sign the Kyoto Protocol or to utilize aggressive wire tapping to root out possible harm against our homeland. About the only issue with which I do agree with those anti-Bush sites is that he is not the world’s most eloquent speaker.

I believe that President Bush will be valued by future generations as a President who led our country through challenging times when those against western ideals and freedoms sought to destroy our way of life. Hopefully the 44th President of the United States, when he or she takes office in January 2009, will continue that fight.

Obamamania - March 2008

2008-03-01T13:24:00.000-05:00

I enjoy listening to a good speaker. Hearing messages of hope and change spoken in a careful cadence of alliterations is very powerful stuff regardless of whether those words fail to include any specifics.

And when it is preached by a person who is filling a void of national purpose felt by today’s young voters and providing a glimmer of party allegiance to those typically not engaged in political elections, you have the recipe for a national mania.

An Obama mania that is. Just ask Hillary Clinton whose carefully planned political career was always supposed to end with her in the White House as President. Now her only connection to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue may be that of having been First Lady for eight controversial years.

Hopefully the American voters will start to see beyond Obama mania and start listening to what he plans to do to the United States if he becomes our next President. Because if he is elected, and the train wreck that could be created if his coat tails brings veto proof majorities to Democratic control of Congress, I believe our country will begin the transformation to European style socialism which I have been predicting for years.

Barack Hussein Obama proudly tells his flock of faithful that he plans to transform the United States by requiring the “rich” to share more of their hard earned wealth with the rest of America which will pay even lower income taxes or get even bigger earned income tax credits and other government handouts.

This potential redistribution of wealth via government fiat, along with less focus on providing incentives to corporations so they can stay competitive in the world economy, could create a downward spiral of stagnation requiring even higher taxes to feed the ever increasing role of the federal government in our lives as is being promised by Obama.

I have been debating my friends for years about when the impact of the millions of new citizens who have come to the United States from countries with socialist governments will affect our voters’ expectations of the role of government. Unfortunately, I believe Obama will be the agent of change to fulfill that demand.

Funny that he wants to take us to the left while most major European countries have realized the failure of their ways and are moving to the right. Look at Germany and now France who are following the successes of Great Britain and Ireland in remaking their economies.

And when I say to the left, I mean to the far left. Obama was the most liberal U.S senator in 2007, according to National Journal’s 27th annual vote ratings. Obama actually makes Hillary Clinton look like a conservative (when she is not promising $ 5,000 checks to each baby born in our country).

If Obama becomes the Democratic candidate for President, there will be many months of media and voter scrutiny of his voting record and platform. Hopefully the American public will look beyond his laudable oratory skills and realize that his promise of change is to remake our government into a complete cradle to grave provider for all Americans paid for the most productive members of our society.

Let the general election campaign begin!

Run Mike Run - February 2008

2008-02-01T15:23:00.000-05:00

With the Republican and Democratic 2008 presidential candidates battling each other, and the Democratic controlled Congress continuing to play partisan games with the Republican President, is it time for our fellow citizens to elect a candidate who is not from either of the major political parties.

Our citizens have had such an opportunity in almost every election in modern times to elect such candidates. None have won. In several cases, however, their presence on the ballot did have an impact on the final results of the presidential election. Once again, there are rumors and excited anticipation that a legitimate independent candidate may be on the ballot this coming November.

This year’s flavor is New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He even attended a recent “national unity” conference in Oklahoma at which well known Democrats and Republicans came together to discuss how to break the hyperpartisan atmosphere in Washington, DC.

Before I given my thoughts on Mr. Bloomberg, let’s first digress into the reality of independent candidates in modern times. For as long as I can remember, there has always been a non major party candidate running from a derivative of the Socialist Workers Labor Party. The Libertarian Party has usually fielded a candidate (including current Republican candidate Ron Paul who ran on that label in 1988). George Wallace ran as a segregationalist candidate in 1968. There is also perennial candidate Ralph Nader of the Green Party who has run three times since 1996. And Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan have run as candidates from the Reform Party which was founded by Mr. Perot in 1992.

Of particular note have been Mr. Nader, Mr. Perot, and Mr. Buchanan. Each of their candidacies had an impact on the eventual winner of that year’s presidential race although Mr. Buchanan’s was more of an asterisk since his presence on the 2000 ballot only had an impact in Palm Beach County when he allegedly received votes from enough confused voters using the infamous butterfly ballot to allegedly cost Al Gore the election.

The Democrats continue to blame Mr. Nader for drawing votes from their candidate in 2000 and 2004 while the Republicans will never forget how Mr. Perot probably cost George H.W. Bush another term in 1992 while allowing Bill Clinton to rise to power.

Which brings me back to potential independent candidate Mayor Bloomberg. This is a man who should really form a party called the Chameleon Party since he switched his party allegiance from Democrat to Republican so he could run – and win – in the New York Mayoral race and then recently dropped the Republican party moniker to register as an Independent (also known as a Non-Affiliated Voter in some states).

Despite his enormous riches obtained in a very admirable way as the founder of a financial information company, I do not believe Mr. Bloomberg can win a national election for a number of reasons. First, and foremost, is organization. Let’s face it, any successful campaign requires a solid grass roots effort to get out the vote. While he can buy plenty of mass media ad coverage, and he can probably hire many temporary laborers to walk the neighborhoods and work the polls for him, I just do not see how he can put together a team of passionate volunteers to take his campaign to the proper level.

And then there is his record. His supporters will say he changed public education in New York City, made the city safer, and kept the city on a strong financial footing. Isn’t that what former New York Mayor and current Republican Presidential Candidate Rudy Giuliani is claiming also?

Of course Rudy put New York on a better financial path by cutting taxes multiple times while Mr. Bloomberg has raised them. Mayor Mike even attempted to institute a commuter tax on folks from New Jersey and Connecticut who work in New York. Mr. Bloomberg also has exhibited Clintonian tendencies by waiting to measure public sentiment before commenting on many major issues. Will his passive, nice guy, image play well across the country?

Recent published reports on Mayor Bloomberg have stated that he is prepared to spend up to $ 500 million of his personal wealth on his possible presidential campaign. He is also supposedly spending a notable amount of money on polling in all 50 states to determine his potential campaign strategies to put him in the White House. Most importantly, he is counting on being the media darling of the presidential campaign to aid in his positioning as the real agent of change for our country.

Mike Bloomberg sums up the potential downside of his candidacy when he jokes about whether America is ready to elect a “5′ 7″ billionaire Jew from New York who’s divorced and running as an independent to become president of the United States.” Only time will tell if his self-effacing opinion is a enough of a concern to the American voter.

Personally, I hope Mayor Bloomberg will run because I believe he will draw a large portion of his votes from Democrats unhappy with their own candidate after a brawling, racially charged, primary election. He will also draw a large portion of the independent, non-party affiliated voters throughout the country who usually provide enough of a swing to impact the presidential election. In other words, I believe he will win enough votes to keep a Republican in the White House for the next four years. Run Mike run!

The New Year - January 2008

2008-01-01T14:22:00.000-05:00

Another year. Another set of political predictions. First to the national elections.

On January 29th, I plan to vote in the Republican primary for former Senator Fred Thompson. I will not join the chorus of Broward County party elite backing Rudy Giuliani or those voting for Mike Huckabee, in part, because of his appeal to the faith oriented voters. I believe Senator Thompson’s conservative voting record and his specific plans for our country still make him the best choice as I have said for several months. But I believe that Huckabee now has the advantage to win our state.

I hope that Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic primary because I believe she is the best Democratic candidate running. While I disagree with many of her more socialist ideas and tax increase plans, I believe she is more of a realist in what is needed to lead this country than are the other Democratic candidates. And if this is to be the year that the Democrats take back the White House, I would certainly prefer her more than naive Barack Obama or populist John Edwards.

We also have an important vote on January 29th regarding the proposed changes in our property taxes. These changes include new portability for our Save Our Homes savings, increased homestead exemptions, and a new cap on commercial property value increases. Personally, I believe the proposed changes are far too little and too late but I plan to vote for them because I have little faith that our do nothing Governor has the backbone to get the state legislature to pass radical property tax changes or to modernize our sales tax system by eliminating many of sales tax exemptions currently allowed.

In the next few weeks or months there will be a vote at the Broward County Commission regarding the regional mega mall called The Commons which is planned for western Davie. To those Commissioners who read this column, I ask you to evaluate the zero sum impact of the project on the county. In other words, will the project bring a net increase in jobs and revenue to the county without causing a similar loss of jobs and property values at other outlets? I believe this monstrous mall will be a killer for Pembroke Lakes, Broward Mall, Coral Springs Mall, Sawgrass Mills and to most Weston retailers. And with our county in a severe water draught, can we afford to allocate precious water rights to an unnecessary project like The Commons?

For those readers living in Cooper City, you also will be electing several Commissioners and a Mayor. All I can say is that I am thankful that I now live in Davie because the Cooper City Commission has become an embarrassment to its residents from its conduct before and during meetings. Hopefully you have carefully read the articles contributed by each candidate to this publication and will choose those who have solid business management backgrounds which they can offer to your city.

And lastly, I expect that the Chicken Little Environmentalists will continue to try and convince the world that Greenland has always been covered in ice and that Iceland has always been covered in green. My point is that global warming is a cyclical event just as was the coming ice age prediction a few decades ago. But let’s take advantage of this uncertainty to buy more fuel efficient cars and trucks and invest in solar and wind generation technologies so we can lessen our dependence on oil from such places as Venezuela, Iran, and Nigeria.

Let me close by wishing you and yours a healthy and happy New Years!

U.S. Dollar - December 2007

2007-12-01T12:21:00.000-05:00

The latest media assault on President Bush has been on the current value of the U.S. dollar. Even the leaders of other countries have joined the chorus as they lament the higher costs of their goods to the American economy.

Gone are last year’s media efforts to attack high gas prices and budget deficits just before the 2006 Congressional elections since the Dems have obviously done little to resolve those issues since they took control of Congress.

The good news is that the budget deficit continues to drop notably thanks to record tax revenues from the Bush economy despite the Dems failing to curtail their government spending and getting ready to abandon their “pay as you go” rules which require cuts in one government program or higher taxes before increases are allowed in another program. And I am still waiting for the Dems to decrease the federal excise tax at the pump.

Despite my instinct to defend the President because of what I believe are partisan attacks on the value of the dollar, I will not defend him. Leading economists on both the left and right are very concerned about the falling value of the dollar and so should you.

Although the weak dollar is a boon to South Florida’s travel economy and may be a key ingredient in the turnaround of our area’s weak real estate market as Europeans and Canadians take advantage of bargain prices given the strength of their euros and Canadian dollars, the long term impact on the US economy will not be so beneficial.

In decades past, a weak dollar has provided tremendous boosts to our manufacturing industries. But as the world economy has become more integrated and many of our core manufacturing operations have moved to China, Latin America, and Eastern Europe, there are less U.S. manufactured goods to be sold to generate that windfall of revenues and income tax revenues from an increase in such exports.

Most concerning is that since we now import so many of our goods and raw materials – and a growing number of services – the cost of such items increase when our dollar becomes weaker. The end result is inflation. Part of the reason for our current high gas prices is because the cost of oil has increased to reflect the lower value of the dollar. Unfortunately, this process can quickly spiral out of control causing high levels of inflation with the resulting negative impact on the cost and quality of life in the United States.

Our federal government budget deficits are also, in part, being funded by borrowing money from foreign investors. Like any other investment, our treasury notes and bonds must offer attractive yields and values. When their interest rates are low and the underlying value of those instruments decrease in step with the value of the dollar, most international investors simply look elsewhere. And without those foreign dollars to fund our deficits, our economy could be halted in its tracks.

As I mentioned earlier, I will not defend President Bush for the current declining value of the dollar. But I also blame the current crop of Democrats and those Republicans who formerly controlled Congress. They have all allowed our federal government spending to grow out of control. They have increased entitlement programs without guaranteed funding mechanisms to pay for them. And they have allowed the Iraqi war to be funded by debt rather than by reducing other expenditures accordingly. The end result being unnecessary budget deficits and greater pressure on our dollar from reliance on foreign investment.

In order to strengthen the dollar, our country needs to prove to the world that our economy continues to be strong. But I am concerned about those prospects now that the economic contributions of the real estate industry and its multiplier effect on durable goods, home furnishings, and related goods have come crashing down.

I am extremely concerned and disheartened that the numerous economic benefits of the real estate boom of the past years may have been based, in part, on questionable loans to people who should not have been qualified to obtain them. The resulting non-performing loans have been the cause of the recent banking fiasco in which billions of dollars of such loans are being written off as losses. And as a result, banks are now tightening their lending standards for all loans further damaging the prospects for our overall economy.

So where do we go from here? I wish I could realistically hope that the Democrats in control of Congress and President Bush could sit down and map out a sustainable economic plan for our country which would provide confidence to the word that we have a financial plan that will bring back strength to the dollar.

Unfortunately, the Dems keep proposing expansions of those entitlement programs as well as partisan proposals to defund the war in Iraq. I hope that Senate President Reid and House Speaker Pelosi will finally present the President with a realistic budget for the next fiscal year. But with control of the White House to be decided next year, I doubt either side will be focused on the good of the country instead of the good of their party.

And so it will be up to the American people to ensure that they vote for Presidential and Congressional candidates next year who will get the job done. Are you ready?

What Happened To My Party? - November 2007

2007-11-01T14:19:00.000-04:00

The old adage “has my political party left me or have I left my political party” has been a cause for much personal thought as I have watched the Republicans in Congress and in the White House disappoint me for their lack of spending restraint, their desire to keep power at all costs, and their corruption and sex scandals.

Of course if I was a Democrat, I would be facing the same choice as they have blown their chance to lead Congress, have Presidential candidates trying to out promisr each other on how much money they will spend on their socialist dreams, and have Congressman getting caught in their own corruptions, lies, and other indiscretions.

Even the Wall Street Journal recently conducted a poll in which registered Republicans were starting to lose their patience with the failure of the Republicans to implement standard party economic policies including controlling the growth of government and defending the benefits of free trade policies.

At the state level, our Republican Governor has failed to deliver on his promise to lower our property taxes “like a rock”. He is finally starting to show some leadership on other important issues including using his powers to ensure that property insurance companies reduce their policy costs as promised when the state decided to get into the reinsurance business for their benefit.

I am proud to see that the Republican controlled Town Council of Davie has met its obligation to lower the Town’s budget by 9% as was mandated by the state legislature during their previous attempts to lower our property tax bills. Many of our other local governments have voted to bypass those reductions and, thus, are sticking their residents with ever higher property taxes.

So where do I go from here? I have been a proud Republican for more than 20 years. I still remember with pride being one of only a handful of similar voters in a Baltimore, Maryland, precinct in which I lived in the 80’s. To this day, I still enjoy spreading the good words and ideals of Goldwater and Reagan to my extended family members and friends. But that task is getting harder as the current day Republican elected officials continue to embarrass me with their votes.

I am in search of a Republican Presidential candidate who offers me the promise of fighting for my kind of economic conservatism, for a secure border with a more orderly process for allowing new citizens into our country, and for social policies which are not dictated by his or her religious beliefs. As I wrote in a previous column, only Fred Thompson has captured my interest but his campaign has yet to make the sale.

Rest assured that I will either vote for whoever becomes the Republican Presidential candidate or I will not vote at all. As many times as I have tried to get comfortable with the possibility of a Hillary Clinton presidency, the more she shows her true socialist colors with plans to give a $ 5,000 bond to every baby born for their future college education or her pledge of $ 1,000 for each American to help them start their own retirement plans. As often as she tries to show moderate views on Iraq, she also spouts her belief in government’s key role in our everyday lives.

2008 will be a challenging year for my Republican loyalties. Considering that only a few years ago I was awarded the “Republican of the Year” trophy by the Broward County Republican party, I am hoping that something or somebody will reignite my passion for the national and local parties. Unfortunately, at this point, I believe I will resort to being a Monday morning quarterback about what could have been.

Protecting Our Country - October 2007

2007-10-01T12:18:00.000-04:00

Did the General betray us? That’s what the left wants us to think of a highly decorated four star war hero. Even the liberal New York Time was in on the action by running that disrespectful MoveOn.Org full page ad on the day General Petraeus testified before Congress.

The left just does not take the global war on terror seriously. Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards considers that war nothing but a bumper sticker statement. The left wants us to pull our troops out of Iraq just when the Sunni leaders are joining our troops and the Shiites in battling the terrorist organization Al Qaeda which considers Iraq their proving ground for future expansion.

For those on the left who believe our problem with Islamic extremists will end if we leave Iraq, they either have forgotten the past or never paid attention in their history classes. And I am not talking about the horrific attack on the World Trade Center six years ago.

Osama bin Laden summed it up in one of his recent videos in which he warned that all westerners should convert to Islam. In fact the battle for religious and geopolitical superiority goes back hundreds of years before the battles of the Crusades.

Fortunately, the vast majority of Christians, Jews, and Muslims have moderated in their hatred for each other in the last few centuries but Islamic extremists have continued to take their battle around the world to such places as Russia, Chechnya, Indonesia, Sudan, Australia, England, France, Spain, Germany, and of course the United States. And Israel has been a constant battle site since its creation in 1948.

Today’s left thinks that peace talks, and a better understanding of, and respect for, extremists will make the world a safer place. Tell that to the British who followed the advice of Neville Chamberlain during World War II. Or tell that to a friend of mine who barely escaped with his life from southern Vietnam as the communist north took over after many rounds of peace talks and our ultimate troop withdrawal.

More concerning is the left’s obsession with limiting or gutting the successful new intelligence efforts which have been implemented in the United States and other countries since 9/11. In the past few months planned attacks have been stopped in Germany, England, and the United States because communications between terrorists were intercepted.

My fear is the next attack by Islamic terrorists on our country may not be a large explosive attack but, rather, will be a coordinated series of gruesome psychological attacks similar to that which occurred at a Russian school several years ago during which terrorists tried to break the spirit of the Russian people by killing and maiming their young. Last year, several suspected terrorists were arrested riding a Tampa school bus. And recently 9 postcards with the words “Jihad boom” were sent to public schools in the Ocala and Gainesville areas.

The bottom line is that the Islamic extremist war on our western civilization did not start on 9/11 and will not end if MoveOn.Org and the rest of the left are successful in pulling our troops out of Iraq. Hopefully the Democratic presidential candidates will step up to the plate and distance themselves from the loony left and declare their intention to finish the battle in Iraq and go wherever else a similar challenge exists around the world.

The Democratic Economy - September 2007

2007-09-01T13:17:00.000-04:00

Am I imagining it or has the US economy suffered since the Democrats took control of Congress this past January?

Could it be that their constant talk of killing the 15% capital gains tax, which I believe had reinvigorated our economy, has investors nervous? Or is it their talk of increasing the income tax rate for that segment of the population that already pays the most taxes?

Or perhaps it is the Democratic Congress’s failure to continue the free trade path of the Bush administration which had allowed developing countries around the world to grow themselves out of poverty rather than rely on foreign handouts including those from our taxpayers?

Some are even hinting that the Democratic leaders are purposely sabotaging our economy to stoke up fear and anger at the Bush administration and, thus, all Republicans in the upcoming 2008 election cycle.

In my opinion, it is all of the above.

Say what you will about the Bush administrations efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan but the record is clear that, prior to the Democratic takeover of Congress earlier this year, the Bush economic record included creating more than 8 million jobs which was more than were created in all of the European countries and Japan combined. GNP growth continued at a brisk pace. And consumer confidence was high.

Tax receipts to the federal government are higher than they have ever been. The problem continues to be that Congress – be it under Republican or Democratic control – keeps spending more and more. Just look at the Democrats recent about face on wasteful pork barrel spending – also known as “earmarks”.

The Chairman of the Appropriations Committee Democrat David Obey, who at the start of the year promised an open and transparent earmarking process, has now come out and said he will not allow a debate on earmarks to go forward until it is too late for public and Congressional scrutiny. Get ready for more bridges to nowhere and libraries named after Congressmen.

With the US and world stock markets whip sawing higher and lower for the past month, the Democrats are even trying to minimize any possible blame for spooking investors by saying that their constituents are not big investors in the market so it is not their concern. That demagoguery fails to take into account that the pension funds of their union buddies, government workers, and academic elite are very active investors.

Certainly normal seven year business cycles are also at play here. And a good cleansing of the speculative investments in high yield mortgage funds and securities backed by risky adjustable rate mortgages which are becoming unaffordable for many consumers. If the Democratic Congress really wants to do something useful, they should introduce tough legislation to better regulate the mortgage industry which is more concerned with loan placement fees than qualifying customers for their riskiest products.

With the real estate market still in the doldrums, the stock market in the midst of a correction, and businesses concerned about the cost of capital due to tighter financing options and increased federal taxes, let’s hope that the Democratic leaders will look beyond partisan politics and will renew all of the Bush tax cuts which will give a renewed boost of confidence and activity to the country’s economy.

My Political Party - August 2007

2007-08-01T12:15:00.000-04:00

I am not sure if it was the Republicans in the Florida Legislature passing that lousy proposed property tax amendment; or Republican Governor Crist issuing executive orders that will substantially increase the cost of gas to comply with his strict new vehicle emissions standards; or that male Republican House member getting arrested for soliciting to perform a sexual act on a male police officer. What is going on with the elected Republicans in Florida?

Not that the national Democrats are perfect role models of late either as they pandered for the Hispanic vote with the stalled immigration bill; are trying to force our soldiers out of Iraq while they are serving our country proudly battling Islamic extremists; and as the Democratic Congress is getting nothing done in Washington as evidenced by a lower approval rating than President Bush.

I find myself moving closer to becoming an Independent voter except that I can’t stand the platform of the Democratic Party and want to ensure that they lose the Presidential race in November 2008 and perhaps Congress as well. So I will carefully choose a Republican candidate for the January primary and will offer my services to help him win the nomination.

My only problem is that none of the Republican presidential candidates appeal to me. Having attended the Broward County Republican Party Lincoln Day fundraiser some weeks ago, it is apparent that the county party elites are lining up behind former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Of course these are they same folks that helped elect Charlie Crist as our Governor. All I can say to them is “I told you so” about Crist not sharing our Republican beliefs as he has become a populist in his efforts to position himself for his own White House run in the years ahead.

As for Giuliani, I will give him credit for being tough on crime and for being a fiscal conservative but I’ve met him and I just don’t get good vibes from him. And then there are his poor decisions in choosing clients and employees for his security consulting firm and for his frequent grandstanding regarding the horror of the World Trade Center attack. The only other thing going for him is the support of Steve Forbes who I hold in high regard for his international and economic insights.

John McCain may have already dropped out of the presidential race by the time this column is published but he is not my choice either. His love fest with Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy on the behalf of the amnesty immigration bill ended his chances of winning the Republican nomination along with his name sponsorship of that lousy campaign reform act which primarily helps incumbents such as him.

If only former Massachusetts Governor Mit Romney did not come across as a too slick salesman, had not flip-flopped on so many issues, and had not signed that socialist state healthcare law while Governor. Then maybe I would have supported him out of respect for his great business acumen including having saved the Salt Lake City Olympic Games some years ago.

And that leaves former Tennessee Senator, and famed TV actor, Fred Thompson as the only other possible Republican candidate with national potential. I like his plain talking, optimistic, conservatism which reminds me of Ronald Reagan. If only he was not a trial lawyer who has also lobbied on behalf of some questionable clients and who fought tort reform laws in Congress.

If only Jeb did not have the same last name as our current President, he would be my candidate. With that not being a possibility, Fred is my guy for now.

China Syndrome - July 2007

2007-07-01T15:13:00.000-04:00

Pet food produced in Canada, and made from mislabeled ingredients sourced in China, caused dozens of unfortunate deaths of dogs and cats in the US. Toothpaste made in China with dangerous ingredients caused a massive product recall in the US. And toy train sets made in China were recalled in the US because of paint containing lead.

In response, China went on the offensive, noting at least four American made products in the past weeks as being unsafe or not meeting Chinese safety standards.

How long will it take for the media and left wing mouthpieces to blame the Bush Administration and the FDA and FTC which they will claim do not adequately test food stuffs and other items being imported to and exported from our country? And when will they start blaming free trade for bringing bad products into our kitchens?

Let’s remember that American firms produce plenty of products which have their own recall problems in case you have not read about the recent situations with peanut butter, spinach, and GE dishwashers to name just a few. And unsafe imports are not limited to those coming from China.

The reality is that there have always been unhealthy and defective products and there always will be. Unfortunately the protectionists and unions in the US are again trying to make a political issue out of foreign manufactured goods. With the Democrats in charge in Washington, we will probably soon see a series of special hearings deploring our foreign trade agreements.

Soon we will again hear others parrot Ross Perot’s famous 1992 words about the “giant sucking sound” from foreign trade deals like the North American Free Trade Act which he claimed would shift our country’s prosperity to Mexico. If that was the case, how come one of the top imports from Mexico continues to be their citizens?

Or perhaps the Democrats will lead us down the path of another Smoot-Hartley act which imposed such high tariffs in the 1920’s on the import of foreign goods that our country’s economy went into a depression. The fact is that we need trade with China and other nations to meet our country’s need for affordable products and services.

I was taught several basic economic principles during my undergraduate studies which continue to guide my thoughts on trade policy. The first is that products and services should always be sourced from the country with the best “comparative advantage” for labor, raw materials, and manufacturing costs. The second is a concept known as “caveat emptor” which means buyer beware.

In other words, buy from the source with the best price but base that purchasing decision on quality as well. In the case of China, our retailers and their suppliers need to test the quality of imported products before releasing them into our retail distribution channels. We consumers certainly cannot be expected to do our own product testing so we should only buy from retailers whose suppliers we believe are doing that testing for us.

Lastly, does the government have a role in making sure our retailers and their suppliers provide safe goods to our economy? Yes it does and if the Bush administration has failed to do its job, it should be held accountable. But let’s not let politics overshadow the need for free and fair trade with the rest of the world.

Property Tax Update - June 2007

2007-06-01T13:11:00.000-04:00

Two years ago, this column discussed the problem of the broken property tax system in the State of Florida. I detailed how those benefiting from the 1992 Save Our Homes Amendment were the lucky “haves” while those who had purchased their homes in the past few years were the “have nots”.

I suggested that the inequitable property tax system would potentially scare off potential buyers and trap the “haves” in their homes. Unfortunately my prediction was worsened by climbing property insurance rates and by a tighter credit market. Today, the housing market is stagnant. I believe high property taxes continue to be the major problem as buyers wait for reduced taxes before purchasing properties.

The fact that we are again writing about this topic means that our elected officials in Tallahassee failed to do their job. Our new Governor has shown no leadership other than offering such prophetic advice as “taxes should drop like a rock”. We need him to lead and not just offer sound bites. And our county and local government officials have been too busy hiring lobbyists to protect their bloated budgets which they claim serve so many necessary needs.

When I moved in 2004 after having lived in my previous home for more than a decade, my property taxes increased by 400% yet the square footage of my home only doubled. This brings me to my suggestion as to how to revamp our property tax system.

My suggestion is based on a simple premise. Theoretically, larger homes require more government services than smaller homes. So they should pay more based on their square footage. Currently, new homeowners in expensive two bedroom condos on the beach pay more in property taxes than some of the long time homeowners in the large six bedroom custom home developments of Davie and Weston protected by Save Our Homes caps.

So instead of silly plans to completely scrap the property tax and replace it with a higher state sales tax, or just increasing the homestead exemption, I suggest that homes and condos be primarily taxed based on their square footage. But I would also continue to tax their market values on a progressive tiered basis because doing so ensures that those with the highest priced homes still pay an appropriate share of taxes regardless of size. I would also continue to allow homestead exemptions for seniors only.

Thus, your property tax bills would show separate lines items for a square footage tax and for a property value tax. The actual tax rates for each would be dependent on the revenues needed to fund the county, city and town, special taxing districts, and school board. And therein lies the biggest issue. How much money do our governing entities really need? What are necessary services versus those items better funded by user fees?

I agree with the majority of Florida House members that the revenue needed should be rolled back to the early years of this decade before spending got out of control with the added funds from skyrocketing home values. I would suggest 2002 as the base year with adjustments made for inflation and other realistic cost of living increases since then. Thereafter rate increases should be capped based on inflation.

But I believe that the legislature should also allow the county and local governments to empower their voters to bypass the inflationary cap and increase the property tax rates for residential properties in their areas as high as their local voters will allow in special referendums in order to fund services which voters agree are necessary for their areas but cannot be adequately funded by the rolled back or subsequently capped tax revenues.

Property tax reform for commercial properties must also be addressed this year with rolled back bills. Small businesses which own their own buildings are being squeezed by higher property taxes while also dealing with higher employee healthcare costs and skyrocketing commercial property insurance. And larger property owners usually pass along property taxes to their tenants who in turn usually raise prices for their products and services which ends up affecting us all.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, property taxes for multi-family rental properties need to be slashed if our county and state are going to meet the need for affordable housing. Such tax reduction legislation, however, will have to require that those rental property owners reduce overall rental income dollar for dollar for any reduction in property taxes.

I urge each of you to contact your State Representatives and Senators to let them know that there is no more important issue for them to resolve this year than restructuring our property tax system.

Political Correctness - May 2007

2007-05-01T12:10:00.000-04:00

It was widely reported – but perhaps not widely read – that Great Britain was no longer going to include discussions of the Holocaust, The Crusades, or slavery in some of its grade levels because doing so could be considered offensive to some of its students who are relatively new residents of that country and who practice what some call a radical faith.

I am sure all of you, however, are familiar with radio and TV host Don Imus being fired for indefensible comments about the Rutgers women’s basketball team after much pressure from Al Sharpton of Tawana Brawley fame and Jesse Jackson of Hymietown fame.

What is going on in the United States and around the world with all of this political correctness? More importantly what has happened to the America in which I grew up and to the Europe of which I read and yearned to visit?

The countries of this world, and the United States specifically, seem to be losing their individual identities to a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious mix of nationalities each of which believes their roots are more important than being part of a proud and unified country.

Don’t get me wrong. I believe that individuals should cherish their cultural roots, their ethnicity, and their religions. But I more strongly believe that each of us should first remember that we are part of the United States and that what keeps our country united is our common language and respect for others opinions even if we do not agree with them. Why do I sense that these priorities are changing?

You can now visit most cities of the United States and find areas in which English is not the primary means of communication. In all of these communities, government and social agencies have changed their ways of doing business to reach out to those who have chosen to not immerse themselves in the historic primary and public language of our country. This failure to prioritize learning English and the resulting disrespect towards those wanting a common language is causing much of the rift between illegal immigrants and citizens today.

Similarly, when I visited Western Europe several years ago, my wife and I immediately noticed the large influx of immigrants from North African nations who neither spoke the respective resident languages of French, English, or Italian in public places. Now I read that some of them don’t even want to follow the law of their new homelands as evidenced by a German judge recently allowing the use of Sharian Law concepts in his ruling.

Why does it seem that so many Americans now think the opposite of President Kennedy’s historic saying of “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” Rather we are now supposed to feel guilty towards those that are being held back in society because our tax dollars are not providing them enough support.

Is this trend just the beginning of the Death Of The West about which a number of columnists have written and spoken in the past few years? These columnists say that all civilizations collapse from their own success or excesses eventually. Are we at that point in our country’s history? Will the growing political clout of those who favor diversity of language and law – and the politicians playing them for votes – cause our country to lose its identity and fade away? Only time will tell.

Global Warming - April 2007

2007-04-01T14:15:00.000-04:00

Global warming. It is interesting to write about this topic as the northeast United States is experiencing its third major snow storm in a few weeks so late into the winter season. Perhaps this column should have been written about the fear of a new ice age as was debated as recently as the late 1970’s.

Much has been written about so-called global warming. Former Vice-President Al Gore even won a few Oscars for his Inconvenient Truth movie. But I’m not going to waste my column debunking his exaggerations and his falsehoods or his hypocrisy as he has positioned himself for nice profits from the potential trading of “carbon credits” or for his heated pool house which is larger than the primary homes of most Americans. The New York Times already did that article for me.

Certainly man has a limited impact on its ecological system. During my college days, I even took a few courses in ecological science to teach me about such common sense. I’m proud to say that I still recycle, that I keep the thermostat high in the summer and low in the winter, and that I minimize the use of lights except for my beloved low voltage fixtures illuminating my landscaping. If mankind followed my examples – and not Al Gore’s since we don’t want everyone flying in gas guzzling private planes and burning oil and electric at the levels he does at his three homes – our atmosphere might not have as high of a concentration of carbon monoxide as it currently does.

But the reality, in my opinion, is that mankind is not primarily responsible for weather trends on earth. In 2006, The National Academy of Sciences issued a report about the existence of a medieval warming period from about 900 AD to 1300 AD and a brief ice age from about 1500 to 1850. Both of these relatively recent periods occurred long before the invention of the SUV or human industrial activity could have possibly impacted the Earth’s climate. I believe they occurred from naturally occurring trends which help to balance out our ecosystem so it can continue providing sustenance for life.

Despite what fear mongering pundits and scientists suffering from group think continue to spew about our lifestyles and our impact on the earth, nature controls more of our ecological future than we do. Why is it that these experts rarely talk about the exponentially larger impact on our environment from volcanoes, earthquakes, forest fires started by lightning, sun spots, and solar flares? Do you remember the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980 which partially darkened the skies over much of the United States? Even all of the automobiles in the world have not yet caused such an effect.

Perhaps man’s most notable impact on its environment and weather is from the booming population of the Earth’s current inhabitants which has ravished our forests that naturally act as a purifier for air pollutants. Many even believe that the parallel increase in livestock and the resulting methane has had more of an impact on our environment than automobiles. Will Al Gore and the United Nations propose selective reductions in people and livestock to bring down the population to more manageable levels just as they want to ruin the industrialized world by telling it how to manage its energy use?

I suggest you not worry too much about Florida being underwater from the shifting ice fields although we could certainly use some H2O now to rid our water use restrictions. And I predict you will be reading more and more articles about how much of the global warming fear is being promoted by individuals, scientific organizations, academic institutions, and firms best positioned to profit from the government subsidies and economic policies necessary to meet the supposed Global Warming challenge.

Party Politics - March 2007

2007-03-01T12:07:00.000-05:00

When I first started voting Republican nearly 30 years ago, it was because of the simple and prudent philosophies of Ronald Reagan. He believed that government was rarely the solution – in fact, it was usually the problem because of its unnecessary interference in so many aspects of our life. He also believed that government rarely lacked revenue to fund its operations – rather, government usually had a spending problem that it always tried to solve by taxing more of my hard earned money

I also fondly remember the political philosophy of then Democratic Speaker of the House, Tip O’Neill, who said his secret to success was remembering that all politics is local. I enjoyed watching and listening to Reagan and O’Neill so much that I decided to get involved in local politics and successfully ran for office in the Student Government at the University of Maryland to make sure that the annual student activity fee was not raised and was spent wisely.

And thus began three decades of pride in being a fiscally conservative Republican who also agreed with much – by not all – of the social principles of the Grand Old Party. Today, however, I am embarrassed and ashamed by the Republican Party at all levels from the White House, to Congress, to the Governor’s mansion, to the local city commissions and town councils.

Let me be clear – I still do not believe in the governing philosophy of the Democrats. In fact, I ran for the Florida Senate several years ago against our now Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz whose voting record continues to disappoint me even as I continue to admire her political savvy. And the possibility of a President Gore in 2000 motivated me to get very active in the Broward Republican Party which awarded me its Republican of the Year trophy in 2004 for my efforts.

But today I feel differently. I have yet to hang up a personal thank you note I received from President Bush for my involvement in his last campaign. Governor Crist’s recent populist statement that property insurance companies were making “excess profits” reaffirmed why I reluctantly voted for him. The last Republican Congress spent so many billions on pork barrel earmark spending that they deserved to be defeated last November (not that the Democratic Congress will do any better).

And my local Republican leaning Davie Town Council sold out its residents for want of more tax revenues from a billionaire developer who has already seen land it is buying for The Commons shopping mall increase by nearly $ 20 million dollars in value after getting the Council vote to move forward with its project.

So where do I go from here? I got involved in the political world in the ‘70s because I wanted to be part of the solution rather than just being a part of an electorate which only complained of the problems. I will continue to help specific candidates who support issues important to me. But my days of supporting other candidates just because they belong to my political party are over. Unfortunately for America, the Democrats are not the solution either. Hopefully a new governing philosophy or party will form to again lead America to be that shining city on the hill admired throughout the world.

Iraq War Update - February 2007

2007-02-01T14:04:00.000-05:00

“We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq. I would say 20,000 to 30,000.”

OK, who said that in early December 2006?

In January, President Bush proposed a tactical increase in troops in Iraq to focus on supporting the Iraqi army in their effort to dismantle the insurgents. The Democrats – and many Republicans – have questioned and criticized his intentions.

But it was NOT President Bush who publicly advocated the increase in troops a few months ago. It was Democrat Silvestre Reyes who is now the Chairman of the influential House Select Committee on Intelligence.

The fact is that whatever President Bush recommends for Iraq – or for the economy for that matter – the Democrats and their media allies immediately attack his statements and efforts. Even Representative Reyes has now spun his own words in a Kerry-like “I was for it before being against it” attempt to fall into line with his political party.

Enough with the politics of war. It is time for our elected officials to put down their partisan gloves and work together to complete our mission in Iraq so that we can begin to bring back our troops or deploy them to other areas in the world where they are needed.

So what is that mission? I will be the first to say that the Bush administration has been less than consistent in its public comments. First it was to rid the world of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. Then it was to stop his support and funding of terrorists. Then it was to help form a stable democratic country in that turbulent part of the world. And now it is because Iraq has become the epicenter on the war on terror.

I believe most people would agree that we won the war against Hussein and his brutal government but failed to win the peace. The Bush Administration should be held accountable for its failure to win that peace. His political party certainly paid the price in November. And already the newly empowered Democrats are fighting with each other over what they can do.
Here is what I think we should do. Regardless of whether the Iraqi war should have ever been started - and I think it was a just cause – today’s reality is that the war brought to the surface the depth around the world of anti-western, Islamic fundamentalists who have launched attacks in Spain, France, England, Indonesia, Australia, Russia and many other lands.

I believe our world – that of freedom of religion, of free markets, and freedom to choose one’s path in life – is at much at risk now as it was during Hitler’s attempts to dominate the continent sixty years ago. Our country’s military force proved invaluable then and it must do its duty now to rid the world of those “death to the west” religious fascists.

My father, and his generation fought too hard and paid too heavy of a price, for our country to become appeasers now to the terrorists seeking to destroy our western way of life. We must support our military effort in Iraq and demand that other countries provide their fair share of men and resources. If the terrorists defeat us in Iraq, the entire world will suffer the consequences. Instead of cowering, we must dedicate whatever resources are necessary to kill our enemies before they kill us.

The Year Ahead - January 2007

2007-01-01T13:03:00.000-05:00

The year 2007 will be an important year for those of us living in southwest Broward. There will be municipal elections in Davie and Miramar. Cooper City’s elected officials may be shamed or suspended from office for using taxpayer money to buy drinks and food at private dinner meetings that may have been held in violation of Florida’s strict Sunshine Laws. And several controversial developments and issues are expected to come before our Town Councils and City Commissions including several with a great impact on Weston.

This next year will also be contentious on the state and federal government levels as the new Democratic majority in Washington puts it imprint on our country’s governance while our state elected officials seek to do the same in Tallahassee where Republicans still rule. Will the Democrats in both capitols try to seek middle ground or continue their liberal tendencies? And will the Republicans finally listen to their constituents who continue to want smaller and more affordable government.

In my opinion, this coming year will also be monumental in the relationship and cooperation between our local Towns and Cities. Unfortunately, I do not believe the year will end with positive feelings.

Miramar and Pembroke Pines will continue to debate the best location for FPL to meet the growing electrical needs west of I-75. Southwest Ranches and Pembroke Pines will again face off on lighting, traffic, and road closure issues. And Cooper City and Davie will continue to deal with water issues and other frictions which resulted from the residents of United Ranches choosing to be annexed into Davie.

But perhaps no issue will challenge our local governments and residents more than a planned regional mall for west Davie. The mall which may potentially provide significant tax revenues to Davie will solely rely on Weston roads for the millions of cars going to the mall. And the proposed mall will certainly negatively impact Pembroke Lakes mall, Weston’s Town Center, and perhaps even Sunrise’s Sawgrass Mills. And because a great number of west Davie residents oppose the mall, it appears the only entity to benefit will be the mall’s developer. So why approve it?

Meanwhile Weston, in its own act of selfishness, is trying to get the Broward County School Board to possibly use eminent domain to seize part of the Davie mall land for a new high school site to help Weston solve its Cypress Bay High School overcrowding issue caused by poor land planning from years ago. And if the mall site does not work out, Weston may push for its new high school to be built elsewhere in Davie on land near Orange Drive and Shotgun Road originally provided by the builder of a west Davie development for a needed middle school for Davie residents.

There are also rumors that Weston is trying to get the Florida Department of Transportation to consider building a new ramp for I-75 onto SW 26th Street in Davie so that Davie can also deal with the inconvenience of thousands of cars pouring onto its roads daily from the proposed mall traffic. These battles of economics, traffic, and education can only poison the relationship between our local municipal governments and their residents while all should be focused on solving the area’s property insurance, housing affordability, and property tax issues.

Let’s hope 2007 turns out to be a better year for our communities than I predict, and that turf wars do not cause permanent harm between them. In any case, I hope you personally will have a safe, healthy, and prosperous New Year! I look forward to providing you more of my opinions in the months to come. In the meantime, don’t hesitate to email me in care of this publication. I enjoy your comments.

Election Spoils - December 2006

2006-12-01T12:54:00.000-05:00

To the victors, go the spoils.

By now, the Democrats in Washington are picking their new offices in the various legislative office buildings near the Capitol. Whenever one party takes over majority rule in either the Senate or the House of Representatives, its members get to choose the best offices. That usually means evicting the losing party’s members from their former suites which usually are larger and closer to the voting chambers.

Was this election really a total victory for the Democrats? Or just voter resentment of the status quo in Washington?

Certainly the Democrats reversed the 15 seat Republican majority in the House and ended up with a similar majority for themselves. And won the Senate. They also won a number of important Governor’s races throughout the country including my home state of Maryland.

Locally, Republicans in Broward County lost their County Commissioner, a long-time Congressman, and a State Representative. In each case, the Democrats did a better job of getting out their base and in convincing a majority of Independents and a notable number of Republicans that their candidates would bring new ideas to their elected bodies.

Martin Kiar, the Democrat who replaced our western Broward Republican State Representative, should be congratulated for his campaign which included endorsements from, and involvement of, several Broward County Democratic power brokers. Let’s hope he can gain similar access to Republican leadership in Tallahassee for the benefit of western Broward.

The 2006 election certainly was a wake-up call for the Republicans. As I had opined in several past columns in this publication, the Republican majority was too concerned with keeping power than in passing or retracting laws to better our country. A number were challenged by easy access to favors provided by lobbyists. Others made sure their districts received millions of dollars in pork barrel appropriations rather than helping to reduce the size of government.

But before the left starts acting as if they have a liberal mandate to socialize more of our economy and government with another Great Society effort, they need to realize that a vast majority of those new Democrats who won stood for many conservative principles.

It will be fun to watch San Francisco Pelosi and her team of old line liberals trying to push through progressive legislation. If you do not remember Congressmen Dingell, or Waxman, or Rangel from the ‘80s and early ‘90s, I’m sure you will know who they are in 2007! I also expect our own Congresswoman Wasserman-Schultz to gain more national notoriety as she joins that left-leaning leadership in some capacity.

And it will be fun to watch the action in the Senate. Former Connecticut Democrat Joe Lieberman won as an Independent with support from mostly the Republicans and other non-Democratic voters. In other words, the Connecticut Democrats could not elect their candidate who was the favored candidate of the anti-war, anti-Bush crowd. Even top national Democrats raised money and campaigned for their Democratic candidate to no avail. Sorry Hillary and Barack, you are not as influential as you think!

Lieberman, the former Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate in 2000 will now be the most powerful man in the Senate since if he chooses at any time to caucus with the Republicans, the Democrats will lose their majority. This same scenario happened in 2001 when “jumping Jim” Jeffords of New Hampshire switched to the Democratic caucus and upset the then balance of Republican power.

My biggest concern about the effect of the 2006 election will be its impact on our country’s economy. The Bush tax cuts which have led our country to tremendous growth in jobs and other economic activity - and in record federal tax receipts – will likely be altered by the Democrats. Some are already calling for more “fairness” as if having 10% of our tax payers funding nearly 70% of our federal taxes is not progressive enough!

And Hillary has already said that national healthcare will be a bad dream for those who thought her socialized medicine was laid to rest along with the Democratic control of Congress in 1994. Sometimes history repeats itself. Perhaps it will again in 2008.

A Question Of Ethics - November 2006

2006-11-01T22:51:00.000-05:00

What is the similarity between Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid, his secret $1 million land deal, his questionable use of campaign money to pay holiday bonuses for staff at his personal condo, and the liberal press?

Or between Democratic Congressman William Jefferson, $90,000 in cash found wrapped in his freezer, and the liberal press?

Or Democratic Congressman Allan Mollohan, $ 200 million in federal pork spending earmarked to his campaign contributors’ organizations, and the liberal press?

The similarity is that all of these stories had a very short shelf life in the liberal press.

Now compare the limited coverage for the above ethical lapses with the amount of ink and airtime spent on the fallout from former Congressman Foley’s sexually provocative emails to pages. Or on former Congressman Tom Delay’s fund raising efforts. Or on Vice-President Cheney’s former staffer “Scooter” Libby who was allegedly involved in the naming of CIA employee Valerie Plame Wilson.

It is interesting to note that each of the Republicans is a “former” government employee while each of the Democrats cited are still in office!

This fact is oddly similar to the comparison of Republicans forcing President Nixon to resign for his attempts to cover-up a typical campaign dirty trick while the Democrats let President Clinton stay in office for lying under oath regardless of what he was trying to cover-up.

Why do the Democrats usually look the other way when one of their own allegedly breaks the law? And why do the Republicans do a better job of self-policing their ranks? Could it be that the liberal press keeps Republican lapses in the news longer to fester in the public mind?

Of course ethical failures are not limited to national politics.

A Hollywood City Commissioner was recently suspended from office after being charged with 5 felony counts for his alleged behind the scenes involvement in a contract for sewage treatment services for the city. And of course, there was the Town of Davie’s former Administrator who was fired after being charged with allegedly stealing $500,000 from the town’s coffers.

And then there are the Cities of Hialeah and Miami, and Miami-Dade County! Many a Miami Herald writer have established their careers by doing little more than just waiting to cover the various politicians who were corrupted while serving as elected officials in those local governments. One columnist’s career actually ended earlier this year when he withheld information about a politician who killed himself after being hounded by the press for alleged sexual and financial transgressions.

So why do so many politicians get caught in ethical lapses? Have the temptations for easy money and unchecked power become just too great to turn down? Has the divisiveness of partisan politics scared away decent and honest people from running for office? Or are politicians simply reflective of a dark side of society now affecting the business world and everyday life?

When I ran for a State Senate seat some years ago, I quickly learned of the reality of influence brokering as I campaigned. Several entrenched politicians from both political parties worked together to limit my access to potential campaign funds and organized support. Other special interest groups were afraid of losing influence with my opponent if they outwardly supported my efforts despite their discontent with her.

As I have watched other people I know run in more competitive local and state races than was mine, the behind the scenes shenanigans have been even more notable and challenging. I have concluded that it is just human nature and economic self-interest for politicians and their supporters to work together to win elections and share in the spoils of victory.

I find nothing wrong with that as long as nobody crosses that implied or legal ethical line. All we can hope is that the government investigators, opposing politicians, and the press continue to expose those politicians who misuse our trust. Now if the liberal press could only be as hard on the national Democrats as they are on Republicans.

Political Parties - October 2006

2006-10-14T08:59:00.000-04:00

During the recent September 5th primary election, less than 14% of the registered Democrats and Republicans in Broward County took the time to vote to choose their respective party’s gubernatorial candidate for November’s general election. Even less voted to choose their U.S. Senate candidate or vote in other contested races.

Do political parties even matter anymore? Only 105,000 of your Broward County neighbors out of 765,535 registered Democrats and Republicans think they do. In other words, more than a half million of our neighbors who are registered with a political party felt their lives were too busy to vote by mail, vote during the two week early voting period, or show up on election day at which they would have seen dozens of voting booths going unused most of the day.

Why vote? Does it really matter? If you do not believe voting is important to choose your elected representatives in Washington, Tallahassee, and in your local community, then I suppose you really do not care how they vote to set and spend your taxes, regulate your lives, run your schools, maintain your roads, protect you, or prepare to assist you after natural disasters.

It is very simple. We live in a representative republic in which we elect politicians to represent us in the legislative branches of our government. They in turn propose and vote to approve our rules and laws. And it normally takes 50% of them + 1 to affirmatively pass those laws for the Governor or President to sign or veto.

Over time, politicians formed voting blocs and political parties to try and reach that majority. So working hard to support and elect members of your political party in order to have that voting majority is important as well as having a Governor or President of your same party to sign those laws. Today the Republican Party is the majority party in both Tallahassee and in Washington and also holds the Governorship and Presidency.

The Republicans are statistically assured to keep their legislative majority in Tallahassee in November although our area does have a contested State House race with incumbent Representative Susan Goldstein seeking her second term. If you want our area to continue to be part of that ruling party majority in Tallahassee – with access to its leadership and funding – I heartily recommend you vote for Representative Goldstein who has already done much for Davie, Southwest Ranches, and Weston.

And if you believe, as I do, that Governor Bush has done a great job of making Florida the envy of the country for its economic growth engine, its accountable schools, and its safe streets, I hope you will join me in voting for Charlie Crist to keep the Governorship in Republican hands to ensure swift passage of legislation to keep our state prosperous and effective.

Our area also has a say in the election of a U.S. Senator in November although recent polling is showing that incumbent Democrat Bill Nelson has a large lead over his opponent Katherine Harris. I still urge you to vote for the Senatorial candidate of your choice because we all learned six years ago that a few hundred votes can decide an election!

Regardless of whether you are a Democrat, Republican, or are not affiliated with either party, please remember to vote this November. Our democracy depends on it!

America's Healthcare Mess - September 2006

2006-09-02T16:09:00.000-04:00

The healthcare system in the United States is spiraling out of control. Who should we blame? Insurance companies? Doctors? Lawyers? Government agencies? The Democrats? The Republicans? Or we consumers?

There is enough blame to go around for everyone. It seemed so much simpler when I was a young child. The doctor came to our house, his office sent my parents a reasonable bill, and then my parents sent him a check.

Then everything changed in 1965 when President Lyndon Johnson created Medicare from which Uncle Sam would pay most of the bills for our elderly. Since those consumers no longer had to worry as much about the cost, the medical community was able to raise their rates with little scrutiny. Soon self-pay patients were billed similarly higher rates as were the employed whose employers offered either self-funded health benefits or health insurance coverage.

Thanks to those runaway costs, diagnostic payment codes, health maintenance organizations and preferred provider organizations became the darlings of government and private industry. With today’s new Medicare prescription drug plan adding to the healthcare mess, it is no wonder that our healthcare system is being heatedly discussed in the halls of Congress and elsewhere.

This issue is also starting to get personal to me. The practice of medicine and the processing of insurance claims have become cold and impersonal. It is now only about the money and not about the patient. Only a small percentage of staff even smile any more.

My well-liked general physician dropped my original insurance carrier several years ago forcing me to seek a new doctor. I read that he recently became one of those “boutique” upscale doctors who charges $ 2,500 per year just to be his patient. You still have to make your copayments for his insurance claims.

My wife and I have been told by numerous specialists that they don’t accept the plan we have from our insurance carrier but they do accept that carrier’s other plans. In one situation, she was given clearance over the phone by the doctor’s office only to be rejected when she showed up in pain for her appointment.

Because of such frustrations, my company finally dropped that carrier only to find the same problem with our new carrier and its variety of plans. Frankly, I feel sorry for doctors and hospitals having to deal with so many insurance carriers each with a variety of plans with different specifications.

But doctors are not without guilt in today’s healthcare crisis. One of my doctors – at my request – sent me for a basic diagnostic test but would not explain the results unless I paid him for another office visit. Instead he just gave me the printout to interpret myself which, fortunately, I was easily able to do. Most doctors now want to be paid upfront for copayments or procedures not covered by insurance.

My wife was almost charged for a last minute appointment cancellation because of a family emergency. Yet that same healthcare professional had no qualms about canceling a previous appointment at the last moment because of her own emergency with no regret for affecting my wife’s work schedule.

If you have the misfortune of needing to go to the emergency room at one of our local public hospitals, you need to pitch a tent while either waiting to be seen or to be given a room if overnight observation is needed thanks to the high number of uninsured who turn to the ER for routine medical care.

Understanding the paperwork blitz from doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies has become more challenging than were my graduate studies in business. I see the look of puzzlement on my in-laws when they receive their Medicare statements.

And then there are the questionable number of tests and screenings prescribed by doctors who are afraid of being sued by the unnecessarily large number of medical malpractice law firms. Proactive medicine has unfortunately become expensive defensive medicine.

Maybe HillaryCare is the best solution to our deteriorating healthcare system with the high federal taxes to fund it. Or maybe requiring all employers to at least provide catastrophic coverage and access to health savings accounts to all of their employees is the best way to bring logic back to the medical industry.

Maybe our public hospitals will devise a new system for less expensive non-emergent medical care for those uninsured non-American citizens who clog up our emergency rooms at taxpayer expense. And our country will also need to have a serious debate about whether our tax dollars should be spent providing expensive emergency care to uninsured non-Americans.

Sooner than later, our politicians will have to bring order to our chaotic healthcare marketplace and the American public will have to swallow the bitter pill necessary to bring logic and fairness to this growing problem.

I predict the ultimate solution will be single payer national healthcare, with income-based and behavior-based copays, provided by the most cost-efficient private industry and public providers. Healthier Americans will pay lower rates than those who choose to smoke, eat poorly, and not exercise just as they do for life insurance. An annual preventive care physical will help determine those rates.

All bills will be processed with consistent prices and guidelines so doctors can focus on medicine rather than needing a large staff just to process and contest insurance claims. Private industry will compete to be among the firms which process the claims under a central administration.

If all Americans are covered by the same plan, there will be tremendous economies of scale because the risk of care will be spread amongst everybody. Insurance rates will be reduced and there will be lower taxes since the cost of today’s uninsured care will no longer be a burden on all taxpayers.

Certainly there is much more to discuss and debate about a single payer solution but if we do not start that difficult discussion soon, the cost of fixing it will only increase.

Middle East Mess - August 2006

2006-08-07T20:25:00.000-04:00

As I write this column, Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists in Lebanon and Gaza are firing Syrian and Iranian supplied missiles into Israel. At the same time, the Israeli military is using its air and naval superiority to knock out terrorist supply lines, safe houses, and training camps which – typical of terrorist tactics – are located in residential areas causing unfortunate civilian casualties.

I sincerely hope by the time this column is printed that Israel has finally finished the mission from which it has been held back by the United Nations and numerous American administrations. This time will hopefully be different because all of the moderate Arab states have as much to gain by Israel’s success as does the Jewish state. Even the Druze and Christians in Lebanon were quoted as rooting for the Israelis to rid their country of freedom-fearing terrorists.

Some on the left – including Democratic Chairman Howard Dean – have already said the lack of world standing of the Bush administration is the reason that Iran and Syria felt confident to have their surrogate thugs attack America’s most important friend in the Middle East. Everything is a “Blame Bush” issue to him. Former Clinton Secretary Of State Madeline Albright was quick to say that “negotiation” was necessary to end this latest battle.

When will the left realize that Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda and their sympathizers see partisan bickering and any negotiations, land givebacks or cease-fires as evidence of a weak west. They live by the saying “If not today, then tomorrow.” When Hillary Clinton hugged the wife of the late Hamas leader Yasser Arafat, did that not encourage the terrorists to believe that their strategy of talk peace, prepare for war was working and would give them added time to prepare for future conflicts while the west celebrated the Oslo Accords?

Let’s face reality. The Mullahs who run Iran, the arms smuggler who rules Syria, and their Islamic terrorist trouble makers in Lebanon, Gaza, and elsewhere have only one goal in mind. And that would be implementation of their flawed interpretation of Islamic rule throughout the Muslim world. There are many peace loving Muslims throughout the globe who are embarrassed to have their religion used as a tool by fundamentalist Islamic terrorists. It is time for Muslims to rid their ranks of these terrorists.

Fortunately, it appears that President Mubarak of Egypt, King Abdullah of Jordan, and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia know what is at stake and have been quietly working with the Bush Administration and other western leaders to hunt down terrorists in their countries, rid them of hate spewing religious leaders, and properly fund their respective social service programs to win back the support of their people from terrorist-funded assistance and brain washing efforts.

How will this all end? It won’t end until the Islamic fundamentalists are finally crushed militarily, captured and jailed for life for their crimes against humanity, or dealt with in the same manner in which they treat their enemies. Hopefully the Bush administration, and our next Republican President, will continue to show the resolve necessary – even if unpopular in the short term – to eliminate Islamic terrorist operations throughout the Middle East and the rest of the world so our future generations can continue to enjoy democracy and freedom for which our forefathers fought and died on our behalf.

Partisan Gamesmanship - July 2006

2006-07-01T22:18:00.000-04:00

This month, I was asked to write about whatever political issue was most bothersome to me these days. And that would be my concern about the partisan games being played in Washington. Even nationally hyped books about liberalism, or movies about the environment and 9/11 have become partisan tools. Is it time for a viable third party to break the tug of war in our nation’s capital?

The battle against terrorism, immigration enforcement, corrupt Congressmen – one was recently caught with $ 90,000 in his freezer, and taxes are among the many important issues of the day that have become more about strategic positions for this November’s Congressional elections than about the current and future needs of our country. And the American people are suffering because of it.

For the first time since I became active in politics while growing up in D.C., I am actually starting to tune out much of the political fracas and focus only on those candidates who represent my views. I am so disappointed and embarrassed by the big spending and grandstanding of the Republican House and Senate that America might be better off without them in control.

Of course, I cannot imagine today’s Democratic House leaders in control either. Can you? The thought of Charlie Rangel running Ways & Means, John Dingell running Energy and Commerce, John Conyers running Judiciary, or Nancy Pelosi as Speaker certainly motivates me to vote Republican again.

But has our political system become too partisan? Has it become too petty? Or is the behavior of today’s politicians and their political parties the same as it has been since the days of the Federalists, Anti-Federalists, Democratic-Republicans, Whigs, Unionists and the various derivations of each which have become the modern day Democratic and Republican parties?

From my understanding of history, political campaigns have always been nasty and politicians from different ideologies have always bickered and traded favors and votes for power. And there have always been power brokers behind the scenes. It was only a few decades ago that the bootlegging, rum running father of one candidate supposedly bought the Presidency for him with some help from special friends in West Virginia and Illinois.

So where do we go from here? Could a faction of Republican or Democratic office holders break off and form a new party as happened during our country’s early years? Could the special interests that currently bind the Democrats to big labor and trial lawyers and the Republicans to business and religious groups force a splintering of one or both parties and the formation of a new party?

Or could a charismatic national leader with vision - and access to money - materialize and capture the White House as an independent? Ross Perot captured enough votes with his Reform Party in 1992 to put Bill Clinton into the White House and preclude Herbert Walker Bush from winning a second term.

Only time will tell. But I am rooting for a third party to help tame the partisanship in Washington.

Property Insurance Woes - June 2006

2006-06-18T22:14:00.000-04:00

In October 1989 I remember being in San Francisco at a business meeting when the ground shook badly and the building in which I was meeting lost windows and walls. To be more specific, I had experienced the magnitude 7.1 earthquake which the country saw live during a televised World Series game. What was more interesting is what I observed the next day.

I remember walking down to the Marina District where multi-million dollar homes had sunk into the dirt used to fill in the bay to create the area decades ago. And I remember property owners complaining to the media that the government would have to help them pay for those damages which their insurance would not cover.

Lastly, I remember hearing a number of residents debating why the government should get involved since the homeowners chose to live in a known earthquake zone. Sound familiar? We are undergoing the same property insurance debate here in Florida where we have all chosen to live in a known hurricane zone.

My beliefs and my wallet are causing conflicting priorities in my thoughts about how to resolve our property insurance crisis in Florida and what role government should be playing. My beliefs tell me the insurance industry should be able to charge whatever they need to earn a reasonable profit. My wallet tells me that a proposed 70% increase in property insurance for many South Floridians is unreasonable and the government needs to provide a fair solution to resolve this marketplace mess.

After Hurricane Andrew many major property insurance companies formed self-funding subsidiaries to solely serve Florida. In doing so, they minimized the benefit to Floridians of spreading windstorm damage risk to property owners outside of the state. They also started to separate “windstorm” protection from other property insurance coverage so they could further ensure that their biggest risk had its own actuarial basis.

Other insurance companies simply decided to stop writing any policies in our state. And thus came the need for the state to help form a last resort insurance carrier which initially had even fewer policy holders among whom they could spread the risk.

The result in each of these cases has been enormous increases in individual property insurance rates especially for windstorm protection. The result is that many homeowners and businesses are simply leaving the state for less expensive areas. When you add the high cost of housing, can you doubt why many have moved?

Since the insurance carriers have chosen to stop spreading much of the risk of providing property insurance coverage in Florida to their other customers throughout the country and since our state guided last resort carrier is buckling under the weight of so many new customers, perhaps it is time for the federal government to step in.

In 1968, the federal government did just that to help property owners obtain affordable protection against flood damages. Today, the National Flood Insurance Program assists property owners in 20,000 communities around the country. Most South Floridians are benefiting from this program. Perhaps it is now time for the federal government to implement a National Windstorm Insurance Program to help property owners to also obtain affordable windstorm coverage throughout communities in hurricane and tornado zones as long as stringent building codes are required for new and existing homes.

Such a program was proposed by the United States Congress several times in the last decade. Perhaps after last year’s devastation from Katrina and Wilma, there will be enough votes to finally pass it. While my beliefs are against another potentially large federal government program, my wallet is rooting for such a victory!

Illegal Immigration - May 2006

2006-05-06T01:02:00.000-04:00

“We should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon that person becoming in every facet an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We have room for but one language, and that is the English language. And we have room for but one loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people. “

Those words were said by President Teddy Roosevelt shortly before he died in 1919. Back then our country was facing immigration challenges as millions were coming to this country from Ireland, Germany, Italy, England, and various areas of Scandinavia and Eastern Europe. My paternal grandparents were among them. President Roosevelt’s biggest concern was that our country would become a web of tangled nationalities rather than continuing as a single union.

Today, our country is again at a dividing point about how to handle an influx of foreign-born into our country. Unlike 100 years ago, today’s immigrants are as likely to enter our country illegally as they are to have the proper papers to come here. Or they overstay their visas to do so. President Roosevelt’s concerns about a divided America echoed again recently as illegal immigrants from our southern neighbor proudly displayed the Mexican flag during their protests. And you can see flags of dozens of other Latin and Caribbean nations on display in various car windows in South Florida.

I do not recall my grandparents ever talking about “how things were in my country” as I frequently hear in conversations today. My grandparents proudly worked in garment factories in Baltimore during the day and took English classes at night so they could be part of their new nation. They legally came to our shores by steamship steerage and were processed into this country at the federal immigration station unlike many of today’s immigrants who illegally slip across our borders from Mexico or Canada or are dropped off by smugglers using speedboats and fishing boats.

This country was built by immigrants and we should continue to welcome others to our country to share our American dream. But I do not know how today’s illegal immigrants can ever be expected to fully respect our rule of law if their first act in our country was ignoring our immigration laws. In 1986, the United States made the mistake of giving amnesty to earlier illegal immigrants through the Immigration and Reform Control Act which was, thereafter, supposed to stop the further flow of illegals by prosecuting those that employ them. That law did not work and we again are talking about an immigration bill which includes some form of amnesty.

Hopefully our leaders will not make the same mistake as they did 20 years ago and will require illegal immigrants who want to stay in our country to come forward and register with our immigration service, qualify to become American citizens, start paying taxes, and be required to pay a fine for breaking our laws or leave the country with their families and come back legally. Those that illegally came here simply to earn money to send back home, and do not plan to become citizens, should be deported immediately and be required to enter our country using the normal Temporary Employment Visas. We are a country of laws and we must enforce our immigration laws or face an unending inflow of illegals who will continue to burden our healthcare and educational systems.

Protectionism. Repeating Past Mistakes? - April 2006

2006-04-01T01:00:00.000-05:00

Can you remember the year? The United States Congress was concerned about growing imports of foreign goods and capital and their impact on the American way of life. It had only been about a decade since the world was at war and distrust of foreign governments and firms was still high.

If you said 1930, you are correct. That was the year that Congress passed the Smoot-Hawleys Tariff Act which many believe was the final trigger causing our country’s Great Depression. Its purpose was to protect American goods and American industries by raising the costs for entry of foreign goods used in our economy.

When other countries retaliated by doing the same to our goods, our highly leveraged economy collapsed and decades of economic misery followed. In other countries, weak governments failed and nationalist dictators took their helm which many scholars believe led thereafter to the next world war.

Sound familiar? The recent debacle with a United Arab Emirates entity trying to buy a British firm which managed some of our port terminals brought our Congress to the brink of similar protectionist legislation. Already many of our allies in the Middle East are thinking of kicking out American firms doing business in their locales.

Many in Congress still want to pass laws protecting our “critical infrastructure” – whatever that means. Don’t get me wrong. I had a problem with a foreign government with strong ties to Islamic fundamentalists owning a firm which helps bring containers into our ports. And I fault the Bush administration for not putting out a directive to its staff to involve the key decision makers when such a highly sensitive investment was put on the table for their review.

That said, we cannot let our political leaders take us back to the 1930s. The reality is that the flow of foreign investments in the U.S. is a sign of economic strength. Our thriving economy – thanks to the investment friendly Bush Administration – has brought $ 4 billion of foreign investment into our economy according to a recent analysis by the Wall Street Journal. During the same time, the U.S. has created four times as many new jobs as all of Europe and Japan combined.

Most important, those foreign investors and firms are responsible for more than 5 million U.S. jobs according to the Wall Street Journal. Best of all those jobs pay an annual wage which is twice the average rate for U.S. wages. Where would our economy be today without Toyota and its cost effective and dependable cars and its massive investment in auto manufacturing plants in our country? It was only about 60 years ago that Japan was our mortal enemy. Where would our country be without the engineering and production expertise of many German-based firms doing business here?

Certainly I would support any legislation that strengthened the current foreign investment review process to ensure that those foreign firms or governments do not have questionable ties to bad people with bad intents toward our country. And I would agree that we should ensure that our most vulnerable and potentially life threatening assets such as nuclear power plants, domestic bomb making facilities, and water distribution and treatment firms get even closer scrutiny. Frankly, some of them may already be under foreign ownership. Are we already less safe?

But the American people need to step back and realize how the world economy works. Without foreign investment here in the U.S. and without the opportunities for our firms and people to invest abroad, our American economy would not be the envy of the world.

And foreign investments in this country give those firms and governments a continuing stake in our success – including working with us to ensure the safety and security of their investments. While it is foreseeable that a nefarious firm or government may try to weaken our defenses by investing in our free society, we must make sure that our fears of such do not hinder the importance of our involvement in the world economy.

How To Improve Bush's Public Image - March 2006

2006-03-01T07:33:00.000-05:00

In about 9 months, President Bush will not only face a new Congress after the November mid-term elections, he will also be facing the reality that media and voter attention will start to focus on his replacement to be elected in 2008.

Worse, the next Congress in 2007 may not contain Republican majorities in the House or Senate if the current elected Republicans cannot start acting like the fiscally and socially conservative representatives which the American public expected when we voted them into office during the past few years.

Thus, the next few months may be President Bush’s last chance to ensure that his legislative priorities are taken seriously and are passed by the current Congress. Many are saying that his “image” is already so low that he has no leverage to propose or pass any laws. Should President Bush be worried about that “image”?

President Bush has always maintained that he does not look at poll numbers or worry about what the media is writing about him. Certainly, his steadfast persistence in promoting such important issues as Social Security Reform, a restructuring of the income tax codes, a movement towards an ownership society, and the war on terror prove that his vision is not swayed by polling.

Our President should not make decisions based on poll or image numbers. Unfortunately, his advisors and the Congress do. Thus, if President Bush wants his agenda passed during this current Congress, he must start getting more of the Americans public behind his vision and efforts.

Fortunately, the President has proven that he has the skill and energy to inform and rally the American public when he needs to get his unedited message delivered. The recent wiretapping controversy was a perfect example of the President being able to explain to the American public what was really being done.

When the New York Times and their secret sources started writing that the President had authorized supposedly illegal domestic wiretaps of US citizens, the President went around the country to explain that only transcontinental communications coming from, or going to, suspected terrorists and organizations were being monitored. Now almost every Democrat is singing the praise of those efforts! And Bush’s poll numbers increased.

The President needs to follow that same road rally and multiple press conference plan to continue improving his image and his chances to get his legislative agenda passed. He needs to talk directly to the American public about the importance of getting the Patriot Act extended, about making his dividend and estate tax cuts permanent, and he needs to lead the discussion about immigration reform.

I’ll admit that I used to be concerned about President Bush’s ability to handle press conferences. During his first term, he seemed unprepared for many of the questions. Now, I believe he has a commendable grasp of most issues and has learned how to get his points across in a calm and convincing matter. If the President continues to increase his public presence, I believe his image will continue to increase as will the chances for his legislative agenda.

Grading President Bush - January 2006

2006-01-01T15:10:00.000-05:00

Six years ago I was so concerned about the possibility of Al Gore becoming President that I got up out of my favorite family room chair and joined others to wave signs and walk neighborhoods on behalf of candidate George W. Bush. I even volunteered to be an observer at the infamous ballot recount.

Two years ago, my support for the Bush presidency progressed to being a Broward County Regional Chairman in charge of grassroots efforts in Southwest Broward. I oversaw hundreds of dedicated volunteers who visited tens of thousands of homes for his campaign. I even had the honor of being a driver for one of the vehicles in a Presidential motorcade when President Bush campaigned down here.

Were my efforts worth it? Has the President met my expectations? Here are my thoughts and grades on his performance to date.

Economy: B

The Bush Income Tax Cuts rescued our economy from the dot.com crash and ensuing recession Bush inherited from the previous administration as well as from the paralyzing effects of the 911 tragedy. Furthermore, his reduction of taxes on dividends and capital gains has resulted in unprecedented growth in business formation and jobs.

President Bush continues to work hard to end the “death” tax which takes money from the children of those who have worked hard to create successful small businesses, farms, and family wealth. Too many businesses and farms have folded because of inheritance tax issues.

Unfortunately, the Bush presidency has also allowed some of the largest growth in government spending in our country’s history. His failure to veto any spending bills has given Congress the ability to spend, spend, spend, and borrow, borrow, borrow to pay those bills which will continue to impact our economy for decades to come.

Domestic Agenda: B

A good leader has a vision for his country and remains steadfast in his determination. President Bush’s vision for the United States includes an “ownership” society where individuals have added tools to make decisions for themselves or acquire their own assets rather than relying on Uncle Sam to guide their lives. Record levels of minority home ownership are just one example of that vision’s success.

President Bush proposed necessary changes to Social Security where individuals could start determining how some of their hard-earned FICA retirement funds should be invested. He was willing to touch that “third rail” of Social Security despite the political risk. Only a confident leader would tackle that initiative which, unfortunately, has faltered because of the spinelessness of both political parties in Congress.

The Bush administration has brought accountability to public education with his No Child Left Behind program and an emphasis on education choices where parents of students from failing schools can utilize part of their school taxes to send their child to better schools.

Earlier this year, President signed into law the first national energy plan in many years. This plan provides economic incentives for consumers and businesses to invest in new technologies to supplement our nation’s reliance on fossil fuels. Those incentives should also help improve our energy transmission infrastructure which has proved to be old and unreliable.

The implementation of the Homeland Security Department and the passage of the Patriot Act brought new tools to the table for our intelligence agencies to work closer together to identify, track, and bring in for questioning suspected terrorists and collaborators located here in the United States.

From his choices for Supreme Court Justices and other Federal judges to his Administration’s reversal or elimination of thousands of intrusive or useless government policies, President Bush has left a mark on the governance of this country that will hopefully last for decades to come.

International Relations: C

Nearly two years ago, President Bush declared “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq. Most people, including me, interpreted that to mean the hard work was over. Since then, however, we have all learned that the hard and deadly work had just begun.

Our Commander in Chief and his defense advisers failed to properly gauge and anticipate the insurgency from the remaining Hussein regime thugs and foreign terrorists who have worked together in an attempt to cripple Iraq. And our intelligence was flawed.

Fortunately, the men and women of our military continue to make our country proud as they risk their lives to spread freedom and democracy to Iraq and surrounding areas. Their efforts have resulted in several successful elections as Iraq forms its new government and a population in which, as polls have recently indicated, 77% of the citizens are happy with their lives.

On other international issues, President Bush and his administration have found themselves at odds with other countries over such issues as the Kyoto Protocols, democracy in Eastern Europe, and various trade agreements. To some, the President’s actions have hurt our international reputation. To me, the President is doing what he should do which is look out for our nation’s best interests.

Overall Grade: B

Overall, President Bush has exceeded some of my expectations but has disappointed me with other actions. I believe that when history judges him, President Bush will be remembered as one who helped spread political freedom around the world and economic freedom within the United States.

Supreme Court Politics - November 2005

2005-11-01T15:09:00.000-05:00

Elections matter.

When a political party is able to gain voter support to elect a President and the majority of the members of the United States Senate, that President should be able to confidently nominate judges to the federal judiciary including the Supreme Court.

That happened in 1993 when President Bill Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsberg to the Supreme Court when his Democratic Party also held a slim majority of the seats in the United States Senate.

The minority Republican Party did not actively fight her appointment, or threaten filibusters, despite her public record of advocating that prostitution was constitutionally protected and that the age of consent should be lowered to 12. She also had criticized the Boy and Girl Scouts for perpetuating gender stereotypes.

There was even little controversy in the fact that she had been the General Council of the ultraliberal American Civil Liberties Union. Amazingly, nearly all of the Republican Senators joined in the 97-3 vote to confirm her to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

So what has changed? Why is President Bush having such a hard time with his nominees?

Millions of voters around the country worked tirelessly to get out the vote in 2000 and 2004 to elect George W. Bush to the Presidency. In 2004, those voters also gave the President a comfortable majority in the United States Senate which should have ensured him an easy time putting conservative judges on the federal courts.

So why do the minority Democratic Senators believe it is OK for them to pull out all of the stops to deny President Bush, and his voters, many of his choices for federal judges?
More thought provoking is why does President Bush feel he has to nominate individuals to the Supreme Court with limited paper trails for his opponents to use against them?

To me, the situation is simple. President Bush should not be shy or hesitant to nominate judges who will apply the laws as written by our founding fathers and by our Congressional and state lawmakers. He should proudly select a proven jurist who has a proven reputation for applying the law and not changing it to meet his or her personal or religious views.

The new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, said it best when he stated that if the Constitution is on the side of the little guy, then he will be on the side of the little guy and if the Constitution is on the side of the big corporations, then he will be on the side of the big corporations. He said the law would determine his rulings – not his opinions.

President Bush’s recent nomination of Harriet E. Miers to replace Associate Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is a big question mark. Does she have the background or intellectual skills to vote on the important constitutional issues debated by the Supreme Court? She has no judicial track record and no appellate or constitutional experience of which I am aware to base her analysis and votes.

Perhaps her biggest selling point for a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court is that most of the Democrat Senators seem to like her and plan to have an open mind when it comes to voting for her. What do they know about her past legal efforts and battles that the President does not know? I doubt Bush’s tens of millions of voters worked hard so he would select a nominee who the Democrats like and defend.

With so many judges who Bush himself has appointed to the federal courts, why didn’t he choose one of them to move up to the Supreme Court? They have paper trails and we can probably predict their future analysis on their past rulings.

Harriet Miers, if she is confirmed by the Senate, may turn out to be a superb Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. For the sake and benefit of our country, we should all hope that she exceeds our limited expectations of her.

Perhaps President Bush has nominated the perfect stealth candidate to the Supreme Court. Perhaps his twenty years of friendship with, and counsel from, Ms. Miers has given him insight into knowing that she will strictly apply the Constitution and federal laws. Or perhaps not. Only time will tell.

Hurricane Katrina - October 2005

2005-10-01T15:08:00.000-04:00

Partisan blamemanship.

Frankly, I found the recent wave of finger pointing by partisan politicians about the response to Hurricane Katrina to be sad and depressing when peoples’ lives were still at stake and a unified rescue mission should have been the priority of the day.

Certainly there were hundreds of dedicated public servants and volunteers who worked tirelessly without the necessary support after the storm and I applaud their efforts and hope you share that belief. I’ll even give Sean Penn credit for putting his life at risk to help others.

Frankly, I feel guilty writing this rebuke of our government agencies while sitting in the cool and dry confines of my home office as others are still rolling up their sleeves in the Gulf Coast heat and are becoming part of the solution rather than being part of the chorus of partisan hacks playing the blame game.

Writing checks to the American Red Cross, Humane Society of the United States, the BushClinton Relief Fund, and other entities makes me feel a little less guilty. I hope you have given generously also.

Nevertheless, I want to go on the record to opine about how the local, state, and federal governments each failed to perform up to even minimal standards before and after Hurricane Katrina destroyed hundreds of miles of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.

In the event of a natural disaster on the scale of Hurricane Katrina, our federal government should have been ready on a moment’s notice to deploy machinery, equipment, and personnel to participate in rescue missions. I was deeply disappointed, disheartened, and disgusted to see any citizen begging for the basics of food, water, and other necessities at their time of need regardless if they had made poor decisions to stay in town.

The fact that FEMA and other federal government agencies delayed or prevented donations of water filtration equipment, communication systems, and personnel from countries around the world is embarrassing at best and criminal at worst.

I understand that our division of government requires that the state or local governments first request assistance from the federal government before help can legally commence. In most cases, this protocol makes sense. But when it is obvious that the local and state politicos and governments are incapable of caring for their own, our federal government should do first and ask later.

When it is obvious that a local Mayor in New Orleans cannot command or control his fleet of 1,000 school and city buses to evacuate his at-risk citizens and those without cars, and cannot find one third of his police force once the storm hits, the federal government must act without waiting for permission. Seeing all those buses under water was pitiful.

When it is clear that a Governor and her Homeland Security staff make ridiculous decisions to bar the American Red Cross and Salvation Army from providing aid to those waiting in the New Orleans Superdome and along roofs and dry portions of I-10 because the order of the day was to evacuate them out of town rather than feed them, the federal government needs to act.

When it is apparent that local city and parish emergency preparedness officials are ignoring the recommendations of the head of the National Hurricane Center to evacuate well in advance of a deadly Category 5 storm and only make that decision with hours to spare, the federal government should be ready to deploy.

When the entire Louisiana Congressional delegation would rather each seek separate federal pork barrel funding projects for roads and buildings rather than unite behind a singular request for repairing a levee system known to be in need of enhancement, the federal government should have the foresight to plan for the inevitable rescue of a flooded community.

Perhaps the most important lesson to be learned from this deadly and incredibly expensive natural disaster is that we citizens should first prepare and take care of ourselves and not expect any government agency to efficiently and effectively look out for our best interests.

This disaster also shines more focus on the need for local community organizations, churches, and neighborhood associations to look out for their own. In the Town of Davie, Hurricane Katrina not only cut power and phones for thousands, it also destroyed dozens of manufactured homes and trailers.

Fortunately, several of Davie’s elected officials and community activists quickly put together a relief fund called www.DavieHurricaneRelief.org to serve as a mechanism to quickly raise funds to help our community neighbors get back on their feet. I urge you to visit this website and find out how you can help.

Hopefully our area will be spared from catastrophic damage from hurricanes which are bound to hit our area in the years to come. That said, I hope that our local, state, and federal officials learn from the pitiful mistakes made in Louisiana during Hurricane Katrina.

Finally, I hope that the US Military – including the National Guard – is given a more prominent role in directing future responses. Their performance during the storm relief was commendable. And I believe that FEMA should become a cabinet level agency so that it gets its own budget to prepare for natural disasters while Homeland Security focuses on defense of the homeland and responses to possible terrorist strikes.

A Ruling Majority? - September 2005

2005-09-01T15:07:00.000-04:00

When the 108th Congress took office in January 2003, the Republicans had finally reached majority control of the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives after more than 50 years in hiatus.

They had not held such power since the mid-1950’s when President Eisenhower was in office unless you count the 4 months in 2001 when the voters gave the Republicans a ruling majority until Jumpin Jim Jeffords changed his party registration and gave Senate control back to the Democrats for the subsequent two years.

For those of us who are fiscal conservatives, we were looking forward to complete majority rule in Washington, D.C. in 2003. After all, we had frequently pointed to the social experiments and bloated government spending of the Democratic majorities in the 1940’s, early 1960’s and mid-1970’s and confidently said that would never happen under our control.

Until 2003, the best we could do was keeping the Democratic Congress in check with Republican presidents during the 1980’s and early 1990’s. Things reversed in the late 1990’s when we counted on a Republican House to counteract a Democratic President.

So where are we today? Has a Republican majority in Congress and control of the White House met our hopes and expectations? Is having single party majority rule good for the country?

Under the leadership of President Bush and a Republican Congress, our country has benefited from notable tax cuts giving our citizens the incentive to work harder and invest in our future. That leadership has given us a stronger military to battle the continuing and growing threat of terrorism. That leadership has also given us some key regulatory relief. And that majority rule has also resulted in the selection of strict judges who will rule by the law rather than create it which is the role of our lawmakers in Congress.

And it has been fun to watch some of the political payback which comes with a change of ruling party such as the mass rearrangement of office space on Capital Hill during which the Republicans took over the prime office space while the Democrats moved into the closet-size spaces formerly forced upon the Republicans when the Democrats wrote the rules. Politics can be a blood sport although I find this disorganized movement of metal and wood to unbecoming of adult men and women.

That is the good news. Now for the bad news. Many of the Republicans in Congress have exceeded the worst performance of the big spending Democrats on pork barrel projects. Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens brazenly made sure his state received $ 220 million for a 200 foot bridge for a city of 8,000 citizens who did not want it and an “initial” $ 229 million for site preparation work for an estimated $ 2 billion 2-mile bridge from Anchorage to a sparsely inhabited section of marshes.

Even our Republican Congressmen from South Florida proudly brought home some extra pork to our area. That is the way the system worked when Democrats were in control and, apparently, now is how it works when the Republicans have their turn at majority rule. Without giving President Bush the line item veto – which we fiscal conservatives yearn for – I am disappointed to say that Republican pork is now the status quo.

And speaking of vetoes, President Bush appears hesitant to strike down any legislation now that his party is writing it. Vetoes historically are more prevalent when the President and Congress are from opposing parties. Bad legislation is bad legislation regardless of which party writes it.

So is our country actually better off to have divided government which occurs when the Democrats or Republicans control the White House and the other party controls the Congress? Unless the current crew of Republican leaders sees the light, I believe the American voters will answer that question for us in 2008 by possibly giving control of one – if not both – houses of Congress back to the Democrats. I can only hope that the Republican leadership puts its ship back on course in time to avoid that happening.

The Bush Economy - August 2005

2005-08-01T15:07:00.000-04:00

Let me count the ways. Inflation is down. Job numbers are up. The deficit projections are down. And the stock market continues to rally.

Why is it that those on the left just cannot accept good news when they read it?

It was not long ago that candidate Kerry was saying that President Bush would have the worst jobs record in modern times. And the media wrote article after article about how the deficit would keep getting worse for decades to come.

I believe that President Bush’s tax cuts are a major reason for the continued strong economy. Just as Presidents Kennedy and Reagan proved before him, tax cuts provide people with the incentives to want to earn that extra dollar which they can spend in our economy.

Now is the time for Congress to make those tax cuts permanent so that individuals and businesses can properly plan their respective investments in goods and services to keep the positive momentum going.

Before I am accused of just being a partisan shill for the Bush administration, I will repeat what I have said in past columns. Federal spending is out of control. President Bush’s failure to veto any spending bills has been a great disappointment to me.

In fact, spending growth under President Bush has been almost four times as high as it was during a similar timeframe under Bill Clinton. And it is not just necessary homeland defense spending that has bloated the budget or the growth of entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. Rather, there are many Republicans in the Congress who do not know how to “just say no” to road and building projects or crop subsidies.

I hope that someone in the administration will bring back the push for a budgetary line item veto so President Bush can wipe out pork barrel spending as his brother, Jeb, can do here in Florida.

As good as our economy is doing, there are still many citizens under tremendous personal financial pressure. Will this mountain of credit card and home equity debt finally bring a halt to personal spending which has played a major part in driving our economy?

And while employment numbers are near what economists call “full employment”, there are still many of our fellow Americans who are underemployed and lacking the training and skills to move on from work that has been replaced by less expensive sources.

Fortunately in today’s America, people can still easily improve their lives by starting their own businesses, taking affordable night school courses to learn a new trade, and confidently investing in the world’s most important stock market. Opportunities continue to abound for those that seek them.

I am optimistic for our country’s future. Our economy continues to be the envy of the world. So much so that we continue to attract immigrants – some legal and some not – who come to our shores for their piece of the American pie.

Our economy is the fuel behind that bright shining city on the hill that President Ronald Reagan immortalized more than twenty years ago. Let’s hope that Congress, the Federal Reserve, and the Bush administration continue to provide it with the appropriate fiscal tools so it can continue to shine.

Broward County Florida Property Taxes - July 2005

2005-07-01T15:02:00.000-04:00

“In terms of total value, the Broward County tax roll increased by over $14.1 billion (in 2004) -- the largest dollar increase ever in Broward history.”

So said Broward County Property Appraiser Lori Parrish on June 1st.

She also stated that “With this rate of growth, the various taxing authorities have an opportunity to cut millage rates while still generating more than enough money to provide for services."

What are the odds that the Broward County Commission and most of our other local agencies will heed her advice to notably cut tax rates instead of using that growth to fund ever increasing government expenditures? Don’t count on it.

Fortunately for those of you living in the Town of Davie, your Town Council is comprised of a number of fiscal conservatives who share my belief in limiting government growth to fund necessities and not luxuries.

Property taxes have become a major topic around the country and in our local neighborhoods. Have property taxes gotten out of hand? Your answer will depend on whether you are one of the “haves” or “have nots”.

If you “have” owned your home since the 1990’s, you are benefiting from the 1992 Save Our Homes Amendment which limits the increase in your home value to about 3% per year.

If, however, you purchased your home in the past few years when housing prices started to explode here in South Florida, then you are a “have not” and are paying far more in property taxes than many of your neighbors. See for yourself by checking out the Broward County Property Appraiser’s website.

Perhaps if the Save Our Homes amendment had not been passed, all property owners would be paying similar taxes and those “have nots” would not be paying a disproportionate share of property taxes for the same government services.

More importantly, are potential “have nots” being scared away from buying a new or resale home by high property taxes? And are the “haves” afraid to give up their low taxes by moving?

Before you get ready to tar and feather me for suggesting that the Save Our Home Amendment be revised to more fairly value all homes in our county and state, I don’t propose doing so. People should not be taxed on the potential resale value of their home since that would hurt our neighbors on fixed incomes or those already financially stretched by other costs of living in our society today.

Perhaps the solution is to start the taxable value of all new or home resales at the average existing assessed value of similar homes in that particular neighborhood. Of course doing so would notably decrease property tax collections which fund our local governments. Would that be so bad?

Before you start laughing all the way to the bank, let’s agree that local governments have to replace those diminished tax receipts. The most likely solution would be to capture some of those lost taxes when the home is sold.

In essence, instead of the “have nots” paying ridiculously high property taxes throughout their period of home ownership, they should pay something similar to a capital gains tax on the difference between the market value of their home when sold against my recommended neighborhood average assessed value when they bought it.

What about the “haves”? Since they too have benefited from property taxes based on assessments well below current market values, they too should pay the gains tax.

What rate should that capital gains tax be? I’ll let the economists and actuarials calculate and propose that number for voter approval. But it must be ultimately revenue neutral and not provide revenue that would allow government to grow beyond its current needs. And I would want such tax legislation to require voter approval for that agreed upon rate to ever be increased.

Does proposing such a capital gains tax end my rein as a fiscal conservative? Or does my suggestion make me a hero by actually increasing home resales, and maximizing the affordability of buying a home, by eliminating the sticker shock of high property taxes in exchange for a small fractional profit tax similar to that paid for other investments? I welcome your thoughts in care of this magazine.

Inflation - May 2005

2005-05-01T15:00:00.000-04:00

Higher oil prices. A declining dollar. Rising interest rates. The real estate bubble. Spiraling healthcare costs. And the Bush budget deficit.

Many pundits believe these market factors will lead our country into a round of inflation unseen since President Carter was in office. Most interesting is the growing belief in the Ivory Towers of the academic world and in liberal – now known as “progressive” - publications that President’s Bush’s tax cuts and deficit spending are leading the way to inflation. I do not agree.

Certainly rising oil prices caused by the current world economic boom – especially in China and the United States – will have a latent effect in causing rising prices as businesses seek to recoup their added energy costs. Those higher oil prices will, however, provide the usual cyclical incentives for domestic oil producers and alternative fuel suppliers to ramp up their explorations and efforts until market equilibrium is reached and bearish oil market speculation again drives down the price of oil to a sustainable level. And if Congress finally has the foresight to pass President Bush’s energy plan, I believe those energy costs will stabilize at a faster pace.

Recent minute increases in interest rates have been made by the Federal Reserve to begin slowing down our economy to address its fast growth and the resulting higher demand for products and services which historically and theoretically do cause rising prices and inflation. However, I have confidence that Alan Greenspan - who has been involved in economic policy making since the early days of President Nixon’s efforts to control the inflation present in the early ‘70s - and the rest of the Bush economic team will not allow inflation to have a negative impact on our economy and way of life.

As for the Bush tax cuts and the current budget deficit, I frankly blame Congress more for their out of control spending then I do President Bush for his lack of courage and leadership in reining in their pork barrel spending. My respect for him would grow immensely if he would spend his widely publicized “political capital” on getting “line item veto” legislation passed in Congress. And certainly nobody can understate the impact on the federal budget deficit from the increased costs of homeland security as we fight the war on terrorism in the United States and around the world.

Do I like the current budget deficits? Absolutely not. Would I be in favor of taking more of the people’s money to close that budget gap? Absolutely not. I believe our nation’s strong economy which has been stimulated, in part, by President Bush’s commendable tax cuts, will eventually generate the tax receipts in the years to come to balance the budget and possibly create a surplus similar to what is happening here in Florida thanks to Governor Bush’s economic plan which has included tax cuts for all and wise use of our state’s tax revenues.

Frankly, I believe that liberals would really rather run a budget deficit and fund their many social and welfare projects then allow a budget surplus to grow enough to eventually be given back to the tax payers with additional tax cuts. Just look at the choices made in California over the past ten years from the added tax revenues which resulted from the stock market bubble. Instead of returning those surplus dollars to their taxpayers, that state increased their social program spending and now cannot follow the lead of their Governor in trimming those expenditures to bring fiscal sanity back to their state. Let’s hope that President Bush makes sure that Congress does not make the same mistake on the federal level in continuing to grow its expenditures while the deficit exists.

Florida Slots - April 2005

2005-04-01T15:00:00.000-05:00

I would like to thank the 106,000 of my fellow Broward County residents who voted yes on the sucker’s bet to approve slot machines in the county’s existing horse and dog tracks and jai lai fronton. Perhaps I should be more concerned about the 874,000 registered voters who chose to stay home on March 8th and let our county again become the laughingstock of our state.

Why am I frustrated and embarrassed? It is because my fellow county residents failed to make a reasoned voting decision beyond “those Indian casinos and cruises-to-nowhere pay no taxes so we might as well get something”. It is because many of my neighbors felt that approving additional gambling options in our area was more important than the realization that our new racinos will be generating tens of millions of dollars of educational funding for other counties in our state with only a tiny share for our own children! And in exchange for this tiny sliver of revenue, our county and our local municipalities will have to incur the added expenses of the likely public safety requests which will be generated by these facilities. I also believe that our local restaurants and retailers will find that more of our area’s discretionary income will be deposited into those slot machines instead of into their cash registers.

If you don’t think the residents of every other county, including Miami-Dade and Palm Beach, are smiling at the prospects of increased educational funding in their jurisdictions at our expense, then you probably believed that our punch card machines in the year 2000 were the sole problem and not equally the failure of voters to take a few moments to ensure that their chads were cleanly punched. Our fellow county residents let the emotion of the “kids and jobs” issue blind them to the economic reality that there are much more bountiful and efficient ways to raise funds for our schools. In fact, the Broward County School Board is already planning to seek a 1 cent increase in the sales tax to generate far more money than even the most wildly optimistic racino tax projections. Of course my thoughts about allowing such a tax increase will be saved for a later column.

Despite warnings from key Broward County School Board members, leaders of the local Parent Teacher Associations, notable elected officials including our own Town of Davie Mayor, and many religious leaders, your fellow county voters believed that these new facilities will be the panacea for ending portable classrooms and properly valuing underpaid teachers. Let’s see how many classrooms will be built with the funds which the legislature in Tallahassee will allow to come back to Broward County. Don’t get your hopes up. Our Broward County legislative delegation is already marginalized in both the Florida House and Senate which are run by large majorities from the other political party. Our elected legislators will have little say how the money is distributed throughout the state and back to our county.

Please understand that my frustration is not against the concept of gambling or of slot machines although I personally do not have the urge to throw my hard earned money into one-arm bandits. In fact, my brother was an executive in the gaming industry for many years and almost has me convinced that gambling, if properly managed, is another form of entertainment. I would still rather use those dollars for an enjoyable meal, a good movie, or a probable lousy round of golf. Maybe I shouldn’t be so frustrated since I surmise it will now be easier for me to get a good table at my favorite restaurant or a start time for my round of golf since most of my fellow citizens will be keeping those slot machines busy every moment of the day if the racino lobbyists are still to be believed.

So what happens now? How much should the racinos be taxed to help educate our kids? The industry has stated that 30% would be a reasonable amount. Recent articles in the print media have pointed out that such a tax rate would be the lowest in the country for similar facilities. My suggestion is that the politicians in Tallahassee calculate what the tax rate needs to be to guarantee that the racinos contribute that $ 500 million dollars in educational dollars they promised our kids across the state. Maybe they should even be required to contribute the first $ 500 million in profits to the state before they can pocket any profits for themselves. Of course with only Broward County now being approved for those facilities, the annual education contribution will most likely be less so perhaps the tax rate should be set to generate half as much revenue with at least $ 250 million per year guaranteed for the kids.

Social Security Reform - March 2005

2005-03-01T14:59:00.000-05:00

Our society’s current discussion about the future of Social Security is, I believe, really an underlying debate about more than Social Security itself. We are again evaluating the proper roles of the federal government and self reliance in our lives. When President Franklin Roosevelt introduced the Social Security Act in 1935 as part of his New Deal, he put forth his vision of the need for cradle-to-grave involvement of the federal government throughout our lives. Seven decades later, that role continues to be a wedge issue in most elections.

I believe self reliance should be the most important source of our personal welfare with family support as its primary backup. In my opinion, government assistance should only be available as a true safety net and not as an entitlement that we plan our lives around. That said, I believe the Social Security System is in its current financial state only because politicians expanded it beyond its original role as a needed safety net for the poor retiree. In 1937, they began positioning it as a major part of most citizens’ retirement plans by enacting the Federal Insurance Contribution Act and its 2% payroll tax. Today that tax is nearly 13%. When the FICA tax was introduced, there were nearly 40 workers paying that tax to support 1 retiree. With far more workers than retirees, the Social Security Administration was able to put aside a portion of the tax into a so-called trust fund for future needs.

Today approximately 14 workers pay the FICA tax to support each retiree. In a few decades, projections are that only 2 workers will be paying FICA taxes to support each retiree. In 1997, President Clinton appointed a Social Security Advisory Panel which concluded that the FICA tax would have to be raised by 50% at that time in order to provide actuarially sound funding for projected future benefit levels. Otherwise, they felt the trust fund would be exhausted by 2029. In the seven years since their recommendation, nothing has been done to address the issue while our economy went through a painful recession which reduced FICA tax contributions and further endangered the trust fund, and the number of retirees continued to explode.

What can be done now to give Social Security the financial security it needs to continue as a worthy government program for the future? I believe Social Security needs to be properly repositioned as the safety net program it should have been. Thus I believe that, rather than fully paying social security benefits to all retirees, those benefits should only be fully paid to those who financially need it. Do the likes of Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, or the tens of thousands of affluent retirees really need the full safety net of Social Security? Immediately imposing a sliding scale benefit would not be fair to those current and near retirees who, although not necessarily needing Social Security, paid their FICA taxes over the years expecting to receive benefits when they retired.

I will leave it up to actuarial experts, Social Security Trustees, and Congress to determine which retirement age group should be the first to have their benefits means-tested although I would suggest that those age 49 or younger still have plenty of time to adjust their retirement planning to a lowered social security benefit based on their expected financial well being at retirement. As a 46 year old, I am prepared to refocus my retirement plans accordingly. Frankly, I have never counted on Social Security benefits when I plan my retirement. Rather, my wife and I have always made sure that putting money into our retirement accounts was more important than buying new cars, eating out regularly at fine restaurants, or taking expensive vacations. We look forward to those pleasures of life when we retire in the years to come.

By enacting a means test for Social Security benefits, I believe that there will be no need to increase the onerous FICA tax beyond its current 12.6%. In fact, the rate should be reduced to provide my generation and those that follow with the extra funds to plan for their own retirements knowing Social Security will be means tested. Much has been said recently about allowing younger workers to personally invest a portion of their FICA taxes. President Bush wants to codify that self reliance by enabling workers to invest a portion of their FICA taxes.

Better yet, why do we need government permission to invest a portion of our own taxes? Simply lower the tax rate and let us invest our increased “pre-tax” earnings to fund our IRAs, 401Ks and company retirement plans. Lastly, I am vehemently against proposals to increase the taxable FICA wage to $ 200,000 from $ 90,000 as a source for additional Social Security funding. The resulting $ 13,860 in extra annual FICA taxes would be better spent by each individual in their own retirement plans so they, too, don’t depend on Social Security benefits when they retire.

Tort Reform - February 2005

2005-02-01T14:56:00.000-05:00

The legal system in the United States has been widely criticized for being one of the main reasons that health, auto, and business liability insurance rates continue to climb; for being a notable factor in a decrease in new products being introduced into the marketplace because of lawsuit fears; and for unnecessarily delaying or halting the implementation of building projects, government programs, and legislative decisions.

At the same time, the legal industry employs millions of workers; generates billions of dollars of economic activity, provides necessary services to those needing legal representation and advice; and ensures that our laws are constitutional and fairly administered. Our society needs lawyers but can it continue to afford them?

I, for one, do not agree with Shakespeare that “first you kill all of the lawyers”. Rather, I believe we need to reform the tort system in our society to ensure that safe goods and services are widely available but are not inflated in price by higher and higher costs of auto, liability and health insurance caused, in part, by larger and larger lawsuit awards.

There are thousands of articles citing thousands of statistics about how legal and tort reform could benefit us. But there are a like number of articles and statistics that can refute those arguments. Thus the issue of tort reform has become as competitive and combative as any good political fight.

My opinion on this matter is based on economic theory. I believe the noble practice of law has left its roots of providing the best possible representation to those who need legal services and, instead, has become just another profit oriented business in which too many lawyers are pursuing too many cases simply, and understandably, to earn a living. How else can you explain those specialized law firms that sue small businesses for technical breaches of the Americans with Disabilities Act; or those that specialize in manufacturing class action lawsuits when individual cases better serve the original claimants; or those that advertise on television and in the telephone books for slip and fall injuries that in my grandparents’ generation were heeled with an ice bag and bed rest.

As a small business owner, I have seen my firm’s auto insurance rates skyrocket because of the explosive number of contested insurance claims which sometimes involves teams of legal professionals who lengthen the process to maximize their revenues rather than simply settling a case as efficiently as possible. Our group health insurance costs have been rising upwards of thirty percent per year because doctors and hospitals now practice defensive medicine including prescribing multiple tests and procedures lest they be sued for less than comprehensive care. I have even noticed that more and more of my firm’s customers want to ensure that we have adequate business liability insurance before they will let my employees deliver our goods or perform our services at their sites.

What can be done to bring back common sense to our tort system? First let me state that I believe that the legal system provides an important check and balance process to ensure that bad doctors, shady businesses, and corrupt government projects are brought to justice and the injured are amply compensated. Lawyers are well schooled professionals who deserve compensation commensurate with their level of training and experience. That said, I believe and support those efforts to reform the tort system and reduce insurance and liability costs by changing the way contingency fees are paid to lawyers. One good plan I have read would end the use of the contingency fee in cases where the defendant makes a reasonable offer to settle early. If the early offer is accepted, then the plaintiff’s lawyer is amply paid based on an hourly rate plus expenses so that the injured party can benefit from more of the award proceeds. A fair legal wage for a reasonable effort. However, if the early offer is rejected, then a contingency fee can only be applied to awards in excess of the amount of the early offer while a minimal capped fee is paid for the amount below the early offer amount. This plan, I believe, would provide incentives for the plaintiff to accept reasonable early offers while making their lawyers think twice before forging ahead for a larger jury award.

I also strongly support those plans which would ensure the imposition of appropriate “economic loss” awards to compensate the injured party for their current and anticipated medical costs as well as for expenses associated with the degradation of their lives and earnings potential, while capping subjective “pain and suffering” awards to $250,000 and limiting “punitive” damages to only egregious cases where willful neglect or fraud are proven. To control the growth of multi-state class action lawsuits in which the injured receive pennies while the lawyers receive millions, multi-state class action suits should only be heard in Federal courts because of their impact on the broad interstate economy.

Unfortunately, as I stated earlier, tort reform has become a political hot potato with the legal profession and consumer interest groups typically supporting Democratic Party candidates who are usually against tort reform while doctors, hospitals, insurance firms, and business groups typically support the Republican Party candidates usually in favor of tort reform. This causes deadlock in the legislative process. And in those states where Republicans control the legislature and executive branches such as in Florida, the anti-tort reform lobby has smartly focused some of its political contribution dollars on key Republican legislative leaders where those dollars will gain important lobbying access to delay or water down tort reform bills.

Until broad coalitions of small business owners and individual citizens start personally contacting and lobbying their state and Federal elected officials about the need to reform our tort system, I believe that our society will continue to be penalized by ever increasing costs of health, liability, and auto insurance rates and a continued decrease in new and necessary products and services coming to market. The good news is that a recent Kaiser Foundation study showed that 63% of the public favors capping “pain and suffering” awards and 72% want independent case reviews before a lawsuit can be filed. If only our legislators would take heed of these sentiments and enact sensible tort reform sooner than later.

Art Waganheim has been a resident of South Florida since 1991 and was raised in the Washington, DC area which gave him the political bug at an early age. He is a partner in a South Florida small business, is involved in local Republican Party activities, ran for the Florida Senate in 2002, and tends to think conservatively on most political issues.