Category: Chris Freind

Philly Cigarette Tax Fails

Philly Cigarette Tax Fails
By Chris Freind

One can strongly argue that the greatest contribution of our city and state officials is comic relief. And that’s exactly what we have in Harrisburg, as 114 representatives, 39 senators and one lame duck governor just passed the biggest joke legislation in recent memory – an increase in the tax on cigarettes bought in Philadelphia to $2 a pack. The tax revenue is intended to bail out the Philadelphia School District – a black hole that sucks endless amounts of taxpayer money into its coffers – despite its monumental failure to educate.

And the cycle continues: even though the district has more than enough money (over $20,000 per student, per year, yet somehow that’s not “fair”), it cried poor, and, like clockwork, got rewarded with more funding by gutless elected officials. The tragic punchline? The district will continue to score an “F” on the only test that matters: our children’s education.

Any seventh-grader could tell you that the cigarette tax will not only fail miserably in achieving its goal, but will, in fact, hurt Philadelphians. Consider:

1. The cigarette tax will supposedly raise $49 million, though, not surprisingly, projections continue to change. Since the district maintains that it has an $81 million deficit, a gap still remains. And given that Philadelphia taxes damn near everything already, making it one of the highest-taxed cities in the country, what’s next?

2. How exactly is $49 million – out of a $2.6 billion budget – going to help improve anything? Answer: it’s not.

3. It seems like all the justifications we have heard for more taxes and more funding are rooted in saving jobs. But let’s be honest: A) the district is massively inefficient and bureaucratically top-heavy; thousands of jobs can, and should be, eliminated, and B) the only thing that matters is the children, but like always, much of the money never finds its way to the classroom, where it’s needed most. More money doesn’t educate children; accountable educators do.

4. This column has discussed common sense, free-market reform measures ad nauseam. None have been implemented (one of Gov. Corbett’s many failures), nor will they be, because too many politicians fear the teachers’ unions. Until the status quo is turned upside down, nothing will change. All the money in the world won’t improve a thing, and once again, the only ones who really matter – the students – take the hit.

5. The results for standardized state exams are in, and are right where you’d expect – in the toilet. They’re worse than last year’s scores, with reading and math achievement dropping even further. Bottom line: After spending two-and-a-half billion dollars last year, fewer than half of all students met state standards. That’s insane.

6. Republicans who voted for the cigarette tax either A) know it won’t solve anything but knuckle under to pressure, or B) really think throwing more money into a bottomless pit will work. On either count, they deserve to be removed from office by the voters. Here’s hoping.

7. Now for the real world implications of the tax:

First, the anticipated revenue projections are a joke, and won’t come close to being met. Why? Because Philadelphia isn’t New York or L.A., where it would take an hour just to get outside the city limits to buy cheaper cigarettes. In Philly, it’s a quick drive to the surrounding counties where a pack of smokes is significantly cheaper.

And remember that Philadelphia already imposes an 8 percent sales tax (not 6, like the rest of the state), driving up the price that much more. Bottom line: smokers aren’t going to quit, but will simply buy their cigarettes elsewhere.

One wonders if the budget gurus factored in this “bootleg” factor of Philadelphians buying their cigarettes outside the city when they compiled their revenue projections.

Second, the tax will significantly hurt small business owners. Customers who normally bought their cigarettes (and numerous other things) at the corner store now will take their business elsewhere – a boon to convenience stores right over the border but a death knell to city shop keepers. And as they go by the wayside, so do jobs, as well as the income and property taxes they generate.

Nothing like putting more Pennsylvania small business owners out of business. One would think the job of the governor and the Legislature is to keep people employed and grow the economy, instead of forcing businesses to close, move out of state, and put people out of work. Guess not.

Rather than a “smoke” and mirrors approach, the governor and Legislature should have sent the message that enough was enough; instead of sending more blank checks to Philadelphia, it was time to finally overhaul a failed educational system. In doing so, they would have won the support not just of suburbanites sick of seeing their tax dollars wasted, but also the parents of those trapped in abysmal Philadelphia schools with no way out.

Instead, the promise of their new tax law will go up in smoke, and with it, another generation of lost children.

Philly Cigarette Tax Fails

State Police Fitness Suit Doesn’t Add Up

State Police Fitness Suit
By Chris Freind

After taking careful aim, he let the bullets fly, killing one Pennsylvania state trooper and severely injuring another in an ambush outside a police barracks. Suspect Eric Frein, a survivalist and sharpshooter, then fled into the wilderness, where he has eluded an army of police officers and FBI agents for almost two weeks.

Executing an unsuspecting police officer, while cowardly, nonetheless shows the sheer brutality of the shooter and his take-no-prisoners mentality. And given that he deliberately planned his attack on police, it is clear he wouldn’t discriminate shooting a male or female officer. In his mind, he was (and is) at war with law enforcement (he passed on shooting a civilian outside the barracks), so any officer in his sights would have been, and remains, a target, gender be damned.

Should Frein still be in the wilderness, all officers, male and female alike, hoping to successfully track him must be in peak physical shape because of the region’s rugged terrain. And should Frein be cornered by an officer, he will undoubtedly attempt to strike back with lethal force, attempting to kill a female officer just as quickly as he would a male to facilitate his escape.

Bottom line: Frein will show no discrimination killing police, treating all officers with equal opportunity contempt.

Therefore, since all officers face the same threats (not just from this suspect but in all situations, from car stops to home invasions), common sense tells us that all officers should be trained in the exact same way — and subject to the exact same fitness and academic standards, where gender has no bearing whatsoever.

Yet, if the Obama administration has its way, that standard would be shot to pieces.

In his belief that employing the same physical standards for both male and female cadets is discriminatory against women and a violation of the Civil Rights Act, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has filed suit against the Pennsylvania State Police, attempting to force it to change its physical requirements for females (and compensate women who have failed the test). The Justice Department claims “through the use of these physical fitness tests, defendants (the state police) have engaged in a pattern or practice of employment discrimination against women” and that “defendants’ use of physical fitness tests are not job-related for the entry-level trooper position, (and) is not consistent with business necessity.”

And there you have it. Another classic example of a lawsuit dreamt up by armchair bureaucrats completely lacking real-world experience — and real-world common sense.

How are physical fitness tests not “job-related” or a “business necessity?” When a bad guy flees, the police pursue, often on foot. Physically giving chase to, and ultimately overtaking, criminal suspects is a big part of the job. And since catching lawbreakers (usually involving intense physical exertion) is the core “business” of being a police officer, how exactly is that not consistent with “business necessity?”

Criminals aren’t chivalrous — they don’t let up when being chased by a female officer (or an overweight male); by definition, they are fleeing to escape capture. So why would the federal government want to give them an advantage by mandating officers be on the force who aren’t physically up to snuff? Why would we ever want standards implemented that not only help the bad guys, but devalue the abilities of all police officers — especially women, who are more than capable of passing the same tests as their male counterparts. (More than seven of 10 female cadets pass the physical requirements).

And let’s be honest. If anything, the existing requirements are far too lenient: Three chances to vertically jump a whopping 14 inches (fat people jump higher than that when the pizza guy arrives); a 300-meter run in 77 seconds (a feat easily accomplished by your average sixth-grader); a 1.5-mile run in 18 minutes (you could catch a quick nap and still make it); and 13 pushups with no time limit.

Are these requirements discriminatory? Absolutely! And they should be; the whole point is to weed out those who would not be able to perform on the job. Are we supposed to hire female lifeguards who can’t swim? Bus drivers with failing eyesight? Out-of-shape combat pilots who can’t sustain G-forces? Where does it end?

The police requirements are meant to simulate real-life, on-the-job situations that officers will — not may, but will — encounter: Foot pursuit, CPR, climbing stairs, lifting and pushing various things.

Yet, the Justice Department somehow doesn’t see it that way, stating that it “is deeply committed to eliminating artificial barriers that keep qualified women out of public safety work.” If cops never encountered any of the above situations, then the requirements would indeed be “artificial barriers.”

But they do. And therefore the requirements must not only stay, but be strengthened.

If the requirements are dumbed down, and the inevitable negative consequences occur, will Holder or President Obama take responsibility? And would it even matter to victims and their families if they did?

“We’re sorry that the rapist got away to strike again because our officers weren’t able to run a few hundred yards without wheezing; it’s a shame the drug dealer killed your young child because he was able to elude out-of-shape cops time and again; too bad those victims died in the fire because the police couldn’t mount the steps quickly.”

Not much solace there.

Except, of course, to a smug administration, content with a warped belief that its social engineering is changing America for the better. Here’s a news flash, Mr. President: Such assaults on common sense and work ethic don’t work, and only sow the seeds of resentment across all classes and all genders.

Hillary Clinton didn’t earn bonus votes because she was female. In the same way, if an applicant — for any job — can’t meet the requirements, the answer is to move on to something else, or work harder until you can pass the tests. Instilling a sense of misguided entitlement solely because of gender (the true “artificial barrier”) not only isn’t rewarding, but extremely dangerous.

So hats off to the Pennsylvania State Police for not caving, unlike their Corpus Christi, Texas, counterparts. That department, upon having after a similar suit filed against them, agreed to eliminate its physical fitness test, dole out $700,000 in compensation to women who had failed the test, and give priority hiring and retroactive seniority and benefits to females who didn’t pass the test.

And that is downright criminal.

Let’s hope the courts have the stamina to run rings around Obama’s frivolous lawsuit in Pennsylvania and push it to where it belongs: In the trash.

State Police Fitness Suit Doesn’t Add Up

Ferguson Shows Widening Racial Gulf

CHRIS FREIND
By Chris Freind

For all the pain endured during the Civil Rights movement by people of all colors, the racial chaos that has descended on Ferguson, Mo., makes one wonder how disenchanted those equality pioneers must be.

In the 1960s, barriers were knocked down by heroes who fought courageously and peacefully, not just to be equal, but to live in a color-blind society. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said it best, stating that people should not be judged by the color of their skin. Those ideals won the day back then, yet it is with tragic irony that today, race relations have been hijacked and taken on a race to the bottom.

It is no exaggeration to say that, in many respects, race relations are worse today than they were half a century ago. And that is a tragedy of our own making. As Ferguson shows, the racial gulf continues to widen, a trend that will only accelerate until we take a hard look in the mirror and remember what the Civil Rights movement fought for in the first place.

In Ferguson, an 18-year-old was shot and killed by a police officer after the two struggled in and around the officer’s patrol car. An autopsy is being performed, and an investigation is ongoing.

That should have been the story line from the beginning. Period. Nothing about race should have entered into the equation until, and only until, it was determined to be warranted.

Instead, protests ensued. Confrontations between citizens and a heavily armed police force were displayed before a national TV audience. The unrest in Ferguson spurred the FBI to launch a civil rights investigation, and the U.S. Justice Department is conducting what will be a third autopsy. Calls for the officer to be charged as a way of bringing “justice” for the deceased, Michael Brown, further enflamed tensions. Curfews were imposed and the National Guard mobilized.

Disregarding the spin and not-so-hidden agendas of some shameless self-promoters, let’s take a sober look at the situation:

1. Brown, who is black, was killed by white police Officer Darren Wilson. Does that mean Wilson, a decorated police veteran, is racist, and that his shooting was racially motivated? Absolutely not, especially because, up to this point, no racist elements have surfaced regarding Wilson. He deserves the benefit of the doubt that his encounter with Brown had nothing to do with color and everything to do with performing his job.

Obviously, if it is determined that race was involved, there should be consequences. That’s why God invented investigations. Common sense tells us that only after the investigation is concluded should anyone be protesting. To do so now is flying blind, since virtually no facts are known, and at least one eyewitness statement — that Brown was shot in the back — seems to have been contradicted by the medical examiner hired by the Brown family. Let’s not forget the innocent until proven guilty principle.

2. Inflammatory rhetoric only ignites the powder keg. Calling Brown’s killing an “execution” (as the Brown family attorney did) is not just ludicrous, but dangerous to everyone. Where are the leaders denouncing such statements?

3. There are conflicting stories as to how far away Brown was when he was shot. Police state that the first shot was fired while the two tussled in the police car, yet we don’t by whom (some reports have Brown shoving Wilson into the car). Regarding the ensuing shots, let’s assume that Brown died 35 feet away from the car, as some reports state. First, that doesn’t mean he was shot 35 feet away, as people can stagger quite a distance after being shot. Ballistics tests and autopsy results should provide the answer.

The medical examiner hired by the family stated the bullet that struck Brown’s in the front of his head could have hit when Brown was giving up or charging the officer. He stated that he found no gunpowder residue near the entry wounds, preliminarily indicating the shot was not from extremely close range, but also said he hadn’t examined Brown’s clothes, which could contain that residue. Again, we must wait for the full picture before casting judgments.

If Wilson shot Brown while the two struggled, that would seem justified, especially if Brown, as reports say, was grabbing for Wilson’s weapon. If, however, Brown was shot at a considerable distance (and not charging the officer), then Wilson is at fault. A shooting can never be justified (if the assailant is unarmed) from a considerable distance, no matter how much adrenaline may be pumping through an officer. Part of the job is to make correct split-second decisions, especially when firing a gun. Noble as being a police officer is, wrong actions in the line of duty have consequences.

4. There was a video released allegedly showing Brown, reported to be 6-foot-4 and 292 pounds, stealing cigars from a liquor store 15 minutes prior to the shooting. The Justice Department and the Missouri governor both criticized the video’s release, but why? Irrelevant is whether Officer Wilson knew of that situation (we don’t know yet). What matters is that Brown had allegedly been engaged in a criminal act, pushing and threatening a much smaller clerk on his way out the door. Therefore, whether or not the shooting was justified, he should not be made out to be a hero.

5. The Ferguson police have been criticized for their strong showing. OK, help me out on this. Given the unrest, including burning and looting, and Molotov cocktails and gunfire being directed at police, what exactly should they have done?

Sadly, race relations will never improve until we stop viewing everything through a racial prism. As long as race is our go-to answer for everything, Dr. King’s dream of a color-blind society will remain just that — a dream.

Ferguson Shows Widening Racial Gulf

Build Border Wall

By Chris Freind

The humanitarian crisis engulfing the United States — tens of thousands of parentless Central American children pouring across the southern border — will surely increase in scope. And the reason is simple: America continues to send the message that we welcome illegal immigrants with open arms, even young ones traveling alone.

That’s not just insane, but downright cruel.

It’s one thing if illegal immigrant advocates lobby for amnesty and open borders, but openly encouraging parents to send their children on a perilous journey is heartless. And make no mistake: That’s exactly the message being sent. Not surprisingly, the biggest advocate of all is the U.S. government.

The influx of these children has taken the immigration issue to a whole new level. And here’s the underlying short-term problem: While most are eventually designated for deportation (the key word being “eventually”), it often takes years to get a hearing in immigration court. In the meantime, the children are left in a scary, isolated limbo, not living a productive life, and, worst of all, remain far away from where they belong: at home, with their parents and families.

The parents, not seeing their children return home a short time after sending them off, assume deportations are not taking place, and that their kids have been officially accepted into American society as part of an open amnesty program. As the old shampoo commercial said, those parents tell two friends, and they tell two friends, and so on, to the point where it becomes widely perceived that sending more children to America is the right thing to do.

But it’s not.

With so many dangers confronting these defenseless children during their trek to America, from sickness to being taken advantage of by unscrupulous adults in a host of horrible ways, we should be doing everything in our power to stop this exodus from Central America. Now. That would be the humanitarian thing to do.

Instead, as is the case for every major issue we face, we look to tactics, not strategies, to solve the crisis, amounting to Band-Aids on hemorrhaging wounds. America has lost its gift of foresight, becoming reactive instead of proactive and jettisoning its ability to eliminate problems before they start, or, at the least, confronting them head-on with the iron will to solve them.

A glaring example of this is the clamor, on both sides of the aisle, to better fund and staff our immigration courts as a way of alleviating the massive backlog of cases, now exponentially higher given the influx of children. (There are 243 immigration judges, an average of one to every 1,545 pending cases).

Nice idea, but it misses the whole point. Ramping up the immigration courts will never solve the problem, because it doesn’t address it. More courts, judges and hearings may slightly alleviate the supply side of illegal immigration, but does nothing to cut down the demand. Until we get serious about reforming a broken immigration system, which neither party has any interest in doing, things will only deteriorate, and more people will attempt to cross the order for the perceived amnesty. Tensions will continue to escalate between citizens and illegal immigrants they see as threatening their physical and economic security, and the situation will become measurably uglier. And when that occurs, no one wins.

Here are some common sense solutions, which, if articulated correctly, would be reasonable to the vast majority of Americans, while providing compassion to people who yearn for the better life America provides:

1. Build the border wall. This is the single most important step to fixing the problem, as a formidable barrier will instantly send the message that America has gotten serious about stopping illegal border crossings. When families in Central America understand this, they will stop sending their children into harm’s way, saving countless lives. Since we have a $17 trillion debt, funding the wall won’t be an issue (what’s a few billion more?), but costs could be controlled by utilizing nonviolent prisoners and illegal immigrants to construct it. If we were smart, we would also stop giving foreign aid to any nation that encourages illegal immigration, and that refuses to accept their citizens whom we deport. That funding alone would be enough to build the wall.

Common sense tells us that a secure border wall would absolutely cut down the “supply” side of not just illegal immigrants, but drug traffickers and terrorists. Protecting our children and eliminating al-Qaeda’s free pass (possibly with a nuclear weapon) should be top priorities. For proof of effectiveness, look at Israel’s success with its wall. Walls work. Build it. Now.

2. There is no need to militarize the border, as some advocate. The smart utilization of current resources (and a secure wall) would be more than adequate. The numbers tell the story: The southern border is 2,000 miles long. As of 2012, there were over 21,000 Border Patrol agents. Even if we take 3,000 agents out of the equation (more than enough to patrol the Florida shores and those sneaky Canucks), that leaves nine agents per mile, which is an extraordinarily high staffing level. Making America into a military state is anathema to what we stand for and totally unnecessary.

3. Marketing America’s legal immigration policies in Central American nations is not mutually exclusive to instituting “self-deportation” policies for illegal immigrants. America is the most generous nation on Earth regarding legal immigration, and immigrants have always made America stronger. But the emphasis must be on entering the country legally.

One easy and cost-effective way to cut down on undocumented workers skirting the law is to mandate that all employers utilize the free E-Verify system, which quickly determines the legal status of a potential hire. Companies that do not comply should face stiff penalties. This is a win-win, as stringent law enforcement measures on businesses would also serve to eliminate lavish public benefits enjoyed by illegal immigrants — the mammoth costs of which are borne by taxpayers.

4. We must place partisan politics aside and reasonably deal with illegals already here. Failure to do so will only exacerbate an already bad situation.

We can document the workers already here by issuing long-term or lifetime work visas (after they pass a criminal background check), while permanently denying them citizenship and possibly levying fines. In doing so, they would begin paying their “fair share” through taxes and lessen the financial burden on U.S. citizens.

That’s not amnesty, but the only realistic approach to finally solving a huge, decades-old problem. It penalizes lawbreakers, documents millions (bringing them out of the shadowy underworld) and makes them, and Americans, considerably safer. It would increase tax revenue and make formerly illegal workers pay into benefits programs.

Solving America’s illegal immigration crisis amicably and reasonably, while protecting the most vulnerable of any society — the children — can be summed up by the quote, “The solutions are simple; they’re just not easy.”

For everyone’s sake — Americans, immigrants, and especially the youngest generation — it’s time to finally roll up our sleeves and get the job done.

 

Build Border Wall

Avoid Ukraine Conflict

By Chris Freind

Stay away. Far, far away.

Unless America wants to see the powder keg of Europe ignited once again — and it’s not a stretch to say that actively opposing Russia in its conflict with Ukraine could potentially start World War III — it will steer clear of that region. Avoiding another global war (this time with nuclear weapons) should be reason enough, but here’s another one: It’s not our fight.

Right now, it is a limited brawl between those two nations, and, despite the spin that Russia is the bad guy, it is not at all clear who is “right.” Either way, those powerful nations dominate that region; we don’t. To march in as a self-righteous superpower thinking we can “fix” the problem is arrogant, naïve — and dangerous.

Let’s analyze the situation:

1. Malaysia Airlines: They have now lost two 777s in the past couple of months. It’s enough to bankrupt any airline. In a span of four months, Malaysian Airlines planes have been involved in two of the worst airline tragedies in decades.

In the first incident, the jury remains out on just what happened to the missing Flight 370. While some conspiracy theories are absurd, others cannot be so easily dismissed. One thing is certain: The problems that have dogged the Malaysian government and Malaysia Airlines officials was on full display after Flight 370’s disappearance. A few months later, most experts believe Flight 17 was blown out of the sky by a surface-to-air missile. The tragedy over the Ukraine took place even after airlines had been repeatedly warned since April to avoid flying over that conflicted region. The Malaysian jet failed to heed that warning.

2. Apparently the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” has been lost on many American leaders clamoring for more action against the pro-Russian rebels and Russia itself. Last time we checked, it remains unclear who fired the missile, especially since the Ukraine military operates the exact same SA-11 system.

And it’s not unprecedented for missiles to be fired at the wrong targets. Iraq killed 37 sailors on the USS Stark in 1987 when one of its airplane missiles mistakenly hit the Navy frigate. Similarly, the American cruiser Vincennes mistakenly shot down an Iranian airliner, killing nearly 300 people in 1988. We can’t have it both ways, stating that the Malaysian jet was unmistakably a passenger jet, yet excusing how one of the world’s most sophisticated radar systems (AEGIS) thought a jumbo jet was a small, attacking fighter. Our credibility on the world stage is at stake, so let’s think before we speak.

3. The question of which country the predominantly Russian-speaking people of Crimea want to be aligned with is not new; these ethnic and nationality issues don’t just transcend borders, but time, with allegiances going back hundreds, even thousands, of years. We are a nation barely over 200 years old, with absolutely no concept of how far back, and how strong, these European ties are. To think we can provide the solution is naivete at its worst.

We used the same approach for engaging Iraq and Afghanistan. How’s that working out for us?

4. Here a news flash: The Cold War is over. For those warmongers who missed it, perhaps we should declare victory again and move on, and out, of Europe. It’s been pointed out here before it’s time for America to stop policing the world, and start its exodus from Europe. Only four NATO countries meet their paltry requirement for defense spending, yet the U.S. always exceeds its obligation to pick up the slack. If the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is anybody’s business, it’s Europe’s. It falls entirely within their sphere of influence, so let them deal with it.

That’s not to advocate isolationism, as it is in America’s interest to have a global presence. But an aggressive and all-too-often misguided interventionist foreign policy (one advocated by both parties) leaves the perception of the U.S. as imperialistic aggressors, which creates exponentially more problems down the road. Time to stop expending blood and treasure in foreign lands while our protectees default on their end of the bargain, leaving us holding an empty bag.

5. We haven’t done too well choosing sides in other regional conflicts. We backed the Libyan rebels (the largest foreign force in Iraq to fight the U.S., by the way) who overthrew Moammar Gadhafi, after which 10,000 surface-to-air missiles disappeared and the Benghazi tragedy occurred. Bet the ranch neither would have happened had Gadhafi remained in power.

We are backing the Syrian rebels, who are unquestionably more radical and anti-American than the government of Bashar Assad; the Iraqi government we helped install is worthless; and Afghani President Hamid Karzai is astonishingly ungrateful. Instead of meddling in foreign affairs so much, maybe it’s time to focus on the people who should matter most: Americans. In America.

6. You know we’ve reached a low point when politicians bash the other side just to score cheap political points for some perceived gain, especially when doing so risks an expanded armed conflict in Europe, potentially putting American lives on the line.

For those hammering President Obama (with some even blaming him for the Malaysian shoot-down), one question: What exactly do you want him to do? Send “advisers” to the Ukraine, which always leads to more troops? Send more Navy ships to the region? Arm the Ukraine to the hilt? All will antagonize Russian leader Vladimir Putin and cause him to escalate the crisis. We cannot win a war there. Period. Since the outcome doesn’t affect us, let’s wait this one out on the sidelines.

As far as sanctions, good luck standing alone. Western Europe chose not to become energy independent, or at least dependent on friendly nations like Canada and the U.S. (which could be energy independent but is not). So it must rely on the Middle East, and even more so, Russia, for its lifeblood: natural gas. Watch for them to cheat on, or rescind, any sanctions.

Putin’s economy is sliding, but his people are rallying behind him and he is holding the better cards. Let Europe figure this one out.

Russia is not the superpower it once was, but it is still a powerful player that must be respected (after all, it’s the only ticket to our space station, but that’s another story). Warmongers’ cries of “appeasement” notwithstanding, playing “chicken-Kiev” with Russia is not sound foreign policy. It’s a recipe for disaster.

 

Avoid Ukraine Conflict

Atlantic City Gambling Lesson

By Chris Freind

 

 

“If you must play, decide upon three things at the start: the rules of the game, the stakes, and the quitting time.”

— Chinese Proverb

Since China took a chapter from America’s playbook on working hard and smashing through any obstacle to achieve success, it’s too bad we didn’t reciprocate by heeding those prophetic words from the Orient. If we had, China wouldn’t be the massive tiger whose influence becomes more global each day, and we wouldn’t be on the fast track to becoming a paper tiger.

Yet, too many refuse to acknowledge the fact that the United States is, and has been, in a dangerous financial decline for decades, fueled by the self-interest of both political parties, and a public unwilling to demand accountability and a change in direction. In not believing that the rules apply to us, we continue to raise the stakes in a game we cannot win.

There is an extremely naïve mindset that we’re too big to fail (or fall) and that protests, righteous indignation and more money will solve everything, even when the books show we’re broke.

It is always easier to comprehend large issues on a local level. The recent spate of casino bankruptcies and closings in Atlantic City, and the reasons for their shutdowns, provide a microcosm of America’s problems. And it’s a sure bet that if America doesn’t turn things around soon, it’s bluff will be called and it will fold its hand, just as is happening in Atlantic City. Consider:

1. Former glory: The recent closing of the Atlantic Club Casino, along with the anticipated closings of the Showboat, Trump Plaza, and the new, $2.4 billion Revel would leave Atlantic City with just eight casinos, a whopping 33 percent decline since January. How could this happen?

Atlantic City was once a jet-set destination, the A-List place to see and be seen by the world’s rich and famous.

But that was then. As has been the case for decades, a huge percentage of residents live in extreme poverty, with an educational system so bad that even when the casinos were in full swing and had ample job opportunities, the city’s unemployment rate was double the national average.

Without education, and thus the prospect of gainful employment, crime and vice skyrocket, which we have seen not just in A.C. but nationwide, as America’s woefully inadequate (yet lavishly funded) public schools continue to fail our children. Despite all the promises of government leaders and industry officials to reinvigorate the city after building the casinos, the situation continues to deteriorate.

There are many who think that America’s glory days are behind her, as optimism in the future continues to wane, regardless of who occupies the White House. Jobs continue to be lost overseas, educational achievement levels are dropping, and the middle class is shrinking while an unaffordable and unsustainable entitlement class is growing. Despite blue ribbon commissions and campaign promises of a better tomorrow, things are going the wrong way with no solution in sight.

2. Resting On Laurels: America is still unquestionably the world’s most powerful nation — for now, but it has gotten sluggish. Content in its position, it refuses to see who is breathing down its neck. As a result, the competition is gaining while the U.S. remains stagnant. Each week brings news of the dollar’s further decline as more countries move to other currencies for their international transactions.

As America loses its reserve currency status, while continuing to print money to spend trillions it doesn’t have, the value of our incomes decline. But since no one wants to admit the mathematical certainty that insolvency is nearly upon us at municipal, state and federal levels, especially given the trillions in unfunded pension liabilities, the problems aren’t being addressed.

Atlantic City, located within driving distance of well over 100 million people, also rested on its laurels, as it had the casino industry all to itself. Until it didn’t — but by then it was too late. In its complacency, it never strove to better itself, nor was it proactive in re-inventing who it was and what it offered. That blindness made it impotent to compete when neighboring states started permitting casinos.

And then there was Vegas (a desert, without the allure of being next to an ocean), whose leaders had the foresight to make that town not just a gambling mecca, but a family vacation destination, a remarkable feat since the vast majority of visitors must fly there. Las Vegas markets itself brilliantly, keeps the city relatively safe and continues to attract people from all over the world. The numbers tell the story: Atlantic City’s gaming revenue has declined 50 percent since 2006, yet for the most part, Vegas continues to post moderate gains, and, unlike Atlantic City, the city still prospers even when revenues are down because of its diversification. The spoils go to the victor and Las Vegas is winning every hand.

Likewise, nations and financial institutions are parking their investment money in places other than America. And not only aren’t they buying American debt at previous levels, viewing it as an increasingly risky bet, but many are dumping it altogether. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that our house of cards strategy will, at some point, collapse.

3. Denial. Two plus two always equals four. If America continues to spend uncontrollably without reforming entitlements and rebuilding its moribund manufacturing base, there will be unprecedented pain. And no amount of protests, lobbying or complaining will change this.

In Atlantic City, casino employees and union members continue to protest the closings, playing the blame game and hammering owners, despite the mammoth losses being incurred by the casinos, with one union official even labeling the closing of one casino a “criminal act.”

Really? What planet are these people living on? If there’s no money, there’s no money. What part of that can people not comprehend?

If these casinos were profitable, they wouldn’t close. But they’re not. That’s why they are declaring bankruptcy and closing their doors. And the true blame must be shared by all: The city, which has for decades done nothing to improve itself; the industry, which sat on its derriere, arrogantly betting that people would always come; and the employees and unions who never prodded either to keep up with the times.

Now, with over 6,000 layoffs looming and certainly more to come, a city in despair, and the negative image associated with dying casinos, the few high-end stores that still remain in Atlantic City will eventually leave, furthering the death spiral.

Is there a solution? For Atlantic City, probably not. It would take a generation or more to turn that city around, yet there is not an iota of political or corporate will to do so. So the implosion will continue until that once great city won’t even be a shadow of itself, but just a sad ghost of the past.

Luck always runs out, so if America is to avoid A.C.’s fate, it needs to stop gambling with its future. Otherwise, it’ll be left holding a Dead Man’s Hand.

Atlantic City Gambling Lesson

Fireworks Forbidden Fruit In PRNJ

By Chris Freind

If it’s forbidden fruit you’re looking for, forget the Garden of Eden. The Garden State offers something so much better. Something that can provide a spark, light up your life, and keep your flame burning bright.
It’s a sparkler. And they’re illegal statewide. So if it’s fun you’re looking for this Fourth of July, be careful of lighting those nefarious instruments of destruction. Unlike merely incurring original sin, possession of sparklers is far worse: fines and a possible trip to a Jersey prison.
The real sin, however, isn’t that sparklers are banned, but the effort put into enforcing that law.
New Jersey is apparently the safest state in the union because, given the sizable state police resources used to combat fireworks, it must be free of murders, rapes, robberies and drugs.
In case you’re wondering, fireworks always rank right up there as one of the most pressing issues, along with curbing your dog and jaywalking. Clearly, controlling such items of mass destruction is paramount in the Garden State.
The threat of anyone in New Jersey enjoying themselves over the Fourth is so great, so irksome to government, that undercover storm troopers (sorry, meant “state” troopers) are being sent across enemy lines (the Jersey-Pennsylvania border) to stake out the parking lots of fireworks stores. There, they lie in wait for consumers with Jersey tags.
After stealthily tracking those individuals on their return trip, they radio to units on the down side of the bridge who nail the lawbreakers. In doing so, they perpetuate the public’s feeling that too many police are being used as revenue collectors.
(This is nothing new, as Pennsylvania state police run stakeout operations in Delaware liquor store parking lots, nailing those avoiding the staggering 18 percent Johnstown Flood Tax on wine and booze, a tax instituted to rebuild that city from the flood of 1936!)
Does the government have nothing better to do? Is it so safe that Jersey police need to harass their citizens in another state?
And it’s not like New Jersey ever had the most dangerous city in America. Oh wait. It does: Camden.
Which can only mean that Camden’s residents are safe walking down the street.
But just read the headlines to see that Camden is as dreadful as ever. So can it really be that the New Jersey’s leaders willingly place more emphasis on controlling sparklers than they do preventing people from getting shot?
And it’s not just New Jersey citizens who are being targeted. Drivers from other states who bought fireworks in Pennsylvania, and made several stops after leaving the store, still got nailed after crossing into Jersey. Undercover police are stooping to such deception that they are tracking fellow Americans in another state, potentially for hours on end, after buying fireworks legally, on merely the possibility that person might cross into New Jersey.
New Jersey officials even had the audacity to complain to Pennsylvania officials about the “legal loophole” of allowing Jersey residents to buy fireworks in Pennsylvania.
Loophole? It’s not a loophole. It’s freedom, clearly a principle that exists in small quantities across the Delaware River. What right does an official in New Jersey have to tell its citizens that they cannot engage in a legal activity in another state? Where does the government’s power grab end?
And let’s be honest. The regulations banning fireworks in New Jersey don’t stem from preventing forest fires, but are all about a paternalistic government that believes it, not the people, knows best.
It is a mentality that parents are not capable of properly supervising their children, so the government must step in and take control. Forget that the vast majority of revelers use fireworks with care, and that accidents are rare. New Jersey government, playing right into America’s culture of fear, thinks its nanny-state intervention will eliminate the risk of getting hurt.
What’s next? Banning skateboards? Or mandating that coffee be served at 75 degrees to prevent burns?
And how is it that Americans in so many other states use sparklers safely?
The irony of these Gestapo-like tactics is that it illustrates the beauty of America: No one has to live in New Jersey. If a state’s power becomes too onerous, one can move without asking permission. And it’s precisely why the “Red-Blue” divide in this country is wider than ever. Blue states continue to over-regulate and over-tax, while Red states offer a freer environment. Consequently, the states with booming populations, highest job creation, and most robust economies are Red.
 
The fact that we have such a choice is uniquely American.
So if you live in The People’s Republic of New Jersey, have a great time ringing in the freedom of the Fourth by firing up your flashlights.
Until they get banned too.
Fireworks Forbidden Fruit In PRNJ

 

Hat tip Newsmax.com

 

Let Us Be Isolationists

By Chris Freind

 

The great ship moved silently through the water.

Actually, it didn’t, as a 60,000-ton, 1,000-foot-long aircraft carrier does nothing quietly. In fact, the approach of such a warship is known far in advance. So as Russia’s Admiral Kuznetsov recently entered Dutch waters — an overt show of force, given that its normal route would have taken her around Ireland — defense protocol was to scramble a Dutch naval vessel to “escort” the foreign ship until it passed. In addition to sending the unmistakable message that all potential threats will be met aggressively, shadowing a foreign ship allows for invaluable intelligence-gathering.

But there was one small problem.

The Dutch couldn’t find a single navy ship. Not one.

Incomprehensibly, they didn’t have a coast guard vessel either — inexcusable considering that the Netherlands possesses a strategically crucial coastline. So instead, it sent up an old propeller plane with zero surveillance capability to greet the Kuznetsov. That sound you may have heard was the Russian crew’s hysterical laughter.

Why the embarrassing response? Because the Dutch retired their entire fleet of dedicated maritime patrol aircraft 12 years ago, and the Royal Netherlands Navy was unavailable — not because the fleet was dispatched around the world protecting shipping lanes or fighting piracy, but because in reality it no longer exists, having been massively shrunk due to defense budget cuts.

But the problems of the Dutch — par for the course for most NATO countries — should come as a shock to no one. And it all boils down to appalling European ungratefulness and American stupidity.

NATO rules stipulate that member nations dedicate at least 2 percent of gross domestic product every year to defense spending, yet only four countries met that requirement last year, with the NATO average being 1.6 percent (which has been declining for decades). The United States, on the other hand, spent 4.1 percent, carrying the water for all the slacker countries, as it always does. And to what end?

Our “allies” skimp on defense so they can gleefully fund all their socialist pet projects, knowing full well that the American security guarantee remains staunchly in place. Their “let the Americans do the heavy lifting while we party it up” mentality is the ultimate slap in the face, a giant middle finger to the nation whose Greatest Generation saved their hides (and the world) from the most brutal regimes in history, during both World War II and the Cold War.

And we have only ourselves to blame for perpetuating this humiliation — something that needs to be rectified.

We don’t need Europe the way we did during the Cold War, so it’s time to stop our carte blanche policy and step back. The Europeans need to step up to the plate — for once — and start defending themselves. We should nullify outdated treaties from a different era and remove the bulk of our forces, leaving the continent to their own devices. In addition to weaning Europe off America’s never-ending (and unappreciated) generosity, it would be a boon to our economy, as billions would be spent at home rather than in foreign economies. The same goes for South Korea, where thousands of troops serve only a symbolic, albeit expensive, function.

Instead of having troops stationed in over 130 countries, our leaders should use smarter domestic policy that would result in less blood and treasure needlessly expended overseas.

And a prime example is Iraq.

In response to the recent turmoil in Iraq, a die-hard Republican remarked, “Obama is losing the Iraq victory that George W. Bush won.”

Nothing could be further from the truth.

First, while Bush spearheaded the war effort, scores of Democrats went along by voting for the resolution. Second, and infinitely more important, there was never was a victory to lose. The chaos now engulfing Iraq, which threatens the entire Middle East, is the predictable outcome of a massive bipartisan failure, one predicated on the mentality of being the “world’s policeman.”

The intervention in Iraq should never have occurred, but since America’s modus operandi seems to be “shoot first and analyze later,” it was inevitable. Now, with thousands of Americans dead or maimed, and trillions spent, there is nothing to show for the Iraq War but anarchy and unspeakable brutality.

Ironically, America serving as the Middle East’s policeman has created a nation of lawlessness, a breeding ground for the planet’s most evil. Before the invasion, sectarian violence and car bombs were nonexistent in Iraq, as Saddam Hussein kept everything in check. A brutal dictator, to be sure, but one who hadn’t threatened or harmed America. Yet we removed him with no regard to consequences, expecting a coronation of roses but instead receiving a nonstop bouquet of bullets and bombs.

America’s invasion and subsequent dismantling of Iraq (its army, police, and political structure) with absolutely no plan for “what to do next” created a power vacuum that exists to this day. Now, two of that country’s largest cities have fallen to radical fundamentalists who are worse than the extremists they are battling. And of course, once again, there is talk of American involvement to “fix” the situation.

Three things are abundantly clear:

1. Despite all the justifications to invade Iraq, the real reason was oil, both for America and the world. But guess what? America has more energy resources in the lower 48 than almost the entire Middle East combined, and when Alaska’s mammoth resources are added, it’s a no-brainer. We need to drill responsibly to completely free ourselves of our unwinnable Middle Eastern entanglements. Not only would it throttle our economy into hyper-drive, as cheap fuel would revive America’s moribund manufacturing base, but it would immeasurably bolster national security.

2. Time to cut our losses. There is no solution for Iraq, at least not one America can produce. We need to monitor the situation closely, but from afar, cruise missiles on standby. But under no circumstances should American boots ever be on the ground there again. Enough is enough.

3. America obviously needs to protect its interests overseas, act as a respectful leader of the world, and be a beacon of light to billions. But in doing so it should heed the vision of another president named George, whose prescience about avoiding foreign entanglements is as applicable today as when he served as our first elected leader.

And the best way to do that is to arrest our misguided policy of playing policeman to the world.

Let Us Be Isolationists

Radar Guns Bad Idea

Radar Guns Bad Idea

Every few years, an issue appears in Pennsylvania that raises people’s antennas, only to fall off the radar months later.

Hopefully, this time will be no exception, as there is yet another attempt in Harrisburg to allow local police to use radar. In the interests of Pennsylvanians and police alike, the best thing would be seeing this bill’s progress arrested so that it fails in a speedy manner, locking up the issue for years to come.

One of the things Pennsylvania has done right over the years is not permitting municipal police to use radar — the only state with such a prohibition.

Yet, there is a clamor from certain special interests — namely local governments and some police departments — to reverse that policy and arm police with radar guns. Their official rationale is “safety,” but we all know better. The real reason is blatantly obvious: Revenue collection. So because local governments squander millions in taxpayer money and now face record budget shortfalls, they want to break the backs of citizens by employing an onerous and unnecessary entrapment system that not only is counterproductive, but also takes valuable resources away from where they are truly needed.

Consider:

1. The police are doing just fine nabbing speeders, thank you very much. Proof? Pop in to any district judge’s courtroom and the place is packed. Law enforcement has plenty of methods for nailing speeders, all performed in real time (stopwatch, distance between two points etc.. Therefore, radar is inherently unnecessaryand would cost taxpayers more money — not just the initial cost, but also training programs and system upkeep.

2. Is radar use subject to abuse, as some claim? Sure, especially in Podunk where Uncle Cletus serves as police chief, judge and jury, but to generalize that police across the board are not to be trusted is a grossly misguided indictment. The legitimate concern is that unintentional mistakes will be made (such as radar guns not continuously calibrated), rather than deliberate game-playing.

3. Radar would relegate police officers to becoming revenue collectors (more than they already are) — and that’s not why they joined the force. Sure, maintaining safety on the roads is an important function of the police, but gunning people all day long just to fill township coffers is way beneath the talents of officers, not to mention creating intense boredom, which dulls their overall skills. And if radar use became law, bank on countless police departments receiving a portion of the revenue — a huge conflict of interest.

4. Police have better things to do. There are only so many cops to go around, yet the crimes they investigate are increasing exponentially. It is imperative that we use those limited law enforcement resources as efficiently as possible — and radar use doesn’t qualify. For every officer engaged in speed trap duty, it’s one fewer expert we have dusting for fingerprints, forensically examining a crime scene, interviewing witnesses and otherwise going after murderers, rapists and robbers.

It’s a lesson learned from the NSA spying debacle. All the untold billions and countless man hours spent wastefully reading law-abiding citizens’ emails was that much less time and resources dedicated to going after the real bad guys — like the Boston bombers. We have to be smarter with the tools and talents we have.

5. Radar would become yet another tool in the arsenal of deception, stoking a negativity in how citizens view police and leading to an “us against them” relationship on both sides. As it is, some police departments in other states (as well as Pennsylvania State Police) routinely hide radar guns on “broken-down” vehicles and farm tractors to catch those driving a bit too fast. Going to those lengths foments anger and leads to the bigger question of “what’s next?” If they are willing to deceive to that extent just for traffic violations, what else will they do in the name of “justice?”

Worse, local radar use would lead to increased use of unmarked cars in speed trap stings, with more positioned on private property (such as residential driveways and business parking lots). Not only does that practice smack of coercion and intimidation, but it is extremely dangerous, especially to women, when pulled over by a unmarked unit. The state law that should be passed would be one banning the use of unmarked cars in traffic/speeding duty. They serve no productive purpose.

With all the problems confronting police, stooping to the level of deception that radar invites — just to monetize routine traffic violations — transforms the respect that our men and women in blue deserve, into resentment.

The ways to deter speeding are easy: Eliminate ridiculously low speed limits (often changing with little or no warning) set for the sole purpose of nailing otherwise law-abiding drivers, and bolster police presence on a municipality’s roads with marked cars. It’s an easy equation, and not just for speeding: Increased police presence equals reduction in crime. It’s common sense.

From both the civil libertarian and utilitarian perspectives, let’s ask our legislators to place the radar gun bill where it belongs — completely off the political radar screen.

Corporate Tax Makes US Strike Out

By Chris Freind

Imagine a baseball team with a self-imposed rule requiring its players to brandish a 50-ounce bat, while the other teams use the standard 32-ounce slugger — a huge difference when facing 95 MPH pitches.

Inarguably, there would be two results:

A. The team with the dumb rule would be in last place, for swinging significantly heavier bats would produce fewer hits, and thus fewer runs.

B. The players and coaches on that team would flee to greener pastures — namely teams without such a self-defeating rule. And players’ values would immediately rise because their productivity would increase. Less restrictive rules would free up players to focus on what they do best, and the extra coin in their pockets would provide even more incentive to work harder.

Common sense clearly dictates that the last place team re-evaluate its policies, make the necessary adjustments, and halt the exodus of its players. How? By allowing its players to use lighter bats, thereby creating a winning environment and achieving a financial windfall in the process.

Naturally, it would be insanity to go in the other direction — digging in even further, and threatening sanctions against anyone leaving the team.

Even a team so obtuse as to establish such a counter-productive rule would undoubtedly see the error of its ways and rectify a bad situation. Right?

Wrong. Welcome to the United States Congress, where both parties adamantly refuse to change one of the single largest factors keeping America in a stagnant, no-growth status: the world’s highest corporate tax.

The latest story regarding the onerous U.S. tax rate is making headlines — and waves — around the world, as American pharmaceutical giant Pfizer is attempting to buy Britain-based AstraZeneca (so far, four offers have been rejected). While Pfizer’s target has an extremely promising pipeline of cutting edge anti-cancer medicines, there is another compelling reason to acquire the foreign-based firm: massive tax savings.

If the deal goes through, Pfizer would “re-domicile” in the U.K., substantially lowering its corporate tax rate. Britain finally got with the program a decade ago, when it awakened and realized that its rate — over 30 percent — was driving away business. Since then, the rate has been lowered steadily, attracting wealth and working capital to its shores. The Brits now levy a 21 percent business tax, which will soon drop to 20 percent and possibly lower.

Compare that to the United States’ tax rate of 35 percent, and it’s a no-brainer why any CEO favors moving overseas. Making matters worse, the effective rates are actually higher, once state and local taxes are factored into the equation. So in Pennsylvania, a company pays the highest federal corporate tax on the planet, on top of the nation’s second-highest state corporate net income tax (9.9 percent), on top of local taxes (and Philadelphia is, cumulatively, the highest-taxed city in America).

But that’s not all. There are even more job-killing corporate taxes in the Keystone State, including the capital stock and franchise tax, several gross receipts taxes, public utility realty tax, gross premiums tax, and financial institutions taxes, including the Bank and Trust Company Shares Tax, Title Insurance Shares Tax, and the Mutual Thrift Institutions Tax. Getting the picture?

Rather than fix the problem — steadily sky-high rates that stifle innovation, cause job cuts, place a cap on new hires, and take capital from the free market (where it could be invested in projects and people) — Congress and many states continue to stand by their draconian policies. Instead of asking why companies flee, and what can be done to halt the exodus, government instead advocates penalizing those with the foresight to seek a more secure location, with some congressmen even advocating to make it a crime for businesses to leave.

In Pfizer’s case, it could potentially save $1 billion per year in taxes. And the money saved could hire more people, increase research and development, expand operations, bolster ancillary business, and otherwise fuel a productive economic engine. Unfortunately, that investment would occur overseas, creating little benefit in America. All this because our elected officials are too lazy and or too stupid to do what must be done: lower the tax rates.

Several points to consider:

1. There will undoubtedly be partisan comments that it’s the Democrats’ fault. True, that party deludes itself into believing higher taxes and making the rich (both people and corporations) “pay their fair share” will solve all of America’s problems. But this, like every major challenge America faces, has its roots in bipartisan failure. When it controlled the White House and Congress, the GOP did absolutely nothing to improve the situation (ditto for Pennsylvania, where Gov. Corbett and record Republican majorities accomplished squat in improving the state’s business climate and tax code).

To reverse this, it will take a leader with a clear, articulated vision and strong will. Sadly, calls for such a person keep echoing back, unanswered.

2. It’s bad enough that our taxes are so high, but to make the sin mortal, the money raised is squandered. High taxes can never be justified, but the pill might not be so bitter if at least the money was wisely spent. We all know otherwise.

3. Are there some lobbyist-generated loopholes in the tax code that allow for some corporate deductions? Sure. But they amount to a Band-Aid on a gaping wound, nowhere near enough to stop the hemorrhaging. If they were the panacea, companies wouldn’t have left and countless others would not be considering the same (such as Pfizer and Walgreens). The solution is not smoke-and-mirror deductions that benefit a select few, but a total overhaul of the tax code so that it is universally fair and competitive.

4. Politicians immediately posture against proposed mergers that could take jobs and cash overseas. But it should be obvious that, if American tax rates were competitive, such an exodus could be avoided in the first place. Same goes for the states: if tax rates are too high, expect companies to migrate to more favorable locations around the country.

“We contend that for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.” So said the great Winston Churchill, and his countrymen have taken note. Yet Uncle Sam remains stuck in the bucket, continually striking out while knee deep in a mess of its own making.

 

Corporate Tax Makes US Strike Out