LET CAPITALISM DECIDE THE MINIMUM WAGE

For weeks now politicians in New York have debated ad nauseum Assemblyman Sheldon Silver’s proposal to increase the minimum wage in New York State by $1.25. The argument — whether to maintain the status quo or strive for $8.50 per hour — is wasteful political rhetoric in itself, for the determination of the wage scale is best left to the free markets.

Such an approach would not be without controversy, for most people nowadays seem to have a very misguided concept of labor, perceiving it to be a right and not a privilege. They overlook, or fail to understand, that employment is in itself a very basic economic transaction. It is no different than making a purchase at a grocery store. It’s a simple trade — one where the worker willingly gives to his employer, in exchange for monetary and benefit compensation, the use of his physical and mental services. As with any economic activity, either party can prevent ongoing transactions, whether such termination is based on dissatisfaction with what the exchange garners or on the influence of supply and demand in the micro- and macro-markets.

Those factors pit employer against employer in an openly free market when it comes to the acquisition of satisfactory or superior human talent. To be successful in the labor market, just as in the marketplace for goods and services, a business must offer to its target a package that makes it attractive to that party. In this case, the target is the potential worker and, if a business hopes to secure a good workforce, the employer must offer a wage rate and benefits package (insurance, vacations, etc.) that makes his offer competitive within the geographical region or the specific job sector (manufacturing, food service, healthcare, retail, etc).

Over time, competition collectively creates higher wages and better working conditions because employers must provide average or better wages and working conditions in order to be successful at the next level of the economic equation — the end product. If a business does not pay a wage commensurate to that of neighboring employers, the end product (be it goods or services) will suffer because the employees acquired at the lower wages are often outliers of young age or workers with suspect work ethic who were unemployable — or not sustainably employable — or unmotivated to excel in their duties. Poor quality of work can subsequently harm the health of that business — often irreparably — because customers are dissatisfied with their purchase.

Under capitalism the strong survive (and that’s why it’s far and away the very best economic system ever created).

Ironically, the minimum wage acts as a disincentive to higher wages. Many employers in low-return, low-cost sectors (like fast food or packing) have no reason to compete for workers by increasing wages or bettering work conditions because they know exactly what their competitors are paying: the legal minimum wage. It gives them a sense of certainty and a comfort level that keeps whole industries at or near the bottom salary.

Likewise, employees know that the minimum wage will provide a basic level of income, and they don’t strive to be competitive, either to get raises from their employers to seek higher wages elsewhere. As long as the state or the federal government guarantee them a steady — and often growing — income level with minimal betterment of self or the attempted attainment of a better, harder job with greater responsibility and earnings, they’ll skate by on the government’s forced benevolence. Take away the crutch, and they’ll be forced to improve themselves.

Simply put, the minimum wage is destructive to the economy in the long-term by eliminating competition from the acquisition of employment by workers and the businesses that pay them. It ultimately creates an overall lower wage by cancelling out the productive nature of capitalism that forces participants to be the best they can be. If companies were left to do their own thing — and whole classes of the workforce were properly motivated — one can logically assume the actual minimum wage would exceed the government’s $7.25 standard.

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


This originally appeared in the 14 February 2012 The New American at:

http://thenewamerican.com/opinion/950-bob-confer/10863-let-capitalism-decide-the-minimum-wage

USING POLICE DEPARTMENTS AS TAX COLLECTORS

America is unique in that most policing is done at the local level by county, city or village officers. In nearly all other countries the police forces are managed by the national government. That approach affords Americans a greater sense of liberty than other societies because our police are controlled by municipal governments and, therefore, the people -- our Constitutional Republic in practice. Accordingly, our police are closer and more in tune to the people they are empowered to serve and protect than they would be were they to report to a higher, distant power less in tune with the needs of the residents and more intent on the maintenance of power than the maintenance of freedom. Because of that, we have far and away the most trusted peace officers on the planet.

But, that trust in the police can easily be ruined (and has been) by unsavory local governments that choose to abuse the police power that they posses. Rather than relying on their police departments to guarantee our liberties and ensure that no one infringes on the rights of others, they use the cops as nothing more than uniformed tax collectors. That is, they challenge them to over-police the minutiae of local code and thusly reap considerable revenues by issuing tickets galore.

Think about such locales as Middleport or North Tonawanda where historically and even today passer-bys and motorists – not hardened criminals - are the primary targets and it is not uncommon for so-called “speeders” to be ticketed for 2 miles over the speed limit in confusing speed zones such as the 45 to 40 switch on Route 31 in Middleport purposely created to induce speeding. Likewise, in the Lumber City, River Road saw its long-held 55 mile speed limit drop last year, so the city (and state) used the confused commuters – driving 55 by habit – as cash cows until the constant traffic stops reformed the masses.

There’s also the village of Brockport, where they are known - even on a snow-free 50-degree November day - to ticket every vehicle parked on what is, for that day, determined to be the wrong side of the street as village laws account for snowplowing that might theoretically occur during that period in snowier times. There, they take advantage of thousands of part-time residents (college students) and those who come to town to visit them, all of whom will be unlikely to contest or barter down their tickets in court.

This all too common approach to bad policing initiated by Village Fathers can vividly be seen in practice in Alfred in Allegany County. A few weeks ago the Alfred Police Department released its annual report for 2011. It indicated that DWI arrests were half of what they were in 2008, that felonies were half 2010’s total, that misdemeanors dropped by 13%, and the Alfred police received 1,000 fewer calls for service than the year before. Those numbers caused village officials to wonder, “Should we add more police officers?”

Huh? All the statistics showed that the current staffing levels have improved the quality of life and that the calls for help dropped dramatically (a great indicator of peace), yet the municipal government somehow thinks it necessary to increase the ranks to drive up arrests and tickets. That not only assumes that there must be a lot more guilty people out there, but it also assumes that there are countless dollars for village coffers left untouched.

These greedy practices by small governments ruin the trust that people have in their police. How often have you heard someone complain about the cops in their town or a community they frequent because of these revenue-generating tactics? That’s a sad, unfortunate outlook to have for our sheriffs, constables, and deputies who are arguably the most important public servants in America. They are there for us: To protect us from society’s degenerates, to aid people in need, and offer our communities a sense of protection that most individuals cannot come close to providing for they and their families. They guarantee our liberties and ensure our freedom, allowing us to safely tend to our pursuits.

We need to support our local police and regain the full faith that the citizenry once had in them. To do that, we need to hold our local officials accountable and demand that they stop using them as a means of access to a limitless revenue stream.

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 February 2012 Greater Niagara Newspapers

THE INGENUITY OF THE GREATEST GENERATION

Last week Sunday marked the birth date of my grandfather Ray Confer who, along with my father, had founded Confer Plastics. Had he been alive he would have turned 90. On that day I had spent some time pondering some of his many inventions, especially his most ubiquitous, something we all use in our day-to-day lives: the living hinge.

Ray designed the living hinge in the early 1960s as a means to more efficiently make plastic tool cases. The addition of metal hinges always added cost to the final product due to materials and assembly and such hinges always placed limitations on overall product design. So, Ray came up with an ingenious way to eliminate the metal hinges by molding a plastic hinge in process as a part of the case itself, rather than as an add on.

Basically, the living hinge is a thin section of plastic that connects two halves of a part to keep them together and allows the part to be opened and closed over and over again. It can be found in toolboxes, tackle boxes, and those plastic clamshells that are used as takeout containers and storage boxes for produce; Ray’s invention is everywhere. This was just one of his many patented ideas and countless more that went unpatented and became norms within the plastic industry and other manufacturing sectors.

His nearly limitless ingenuity got me thinking about how special he and his generation were in regard to engineering and innovation.

The Greatest Generation left an indelible mark on America from the experiences they shared during the Great Depression, the Second World War, the Korean War, and the Golden Era that followed. But, they also introduced so much advancement to us in what was, comparatively, such little time. In a few decades they pushed the limits of technology (and therefore humanity) to extremes that would have been deemed unapproachable just a few years earlier.

Men like my grandfather and other Western New York geniuses like Wilson Greatbatch and Herbert Hauptman devised so many things that dominate our lives today, as did their peers in the local aerospace industry who helped put man into space and then onto the moon. Their compatriots developed transistors, microchips, and the foundations for today’s computer technology.

It can be said without any exaggeration that the generation preceding the Baby Boomers featured the greatest and largest collection of highly-achieving thinkers, designers, engineers, and scientists ever assembled at one time. Most all them lived and worked in anonymity, outside the boundaries of fame, unlike the previous but smaller collections of bright minds of greater renown like our Founding Fathers, the scientists and artists of the Renaissance, and the Greek philosophers.

Who knows if we’ll ever see a peer group even remotely close to the creative intellect of the Greatest Generation. In recent decades it so seems that technology and science aren’t growing at the leaps and bounds they once were under the watch of today’s oldest seniors. Sure, there have been developments in efficiency and communication, but where is the next big thing that’s not a phone or tablet? Why did space travel stall at the Space Shuttle? Why is solar energy still so inefficient? Why are people still starving around the world? Why are we still so dependent on oil?

If Baby Boomers and my generation were even half as talented as their parents and grandparents, those questions – and more - would have been sufficiently answered by now. But, we’re not and chances are none of our heirs will be. The Greatest Generation is known as that for a reason. They set the bar high and it’s difficult for just anyone to attain their heights.

But, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. They set a good example – no, a great example – for us. There’s a lot we can learn from them – not only what they did, but how and why they did it – and that should serve as a template for success and progress far into future generations.

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 February 2012 Greater Niagara Newspapers

YOUR HOME IS A BAD INVESTMENT

Common sentiment is that real estate –specifically the home - is one of the best investments that a family can make. For most of the country that’s true. Not here, though. New York is one of the few states in the Union in which real estate is not a wise investment. That’s because, simply put, our property taxes are too high. The onerous amalgamation of local, county, and school taxes strip real estate of any future returns it might have because your payment of these taxes must be considered a part of the investment in your home.

In Niagara County the median home value is $95,800 and the property tax burden on said home is $2,800. Suppose someone buys that home as a starter home and hopes to sell it off in a decade or two. To come out even, based on taxes-paid alone, he would have to sell that home for $123,800 after 10 years or $151,800 after 20. That’s completely impossible in the Buffalo-Niagara region.

Making matters worse, that basic analysis makes two major assumptions. One, taxes won’t rise in every one of those years. As we’ve recently seen, even the tax cap can’t stop them. And, two, the property owner will put absolutely no money into that home for remodeling or repairs. Those unaccounted-for factors – 100% guaranteed to happen – have the lack of a payback on housing set in stone.

This is a uniquely-NY problem. Property taxes in the Empire State are 57% higher than the national average. For every $100 other Americans pay, we pay $157. And that’s the average; let’s look at one of the extremes. I know someone from Tennessee who pays a paltry $660 per year in property taxes for his 2,800-square-foot suburban new-build. In comparison, my coworker who lives in North Tonawanda has a similar home for which he pays $6,800 in taxes annually. Another coworker pays $5,480 on his like-sized abode in Amherst. Think about it: they will have paid $68,000 and $54,800 in property taxes, respectively, after just 10 years. They will never make that up in resale value. Never. But, the man from Tennessee will for sure; what he pays in taxes over 1 decade is even less than what the North Tonawanda resident pays in 1 year. For him, and many other Americans, it makes complete sense to invest in real estate, be it housing or land, because their taxes are so low.

This takes on greater meaning since we’ve all lost faith in the stock market because of the Great Recession and the continued fiscal woes in Europe. As 401(k)s and pensions have plummeted, we’ve all looked for other options to save for our retirements and our heirs, things like hard assets such as gold or real estate. Only in New York State is the latter an even poorer investment than a down market. Main Street, NY is absolutely no better an option than Wall Street, NY. It’s depressing because our homes are the single largest investment that we will ever make in our lifetimes.

Let’s put this into historical perspective. A tea tax - but a pittance - was the straw that broke our colonial backs and jumpstarted the American Revolution. Our property taxes are far more extravagant. Will that someday ignite that same fire of change in New Yorkers? Let’s hope so, and soon. We’ll never be a rich people as long as the status quo is maintained in local and state leadership.

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 February 2012 Greater Niagara Newspapers

OBAMA IS NOT AN INSOURCER

As an industrialist, I’ve taken an interest in President Barack Obama’s insourcing kick which has occurred over the past few weeks, highlighted by his weekly radio and Internet address on January 14 and a speech delivered in the East Room of the White House a few days earlier (I’m certain that he’ll talk about it during this week’s State of the Union Address, too). By "insourcing," the President refers to a reversal of the outsourcing trend by American manufacturers. Some of them, though few in number, are bringing jobs back to the United States.

Obama, of course, has been quick to take credit for the insourcing, citing his economic policies while ignoring the true reasons behind the shift in these scant few jobs. One reason is capitalistic decision-making based on a wide range of criteria including the continued collapse of the European Union (which causes entrepreneurs to abandon that market and return to a focus on American consumers). Another reason is the ongoing productivity lapses in developing nations such as China which frustrate expansion and retention of overseas factories.

It should be noted that President Obama could be responsible for the some of the insourcing due to one of his tactics. Our exports have become more attractive to foreign nations thanks to the continued weakening of the U.S. dollar, as the unaccountable public-private partnership known as the Federal Reserve caters to Washington’s extravagant spending by printing more money at will, out of the ether.

Regardless of export gains, that’s a dangerous monetary policy. Most of my manufacturing peers agree that Obama’s other economic policies — those having been initiated and those under consideration — are just as dangerous and have inhibited the growth and forward planning of their companies (that is, unless they are in the wind and solar industries, which have been afforded special favor — corporate welfare — by the Obama administration). If anything, the administration has continued to drive production employment away from America and the outsourcing losses far exceed the insourcing gains.

This is more than something anecdotal; there is proof to be found in the numbers. The White House points out that 334,000 manufacturing jobs have been created in the United States over the past two years. While this may be exciting to Big Government and the mainstream media, the stats are far from something that Obama should revel in. The reality is that the manufacturing sector in America supports 2.2 million fewer jobs than it did in November, 2007 just prior to the recession. Manufacturing employment remains at its lowest levels in 70 years.

The reasons behind those haunting numbers — and actual proof that America has become increasingly unattractive to manufacturers — can be found in the statistics provided by both the Manufacturing Institute and the Manufacturers Alliance for Productivity and Innovation (MAPI). They have produced reports which look at the structural costs of doing business in the United States — costs that include factors directly influenced by government intervention in the free markets.

In their 2008 report, produced the year in which Barack Obama was elected to the presidency, it was discovered that American businesses faced a 17.6-percent cost disadvantage versus nine industrialized countries featured in the study, among them Mexico and China, our biggest threats to manufacturing. Fast forward to late 2011 — nearly three years into Obama’s reign — and the most recent study shows that the cost disadvantage grew to 20 percent. Realize that this is not a 2.4-percent decrease in competitiveness; to put it in proper mathematical terms, it’s a 13.6-percent decrease in our competitiveness. A 13.6-percent collapse is nothing for the administration to be proud of and certainly no incentive to insource.

What accounts for a cost structure that so repulses the participants of a global economy?

One factor outlined in the MAPI study is corporate tax rates. It is noted in the report that while the combined federal and state tax rate has remained unchanged in America since 1997, the rest of the super powers in the industrialized world have seen theirs drop at least once in that same time period. The tax advantage for foreign locales is now 8.6 percent more beneficial than that of the United States, placing us second-worst behind Japan among the nations studied. When the study was first launched in 2003, the foreign advantage was “only” 5.6 percent.

Obama has done nothing to correct this. As a matter of fact, he wants to head in the other direction, as made evident by his constant talk of making individuals and corporations pay “their fair share” (which really means “higher taxes”). He has, though, alluded to promoting his insourcing crusade — as fake and contrived as it may be — by extending tax breaks to businesses which bring jobs back to America. That speaks volumes about his lack of leadership and even an elementary understanding of capitalism. By failing to address the destructive nature of our tax structure, he will reward insourcing but still maintain the incentive for outsourcing. If he were to decrease our tax rate overall (rather than selectively doing so to play favorites), he would make outsourcing (and thusly insourcing) a non-issue by preventing the exodus of jobs in the first place.

The report also shows an ongoing loss in the area of employee benefits. It’s 5.7 percent more economically feasible to do business elsewhere when it comes to benefits. The greatest influence on this comes from escalating health insurance costs. To put it into perspective, my company has faced increases in our health care costs of eight to 11 percent in each of the past three years, and most other businesses are in the same boat.

The President claimed he would save the day with ObamaCare. But as the more astute observers of government know, the health care bill will only drive up the costs. We’ve already seen some price increases attributed to it (from pharmaceutical and health equipment levies); however, the most shocking ones will come in 2014 when, among other things, the federal government slaps a fee on all insurers. Where will the insurers get the money to pay that princely sum? Why, from the employers and employees who buy insurance, of course!

The Obama administration is just as much to blame for other factors noted in the report, such as pollution abatement (EPA, anyone?), all of which, when combined, paint a miserable picture for the competitiveness of America, now and into the future.

Obama can’t fix it. It’s not that he doesn’t possess the power to do so: As head of the Executive Branch (and all its agencies) and a wielder of the veto pen, he does have the tools to fix what ails our economy. But he chooses not to. Instead, he has added — and will continue to add — to the bureaucratic structure and cost of the federal government as well as the countless hurdles to advancement of the private sector. Obama is responsible for making our economic environment increasingly unattractive, further destroying the manufacturing base that was once our nation’s greatest economic strength.

Plainly put, Obama is not an insourcer. When you look at what he’s done, he’s a net outsourcer and his legacy will carry that dismal trend far into the future.



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

This originally appeared in the 23 January 2012 The New American at:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/opinion/950-bob-confer/10625-obama-is-not-an-insourcer

END THE NFL’S BLACKOUT RULE

Long ago, in a much simpler time, ticket sales accounted for the majority of revenues for professional football teams. The business model of the National Football League has changed dramatically since then and now its money is acquired from anywhere and anyone, utilizing a variety of sources that include televison contracts, advertising and licensed apparel. This pervasiveness of the NFL in all forms of media and pop culture has caused gate revenues to constitute just 22% of league revenues, which are approaching $10 billion.

That significant change in marketing, as well as the ongoing expansion of the modes in which we acquire entertainment (cable and satellite TV and the internet), has forced the Federal Communications Commission’s hand in reconsidering the Blackout Rule that it instituted in 1973. As we all know, it was put in place as a way to help the league sell out of its games by almost forcing its local fans into the stands if they had hoped to see the affair. No sellout yields a blackout; it’s that simple. As a result of the NFL’s ascension to our national pastime - and not the FCC rule - the number of blackouts has seen a dramatic drop. What caused 50% of games in the 1970s to be blacked out in their local markets has caused just 8% of all games to be unavailable in recent years.

There were only 16 blackouts during the entire 2011 season. Of course, 3 of them affected Western New Yorkers. The Buffalo Bills were the third most darkened team behind the Cincinnati Bengals and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Unlike the other two teams, which maintain some semblance of competitiveness, the Bills find it difficult to fill Ralph Wilson Stadium due to the horrible product put onto the field. The Bills are beloved in Upstate New York, almost to the point of insanity (where else would Zubaz pants be considered high fashion?), but love, no matter how strong, cannot make a fan from the second poorest market in the league shell out $59 for a ticket - plus dozens more dollars for parking and concessions - to see a badly-performing team that hasn’t won 10 games since 1999 and only once this century broke the .500 mark.

The Bills brass don’t mind that you are occasionally inconvenienced by the inability to appreciate their team on the television, even though your allegiance to them is so strong – unlike theirs to you – that you will watch through such sustained misery. They are in favor of the blackout rule because it maintains their status quo. The rule plays perfectly into the plans of a conservatively-run organization that is immensely profitable from mediocrity and finds no incentive to be otherwise. If the ownership doesn’t care to improve the team to the point of being average or moderately-competitive, then it’s obvious that they don’t care about the fans as they should, because any great business should be driven to give the customer the very best product possible.

Bills fans, on the other hand, would be well-served by the end of the blackout rule. Immediately, they’d be able to watch 3 to 5 more games a year on the television, further strengthening their love-hate relationship with the red-white-and-blue. Ultimately, though, they would be rewarded with a stronger, better team and perchance a playoff season or a string of playoff seasons as the organization tried to realize the stadium’s potential. If the blackout rule were dropped, the Bills might actually have to rely on a winning team, rather than the crutch of a federal rule, to fill the stadium. They’d have to think big and probably take a temporary reduction in profit to make on-field success occur, things the Buffalo Bills seem incapable of in their current state.

If you want to see change on the field and make your voice heard about the nefarious blackout rule, there’s less than a week remaining to contact the FCC about it; the deadline is February 13. You can file your comments electronically at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or you can mail them to FCC Headquarters, 445 12th St., SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. You must refer to “MB Docket No. 12-3” as well as your name and address on all correspondence and if you chose postal mail, you must submit your original and a photocopy.




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 February 2012 Greater Niagara Newspapers

FEDERAL SPENDING DERAILED BY AMTRAK

We’ve been inundated with news reports about the fiscal woes of the US Postal Service. Why is it that we never hear anything about another federal enterprise facing ongoing losses -- Amtrak? Consider the following…

Amtrak trains pass by my office a few times a day as they travel to and from Niagara Falls and points north. 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, locally.

That’s pretty much the case across 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 losing ventures that no one will touch.

The government-owned Amtrak has long operated in the red. 2010’s losses were once deemed unfathomable at $419.9 million. They were topped again for the fiscal year that ended in September when losses hit $560 million. This year’s losses are projected to be in excess of $600 million. This shows that the business model is completely unsalvageable — a casualty of bad management and a bad market.

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 by President George W Bush. The Act guarantees annual funding of $2.6 billion through 2013. Even with the cash flow of such charity, Amtrak continues to string together losses.

Despite the glaring weaknesses of commuter rail (and the federal government’s business acumen), Washington is insistent on spending our money – and lots of it - on its ethereal demand.

Sadly, there’s no end in sight. 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 a year ago that it will be “investing” $53 billion over the next 6 years to build such a network. That money will be used almost entirely by government entities, including state-run operations and Amtrak alike.

Only government officials could see a winner in high-speed commuter rail, having never learned a lesson from what ails the present system. Promoting and sustaining entities like Amtrak – with broken, irreparable operational systems and a market that won’t bear the investment – now and into the future has us speeding to fiscal destruction by adding to the unconscionable deficits and debts that burden us at the federal level.




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 January 2012 Greater Niagara Newspapers

SIFTING THROUGH HYDROFRACING PROPAGANDA

Hydrofracing ranks among the most contentious issues in New York. For each person clamoring for the jobs and economic development it will bring to the Empire State, there’s another who strongly opposes the method of natural gas extraction for it’s potential to damage the environment.

I can see the points on both sides. I’m 100 percent confident that the economic benefit to the counties that border Pennsylvania will be absolutely astounding. They are among the poorest regions in our state and it would be good to see their residents finally do well. Yet, on the other hand, I see considerable risk in the consumption of vast reserves of fresh water and the use and disposal thereof, only after it has been tainted by unidentified chemicals. The Allegheny foothills and the waters that flow from them are unique habitats, home to equally unique plants and animals. It would be horrible to see them forever altered as a consequence of Man’s actions. Our predecessors already did that with the Niagara River in the name of progress.

So, I see much benefit in the moratorium on fracing and the associated public comment period. If we allow the Department of Environmental Conservation some time to assess such development in other states, we can maximize our successes and minimize our failures. The DEC also needs time to sift through all the baloney. Both sides of the issue have inundated the agency with mistruths and half-truths.

The DEC as a public entity must be able to approach hydrofracing from a reasonable, thoughtful, and well-informed perspective. That’s difficult with all of the one-sided propaganda thrown their way. As an example, one of the most sensationalized talking points that dominate the conversation against hydrofracing – ultimately doing a great disservice to meaningful aspects of the environmental movement – is this belief that the process can set your drinking water on fire.

This goes back to the popular anti-fracing documentary Gasland. In a famous moment from it, Colorado property owner Mike Markham puts a lighter to his running tap and a huge fireball ensues. What the film did not say is the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission found that the methane in Markham’s drinking water was naturally-occurring and not a result of fracing. The COGCC also notified Markham and others with similar complaints that they should be venting their private wells to prevent the entrapment of excess levels of gas found in them. In short, Markham’s problems are the doing of Mother Nature and himself.

It should also be noted that flammable water can occur throughout the United States, even in areas far away from the typical hotbeds of past and future gas extraction; case in point: Gasport. It’s called “Gas”port for a reason. The hamlet once known as Jamesport had its name changed in 1826 when an engineering team working on the Erie Canal found gas emanating from the ground and water.

Most of those sites have long since been built over, but one remains on our farm. There is a small area, maybe an acre in size, where, even in the heat of summer, the soil remains cold to the touch. The shore of a stream froths white, stinky methane-loaded compounds, and, most interestingly, the water itself bubbles non-stop from gas. There, I can repeat Markham’s experiment, although in a more natural setting (sans tap). If I place a match over the bubbles, the flame expands and puffs. If I lay a plastic bag over the water and allow the gas to build up within it and then light it, the bag “explodes”. Decades ago when hoboes traveled the land they set pipes in the water to create eternal flames for cooking. And, believe it or not, hydrofracing has never occurred here!

The moral to the story is this: We, as good citizens, – and the agencies that oversee our public welfare – should proceed intellectually, not emotionally, when it comes to hydrofracing. We must ignore the hype from both sides (such as this fire water mythology) and proceed in manner that best serves our people, economy and environment. We have but one chance to get it right.

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 January 2012 Greater Niagara Newspapers

Bobcats in Niagara County

BOBCATS IN NIAGARA COUNTY
By Bob Confer

In recent years Niagara County residents have had the chance to witness some interesting animals within our borders. Among those that generated the most press and most talk were the black bears that frequented the area for a couple of months. The beasts elicited either fear or appreciation, depending on one’s perception of bruins. More often than not, the former emotion ruled the day.

There’s an animal that’s as equally misunderstood frequenting our County now, the elusive bobcat. One ran across the road in front of me during my morning commute through the town of Lockport last week. This was the second bobcat that I’ve seen in our neck of the woods since 2006. I saw the first one late at night in the northeastern part of the town as well. That one hung around for a few weeks, having left its tracks throughout our farm before it moved on.

These bobcats were exciting sights, as wildcats are not often seen in these parts of Western New York. While uncommon in our Southern Tier, they are downright rare in the Niagara Frontier as they probably don’t breed in this area (although the vast Alabama Swamps should never be ruled out). Like the young bears of a few years ago, they are probably just passing through.

I shared my most recent experience on Facebook and in conversation and the responses ran the gamut from “awesome” to “are they dangerous?” I even got a couple of “Thank you, now I know I’m not crazy” comments, with some people admitting that they’ve seen what they thought were bobcats in recent months yet they didn’t want to admit as much for fear of being ignored or kidded.

Another sort of fear is a common denominator in people’s beliefs about bobcats. When many people hear “bobcat” they think “mountain lion”, hence the hesitation. Other than being felines, they are not alike. Bobcats are not gigantic pet-eating, man-attacking beasts that are 7 feet long and more than 100 pounds in weight. Rather, they’re small, just a little bit bigger than a red fox. They weigh between 15 and 20 pounds and are around 30 inches in length and 20 inches tall. They don’t attack people (they are extremely skittish) and, in this region where their prey is plentiful, they won’t eat your small dogs and cats. Their diet consists mostly of smaller rodents (like voles and mice), rabbits, squirrels, road kill and birds…a smorgasbord no different than that taken by feral and free-roaming domesticated cats. You aren’t afraid of them are you?

Bobcats really can’t be confused with any other animal in the area. Beyond their impressive size for a local cat - they are much taller than a house cat and 2 to 3 times their weight - their stunted bobbed tail (hence the name) and spectacular coats are dead giveaways. So, if you do see a bobcat (or what you believe to be a bobcat) in Niagara County, do what you can to snap a picture of it. Even if you can’t, still report your sightings to the New York Department of Environmental Conservation. The DEC is interested in learning everything they can about the distribution and abundance of the cats out of their population epicenters of the Adirondacks and Catskills, areas where they are common enough, by the way, to be hunted or trapped. Send your photos and observations to fwwildlf@gw.dec.state.ny.us with “Bobcat Observation Report” in the subject line.

Good luck in seeing one of these creatures. And, if you do, consider yourself fortunate, not imperiled (bobcats are more afraid of you than you of them), and savor that rare and fleeting moment.

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 January 2012 Greater Niagara Newspapers

Payroll tax cut: Why stop at $40?

On December 22 President Barack Obama released the following message through the White House’s Twitter account: "Thanks to all who shared #40dollars [sic] stories. Today's victory is yours. Keep making your voices heard — it makes all the difference. — bo"

This was in direct response to the Republican House of Representatives capitulating to the President and the Democratic Senate and allowing a shortened 2-month extension of the payroll tax cut, rather than forcing through the 1-year extension that the GOP was gunning for.

The President attributed the about-face of Congress to the tens of thousands of tweets by his Twitter followers through which they answered his call to action issued just two days earlier when he asked what $40 meant to them. They used the hashtag application of Twitter to tell their stories, making the #40dollar movement “trend” (become one of the most popular subjects) on the network as they waxed poetic about everything from feeding their families to filling their gas tanks.

It was a sad example of the effect that Big Government and its propaganda have on its people. The countless stories tugged at the heartstrings and most were meaningful in their intent, but they were reminiscent of dogs begging their master for scraps from the dinner table, with the federal government assuming the role of master and the taxpayers the dogs — a total reversal of what the roles should be.

The $40 has ended up being nothing more than fat and gristle scraped away from what was a prime cut of meat. The starved dogs that our people have become deserve the finer meat in its entirety. After all, it’s our money — not the government’s, as so many feel obligated to believe.

It’s that belief in mistruths that dominated the #40dollar campaign and made it so successful, starting with the very dollar amount itself. The throng — led by the propaganda machine and mainstream media — believed that every one of them would have access to $40 every week because of the tax cut. But, $40 is not the average amount that Americans will keep; it’s more likely the maximum allowable amount. According to government studies, the average wage nationally was $39,959 or $768 per week in 2010. Obama’s payroll tax cut is two percent, or an average of $15 per worker per week — a far cry from the advertised $40.

Obama, though, was not alone in misleading America. The Republicans were equally disingenuous. You see, their ultimate goal is to maintain the tax in its entirety for the long- term (following the political build-up to the 2012 election), as most Republicans are no different from their Democratic brethren when it comes to Big Government. You could see that hidden in the message pushed by the GOP, in which they said the current two-month extension wasn’t enough, that one year was needed to offer consumers and businesses certainty. One year? Why not permanently repeal the tax? One year does not constitute tax certainty. Any individual trying to eke it out in this economy will tell you that long-term certainty — a known that extends permanently into the future — is what’s needed if he or she wants to determine what best to do with the “$40 dollars." Will it go toward a new mortgage? Will it go into a 401(k)? Will it go toward a child’s college education? None of those decisions can be made if the tax cut will be known to have a sunset a year out.

Getting back to the table scraps, why should we stop at the mythical $40-dollar mark? If Washington truly cared about the state of the economy and the ability of people to make it and themselves better, they would permit the citizenry to keep more of their hard-earned money and achieve a healthier economy and a better life through self-determination and the free markets. Forty dollars is but a very small tip of a gigantic iceberg.

Why not permanently eliminate the entire 6.2-percent Social Security tax burden that is placed on the worker (and equally on the employer) and destroy this broken social welfare program, allowing the individual to invest in his own retirement and not that of others? Why not eliminate the other payroll tax earmarked for Medicare (1.45 percent for both the employee and the employer) and empower the person to invest in private sector health care alternatives? Eliminating those two taxes would put $59 back into the pockets of the people every week, and an equal amount would be available to employers to invest in their growth and other competitive factors.

And, while we’re at it, why not also diminish the scale of income taxes by going back to constitutional basics and disbanding the likes of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Education, and the Department of Transportation, all of which redundantly — and poorly — duplicate functions held at the state level? It’s often been said that were the federal government right-sized, it would be one-tenth its size and one-tenth its cost. If that were the case, the average worker (who falls in the 15-percent tax bracket), would pay $599 rather than $5994 in income taxes per year. That’s an extra $104 per week.

If the so-called $40 can be counted as a “victory” (Obama’s words) then it’s a victory for the government, not the people. We are definitely on the losing end of the relationship which we maintain with this outsized federal system ruling every facet of our lives. If we truly were victorious, the $40 (or, more accurately, $15) would pale in comparison to the $163 discovered above.



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 27 Dec 2011 The New American at:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/opinion/950-bob-confer/10335-payroll-tax-cut-why-stop-at-40