Putting a tax on summer camp

PUTTING A TAX ON SUMMER CAMP
By Bob Confer

In hopes of correcting some losses that have occurred in traditional tax sources, New York has been quite creative in acquiring new revenues since the Great Recession began. The most-taxed state in the union has added or increased fees to hundreds of activities and purchases, everything from fishing to water bottles to cigarettes.

No one is safe. Not even non-profits. The state legislature is in the process of allowing local jurisdictions to collect taxes from the undeveloped properties owned by the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and similar groups. The old law states that such lands are off-limits to property and school taxes. This was put into place because legislators believed at the time – and rightly so – that there was a trade-off of pricey revenues versus priceless benefit: These organizations provide a benefit to the community far greater than what could ever be gleaned from the taxes they would pay.

The language of the potential replacement law implies that undeveloped lands do not meet the criteria for tax exemption. Supposedly, property is being used by non-profits only if it supports facilities and other improvements. The legislators seem to have forgotten their childhood (or common sense) because undeveloped lands are necessary for the outdoor experience afforded by summer camp operators. Forests, fields, and lakes are where you camp, hike, boat, and observe wildlife. Those tasks cannot be accomplished in their purest state from inside a building or under a pavilion. To fully experience and appreciate the outdoors – and learn about the natural world, the abilities of themselves, and the power of teamwork – youth need to be in the most pristine environment possible, one afforded by a wild campground. Look no further than both of our local Boy Scout councils. They own sizable, mostly-undeveloped properties. Camp Dittmer is just over 300 acres while Scouthaven exceeds 400 acres. Endless forests and waterways like theirs are what camping is all about!

Many kids will be unable to savor the outdoors because of the financial burden the new tax will place on them and their families. When the camp is taxed by the local school or community it will have to pass it on to the customers. Considering that many camps see only a few hundred visitors per summer and the property taxes will exceed thousands of dollars annually (especially if it is prime real estate like Camp Dittmer) each attendee will pay a substantial addition to the cost of his or her vacation. This will prove to be the breaking point, the fee that causes many lower-income families to say “no” to a week of camp for their son or daughter. Many of them can barely pull it off now.

Then again, suppose the camp can maintain its exempt status as allowed by the bill by improving the property. Sadly, that, too, will add significant cost to camping fees. The capital projects necessary to appease taxing jurisdictions will be burdensome, especially if the non-profit has to build facilities (and access) at the furthest point on the property. Infrastructure and new buildings and their outfitting and insurance cost a pretty penny. Remember, there’s a reason they’re called non-profits…they don’t have cash reserves to burn through.

The Senate recently passed their exemption-stripping bill (S.2544) by a wide margin (40-21-1). Since the Senate handily approved this measure it’s almost certain the Assembly will theirs (A.6057) - whether in 2012 or a special session later this year - especially due to the concerns that municipalities have over the existence of so-called “loopholes” if and when the state-mandated tax cap goes into play.

Passage can be stopped, though, with public action. If you value what you did at summer camp as a child and want your kids – and many others – to create similar memories, please take the time add your voice to the debate and point out the many flaws of this bill to your assemblyperson.

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 June 2011 Greater Niagara Newspapers

Engineering from the bottom up

ENGINEERING FROM THE BOTTOM UP
By Bob Confer

Last week during a speech about the jobs market, President Obama talked about something that’s missing from our nation’s efforts to remain competitive in the global economy: Engineers. He’s come up with a plan to create 10,000 engineers annually through a private-public partnership in which corporations would strengthen their internship programs and the government would help stabilize collegiate engineering programs while offering students the financial assistance needed to finish their degrees.

It’s definitely a well intentioned idea. But, Obama has his sights on the wrong target. He’s aiming a little too high. College students shouldn’t be the greatest concern. All of the incentives in the world won’t turn out engineers if high school students first aren’t interested in the subject.

When was the last time you heard a teenager say she wanted to be an engineer or scientist? Kids may say they do at a younger age (like 8 or 9) but as they age, science and math (the building blocks of engineering) don’t remain sexy to them. If a kid doesn’t have the slightest interest in this difficult yet rewarding path of study by the end of the tenth grade, there’s really no way to get him or her hooked on it, let alone prepared for what college holds.

In order to produce engineers we really have to get the kids started young on mastering - even loving - science and math. As a country we do a very poor job of that. Depending on what study you read, American students typically rank in the low-to-mid 20s globally in those subjects. That’s why our influence is decreasing around the world: We aren’t making engineers, products, and strides because we aren’t making science and math interesting and worthwhile.

A lot of the blame falls upon our education system. Federal and state bureaucracy forces us to teach to a test, not to the actual mastery of a subject. What is learned from that style? Very little, obviously. That’s expected, as rote methods can make science and math extremely dry. If today’s youth were exposed to those subjects as you and I were (and as they still are in the Boy and Girl Scouts and other youth programs) with experiential learning, they might dig it. Hands on experimentation and experience are what make the sciences so attractive…just remember the excitement you felt when you were able to see how and why things worked. Now, so little of that wonderment is allowed to flourish within our students.

Even more blame for this falls onto parents and society at large. Most kids pooh-pooh science and math and so do their parents; many of them have become disinterested in those topics and insist on directing their kids to other hobbies and jobs, things that are familiar to them. The support just isn’t there at home. Nor can it be found elsewhere: Those who like science and math are labeled as nerds by classmates and - especially nowadays - popular culture. What image-conscious young teen would want to venture into those pursuits for fear of being derided or laughed at? Unless the kid is like Teflon, he wants to fit in. Once that foundation for a lifetime of science is removed during those formative years, it’s probably never coming back.

These are just some of the many obstacles for completing the equation that yields engineers. Addressing them in the college years is too little too late. If Obama wants to see meaningful results with his competitiveness goals he’d promote engineering by engineering from the bottom up, fixing our broken education system and our lame outlook on the intellectual pursuits. Let’s make science fun again!

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 June 2011 Greater Niagara Newspapers

Mandate ultrasounds for abortions

MANDATE ULTRASOUNDS FOR ABORTIONS
By Bob Confer

My wife and I are expecting. Needless to say, this is an exciting time in our lives. As first-time parents we are really looking forward to bringing this child - and more in the future - into this world and sharing with them all the wonders that it has to offer.

I’m an old-fashioned soul, so I don’t want us to know the sex of the child before birth. Even so, ultrasounds (without peeking) are a regular occurrence for us, checking up on the health and growth of the little Confer. Modern technology is awesome, as are the feelings we get – the goose bumps – when it shows us our bundle of joy moving about in the womb. The pictures we receive from the doctor’s visits are true keepsakes, as we constantly marvel at the baby’s features.

After I first saw those images and admired what they showed, my joy became sprinkled with a little bit of confusion, if not anger. Readers of this column know that I despise abortions of convenience. These sonograms took that feeling to another level. Only a few months into the pregnancy the images showed a human in form and a human in movement, so I was left asking, how could any pregnant woman who has witnessed an ultrasound allow someone to tear what was a living person from her body?

That question had me wondering about how many patients ever actually see, or are given the chance to see, their children prior to the abortion. Unfortunately, as made evident by the high body count (more than 1.5 million babies per year), not too many are. If they did, it would be a different story: if the patient had any semblance of goodness and respect for life hidden below the evil that sent her to the clinic, it would certainly come to the surface and prevent the abortion if she were able to see the vitality and preciousness of the little person within her.

It’s obvious that one step to curbing the number of abortions, and dramatically at that, would be mandating ultrasounds. Most states, though, don’t. Last month Texas and Florida passed laws requiring their use while only 4 other states – Alabama, Arizona, Louisiana, and Mississippi – have such laws on the books. In all 6 of those states the provider must perform the service and then offer the woman the chance to see the images (she doesn’t have to accept). Texas’s law has more teeth because the doctor must describe the image regardless, including the size of the fetus and the presence of limbs. So, even if the woman does decline the viewing she still gets some feeling for what’s taking place inside.

Those recent developments in Florida and Texas and the fact that the legislatures of 14 other states have recently proposed similar measures, shows there is ample support out there. Therefore, anti-abortion activists across America should champion such bills in their states.

It’s a start for ending one of the more callous acts of modern society, since the federal government is so keen on allowing abortions and there’s no chance of over-turning the Roe v. Wade decision. Abortions will always be available and there will be many couples demanding such services. But, if they see what I - and millions of other loving parents - have seen in the doctor’s office there’s a great chance a baby will be saved and given the ability that you and I have to experience the adventure we call life.

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 June 2011 Greater Niagara Newspapers

Amtrak: The great American train wreck

AMTRAK: THE GREAT AMERICAN TRAIN WRECK
By Bob Confer

Amtrak trains make passes by my office a few times day as they travel to and from Niagara Falls and points north, including Toronto. Despite the fact that the Falls is one of the most popular tourism destinations on the planet and the rail system stretches across an international border to a region ripe with economic activity, it’s very rare that I see anyone in the passenger cars. It’s patently obvious that public transportation via rail is unpopular, if not useless, in the United States.

That’s more than just an anecdotal observation; the proof is in the statistics.

According to Amtrak, 78,000 passengers travel on their network daily. Considering we are a nation of approximately 307 million people that means only 0.025 percent of our population frequents the system. That woefully small number, combined with similar numbers from other public and private rail companies, puts the United States in last place among 32 nations that accumulate 5 billion or more passenger kilometers per year. The leader of that pack, Switzerland, sees its average citizen amass 2,422 km/year while commuting via train. The average American travels just 80 km/year by rail.

Even though such observational and statistical evidence shows that Americans are disinterested in rail travel, the federal government (and then, in turn, state governments who benefit from federal largesse) insist that we are interested. Truthfully, if the demand for commuter rail did exist in the second half of the 20th century and was a possibility for the first half of the 21st century, we would have seen a huge investment by the private sector in the development of both light rail and high-speed rail. But intelligent capitalists know a loser when they see one and will not enter into a business destined for failure.

Government, though, doesn’t understand basic economics — or possess fiscal common sense — and chooses ventures that no one will touch. The government-owned Amtrak has long operated in the red. Last year’s losses were once deemed unfathomable at $419.9 million. They will be topped again for the fiscal year that will end in September when losses are estimated to hit $506 million. Next year’s losses are projected to be $616 million. These ever-growing losses are occurring even while ridership is increasing. This year’s usage is expected to surpass the record of 28.7 million passengers set last year. This shows that the business model — and more likely the market itself — is completely unsalvageable.

The only reason that Amtrak stays alive is subsidies by taxpayers. Since the start of the 2000s, the United States has dedicated more than $1 billion per year to the broken system, and matters were only made worse by the Rail Safety Improvement Act signed into law in 2008 which guarantees annual funding of $2.6 billion through 2013, more than covering Amtrak’s losses.

Despite the glaring weaknesses of commuter rail (and the federal government’s business acumen), Washington is insistent on spending even more of our money on its ethereal demand. Thinking the concept of high speed rail is the silver bullet that will win over the masses when it comes to the continued socialization of our means of travel, the White House announced in February that it will be “investing” $53 billion over the next six years to build such an inter-city network. That money will be used almost entirely by government entities, state-run operations, and Amtrak alike.

The Obama administration's biggest argument is that high-speed rail will be accessible to 80 percent of the population, thus giving them access to jobs and economic development. That is a stretch. One cannot assume that everything will work out just right so that millions of workers can commute from city to city daily and have an easy means to get to their jobs, let alone to the train station from their homes. That thinking may have worked back in the 1800s or early 1900s when development was centralized in the heart of the big cities. But now it won’t, because residential development and the jobs are much more widespread. In most of the United States, the best and most numerous employment opportunities for the average person are no longer to be had in the hearts of metropolises. The city limits and the suburbs are where it’s at; centralization is mostly a thing of the past. So, unless the trains can travel and stop at numerous locations around cities and in suburbia (which they won’t), they won’t be the job creators and commuter timesavers the government thinks they will.

Basically, as with the current Amtrak system, there won’t be the user demand to warrant the existence of the enterprise.

So, why spend the money? It comes down to a sense of control. The federal message about high-speed rail consistently touts vehicular congestion to and in our biggest metroplexes as well as the environmental impact of the cars as the main reasons why the people should get on board with the concept. Any or both of those reasons are the same the government cites in the need to centralize development, subsidize the purchase of electric cars (and their limited ability to reach great distances), and invest in alternative energy. In all cases, it is hoped the automobile can be taken away from more Americans. That’s because cars, trucks, and SUVs are a threat to the government — they perfectly embody liberty. With them, we have the freedom to freely move about the nation, to visit whom we want, vacation where we want, buy what and from whom we want, work where we want, and live where we want. With more people dependent on public transportation, they will be unable to experience all that life has to offer and all the potential that liberty gives us. Their experiences will be limited to only those narrow corridors where public transportation can take them. It is the federal government’s ultimate goal that our ability to move is directly tied to it, just as has been done with our citizens’ approach to retirement and healthcare where a majority of Americans have been indoctrinated to a reliance on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and more.

Luckily, though, this master plan is set to blow up in Washington’s face. Most Americans won’t go down this path of dependence. We don’t want to; we prefer to control our own destiny and day-to-day travels. Amtrak’s failures have showed that in spades.

Even so, high-speed rail will still leave an indelible mark on our country. We’ll be spending billions we don’t have, not just over this six-year project, but for years to come. It’s another piece of the puzzle that is America’s fiscal train wreck, one that — in combination with all of our other overspending woes — could easily derail our once proud and powerful nation.

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


Originally appeared in the 07 June 2011 The New American at:

http://thenewamerican.com/opinion/950-bob-confer/7736-amtrak-the-great-american-train-wreck

Groceries worth their weight in gold

GROCERIES WORTH THEIR WEIGHT IN GOLD
By Bob Confer

If you share in your family’s grocery shopping duties you know there seems to be no end in sight to escalating costs for everything from junk food to health food and meats to cheeses.

How desperate is this situation for consumers? Better yet, how desperate will it become?

It’s tough to tell. Even the government doesn’t know.

The folks at the Department of Agriculture came into the year thinking we might see food inflation of around 2%, a leap from 2010’s spike of 0.8% but still relatively average compared to historical trends. But, by early March they altered their predictions for 2011’s prices, jumping the rate to a really uncomfortable 4.5%. One might expect them to increase their estimates again quite soon considering that factors are now in play that were unknown a few months ago.

One of them is gasoline. Back on January 1st a gallon of gas was around $3. Very few economists and investors assumed back then that it would reach the $4 mark so quickly, which it basically did last month at $3.99 nationally. Since then, it’s dropped to “only” $3.81, which is still a princely sum ($1 more than last year at this time) and could rise yet again this summer. Consider how much gasoline is used to grow your food and then get it to the processors, distributors and stores. It’s a huge embedded cost that the consumer must absorb.

The other major unknown has been the weather. Because of it, there will be a serious disruption in supply, perhaps one of the worst in recent memory.

The Mississippi River’s historic overflows (and the subsequent forced flooding by the government) have already taken 3 million acres of farmland out of commission for most of this year (and maybe more years to come). Many farmers and other agricultural professionals think that the damage may exceed 5 million acres before all is said and done.

This has also been one of the wettest springs on record across the Northern Tier of the United States, especially in the Northeast. This has delayed – and, in some places, even prevented – planting, with many farms 6 to 8 weeks behind schedule. With so many variables that Mother Nature can present even in good years, no one is quite sure how healthy their crops will be come harvest time.

Then we go from one extreme to another in Texas, Kansas and Oklahoma. Droughts of epic proportions have ravaged the area. This has nearly destroyed the entire Texan wheat crop (three-quarters of it is rated “poor” or worse) while wildfires have scarred 2 million acres of land in the Lone Star State, a fifth of which was dedicated to cattle grazing. In Kansas 39 counties were recently declared disaster areas by the USDA, while in Oklahoma two-thirds of the state is under drought which, so far, has cut the state’s wheat output in half.

Based on the effect these developments while have on previous estimates, where will prices end up at the grocery store? If I had to hazard a guess, I’d say that before year’s end total food inflation will be around 8%. Even 10% might not be out of the question (beef and pork are already 10.4% more expensive than this time last year).

8% is almost unfathomable. Remember back to the period from July 2007 to July 2008 when food inflation was at 6%. It’s not coincidental that was when the recession was really gaining steam. With less jobs to be had now because of the sluggish economic recovery – and many former 2-income households still stuck in a single-income rut - and high gas prices eating into households’ spending abilities, it will be even more of a struggle to feed the family this year than it was in 2008.

Food is one of those things you can’t do without. So, heed my dire warnings and prepare yourself. Freeze, can, stock, purchase in bulk, buy local, grow your own…do what you can to beat this monster. Even if I’m wrong and the USDA is right you’re still looking at substantial price instability.



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 June 2011 Greater Niagara Newspapers

More than a long weekend

MORE THAN A LONG WEEKEND
By Bob Confer

Americans everywhere are enjoying this long weekend, an extended respite from the daily grind of work or school. It’s a joyous occasion, the unofficial start to summer.

That enjoyment of life and the rare chance to relax too often mask the real meaning of the Memorial Day holiday, one that recognizes the men and women who gave their lives so that we – and others around the world – might savor these weekends shared with family and friends. It’s vitally important that each and every one of us take some time today to honor those who fell in battle. You need not partake in a parade or attend a solemn service but you should, in your own way, quietly and genuinely reflect upon and appreciate the accomplishments and lives of our fine militaries of wars past and present.

Since the start of the Revolutionary War, 1.344 million people have paid the price for American goals. To put that into perspective, that’s slightly more than the population of the entire Western New York region. So, imagine all of the homes and streets being completely devoid of people from Niagara Falls to Jamestown and all points in between and near. That haunting visual should give you a feel for the scale of sacrifice.

It should also give you ample reason to set aside some time to appreciate the meaning of those sacrifices. Those soldiers, sailors and airmen saw and experienced horrors that very few of us ever will, and they gave their lives so that others may live, for the creation and preservation of human rights here and abroad, and for the furthering of our national interests.

America, the greatest and freest nation ever conceived, would never have existed had men not fought to the death against British tyranny.

She would never have remained intact, nor would 3.5 million blacks have been freed from slavery, had the North not found it morally necessary to preserve our nation or better the human existence.

The whole modern world would have been torn asunder and many millions more innocent lives taken by evil, had we not entered the two World Wars which cost of a half-million American lives.

Communism would have gained immeasurable might and influence had we not waged a proxy war against its principle powers – China and Russia – in the Koreas.

The Vietnam War may have been the most contentious in American history. 58,000 perished while having the honor to stick with America, regardless of our nation’s sociopolitical divide, showing the patriotism and allegiance lacking by 100,000 draft dodgers.

The War on Terror has been waged in Iraq and Afghanistan, with our men volunteering to fight for our security, wanting not to see a recurrence of 9/11 on our soil and ensuring those who initiated the attacks experience what their victims had. Nearly 5,800 have lost their lives to date in those theatres.

Those high profile wars are but a few of the dozens that have occurred in and out of our borders. American history has long been saddled with military conflicts and occupations. In all of them, many died in - and because of - combat. All of those fallen soldiers should be recognized for giving of themselves so that America can be and will be a nation of power, honor and integrity, just as they were in the moments leading up to their ultimate sacrifice. Without them, we wouldn’t be here. So, please, memorialize them today. It’s our patriotic duty and the right thing to do.


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 May 2011 Greater Niagara Newspapers

End aid to Israel

END AID TO ISRAEL
By Bob Confer

Last week’s column addressed the need to end foreign aid based on our ongoing, wrongheaded support of despotic regimes like those in Egypt and nations, like Pakistan, that have ended up being traitorous to us.

The discussion shouldn’t end there. Aid should be terminated as well for nations widely considered to be our beloved allies. Case in point, Israel. It receives the most in American aid and since 1949 we’ve donated more than $119 billion (most of it militaristic in nature) for an average of $1.9 billion per year. As if that wasn’t enough, it was announced in 2009 that the US would be increasing aid to the Israelis and they would receive $30 billion over this decade.

It’s not as if Israel needs it. The nation of 7.7 million people strong is one of the healthier economies on the planet and certainly one of the most advanced in southwest Asia. It has a gross domestic product of $219 billion, which places it 49th in the world, a stellar ranking for one so small.

So why do we do it? There are a few reasons in the minds of those who orchestrate our benevolence, ranging from moral to strategic to religious.

Many say that we have a moral obligation to protect one of our only true friends in the Middle East, a Westernized nation located amongst a fractured mess of ill-minded countries that hope to do harm – and have done harm - to them, us and the rest of the modernized world. Supposedly, as an added benefit, we can secure a military ally who can fight alongside us (if not offer us a base of operations) in the future when we “need” to take on the Middle East for whatever reason exists at that time (oil, nukes, terrorism, etc.).

More truthfully, our reasons are quite different. As a general rule, Americans don’t seem to mind - and often demand -our government’s intrusion into Middle Eastern affairs via Israel based on purely religious reasons. Jews and Christians believe we have an obligation to God to maintain the sovereignty, safety, and sanctity of the Holy Land (or at least in the form that it has existed since 1948). They don’t mind forsaking money and/or life, even though it is in strict defiance of the Constitution. The First Amendment clearly states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” By basing our global pursuits on religious grounds, we are doing just that, especially egregious when one considers that the Muslims and Baha’is also lay claim to the Holy Land. In essence, we’re waging a Holy War, albeit it one by proxy (through Israel).

What has been the “benefit” to the United States? Try September 11th.

Osama bin Laden was quoted on numerous occasions throughout the 1990s calling for the destruction of America and Israel for their collusion in forcibly driving Muslims from the traditionally-defined Palestinian region. These ongoing charges were reiterated in a bin Laden television statement in October of 2004 during which he admitted that he ordered the September 11th attacks, citing the American-Israeli relationship as his sole reason for attacking America. He said he was inspired by the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon during which towers in Beirut were destroyed. Said bin Laden, "while I was looking at these destroyed towers in Lebanon, it sparked in my mind that the tyrant should be punished with the same and that we should destroy towers in America, so that it tastes what we taste and would be deterred from killing our children and women."

Al-Qaeda did just that, toppling the World Trade Center and nearly the Pentagon and White House, killing thousands of civilians on American soil while leading to the deaths of our soldiers who were sent to the Middle East in hopes of vanquishing terror networks. At the same time, the Constitution was thrown into the trash and the USA PATRIOT Act, among others, led to the desecration of our natural rights.

All of that came about because of foreign aid. By lending a financial hand (and munitions and equipment) to a nation that may be our friend but definitely is not the friend of their neighbors, we were guilty by association. We may have “protected” a great many of the Bible’s hallowed grounds, but at the cost of billions of American dollars, thousands of American lives and liberty itself.

Doesn’t sound like a good investment, does it?

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 May 2011 Greater Niagara Newspapers

End foreign aid now

END FOREIGN AID NOW
By Bob Confer

During the Bush Presidency US foreign aid grew from $15 billion to $26 billion per year. When he was elected, it was President Obama’s goal to double that by 2012. That’s par for the course. Despite the merit of the old adage “charity begins at home”, let alone the riskiness of the debt levels that our country has held over the years, foreign aid has always been sacrosanct in Washington. Presidencies and Congresses from both parties have found it impossible to part ways with the giveaways that have supposedly been used to gain political favor or better the human condition around the world.

But, it’s foolish to believe that we’ve received any benefit from our “investments”; if anything, we’ve gained more enemies by picking winners and losers and interfering in others’ national interests. These same expenditures have also done very little to help humanity; when we give money to a nation we give it to its government and, in most cases, there is very little or no trickle-down to their people.

It’s long past due that the federal government either minimizes foreign aid or pursues the more Constitutionally and morally prudent means of abandoning it outright. Now is as good a time as any to make a change: The past twelve months should have been a wake-up call to the proponents of foreign aid (and there are many), proving to them that it is not money well spent.

Take the case of Egypt for example. It has received an average of $1.3 billion in US aid in recent years and over the past 30 years they’ve taken in a total of $60 billion, ranking second. Those last 3 decades saw that money controlled by Hosni Mubarak and his regime, the same brutal oppressors who were famously overturned by their citizens in January. Not surprisingly, the monster Mubarak was someone identified as an ally by our Secretary of State even while the protests were underway.

Then there’s the matter of Tunisia. That nation had a revolution of its own that began in December. By mid-January its President - Zine El Abidine Ben Ali – was ousted, ending 23 years in power. During his State of the Union address in January, President Obama hailed the Tunisian people and indicated they were setting a fine example for the rest of the world. One cannot help but look at such commentary with cynicism: Current and past administrations identified the Tunisian leadership as allies, so much so we awarded them a total of $349 million during Ben Ali’s reign.

Things are even worse in Yemen (another country in a state of revolution), where President Ali Abdullah Saleh has ruled with an iron fist since 1978. Despite our State Department noting his unlimited abuses of the people - ranging from killings to detention and torture – the US government has consistently played a benevolent hand to Yemeni leadership, including $104.4 million in 2009 alone.

Last –and certainly not least – there’s Pakistan. The Obama Administration readily and openly admits that the Pakistanis had to know that the terror leader Osama bin Laden was holed up in their borders. There’s no way that his fortress could have slipped under the radar of Pakistani intelligence and military. It’s painfully obvious that they supported the 9/11 mastermind. What did that treasonous friendship cost us? $1.5 billion per year, a gift that tripled in size back in 2009.

These countries represent a few of the many questionable foreign aid investments that the US continues to maintain. Yet, they are the most high profile of these tenuous times in geopolitics. They’re real head scratchers that should get the Senate and the House to demand we change our way of doing things. If they don’t, you really have to wonder whose side they’re on.

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 May 2011 Greater Niagara Newspapers

Ham radio: The original instant messaging

HAM RADIO: THE ORIGINAL INSTANT MESSAGING
By Bob Confer

The Internet has made the world a smaller place. We can log on to our email and Facebook accounts and share messages with friends and family around the globe. We can use Skype to see and talk to them from the comfort of our homes. It’s like the futuristic technology that was once a part of sci-fi movies is here now.

Even so, there’s still a place for the old-fashioned ways of doing things. There’s little that’s more exciting from a communications hobby standpoint than talking around the world with a two-way radio. The joys of amateur radio – also known as ham radio – still resonate today, even with modern, computer-driven communications being as easy and instantaneous as they are.

I recently got my radio license (KC2ZZW) from the federal government. I was a ham earlier in life, having been licensed in junior high. I inadvertently let the earlier license expire in the late-90s but nevertheless I remained a radio enthusiast, listening to the world on the police scanner and shortwave radio, while talking to it on the CB radio.

It was the limitations of latter that drove me back to amateur radio and I’m glad it did. After a long period of inactivity, the sun is becoming tempestuous again, making sunspots and solar flares, all of which affect our atmosphere and allow radio waves at lower frequencies to travel great distances, even half-way around the world (think of how your AM radio behaves in the overnight hours). In my first days on the air I talked to exotic locales like Argentina and St. Thomas with my modest low-power station. I’m one of those “radio geeks” who aspire to make contacts in all 50 states and hundreds of nations.

There’s also a whole lot of radio above those frequencies as well. A ham license will allow you to communicate in the VHF and UHF range and beyond. Those bands are more local in nature (think of your TV), but your signal can be magnified by repeaters, high-powered towers that re-broadcast your signals. You also have the chance to talk with astronauts on the International Space Station or bounce your radio signals off the moon to other stations on Earth.

Amateur radio is more than just a hobby; it’s a public service, too. Many hams provide emergency communications and coordination efforts when disasters shutdown electrical grids and phone lines. They’ve been instrumental in saving the day on many occasions. They’ve also allowed families thousands of miles away to know that their loved ones are safe and sound in affected areas (perfect recent examples being earthquake-ravaged Japan and areas of the south flattened by tornadoes).

Getting licensed is an easy task. A few years ago the Federal Communications Commission abandoned the Morse code requirements for globally-reaching entry-level permits, an obstacle that proved difficult to many (especially the young) and had prevented them from entering the hobby. Now, you just need to pass a written exam, knowing radio and electrical theory as well as the FCC’s rules and regulations. There are plenty of study guides on the market and many of them actually provide the hundreds of possible questions and answers that the 35-question exams pull from.

If you’re looking for help in getting started, the readers of this paper and its sisters have access to amateur radio clubs in Lockport, Orleans County, Lewiston and the Tonawandas (the last of which offers licensing tests on a monthly basis). These friendly men and women will help you learn the hobby, pass the exam and find the equipment you need (which can be found on the cheap thanks to Ebay and Craigslist). Information about these clubs, exams and amateur radio in general can be found at the website of the American Radio Relay League (www.ARRL.org).

There’s a whole wide world that opens up before you when you turn on your radio. Give it a try.

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 May 2011 Greater Niagara Newspapers

Osama bin Laden won, even in death

OSAMA BIN LADEN WON, EVEN IN DEATH
By Bob Confer

Osama bin Laden is dead.

It’s unknown, though, if he ever existed, at least in the narrative by which we “knew” him. Oh, he was a real live human being, but whether he was actually the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks or the figurehead in charge of al-Qaeda is debatable. Some wonder if he was just a creation of our federal government — a well-crafted piece of propaganda, a person to hate, a target if you will — allowing the United States to invade foreign lands in search of supposed terrorists and weapons of mass destruction while at the same time motivating Americans to exchange liberty for security.

Whether or not bin Laden was a someone or a something matters not. Whatever he was, he was victorious.

For starters, the September 11 attacks bred fear. The shock and awe of the destruction of the Twin Towers, as well as the plane crashes into the Pentagon and the farmer’s field in Pennsylvania, have been deeply ingrained in the psyche of the American people. The attacks not only killed thousands that day, but they left millions dreading similar large-scale assaults, as well as smaller ones on public transportation, shopping malls, and schools.

That fear led to the willing abandonment of our constitutional and natural rights of privacy and freedom, all for the assumed salvation of Western Civilization. Too many Americans were more than happy to allow intrusion by the federal government into their personal lives on the slim chance that it might actually catch a foreign or domestic terrorist. Through the likes of the USA PATRIOT Act, wiretapping, domestic surveillance, invasive flight-risk assessments, and other police state tactics, the American people showed their soft underbellies, allowing Congress and the Executive Branch to run roughshod over the world the Creator had made for us and the nation that our Founding Fathers had so wisely bequeathed us. America is forever changed, and we can no longer pursue life, liberty, or happiness without some bureaucrat or agent looking over our shoulder.

Another of bin Laden’s goals was the economic destruction of America. He was, in part, quite successful. He may not have orchestrated a total collapse, but he put us on the precipice. Each of the various Homeland Security endeavors costs all levels of the U.S. government a total of $100 billion per year — a cost that hadn’t existed prior to 2001. The so-called "War on Terror," whether in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Pakistan, has cost American taxpayers $1.19 trillion dollars so far. These expenses have occurred at a time when the federal government is sinking ever deeper in debt and is unable, or more accurately, unwilling to plan for the future of the vast entitlement programs. The economic hardships spawned by bin Laden, and continuously fed by our military-industrial complex, only add to the fiscal disasters we face.

As of May 1 bin Laden is now “officially” dead. At least that’s what the Obama administration would have us believe, even though a body was never presented and many assume he died years ago when his kidneys gave out. Even so, he’s still victorious. His death showed that there are a good many "ugly Americans," no better than the barbarians we claim to fight overseas. No sooner was President Obama’s Sunday night press conference over than people filled the streets in New York City, Washington, D.C., and college campuses everywhere, reveling in the death of bin Laden. It was a spectacle to behold, with tens of thousands of people rioting in glee over the demise of another human being. If bin Laden and his orchestrations were real, he was certainly amongst the most evil of men, and it was a newsworthy accomplishment that he was caught, but it was classless and totally immoral to throw a party over his death. It should instead have been a somber moment — a time to remember all those he killed and those we sacrificed to find him.

How can parents now explain to their children that it’s acceptable to cheer over someone's death? How can we prove to the world that we are better than the terror cells and Islamic fascists who breed hate? We can’t, in either of those circumstances. We have seen emotionally-charged and very similar uprisings (yet for entirely different reasons) from our enemies around the world in recent years, and every time we have decried their anti-human sentiments. Yet, here we are guilty of doing the same, showing our own lack of civility.

America is better than that and we must prove it. Somehow, we need to make amends for our boorish behavior of the past two days and show that our American values and Christian ethics are real, not just talk — that we understand that the snuffing out of a human life is not reason to cheer.

If we don’t remedy this situation, bin Laden can claim yet another victory, even from the grave.



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


This column originally appeared in the 03 May 2011 The New American at:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/opinion/950-bob-confer/7332-osama-bin-laden-won-even-in-death