Category Archives: Florida

Florida, Organized Labor, Pensacola, Politics

‘We Are One Rally’ A Bust

Pensacola had their version of the ‘We Are One’ public union campaign We Are One Rally in Pensacolatoday. Lee Prior, the organizer of the event,  said that the pro-union movement was ‘electrifying people across America’ like it did 43 years ago when Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. marched to organize black sanitation workers in Memphis, and was later assassinated.

The crowd assembled was hardly a crowd at all. There were 30 people at the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Plaza, including the speakers and sound crew. Like all such rallies there was an activist sign-up list. They garnered 15 names for that.

The keynote speaker did not attend. The organizer read a statement from him instead, saying that he had to be in Tallahassee taking care of business there. Then Jerry McIntosh, the head of the local Movement For Change group spoke.

He tried real hard to lend some relevance to the labor movement and tie it in Jerry McIntosh of Movement For Changewith Dr. King. It was labor unions that started a 40 hour work week, it was labor unions that got us sick pay, vacation pay, health insurance, retirement and pension plans, etc.. It was almost as though he was transported back to the 60’s. All of which was met with a ‘oh hum’ from the supporters. Fact is, all of what he said labor unions started are commonplace in non-union work sites today. They do deserve the credit for improving the workplace for ‘the workers.’ And because of their earlier success, all employers have learned to take care of their employees to where now, they have caused their own demise. Evidence of that is the shrinking number of union jobs in the private sector.

They were orderly and polite. But the reason they were there in the first place, the reason they were protesting, was kind of fuzzy. The CWA printed up some red signs saying ‘Stand Up for Workers’ Rights! Granted that public sector labor unions are in much disfavor with the American taxpayer now that money is tight and budget deficits are high. They have to realize, painful as it might be, that the public funds that pay them do not come from trees. And, like their private counterpart, they have to, or are being forced to, face the reality that like a private company, the government has financial limits too.

A smart parasite knows not to kill the host. Private sector unions know that they won’t have a job or a future if their company has to close its doors. Labor unions are not dumb. But they know that the government isn’t going to shut its doors. They also know that they own the Democrat Party, who will stop at nothing to repay them for their campaign contributions and street mobs. As if granting exemptions from Obamacare to labor unions isn’t enough, the latest quid pro quo revealed today is $2 Billion to unions, state public employee systems, and big corporations to subsidize health coverage costs for early retirees. Including ‘Pensacola Junior College’ and Escambia County.  The biggest single recipient of an early-retiree bailout is the United Auto Workers, which has so far received $206,798,086. They seem to be OK with that.

Their problem is that the taxpayers have reached the point, as have state budgets around the country, that things have to change if anyone is to have a future. Otherwise, they will remain One . . . boil on the butt of American taxpayers.

Links: Uncovered: New $2 billion bailout in Obamacare |  List of health care bailout recipients

Florida, Organized Labor, Politics

Pro-Choice, Union-Busting, Whatever

On Friday the Florida House approved HB  1021. Also referred to as a union-busting bill, it would ban automatic dues deduction in public sector labor unions and require members to sign off on the use of their dues for political purposes.

By Nancy Pelosi standards, the bill was approved with a bi-partisan vote of 73-40. No Democrats voted for it, and three Republicans voted against.

Whether the bill is a union busting bill or not, depends on what you believe the purpose of a labor union is.

Union members may still pay their dues via a check or credit card. And they may still consent to the labor union using their dues for political activism. In either case, if labor unions are as attractive as the union leaders make them out to be, then they have nothing to worry about. The union-busting side complains that “the bill would bar unions from engaging in political activity without permission from members.”

Not only is that exactly right, but it is the point of the bill. The crux of the issue is the usurping of their members’ rights by presuming that all of their members wish to contribute to a political activity that they do not agree with. You could say that this is a pro-choice bill.

In this bill, the workers are permitted a choice where heretofore they had none. It in no way prevents the unions from participating in political activism as they have always done, and support whatever candidate or party (as long as they’re Democrats) that they want. They have the same rights as a union as their members do as individuals. Or to put it another way, the union members have the same rights as individuals as the union does as a collective labor union. The SCOTUS has already established that campaign contributions are the same as political speech.

All statistics being equal, if you figure that about half the country is D and the other half is R, then one could expect that, when finally given the right to choose to fund their union’s political activity or not, that the union might lose about half of their political campaign funds.

The way I look at it, the end of unions bullying their members has finally come. Sucks to be a labor union president nowadays.

 

Florida

Insuring A Drug Free Workplace For State Employees

Gov. Rick Scott signed executive order (11-58) Tuesday that will require drug testing of many current state employees as well as pre-employment testing for applicants.

“Floridians deserve to know that those in public service, whose salaries are paid with taxpayer dollars, are part of a drug-free workplace,” Scott said. “Just as it is appropriate to screen those seeking taxpayer assistance, it is also appropriate to screen government employees.”

Of course, the ACLU has their shorts in a wad over this. Citing a ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle in 2004 that random drug testing was unconstitutional, a violation of the Fourth Amendment as considered an unreasonable search.

The ACLU apparently missed the difference between purely random testing and Gov. Scott’s order which requires everyone be tested ‘at least quarterly.’ This order doesn’t apply to every state employee, just current employees in agencies that answer to the governor. Whoever they are.

Aside from the obvious benefits of assuring a drug-free workplace, as opposed to a free-drug workplace, there is a demonstrable economic advantage to such a policy in terms of insurance. Fewer accidents, less loss. All of which the taxpayers pay for.

The reference to taxpayer assistance refers to an initiative by the Scott administration to require those who apply for state benefits to agree to submit to a drug test as a qualification to receiving benefits. That proposal (SB 556) was approved unanimously Tuesday by the Senate Criminal Justice Committee.

But it’s not for everybody that applies.

The department may only screen an applicant who has been convicted of a drug felony within the prior 3 years and shall continue to screen that individual for 3 years after the date upon which the individual begins receiving temporary cash assistance.

Update 3/25/2011: SB 556 as amended expands the drug screening to . . .

[I]ndividuals who apply for benefits funded by the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program; making individuals responsible for bearing the cost of drug testing; requiring certain notice; providing procedures for testing and retesting; providing for notice of local substance abuse programs; providing that, if a parent is deemed ineligible due to failing a drug test, the eligibility of the children is not affected; providing an effective date.

The only exceptions are minors under 18 years old. The PDF of the bill is HERE, and is half the size (4 pages) of the original bill.

Links: Florida Gov. Rick Scott orders random drug testing of state employees |  Florida Senate – 2011 SB 556

Economy, Florida

North Dakota Is Booming

1 Comment

Interesting article showing how North Dakota is not participating in the Obama recession. Their population, and jobs, are growing by the tens of thousands a year.

One obvious omission to the USA Today article is the economic engine that’s been running in North Dakota for nearly the last 100 years. That made everything else possible. It was something that Independent candidate for governor of the State of Florida, Farid Khavari, ran on. The state bank of North Dakota.

Florida Governor Rick Scott, please take note!

Link:  North Dakota economy booms, population soars

 

Florida, Pensacola

What’s In Carpenter’s Creek Is In Bayou Texar

Maybe this sounds like something new to you and City Councilman Diane Mack, but it is old news to City Councilman Johnson (a board member of Emerald Coastkeepers) and DEP representative Sherri Myers, the Health Department and the ECUA.

Carpenter’s Creek empties into Bayou Texar. And for decades now, Bayou Texar has been periodically closed by the Health Department as unsafe for use by humans due to fecal contamination. ‘Chronically’ is a more accurate description than periodically. And the reason is because of what is coming out of Carpenter’s Creek.

To bring you up to date with this severe yet overlooked water quality issue, this post recaps it all. Cleaning up Bayou Texar became my interest in November 2007. Four years later and we’re still kicking the can down the road.

That is why I read with amusement this Viewpoint by Chasidy Fisher Hobbs, executive director for Emerald Coastkeepers of Northwest Florida, rehashing the drinking water issue from 2009.

The Dept. of Environmental Protection knew about Bayou Texar’s condition. It was Sherri Myers that pulled the money out of the study that could have led to fixing the problem. Who knows if this effort to examine Carpenter’s Creek will have positive results or, just make for some good press for a while before being set aside for another decade?

Links:

Economy, Florida, Pensacola, Politics

More Waivers From Obamacare

More waivers from participation in the now unconstitutional national health care law, aka Obamacare. The waivers were granted to 4 states. Not companies, states. They are Florida, Tennessee, Ohio, and New Jersey.

Steve Larsen, director of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO) at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, confirmed the news under questioning from Rep. Cliff Stearns at an oversight hearing for the House Energy and Commerce committee.

Considering that, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a majority of union members in America (52 percent) now work for the government, giving waivers to the states is tantamount to labor union bailout. And we already know how tight Democrats and Obama are with BIG LABOR, and why.

So we have waivers to individual companies and waivers for entire states, so far encompassing 900 health plans, four states and counting. What do we have? Strip it all away we have waivers issued to stop rising costs of a program that’s supposed to reduce them. All predicated on the notion that everyone participates. What?

Link: CMS Official Confirms That Four States Have Been Granted ObamaCare Waivers

Economy, Florida, Media, Organized Labor, Pensacola, Politics

City Voting On Union Representation Today

1 Comment

You won’t find this in the local paper. A search in the Pensacola News Journal (a trade union shop) comes up empty for an organizing attempt of city employees. The only place I saw it mentioned is in a local blog called Progressive Pensacola.

The literature from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) has a catchy phrase. ‘AFSCME – We make FLORIDA happen.’ I have another take on it. It’s more like ‘We help make FLORIDA broke!’

On Progressive Pensacola, City employees voting on union Thursday.

Now there’s a really bad idea. Unions, aside from being useless nowadays, only spell more costs for the city. And consequently, more costs for the taxpayers that currently pay their wages and benefits. As if we are flush with cash. If working for the city is so bad, why are applicants falling over themselves trying to get a job with the city? The high demand and desirability of getting a city job seems to belie the need, as far as employees are concerned, for a union. On the other hand, it’s not hard to understand why AFSCME would not want to get more dues paying members.  They are a business and an industry just like any other.

This move, like all union attempts to raid and then soak an employer, serve only to take your money, if you are one of the employees, and give some of it to the union. And increase the cost of whatever it is that is produced. Which is ultimately paid for by you, the consumer. But you are rich. You can pay it, right?

In general, labor unions had a useful purpose 50, 60, 70 years ago. But since then, employers got the message and don’t treat their employees like indentured servants. Instead, that’s what the unions intend to make of their members.

Consequently, they have contributed to their own demise. Because of their efforts and due diligence in improving working conditions and employee relations decades ago, employers nowadays got the message. Due to their successes decades ago, they have made themselves obsolete today.

But BIG LABOR does not care that unemployment is high. And that their collective bargaining, combined with their spending employee’s money on political campaigns, mostly to save their sorry underfunded benefit packages has caused states and cities all over the country to look at insolvency, if not another government bailout. Are you ready for another government bailout? Andy Stern and Barack Obama are.

Let’s be thankful that the city can employ as many people as they can right now. Raise the cost more and see if layoffs don’t occur.

So who benefits? Not the employees. Not the taxpayers. Just the labor union.

Economy, Florida, Pensacola, Politics

Obamacare Is Void, Lawless Administration Doesn’t Care

2 Comments

That’s the bottom line where Judge Roger Vinson’s opinion on the State of Florida v. U.S. Dept. of HHS is concerned. Judge Vinson of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida yesterday became the second federal judge to strike down Obamacare’s individual mandate.

Drawing on the precedent of the original Boston Tea Party was not only valid, but whether intentional or not, was a nice kick in the pants balls to the political Left that non-stop demonized the ‘tea party’ of today. Attaching a vulgar sexual act to them.  ? Maybe projecting what really turns them on.

Judge Vinson writes . . .

“It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place. If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be ‘difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power’ and we would have a Constitution in name only.”

Like Judge Henry Hudson of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Judge Vinson also found that Section 1501 of the act, which forces all Americans to buy government-approved health insurance policies, “falls outside the boundary of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority and cannot be reconciled with a limited government of enumerated powers.”

But then Judge Vinson went even further, concluding that “the individual mandate and the remaining provisions are all inextricably bound together in purpose and must stand or fall as a single unit.” Accordingly, Vinson concluded: “Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void.” {emphasis added}

Judge Vinson further explained the problem with the mandate part of the bill.

For the reasons stated, I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.30

And to that point, Judge Vinson expounded on what is faulty with a federal mandate by using then Senator Barack Obama’s own words. Oh ya gotta love it. {Free cheesesteak for Judge Vinson.} Judge Vinson continues . . .

30 On this point, it should be emphasized that while the individual mandate was clearly “necessary and essential” to the Act as drafted, it is not “necessary and essential” to health care reform in general. It is undisputed that there are various other (Constitutional) ways to accomplish what Congress wanted to do. Indeed, I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that “if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house.” See Interview on CNN’s American Morning, Feb. 5, 2008, transcript available at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0802/05/ltm.02.html.

{great research Judge}

Here is Obama’s quote in context. He was responding to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s idea of mandating health insurance . . .

OBAMA: Let’s break down what she really means by a mandate. What’s meant by a mandate is that the government is forcing people to buy health insurance and so she’s suggesting a parent is not going to buy health insurance for themselves if they can afford it. Now, my belief is that most parents will choose to get health care for themselves and we make it affordable.

Here’s the concern. If you haven’t made it affordable, how are you going to enforce a mandate. I mean, if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house. The reason they don’t buy a house is they don’t have the money. And so, our focus has been on reducing costs, making it available. I am confident if people have a chance to buy high-quality health care that is affordable, they will do so. That’s what our plan does and nobody disputes that.

Oh what a difference a couple years make.

Refusing to take NO for an answer the administration intends to ignore the Judges ruling that the legislation is VOID. Because the judge did “not order the government to stop implementing the law, a senior administration source said ‘implementation will proceed at pace.'” Legally speaking, when the legislation is considered VOID by the judiciary, the other branches have nothing to go on to proceed. They have to either appeal it or ask for a stay. Tomorrow, President Obama ought to request the senate to repeal the bill and start over. Don’t hold your breath for that to happen. Ignoring the ruling just highlights how lawless this administration is. It is the Chicago way. It’s what community organizers do.

Economy, Florida

Your Bank Unmasked

Sometimes things just come along in a made-to-order fashion. Take for example PNJ columnist Mark O’Brien’s column entitled Florida Looking For New Money. Mark references this story where, responding to Gov. Rick Scott’s appeal for ideas to raise revenue, Rep. Irv Slosberg, D-Boca Raton introduced HB 313. A bill that would allow advertising space to be sold and displayed on state transportation property. Like ‘Geigo Turnpike’ or maybe even ‘Philly’s Cheesesteaks Highway.’

Having just gone through a vigirous campaing season, there is one thing still fresh in my mind when it comes to raising revenue in order to close Florida’s $3.6 Billion budget gap. It just escapes me why an answer so simple continues to be ignored by the ruling class. I contend, they’re looking in the wrong places.

Economist and former Florida independent gubernatorial candidate Dr. Farid Khavari shines the light on the banking system’s dirty little secret. Which is how banks can, and do, make money hand over fist on their depositors’ hard-earned money.

After you read how they do it, consider that we (the state of Florida and Florida’s taxpayers) can take advantage of this very same system to benefit the state and its residents, instead of Wall Street. It is done by reducing cost. Simply raising money by selling advertising or liquidating real estate does not have the long-term stimulus that reducing costs on everyone can have. All those who do not want to reduce your cost of living please raise your hand.

WHY ARE THE BANKS REQUIRING MINIMUM DEPOSITS?

Farid A. Khavari (Ph.D.) Economist

Certainly, give banks at least one big credit—they always find creative ways to extract money from their clients. We know and have heard a lot about these banks being bailed out, officers or high end corporate individuals receiving hefty bonuses, and of course the fees! Now, they are out on the hunt to get us again! Banks are now requiring minimum deposit amount, and/or accomplishing certain performances in terms of debit card purchases, having a CD or a savings account with them, as conditions for not paying fees! In clear terms: once a bank client subscribes to a package, the bank also offers to wave fees on certain services, which come with the particular package if they manage to meet the requirements of that particular package. In the past, these would have been free with no requirements for certain performances!

These requirements not only presents the epitome of all greed, but tops all other abusive practices—charging fees if a bank client account falls below the average minimum deposit requirement. This is absurd! In other words, banks want your money, but with conditions attached. If you fail to follow their specific requirements, then you would be required to pay penalties for utilizing your hard-earned money. It would be a dream if everyday businesses had that kind of leverage over their customers, but they don’t. The banks though had that leverage.

Granted, not all accounts the banks control are loaded with high deposit amounts. Many of them are in more turmoil that a bank needs. Which business in the world can claim to enjoy anything different—some accounts are without doubt clear headaches, but the overwhelming number of them are profitable, otherwise no business could last for too long. The same applies to the banks.

Surprising though, is that the majority of people that fall in the traps of banks. The banks justify the requirement for the minimum deposit due to the rising cost of entertaining the accounts, or the rising cost in general!

First of all, deposits are the lifeblood of banks, which makes it possible for them to come into existence and exist; without deposits, it is obvious no bank could exist. However, what make the banks prosper are these deposits, of which are lent out to borrowers! This lays the critical issue that not too many people are aware of dealing with banks. In most cases people think that banks exist from the difference between the amounts of interest collected through lending and paid out for the borrowed monies! This isn’t necessarily true. First of all, a bank pays non-significant amount of interest on a saving account much less on the deposits in a checking account. On the other hand, even if a bank pays interest on a deposit, they make at least over forty-five times more on interest than they payout on that amount! Here is an explanation. For example, when a bank receives a deposit of say, $100, it can and usually does lend out up to ten times by employing the “fractional reserve banking regulation,” which is legal, and is utilized by every bank in the United States. However, the banks pay only the interest on the $100, whereas collect interest on $1,000. It must be noted that the banks pay a much lower interest rate on deposits, presently, below 1% (one percent), but collects 4.5% on the $1,000.

($100 X 1% = $1 the bank pays, but collects, $1,000 X 4.50% = $45)

Now, let’s see how the minimum deposit requirement of $15,000 and monthly fee of $25 plays out for the bank and the clients:

According to this policy being increasingly utilized by banks, a $25 fee would be imposed, should the average monthly balance drop only one penny below $15,000. This apparently innocent measure would create a cash bonanza for the bank as the following calculation demonstrates.

Assume you keep an average of $15,000 in your account as demanded by your bank to avoid having to pay $25 fee. Using the “fractional reserve banking rules,” the bank would be lending out the amount of $15,000 ten times, which would be $150,000 ($15,000 X 10 times = $150,000).  Charging an interest rate of only 4.50%, which is being charged presently for mortgages, the bank would be making a whopping $6,750 interest annually, or, every month $562.50 on your money! Under this scheme the banks would be making over 45% (forty-five percent) interest on your $15,000 average balance in your account without even giving you a cent.

Do you have to worry about the high operation cost of the banks when they can make that kind of money with interest on your interest free deposit, yet penalizing you if you fail to assure them that amount?! Think about it!

We invite those banks, which do not use these kinds of abusive tactics and methods, to send us their names and contact information to make available to our readers.

Farid A. Khavari is author of nine books dealing with economics, banking, healthcare, energy, oil, environment, currency, and cost. For more information, please visit www.zerocosteconomy.com.

Copyright @ 2011 by Farid A. Khavari

Economy, Fair Tax, Florida, Politics

Majority Of States Join Suit Against Obamacare

Oh Happy Day! Twenty-six states have joined Florida in suing the federal government over Obamacare. That makes 27 states total.

The only answer to our debt problem, well there are more but this government-run health care is priority number one that has to go. To repeal and replace it is the road out of the economic ruin and the decimation of quality health care for our citizens.

Repeal it, the alternative already exists.

Continue reading Majority Of States Join Suit Against Obamacare →