The military: coming to a neighborhood near you

From the 03 August 2009 Greater Niagara Newspapers

THE MILITARY: COMING TO A NEIGHBORHOOD NEAR YOU
By Bob Confer

The July 25, 2009 edition of the New York Times dropped a bombshell about the war on terror and its subsequent war on the Constitution. The Times reported that then vice-president Dick Cheney and Defense Department executives pushed hard for the use of military force to bring in the Lackawanna Six in 2002. This use of force was ultimately denied by President Bush who exercised some sense and utilized, instead, the FBI.

We here in Western New York are at what would have been ground zero for the invasion. But, you wouldn’t know it. There has been little public outcry over the Times’ story. There haven’t been any follow-up stories in the local radio, television and print news outlets. The blogosphere has been unusually tame. Even the talk at water coolers and diners hasn’t addressed the issue as one would have assumed. It’s almost as if people don’t care.

Maybe that indifference can be chalked-up to the fact that the military occupation never happened, that it was only an idea being discussed by the Bush Administration. Chances are good, too, that the disinterest can be attributed to the new mindset of the American citizen, the belief by many that it’s perfectly fine for liberty to be forsaken for the (perceived) sense of security. They might be comforted by the thought of the armed forces busting the terrorists and “teaching them a lesson.”

This topic does deserve discussion and an ongoing one at that. It may have been just an idea, but it was so very close to becoming a reality, one that wasn’t carried out in 2002 but could easily be carried out now and in the future.

Had the army actually visited the Buffalo suburb I think things would have been quite different. People would have been pretty upset. Imagine the tranquility of a typical September day in suburban New York being upset by the rumbling of tanks and Humvees making their way down Main Street. Imagine the horror of the Lackawanna residents, wondering why their sidewalks and lawns were teeming with armed soldiers. Imagine the nightmare that could have occurred had the Lackawanna Six saw the troops coming, instead of being caught off-guard by the more clandestine FBI: It might have been the second coming of Waco, but only in a more populated area, putting thousands of citizens in harm’s way.

I have nothing but the utmost respect for our men and women in the military, but their responsibilities and duties have their place and Downtown USA is not it. It’s illogical to roll out the forces to arrest a handful of individuals. Worse yet, it’s highly illegal.

For starters, an arrest carried out as military action on American soil sullies the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth protects every one of us – guilty or not – from unabated government intrusion. It notes, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The capture of the Lackawanna cell would have broken every component of the Amendment. Many would say that they were terrorists – enemies of the USA – and not worthy of the same rights that we all share. That sort of logic is misguided. The terrorists were, at the time, still suspects (they had not yet been found guilty) and breaking the rules for one class of citizen or crime can set a precedent whereby law-abiding citizens can be subjected to the same sort of seizure and arrest. Refer to the definitions of terrorists issued in numerous federal reports this year. Any one of us could be labeled an enemy of the state.

Beyond the Constitution itself, law was instituted in 1878 to prevent such an exercise of force. The Posse Comitatus Act limits military action on non-federal property in the United States and excludes them from carrying out arrests and other police-like activity unless authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress.

The Lackawanna arrest would not have met those criteria, making the military action illegal.

Or so we thought.

Aiding Cheney in his cause were members of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel who wrote that the President could do what he wanted, regardless of the Constitution or Posse Comitatus, because he was granted special powers to tackle September 11-era terror threats anywhere on Earth, whether abroad or on American soil.

Basically, the puppeteers in administrations past, present and future believe that laws and rights mean nothing to the government and they can contort them to satisfy any need they might have, as long as the majority of the population can be made willing. So, be careful, the military might one day come to a neighborhood near you.

The Summer of '09: What global warming?

From the 27 July 2009 Greater Niagara Newspapers

THE SUMMER OF ’09: WHAT GLOBAL WARMING?
By Bob Confer

The family and I were supposed to go on vacation in northern Saskatchewan in mid-June. A few days before we were to fly out we received a phone call from the camp’s owner who said we’d have to postpone the trip. The lake was covered by four feet of ice!

So, we went there a couple of weeks back. Not surprisingly, the lake still had mammoth sheets of ice floating on it on July 11. Mind you, this was not the tundra. It’s a lake that’s normally ice-free by the end of May.

That delay to the start to the summer is reminiscent of what has happened on the home front. After a lengthy, very cold winter, most Western New Yorkers were suffering from cabin fever and looking forward to getting outside and enjoying those oh-so-few months of sun and warmth. For many, 2009 has been a real letdown. Our summer has often seemed nonexistent and just a run-off of our spring. By any standard it has been unusually cool with nippy nights and temperate days.

Personally, you won’t hear me complaining about 50-degree sleeping weather or daytime highs around 70, but most folks don’t dig that. Professionally, though, I don’t either; it’s hurting my business. Those who find it a little too frigid haven’t opened their swimming pools or invested in a hot tub, which in turn has prevented Confer Plastics from selling the products they need to enter those watery retreats from the summer heat. Day-in and day-out we hear from pool and spa professionals in the Northeast and Midwest that this has been one of the coldest summers in recent memory. Because of that, our pool/spa-related sales are down about 7 percent versus last year.

Our industry is not alone in a loss that is independent of the slow economy. Outdoor-dining venues have taken a beating. Summer retail sales hit such lows that stores began discounting weeks earlier than they normally would.

These are not just anecdotal references about the state of the environment. The statistics can back them up.

The Buffalo-Niagara region had only 6 days of 80-degree heat by mid-July when almost 20 of them are typical by that point in time. Atlantic City had its third-wettest June ever, which was the Northeast’s coldest in 27 years. Even the usually-balmy Southwest had its coldest June in 42 years.

This trend hasn’t ended, either. July weekly temps in the upper Midwest were 10 degrees below average. Canada’s temperatures have been well below normal since December and gardeners and farmers in central Alberta actually had to deal with frost a week and a half ago.

This weather is definitely not normal.

The press, the environmentalists, the Left, Al Gore…they all knew it would be abnormal. But, even so, they were wrong. Dead wrong. This year’s climate trend has been the exact opposite of what the global warming alarmists have been calling for. We were supposed to be facing deadly heat and droughts. Instead, we’re looking at lower temps and lots of rainfall throughout North America.

This year’s cool weather hasn’t been the only tell-tale sign of their errors. Remember Hurricane Katrina? Wasn’t that storm supposed to usher in a new era of relentless and deadly storms? Hurricane seasons have been downright tame since then.

This general cooling is comforting in a way. For starters, it’s nice to know the environment isn’t taking a beating and heading down a never-ending path of overheating and absolute destruction. And, secondly, it has shown that I and other naysayers (often deemed “idiots” by the Green people) have been right all along: Global Warming is not the gospel, it’s a flawed belief.

Most people in Middle America are practical souls and have never fully believed in the nonsense and fear mongering of the Inconvenient Truth and its zombie-like following in academia and the media. But, sadly, policy-makers aren’t so logical and have tuned-out the not-so-hot real world. They continue to believe in the questionable science of Gore’s doomsday prophecy while pushing for equally-cartoonish and oppressive regulations such as CAFE and Cap-and-Trade.

I think that before they go any further with such laws they need to get out of the Capitol Building and spend some time in the great outdoors. Then, we’ll see what they really think about global warming.

The Fourth Amendment's Shocking Development

From the New American, 20 July 2009

THE FOURTH AMENDMENT'S SHOCKING DEVELOPMENT
By Bob Confer

In a ruling issued in June, Niagara County (New York) Judge Sara Sheldon Sperrazza concluded that the Niagara Falls Police Department was justified in its use of a Taser to extract DNA from a suspect and that doing so was not unconstitutional. It is believed to be the first ruling of its kind in the United States, one that could set an ugly precedent for the continued pillaging of the Fourth Amendment, which has seen some very dark days since September 11, 2001.

The criteria Sperrazza used to hone her decision were eerily similar to those exerted by the Bush and Obama administrations when detaining or eavesdropping on terror suspects. She painted the young man as a threat to society and worthy of tweaking of the Constitution in an effort to prevent a continuation of his alleged criminal efforts. The individual in question, 21-year-old Ryan Smith, was accused of invading his ex-girlfriend’s home where he shot a man in the groin, tied up the woman’s children, and then forced her to take him to home of the man who Smith had just shot.

Granted, Smith might not be a model citizen (he is also accused of robbing a gas station at gunpoint in 2006), but he is worthy of two key rights that we all share; one, that we are innocent until proven guilty and, two, that the people have, per the Fourth Amendment, “the right … to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

There is little that is more unreasonable than using a Taser to obtain evidence by immobilizing the suspect, especially one who was rightfully unwilling to give up his DNA because the Court had not consulted with the defense beforehand as is customary practice. It should also be noted that Smith had given a sample just a month prior, one that the police department had mishandled and allowed to spoil. Since Smith was so indignant, the police consulted with the prosecutor who, according to police reports, suggested they use "any means necessary." The Taser — rather than patience and due diligence — ended up being that means.

Smith, who was at the time sitting on the floor and in handcuffs according to The Buffalo News, was shocked — some would say tortured — by 50,000 volts for 4 seconds, a violent means by which to carry out a simple court order. Some would argue that the officers used force that had the potential to be deadly (certain agencies within the Canadian government are seriously reconsidering their use of stun guns because more than 20 people have died from police Tasing in the past six years alone in Canada, a nation one-tenth as populous as ours and one with much less crime).

Despite such concern, the definition of “unreasonable searches” remains in the eye of the beholder. With activist judges who support the other operations of government rather than serving as their check-and-balance, the definition can be manipulated to an end that satisfies the state. Judge Sperrazza, in an attempt to deflect her support for this style of governance, wrote that the court does not have the scientific knowledge necessary to interpret the facts about Tasers and she asked the question, “It (50,000 volts) sounds like a high number but what is its relevance to the force imposed and pain inflicted?” Such logic opens the floodgates for further stun gun use — and other violent tactics — to secure court orders because the methods and instruments used, in the court’s opinion, remain either irrelevant or harmless.

That freewheeling tone is present throughout the court papers in which Sperrazza also says the Taser use was warranted as long as it wasn’t done “maliciously, or to an excessive extent, or with resulting injury,” because the situation represented a “perfect storm where the crimes being investigated were egregious.” Once again, she set a legal precedent by implying that the Fourth Amendment can be ignored or adjusted depending on the severity of the alleged crime. Compounding this abuse of the amendment is the fact that “egregious” is a nebulous term. One could expand on that wording and wonder if all-noncompliant individuals (such as executives who won’t release sensitive documents or a citizen who struggles to pay fees or fines) might be subject to shocking due to their “egregious” acts. Defense attorney Patrick M. Balkin raised the same worry in denouncing the ruling: “[Sperrazza's] decision says you can enforce a court order by force. If you extrapolate that, we no longer have to have child support hearings; you can just Taser the parent," Balkin said.

It is this same mindset which has allowed the Patriot Act to sully the Fourth and Fifth Amendments through containment, torture, eavesdropping and other nefarious means. Shocking is no better — and definitely deadlier — than the waterboarding tactics we hear so much about. It’s more accessible, too, as most officers carry a stun gun, something they are now empowered to use without restraint, which, in the end, puts all citizens — good or bad — at risk.

As with the Patriot Act, it looks as if Sperraza’s conclusions might go unchecked. Neither Ryan Smith nor his lawyer has expressed any interest in appealing the court’s ruling. That means the constitutionality of the case won’t be addressed, and it will be used as a template for future acts by which the government can forcibly steal not just our property, but parts of our person as well.

The Founding Fathers would find this to be a truly shocking development.

The federal assault on farms

From the 20 July 2009 Greater Niagara Newspapers

THE FEDERAL ASSAULT ON FARMS
By Bob Confer

As the recession presses on, in conjunction with the overblown fear of global warming, we witness the government continually changing the rules of the game to doing business. It has instituted - and will continue to institute - rigid controls over banking and finance in an effort to suppress risk-tasking while, at the same time, extending oversight on manufacturers and consumers who might be putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

It seemed that the only business sector that was safe from Big Brother’s meddling hand was one of Mankind’s oldest pursuits: agriculture. But, things have changed. Farming is now in the sights of Uncle Sam. Once again using fear as a tactic to claim control over our day-to-day lives, Congress has introduced bill HR 2749 (the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009) that it says will prevent the spread of E coli, Mad Cow and the like by empowering the Food and Drug Administration to regulate farms of all sizes. As with anything the federal government is wont to do, it’s not the threat of the disease we should fear but rather the government itself. HR 2749 would give the FDA almost unlimited power that would touch on every facet of a farm’s operation.

It starts, like all federal activities do, with registration. Any facility that holds, processes, or manufactures food would have to register on annual basis with the government to the tune of $500. This regulation would extend to any person or small enterprise selling their “manufactured” foods (which include breads and cheeses) at a local farmers market. That is a burdensome fee, especially to all the small vendors who would consider themselves lucky to surpass $500 in sales during a bountiful season. The fee will put many folks, especially the roadside stands, out of business.

The next step in the federal takeover is tracking. This bill would establish a food tracing system that would require farms and food producers, large and small, to track the origins of their food, whether they grew it or it was previously distributed. Extensive records would need to be maintained that show exactly where the fruits and vegetables came from, how they were grown, how they were stored and just who they were sold to. Based on that, all registered farms would be subject to warrantless searches whereby the FDA would have carte blanche to analyze all of their private records to verify appropriate tracking.

That same FDA also thinks that it knows farming better than the farmers do, so the Act would allow the agency to regulate how crops are raised and harvested. Many believe that the FDA would follow standards introduced by the World Trade Organization which, among other things, would ban manure use and require the chemical enhancement of crops and cattle. Farmers would be forced to abandon practices that have been safely used to feed people for generations.

If by chance the FDA did discover a contamination, the bill would empower the government to create a police state to suppress an outbreak. They would have the ability to quarantine an entire geographic region and prevent the movement of produce in and out of the designated area. If one farm in a given town was shown to provide tainted foods all other farms in that town would need to cease operations while the government’s investigation takes place. If that happens during that small and crucial window of time when crops need to be harvested or food producers need to be supplied the farmers will lose out on their livelihood.

To the farmer, the Act amounts to a massive loss of rights. It’s comparable to the Patriot Act of agriculture. It looks at what they do with a fine-toothed comb and demands that they conform to a set of practices laid out by an oppressive federal agency.

To the consumer, the Act means higher prices at the grocery store. The new rules and regulations will only add to the cost of doing business. And, don’t forget, the government has already forced food prices through the roof in recent years thanks to inflation caused by bad monetary policy and the ill-advised pursuit of ethanol which caused corn, corn products, and everything that eats corn (chicken, swine and cattle) to go up in value.

HR 2749 is just another in a long line of attacks on capitalism and freedom in the United States of America. But, there’s still a chance to stop it. You must write or call your congressperson and ask him or her to vote against the Act. If they don’t, farmers – and consumers – everywhere will suffer.

The EPA vs. boats, mowers, and jobs

From the 13 July 2009 Greater Niagara Newspapers

THE EPA VS. BOATS, MOWERS AND JOBS
By Bob Confer

We’ve been told time and time again that the exhaust from gas-powered engines used in our vehicles contributes to the degradation of the environment. In the 1970’s we were told that the excessive fumes would cool the Earth and bring on a new ice age. In the 1990’s and 2000’s the tune switched: The carbon dioxide would warm the Earth, melt the polar ice caps and bring on mass starvation.

With Al Gore and similar Chicken Littles relentlessly driving that point home, regulatory agencies tend to overact. After all, if they don’t do something, that one-degree difference in air temperature might condemn a billion people to death. That’s where folks like the California Air Resource Board come in to devise some truly-ridiculous regulations.

CARB somehow got it in their heads that your fuel tanks and powered-equipment not only contribute to global warming when they’re running, but also when they are not. They believe that the plastic tanks and hoses used on your lawn tractor and boat breathe incredible amounts of gas fumes to the air on a non-stop basis. Sure, they might pass some gas through a vented cap or a loose-fitting hose but that’s not what CARB focused on. Instead, they analyzed the gas molecules that gradually work their way through the walls of the tanks or the bodies of the hose. It sounds too nutty to be true, but the CARB people became adamant that those ultra-microscopic particles are killing the atmosphere and, in turn, polar bears. So, laws were devised in California that would stop this fiendish assault on the environment.

Sadly, the Environmental Protection Agency ate-up this tripe and decided to introduce similar standards at the federal level for mowers and watercraft, beginning in 2011. That means pricy changes to the products themselves, both to the manufacturer and the consumer.

Manufacturers like Biggs & Stratton must offer products that do not lend themselves to diurnal emissions, requiring significant changes to the make-up of the goods. It could mean new fuel tanks. To do that, they and their suppliers will have to ditch the basic technology that’s been used for decades. Most tanks will need to be manufactured in a multi-layer manufacturing process, much like a ketchup bottle but in a larger scale.

Because of the investment in manufacturing equipment, most of their suppliers will no longer make fuel tanks. You can see that locally…right here at my company. We’ve been making gas tanks since the 1970’s. 2010 will be the last year we do that. The new-fangled machines necessary to mold what the EPA wants would cost us over $4 million. In comparison, the machine that makes them as they are right now would cost less than a million. It doesn’t take an accountant to see that purchasing the new machine is a poor investment. The payback would occur well after a dozen years. Because of that, we will lose that portion of the business and a few Western New Yorkers will lose their job thanks to the EPA. Other manufacturers will follow suit and only those willing to go out on a limb and buy a new line will be making tanks any more, that is, if their finances, already affected by the recession, can assume the risk for the long-term.

But enough about me and the business world. What about you?

The new tanks and hoses (in conjunction with catalytic converters, which represent another way to meet the standard) will add significantly to the cost of lawnmower. CARB says the law will make a push mower $50 more expensive. The EPA says a riding mower will be $100 more expensive.

Chances are, when you’re done mowing the lawn you want to get out on the water and relax. That’s when the new law really kicks you. It will make a portable marine fuel tank twice as costly or add $280 to the cost of an outboard engine and $360 to a jet ski.

If you don’t find that to be bothersome enough, realize that if the mower manufacturers go to catalytic converters they might make the environment even worse. The EPA’s proponents state that those engines run hotter, so they increase the risk of fire when cutting near lawn debris (like dead grass or leaves) or in a dry place (like California).

Sometimes, with laws like this, you just need to sit back and see how oppressive – and stupid – our government has become. You could beat them at their own game, though, and buy your next mower, boat, or fuel tank this year or next. Not only will you be stimulating the economy, but you’ll be stimulating the atmosphere, too.

How to shrink our government

From the 06 July 2009 Greater Niagara Newspapers

HOW TO SHRINK OUR GOVERNMENT
By Bob Confer

The New York State Senate has been at a standstill since June 8. Lost amidst all the well-deserved bad press surrounding the coup is the fact that just a few days earlier the Assembly and Senate had passed a bill that is one of the best of this session if not of all sessions of recent memory. The bill, penned not by a legislator but by attorney general Andrew Cuomo, is called the New York Reorganization and Empowerment Act and it makes it easier to consolidate or dissolve local governments in the Empire State. It has since been signed into being by Governor David Paterson and it goes into effect in late-March of 2010.

The bill addresses one of the greatest problems facing NY residents…local governments that are many and redundant, creating undue tax burdens. According to Cuomo’s office there are 10,521 local government entities in the state, representing towns, villages and special districts (such as water and refuse) many of them offering the very same services as a neighboring community, some better than others. Highlighting this duplication of efforts, there are 6,900 town special districts across the state while there are only 932 towns. According to a commission that was created by former Governor Eliot Spitzer to look into this, some $1 billion in annual savings could be had through a wide variety of consolidation measures. That’s $1 billion in property tax payments, the same mammoth tax bills that make real estate a poor investment in NY and drive people from our borders.

Unlike most state laws, this one is not a mandate. It’s not the State coming down on towns telling them they should dissolve and combine. No, this is something rather refreshing. It’s an old-school bill that recognizes that the real power comes from the people and not from the top down. It allows everyday average citizens to initiate the change necessary to make living in New York a little more palatable.

How does it work?

Suppose you live in Hartland and you wonder why you can’t share services with the town of Royalton, a similarly-rural and undeveloped town. They share a school-district, so why couldn’t these two towns that already have a common bond become one? To go about starting the process, you could ask the towns’ councils to pursue the process, during which they would have to ask for voter approval.

If the councilmen and women found your idea to be a little harebrained (or a threat to their power) and did not advance the discussion, you could advance it on your own. To do so, you would need to start a petition drive. You would need to collect signatures from 10 percent of those living in Royalton and 10 percent of those living in Hartland. Once that task is done, it goes to the polls. If a majority of the electors vote in favor of dissolution and consolidation, the town leaders must create a plan to move ahead with the cause.

Similarly, you can apply this effort to special districts as well and eliminate them within your towns. Due to special district dissolution being less threatening than town dissolution, there is one difference between the processes: If it has been initiated by the governing body, a voter referendum is not necessary.

It sounds easy enough, but, realize it has been a long time coming. When the Reorganization and Empowerment Act becomes law in 2010 it will have been 75 years since the State’s Mastick Commission first noted there were far too many local governments in New York. Think about that: State leaders have known about this problem since the Great Depression and up until now, no one had done a thing about it. But, things have changed and so have our people. In this day and age of Tea Parties, irate taxpayers, and a generally-disgusted electorate, there are plenty of individuals chomping at the bit to use this great tool by which they can put a little bit of power back into our hands. Understand, though, that it’s not a perfect bill. It doesn’t allow us to act on the elimination or combination of cities, counties, or school districts, the latter being the largest portion of our property tax bills. But, it’s a start nonetheless.

Random thoughts from Bob Confer

From the 29 June 2009 Greater Niagara Newspapers

RANDOM THOUGHTS FROM BOB CONFER
By Bob Confer

Here are a few things that have been on my mind….

A few weeks ago President Obama visited Nellis Air Force Base where he applauded their 140-acre solar array. He said we need more solar energy systems just like that one. Don’t the green energy and environmentalist crowds realize that every gigantic solar array, whether it’s as large as Nellis’ or one-tenth that size, will destroy and replace that many acres of the environment, be it forest, grassland, field, or desert?

*****

How many of the hundreds of Wheatfield residents who vehemently opposed housing for low-income earners in 2006 and 2007 have now become, as a direct result of the recession, the very kind of individual they did not welcome to their neighborhood?

****

Am I the only one who finds humor in the hypocrisy of the two-party system when it comes to human life? The Republicans like war and the death penalty while bemoaning abortion. The Democrats hate war and the death penalty yet like abortion.

****

In the past 100-plus years not a single president or member of congress has followed the Constitution. Federal organizations like the Department of Education and the EPA are totally unconstitutional, as are activities like surveillance of innocent civilians, pork barrel spending and the bailing out of banks and auto companies. That said, why don’t we charge federal elected officials with treason for failure to uphold their oath of office, one which asks them to support and defend the Constitution?

****

Is reality TV so successful because Americans enjoy watching people fail?

****

If the government can force employers to collect income taxes and garnishments why can’t the employer charge a fee to the government for the services of that debt collection?

****

Why is Americorps considered “service” or “volunteerism” if people are getting paid to do it?

****

Some veterans have recently come up ill with blood-borne diseases like hepatitis and HIV because VA hospitals and clinics did not properly clean their colonoscopy equipment. That begs two questions. One, is this the best care that we can offer our vets? And, two, does government-run health care (which is what the VA’s are) still look attractive to you?

****

When businesses expand or come to the area, people go out of their way to thank the elected officials for all the new jobs. Last I knew, politicians don’t create jobs, the private sector does. As a matter of fact, many will argue that politicians stifle job growth. That said, has anyone ever gone out of their way to thank the entrepreneurs for the new jobs?

*****

If my company had a known carcinogen in the workplace’s air, we’d have to outfit all of our coworkers with masks and respirators. My question is: Prior to the smoking ban, why weren’t bars required to outfit their bartenders and wait staff with masks and respirators since there were extremely high levels of a known carcinogen (cigarette smoke) in their air?

****

If China’s currency manipulation is so evil, why is it OK for the United States and the Federal Reserve to manipulate our money supply?

****
We know that people have been leaving Western New York in droves, so why does it seem that new complexes and developments are always being built?

****

Why don’t taxpayers get an interest payment from the government when they receive their tax refund? Shouldn’t Uncle Sam pay for borrowing your money, just like a bank or debtor would?

Your cell phone as income

From the 22 June 2009 Greater Niagara Newspapers

YOUR CELL PHONE AS INCOME
By Bob Confer

Cell phones have become a ubiquitous part of the workday. Many businesses give them to their sales and service personnel so they can be in constant contact with their coworkers and customers. Cells have become as equally popular in the public sector as many municipalities use them to deploy and keep tabs on their work crews. Recent estimates show that more than 6 million Americans are provided cell phones by their employers.

According to the Internal Revenue Service, that’s 6 million people who should be paying an income tax for that work tool. A law on the books since 1989 empowers the IRS to collect income taxes on cell phones, putting them in the listed property category along with the likes of company-provided vehicles. In their eyes, a cell phone easily lends itself to personal use so a portion of its cost should be designated as a perk for that employee.

Back in the early-1990’s it was a tax that was relatively-easy to enforce because, back then, cellular phones were clunky, expensive luxury items that few small businesses or the self-employed could afford. But the times have changed. Developments in technology have made the phones truly portable and affordable so, now, a great many employers issue them to their workers. Some have even abandoned landlines entirely.

Despite that explosion in cellular usage, tax collections have been lethargic. Most employers are unaware that a portion of a work-related cell phone is taxable, so the IRS has not seen the revenues that should be expected. The agency has been making it a point to change that of late, motivated by the almighty dollar. Since the start of the recession the federal government has brought in less money due to job cuts and shortened workweeks. To make up for that loss of income, the IRS has directed its staff to focus on fraud and lesser-known taxes like this one. So, they have been looking at cell phone policies of businesses, universities, and municipalities with a fine-tooted comb since late-2007 and made examples of some well-known entities including UCLA (which they charged $240,000 for back taxes) and the city of Columbus, Ohio which settled with the IRS for $400,000.

This recent venture has proven to be problematic for both the IRS and those it hopes to collect from. Most employers and employees are ill-prepared to track cell phone use (and, quite frankly, there are more important things to do) and the modern way of billing – the all-inclusive, unlimited packages provided by Verizon, Sprint and the like – makes cost segregation near impossible.

The IRS has some ideas for addressing those problems. Two weeks ago they opened a public comment period (running until September 4) for individuals to offer their two cents about three distinct tax recording and collecting methods the IRS thinks might work. Under the first scenario, your cell phone can be fully-designated as a work phone and therefore non-taxable to you only if you can provide substantial evidence that shows you have a second phone for personal use and that you have not used the work phone to place a personal call. The second concept would assume that anyone who has a work phone must use it at home, too, so they would be charged a rate equal to 25 percent of the phone’s fees, regardless of how true the assumption may be. The third IRS plan would force the employer to use statistical sampling to calculate the billable rate for the employee.

It is suggested that you not engage the IRS in this discussion. Unless you like paying taxes you should instead train your public comments upon Congress. Last Tuesday, following the outcry over the IRS’s announcement, the Obama Administration, through IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman nonetheless (can you sense the irony and hypocrisy?), asked that the law be repealed because the way we communicate has changed significantly making the law outdated and almost unenforceable. Some in Congress agree with the President and bills have been introduced by John Kerry in the Senate (S.144) and by Sam Johnson in the House (H.R.690) asking for the removal of cell phones from the listed property category.

Take the time to write your senator or congressperson about this simple issue that could become a complex one if the IRS focuses on your and your employer’s pocketbooks. Not only will you have to pay taxes for the phone, but you and your employer will have to waste time (that probably costs more than the taxes paid) on recordkeeping for this law. It’s a headache financially, and philosophically, too: Why pay an income tax on something you need to do your job?

Monserrate and Espada: The GOP's new best friends

From the 15 June 2009 Greater Niagara Newspapers

MONSERRATE AND ESPADA: THE GOP’S NEW BEST FRIENDS
By Bob Confer

I’d like you to meet Hiram Monserrate and Pedro Espada, Jr. They are the new faces of the Republican senate in New York State, Democrat turncoats who were adopted by the GOP to help flip the balance of power in the legislature.

It tells us a great deal about the current state of the Republican Party that these faces -- more fitting for mug shots or “wanted” posters – have become heroes to a party that tries to pass itself off as one possessed of character. It’s something that these men lack. You can’t help but question their character upon selling-out to a billionaire businessman who proved more important to them than their own constituents or to the Republican senate leadership who gave them financially-rewarding positions in that house. But, as offensive as that may be, it pales in comparison to what they did prior to this politics-as-usual move.

Let’s go back to the night of December 19. On that fateful evening Monserrate showed us that he is the very worst of men, a woman-beater. The hot-tempered wretch was caught on surveillance cameras abusively dragging his petite girlfriend Karla Giraldo from her apartment building as she grabbed onto a stair rail in a physical tug-of-war for her safety. The same cameras then showed her running to a neighbor’s door, pounding on it and screaming for help.

That sounds scary enough, but it’s what happened prior to that, inside the apartment, that was the most offensive. The hot-headed Monserrate slashed Giraldo’s face with a broken glass. It was such a brutal act that she’s now scarred for life, needing more than 20 stitches to close the gash over her left eye. When Giraldo arrived at the hospital she told the medical attendants that Monserrate cut her during an argument. Later, she did as many frightened and intimidated abuse victims do and changed her story to say that Monserrate tripped while bringing her a glass of water. That’s a little too unbelievable, so the first story (in conjunction with the video tapes) carries considerably more weight.

Monserrate is awaiting trial for three counts of felony assault and another three for misdemeanor assault. If found guilty he could face seven years behind bars, nowhere near enough for such a disgusting crime.

Espada is as equally repulsive an individual. He has a long track record of breaking – or being accused of breaking – all sorts of campaign laws. Back in 2005, three employees who worked at Soundview Health Center (a clinic Espada runs) pleaded guilty to forcing the clinic’s employees to run Espada’s campaign on company time, giving food donations intended for their patients to campaign workers instead, and diverting $30,000 of public funds dedicated for family and AIDS care into his campaign’s treasury. Four years earlier, Espada was fined $62,000 by New York City for separate incidents of campaign fraud. For the piece de resistance, back in 2002 he was busted for using his senate office to put $745,000 of state pork-barrel money into his business, one from which he collected a $200,000 salary. On top of all that theft, he’s under investigation for more fraud: There is considerable evidence that he lives in Mamaroneck, not the Bronx he was elected to represent.

Yes, folks, those are the guys who Republican voters, movers-and-shakers and elected officials alike are now tickled pink to call their allies. I suppose that in their minds, when it’s politically-expedient to do so, it’s okay to ignore the Republican Party’s rallying cry, that they are the party of timeless values, one devoted to Christian morals, the sanctity of the family, and conservative practices. Monserrate and Espada don’t fit that mold and they never will.

But, we’re told that giving-in like this to the criminal element is best for the State. With the Republicans back in control of the Senate we’ll see a better tomorrow in New York. Really? It never happened like that before. Let’s not forget that while Joe Bruno ran the senate for 13 years (most of them with a Republican governor at his side) the state budget grew from $61.9 billion to $121 billion.

This mess in Albany perfectly shows why the GOP is a party in struggle, a dinosaur ready for extinction. In recent years it lost control of the presidency, Congress and governorships and houses in many states because it has lost its identity. What it once stood for is long gone. The thing that it has become rings hollow for most and resonates powerfully with only a very few, those who blindly pledge allegiance to something that is Republican by name only.

Black bears are harmless

From the 08 June 2009 Greater Niagara Newspapers

BLACK BEARS ARE HARMLESS
By Bob Confer

Three years ago I was turkey hunting in Allegany County when I did something no successful hunter should ever do. I fell asleep. Getting up well before sun-up, hiking the hills, and then sitting quietly under a tree with the warm May sun beating on you can have that effect.

Maybe ten minutes into my nap I was awakened by a snapping stick. I quickly woke up, thinking a turkey was coming in to me. As my sleepy eyes adjusted to the light I saw a black shape just ahead of me. I quickly realized that it wasn’t a turkey. It was a black bear less than 15 yards away, coming right at me!

I didn’t freak out. I didn’t blast him with my shotgun. Instead, I did what you are supposed to do in such close quarters. I stood up, spread my arms to make myself appear larger and yelled “get!” And, boy did he ever! The 250-pound beast grunted, spun around and hightailed it to a spot 50 yards away where he paced back and forth trying to figure out what just happened. A minute later he trotted away, obviously in fear.

My guess is that prior to me going into “attack” mode he didn’t know I was there because I was camouflaged and he was only heading to my exact spot because he had been downwind of me and caught a whiff of my deodorant. He probably figured there was something pleasant-smelling in the woods that he could eat.

The encounter with that bear is one of a dozen that I’ve had in Western New York over the years. Under all such circumstances I wasn’t the one who was afraid. The bear was. Each and every encounter resulted in the bear either walking or running in the other direction after the bruin realized there was a human present.

As an outdoorsman and naturalist – and one who has experienced it first-hand - I know that black bears are harmless creatures, more afraid of us than we are of them. But, unfortunately, most people do not know this. Hollywood has them believing that all bears are deadly man-killers while the Discovery Channel has them wrongly assuming that all bears are aggressive, 900-pound grizzlies.

I really can’t blame people for being scared either. Even without the media influence a bear sighting can be a naturally disconcerting experience. Except for deer, most animals of the woods are wee little things like chipmunks and coyotes, so when a creature the size of a bear appears out of nowhere it can frighten even the strongest of souls.

That’s what happened recently in Niagara County. We were visited by a bear no bigger than a cub. Being that he was something out of the norm, he startled the people who saw him and had them worried about the safety of their pets and children. The subsequent television news coverage caused thousands of others - city dwellers and rural folk alike - to worry if their lawn might be the next one visited by a bear.

It might just be. This bear will be the first of many to visit our area. In recent years they have become more common in southern Erie County and have been making regular appearances in populous Monroe County, in 2007 getting as close to us as Brockport and Hamlin. They are on the move because their population is growing (2008’s bear hunting take in the Allegany region exceeded the old record by 60 percent, indicative of the population explosion) and the local lands that were once small family farms have grown into brush or woodlots, becoming more attractive habitat.

Don’t be afraid of these bears. Despite their size, teeth and claws they are relatively docile. Black bear attacks are extremely rare. There are roughly 900,000 bears in North America that result in, on average, just over two human injuries per year. Since 1900 there have been 57 people in the US and Canada killed by black bears. In comparison, man’s best friend sends 1,000 people to the hospital every day for bite wounds and dogs kill about 36 people in the US every year.

Nonetheless, don’t go out of your way to be a friend to bears. Whatever you do, don’t feed them and don’t approach them. You wouldn’t do that to a fox, opossum or raccoon. Bears are wild animals and, like all those wild animals, they can turn. Just keep your distance and appreciate them for what they are, a fascinating and rarely-seen part of the natural world. You should count yourself as lucky – not unlucky - if you happen to see one. Accept their visits to your neighborhood with open arms…or with spread arms and healthy yelp if that makes you any feel safer.