Salivating over Salvia

From the 08 December 2008 Greater Niagara Newspapers

SALIVATING OVER SALVIA
By Bob Confer

When drug users quibble over what hallucinogenic drugs create the strongest trips they generally rate LSD as number one, followed closely by Salvia divinorum.

Most everyone is familiar with LSD. It’s a storied substance that routinely makes the headlines, getting a fair amount of well-deserved bad press. On top of that, it’s a Schedule 1 drug that is illegal to manufacture, possess, buy, or distribute in the United States. Despite the image and the laws, in 2006 some 23 million Americans were estimated to have used the drug in their lifetimes.

Salvia, on the other hand, is a relatively unknown drug. It gets almost no major media attention and is legal to distribute and posses in all but a dozen states. You may not know about Salvia, but there’s a very good chance your children do, maybe even intimately.

Thanks to the wonders of the Internet, Salvia is the latest craze in the youth drug culture, quickly becoming the drug of choice. Word about its dissociative abilities has spread like wildfire on the web and kids find themselves amused by – and therefore curious of – its effects after viewing any one of the thousands of Salvia trip videos that are available on YouTube, Google Video, and the like. They’re easily able to see their peers acting erratically, aggressively, and dangerously, even driving while under the influence of the herb. Go online and give it a look. If you have even a modicum of maturity you’ll find these videos disturbing.

The net not only promotes Salvia, but it sells it, too. This makes it ungodly easy for youth to get their mitts on a potent drug. No longer do they have to worry about breaking a law or dealing with questionable and dangerous drug pushers. It’s all just a mouse-click away.

A quick search will show hundreds of internet companies selling Salvia. A relatively cheap high, anyone can buy it for as little as $9 gram to as much as $64 per gram depending on the strength. And, unfortunately, it’s delivered incognito. In most cases it arrives via standard mail in an envelope or as a package from what appears to be a reputable supplement/health company along the lines of GNC. Few parents would question their children on either count.

Because of the congruence of all these factors, use of Salvia has exploded. In the past twelve months alone, over 750,000 have used it for the first time. One online vendor brags that his sales to New York State have increased by 1,000 percent in the past half-year.

Yes, you read that right. The Empire State, usually the state to have more laws than any other, has no restrictions on Salvia. So, there’s a very good chance that high school and college students you know have used the stuff.

This legal impasse is not for a lack of trying. For the past five legislative sessions the State Senate has passed a series of bills that make the sale and or possession of Salvia on offense in New York State. In each and every session the Assembly has put them out to die in committee. This year was no different. Bill S.695, sponsored by Senator Flanagan of Long Island, would make it illegal to peddle the plant in NY. It was overwhelmingly passed by the Senate back in February. Since then, the Assembly has let the bill (as A.610) sit idle in the economic development committee. Other bills, like Senator Maziarz’s attempt to identify Salvia as an LSD-type controlled substance (S.7736) have been met with disdain. That said, it’s imperative that you contact your assemblyperson and ask him or her to support such legislation when it returns to the floor in 2009.

If they fail to make headway yet again, which is likely and unconscionable, it might be up to our local elected officials to succeed where Albany has failed. The county legislators would need only to follow the lead of Suffolk County. There, back in April of this year, it was signed into local law that possession or sale of Salvia in the county is a misdemeanor punishable by a year in jail and/or a $1,000 fine.

As long as the laws allow it, kids will continue to use this weed, putting them and their companions in peril. It’s up to you as a parent or friend to make yourself aware of this insidious, easily-acquired drug. With no laws on the books it will be up to you to make law in your home.

Obama discriminates against gun owners

From the 01 December 2008 Greater Niagara Newspapers

OBAMA DISCRIMINATES AGAINST GUN OWNERS
By Bob Confer

If you count yourself as a gun owner and are among the hundreds of thousands who are applying for any one of the 7,000 job openings in the Obama Administration, do yourself a favor. Throw the application out.

Don’t bother applying because it will be an exercise in futility. You won’t have a chance based upon the line of questioning posed in question 59 (out of 63). It reads as follows: “Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage."

Intrusive. Offensive. Unprecedented. Pick any adjective of negative connotation and it will apply here. This method of vetting is really that bad.

It’s disconcerting, even amusing, that a man whose supporters pride themselves on being non-discriminatory is he himself discriminatory. The President-Elect obviously finds fault with those who believe in practicing their natural right to self defense, one that is duly noted in the Second Amendment of the Constitution, the document he has sworn to uphold and protect as Senator. Obama will make that same promise but with even greater zeal and meaning when he is sworn in as our forty-fourth president. It can be argued that his oaths of office – past and future - are but outright lies based on his neglect of duty to our nation’s bible.

The Second Amendment, as other amendments, will suffer under his rule. When all is said and done he will go down as the most anti-gun president in the history of the United States. We can predict this now with relative certainty because the employment application offers a telling glimpse into his mind, something the electorate weren’t made privy to during his campaign when his responses to gun-related questions were like those he provided to most all other inquiries, meandering and uninformative. Obama’s slick talk of change and his unwillingness to answer questions masked his true intentions of wanting to deny us the individual right to bear arms, something he has a proven track record of.

His most horrific commentary occurred back in 1996 – a scant 12 years ago - when he first ran for the state senate of Illinois. Then he wrote in a candidates’ questionnaire that he supported a total ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns. That highly-unconstitutional belief manifested itself again earlier this year when over 300 congressmen and senators signed a brief for the now-classic District of Columbia v. Heller case, asking that the Supreme Court to support the individual right to bear arms. Obama was not among the signers.

If he is unable to make an outright ban happen, Obama will do his best to take away certain nuances of ownership. Among the most odious of such desires would be to deny the right to self-protection. Most states now have a Right-to-Carry so a firearm can used as a means to suppress a criminal attack or rape. In 2004, just before he came to Washington, he let it be known that he has and will oppose all such legislation and, if he had his chance, he would push federal legislation that would allow only law enforcement personnel to legally carry guns. Bills like this only serve to empower the criminals.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. He supports the resurrection of the Clinton Gun Ban. He wanted to drive up by 500% the federal excise tax on guns and ammunition. He wants all gun owners to be licensed and registered. He also would like them to be no younger than 21. His list of anti-gun sentiments is endless and incriminating.

Right now, there aren’t too many people who voted for him who understand the horrible significance of his Constitutional onslaught. But, those who did not vote for the man know better and are preparing for his regime. While the rest of the economy has slipped into a meltdown not seen since the days of the Great Depression, gun shops have experienced a boom not seen since the days of the Old West. In the two months leading up to the election and the month since, gun sales at many stores across the US have grown in excess 100% and in some cases 400%. People are stocking up on weapons while they can, now before the Obama Administration goes into power and makes buying a gun just like trying to get a federal job were you to own a gun…nearly impossible.

Personal Finance 101

From the 24 November 2008 Greater Niagara Newspapers

PERSONAL FINANCE 101
By Bob Confer

Americans have a long tradition of teaching our youth about common sense for the comments cents. At a very young age we start them on the path to fiscal conservancy by providing them with a piggy bank and the lessons that go with filling it and saving for the object of their desires.

Despite such an important life lesson we seem to forget it as we come of age. No longer limited to maintaining a piggy bank for basic childhood wants, we adopt newfound adult responsibilities, desires, and income. As they hold jobs to pay for wants and needs, many find it necessary to save little or nothing yet spend a lot in order to satisfy the culture of consumerism so prevalent in today’s world. It’s an ongoing cycle of addiction, one fueled by the messages we receive from advertisements, the media, shifty lenders, and our own peers. Today’s adults feel compelled to have the biggest, best and most when it comes to housing, cars, electronics, and leisure.

This materialism has caused many people to approach their incomes with reckless abandon and the economy has hit a brick wall. Millions of homeowners couldn’t pay for the morbid mortgages they entered into and millions more have accrued unreasonable amounts of debt on their credit cards, the next nightmare on the horizon. They all gambled on the housing bubble, they all lived beyond their means. It’s bad for them, yet worse for us a collective society. We’re all on the hook for their debts, our federal government spending our reserves and creating money out of thin air to prop up the faltering financial markets that were based on false, ethereal funds and credit payments that will never materialize.

For all those folks who spent and invested with no respect for the true value of the dollar, there are many more people who, like me, are pennywise. I’m notoriously cheap at work and at home, finding it difficult to part with a dollar. I know that if I err on the side of excess at home, I’m on the streets. I know that if I do the same at work, there will be 120 families on the street. You’ll find me saving my money to improve my future and investing in my company to guarantee its future.

I’m left asking (as are many others): Why can’t more people be that frugal? We coupon-cutting cheapskates feel let down by the world around us, wondering why we must pay for the sins of society.

Truth be told, the spenders might not be acting in a malicious way. They might just be ignorant. And I don’t mean that in a bad way. They may be uneducated in personal finance. It’s a confusing world out there with so many gimmicks on mortgages, interest rates, loans, retirement accounts and all else financial. I was fortunate enough to have fiscal knowledge drilled into my brain by my parents and the Boy Scouts.

The latter brings me to this point: We need to educate our young adults on basic personal finance. It works. “Thrifty” is just one of the twelve points of the Scout Law, ranking up there with the likes of “trustworthy” and “helpful”. Scouts are taught endless lessons on saving and spending wisely. The Scouting program knows the importance to society of a young man who respects the dollar and the penny. Because of that, most Scouts are stable in their adult lives.

That same approach needs to be applied to our high schools. Back in the day – maybe to this day - there was a class called Home Economics. There were no economics involved, it was all domestic science. We were taught how to sew and cook. It would behoove the greater good of this nation if the schools developed a course that was a true study in home economics, a year-long course for high school seniors that educated them on all the nuances of personal savings. Many seniors have study halls galore, so it would not be that difficult to add another course to their schedule. Millions of seniors venture into the real world every June and it’s imperative that we prepare them for it. They’ll be better - we’ll be better - for it.

It comes down to this:

The wealth of a person is not based on that which is spent. It’s based on what is saved. The wealth of our nation should be based on that which is spent and saved: by spending just a little on the intellect of our youth we can save our nation from a repeat of the horrible economic disaster we’re in now.

Don't bailout the auto industry

From the 17 November 2008 Greater Niagara Newspapers

DON’T BAILOUT THE AUTO INDUSTRY
By Bob Confer

You’d be hard pressed to find someone who supported the $700 bailout of Wall Street. Most folks were up in arms over how taxpayer money – our money! - was used to reward Wall Street’s excesses and bad behavior. This ire, which was shared by pretty much everyone except for Congress and Wall Street’s bigwigs, was well-intentioned and a real breath of fresh air. It was nice to finally see so many people that upset with Big Government.

Even so, I can’t help but to walk away from that uprising with a sense of pessimism directed towards the masses. I have to feel that way when I see how selective they have been with their criticism of 2008’s ongoing “New New Deal”. Where were the critics when Uncle Sam issued the economic stimulus checks? Where were the naysayers when we covered homeowners’ bad mortgage decisions? Why didn’t the media throw a temper tantrum over the government’s buyout of AIG or its cash infusion to the banks?

It’s all because people are mad only when it’s convenient for them. Their anger, their resentment, surfaces only when it’s not they or their interests who are at the financial feeding trough. Because of that selectivity, the federal government has run roughshod over our economy, making FDR’s historic efforts look almost pedestrian. By focusing only on the aforementioned $700 bailout, the media and citizens of our nation have virtually ignored the cornucopia of bailouts, buyouts, stimuli, infusions, loans and the like bestowed upon us the past six months. So far this year Uncle Sam has doled out $2.950 trillion of those giveaways and we still have a long ways to go before the economy can even begin to be healthy. Without the masses pulling tightly on the checkrein, the fed will no doubt feel obligated to issue more rescue plans which might include the salvation of credit card debtors (card debt now stands at $970 billion) or the confiscation of 401k accounts.

Nothing is out of the question unless we make a stand now. The line has to be drawn somewhere, sometime, somehow. There is no better place to start than the next item on the government’s things-to-do list: the bailout of the US auto industry.

As I was writing this column top level officials were still debating what to do to save the industry, specifically General Motors. GM was fearful that come December it would be totally out of cash and bankruptcy would occur. Based on recent history, giving them a bailout would be something akin to giving the keys for the liquor store to the alcoholic who says he’s learned self-control. By believing the loser you’re only feeding his bad habits and guaranteeing his death.

GM’s woes were brought on by its addiction to operating under sales techniques that were developed by manufacturers in the 1800’s and have been obsolete since. Back in the day, manufacturers would build to supply and not to demand, more or less dictating what the consumer would buy. Back then, the manufacturer defined the market. Nowadays, with so many choices available, the consumer defines the market and the manufacturer adjusts accordingly. GM hasn’t adjusted and is still making vehicles that the consumers don’t want, hence its cash flow problems: GM can’t sell that which it has made. Ignorant to ongoing fuel scare issues that have been with us since the 1970’s and oblivious to the burgeoning green movement, GM is putting out too many trucks and SUV’s, only dabbling in the smaller vehicles that are less expensive or use less energy…the very cars that people want and are buying from the highly-successful new American auto industry (the foreign firms who manufacture on American soil). With GM, it’s always too little too late.

Basically, the bailout – once again, our money - would only go towards temporarily masking the weaknesses of GM’s management. It would give them the cash they need to get through their current financial crisis, but, with the status quo as it is at GM, the taxpayers would never see a return on their loans because of the perpetuation of bad business practices.

The same criticism was said of Wall Street. Yet, because of how beloved the auto industry is, there are very few people who will levy those charges against GM. Even so, there are fewer people who will say with confidence that GM is doing the things necessary to change its ways. It’s destined to die, whether it’s December 2008 or December 2011. The bailout will be but an investment in that demise, the government rewarding bad behavior, just as it did on Wall Street.

An open letter to our elected officials

From the 09 November 2008 Greater Niagara Newspapers

AN OPEN LETTER TO OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
By Bob Confer

Congratulations on your victory at the polls last week.

I know it wasn’t easy. No doubt it took months, maybe years, of blood, sweat, and tears to win the election. You can’t stop there, though. If you thought politicking was tough, brace yourself. Now the hard work begins. You’ve won the election. Now, you’ve got to win our respect.

You’ve got your work cut out for you.

First of all, if you’re new to your role, you’ve got to understand this isn’t your father’s government. If you were reelected last week, know that this isn’t the political environment you’ve grown accustomed to. There’s a new brand of accountability in the air. You’ll be expected to be the type of statesman that was once the norm in the America of long ago. You’ll be required to make some preposterously difficult decisions. In the very recent past, most elected officials have skated-by by maintaining the status quo or doling out some pork. Not anymore. We the People have become as restless and angered as a hurt animal. To be cliché, we’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore.

This sudden and welcome change of being is an outcome of the world around us. We’ve been let down for decades and that mistreatment has finally come to a head, the economy plunging into despair not seen since the days of the Great Depression. Small businesses are struggling to stay afloat. Hundreds of thousands of families have lost their jobs and their homes. All seniors have witnessed the collapse of their retirement accounts. The younger generations are entering a job market that might never let them achieve the standard of living that their parents had.

Because of this trauma to our pocketbooks, our way of life, and the very core of the American Dream, people from all walks of life have finally come to the understanding that good representation is the remedy for what ails us. We want results. We need results. We have to be that way and we always should have been. But, as a nation, we let our civic responsibilities slip and that has come back to haunt us. Because a majority of Americans found themselves more in tune with the outcome of American Idol than with past elections they overlooked where our nation was going. Because of that indifference to that which truly matters, our leadership was not held in check, and slowly but surely Bad Government – some of it too big, some of it too small – permeated the landscape, allowing the collapse of our economy to occur. Those citizens, who because of their malaise are just as guilty as their elected officials, have learned their lesson. That’s why “change” was such an important part of all the campaigns this year. The People themselves have changed and they are demanding the very same of you.

The wish list for Change is endless. Things have to change in the way our government views spending, entitlements, bailouts, the dollar, the economy, the banks, Wall Street, Main Street, education, and national defense. With such an impressive if not frightening list you couldn’t come into office at a more remarkable time in our history. The next few years are extremely important to America. We’re teetering on the edge. A few wrong decisions could destroy our economy and the America we know and love will be but an afterthought.

Please accept this mantle of responsibility with the utmost care and dedication. All of us - those who voted for you and those who did not- look forward to seeing what you can accomplish while in office, hoping that what you do or don’t do helps to make a better community, a better state, and a better country. Your legacy depends on it. Our future requires it.

Make us proud.

Trucking regs will hurt Upstate economy

From the 03 November 2008 Greater Niagara Newspapers

TRUCKING REGS WILL HURT UPSTATE ECONOMY
By Bob Confer

Just when you start to think it couldn’t get any tougher to do business in New York State, it does.

David Paterson and the State Department of Transportation have spent the past few months fine tuning regulations which would inhibit the flow of goods across the Empire State. The State plans to experiment with a series of laws in the Finger Lakes region that would restrict tractor trailers in excess of 45 feet in length from travelling state and local roads and allow them to travel just on the interstates. They would be permitted to travel the lesser roads only if there was a direct and exclusive route to their client or if an emergency situation presented itself (such as inclement weather). After working out the kinks in the Finger Lakes test, the DOT plans to apply these regulations to the rest of the state.

Governor Paterson is pushing these regulations – which are being levied without the support of the state legislature - because he believes that the residents of rural upstate New York should not be subjected to what he considers “big trucks”. He claims the vehicles ruin the solitude and quality of life in the countryside and put undue stress on the infrastructure. This plays well on the emotions of the rural residents but does nothing for rational analysis of what the true outcome will be.

Without a doubt, these regulations will push a sickly upstate economy further into ruin.

This can be said with the utmost confidence because 45-foot trailers are dinosaurs. 53 ft. trailers are quickly becoming the industry standard. I asked our local traffic broker how many of each trailer size he schedules per week. Of his 125 loads, 95 are 53 ft. trailers, 30 of them are 48 ft. trailers and he doesn’t broker a single truck at 45 ft. in length (Paterson’s absolute maximum). That means the average tractor trailer won’t be able to travel the roads as freely as they can now.

One of two things will have to happen. The truckers will have to abandon the longer trailers or schedule lengthier routes. Both options will cost money. Lots of money.

If forced to go to the shorter trailers, load sizes will have to be cut by 9%. That will require the scheduling of a second truck, perhaps a common carrier. That will cause overall shipping costs for that same quantity-shipped to rise by 20% to 35%. That could equate to hundreds of dollars in new charges depending on where the truck is going.

If the drivers are forced into travelling longer routes it’s nearly as expensive. The New York State Motor Truck Association provided an example of a manufacturer’s daily shipments from Syracuse to Corning Glass. Right now, that truck travels 200 miles round trip. Were Paterson’s law to go into effect, the new round trip would be nearly 300 miles. Assuming one such trip a day, five days a week, the law would add an extra $63,627 per year in costs for that one trucking route.

Realize that the truckers and businesses can’t eat those costs. To make ends meet they must pass them on to their customers. That means you’ll be paying more for food at the grocery store or products at the department store because it will cost so much more to get it from Point A to Point B.

Even worse than that, you could be out of a job because of Paterson. Many times in these pages I’ve written about how expensive it is for a manufacturer to operate in New York State. Because of Albany, it’s 4% more expensive to work here than it is in our competitors’ states. The only financial saving grace we can offer our customers exists in delivery. That’s because the Niagara region is within 500 miles of 55% of the US population. So, a client may choose our goods, though more expensive at the piece price, because they can save on shipping. If Paterson’s laws were to take effect they would take away that lone advantage we have. Hundreds of New York businesses would then lose their existing customers (and potential customers) to their competition in the Ohios and Indianas of the world.

It’s obvious that the Governor has put little thought into the repercussions of his anti-business, anti-consumer trucking regulations. In his twisted mind he may think he’s doing good for Upstate, but in reality, he’s harming it. Someone’s going to be hitting the road and it won’t be the truckers…it will be all the businesses who know what’s best for them and their future.

Race is an issue on the ballots

From the 27 October 2008 Greater Niagara Newspapers

RACE IS AN ISSUE ON THE BALLOTS
By Bob Confer

Though the national media won’t touch it with a 10 foot pole, race is a key issue in the November election. For a good many people it will be the sole deciding factor. There are a lot of people who are voting for Obama just to put a black man in the Oval Office and there are just as many people who are voting for McCain to keep a black man out of the Oval Office.

In some polling locations the presidential lever isn’t the only place on the ballot where race will come into play. Voters in two states – Colorado and Nebraska – have the chance to vote for the end of affirmative action in their public colleges, state employment, and government contracts. If the voters pass this they would join California (1997), Washington State (1998) and Michigan (2006) as states that have successfully put an end to preferential treatment based on race or gender.

This movement has been a long time coming. Its proponent and primary financier, businessman Ward Connerly (who is black, by the way), has indicated that it’s not a sprint but a marathon. He figures if he works slowly but surely, one or two states at a time, he can most effectively get all Americans on board with his desire to promote real, not forced, equality.

Connerly is right. It does take time. Look at how long it took the women’s and civil rights movements to bring about much-needed change in America. Putting an end to discrimination and hate is no easy task. And, that’s what affirmative action is…it’s racism with a smattering of sexism thrown in. It’s racist against whites and sexist against men. This brand of hatred needs to be killed. Just as we’ve been hearing from the hypocritical discriminated masses for years, real equality needs to be based on who you are and what you’ve done as a human, not on the color of skin or what reproductive organs you might have. A productive citizen should never be cast aside because a bleeding heart requires an underperforming minority or woman to take his place because it feels good; it’s a bad practice - both philosophically and operationally - in which everybody loses.

Connerly’s most recent efforts for this cause couldn’t come at a better time. It seems custom-made for this November’s election. Based on what we’re seeing in the national political scene it seems that affirmative action is a moot point. Barack Obama didn’t get to where he is because of a race quota in the presidential campaign. He got there because of his accomplishments. Similarly, Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin didn’t give him a run for his money because we felt it legally necessary to place women into the fray. They, too, got where they are because of who they are not what they are. This contemporary, well-documented success of blacks and women sans helping hand might heavily influence the voters of Nebraska and Colorado.

Not only is this timely, but the initiative couldn’t happen at a better place, either. It’s believed that the outcome of the vote in Colorado will determine what America as whole thinks about affirmative action. That’s because Colorado, a key battleground state, is a perfect snapshot of our collective America. It is looked at as a “purple state”, one that is neither decidedly Democratic nor Republican by majority and whose leanings can change on a whim. The most recent Rasmussen Reports show this. According to the poll, Obama leads in Colorado by 5 percentage points, while a month ago McCain led by 2. That leaves one wondering what will come of affirmative action. You just don’t know if the Democratic trappings (pro-affirmative action) or the Republican’s traditional values (anti-affirmative action) will manifest themselves…just like on Main Street, America.

So, on the morning of Wednesday, November fifth I and many others will be looking at more than just the presidential and local results. We’ll be watching Colorado and Nebraska with interest. You can’t blame us. We’re curious as to what mindset we’ll see at the polls. Will the America of old - one that was built on the foundation of hard work and real results – reign supreme, bringing an end to affirmative action? Or, will the New America – one of entitlements and ugly liberalism – maintain its stranglehold on us, keeping affirmative action alive?

Bush is the new FDR

From the 20 October 2008 Greater Niagara Newspapers

BUSH IS THE NEW FDR
By Bob Confer

Let’s take a step back and ponder a presidential legacy.

George W Bush’s presidency is, without a doubt, one of the most liberal in American history. Under his watch the role of government has been redefined. It has become much larger and more intrusive. The many things he’s done are completely Unconstitutional and, therefore, completely illegal.

Here’s a president who, facing an economic nightmare, has unleashed unprecedented amounts of government intervention in our free-market systems, all in an effort to calm the fears of our citizens and reinvigorate financial development. What his administration has done has forever changed our economic landscape, infusing socialism into our capitalist markets.

He’s the same man who years ago used a bloody attack on our soil to further the interests of his administration. Using the deceased as martyrs to pump up our feelings of fear, revenge, and nationalism, he took us into a war that was unrelated to the attack, a warzone that in the years preceding was off-limits to us due to the antiwar sentiment shared by most Americans.

Bush used that same attack on our home front to legitimize federal efforts to squash the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. He initiated a domestic spying program in which our government could eavesdrop on its own citizens, mark them as enemies of the state and detain them indefinitely through the suspension of writ of Habeas Corpus.

Bush, rightfully so, has been derided for all of this and his presidency has been labeled as one of the worst ever. I’m glad that people feel this way and understand the damage he has done to our great nation. But, on the other hand, I can’t help but look at that commonly-held disdain for Bush with a lot of cynicism, finding some dark humor in the mass hypocrisy. You see, everything that I’ve written here about George Bush could easily have been written to a “t” about Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He, too, was guilty of all of the above, yet he’s always been put on a pedestal and worshipped as one of our greatest presidents. It could be argued, quite easily, that his reign was a lot worse than Bush’s.

FDR, like Bush, faced an economic disaster of historic proportions while in office. And he, too, bailed-out the economy by putting billions of dollars into the market by instituting a wide variety of programs and giveaways that most Americans would call socialist or communist. Remember, he introduced means to control prices by subsidizing crops, he employed hundreds of thousands through the Civilian Conservation Corps, Tennessee Valley Authority and other such government employment, he pushed the National industrial Recovery Act as a means to dictate how competition should occur, he introduced two still-standing Securities Acts and he brought to us the granddaddy of all public giveaways (Social Security). Unlike Bush’s methods, FDR’s bailouts moved from the bottom up, rather than the top down. But, just like Bush’s plans, all of them showed promise for a short-term rescue but were saddled with painful long-term implications that subsequent generations would have to struggle with.

FDR, like Bush, used an attack against America to pull us into an unrelated and unpopular war. Bush, for years, eyed Iraq as place to take our troops, but found Americans to be strongly opposed. Roosevelt, for years, was intent on intervening in the European conflicts, but antiwar and isolationist sentiments were far too powerful in the States. Both men got what they wanted, although it took unbelievable tragedy. Bush was able to make people believe that Iraq was somehow connected to the 9/11 terror attacks and found Congress and our people suddenly (if only temporarily) amicable to an Iraq war. FDR was able to use the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (which he allowed to occur) to get people interested in joining the foray into the completely unrelated European Theatre. Somehow, both men successfully duped the nation into war.

FDR, like Bush, also used the war to cast aside the rights of the individual. Just as our government now uses the Patriot Act to jail people without following standard procedures, it did the same under FDR’s watch, but worse. The US interned, detained or excluded over 300,000 Japanese-Americans (men, women, and children) branding them all as enemies of the state, regardless of guilt or innocence.

As you can see, the presidencies of Bush and FDR share some eerie similarities. Their only difference: Bush is hated while FDR is revered. It’s too bad history works in such odd ways because, truth be told, FDR deserves the same treatment as Bush. His presidency was no better than Bush’s and - looking at Constitutional principles - it could be considered a whole lot worse.

The Cold War Revisited

From the 13 October 2008 Greater Niagara Newspapers

THE COLD WAR REVISITED
By Bob Confer

The economy is the Number One issue these days, as it should be. We are living in some historic times. Unprecedented acts of federal intervention are taking place and when we finally crawl out of this financial meltdown America will never look as it once did.

As important as this situation may be in the media and water-cooler conversation, it and other newsworthy national issues (presidential election, anyone?) should not temper our understanding of foreign developments. Because of this unrelenting focus on the home front, our trusted news sources and average Americans alike are almost completely oblivious to the fact that the Cold War is back.

It’s a long held belief that the Cold War ended round about 1990. Depending on whom you ask, it ended in either 1989 when George HW Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev declared it so at the Malta Summit or in 1991 when the USSR officially ceased to exist. Some folks, though, - like me - insist that it never really ended. To us, the Cold War was put on hiatus, the Russian Machine taking its time to collect itself and get all of its ducks in a row following the collapse of the Soviet Union. You can’t help but make such an assessment when you see the great recentralization of powers that has been taking place in Russia under the leadership of Vladimir Putin, a member of the USSR’s old guard and a former KGB thug who has nothing but total disregard for democratic principles.

Now that Putin has exerted domestic rule in ways that he sees fit he has turned his attention to reenergizing his efforts to knock America down a notch or two. It started in August when Russia and Georgia got into a tussle. George has been a serious ally – or better yet, pawn – of the United States since its days of new-found independence. Our government has provided them with almost $2 billion in military training and equipment since 1992, most of that since 2001 under the guise of “an investment against al-Qaeda”. Truth be known, Georgia is not a stomping ground for al-Qaeda. Therefore, this investment was really used to strengthen ourselves against Russia. With this taken into consideration it appears that Russia’s brief occupation of Georgia was bait to induce America into a proxy war (the Vietnam and Korean Wars are perfect examples of proxy wars that occurred during the original Cold War). We didn’t take the bait this time.

Not to be outdone, Putin has decided to bring the posturing and preening of the Cold War’s good ol’ days right to us. It was announced last month – unbeknownst to most Americans because of the economic crisis - that the Russian military will be paying a visit to the Americas. Putin has found a good friend in Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, the same man who hates our guts but is okay with receiving our oil money. Back in July, Chavez requested a strategic alliance with Russia, one which Putin gladly accepted. Russia is allowed to have three of its state-owned energy companies set up shop in oil-rich Venezuela while, in exchange, Venezuela is afforded protection from the United States.

Under this pact training exercises will commence this November. Russia will be deploying 1,000 troops and doing a Teddy-Roosevelt-style sail-by near US waters with a huge fleet led by their nuclear-powered flagship, Pyotr Velikhiy, the best of the Peter the Great series of cruisers. The ship is a beast (by Russian standards) equipped with nearly 200 guns and launchers and outfitted with more than 20 Granit missiles which have an effective range approaching 200 miles.

The drills are taking place in the Caribbean, obviously meant as scare tactic directed towards us. But, fear not. The Pyotr, as threatening as it sounds, is no match for our Navy, so we really have nothing to worry about. But, we will when the time comes. To Putin’s credit, it’s a well-thought-out effort that may pay off for him psychologically. It makes perfect tactical sense for Russia to throw its weight around while we are in an economic crisis and our collective national psyche is feeling weakened and nervous. This will only add to those feelings of misery.

So, prepare yourself for some fireworks next month and the few months following. These won’t be fireworks in the literal sense, but they will be in the figurative, political sense as Bush and his successor trade barbs and meaningless threats with our enemy of yore.

Welcome back, Cold War.

The Worthless American Dollar: Part Two

From the 06 October 2008 Greater Niagara Newspapers

THE WORTHLESS AMERICAN DOLLAR: PART TWO
By Bob Confer

Last week’s column focused on recent trends in attempted economic recovery and how they cause short-term inflation. The column ended with the prediction that the wide variety of bailouts deployed by the government this year will create real inflation in excess of 20% over the next two years.

Not to further your anxiety over our economy’s health, but you must know that inflation will not end there and we will see a rather prolonged and agonizing decrease in the value of the Dollar. This decline will go on for decades and it will be, once again, the fault of Big Government. Just as it has this year with its attempted salvation of Wall Street and Main Street, Uncle Sam will have no choice but to let fly with the printing presses to satisfy its Messiah Complex.

This constant increase in monetary supply will start in ten years and the expenditure of these increasingly-worthless dollars will be focused on our aging Baby Boomer population. There are 79 million Boomers in America, representing over a quarter of the total US population. They are on the brink of retirement and, therefore, entitlement. The oldest of the Boomers reach 62 years of age this year, the year they can start receiving Social Security. These Boomers are only 3 years away from Medicare and 3 to 5 years away from the Normal Retirement Age.

So, you can consider the floodgates now open. And, oh, what a flood it will be! The money to pay for all their benefits has to come from somewhere and the current “somewhere” is just about dried up. As a matter of fact, Medicare will be insolvent within a decade. It’s already paying out more than it takes in and its treasury will be completely dried up by the end of 2018. Social Security faces similar danger: In 2017 it will begin to face an input/output imbalance, one that will completely empty its reserves just 32 years from now.

With the piggy banks empty, the government will have to either cut benefits, initiate a major reform of the system, or find some money. Looking at the three options, cuts are a real long-term possibility only for X’s and Y’s now supposedly paying for their own Social Security. But that’s out of sight out of mind because it won’t occur, if it does at all, until 2041.The second option, the reformation of social welfare, is currently out of the question because it won’t occur until the financial crisis has actually happened. That’s just the way our government works. It’s a reactive, not proactive entity, one that thinks only in the short-term. That’s why FDR (Social Security) and LBJ (Medicare) so willingly signed our nation away. The long-term results meant nothing to them or their administrations, so why worry? That’s the same psychological underpinnings behind Bush, Paulson, and Bernanke so willingly dumping $2.5 trillion of fiat money into the economy this year. Someone else further down the road will pick up the pieces.

That leaves the need for more greenbacks as the only way out - and easiest way out - for our poorly-led nation to weather the storm. The Government really can’t tax anymore than it already does to fill these accounts. Doing so would kill the lower and middle classes who, as I mentioned in last week’s column, have fewer dollars to spare as they face decreasing purchasing power in the wake of government-created inflation. So, rather than taking money, it will resort to making money (which, ironically, really has the same effect on the individual as an increase in taxes).

But how much will the Mint need to produce? That’s where the economics start to get a little dicey. Over the next few decades, Social Security will grow from 4% to 6% of our economy. Medicare will grow from 3% to 11%. Basically, just these two facets of Big Government will more than double in aggregate, becoming 18% of our total economy. All things being equal, that will require the creation of $60 trillion in new dollars to prop up those faltering systems. That’s an average of $2.6 trillion per year over the 23 years immediately following the year 2018, when Medicare first needs it.

Realize that our money supply grew by $2.5 trillion this year which has been and will be responsible for inflation levels many of us have never experienced in our lifetimes. Unless Washington wakes up and reforms social welfare, such pain will be the norm of our lives in the not-so-distant future.