The reality of Obama's WNY visit

From the 24 May 2010 Greater Niagara Newspapers

THE REALITY OF OBAMA’S WNY VISIT
By Bob Confer

Like a majority of Western New Yorkers, I listened intently to President Obama’s visit as it was broadcast on the local media outlets. Being a small business owner, I was very interested in what he had to say about the private sector since it appeared to be the sole reason for his trip (well, besides throwing a bone to Senator Gillibrand and giving her some much-needed name recognition by accepting her invitation). I thought the speech might have turned into one of those few times when I actually agree with him.

But, alas, I was let down.

Unlike most star-struck locals I was able to digest the content of his speech and look past the highly-publicized hysteria over the crass “hottie” comment and his choice of Duff’s chicken wings. Only in WNY could the President’s lunch be the lead-in to news coverage. And, people wonder why our local economy has been a mess for decades: When it comes to government we focus on unimportant inanity.

It was about half-way through Obama’s monologue that I was thinking the tide might be turning. He said something that I’ve been saying for years: “…government is not the true engine of job creation and economic growth in this country. Businesses are. Especially small businesses...” He followed that up by saying, “Government can’t guarantee a company’s success, but it can knock down the barriers that prevent small business owners…” It was there that he inserted one of his patented pauses. For that second I was getting excited, thinking he might finish the sentence with, “...from growing their businesses”, followed by a focus on taking down those government-made barriers that business owners find so oppressive (high taxes, over-regulation, etc.). But, instead, he burst my bubble and ended his thought with “…from getting loans or investing in the future.” He proceeded to speak at length about the importance of federally-guaranteed SBA loans in helping companies manage their inventory, pay workers or expand their facilities.

Many would find fault in that emphasis, rightly assuming that the role of financing the private sector is solely the responsibility of the private sector. The federal government should not be in the business of helping to extend loans to new and growing businesses and having the taxpayers assume their risk. It’s up to banks to do that alone.

His speech might have been meaningful in California or Nevada where many banks folded due to the collapse of the housing markets in those states, thus creating some lending fear and causing more businesses to lean on the SBA. But, it was extremely odd (if not incredibly poor planning by his staff) to push his government loan message in WNY. Buffalo-Niagara is the cradle of M&T and First Niagara Banks, two lenders that weathered the recession like no other. First Niagara has been expanding like it’s going out of style and M&T has been a very strong performer, one that was literally forced by the feds to take TARP funds. With solid, major players like that in the Buffalo market the SBA message isn’t so important.

The speech made evident that Obama’s brand of economic theory has some holes in it. He went on and on about the importance of capital being available to businesses and that its easy access would allow the economy to flourish. That’s not the case. Sure, money helps, but having all the money in the world available for borrowing is no good if the entrepreneur has no reason to borrow it and/or no ability to pay it back. He or she will only borrow money if it is known that the economy is active enough to induce existing and potential customers to spend their income – or credit - on the products or services of the company in question. Based on what’s been happening in the local/national/global economies since the close of 2007 the consumer demand just isn’t there, whether the consumer is an individual or a business. Businesses aren’t being prevented from borrowing. They just haven’t had the need to do so. That’s something that my banker has said time and again since the Great Recession began. He’s said his bank has the money and nobody wants it.

Supply and demand (Economics 101) is something that Obama needs to understand and obviously doesn’t based on the message of this speech and others. If he actually walked the walk and dedicated his agenda to his thought that businesses are the engine of job creation he would trim our government and not expand it every chance he gets. Then and only then can our economy grow.

Uncle Sam: Drug Lord

From the 17 May 2010 Greater Niagara Newspapers

UNCLE SAM: DRUG LORD
By Bob Confer

Many people were shocked when last week it was announced that US Army personnel have enrolled in substance abuse counseling for the use of opiates at record rates. This family of drugs, which includes morphine and heroin, has caused the number of counseled personnel to rise from 89 in 2004 to 529 in 2009.

According to the US Army the rise in counseling may be attributable to painkillers related to previous deployments or maybe even increased admission of abuse. Both claims are implausible, especially the latter, as it’s foolish to believe that in 5 years soldiers have become nearly 500 percent more likely to report an addiction to just one type of drug.

The truth of the matter is the Army spin doctors won’t tell us that use/abuse is up because of where the soldiers are and what they are being directed to do.

The spike in counseling coincides with the threefold increase in the number of personnel deployed to Afghanistan. It just so happens that Afghanistan is the world’s Garden of Eden for opium. In 2007, over 93 percent of all cultivated opiates originated in Afghanistan. A quarter of all farmland in the Helmand province alone is dedicated to opium poppies and the trade – controlled by the Taliban - supports 1.4 million households in Afghanistan. By Afghan standards the financial yield per acre is impressive: An opium farmer can earn $500 to $1,500 per acre and that’s after he has paid back his seed loan to the Taliban and paid the Taliban a 10 percent cut of his profits. If he were to grow wheat (which requires more work and more water unlike the drought-resistant poppy) his earnings would be about $320 per acre.

In their occupation of Afghanistan our forces have taken a hands-off approach to the opium farms. Whereas they would destroy them in the Western Hemisphere, they leave them alone in the East. The catch-phrase in the military is that they “tolerate” opium production. They say they do so because it’s the main livelihood for a majority of the Afghan farmers and were they to take away their cash crop and force them to take down their standard of living a few notches the Afghans would rebel and turn on all attempts to free (read “Westernize”) their society. Things are so out of whack that our soldiers have even been directed to guard numerous poppy fields with their lives. They are, in essence, fighting to keep heroin flowing to the United States or, as the statistics show, into their veins. These are things that our young soldiers definitely didn’t sign-up to do. To many of them, the guarding of the plants is morally and/or logically reprehensible. But, they must do as they are told.

This protection of the poppies proves that if anyone needs counseling it’s Uncle Sam as he seems to be suffering not from drug problems but rather from schizophrenia. On one hand, while abroad, our government enables and empowers the growth and distribution of opiates from the world’s Number One source. And then back home, it turns on its own people and incarcerates recreational drug users in droves, people who use the very drugs that were grown before our soldier’s eyes.

What could account for this hypocrisy, this dedicated effort to play both side of the fence in regard to the drug trade? It’s definitely not national security. Are overseas terror regimes so dangerous to Americans that we’re better off by sacrificing our citizens through a drug war that arrests 1.9 million of them per year? No. It’s probably money driving this whole thing. It’s blatantly obvious someone is profiting from this two-sided affair, and it’s not the American taxpayers who are funding the wars on terror and drugs. It’s the opium farmers and traders in Afghanistan who export $64 billion of the substance every year. It’s our own government (and the industrial complex and contractors that feed it) which spends an average of $34.9 billion per year on the Afghan occupation. It’s our federal and state governments who combined blow $50 billion annually on the drug war.

You can’t help but look at this mess through the eyes of a conspiracy theorist because it just doesn’t add up. By doing what it’s doing in the Middle East and in Middle America, the federal government is both drug lord and drug buster, fashioning a self-perpetuating war on drugs.

MINIMIZING DISSENT

From the 10 May 2010 Greater Niagara Newspapers

MINIMIZING DISSENT
By Bob Confer

Michael Bloomberg may be a billionaire and the mayor of New York City, but that doesn’t mean he can’t say some stupid things. In an interview held last week with Katie Couric of CBS News he speculated on the make-up of the mastermind behind the attempted car bombing of Times Square. Despite his city once being horrifically attacked by Islamic extremists, he said the car bomber was "homegrown, maybe a mentally deranged person or someone with a political agenda that doesn't like the health care bill or something." It was announced within minutes of the close of that news broadcast that the perpetrator was nothing of the sort. The suspect is Faisal Shahzad, a Muslim who was born in and was heading back to Pakistan.

To confidently assume that the bomber was a government critic – a Tea Party type of person - shows what Bloomberg and countless other elected officials think about the American citizenry. In their eyes, those who are critical of the government are deranged (and therefore can’t be taken seriously) and/or one step away from inflicting violence upon their fellow citizens and their government. Many politicians are guilty of thinking this way, from town halls to state houses to the White House.

Our past two presidents perfectly exemplify this rapidly growing disrespect that our government has for those critical of it. The role of the presidency is supposed to be something above such politicking and posturing, but, alas, Bush and Obama have made it acceptable to throw barbs at dissenters and viciously label them as anti-American and anti-human. Bush played that card ad naseum, he and his cronies painting those against the Patriot Act and other similar atrocities as classless individualists who value the trivialness of self over the supposed well-being of everyone else. Obama has followed suit, saying the same about those who are against bailouts, health care, and climate legislation.

The mainstream media, specifically at the national level, helps push this whole thing along. Katie Couric of course had nothing to say in response to Bloomberg’s outlandish comment. Anyone worth their salt as a reporter would have asked him to expound on it or broach the greater possibility of the suspect being a Muslim. She and her ilk also give Obama a free pass with his constant derision of naysayers and folks of the Right mindset (half the US population mind you) by at once fawning over his agenda and his methods. Also, the press is somehow influenced into splitting its priorities: They spew relentless negative coverage of peaceful Tea Party demonstrations yet haven’t touched the countless illegal immigrant protests that are a real threat to America, full of known lawbreakers who actually threaten – and commit - violence against our country and its legal citizens.

Tactics such as these have been used by the ruling class for as long as we’ve been a nation, though not in the volume and relentlessness that it is today. What accounts for this ever-growing purposeful silencing by minimization? It’s definitely because the government feels more threatened than ever before. In just the past ten years the Internet has made it extremely easy for people across the nation to connect with and educate one another on the goings-on in their communities and in Washington. And, not only is our electorate now more educated, but they’re a lot angrier, too. Just look at what’s fed their rage since the turn of the century: Domestic spying, 2 wars, inflation, higher energy costs, clean energy fiascos, a debilitating recession, trillions in giveaways to Wall Street, a public sector that won’t make sacrifices, new and higher taxes, and much more.

We have just cause to be mad and we have the right to do something about it. So, if you are a dissenter – which I hope you are - don’t be discouraged by those in power who look to silence you. Keep yourself informed on the issues. Keep complaining. Keep introducing new ideas. Above all, keep up the fight...somebody has to.

The story behind the column

From the 03 May 2010 Greater Niagara Newspapers

THE STORY BEHIND THE COLUMN
By Bob Confer

This week’s column is a milestone. Not only is it the 250th column that I’ve written for the Greater Niagara Newspapers, it also represents one more week that the GNN hasn’t been sickened enough by my bombastic rants to cut me.

Even though we’re nearly 5 years into this column, there are still a few readers who are new to – or still trying to figure out – this whole Bob Confer thing. They wonder what drives me to write every week.

I’d be lying if I said I didn’t enjoy writing op-eds, something which almost never came about despite a longtime desire to do so. In my days at Royalton-Hartland during the 1980s and early 1990s many teachers admired my writing skills and the zeal that I put into turning out documents. They pushed me to develop it into an art and gave me the encouragement and intellectual nourishment to do so. In my senior year I wrote a few opinion pieces for the school newspaper, the Echo, which I found to be pretty invigorating. It was something that I knew I wanted to pursue later.

Should things have gone as planned, I would have written columns for the school newspaper as a student at SUNY Brockport. But, I found myself in a program for nerds that allowed me to graduate in only 3 years. Looking to save money and rarin’ to get into the Real World, I did just that. It came at a price: Taking the largest course load possible every semester, I found myself without the time to write for the Stylus.

Missing out on that was something that left me feeling unfulfilled. Then came 2002. Wanting to improve my knowledge of accounting I started taking night classes at Brockport. While doing so, I thought that I should make up for what I missed and write a weekly column for the Stylus (ironically, I was busier than I was during my first stint as a college student). That brought me lots of fame – or rather “infamy” - on campus as my tirades did not gel with the stereotypical-but-true liberal ways of the college environment. I aggravated a lot of students and professors.

Looking to take those pleasures - the joys of writing and upsetting the apple cart – to the masses, I used the Stylus as a sort of resume to share with Lockport’s editor, Tim Marren. I thought the newspaper needed a regular columnist as, at the time, the only columnists were the newspaper’s reporters and editors. Many months earlier the newspaper lost its only “outsider” columnist (and the community lost a great man) when Clip Smith passed away. In my column proposal to Tim I noted the huge void that needed filling and that I would do as the Clipper did: Write for free. Tim either liked my work or the concept of no-cost filler and he welcomed me to the paper in 2005.

Since then, I’ve tried to stir the pot and educate the readers from my point of view. As much as I enjoy writing it pales in comparison to the joy of enlightening others. Government analysis dominates my topics and some folks consider me a conservative. More accurately, I approach the issues with a Libertarian mindset, demanding less government intrusion into our lives and pocketbooks. I strongly believe that if you take away the barriers to liberty you will allow our society and economy to flourish. I can’t help but attack our state and federal governments with vigor because they are holding us back. We face unsustainable growth in government spending, deficits and control. I worry about what my America will be as I age. I worry about what my kids’ America will be.


Some readers may find my approach to be a little hard-nosed. One fellow from Niagara Falls often tells me he thinks I hate our country. On the contrary; I love it. I understand what made it great, what could make it greater, and what is preventing it from becoming great. It’s that greatness, dear readers, that motivates me to motivate you.

New York's electrical bills: a taxing issue

From the 26 April 2010 Greater Niagara Newspapers

NEW YORK’S ELECTRICAL BILLS: A TAXING ISSUE
by Bob Confer

It has been well documented in this column that New York’s high electrical costs are a bane to our state’s health. They strip our already-beaten economy of crucial dollars that could be used to advance our businesses or improve our quality of life. Many companies that compete across state borders (such as mine) find themselves paying twice what their competitors from neighboring states are. Homeowners face similar problems with their power bills, forking-over $708 more per year than the average American.

It’s frustrating, and it always comes back to one simple question: “Why”?

The answer is just as simple. There are countless reasons for the higher costs in our utilities and the biggest, by far, is the usual one: Taxes.

This issue was expertly analyzed by the Public Policy Institute of New York State (PPI) in a white paper issued last month. The report, entitled “Short-Circuiting New York’s Recovery”, noted that energy companies and their customers in New York pay a staggering $6.367 billion for state and local taxes and assessments.

That assortment of fees is led by property taxes which collected $3.1 billion from energy producers and providers. It’s a burden rather unique to the Empire State as made evident by the collections of our West Coast doppelganger. When people think “bad government” California is right there at the top of the list with us. You would think that their property tax receipts would be eerily similar to ours. Not so. Theirs totaled only $786 million, a quarter of ours. Of course, the second and third largest individual taxpayers in New York State are power transmission and delivery firms.

The PPI found that other local taxes were as unusually painful. The state does not collect sales and use taxes on electricity, but that doesn’t prevent local municipalities and other government entities from imposing them on consumers. These fees amounted to $822 million last year. School districts are guilty of indulging in this practice and the report identified the Lackawanna district as one of the abusers, imposing a 7.75 percent sales tax on energy.

Another gigantic sponge is the gross receipts tax that attacks revenues and is collected by the State (2 percent on residential distribution only) and local governments (ranging from 1 percent in towns and villages up to 3 percent in the city of Buffalo). The various GRTs rake-in $654 million per year.

Last but not least, there were the numerous alternative energy charges which are collected from four different line items. Among them is the systems benefit charge that was exposed by this column in February. These various fees supposedly support the development of alternative energy (solar, wind, etc.) and subsidize private and public investments in energy-efficient lighting, motors and more. According to the study, that vast transfer of wealth amounted to $569 million.

There were many more relatively-smaller taxes noted by the PPI. But, as you can see, it’s pretty obvious the government will purloin money from anyplace it can and with some rather clandestine practices. It’s a sneaky – and dirty- way to run a government. Unfortunately, for as long as there have been corporate taxes and fees in the United States, people have been duped into going along with them. Elected officials always say that these fees and taxes are collected from “the evil corporations”. They fail to take it one step further and tell you that in order to pay their property taxes, green energy charges and the like, the power companies will maintain their profit through the only means possible: By passing the taxes onto us. We’re paying them one way or another.

So, what does this mean to New Yorkers? According to the PPI, 28.6 percent of our electrical bills are comprised of taxes. That equates to $614 per household, something quite close to the $708 over-payment mentioned earlier, the balance of which is comprised of other state-induced market factors.

Can it get any worse? Yes, it can…and it is. Due to new and bigger taxes, total tax receipts on electricity in New York grew by 15% in 2009 alone. And, that explosion occurred during the Great Recession when electrical consumption dropped significantly in both homes and businesses.

What can be done? I don’t know. Politicians aren’t stupid. They know what makes our electricity so expensive. Yet, they continue to choose that path of higher taxes. If you or I were as smart as they, we might just choose the path of lower taxes and set-up shop or buy a house in the Ohios and Tennessees of the world. God knows millions did before us.

The new class warfare

From the 19 April 2010 Greater Niagara Newspapers

THE NEW CLASS WARFARE
By Bob Confer

As we’ve seen throughout the long history of our great nation we can be a people divided. From the British sympathizers and revolutionaries of early America to the secessionists and nationalists of the Civil War to the hawks and doves of the Vietnam War, Americans have shown they can be split over significant socio-political issues.

Such public disagreements aren’t necessarily limited to matters of defense and war. Other divisions – internal and bloodless wars, if you will – have always occurred in communities across the United States. Class warfare – both the real and the assumed – has pitted the poor against the rich, the “haves” against the “have nots” and the middle class against the lower class.

After tens of decades of sameness, the face of class warfare is changing. The Great Recession has made it apparent that a new chasm exists amongst our populace. But, it’s not where you think.

Rather temporarily (and expectedly), the hatred for the ultra-rich reached its peak when the recession gained steam and bailouts were poured upon gigantic corporations and their executives who precipitated the collapse of the economy yet found themselves rewarded with extravagant bonuses. But, as the recession lingered and the bitter taste of those events subsided and became old news, the unemployed and the underemployed found a new target: Those who work in the public sector…not just the politicians but every one who punches a clock or earns a salary from a municipality, school district, or federal office.

It’s common knowledge that those individuals have been spared the struggles that befell private sector breadwinners. Since the recession began in December of 2007 nearly 8 million jobs have been lost in the manufacturing and service industries. Thanks to stimulus packages that have served only to prop up governments, government employment gained a net of 110,000 jobs.

That disparaging gap in job security has fed the envy monster that exists in all human beings. Many people who work in or became unemployed by the private sector now look at their public sector friends and family with disdain, seeing them as leading a life that goes on unaffected by unemployment woes. Other factors beyond job security alone contribute to that jealousy, including the public sector’s benefits which include many things that have been cast aside by businesses during the recession like raises, health care and pensions.

That hatred only grows stronger as the recession goes on. There’s no light at the end of the tunnel for many industries, confounding job seekers. For most it looks like the one (or no) income household will be the norm for quite some time. So, they see themselves as the “have nots” and the government workers as the “haves.” This unfortunate and derisive view of their neighbors is fed by the hate speech that comes from talk radio and blogs that paints them as the enemy.

It’s a dangerous way of thinking. How soon will it be before parents start outright hating their children’s teachers before they ever get a chance to know them because they are, in their eyes, “overpaid leeches”? How soon will it be before the stressed, jobless families who need social services turn on their providers, seeing them as “fat cats”?

It’s unfortunate, for a good number of public sector employees didn’t join their ranks for the pay and benefits. I’ve never known a cop to risk his life every day for the money. No, he does it because he wants to make a difference. I’ve never known a social worker to work with a broken family because she likes her pension. No, she, too, does it to make a difference. The same could be said for teachers, border agents, and others of responsibility.

How do we temper this wealth envy that pits friends against one another? Private sector workers can start by not hating the person. Instead, hate the unaffordable and unrealistic employment system that was created and run by politicians and bureaucrats. Get those in power to change it. Public sector workers can help by making accommodations and sacrifices. When their bargaining units fail to make concessions or threaten inactivity at the very mention of the suspension of a guaranteed raise they are only begging for others to despise them.

Class warfare is two-sided affair and it takes both sides to end this ugly, divisive practice before it gets out of hand and divides our communities.

Nimbies on the loose

From the 12 April 2010 Greater Niagara Newspapers


NIMBIES ON THE LOOSE
By Bob Confer

Six years ago we put serious thought into expanding our North Tonawanda facility. Prior to finding a warehouse in Wheatfield we spent a considerable amount of time and money on engineering and the permitting process in regard to the expansion of our headquarters. Following one of the numerous council meetings a city resident came up to my father and said, “I wouldn’t care at all if you and your employees left town.”

That’s a pretty shocking statement, especially in North Tonawanda where there are so few large employers in what was once a manufacturing boomtown. You would think that people would love to have an employer as a part of their community. Sadly, that’s not always the case. Not in NT. Not in any city or town, regardless of size. Fortunately, in most situations, it’s only a minority of residents who decry the arrival or expansion of a corporation. You’ll typically find that a vast majority of people are tickled pink to see construction, jobs, and tax revenues coming to their neighborhood.

But, it’s always the small band of naysayers - the nimbies - who ruin it for everyone, businesses or residents alike, by delaying and even preventing development. The practitioners of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) attack new projects with vigor in public and the courtrooms, even those that have been intelligently and smartly done so as to minimize the impact on the environment and the community. Despite their totally obvious reasons for protest (they don’t want to look-at/experience the business or they see it as a competitor to theirs), the nimbies really stretch the law and create legal hurdles so consuming of time, effort and money that many prospective companies just give up.

Surprisingly, the Recession (and its millions of jobs lost) has not tempered this mindset. The nimbies are working their black magic everywhere it seems.

In both North Tonawanda and Lockport groups of concerned citizens have slowed the construction of Super Wal-Marts. They seem to forget that they live in a city (where retail operations are expected to occur) or, in the case of Lockport, that the former Mall (the proposed site) actually used to be a shopping center. They tout zoning laws and request outlandish accommodations while spreading propaganda labeling Wal-Mart as “evil” because they sell nothing but Chinese goods. Do nimbies not realize that more goods could be manufactured in America if people like them didn’t make it nearly impossible to do so?

You also have the Gasport nimbies who aren’t very welcoming to Niagara Metals. They work under the guise of protecting the Red Creek watershed but it just so happens those involved with the lawsuit against the town live in view of the site which once was, by the way, a commercial establishment (the base for a working quarry) and was recently designated by the townsfolk as the corridor in which Gasport business should be done.

Then, there’s Middleport and Lockport where you have nimbies who complain about outdoor concerts to Mayors Maedl and Tucker. The killjoys are oblivious to the fact the entertaining concerts bring countless visitors who come cash in hand, keeping the locals employed.

Those incidents are just the tip of the iceberg; nimbies are everywhere. They must be so independently wealthy or unusually secure in their careers (regardless of the economy) that they can feel comfortable attacking new jobs in their communities. Truth be told, most are selfish and don’t care about the 12,000 jobless in Niagara County.

I can discount these nimbies because it’s not like I am unaffected by development. I live next door to a dairy farm. A decade ago when I moved into my home my neighbor had very few head of cattle. Now, the number of cows is in the hundreds. With that comes manure and lots of it. Needless to say, the smell is pretty ripe. But, you know what? I like it. It smells like gold to me: It means my neighbor is doing well, he’s employing people and he’s feeding countless families with his products. It makes me feel good to see – and smell - real economic activity taking place right next to my house.

It’s ironic: I accept that manure with open arms, but the bull that the nimbies spread really turns my stomach.

Bring back the nighthawks

From the 05 April 2010 Greater Niagara Newspapers


BRING BACK THE NIGHTHAWKS
By Bob Confer

The common nighthawk is an interesting creature. At just over 9” in length, a little bit smaller than a blue jay, it is a medium-sized bird that can be seen at dawn or dusk, flying at great heights in search of the insects on which it dines. You may have seen nighthawks before and probably remember them quite well: The brown birds can be frightening at first glance as they look almost like giant bats in flight. They are quickly told apart from the flying mammals by the white stripes on their wings and the call of “peent” that escapes their beaks.

Unfortunately, the common nighthawk is quickly becoming anything but common. The NY Department of Environmental Conservation calls it “a specie of special concern,” an animal the population of which merits attention and consideration. An argument could easily be made that nighthawks deserve to be classified as “threatened” as they are in imminent danger of becoming endangered in the Empire State.

It wasn’t always like this. Historically, it was a very common bird, nesting on rocky areas so common to New York’s vast shorelines along and in our borders. But, as Man conquered the wilderness they built homes on the nighthawks’ nesting sites and, making matters worse, they brought with them domestic cats which wandered about and/or became feral, in turn feasting on the ground-nesting birds. Nighthawks soon became a rare sight. They saw a resurgence in the early 1900s and actually became quite abundant in urban areas until only recently, adjusting to the growing human population by living atop buildings – skyscrapers, apartments, schools and factories – that had flat, tar and gravel rooftops which provided fine places to nest. The gravel most commonly used was prefect for the birds’ needs and, save hawks and crows, the high rooftops were predator-free.

But, the times have changed and so have roofing technologies. More and more contractors and maintenance personnel are going with rubberized, PVC, or stone ballast roofs that - through no intentional fault of the roofers - have eliminated the gravel so key to the birds. Because of that, nighthawk populations have seen a drastic decline in recent decades. The NYS Breeding Bird Atlas that was compiled in the years 1980 to 1985 noted countless nests throughout the state, especially in urban areas. The most recent version of the Atlas (which uses data amassed from 2000-2005) shows a pitifully small number of nests. The difference between the two studies is quite disturbing.

This trend does not have to mean that they’re a lost cause destined for near-extinction in New York. Commercial property owners and government facility managers can easily help bring back the nighthawks by turning their building into a home for our avian friends. You will need a large flat rooftop, something in size of at least 6,500 square feet as that’s what nighthawks most prefer. Put down some gravel on the roof. Stone ballast won’t cut it; it’s much too large. Nighthawks need peastone, wee pebbles with a diameter of 3/8 to ½ of an inch. The stones should be laid down in a 9-foot by 9-foot patch that is about 2 stones deep. An area that size will require 6 to 8 sheetrock buckets of peastones.

You could just set that atop the roof but it is strongly suggested by some birders that you build a border around the stones to prevent the gravel from moving around (which also helps in alleviating the fears of Maintenance) and you should first lay down some landscaping fabric to protect the roof. Before commencing with your project you must also be cognizant of other factors like shade, worker traffic and drainage. Among the best resources available for such projects is the Project Nighthawk guidebook available at: http://nhbirdrecords.org/bird-conservation/library/Nighthawk-handbook.pdf

If such a deed interests you, you still have time: In Western New York the site should be in place by May 1, the approximate day the migrants return. By building a nighthawk site at your place of work, whether you’re a businesswoman looking to do something for the environment or a teacher wanting to educate his pupils about the world around us, you can easily have an impact on one of nature’s creatures that so desperately needs our help.

Calculating the cost of health care

From the 29 March 2010 Greater Niagara Newspapers

CALCULATING THE COST OF HEALTH CARE
By Bob Confer

The topic du jour for the past week-plus has been the House of Representative’s passage of health care reform. People have been wondering since (and well before that) what they’ll be paying for the health care of others. Before we delve into that it’s important to figure out what you’re paying now in that regard. Grab you most recent property tax bills and tax returns.

First, let’s look at your county/town bill. Refer to the section that reads County Tax. In Niagara County 54 percent of that total pays for Medicaid, the insurance provided to 9 percent of the population who we are told cannot afford medical care. Write down that value which, frighteningly, is more than half of your payment to the County.

Next, move on to your 1040. Determine your federal taxes paid. 20 percent of federal spending goes to Medicaid, Medicare (health insurance for the old) and CHIP (health insurance for the young). So, multiply your federal tax by 0.20. Set the number aside.

Now, determine what you paid to the State of New York. 30 percent of that will go to Medicaid. Tally that up with the numbers you came up with at the local and federal levels and calculate that as a percentage of your total income. I did, and I made the grim discovery that my wife and I had 6.1% of our household income put towards the care of others.

But realize that’s not all of it. Don’t forget that you’re also forced to pay for the health care of nearly all government employees and retirees. If you wanted to figure out what that percentage is you’ve got your work cut out for you, delving through the benefits packages at every level of government from your town to your school to Albany and Washington, DC. It might make that 6.1 percent a devilish 6.66 percent (which would be quite fitting). It may not be a perfect calculation, but it’s pretty darn close.

If you aren’t one of the aforementioned public servants you (and/or your employer) had to pay for your health care. That is, if you could afford to after you paid for everyone else’s first. If you did receive job-based health insurance you probably had to pay a portion of the premium, be it 25, 50, or 75 percent. Depending on the employer contribution and your plan, that could be a pretty penny. Typical insurance packages in WNY are just under $4,000 for single, a smidge under $7,500 for double, and in excess of $11,000 for family coverage. Statistics show that the average family that pays for health coverage puts 22% of its household income towards it.

Now, add your premium payments to what you’re paying for others’ insurance (the quality of which, by the way, probably far rivals what you get from your insurance) and you’re looking at an incredibly massive portion of your family’s income being dedicated to health care…yours and that of someone you don’t even know. And people wonder why most homes can’t survive without two breadwinners.

That value is destined to go up – not down! – with the passage of health care reform. Don’t let Congress fool you when they say the “evil” health insurance, medical equipment and pharmaceutical companies – not you - will foot bill. Those corporations aren’t super-powered like the government; they can’t create money out of thin air to pay the new taxes. They have to get it from somewhere or someone: Namely their customers, you and me.

It won’t be cheap, either. 32 million people will have to become insured. About 25 percent more – approximately 40 million Americans - are already on Medicaid and look at how much that costs us. Just suppose the numbers extrapolate nicely and our new-found payments for this so called “reform” are three-quarters of what we’re paying for Medicaid now. Come 2014 we’ll be paying another extra 3 percent of our income to cover those who were just granted insurance through Obama’s and Congress’s benevolence (using our money), bringing the grand total to almost 10 percent of your earnings.

So, in a few years, if you aren’t one of those who have their health care provided by the government through employment or subsidy you might as well say that one-third of your hard-earned dollars will be spent on health care. It’s enough to give someone a heart attack, so thank goodness you’ll have coverage!

Cell phones are not a right

From the 22 March 2010 Greater Niagara Newspapers

CELL PHONES ARE NOT A RIGHT
By Bob Confer

Numerous times in our young marriage The Wife and I have had discussions about our cell phone packages. We’ve debated at length the minutes, data plans, and equipment that best suit our needs and, more importantly, our budget.

Conversations such as those play themselves out in millions of households across the United States. It’s a common subject because most people agree that, unless their job requires their use, cell phones are luxury items. Mankind has survived for eons without these devices which have only relatively recently become mainstream in their usage. Many rightly know that if something must be cut in a family’s budget there’s a good chance their calling plan will be the first to go. After all, telephones are nowhere near as important to our well being as food, water, and shelter.

Even though the common and fiscal senses dictate that cellular phones aren’t a necessity there are still plenty of people in government – and many more who are subservient to them – who believe that they are. They even go so far as to believe that they are a human right and everyone deserves one.

Unfortunately, it’s we, not they, who are paying for that misguided belief.

For the source of your donation (albeit a forced one) look at your most recent phone bills, cellular or landline. Locate the line item that says “Federal USF Surcharge.” A typical home phone may show a charge of just over $1. Family packages on cellular devices could show something in excess of $2. Business phones, depending on traffic, face higher fees. As an example, in our busiest months my company pays about $25. Now, just imagine the collections from millions of families and businesses. It works out to be about $9 billion per year.

The aforementioned surcharge (read “tax”) is for the Universal Service Fund, a behemoth of public benevolence created by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Fund has four distinct responsibilities. The government uses it to temper phone charges in high cost areas, provide affordable telecommunications services to economically disadvantaged schools and libraries, aid rural health care providers in their ability to communicate and, last but not least, provide free or discounted phone service to low-income individuals (to the tune of just under $1 billion annually).

It’s the latter that drives the countless ads you see on TV or the Internet from companies like SafeLink Wireless and Assurance Wireless that tell people they can get free cell phones that come equipped with 60 to 200 free minutes per month, depending on the carrier and the state. Families who fall under certain income thresholds (135% of the poverty rate) or receive public housing assistance or Medicaid are eligible for the phones, fully funded by your taxes.

Many folks on both the Left and Right have no qualms – or limited ones – about helping others get through tough times with home and health subsidies. But cell phones, that’s another story. These free phone programs have been met with justified protest in many states.

But, alas, the program subsists because of concerns like “discontinue the program and what will the poor people do?” To them, I pose the simple answer, the right answer. They need to do as the rest of society and if times get tough do without the cell phone. Do like we did 15 years ago before this program was ever conceived: Rely on a landline (whether it’s theirs, their friend’s or family’s) or a payphone. They could even rewind to the 1980s and get a CB radio. They worked just fine as the mobile communication device of choice back then (they were that era’s cell phone) and for a one-time investment equal to a month’s telephone bill someone can outfit their car or home with a quality set-up. As someone who still keeps a CB in truck and home I can attest to their timeless usefulness.

Basically, when it comes to non-essential items, you make accommodations to deal with life’s inconveniences. As singularly important as we all think we are, there are really very few people who need to be in constant contact or have the ongoing accessibility afforded by a cell phone. They are a modern luxury and, to many users, nothing more than a toy. It sure doesn’t sound like something we should be spending our tax dollars on.

Think about it: As you struggle to pay your family’s cell bill month to month, do you take any consolation in the fact that you’re subsidizing someone else’s ability to gab with their friends free of charge?

I didn’t think so.