BRING ARCHERY TO OUR SCHOOLS

When the Baby Boomers were kids they developed love affairs with television westerns and the iconic guns carried by their heroes, from Steve McQueen’s Mare’s leg to Nick Adams’ sawed-off shotgun to Chuck Connor’s rapid-fire rifle. The Boomers channeled that innocent fascination with marksmanship into lifelong pursuits (like recreational shooting and hunting) and careers (police and military).

Fast forward 50 years and their grandchildren have developed their own appreciation for the shooting sports thanks to pop culture. The blockbuster movie “The Hunger Games,” the Disney animated film “Brave”, and bow-wielding superheroes in Hawkeye (“the Avengers”) and TV’s Green Arrow are just a few of the mass media’s recent highlights of archery. That imagery, which, unlike the westerns of old, also features heroines, has suddenly made archery incredibly popular with today’s youth, boys and girls alike.

We should capitalize on that interest and make archery accessible to children because it would offer some important life lessons. It’s a sport that teaches incredible self-discipline; one can be successful only through concentration and control and practice and preparation. It’s a sport that teaches self-reliance; unlike some of the team sports, where the weakness of an individual can be masked, the spotlight is on the person and it’s up to him or her to persevere alone. It’s a sport that develops respect – not fear - for weaponry; as much the bow is a sporting instrument, it’s also a weapon and, by starting young, we can nourish a true appreciation for safety of self and others. It’s a sport that can get kids outdoors; modern marksmanship has sadly been limited to video games indoors and that electronic fascination has contributed to high childhood obesity rates. And, last but not least, it’s a sport that can develop an interest in bowhunting; there is no more perfect way to recruit youth to hunting, a sport that creates an appreciation for the environment and helps put meat on the table.     

One cannot deny the attractiveness and virtues of the sport. Accessibility, though, can be perceived to be a problem, what with most people living in urban and suburban settings with smaller - or no - backyards, thus inhibiting bowmanship.

The question then becomes, “how do we introduce kids to archery?” 

The answer: Our schools.

Ten years ago a cooperative between state conservation departments, school districts, and private rod and gun clubs was formed. Known as the National Archery in the Schools Program (NASP), it brings together those groups in an effort to introduce archery to school physical education curricula. The states help connect school districts to local archers whose organizations then provide the equipment to the districts and teach the teachers about the art of handling the bow and arrow, so, ultimately, there is no cost to the taxpayers. New York entered the program 3 years ago and since then 92 school districts from across the state have entered NASP, exposing some 15,000 students to archery.

The program has been so successful in the Empire State that the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) hosts an annual virtual competition, whereby the schools target shoot in their own districts and the scores are then collated by the state’s NASP directors. In the most recent event, 309 students from 15 schools participated. Showing that archery is a universal sport in which both sexes can excel, the two top scorers, Jay Vinson and Alexa Denhoff, took home trophies, targets, arrows, and a brand new bow. Quite the prizes!

With the new school year upon us, the DEC has announced that they are looking for more schools to join NASP. If you think archery would be a good fit for your school (and, why wouldn’t it be?), contact Melissa Bailey, the state coordinator for NASP, at 315.793.2515 and she will help get the ball rolling.

It’s time that we made good on the popularity of the sport. In these Hunger Games, though, the only hunger that the kids have is for a sport that’s cool, fun, and rewarding. Archery certainly fits the bill. Let’s satisfy that hunger.   

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 03 September 2012 Greater Niagara Newspapers

FIGHT FORTY-FIVE WITH FORTY-FIVE

Confer Plastics has a very limited local customer base. Instead, our products are sold all across the country and around the world. Because of that, access to a convenient and affordable infrastructure is necessary for effectively moving our goods and acquiring the resources we need to manufacture them. That is one of the reasons we call North Tonawanda and Wheatfield home. The network of expressways within the Niagara Frontier - with the New York Thruway at its epicenter – is critical for our operations.

Making products as large as we do in the numbers that we do requires a lot of trailers. You can put only so many swimming pool ladders, kayaks, or docks on a truck. In 2011 we had nearly 9,000 shipments in full or partial trailers. With volume like that, the proposal by the Thruway Authority to increase the tolls for commercial traffic by 45% will be a killer.

Crunching the numbers and analyzing our various destinations and sources, the Authority’s plan will cost us an extra $200,000 per year. That number is far from modest, which is the description given to the increase by Authority officials.

In some cases, we will have to eat the added costs, which is likely for our proprietary line in 2013 (no business adequately can plan for uncertainty, especially when the transformation of that uncertainty into a certainty is entirely at the whim of a governing body). Seeing profits fall in a bland economy is a toxic development.

In other cases, we will pass the cost on to our customer, who will pass it on to theirs (continuing a downward spiral that would begin when the truckers pass their newfound costs onto us). This is where it gets really dangerous. This is a small world. Purchasing managers have access to countless manufacturers. When deciding which one to choose, they base their decisions on quality, service, and, above all, pricing. Because of consumers making their buying decisions on a few dollars and maybe even a few pennies, corporate buyers do the same. They look at two factors: The cost of the product itself and the cost to get it from Point A to Point B. Although the product itself may be comparatively inexpensive, high shipping costs can bring an end to the deal, because that cost has to go somewhere (it gets embedded in the selling price of the product). In a state like New York where it’s already too expensive to produce competitively-priced goods (long-time readers are familiar with New York’s cost burden to Confer Plastics -- $740,000 over and above what our competitors pay for the same), the $200,000 spike in shipping costs will cause some of our clients to look at Ohio or Pennsylvania.

We’re not alone in this regard. Look at the stories pouring in to media sources throughout the state from trucking firms, farmers and manufacturers far larger than we. They all speak of financial woes that would befall their businesses were the Thruway Authority to make good on their plans. Some of the smaller businesses will actually collapse under the weight of the new tolls.

There have been well-attended public hearings, numerous letters to the editors, activism from trade groups and vocal opposition from elected officials about this issue. Those are all perfect means by which to fight the fees, but they may not be enough. The Thruway Authority, like all authorities, is an independent business function of the state beholden to no one (the state’s courts have even said as much). There’s a very good chance that they might pull the trigger.

So, what can we do? In the event that they do pass the 45% toll increase, I challenge all truck drivers, farmers, and manufacturers with their own fleets to do something I call “Fight 45 With 45”. Under this means of revolt, trucks using the Thruway would drive side by side, never exceeding 45 miles per hour and never allowing anyone to pass. Since this is 20 miles below the speed limit and 25 to 30 miles below the speed most people drive, it would put a serious bottleneck in the Thruway and would serve to create great frustration for tens of thousands of motorists. It would be done indefinitely until Thruway officials relented (which they would under such pressure).  

Truck drivers (and New York business owners, for that matter) have long been regarded as mavericks, their own men, so I wouldn’t put it past any of them to “Fight 45 With 45”. Hopefully we don’t get to that point, but if we do, this modern method of passive resistance may be the cure for what ails the private sector in the Empire State.      

Who’s with 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 27 August 2012 Greater Niagara Newspapers

EATING HEALTHY ON THE CHEAP

America’s obesity epidemic was in the news last week when the CDC announced that there wasn’t a single state with an obesity rate below 21% in 2011. The study also found that 12 states had obesity rates in excess of 30%. In the subsequent media reports the common refrain from health professionals was that it’s too expensive to eat healthy. That common lie is unfortunate because it can be done affordably.

This was reinforced on a recent vacation when I made a couple of rest stops along the way at 2 popular fast food chains. This is something I never do because I like my arteries the way they are. I was stunned at the costs on the menu: The high-fat, high-sodium, high-sugar meal deals averaged $6. For a family of 4, that’s $24. Why spend $24 and destine adults and children alike for debilitating, even deadly diabetic and heart ailments when there are plenty of beneficial alternatives that can be had on the cheap?

That family would be better served by brown bagging it. Tuna is a nutritious and important protein that can be purchased at one of the local discount supermarkets for 60 cents a can (compare that to a dollar or more at the regular stores), one of which can feed 2 people. Throw in low-salt, low-corn-syrup bread and some cheese and you’re looking at sandwich under $2 per person. $4 less per person -- and a whole lot better -- than the fast food fare. That lunch suddenly went from $24 to $8.

Burger joints are just the tip of the iceberg. Consider the following alternatives to “normal” diets:

That same family probably indulges in junk food. Americans love their potato chips and corn chips. People may think they are an easy and cheap snack, but are they? Take a stroll around the grocery aisles and you’ll see most bags of chips nearing $4. How long does that bag last? A lot of times it won’t survive one feeding if there are a few people around. Due to the fatty goodness and addictive MSG, it’s not uncommon for a household to burn through a few bags a week. Alternatively, you can visit any local roadside stand or farmers market and buy a large bag of apples or other fruits for $5 that will last for days. They are just as satisfying and incredibly useful for our bodies. So, what may be $16 per week is down to $5 to $10 (depending on appetite).

That family might opt for processed foods in a variety of packages and cans for lunches during the workday or dinners at night. How much are sodium-soaked cans of chili or soup? Around $1.50 each and you need multiples to feed a family. Calorie–heavy prepared meals (TV dinners, pastas, boxed meats) are pricy, too, with price tags around $8 to $12 for family sizes. Assume 4 people eating canned foods, 7 lunches per week. That’s $42. Processed dinners might cost $84/week.  

Those financial and health obstacles can be overcome with a little time, effort and planning.  Take chilis and soups for example. Most every day at work I eat a bowl of homemade chili (the combination of meats, veggies and fibers makes it the perfect meal). I make this stuff in batches. My cost: $0.80/lunch. That would cut most lunch budgets in half (far more if they frequent fast food joints).

Likewise, look at recent sales fliers that show chicken at 99 cents to $1.80 per pound depending on cut and frozen vegetables at $1 per bag, while fresh produce abounds at local stands. Numerous tasty dishes can be made from those items, all at $10 per dinner or less to feed a family. The cost may be similar to the processed foods, but they build a body in a good way and not in a bad way.   

The USDA says that the average family of 4 spends $153 to $240 a week on food. Using some of the examples provided, eating healthy falls at the lower end of that budget -- if not below it. So, why are we kidding ourselves about the real cost of eating healthy? It might just be that the high cost bogeyman conveniently masks the true – and more controversial - cause of America’s enlarged waistlines -- our lack of responsibility and discipline. We choose to eat bad foods because we like them, we’re too lazy to cook and we have a certain weakness of will when it comes to our stomachs. Bad health is our own doing. 

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 20 August 2012 Greater Niagara Newspapers

LEGISLATORS DON’T DESERVE A RAISE

When working in the private sector, pay raises are contingent on one or a combination of 3 things: The merit and successes of the individual, the current and projected health of the organization, and the health of the overall economy. Because of the final factor (and its contributions to the second), annual raises of any measurable size have become something of a rarity since the start of the Great Recession. Consider that for the fiscal year ending this past May, the growth in American production wages grew at their lowest rate - 1.7% - in 47 years. That’s a full percentage point below the alleged (and understated) rate of inflation of 2.7%.

Despite the working class facing such tumultuous times, the political class thinks they are free of such encumbrances. It has been the buzz in Albany that state legislators are looking for a raise this year. They currently make a base salary of $79,500 and want to take it up to $100,000, an increase of more than 25%.

When you consider the 3 factors behind raises, our senators and assemblyman aren’t deserving of a $20,500 raise, let alone one of $1,351 (which is what it would be were they to see just 1.7% like their constituents).

Let’s first consider the merits of in the individual. $79,500 is a rather exorbitant sum to be paying a part-timer. These positions were devised to offer regular people a chance to contribute to the development of the Empire State by having sessions for 6 calendar months per year and during those sessions mandating 0 to 4 days per week in the state capital (the Assembly’s legislative calendar for 2012 showed only 66 in-session/budget days for the period of January through June). When the 6 months were up or when the legislature wasn’t in session during the week, the legislators could go back to their “real jobs” on the farm, in their offices and plants, or at home raising their families. Sadly, the system been mutilated so much that people are led to believe that being a legislator is a full-time, year-round job equipped with regional offices and full-time staffs. Realistically, under such circumstances, one could look at the second half of the year as being nothing more than politics, rather than policy, a means to perpetuate incumbency through alleged necessity and importance (really, what does attendance at parades and dinners contribute to the overall welfare of our state?). So, we need to look at the seats for what they are - and what they should be – and realize that we cannot permit their income growth.

Now, let’s look at the organization through which they are employed. The state government is facing a $2 billion budget gap for fiscal year 2013, which follows budget gaps of $10.4 billion in 2012, $8.5 billion in 2011, $21 billion in 2010, and $7.4 billion in 2009. If the fiscal health of the state is directly attributable to their budgets, the laws that they introduce, and the tough-but-necessary cuts they are afraid to make, then how, just by looking at those 5 years alone, do the legislators deem themselves worthy of reward? If anyone ran a company like they run a state, that individual would be among the ranks of the unemployed, either through termination or the total collapse of their firm.

And, it’s that factor that leads to the last: the overall health of the economy. Every bill among the hundreds passed every year by the legislature (571 this year) either steals rights and freedoms or adds to the cost of living and doing business in New York State. Because of that, businesses face incomprehensible government-created financial burdens when compared against their competitors from other states. My company, one of thousands across the state, pays an extra $740,000 per year to do business in New York (refer to my 2008 column “Why your loved ones have left NY” at http://tinyurl.com/ConferNY). That has forced businesses to stagnate/downsize/close/leave, which in turn has caused the same to happen to our residents, young and old alike: In the period from 2000 to 2010, 3.4 million people left New York State (2.1 million more arrived, but it still contributed to a net loss of 1.3 million people).

It’s that final factor of assessing job performance that is the most damning to our legislators. They are complicit in the destruction of the once accurately-named “Empire State”. They’ve driven our government to ruin, which has done the same to our economy and each and every one of us in it. Only a politician would think they deserve a bigger paycheck for that.

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 13 August 2012 Greater Niagara Newspapers

THOUGHTS ABOUT OBAMACARE: PART THREE

Back in May of 2011, Democrat Kathy Hochul pulled off a major coup, besting Republican Jane Corwin in the race for the 26th Congressional District seat that had been vacated by the resignation of Chris Lee. This was a huge victory for the Democrats, as the Republicans had held control of the 26th since 1968.

Political wonks across the nation claimed that Hochul’s upset was a statement against Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, whom the Democratic National Committee had painted as someone Corwin would vote lockstep with. At the time, Ryan’s 2012 federal budget proposal called for a major overhaul of Medicare which would have transformed the oldster care from a guaranteed benefit program into a system under which care was provided by private insurers yet was funded by government subsidies. The voters feared for the program’s future – and theirs – and thusly showed their displeasure at the polls.

The Republicans did little to steer away the criticisms during the special election, nor did they call out the Democrats at their own game. It’s the latter which will come back to haunt them -- and a majority of Americans when they come of retirement age in the future.

Had the GOP not been so overconfident in thinking that the Democratic acquisition of the seat was unattainable – and had they done their homework – they would have realized that the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which had already been signed into law a year earlier, will have a deleterious effect on Medicare recipients. They could have easily countered the Democrats by identifying their hypocrisy.

Their arrogance aside, the national Republican leadership obviously didn’t study the bill in detail before it became law, and it took them many more months to uncover the intricacies of “Obamacare”. We still see this to this day as Republican Congressmen and talk show hosts continue to unearth portions of ACA that they should have known about some time ago. Among them is the Medicare portion. They have noticed a gutting of the program; I’m sure you’ve heard presidential candidate Mitt Romney say that President Obama is taking $500 billion from Medicare.

Well, Romney, like the Democrats before him in 2011, isn’t being truthful.

The $500 billion statement is a stretch. Maybe that amount will be accumulated over time (as in 2 or 3 decades), but it won’t be in the short term. And, by short term, I mean 10 years out since that is the magical period that Democrats and Republicans (and the Congressional Budget Office) tend to focus on.

Maybe he got his numbers confused. The $500 billion is really close (well, at least when we’re talking in billions) to $455 billion, which is the total amount saved in reform of Medicare AND Medicaid over Decade One. Maybe in his mind, it’s, “Medicare? Medicaid? What’s the difference?” Regardless of this being a mistake or a purposeful bending of the truth, he’s wrong in both delivery and intent.

What Romney should focus on – and what the National Republican Committee should have focused on in the Corwin campaign – is the fact that over time – like when I and my fellow Generation Xers hit Medicare age – having access to care will be a real struggle. Medicare recipients will be looked at as modern day lepers by health care providers because the ACA will be making it economically-unfeasible for a doctor or hospital to provide their services to seniors.

In recent years, when it comes to Medicare, the federal government has reimbursed hospitals at a rate of two-thirds what private insurance would have paid. Similarly, they paid doctors about 80% of what insurance would have. So, even today, providers are taking a hit.

That hit, though, will grow considerably over the next 70 years: Reimbursements will see a gradual downward spiral, bottoming out at a 39% rate for hospitals and 26% for physicians. As time goes on, fewer and fewer doctors will accept Medicare patients because it won’t be worth their time or money -- they can actually make a profit when dealing with the insured versus those on Medicare. Numerous surveys of physicians have found that anywhere from 50 to 70 percent of them are considering not accepting Medicare patients because of the ACA.

So, when my peers hit their 60s, there will be very few – if any - doctors and hospitals who will be willing to care for them. Without access to private care, the government will have to “save the day” and open public clinics and hospitals along the lines of the VA system, but for aged civilians.

Hmm…maybe that’s been the plan all along. I certainly wouldn’t put it past Obama and his cronies.

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 06 August 2012 Greater Niagara Newspapers

THOUGHTS ABOUT OBAMACARE: PART 2

Beginning in January of next year, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will impose a 2.3% excise tax on manufacturers and importers of medical devices. There will be just a few exemptions for items such as eyeglasses, contact lenses, and over-the-counter kits and tests, but most every device used by doctors, hospitals, nursing homes and ambulance crews will be affected by the tax. In its first 10 years the tax will add $20 billion to federal coffers.

At the same time, the tax will be certain to cost Americans their jobs.

For starters, this is not an income-based tax. It is a tax levied solely against revenues, regardless of whether the company actually had a profit. So, a manufacturer that might be in the red -- maybe it’s having a bad year from an operations standpoint or is investing heavily in growth -- will have to pony up, which can set them on the path to financial destruction.

Likewise, a company operating at a low profit margin (which is likely in this highly-competitive global economy) might see its profits split in half, pushing it to unacceptably-low levels which will inhibit investments in assets, research and development, and expansion.

This new tax will also lead to more outsourcing. It’s not that the gap between domestic and foreign manufacturers is directly widening because of the tax (the excise is equally applied to imported goods), but, it is widening indirectly. If American firms adjust their selling prices upwards to compensate for the government’s pilfering of their revenues, lower-priced products produced offshore will become even more attractive to cost-conscious purchasing agents at hospitals and medical device distribution companies.

The excise is an act of hypocrisy from an Administration and Congress that alleges a focus on job creation. There are currently 400,000 people working in the medical device industry in the United States, and one study estimates that more than 10% of them could become unemployed because of the tax.

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

The conspiracy theorist in me is made uncomfortable by a new reporting requirement of the ACA.

Beginning this year, employers with more than 250 employees must list on each W2 form the dollar value of the company’s contribution to that worker’s health insurance. Doing so is optional for firms employing less than 250. Theoretically, it’s being done to educate the masses about the real cost of health insurance.

I theorize, though, that the W2 requirement is really about future taxation. Incrementalism is the way that change is brought about in public policy; bit by bit you add or remove things until, over years, the issue is completely altered from its original state. This could be one of those subtle changes that accumulate over time: Get people used to seeing health benefits on their W2 which gets them into ultimately believing that it’s taxable income, and, sooner or later, you can start taxing them.

The Democrats have been quick to say that my theory – shared by many others of the very far right persuasion – is hogwash, that they won’t tax employer-provided insurance.

Well, that’s not what the recent past shows. Both they and the Republicans alike have hinted at such a new revenue stream.

In 2010, President Obama’s deficit commission – led by Erskine Bowles – was adamant in its desire to eliminate the current tax exemption and treat insurance as taxable income. So, if your employer paid half of your health insurance, you would have to pay taxes on that half. The commission believed this would bring in a staggering $100 billion per year, something that surely had the political class licking their chops.

That same year, in his “Roadmap for America’s Future”, the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, Republican Congressman Paul Ryan, called for the elimination of the tax exemption on employer-provided insurance. He would replace it with a tax credit that could be used by individuals to purchase insurance on their own. This would only increase the ranks of the uninsured: the credit ($2,290 single, $5,170 family) wouldn’t even come close to allowing the individual to cover what would have been the employer’s contribution to insurance, thus making insurance even more unaffordable for millions of Americans.

So, it’s not like taxing health insurance isn’t being debated in Washington circles. It certainly is, adding some legitimacy to the conspiracy theory.

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 30 July 2012 Greater Niagara Newspapers

THOUGHTS ABOUT OBAMACARE: PART ONE

Recently, the editorial board of the other daily newspaper of this region wagged their fingers at conservatives, chiding them for their disagreement with the Supreme Court’s upholding of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The meat of the editorial said that the Court’s decision was constitutional, as are the very acts of judicial oversight and Congressional lawmaking, so the Constitution-loving far-right were hypocritical in their criticisms of the Court, especially that directed at Chief Justice John Roberts.

I thought it was a dangerous statement to be made by a metropolitan newspaper because it assumes that all Court decisions are sound and lacking in political expediency. We have a long history of morally and legally bankrupt decisions made by the Court. The right will cite Roe v. Wade, whilst the left will reference Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission.

One, much-less divisive, that immediately comes to my mind – since, like the personal mandate of ACA, it demands market participation and penalizes for the lack thereof – is 1942’s Wickard v. Fillburn. In that case, the Court sided with the USDA, saying it had the right to force Ohio farmer Roscoe Filburn to destroy his 23-acre wheat crop (the Agricultural Adjustment Act said he was allowed only 11) that he had intended to use only to feed his livestock. The Court’s reason (or lack thereof), was that by growing his own wheat for his own farm’s consumption, Fillburn decreased the amount he needed to buy on the market which would have an adverse effect on interstate trade.

It doesn’t matter what political persuasion you claim, you know that Wickard v. Fillburn was wrong.

Some think the same about the Court’s decision regarding ACA.

Let them. And, don’t label them as ignorant for doing so.

 

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

I’m frustrated with the media reports, government websites, and broadcast public service announcements touting the “free” services that health insurance companies must provide under ACA, things like colonoscopy screening for colon cancer, Pap smears and mammograms for women, well-child visits, flu shots for all children and adults and screening for blood pressure, cholesterol, and depression for men.

Under ACA, you may not have to pay a co-pay or deductible for those services, but that certainly does not make them “free.” They are anything but.

You will be paying for them, for sure -- as will everyone else whether they use such services or not -- in higher insurance premiums. Without the cost-sharing achieved through co-pays, the insurance companies will have to recoup their expenditures somehow, so they’ll embed them in their rates.

There’s no such thing as a free lunch….or a free doctor’s visit.

 

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

The Grand Old Party will have a rough go of it if “Obamacare” becomes a centerpiece of the presidential election campaign and the associated debates later this year. Presumptive Republican candidate Mitt Romney won’t have a leg to stand on if he calls out the costs and regulations of ACA. He will especially struggle with the former, because his version of health care reform (“Romneycare”) isn’t very frugal.

Romneycare is lacking in cost containment, which was the whole point of the law. In 2008, a family plan in Massachusetts was $13,788. Health professionals believe that that will double by 2020. In recent years, the growth of premiums in the Bay State cost has been twice the national average.

Looking beyond only the insured, over the next 10 years, Romneycare will cost Massachusetts taxpayers $2 billion more than originally anticipated.

How can he argue against the ACA with a track record like that?

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 23 July 2012 Greater Niagara Newspapers

OVERCOMING UNDERACHIEVEMENT

Editor’s note: This is the final part in a four-part series

Over the past few weeks we’ve looked at the dismal academic results of America, results that are unbefitting of a nation that spends the most on education and enjoys the richest economy. The focus of this series was not on policy, but rather on the students and how this generation has lost the hunger for personal betterment that previous generations possessed.

It should be noted, though, that not all of today’s teens are underachievers. There are some exceptional performers – as matter of fact, many of them – who buck the trend and really set themselves apart from their peers.

I’ve been working with children and teens as a volunteer over the past 19 years; I’ve led boy scouts, talked to elementary and high school students, and spoken to college students. In that time, I’ve witnessed (or have been privy to) a decline in appropriate character and ethic, but, at the same time, I’ve seen the best and brightest become better and brighter. I would go so far as to say that the exemplary youth of today rival those of my generation. The highly-driven youth of 2012 have a greater diversity of thought, participate in more productive activities, are highly intellectual and set themselves up for even greater achievement in adulthood. Whereas the typical teen has become less functional, the outliers have become more functional – they truly are young adults.

While a majority of their peers might raise concern for what America’s future holds, the strength of the superior students is astounding. They possess the fortitude and leadership that could, when they come of age, help change some of the underachievement relished by their generation. With these intelligent kids becoming the captains of industry and the makers of public policy, America will be in some good hands in the decades to come.

But, to guarantee that they can overcome the pervasive underachievement, we adults need to lend them a hand and help motivate their fellow students. We’re all stakeholders in this – parents and the childless alike – because we’re already investing a princely sum of our money in the education of the young, and their outcomes yield the workers and contributors of tomorrow. Strong students become strong adults which yield a strong economy and strong country…without a proper foundation the entire house will collapse.

So, what can we do?

For starters, we need to make academics sexy. The message from pop culture is that school isn’t fun. Maybe it’s not with all the rote procedure. But, if we sprinkle in some real world applications of biology, physics, math, business, etc., kids can see real benefit to their studies. To do that properly, schools need to reach out to the community and vice versa. There’s nothing more powerful than speakers and field trips specific to the subject matter. Every school district is chock full of interesting residents who can leverage the assets of that community. Let students tour your workplace. Visit classrooms and talk about your employment, public service, passions, or topics of interest. Volunteer to speak to any and all age groups. You could be the spark that ignites a lifetime of appreciation for science, engineering or history.

Second of all, we need to foster character. We can create a focused, high-quality pupil by building their self-esteem, self-awareness, and awareness of the Greater Good. To do so, we need to get more youth (and adult volunteers) involved in organizations like the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Youth Cadets, church groups, 4-H, FFA and the like. All of them contribute mightily to leadership development, volunteerism, morality, work ethic, civic responsibility, and personal responsibility, things you don’t (and in some case really shouldn’t) get from the classroom. But, all of them contribute to behavior in the classroom - and at home - and can create a more driven student.

There are many more ways we can increase student achievement and I’m sure the most successful students out there can contribute to the discussion and let us know what drives them. From them, you’ll probably find that “love” is a common denominator, from the parents who raise them to the teachers who teach them to the volunteers who give their time to them. It’s time everyone pitched in and shared the same with today’s youth: They are, as a whole, an underachieving lot who only need some solid guidance – from family and neighbors alike – to become the good pupils that we were way back when.

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 16 July 2012 Greater Niagara Newspapers

SOME TRAITS OF UNDERACHIEVING YOUTH

Editor’s note: This is Part Three of a four-part series.

Based upon statistics provided in the previous 2 columns there is a glut of minors who are underachieving in the classroom (or, as noted last week, totally uncommitted to the classroom). Which of their behaviors contribute to this underperformance? For the sake of brevity (and not making this a 10-part series), here are just 3…

Today’s kids lack work ethic. Elbow grease at home and in a working environment helps to develop a work ethic that carries over into studies. Unfortunately, today’s youth are not afforded the chance for such enrichment.

Many of the Baby Boomer class and the generations before them had either permanent or temporary access to farm life (regarding the latter, think of how many kids used to spend weeks of their summers on a grandparent’s or uncle’s farm). That exposed the impressionable youngsters to visible rewards (harvests and cattle auctions) that were the result of sweat, hard work, planning, focus and patience. Those days are long gone for teens for smaller family farms have been replaced by larger, more-efficient farms. To put it into perspective, in the 1940s there were over 6.5 million farms. Now, there are just over 2 million.

But, the pastoral experience is only one part of the labor equation. It used to be that teens everywhere could get summer and evening jobs. At the turn of this century, half of all 16-to-19 year-olds held a job. The Great Recession and the resulting “new norm” put youth employment in the crosshairs. Because of the lack of economic opportunity, cost-cutting endeavors by businesses fighting to survive, and adults willing to take what were teens’ jobs in order to survive as well, less than 30% of teens now hold a job.

Unfortunately, that availability of free time does not equal better grades because work is a lesson in itself. As the old adage says, it builds character. So, without work (especially in the formative years), character cannot be built. And, character is the catalyst for achievement.

Today’s families emphasize the extra-curricular over the curricular. It used to be that kids might choose an interest or two that took some of their free time. Now, they chose (or are forced into) schedule-intensive sports while ballet, band, horse-riding lessons, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and more are heaped upon that. The materialism of modern life has driven this, making the parent feel inadequate if he/she can’t keep up with the assumed expectations of our society. They believe they can’t do right by their child if the child is not perpetually busy. It’s sad, as it contributes to financial and emotional stress of parents and it robs kids of their childhood (and the freedom and spontaneity it should have) as well as the time that they need for books (far more important than any sport). The exhausted kids can’t focus on schoolwork, nor do they have time to: Approximately three-quarters of American youth participate in some structured extracurricular activity that consumes up to 9 hours per week. 10% of them devote more than 20 hours per week to it.

Today’s youth are destined to underachieve thanks to electronics. Sci-fi tales of years gone by predicted a technologically-advanced world in which the human existence would be made better by computers and other efficiencies. We’ve come to that era with high-speed computers, the internet, smart phones and more.

But, rather than making our lives easier, they’ve made our lives more difficult, since we’ve become incapable of thinking, analyzing, communicating, calculating and even relaxing without them.

Well, at least that’s the situation that’s befallen the young. Consider these damning numbers: The average American child spends 7.5 hours of every day in front of the TV or computer or engrossed with some other electronic device like a phone.  Not only are they failing to live life or study, but numerous studies have also shown that early and constant exposure to electronic media lead to psychological problems, attention disorders, and cognitive issues. Some scientists have even noticed severe changes in the way that brains function. Technology has weakened – even dramatically hurt - today’s students.

What is most confounding about all of this? Suppose that between extra-curricular activities and electronics a kid devotes a total of 61.5 hours per week. Compare that to academics: A University of Michigan study showed American students average just under 4 hours of homework per week! Where are our priorities?

Next week, the series ends on a positive note as we look at some of the really special youth who are bucking the trend, and outperforming their peers in dramatic fashion, giving us a sense of hope for Tomorrow. 

 

 

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 July 2012 Greater Niagara Newspapers

THE BASIS OF UNDERCHIEVEMENT

Lackadaisical students have always existed, but never in such volume since America became an industrialized nation and never with such vigor as we see today. For those my age and older, think back to the worst students in your class: Back then, even the biggest of slackers still made it a point to do work and strive for some achievement because they had a greater sense of pride and a greater fear of repercussions from their teachers and, more importantly, their parents. Today’s classrooms (and the homes that breed their occupants) are so different.

Talk to a teacher and you’ll hear horror stories of huge numbers of kids who are completely incapable of – or more accurately “disinterested in” - meeting deadlines or completing assignments or preparing for exams, despite the modern students being spoon-fed their expectations through their syllabus, regular updates, and the internet (the latter of which allows teachers to post and rehash virtually everything of note, making it instantly accessible to students and parents alike 24/7). They’ll tell you that these same students relish just getting-by, and see a passing grade as some sort of reward akin to a good student earning a “90” on an exam.

Look at the statistics and you’ll see that approach to schooling. We discussed outcomes last week. What about those who don’t contribute to the outcome?

You would think that my school district (Royalton-Hartland) which -- thanks to the short commuting distance to Lockport, Amherst, and the like -- sees an income level atypically high for a truly rural district, would have a higher graduation rate (commensurate with the socioeconomic make-up of the community) than the pitiful 82% it sports. It’s not much more than the state’s overall graduation rate of 74%, which is driven down by the high dropout rates associated with dirt-poor urban areas like those in Buffalo and Niagara Falls. A 26% dropout rate is not the fault of the schools and in this era it is unacceptable, especially when every American knows how competitive the job market is and that its future remains cloudy. It’s so different from when we had agrarian and simple production economies in which one could get by comfortably in life following an uneducated adolescence.

While that 74% is bad enough, consider another number that contributes to the educational malaise: attendance. In Buffalo City Schools over 42% of all students miss 18 or more days per year, a month of school. Wow.

Those numbers point one type of parent, those who don’t love their children enough to ensure that they, one, attend school and, two, graduate from school. In today’s world it’s neglectful, outright abusive, to allow a minor to skip out on the system that prepares them for the Real World. By deemphasizing the value of an education and allowing a teen to be free-willed to that end, they destine the child to failure in adulthood and a lifetime of low-income wages and/or public assistance.

But for every parent who doesn’t love a kid enough, there’s another one who loves his child “too much”. The goals of parenting are to provide physical, emotional, and intellectual nourishment to your offspring while helping them become quasi-independent teens and, ultimately, truly independent adults. Many modern parents don’t foster an environment that creates those building blocks of dependence. You’ve heard of these helicopter parents who shield their youth from the harsh realities of the world and the life lessons that are necessary to overcome them. They protect their children from everything, from losses on the ball diamond to failure in the classroom, where they aggressively blame every teacher for every bad grade and totally take student accountability out of the equation, never addressing the pupils’ weaknesses and/or lack of drive, let alone the motivation and ability to succeed that was robbed from them by the overprotection.

Helicoptering has become such a sickness that numerous college professors have shared with me concerns over such parents continuing this behavior well into their kids’ college years. This practice has actually been legitimized and recognized by federal policy that forces health insurance companies to cover the insured’s sons and daughters until 26 years of age. Didn’t adulthood once begin 8 years earlier? How is it suddenly acceptable to baby someone into her 20s? By doing so, there’s no need to strive for achievement!

The discussion will continue in next week’s column when we look at the traits of the underachieving students who come from the ranks of the unloved and overloved.

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 July 2012 Greater Niagara Newspapers