Observations about Social Security

OBSERVATIONS ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY
By Bob Confer

In the days leading up to Christmas, the White House unleashed a huge social media marketing campaign to get people involved in the political discourse surrounding the extension of the payroll (Social Security) tax cut for another 2 months. To fire up the masses, President Obama and his staff framed the activism with the basic premise of “What does $40 mean to you?”

The $40 in question was identified as being what Americans would continue to keep on a weekly basis were the cut prolonged. Believe it not, the number was a mistruth.

$40 is not the average amount Americans will receive. Rather, it’s the maximum. Most people won’t even come close to it. According to the administrators of Social Security, the average American income was $39,959 in 2010, or $768 per week. Under the 2 percent cut, the weekly benefit works out to be $15.

The $40 incentive certainly got a lot of people fired up, who subsequently tweeted in volume about the importance of that money in making ends meet in their homes. That, in turn, forced the GOP’s hand in agreeing to the 2-month extension. Now, if the White House had been genuine about it and used $15 as the value, would the campaign have been successful? I doubt it.

Gotta love propaganda.


-----------------------

The Associated Press, among others, have reported on the Social Security tax cut with some trepidation, saying that the previously unheard-of act of pulling SSI funding from the federal government’s general pool of revenues (to keep Social Security whole by making up for the loss of the payroll tax) puts the program at risk because, if the cut lingers, SSI will have to compete with other programs and various departments for funding in the future.

I, too, share some reservations, but mine are on the other end of the spectrum that the AP’s worries are founded in. I see this manner of funding as being the easy way out for Congress and the Executive Branch. They can fix Social Security without actually fixing it. By dipping into the universal kitty, the trustees now have access to nearly unlimited reserves and, ultimately, new means of funding (potential new excise and sales taxes). No longer will Social Security have to live within the means of the mythical trust fund that was created solely from payroll taxes (employee and employer contributions). When times get tough, they’ll just grab money elsewhere.

This tax cut sets an ugly precedent that will really take hold in my lifetime. Social Security is saddled $21.4 trillion in unfunded liabilities, all of which will, within the next 20 years, start to see substantial bailouts from alternative sources, thus harming the rest of the economy.


------------------------


One of the fixes to Social Security – and Medicare for that matter – that keeps getting thrown around is means testing. This concept really gained popularity in the deficit reduction talks of 2011 and many on both sides of the aisle believe it will be discussed at length in 2012 as Congress gets serious - or as serious as they can be - about our long-term obligations.

Under means testing, the wealth of retirees will be taken into consideration in regard to their receipt of publicly funded benefits. If a senior is found to possess “too much” in the form of 401(k)s, IRAs, pensions, savings accounts, and their homes, they will receive less from Social Security and will have to contribute more to the care they receive under Medicare.

That is incredibly unfair because means testing will penalize those who planned for their future and reward those who didn’t. For a good many Americans there will be a lesser – or no - incentive to save and invest because what they would have forgone in their working years for betterment of life in their later years would be deducted from what they had already contributed to those social welfare programs (which, in most cases, is at the same amount the non-savers had contributed during their careers).

Because of that, means testing would only serve to drive more people to not put away for tomorrow and, therefore, rely on government for the full provision of their post-employment needs.

And people wonder why America is in decline.

Bob Confer is a Gasport resident and vice president of Confer Plastics Inc. in North Tonawanda. E-mail him at bobconfer@juno.com.

------------------------------------------------------------


This column originally ran in the 09 January 2012 Greater Niagara Newspapers

The chains of inflation

THE CHAINS OF INFLATION
By Bob Confer

We have a federal government that has a spending problem and because of that it has a revenue problem, too. So what is a government to do? Congress could openly raise taxes, but doing so would hurt them come election time. So would cutting benefits. Anyway you put it, a spendthrift would be a marked man as would his pennywise foil.

The only option left for them is to do those tasks secretly. There would be no more clandestine way to do that than to manipulate the statistics that govern our public policy. That could happen with a little gimmick called the Chained Consumer Price Index. It has been proposed as a new way to calculate inflation and it really gained traction over the last six months as the dueling Congress looked for ways to address the deficit and debt in the long term.

Under the Chained CPI the standard CPI would be cast aside. In the current method, the cost of a fixed basket of goods and services is tracked over time and that growth in value represents the inflation rate. The Chained CPI would take that simple, straightforward calculation and turn it on its head, making it subjective and something of a fantasy. In the new method, the federal economists would adjust the basket for assumed changes in buying behavior; no longer would it be designated collection of items. In their eyes, if a shopper won’t buy a beef roast because it went up X dollars, he would probably buy a replacement meat, like pork chops. So, the Chained CPI would adjust for the modified basket (as theoretical as it may be) and track the price of the chops, noting its price variance (up or down) versus the roast that used to be in its place.

Since there’s a good chance that the modified basket will collectively feature lower-priced replacements, the Chained CPI will produce an inflation rate that is lower than today’s CPI. On average, it would cut the accepted inflation rate by a third of a percentage point per year. It doesn’t seem like much, but it is. Consider that inflation has been pegged to be 3.4 percent over the past 12 months. So, were the Chained methodology in play, it would bring that number down to 3.1 percent.

That small change would yield big results for a Congress afraid to do almost anything. It’s been said that over the first decade alone Chained CPI would shrink the deficit by $300 billion, through a combination of $100 billion in new tax revenues and $200 billion in spending cuts. That’s because the inflation rate affects a little bit of everything in the federal budget since it is used to determine both the revenue side and the cost side of things.

The new revenues would be achieved by sticking it to those who pay income taxes. Since wages will, in many cases, rise at a rate greater than what will be a much smaller inflation rate, more people will jump into higher tax brackets – more quickly, too - since those brackets are continually adjusted for inflation. At the same time, personal tax loopholes will grow at an equally smaller rate, preventing people from deducting higher dollar amounts that would have tracked the CPI now in place. We’re not talking peanuts, either: According to federal studies, over the first 10 years the tax burden for a low-income family would be 15% higher under the Chained CPI than it would be through the current CPI.

Significant cost savings would be gleaned from those who rely on the government for a retirement income. Social Security beneficiaries count on their benefits growing at a rate in step with inflation. In recent years the calculated rate of inflation has not been high enough to warrant a cost-of-living adjustment and seniors have been really feeling it. Imagine that pain for the long haul. In 2012, the adjustment will be 3.6 percent, but under Chained CPI it would be 3.3 percent. Following that trend, someone who starts collecting Social Security in the first year of Chained CPI will see $560 less per year after 10 years, and almost $1,000 less per year after 20 years.

The weight of Chained CPI will bring a good many people down. It’s an unscientific manner to calculate one of our economy’s most important statistics and an easy way for Washington to earn and save money, without making the hard, important decisions they should.



Bob Confer is a Gasport resident and vice president of Confer Plastics Inc. in North Tonawanda. E-mail him at bobconfer@juno.com.



------------------------------------------------------------


This column originally ran in the 02 January 2012 Greater Niagara Newspapers

On 911, Upstate mythology and payroll taxes

ON 911, UPSTATE MYTHOLOGY AND PAYROLL TAXES
By Bob Confer

Some random musings this week…

Congresswoman Kathy Hochul’s ALERT ACT has been welcomed with open arms by many people in her district, including my friend Scott Leffler who addressed it in his column last week. He supports the Act in entirety. I, on the other hand, can’t do the same.

I agree with the usefulness of the portion of her bill that demands cell phone service providers send a return text saying that texting 911 is not an option for anyone who tries to contact dispatch through that method. But, I wholeheartedly disagree with her plan to update 911 call centers so they can receive and transmit text messages. In my opinion, doing so will be deadly for either the patient or the responding officer depending on the reason for the emergency contact.

How can I say this politely? Americans as a rule are functionally illiterate. Have you ever tried to decipher a text that your friend has sent you? Better yet, have you ever read a text from a teenager? The language shortcuts and general disdain for proper English make most text messages incomprehensible.

Now, imagine being at the dispatch desk, trying to figure out those messages. You’ll receive and respond to the initial message. Then you’ll have to inquire about various details in separate messages. What has happened? How many people are hurt? Is there a threat? Are other people in imminent danger? So on and so forth. Think about how long it will take the dispatcher to compose outgoing messages then translate the incoming messages. Think of how long it will take the distressed to respond and give details; that is, if her nerves aren’t shot and she can somehow have a steady typing hand.

Call me old-fashioned but vocal communication is the only way to go. A dispatch center can quickly and fluidly glean accurate and appropriate information, while at the same time adequately prepare emergency personnel for what’s ahead. Texting affords none of the above. Lives will be lost by texting; you can count on it. Delays will cost patients their lives while unsuspecting lone officers might come into a situation more dangerous than alluded to in a text.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I’ve always been dismissive of the idea that we should cut free New York City and make Upstate New York the 51st state. The general sentiment feeding that fantasy was this mythology that Downstate somehow took all of Upstate’s money. That’s contrary to reality as was proved in a report issued by the Rockefeller Institute of Government last week. They found that the 48 Upstate counties (excluding the Capital Region) paid 24 percent of the state's revenues and received 35 percent of state dollars back. Upstate would have lost up to $9.3 billion if its share of revenues matched its share of funding. You can see the report at www.rockinst.org.

But, that doesn’t mean Downstate is perfect. In my opinion, the policies created by their legislators are responsible for a great deal of the economic malaise in Upstate. First and foremost is their approach to Medicaid funding. It’s extremely difficult for Upstate people to pay for Medicaid out of their property taxes. That approach doesn’t carry the same effect in the NYC region. High rent is almost looked at as a necessary evil in the world’s most vibrant metro area, an assumed cost of doing business/living.

But still, that doesn’t mean we should cut off our nose to spite our face. New York City is important to our fiscal well-being. If you value our roads, schools, and state lands Upstate, know we really can’t survive without New York City.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The Democrats must think we have short memories. Maybe most of us do.

They’ve been raising a stink the past month-plus over the manufactured threat that the Republicans will bring an end to the Social Security payroll tax cut. Where was this care for our pocketbooks exactly one year ago? Then, the President and Democratic Congress allowed the expiration of the Making Work Pay tax credit that helped buoy consumer spending in 2009 and 2010 as the economy crawled out of the recession. Most American workers benefited by $400 per year because of it. Alas, that credit was allowed to sunset, just as the Democrats intended when they designed it.

That makes the current hubbub so disingenuous to me.

Bob Confer is a Gasport resident and vice president of Confer Plastics Inc. in North Tonawanda. E-mail him at bobconfer@juno.com.

------------------------------------------------------------


This column originally ran in the 26 December 2011 Greater Niagara Newspapers

For the love of the game

FOR THE LOVE OF THE GAME
By Bob Confer

In my younger years I was, like any red-blooded American, an avid professional sports fan. I tried not to miss the baseball and football highlight shows, Monday Night Football, and my annual pilgrimage to Pittsburgh to catch my beloved Chicago Cubs while they were in town.

But, when I hit 30 years of age, things changed dramatically. Just like a switch, my love for the pros turned right off. Now do I rarely watch any football or baseball highlights. I couldn’t even tell you the last time I watched a football game from start to finish. As a matter of fact, I can’t even name the starting rotation for the Cubs.

You see, as I aged I grew disgusted by pro sports. I was driven away by the greed, egos and outlandish salaries, and maddened by the marketing that somehow makes everyone believe pro spots are the most important thing in the world and worth every exorbitant penny. From those criteria, numerous disdainful questions have racked my brain. Why can people name their team’s starting line-up but not their elected officials? Why do fathers abandon their sons and daughters on Sundays? Why should taxpayers feel obligated to pay for the stadiums of billion dollar leagues? What human being is worth a quarter of a billion dollars, just to hit a stupid ball?

Even though my admiration of pro sports died, my appreciation for sport itself did not. I still value the thrill of competition, the drama of a good match-up, and the diversion from daily stress that spectator sports present. Instead of finding that joy in the big leagues, I find it in a setting that I had become accustomed to in the early-1990s: College campuses.

These are not just any campus. Most Division I programs (especially when it comes to football and basketball) are no better than the pros. They emphasize athletics over academics while many of their athletes play only for a chance to reap big rewards from the NFL and NBA, leagues that use DI as some sort of minor league system and, somehow, get away with it!

Instead, I get my athletic fix from Division III programs. In DIII, the emphasis is on academics over athletics. There are no sports scholarships. The athletes are talented but they understand that they have almost no chance of playing professional sports, knowing that guys like the Buffalo Bills’ Fred Jackson are anomalies. In DIII, they play for the love of the game. That’s it.

It’s that pristine brand of competition – free of the trappings of avarice – that make DIII sports so refreshing. Where else can you find men and women playing a game at a high level with only the sports’ basal tenets in mind? They pursue victory with vigor, aided by the bond of teamwork and guided by their own ethic and determination, driven for personal betterment on the field and in the mind. That emotion and desire among the players - and also the fans - in DIII is unparalleled in all of sports.

The best sporting events I’ve ever witnessed have, far and away, been in DIII football stadiums and ice arenas. I’ve seen many a tight game and marveled at countless exciting plays. And to think, they were playing for free and my ticket cost me only $5.

You have plenty of chances to take part in these events in Western New York. It’s been said, depending on who you ask, that we’re either a football town or a hockey town. Either way, the games await. DIII football can be had at Brockport, Alfred University and Buffalo State. DIII hockey - which has a rabid fan base (me among them) - can be found at Brockport, Buffalo State, Fredonia, and Geneseo.

If you’ve never savored a DIII game, make it a point to do so. You won’t regret it and you, too, might even change your outlook on athletics for the better and turn your allegiance from the pros to players who understand the real value of sport.

Bob Confer is a Gasport resident and vice president of Confer Plastics Inc. in North Tonawanda. E-mail him at bobconfer@juno.com.


------------------------------------------------------------


This column originally ran in the 19 December 2011 Greater Niagara Newspapers

An alternative to war

AN ALTERNATIVE TO WAR
By Bob Confer

Last week I was the guest on Don Griffin’s “Second Opinion” on KJSL in St. Louis. The topic of discussion was a 2009 column I wrote about a part of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal. These are contracts that allow American citizens abroad to defend themselves from a defined threat, or grant them permission to retaliate against – and even take the possession or life of – the same. My column had addressed granting Letters to seafarers so they could protect their craft and personnel from the modern day pirates off the Horn of Africa.

Don had me on his show to further expand on that concept; he wisely wondered if maybe this little-known and little-used rule could be applied to ground efforts as well, as a sort of alternative to war. It certainly can and our nation would be better off if we had used it. But we didn’t.

In October of 2001, just a few weeks after we were attacked on our soil, Congressman Ron Paul penned two bills that would have authorized the government to issue Letters to US citizens, giving them permission to hunt down and capture or kill the terrorists who planned the 9/11 attacks and/or were planning others. Nearly all of his peers at the Capitol looked at the bills with udder disdain and the legislation went nowhere.

10 years after the fact, there are probably scores of Congressmen who quietly admit they wish they had sided with the doctor. That’s because the War on Terror has proven to be an impractical war. Our enemy isn’t a nation. It isn’t an organized army. It is, instead, a splintered collection of extremists located throughout the world, operating in small cells located in places ranging from the obscure to the populous. It has been extremely difficult to properly to track and battle such forces using standard military tactics (strong in numbers and equipment), yet our armed forces have had numerous victories, both large and small. All of them, though, have come with a huge cost in life and dollar. The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have claimed the lives of more than 6,000 American military personnel. Those same wars have consumed more than $1.19 trillion.

The War on Terror is actually something more fit for the recipients of Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Legal mercenaries, small in numbers, but highly-trained and effective, would have been able to operate under the radar and at their own discretion. As a result, the lives lost would not have numbered in the thousands. Rather, it would only have been in the dozens.

The monetary cost would be relatively miniscule as well. When Letters were granted in volume (by the US prior to and during the War of 1812 and by the Confederacy in the War Between the States), they featured bounties or rewards for the captured or killed. The same would have been applied to the likes of bin Laden and his fellow dregs of humanity. Instead of spending trillions (with a “t”) on the destruction of terror sects, the government would only have needed to invest millions (with an “m”) on financial motivators for those seeking the glory of fulfilled retaliation. Letters of Marque and Reprisal are unique in that regard, relying on the free markets to achieve what war typically would.

Most people have never heard of the Letters, or realized that they could be applied to privatization of threat neutralization. Others know of them but don’t care for their utilization, either considering them a Constitutional antiquity or something far too risky. Those of the latter mindset often think of Blackwater. That private company, favored by the Bush Administration, committed many atrocities in Iraq, including the murder of innocents. But, Blackwater was not commissioned by the Letters and was unconstitutionally used by the Executive Branch as an instrument of war. Actual Letters come with a collection of rules and restrictions, a means of control to ensure the contractors operate in the best interests of our nation.

It’s never too late to use Letters. A good application still exists for them in Iraq. Although the war may be identified as finished, thousands of our troops will remain there to aid and protect Americans conducting nation-building activities, ranging from construction to social work. Why should they have to? Letters would extend the privilege of protection to private Americans and their companies, granting them the power to retaliate and defend against terror attacks.

That privilege should be recognized now and it should have been in October of 2001.

Bob Confer is a Gasport resident and vice president of Confer Plastics Inc. in North Tonawanda. E-mail him at bobconfer@juno.com.


------------------------------------------------------------


This column originally ran in the 12 December 2011 Greater Niagara Newspapers

A tax cap with no teeth

A TAX CAP WITH NO TEETH
By Bob Confer

Earlier this year, the tax cap was instituted by the state legislature at the behest of Governor Cuomo as a means to curtail the ongoing decline of New York State by limiting the growth of property taxes which are already 79 percent higher than the national average.

Although the basic concept itself was not perfect – after just 5 years of 2 percent hikes your taxes will be more than 8 percent higher – it was advertised as being better than the alternative: This century it has not been uncommon for municipalities and school districts to drive up their levies by more than 5 percent per year. Case in point, during a three-year period ending in 2007 my total property taxes (local, county, school) grew by a combined 17 percent.

But, as taxpayers like me who are pained by these growing levies have found out recently, there’s a huge difference between the original intent of the law and the reality of what it became. The tax cap is really nothing of the sort, a law saddled with loopholes that permit tax growth far in excess of the 2 percent mark.

First and foremost among these flaws is the ability of governing bodies (such as town and village boards) to create a local law applicable to the budget year that would allow them to exceed the cap. To do so, they need only hold a public hearing followed by approval of 60 percent of the board. School districts, too, can pass higher budgets given that, unlike the towns, their residents elect to do so with a vote of at least 60 percent.

It’s too bad that rule of public approval applied to schools wasn’t required of the other taxing jurisdictions, because many boards across the state have been using the loophole. Last week the office of State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli provided me some numbers about how many taxing entities (specifically cities, villages, towns, counties, fire districts and libraries) have informed him of their plans regarding the cap. So far, 40 percent have submitted their plans and of those 1,125 bodies, 217 of them – or 19 percent – have expressed their intent to override the cap.

The cap’s weaknesses further confound local taxpayers with an exclusion for pensions; their growth is allowed to exceed 2 percent. Unlike private retirement investments such as IRAs or 401(k)s, public pensions have guaranteed outcomes in New York. So, when the economy falters, taxpayers have to make retirees “whole” by picking up the slack for the low or negative rates of returns on the investments that back state pension funds. DiNapoli said municipalities will have to increase their pension contribution rates from 16 percent of payroll to a tad under 19 percent (that’s a growth of 16 percent!). For police officers, the payment will go from 22 percent to 26 percent of payroll. So, in most cases, it’s guaranteed that the theoretical 2 percent cap will be exceeded by pensions alone.

The greatest problem with the tax cap, though, doesn’t occur in our neighborhoods. Albany is the root of all evil in this state. The state legislature and executive branch can’t force unconscionable mandates upon taxing jurisdictions and expect them to stay within budget, especially when the state has done little to nothing to reform the requirements of said mandates. If Cuomo and Friends were serious about stemming the loss of New York’s economic lifeblood they would introduce any of hundreds of suggested reforms to these programs, the worst being Medicaid, for which the counties are on the hook for nearly $10 billion annually.

Albany, too, should cap its spending (Google my 2008 column: “Taking the tax cap to the top”) because what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Every government entity - our towns, schools, agencies and capitols - should cap (preferably decrease) their spending…just like we have to in our businesses and families if we expect to stay in business or not lose our homes to foreclosure.



Bob Confer is a Gasport resident and vice president of Confer Plastics Inc. in North Tonawanda. E-mail him at bobconfer@juno.com.


------------------------------------------------------------


This column originally ran in the 05 December 2011 Greater Niagara Newspapers

Wage Theft Act: more paperwork for NY businesses

WAGE THEFT ACT: MORE PAPERWORK FOR NY BUSINESSES
By Bob Confer

Business owners and managers like to spend their time doing productive things that make them, their company, their coworkers, and their clients better. A business and all it affects are never made better by tasks that have absolutely no positive economic benefit; time and money spent on such endeavors can never be recouped and the positive actions that could have been done in their place are either delayed or suspended entirely. That, in a nutshell, is what makes meaningless government regulations so utterly frustrating.

A good many New York businessmen and women are unaware that one of these headaches, something called the Wage Theft Prevention Act (WTPA), will require their undivided attention come January. This law went into effect in April of this year and, going forward, requires employers to provide detailed pay notices to their employees during January of every year and/or within 7 days of a wage adjustment (raise).

The pay notification process isn’t very simple. A document must be provided to the worker that specifically indicates the employer’s name, phone number and mailing address, the employee’s pay rate, the basis of pay (hourly, salary, etc), allowances, and payday. The workers must sign-off, acknowledging their receipt and understanding of the information provided. One signed copy of the document is given to the employee while another copy is held by the employer for 6 years.

Due to the confidential nature of the primary issue being discussed (pay rate), the notification, in most cases, cannot be done collectively. Human resources or another manager will have to take the individual from his or her working duties (and have a reliever assume that person’s role for the interim) and to a private room to go over the details and gain the signature.

For each worker that task could take up to 10 minutes. Now, imagine the hassle that WTPA creates for a company the size of Confer Plastics (200 employees). The HR manager will have to spend 33.3 hours – more than three-quarters of a standard workweek – just conducting the one-on-ones. Look at a company the size of Delphi (1,500 workers). The manager, or a crew of managers, will have to devote 250 hours to this task. Think about that: That’s more than 6 weeks spent on producing paperwork that no one truly benefits from.

If said businesses issue annual raises the whole process will have to be completed all over again in that same calendar year! The process, of course, is also repeated every January.

It’s not as if an employer can opt of this. Compliance is mandatory and the Department of Labor will charge a company $50 per week per employee if they forget to issue the form, $100 per week if the form is incorrect. An affected worker can also sue the employer for damages (what damages?) to a maximum of $2,500 if they have not received a notice or have received an incorrect one.

Businesses requiring assistance in the process can find numerous WTPA templates and forms on the Department of Labor’s website at: www.labor.ny.gov

But does that help? Not really.

If the state truly wanted to make a difference and help employers, they would drop this law, just as has been suggested by a few of the Regional Economic Development Councils empowered by Governor Cuomo to produce solutions that will make New York more business friendly. They’ve made it known that regulations like these – coupled with excessive taxation – account for the economic wasteland that the upstate region has become because, quite frankly, who can make money when the state does everything it can to make sure you don’t?

Bob Confer is a Gasport resident and vice president of Confer Plastics Inc. in North Tonawanda. E-mail him at bobconfer@juno.com.


------------------------------------------------------------


This column originally ran in the 28 November 2011 Greater Niagara Newspapers

Obama Administration targets farm youth

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TARGETS FARM YOUTH
By Bob Confer

Farming is not a job. It’s a lifestyle. The job is never done, and it’s never easy; it takes a special soul to work the long, hard days during the planting and harvesting seasons or live the vacation-free existence that comes with animal husbandry. At the same time, it’s the most important industry on the planet and farmers will tell you it’s the most fulfilling: Besides raising a family, there is little on Earth more rewarding than tending the soil and growing from it - and raising on it – valuable nourishment for others.

To prepare someone for that intense lifestyle you need to start young and introduce teens to the work ethic and investment of self that are necessary to develop a love affair with farming. Youth have long been able to participate in agricultural work, but, that could change soon. The Obama Administration has unveiled a series of proposed revisions to child labor law specific to farming. Citing provisions that have remained virtually untouched since 1970, the Administration felt compelled to modernize them. That act of modernization will irreparably harm farming’s future by destroying its very foundation - the youth who should represent tomorrow’s workforce and farm owners.

Under the new rules, the Department of Labor (DOL) would end most child labor exemptions that currently exist in farming by denying work to anyone under the age of 16 unless the farm is owned by their parents and one of the parents is directly overseeing their work.

Furthermore, most 14 and 15 year-old workers would be prevented from operating any tractor, all-terrain vehicle, milking machine, or lawn mower. Now, exemptions exist that allow them to operate such equipment given they complete a 24 hour safety course typically provided by the private sector via farm bureaus or through public-private Cooperative Extension offices. The proposed rules would create and require a 90-hour course that could only be taught through government-run secondary and/or vocational schools. This would add another layer of federal bureaucracy to local school districts; increase the cost to taxpayers associated with the wages, benefits and pensions for the newfound teaching positions; or, more likely, deprive thousands of youth of farming opportunity because their local schools – or any one within reasonable commute - will be unable to provide them the necessary training.

Adding even more hassle, untrained youth will not be allowed in the proximity of any motorized device during their course of work, meaning that young farm workers could not be anywhere near an elevator or even a wagon pulled behind a tractor, preventing them from baling hay or loading and unloading barns, even though they are nowhere near the controls.

The insanity of the standards doesn’t end there. Everyone under the age of 18 will be strictly prohibited from any and all acts of animal husbandry. They won’t be able to corral and herd cattle, pigs or poultry. They won’t be allowed to brand, breed, treat or raise animals. They’d be denied access to stockyards, cattle auctions, and feed lots. They can’t pitch manure or feed chickens or cows.

They’ll have to wait until adulthood to do any of those tasks. Even Future Farmers of America and 4-H won’t be able to give teenagers the experience they need to be productive rural adults. Because of the limitations proposed by the DOL, those organizations will become mostly obsolete, legally unable to provide the animal rearing experience that has produced many a fine farmer for decades.

Fortunately, there is a chance to stop these proposals from becoming law. The DOL is currently accepting comments regarding their proposals. The deadline, which was originally November 1st , has been moved to December 1st due to the initial criticisms and concerns that were certain to befall such laws. Referencing RIN 1235-AA06 and docket ID WHD-2011-0001, submit your comments electronically at www.regulations.gov/ or by mail at: Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S- 3502, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.

Public participation in this decision-making process is a must. If left unabated, the Executive Branch will pass these rules. If we allow it to eliminate the important agricultural lessons from one’s formative years, we will rob our youth of the building blocks necessary for a lifetime of farming: an appreciation for nature, the creation of an old fashioned work ethic, an irreplaceable knowledge base and the development of high moral character that comes with living of, on and for the Earth.

Bob Confer is a Gasport resident and vice president of Confer Plastics Inc. in North Tonawanda. E-mail him at bobconfer@juno.com.

------------------------------------------------------------


This column originally ran in the 21 November 2011 Greater Niagara Newspapers

Libya is no better off, maybe worse

LIBYA IS NO BETTER OFF, MAYBE WORSE
By Bob Confer

All of the major news outlets, and therefore most US citizens, were downright giddy over the uprising - and NATO intervention – in Libya. Thinking it was some sort of feel good story, an extension of the Arab Spring, they reveled in the toppling of Gaddafi and threw unyielding support behind the rebel forces.

If CNN, Fox News, and the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) had done their jobs appropriately, rather than parroting the spin that came from Washington and agenda-driven foreign news agencies, they would have realized that what they were seeing was nothing more than a silver lining. Within Libya they would have found a dark cloud, a stormy uprising orchestrated by degenerates who are no better than Gaddafi was and, truthfully, may be a whole lot worse.

For starters, because of that seemingly willful omission of the facts, very few Americans knew that a good number of the rebels were al-Qaeda. Earlier this year NATO commander James Stavridis stated that many of the Libyan rebels are members of – or align themselves with – the terrorist organization. His admission is consistent with West Point studies that discovered one-fifth of all foreigners who aided Iraqi insurgents in their attacks on US troops were Libyans. One of the key Libyan rebel leaders, Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi recruited and led such raids against US forces.

Another rebel leader was Abu Sufian Ibrahim Ahmed Hamuda bin Qumu, who had been held in Guantanamo for 6 years before being released in an amnesty program. American intelligence reports indicated that he was a “medium-to-high risk”, a “dangerous man with no qualms about committing terrorist acts” who was “likely to pose a threat to the U.S., its interests and allies.”

Despite the knowledge of their presence and the ill will that these two men reek of, they and their equally-repugnant peers were counted as allies and heroes in the Libyan movement. The US press barely touched on the al-Qaeda issue and never questioned their allegiance or the reason for their revolution (it’s obvious it wasn’t for democratic ends).

Likewise, the press ignored something far worse: The genocidal tendencies of the so-called “freedom fighters”. It’s guaranteed that less then 1 percent of all Americans knew that Gaddafi’s enemies, during the course of the turnover, singled out the black population – men, women and children – and robbed them of their freedoms and more. They purged them from their communities. They raped the women and young girls. They imprisoned and or killed the men.

Black men especially - no matter which regime they supported (the new or the old) - were targeted throughout Libya by the rebels. Thousands were murdered by the same inhuman methods practiced by the drug cartels in Mexico. They were bound and shot in the head at point blank range. They had their throats slit. They were decapitated. They were set on fire.

One city, Tawergha, was once home to 10,000 blacks. All were forced out of it (hundreds of them killed) while their homes and businesses were destroyed. Those who were brave enough to remain were rounded up and put into camps and jails. Chillingly, neither hide nor hair of the camps can be found. Par for the course, the rebels spray-painted “negroes” and “abeed” (Arabic slang for “slave”) on the ruins of the city, like some sick trophy. All of this in the name of ethnic cleansing.

Somehow, Big Media overlooked this unsettling brand of evil that comprised the rebel forces. How could they be so oblivious to it? Were they so ecstatic over the ongoing transformation of the Middle East and Africa that reporting on the change in power was Story One and anything else was inconsequential? Were they provided unrealistic reports (propaganda) by NATO leaders that glossed over the brutality of their newfound allies? Did they willingly aid the propagandists in meeting their desired ends, no matter the consequences?

The press – the supposed seekers of truth and protectors of the innocent- failed us. They prevented us from holding our government accountable to a set of moral (and legal) standards when choosing winners and losers abroad. Because of that, we’re looking at an unsettling future. With al-Qaeda and other butchers rising to and holding power, it’s obvious that Libya is no better off. And, neither is the rest of the world.

Bob Confer is a Gasport resident and vice president of Confer Plastics Inc. in North Tonawanda. E-mail him at bobconfer@juno.com.

------------------------------------------------------------


This column originally ran in the 14 November 2011 Greater Niagara Newspapers

OBAMACARE AND PARENTAL RIGHTS: PART TWO

OBAMACARE & PARENTAL RIGHTS: PART TWO
By Bob Confer

Once the government has its foot in the door through the federally sponsored Home Visiting Program it will have carte blanche to manage all facets of child care. Failure to comply with the “suggestions” provided will likely result in intervention by family courts and other publically-provided social functions under the guise of child protection, ultimately inducing the destruction of that family unit. That’s a heady outcome from a program sold to Congress – and the people - as being voluntary.

One of the goals of the program is to improve parenting skills and child development. That in itself is a purposely nebulous endeavor: What exactly defines good parenting and a well-developed child and who sets the criteria? Looking at the social engineering that is hoist upon kids these days, some of the desired outcomes are obvious.

First and foremost will be the degradation of traditional morality. Mindsets based in religious mores will definitely be targeted. There are many parents adamant about educating their children in home and church about what they and their beliefs determine to be right and wrong. Those hard and fast rules don’t necessarily fit with what society determines to be normative today and just as many people frown upon those character lessons as appreciate them. Some reverse engineering may be required by the government to make sure a kid’s belief system is compliant with what’s supposedly acceptable.

Related to that will be an adherence to a behavioral system that demands conformity. If a parent, like I do, believes in objectivism as the guiding light to human development - that it’s the individual’s purpose and responsibility to lead a life that he or she sees fit and the pursuit thereof is the basis for happiness and advancement of self (and, ultimately, society by others doing the same) – his parenting skills will be viewed with a critical eye. In secondary and collegiate academia, there is an overwhelming promotion of teamwork (although it’s certainly anything but) and the importance of the collective that demeans self-importance, self-determination, and responsibility. The government would love to eliminate individualism at an early age and demand that the parents retool their approach and aid the government in making conformists (and dependents) out of the masses.

Next, consider the goal of “school readiness” proposed by this component of Obamacare. School readiness alludes to a belief that a child is fine only if he or she is ready for the government’s accepted standard of education. That means the Home Visiting Program could, in the supposed best interests of the youth, demand that one be removed from home schooling or private schools and be put into public schools.

School readiness is also the motivator behind Head Start and it’s likely that the Visitation Program would mandate participation in it, which actually strips parents of their roles and has proven to be completely useless to the children in it. Numerous studies have shown that Head Start is a non-starter, including one released by the Department of Health and Human Services in 2010 that indicated marginal improvement in only 2 of 44 cognitive tests. Realize that since 1965 the federal government has blown $166 billion on Head Start. How much more will be thrown away when many more kids are determined eligible by their parents being deemed inadequate?

Another requirement of the Home Visitation Program is “student achievement”, holding parents accountable to children’s grades. In this day and age, low achievement doesn’t have to be attributable to bad parenting. 30 years ago, I’d say parenting was a major contributing factor. But since the Department of Education gained a stranglehold on public schools in 1980 the achievement of all students has dropped considerably (the US is rated poorly among developed nations), a direct result of federal intervention in activities best left to teachers, local school districts, and parents. How can the government blame parents – and then tear apart homes - for a mess it created?

These are just a few of the countless ways that the federal government will meddle in home affairs – and wrongly accuse parents of impropriety - once the Home Visitation Program takes root. It’s just too bad that Fox News, CNN and the like didn’t live up to the standard of the news outlets of days gone by, and hold the government accountable by analyzing all aspects of Obamacare, not just the insurance mandates. Horrors like this get passed and repealing them becomes nearly impossible.



Bob Confer is a Gasport resident and vice president of Confer Plastics Inc. in North Tonawanda. E-mail him at bobconfer@juno.com.


------------------------------------------------------------


This column originally ran in the 07 November 2011 Greater Niagara Newspapers