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.

The Worthless American Dollar: Part One

From the 29 September 2008 Greater Niagara Newspapers

THE WORTHLESS AMERICAN DOLLAR: PART ONE
By Bob Confer

“They get our oil and they give us a worthless piece of paper.”

Those words were spoken nearly one year ago – and have been repeated in various ways ever since – by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He was taking a shot at the US dollar when he delivered those controversial words at the end of a rare meeting of OPEC’s heads-of-state. Most Americans considered this to be meaningless anti-American drivel and the ranting of a madman. After all, Ahmadinejad is the man who denied the existence of the Holocaust and counted Christianity and Judaism among the World’s evils.

He may be a little crazy at times, but, alas, he was spot-on with his assessment of the American dollar. It is basically worthless, and matters are only getting worse. The death knell was first rung in 1971 when most economies abandoned the concept of the gold standard and turned to fiat money. The move towards a paper currency with no tangible backing whatsoever was a huge gamble, one, that in the hands of a welfare state (which America has become), will never pay off. To satisfy its over-expenditures, America has produced and will continue to produce reams of paper money, saturating the market with the stuff and making all existing dollars worth less if not worthless.

By increasing the supply of money used in a market that possesses only a limited supply of the goods and resources it is supposed to purchase, governments create inflation. It ends up taking more dollars to buy what could once be had at comparatively lower prices. This creates a significant decrease in an individual’s purchasing power because the labor market cannot adjust wages to meet reckless inflation because even though it would theoretically take more dollars to buy a worker’s services it really doesn’t because both sides of the labor market (the workers and the employers) perceive there to be an endless and highly-competitive supply of labor in a global marketplace. So, the consumer - the worker – always ends up being the loser in the government’s push to create money out of thin air. That’s why we’ve all lost significant amounts of our discretionary income in the past twelve months; we’re spending many more of our dollars to get the suddenly-expensive foods and fuels that we need.

You know an economy based in fiat money is on hard times - just as ours is - when inflation begins to spiral out of control, exceeding what is believed to be a stable (“acceptable”) inflation rate of 2% to 3%. The current rate of annual inflation is 5.4%, a number quite large and frightening, but still underreported. The government does not include food or fuel in its calculations, so the real inflation that is experienced by the consumer is estimated by maverick economists to be in the 9% to 12% range.

The short-term growth in the rate of inflation has spiked considerably in calendar year 2008 because the federal government has produced unprecedented amounts of greenbacks. Here is every event for which money that our federal government did not have was produced by it to meet its own excesses:

The newest bailout package: $700 billion

Refinancing of failed mortgages: $300 billion

Batch of new money pumped into international markets: $274 billion

Loans to banks in the Fed’s Term Auction Facility: $200 billion

The purchase of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: $200 billion

The economic stimulus package: $158 billion

Financial assistance to JP Morgan Chase: $116 billion

Loan to AIG: $85 billion

Grants to local communities to buy foreclosed homes: $4 billion

In total, all that social and corporate welfare accounts for $2.037 trillion in fake money let loose since May. You can add to that another $410 billion, the estimated federal deficit for 2008, which does not include any of the above. That brings the amount of fiat money produced this year to a staggering $2.447 trillion, money that never existed prior to this year, money that will be in our system forever.

Because of that, one can assume that the 5.4% inflation reported by the government, as painful as it has been, will be a cake walk to what we’re going to experience in 2009 and 2010. It’s definitely not a stretch to say that government-calculated inflation will be in excess of 10% in those years, meaning what we’re really going to feel may be 20% to 25%.

It’s scary when a nutcase like Ahmadinejad makes perfect sense.

The Four "E"s of Good Civics

From the 22 September 2008 Greater Niagara Newspapers

THE FOUR “E”s OF GOOD CIVICS
By Bob Confer

Holding a public office isn’t for everyone. It shouldn’t be. But, that doesn’t mean that government isn’t for everyone. As a matter of fact, we live in a nation in which the government is for everyone, one in which you are the government.

The United States of America is, in this regard, unique amongst all societies past and present. No nation before us had ever been run under the principles of self-rule. Even in the most democratic of societies there was always a ruling class that earned its ranks not from the interests of the people but rather from lineage, ownership or spilled blood. Our nation is quite unlike that, founded on the basis that our government is of, by, and for the people.

Because of this charge to take responsibility for our collective actions and well-being, our nation is only as good as what we put into it. Each of us, whether in office or not, has a series of duties to assume. Upfront that may sound like an enormous task. That is expected when one realizes that we control our own destiny. But, meaningful self-governance is not really that difficult. As a matter of fact, it’s easily accomplished through something I call the “four “E”s of good civics”.

The first “E” is: Educate yourself.

The old maxim is true. Knowledge is power. To be the most powerful citizen you can be it’s imperative that you learn about the world around you. Exercising your right to vote and paying your taxes requires more than just pulling the levers and writing the checks, respectively. You should know exactly why you are voting for an individual and exactly where your hard-earned dollars are going. This requires an understanding of government itself, as well as an awareness of social and economic issues. They’re all related and they all affect one another. Open your mind to that domino effect and what you can and will learn by reading the newspaper, listening to talk radio, browsing the blogs, or taking college courses might shock you. Freely range in your pursuit of knowledge, too. None of us are expected to be experts; it’s best to possess a little bit of knowledge in a little bit of everything.

The second “E” is: Educate others.

Take what you learn, and the conclusions you draw, and share them everyone you know. Never assume that your family and friends know what you do about certain issues. Not everyone makes a concerted effort to educate themselves on the issues. If you do it for them you might be that much-needed spark that gets their fire started. Give them the facts. Warm them up to your opinion. You can even agree to disagree. There is no more powerful a tool in getting the voting population out than educating them on the issues and framing that education in a way they understand, highlighting how what their government does affects them.

The third “E” is: Engage your elected officials.

Just as you educate other voters on the issues, do the same to your representatives. They are your voice in your town, county, state, or nation. As one of their constituents, your best interests are supposed to be their best interests. Let them know how proposed legislation will hurt or help you. Let them know how specific laws stifle your freedoms. Be yourself, pick up that phone or write a real letter. You’ll be surprised at how often you’ll be responded to. It’s rare a politician who won’t engage us in conversation, whether by phone or print. Over the years I’ve found our local, state, and congressional officials to be open to communication and quite often responsive to my requests.

The fourth “E” is: Elect the very best.

If you find that your elected official isn’t game to the third “E” and, therefore, doesn’t meet your needs or those of the community around you, let him go. We have a very powerful term limit in our possession: it’s called an “election”. If you’re dissatisfied, focus on the first two “E”s and get others to vote lock-step with you. If the incumbent is facing someone who’s a great candidate in terms of what he can bring to the table, elect him. Ignore party lines or the false beliefs of seniority. Similarly, if you think your elected official is the best there is, keep him in office. This is an extremely important “E”, for that person is supposed to be your voice for years at a time.

Once you’ve completed the four “E”s, repeat them. It’s a never-ending cycle, one that when it’s made a habit is one you will cherish. There’s very little more rewarding than being a good citizen.

Stop Subsidizing Abortions

From the 15 September 2008 Greater Niagara Newspapers

STOP SUBSIDIZING ABORTIONS
By Bob Confer

The right to life will always be one of the most contentious issues in American politics. It’s pretty much guaranteed that we will never come to a consensus on abortion, because for all the folks who, like me, are strongly against it there seem to be just as many people who support it.

Having said that, as long as there exists a Right-Left balance in most legislative houses and executive branches, we will always see the policy battles that occur on the floors of our national and state capitols, battles in which the pro-lifers long to block abortions and the pro-abortion crowd looks to improve access to embryocide. The discussions over abortion bills always turn to lengthy impasses, both sides debating the issue for hours at length, never coming to an agreement and repeating the discussion in the following legislative year. Because of those extreme philosophical divisions in the political world (and community), it’s quite rare that legislation from either side gets passed anymore. That’s why a bill like New York’s liberal Reproductive Health Act has been debated the past two years and will be again in 2009. It’s a never-ending cycle of redundancy.

These stalemates are also a reason why those who are against abortion must focus on reasonably-achievable goals and not pipedreams like overturning Roe v. Wade. We’re wasting our energy if we think we can take on the Supreme Court and win. Nothing even remotely close to a positive development has been achieved in the 35 years of activism since that infamous case.

The most critical and realistic inroads can be gained with a reformation of public spending.

Most people are unaware that considerable taxpayer funds are dedicated to abortions or that our home state is one of the guiltiest of this. New York is one of only 17 states in which abortions of convenience are funded by taxes. In any given year nearly 45 percent of all abortions in New York are paid for with state Medicaid dollars, the very same Medicaid that eats up more than half our County property tax bills. The final numbers for our “investments” are quite appalling: New York is the abortion capital of the world, with 1 in 10 US abortions occurring here, something to the tune of 165,000 per year. We’re helping to pay for almost 75,000 of them.

The amount of subsidization is just as bad at the federal level. Uncle Sam gives $335 million per year to abortion clinic/consultant Planned Parenthood. Admittedly, some of those dollars go towards education and counseling. But, most of those dollars (once again, our hard-earned money) are dedicated to abortions. Planned Parenthood performed nearly 290,000 of them in 2006.

In essence, the average New Yorker contributes to the extermination of 365,000 lives annually.

This doesn’t need to happen. Making change at the State level is the easiest of the battles. 33 states don’t fund abortions of convenience, choosing instead to fund only the abortions they feel are necessitated by rape, incest, or overwhelming medical emergency. New York can become one of them, by right-minded legislators introducing legislation which mirrors that of the other states.

The federal government has already taken steps to stop funding Medicaid-related abortions. Thanks to the Hyde Amendment of 1976, the federal government will not provide funding for abortions which do not meet the rape and incest provision. But, in the case of New York and similar states, Hyde ends up being a wash because the state uses its own Medicaid coffers. Regardless, the Hyde Amendment does set a precedent for the parameters of the public funding of abortions and a very good lawyer could make a legitimate claim that New York is operating outside the boundaries of the law.

Due to the nebulousness of Planned Parenthood, stopping the federal funding of it is a slightly more difficult yet still attainable goal. Leveraging the legal precedence of the Hyde Amendment along with public sentiment, the flow of monies could be shut right off. Such an effort does have its champions, too. In July, Congresswomen Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota offered a very compelling argument in Washington decrying the practice, an argument she plans to bring up in earnest in 2009 with many politicians planning to jump on that bandwagon.

This fight makes philosophical, fiscal, and legal sense. Longtime readers of this column know there are a lot of things I don’t want my tax dollars doing. Killing innocents before they can ever appreciate the world outside the womb has to rank right at the top of that list. Millions of people would probably feel the same way if they were aware that the government really does subsidize abortions.

Mexico's drug problem is ours, too

From the 08 September 2008 Greater Niagara Newspapers

MEXICO’S DRUG PROBLEM IS OURS, TOO
By Bob Confer

As a general rule of thumb, Americans are an extremely ethnocentric lot and care very little about other nations. Sure, every year our government provides untold billions of dollars in financial aid and military might to other countries, but, overall, our citizens are completely disconnected from the realities of the world we live in. Compared to the news media of other developed nations our news agencies provide very limited – and sometimes non-existent – coverage of global happenings unless they might have a significant short-term impact on America.

That way of thinking is not only unfortunate from a philosophical standpoint (why do we so devalue others?) but it can also cause some problems down the road when we finally do find out about the problem, which is typically after we’ve stepped right into the mess. Our shortsightedness has proven time and time again to be our undoing, our reactions being too little too late.

A current international issue with long-term implications that we’ve chosen to ignore is that of Mexico’s drug problem. To most Americans it’s a given that some of Mexico’s drug problem is our problem, too. The statistics do not belie this: According to the CIA, 90% of all cocaine used in the United States is trafficked through Mexico and Mexicans produce 10,000 tons of weed and 25 tons of heroin imported into the US. They might give us our drugs, but that’s where the shared problem ends as does our understanding of the issue. The drug culture that we obsess about here in the States pales in comparison to what’s going on in Mexico.

What sets their drug problem apart from ours is the frightening drug-related violence so pervasive in their urban areas. It’s nothing like the violence on our streets. What the gangs do in Mexico makes their American counterparts – the much-feared Latin Kings – look like choir boys. So far this year nearly 3,000 Mexicans are known to have had their lives taken by drug violence. The numbers are frightening, but it’s the sheer brutality of the violence that’s most unsettling. Perhaps as a means to send a message to their enemies, the drug traffickers typically beat their victims mercilessly for minutes or hours on end and then execute them in an extremely-exaggerated gangland style, most bodies ending up riddled with dozens of bullet holes. That’s almost pedestrian compared to recent acts of violence. Two weeks ago a pile of 12 bodies was found in Meridia, a city thought to have been spared by drug violence. Every one of those bodies was decapitated.

What these gangs are doing is not run-of-the-mill impersonalized violence. It’s personalized, direct-contact butchering, a sign that the traffickers are overcome with unparalleled amounts of evil and are as completely indifferent to humanity as Middle Eastern terrorists are. And, that is when you know that you’ve truly lost control of a situation; No police force or government agency has a chance of easily stopping gangs that far gone. As a matter of fact, the government is in their sights, too. These gangs routinely assassinate police officers and two weeks ago took the lives of two police chiefs in neighboring cities, only hours into their new jobs.

Americans need to keep a close eye on this breed of violence, not only because it’s occurring in a neighboring nation, but more so for the reason that the chances are very good this bloodshed will soon be happening on American soil. The drugs at the center of the killings are mostly going to the USA, brought by deliverymen bringing with them their new ultra-aggressive culture. Add to that the millions of Mexicans who have – and continue to – illegally emigrate into the states and you wonder when our Southwestern cities will be taken over by the blood-thirsty pigs.

It can even happen here in the North. Think back to 2005, when numerous Hispanics posing as migrant workers used a town of Lockport home as the regional hub for distribution of Mexican cocaine. They were armed to the teeth. You don’t think they would have done harm to anyone who crossed them or might have stumbled onto their drug ring? They probably did and we just don’t know about it.

We need to do something before it’s too late. What can we do? Sending troops to Mexico is not an answer. Strengthening our border security is. Getting illegals out of the US is. Ramping up inner-city police coverage is. Wiping the drug traders off our streets is. For now, though, it’s extremely important that we just pay attention to what’s happening in Mexico, understand the beast and ready ourselves for it. Frankly, if we don’t, all of Mexico’s drug problems will one day be ours, too.

Legalize stun guns in New York

From the 01 September 2008 Greater Niagara Newspapers

LEGALIZE STUN GUNS IN NY
By Bob Confer

We men will never understand what it means to be a woman. None of us can imagine what it feels like to be the object of animal-like sexual desire. None of us will ever know the fear of becoming the unwitting prey of much-stronger deviants who will satisfy their urges through rape or sexual assault.

Many women live with those fears, some consciously, others subconsciously. In today’s world, those feelings are justified. Every 2 minutes a woman is sexually assaulted somewhere in the United States. In a typical year over 275,000 women have their bodies and souls pillaged and that is only the known cases. Due to fear of the assailant and the unfortunate feelings of lessened self-worth following the assault or rape, more than 60% of all incidents go unreported. Therefore, it is not a stretch to say that nearly three-quarters of a million women are victims each and every year. It’s no wonder the numbers show that 1 out of every 6 women is sexually assaulted in her lifetime.

This happens because our government allows it to. Even though the general assumption is that women always win in civil and criminal cases this is not the case. Only 6% of rapists ever spend a day in jail. The others are left to wander the streets to commit such indiscretions again, be it against their past victims or against new ones. And, because of our laws - enforced by those same courts - women are left powerless against those free-roaming offenders. They have to go through hurdles to get a handgun, they can’t own stun guns and they can possess only a limited amount of pepper spray. The lawmakers are oblivious to the fact that even with the most advanced self-defense techniques there is very little that a 120 pound woman can do against a 225 pound man, naturally more powerful than she and made even more so by his hunger for her flesh. Our officials have done everything in their power to give the predator the advantage by taking all means of protection from the prey.

Thus, it makes perfect sense that we turn the tables by arming the prey and allow women to keep rapists at bay. This won’t be accomplished through handguns, at least not in New York State. The NYC-based liberal contingent - which controls Albany - is so against our natural rights and the Second Amendment that we will never see our gun laws lessened. They will only be strengthened. That leaves but one option, something of a middle ground for the pro-gun and anti-gun crowds: the legalization of stun guns.

New York is one of only 8 states in which stun guns are strictly prohibited. Considering how safe yet effective these weapons are there’s no reason that we shouldn’t legalize them. Undoubtedly the biggest reason for the strict gun laws in NY is that critics consider them to be lethal weapons. Stun guns, on the other hand, have become an extremely popular law-enforcement tool because they are decidedly non-lethal. They are very effective tools for stopping criminals and, by using brief 100,000-volt surges, they spare aggressors from the physical injury or death associated with guns and batons. In comparison to how often stun guns are used, death is extremely rare (although highly-publicized) and when it does occur, the “victim” (really the wrong word to use for a criminal) had a pre-existing health condition or was strung out on drugs. I’m sure a woman fighting for her life or health wouldn’t mind that very slim chance of taking the life of her attacker, a person who would like to ruin or take hers.

The safety of stun guns extends beyond that non-lethal status. The weapon’s electrical force is engaged only when the attacker comes into contact with the gun’s prongs. So, the other perceived consequences of handguns – stray bullets and innocent bystanders – never materialize because it’s a close-quarters weapon, one called into play when the situation has escalated to the point that the thug is in his victim’s personal space.

Overall, it’s the perfect weapon for women – and lawmakers - uncomfortable with the thought of someone carrying a gun. It’s portable, innocuous, and safe. Best of all, it works. A stun gun is a veritable pocket-sized health and life insurance policy for any and all women. It can give them – and their loved ones - the peace of mind they need when they’re running the bike paths or walking the streets at night. We need to empower women – not their predators - and legalizing stun guns may be the best way to do it.