THE PRESIDENT IS NOT A KING

Students of American history will recall some of the many grievances against King George III that were called out in the Declaration of Independence. Among them were the following:

“He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.”

“ …imposing Taxes on us without our Consent”

“…depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury”

“He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws”

I cite those indictments because they represent just a few that still affect us to this day.

But, rather than a monarch being the source of such unconscionable anguish, it is our very own President that has been guilty of such crimes against our people.

It was never intended to be this way.

In the years that followed the signing of that sacred document on July 4, 1776, the Founding Fathers utilized their newfound independence to fashion a government that was beholden to the people (rather than a people that were beholden to the government). Knowing full well the flaws that come with Kings, they created a republic, and for it a Constitution that clearly called out the limited powers and responsibilities of our federal government. In just over 1,000 words they defined the role of the Executive – the President – someone who theoretically replaced the role of the King, but unlike a King, had almost no powers. The President could not make laws, exert taxes and fees, and declare war among numerous other things that Kings took for granted. A President’s duties were very few: He was to be the face of our nation, the Commander in Chief of our armed forces, the appointer of judges and ambassadors, and he was to execute the laws created by Congress.

Although the ultimate law of the land – the Constitution – clearly and concisely identifies the legal role of the President, we’ve seen the office stray from those limitations.  And, despite protestations by the Grand Old Party, this is nothing new to the office since President Barack Obama came into power. Every President of our lifetimes has been as despotic as kings, including alleged small government types like Ronald Reagan. They do as they shouldn’t and do as they want, even if the end result is not the peoples’ will.

This addiction to centralized, unconstitutional power has become the norm and dates back to the days of Lincoln, a man who had no absolutely no consideration for the Constitution and a man who history has painted as a hero (and something approaching a god) for it. Lincoln opened the floodgates that led to the modern and popular interpretation of the presidency that allows Presidents to declare war (our last Constitutional war and occupation was World War II), suspend trial by jury and exert indefinite detention, and use their administrative offices to make regulations (which are laws), impose taxes (fees and fines), and infringe upon the rights of the people and the sound operations of the free markets. They have grown beyond the boundaries of their duties and have assumed the powers that were once - and are elsewhere – bequeathed to monarchies, doing everything, unchecked, that a Congress should, thus taking all power away from the people and keeping it for themselves.

The people fail to see that the ultimate power should be in their hands, through our representative form of government. The nation was founded so that the Congress was the most powerful branch of government. The general belief is that all branches share equal power; this is not so -- the Executive Branch should only be a check and a balance to an overreaching Congress, as are our courts to both. Our nation was founded this way so that the masses were equally represented and the development of laws and budgets came from a governing body directly accessible to the common man and which could actually be comprised of the common man. The rights and consent of the government were paramount.

Yet, sadly, that is not what the people seem to want anymore.

Reflect upon what we’ve observed in this election cycle (and every cycle before it). The voters want to know what the presidential candidates will do for them. They expect them to fix the economy, regulate industry, exert social mores upon the masses, assume war powers, make laws, control the Congress, create tax policy, intervene in foreign affairs, and suppress liberty in the name of security. They think the President is – and they clamor for – a singular power, a central office…in essence, a king.

What has become of our United States? At this rate, what will become of them?

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 29 October 2012 Greater Niagara Newspapers

THE IMPORTANCE OF YOUR VOTE

The Founding Fathers conceived the United States of America out of their desire to escape Great Britain’s heavy-handed governance. They justifiably felt that the Crown was too intrusive and oppressive. The colonists were – just as they were back in their homeland - heavily taxed, denied the pursuit of freedom and silenced when it came to legislative affairs. They and other Brits had become beholden to their government.

Not wanting to live under such tyranny, and intent on guaranteeing that no one else suffered the same, they founded this great nation under the basic yet utterly profound premise that the people control the government, rather than the other way around. This tenet was codified in the Declaration of Independence through this timeless phrase: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their Powers from the Consent of the Governed."

As a direct result of their newfound self-rule, the United States and their citizens prospered. It was the first time in history that a people collectively and officially recognized freedom as a natural right, granted to all by a higher power, something beyond government and beyond Man. Despite being natural and essential to one’s existence, true liberty was in stark contrast to not only British rule but also that of most organized societies since the dawn of time, from nomadic tribes to the world’s greatest empires. Americans were unique because they could pursue happiness and liberty virtually unabated.

Essentially, the United State were, by design, Heaven on Earth.

This position still holds mostly true to this day; centuries later: Despite her flaws (the result of our people straying from the formative tenets of self-rule, responsibility and liberty), our country is still the best exemplification of a free society.

Realize, though, that this is not a guaranteed comfort; there have been and always are forces at work to suffocate natural rights and eliminate “the Consent of the Governed” from the government equation. We as Americans can only maintain this great nation and eliminate those threats through participation in legislative affairs. This does not mean that one needs to run for office. All it means and requires is that the citizens pay attention to how their lives are impacted by government and then - based upon acceptance or displeasure – make their voices heard in the electoral process.

Unfortunately, over the years, many have lost sight of this duty. Less and less people exercise their right to vote, taking Americanism and freedom for granted while accepting the status quo and gradual degradation of our rights. They fail to see that the right to vote essentially dictates all other rights. Such a wayward mindset will ultimately destroy America, taking all of the power from the people and placing it into the hands of the government. Oppressive government rule can and will wipe out all rights, even those identified as being unalienable.

This demise can be prevented – and America saved - with your help. In 2 weeks, during the general election, many people will do the patriotic thing and exercise their right to vote. While this occurs many others will decline their obligation. You will know many such people, those who consider going to the polls a chore and struggle to make to time for it or to put-in the efforts necessary to make an informed decision. You yourself may even be one of these souls. If this is the case, a truer path must be chosen. It is imperative that you exercise your right to vote. It is as equally important that you influence other people to do the same.

Not participating in our representative form of government through elections will, in the end, give away the very extraordinary American way of life – one predicated on freedom -- that you, your children, and their children all rightly deserve and should expect.




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 15 October 2012 Greater Niagara Newspapers

CUT SCHOOL SPORTS -- FOR PHILOSOPHICAL REASONS

Last week’s column discussed the dire straits faced by school districts and how it makes good fiscal sense to cut sports. It’s also good practice from a philosophical standpoint.

Very few people would argue against society having a responsibility, within reason, for the education of our youth. It’s only fair: it was done for us and we should do it for them. It’s also a good investment: The introduction of knowledge to and the fostering of critical thinking skills within our children will always pay huge dividends when they became capable, working adults who will contribute to the greatness of their generation and those that follow.

But, a line needs to be drawn.

We should fund science, math and the humanities. They contribute to the basic premise of public education. The burden that taxpayers shouldn’t shoulder, though, are the extra-circular activities. Not only do athletics have the potential to adversely affect the budgeting of the intellectual pursuits and/or create undue financial burden on local, state, and federal taxpayers, but we’ve been saddled for too long by a sort of misguided belief whereby society thinks that entertainment and leisure deserve the same investment of energy and public funds as the things that really count in life.

It should be noted that by strengthening the important aspects and outcomes of education (know-how, creativity and productivity) in the home, in our community and in our nation, leisure will follow as an improved people (singularly and collectively) have the time and money to invest in it. We’re not even close in that regard -- not only are our students getting trounced when compared against the rest of the world’s children, but our society is in an escalated state of decline (see our struggling economy, for starters). It’s the overemphasis on leisure that contributed to the Roman Empire’s complacency and resulting death, and it’s doing the same to us. To some, that may seem like over-reaching hysteria, but take a look around you: Think of how many youths (and their parents) focus more on sports than on their studies…they’d rather excel on the field than in the classroom.  

What makes this especially confounding is the fact that parents with school-aged kids (the most powerful voting bloc in school board elections and budget votes) think it’s the obligation of the masses to pay for their children’s hobbies. A boy’s interest in football and a girl’s love for field hockey are no different than others’ appreciation for, say, Scouting and horses. Why should taxpayers be forced to pay for sports – enjoyed by a very small minority of the student body – when they aren’t forced to pay for a Boy Scout’s trip to the Jamboree or a young lady’s participation in equestrian competition? You see, it’s ridiculous to even ponder publically-funding the latter set of circumstances, so why should it not be the same for the former? Consider that a money-poor taxpayer could lose his home for not paying for some boy’s baseball uniform or a girl’s basketball. How is that even remotely right?

Sports should be full-funded by the participants. It should be the obligation of the children and/or their parents to pay for all costs associated with their hobbies. You would expect the same if a kid is in scouts or little league baseball, plays video games, or hunts and fishes. Those families and, where applicable, their respective organizations make it happen. The parents might have to give up on a little bit of their interests to fund that of their kids, or the children may have to go out and mow some lawns or get a job.  They might all have to get together and creatively put together some fundraising endeavors and events. My default example for this is always the Royalton-Hartland Sports Boosters Club. Faced with the total elimination of football a few years back, those great souls brought it back, fully-funded by their efforts. They found that those who can’t give couldn’t, but those who could, would give in spades. They made it work in a small community with a very limited business base. With equal efforts in similar and larger districts, other schools could easily fund their sports by benevolence and not by force.

So, while impending cuts – which have been a long time coming - may seem depressing and daunting to young athletes and their parents, other families suffer the same financing issues with their interests and they seem to adjust accordingly and admirably…and it’s likely they savor their hobbies more for the investments they make in them. That’s the premise that America was founded on – happiness was meant to be pursued, not given to us, and we (both young and old) are better off for that pursuit.                            

                            

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 15 October 2012 Greater Niagara Newspapers

CUT SCHOOL SPORTS -- FOR FINANCIAL REASONS

The past few years have been almost as difficult for local governments as it has for the private sector. Unlike state and federal governments -- which still seem addicted to their spend-heavy ways despite the short-term and long-term financial implications – municipalities and school districts have had a dose of fiscal reality that once was found only in the business world and in peoples’ homes. They have had to make some very difficult and unpopular cuts and their residents find themselves doing without in order to balance budgets or keep spending increases at a minimum.

Things really aren’t getting any better; their sources of revenue remain stressed. Most businesses are still depressed and definitely hesitant about future growth (the unemployment rate is 8.8% in NY).  State and local sales tax revenues are a combined $300 million below projections across the state. New federal standards have changed the way educational funding is acquired (“Race to the Top”). The state’s population continues to both decrease and age (upstate’s median age rose by nearly 7 years in the period of 1990 to 2010). Foreclosures are still at epidemic levels across the Empire State (140,000 homes are currently seriously delinquent).

Because of those factors, and no real relief in sight, local governments will have to get even more creative in the coming months and years. What was thought to be hard decisions in recent years will look almost pedestrian to what will have to happen in 2013, 2014, and beyond. Nothing is out of question and everything is fair game. Even the most sacrosanct of all publically-funded programs should be considered for the chopping block. First and foremost should be high school athletics.

When it comes to budgeting at your workplace and with your household finances, every dollar -- no, every cent - matters. That same belief should hold true with school budgets. Just because something seems like such a small piece of the puzzle doesn’t necessarily make it so. It’s an accumulation of those small pieces that contribute to the overall organization. When you expand on the statistics, the reality of that is evident.

Consider that sports often count for less than 1% of total spending in local school districts. At Royalton-Hartland, it’s 0.93% and at Williamsville it’s 0.91%. Those with only a passing interest in budget details will say it’s “only 1%” and, therefore, that small investment that should be made. But, what is “only 1%” in terms of dollars? At Roy-hart, it’s $206,000. Big money. At the far larger Williamsville school district it’s a jaw-dropping $1.5 million.

Let’s look at that impact in two ways. First, what will 1% buy the district? If the schools had to make a 1% cut and weigh academics versus athletics and athletics lost out, Roy-Hart would save the jobs of 4 teachers while Williamsville would save the jobs of 28 teachers (for the sake of this analysis I am using a $53,000 median wage which is between a starting point of $39,000 and a 25-year average of $67,000). Secondly, what would 1% save you? Were 1% cut and allowed to go back into the economy, every man, woman and child in Roy-Hart would have an extra $23 per year. Williamsville residents would have $20 each to spend.

The quick retort from parents who have kids in school sports will be that spending should increase by 1% to make sure we have the sports. But, they must realize that this percentage point is one of just many; costs are going up for everything in this world (the inflation rate for 2012 is around 2%) and schools must also fund true necessities –like labor, supplies, utilities and facilities. Then, there’s the matter of the state’s 2% tax cap to contend with, which inhibits schools from spending as madly as they used to (although 2% every year is still maddening). It’s also a fact that we have a graying population who live on fixed incomes (Social Security and small pensions) and can ill afford annual increases in school taxes of any size. Then there’s the Big Picture: New Yorkers already spend more on public education than anyone else, $18,618, which is 75% more than the national average and the driver behind our unconscionable property taxes (I figure that, after rate increases, I will be paying more than $300,000 on school taxes over my lifetime for my rural home and 5 acres).          

But, enough about the financial aspects of sports. Next week we’ll focus on the philosophical side of school sports – Why public funding of athletics is inherently wrong and who should assume responsibility for footing the bill.

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 08 October 2012 Greater Niagara Newspapers

Obama's Chinese Tendencies

On September 17, President Barack Obama was busy playing politics with the American auto industry. In campaign speeches delivered in the swing state of Ohio he railed against imported automotive components that are illegally subsidized by the Chinese government. To cap that off, that very day his administration filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization (WTO) citing those unfair trade practices — which totaled $1 billion in Chinese subsidies in the period of 2009 to 2011 — and their impact on American workers. 

Of course, the attendees at his speeches (a specified target audience including Democrats and auto industry workers) were tickled pink with his rhetoric. Likewise, left-leaning elected officials praised his WTO filing while the press gave him, as usual, positive coverage. Even Republicans were, in their own way, in agreement with Obama, with presidential candidate Mitt Romney saying it was too little, too late (which still means Obama’s protestations were acceptable).

Critical thinkers and constitutionalists, on the other hand, should find fault — and lots of it — with Obama’s crusade du jour. His case against China is almost comical and certainly hypocritical, because his administration is guilty of the very thing that he accuses China of (but on an even greater scale). He is after all, the president who claims he saved General Motors. Under his watch, the federal government contributed $76 billion to GM and Chrysler (of which taxpayers are still owed a whopping $42 billion). Those are, without a doubt, government subsidies (especially so as any alleged loans go unpaid), and the original total was some 76 times greater than the amount that Obama claims China has kicked in to their automotive industry.

If any trading partner should be angered over government-enabled business activities, it should be the Chinese. GM’s Shanghai operations rule the passenger car market in that country and GM now sells more cars in China that it does in the United States. Washington’s unfathomable benevolence to GM (which garnered it the derisive but well-deserved nickname of “Government Motors”), the company’s crutch, should be perceived as an unfair advantage when compared against China’s domestically-based manufacturers as well as foreign-owned firms operating in the country or shipping their products to it.  

It’s almost hard to believe that the land of the free and the home of the brave is beating communist China at its own game. But, such can be expected when we have a president who is as unprincipled as ours. It may be offensive to some ­­­­­­— an affront to the honor of his office — to call Obama “un-American,” but he is, without a doubt, a “non-Americanist.” That is, he abuses the powers vested in him in decidedly unconstitutional manners, enlarging the scope, size, and purpose of our federal system far beyond any manner in which it was ever intended. For someone who claims to be a constitutional scholar, he is anything but a constitutional supporter. He appears to not even believe in the basal tenets of our formative document. Rather, Obama has Chinese-like tendencies, founded upon the preachings of the Communist Manifesto.

The auto industry bailouts are just one piece of the gigantic puzzle that shows his non-Americanist ways. Yet, they show perfectly what makes the man, his administration, and his legacy.

Obama should have let the deeply-flawed General Motors collapse and its market share and production be replaced by other players (including Ford, which did not take public funds) and/or he should have allowed the legal system to restructure GM under bankruptcy proceedings. But, rather than allowing the free markets and, more importantly, the rule of law to dictate GM’s future, he exerted public energy and monetary resources to make the company whole. He granted GM special favor — even illegal favor both under constitutional principles and bankruptcy law — not afforded other companies. The State under Obama’s watch was allowed, and even compelled, to pick winners and losers in the marketplace by assuming ownership and management of what once were privately-held assets. That’s something you see in China.

Likewise, it’s likely that the bailout was done just as much to offer life support to the United Auto Workers union as to the corporation itself, a communist trick of the trade that gives labor special exaggerated powers rather than the equal footing that exists in a true free economy. 

Obama’s subsidization of the American auto industry was wrong on all counts — immoral, illogical, and illegal — just like the Chinese subsidies that he is now railing against. If Americans can see the errors in China’s ways and passionately despise their methods of doing business, then maybe they can think critically and see that America, or at least Obama, has been guilty of the same. If they do, and don’t clamor for change at the polls this November or in Obama’s ways of doing things if he is re-elected, then we are in for even more dangerous Chinese-like economic controls as our economy struggles to rise from its doldrums. And, that is not the cure for what ails us; communism in any form has never worked and it never will. Just ask the North Koreans, Cubans, and, yes, the Chinese how they appreciate their ways of life and "freedoms."

Bob Confer is a contributor to The New American. He is the vice-president of Confer Plastics, Inc. and a weekly columnist for the Greater Niagara Newspapers.

This originally appeared in the 18 September 2012 The New American at:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/opinion/item/12880-obamas-chinese-tendencies