It has taken me some time to get back and put my thoughts on the record. This is not due to my lack of interest or lack of passion on what is on my mind. I have been trying ... trying very hard ... to not post a negative comment regarding our President and the Congress. I still have nothing more positive to say since my last blog - so I will not comment (for now) on what is happening.
Instead, I want to express my deep disappointment with a local matter. As my friends know - I have been volunteering for several years with a local baseball program. This started when my oldest son wanted to play baseball. I started as many parents do - as an assistant coach. My role as assistant lasted until the 2nd week of the season and the head coach stopped showing up. I took over the role of 'Coach' with a passion and to this day - I love that job. The next year I was even more involved - Head Coach from the start and volunteering for anything else that was needed. The following year - I was running the program (for the 4-6 year old age group).
Over the next several years I continued to coach and took on more roles. I was the commissioner for multiple age groups - coaching multiple teams (some that I did not have child participating). I truly love coaching youth sports! The administrative side was a role that I did ... because it needed to be done. I believe we made the programs better by stressing sportsmanship, parental involvement and insuring every child had equal opportunity to share in America's past time. The programs grew every year, other programs around ours were shrinking - this had nothing to do with recruiting.. Word of mouth spreads quicker than any marketing campaign could.
There are a few dedicated individuals that I became very close friends with and it was through their (along with some of mine) efforts, ideas and commitment to the youth of the area , that the program flourished. Those few dedicated people ran and continue to run the program - not because they want to be the only ones behind the program but because no one else will. The local Park and Recreation council are supposed to support the program as it is a county operated organization along with a county run program. Instead, the Rec council is the biggest challenge to running the program. From field allocations (baseball is the largest spring sport but are last to get fields) to conflicts with other area events (baseball always gets bumped) - the Rec council seems to represent everyone in opposition to the program.
For the last several years I , and others on the board, have talked about moving away from paper registrations (where we hand type all the information into a large spreadsheet) to electronic. The Rec Council had been saying they were planning something for all sports programs but nothing ever materialized. So, last year ( June 2008), we decided to execute on our own plans. We looked at a number of options and decided on a solution. We officially opened electronic registrations (along with secure team web sites, team and organization calenders ...) in August of 2008.
This year has gone reasonably well - over 800 registrants. Teams are forming, communication to parents is up and we have reduced a good bit of the administrative overhead of previous years. This last point has allowed those who previously spent their evenings typing data into spreadsheets to more proactively plan for events for the kids. Remember the kids - they are who the program are for (not the administrators, not the coaches, not the Rec Council).
So, Why am I upset? I sat through a Rec Council meeting where the presented (or the vendor presented) what the new registration system would look like from this point forward. While I applaud their efforts and the fact that they have actually done something to help the programs - they appear to have done this for different reasons. In short - the Rec Council has taken ownership of the data and who has access to it. Why do I care? For starters - we, the volunteers, still are responsible for everything else - to include collection of fees. Secondly - a few years ago when we were asking for more fields - we were told to report the demographics of our program. Why? They wanted to limit which zip codes were eligible to register for a program using 'their' fields. In addition - instead of offering the programs (Judo, softball, theatre, baseball, basketball, football, soccer ...) the service - they have mandated the use of 'their' system. How do they do this? They have reported that will not approve budgets for any program who does not subscribe to the new system.
Here it is - the government is stepping in to an area that is already running well and taking over the specific area that does not need assistance. Instead of augmenting in areas that the current organization (or company) needs assistance with - they are taking over the piece that already functions well and by their own insertion will cause a breakdown in the effectiveness of the entirety. Let down by government .... again!
Monday, March 30, 2009
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Give Obama a little credit
When I see a positive - I will say so. On the 20th President Obama's press secretary stated that the administration would NOT support the Vehicle Miles program. If this is true - I agree with the President. The idea behind the program is to tally what times, which roads and how many miles an individual has driven and then bill them for the use of the roads. While the intended spirit of this program is to have those that use the roads pay for them - 1) I don't trust them and 2) this is an assault to all those not living in the inner city.
Once the group in Washington figure out what kind of data they are able to capture - I can only begin to see what they will want to do with that information moving forward. 1984 has nothing on what these 'lawmakers' can come up with. Time based tax policies for using certain roads, annual reporting of travel to specific areas to the Chamber of Commerce, tracking mileage versus fuel consumption to insure we the public are driving 'economical' cars. No - I don't trust them at all!
The assault on those of us living out side of the city limits where 'public' transportation is available could not be more direct. Lawmakers fail to recognize that in addition to driving to and from work - some of us use the roads and our vehicles for more than our own capitalist endeavors. Yes, some of us drive our children and other children to school. Some of us volunteer to run youth sports programs that the local government actually does very little to support (including blocking the use of public fields for youth sports use). Some of us volunteer in public schools - mentoring, tutoring and advising the youth in the community. Some of us volunteer with local churches and the programs those churches provide that the local communities can not live without. Some of us even drive in to the city to volunteer in the ways listed above.
So, President Obama - THANK YOU. On this topic - you have defended freedom.
Once the group in Washington figure out what kind of data they are able to capture - I can only begin to see what they will want to do with that information moving forward. 1984 has nothing on what these 'lawmakers' can come up with. Time based tax policies for using certain roads, annual reporting of travel to specific areas to the Chamber of Commerce, tracking mileage versus fuel consumption to insure we the public are driving 'economical' cars. No - I don't trust them at all!
The assault on those of us living out side of the city limits where 'public' transportation is available could not be more direct. Lawmakers fail to recognize that in addition to driving to and from work - some of us use the roads and our vehicles for more than our own capitalist endeavors. Yes, some of us drive our children and other children to school. Some of us volunteer to run youth sports programs that the local government actually does very little to support (including blocking the use of public fields for youth sports use). Some of us volunteer in public schools - mentoring, tutoring and advising the youth in the community. Some of us volunteer with local churches and the programs those churches provide that the local communities can not live without. Some of us even drive in to the city to volunteer in the ways listed above.
So, President Obama - THANK YOU. On this topic - you have defended freedom.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Class warfare
The current direction that our Congress and President are trying to take this country has but one outcome - Class Warfare unlike any we have ever seen. Are you a have, or a have not?
While I really want to blog on a number of different issues - reading the latest report on helping 'Main Street' has started to boil my blood. I have long believed that helping those in need was our responsibility from a moral perspective. I have never believed that changing policy based on social class was a good thing. Apparently I just don't get it. When an individual or family faces a hardship (unemployment, major health issue, loss of a family member), communities should act to assist as they are able. When someone foolishly enters into a loan that they have no ability to repay - they should pay the price. It hurts fewer people in the long run.The federal government has no business adjusting mortgage rates to fit an individuals financial needs. This is outright Socialism.
Consider for example: The Smith family that buys a home based on aggressive financing terms (40 year loan at 5% adjustable). They qualify for the loan that will absorb 40% of their gross income (personally, I think this is insane) . By way of example - the family makes approximately $55,000 a year and takes a loan on a $300,000 home - principle & interest of $1,821. A simple move of 1% on the adjustable note would move the monthly payment to $2018 (increase of $197) which would then equate to 44% of their income, if nothing else changed. This new payment is definitely a hardship for the family (a 4% move in debt ratio over a small period of time). Who is at fault? The bank? The government? The home owner?
Personally, I think all three are at fault but if the bank and government did not deliver the loan they would be considered not assisting someone with achieving the American dream. So, now what do we have? We have a situation that where the home owner needs help - and where is the help supposed to come from? The current plan of the government is to adjust the loan to make it fit the home owners lifestyle (more on that below). Restructure the loan (change the interest rate and principle) so that it fits within a 38% debt ratio. Who does it hurt after all? It hurts the bank, who now needs to lose money on the deal by changing the principle (devaluing all home prices) and interest at a rate below the agreed upon level (hurting share holders and employees of the financial institution).
To qualify for this program you will need to go through a 'uniform eligibility test'. This is code for - we will decide who gets to take advantage of this program.
What abut the family who bought a smaller house, paid a higher interest rate because it brought consistency to their lives (30 year fixed loan with a 32% debt ratio). Apparently there is nothing for them. This breeds a society that will continue to over spend and expect others to bail them out. Those who save are punished. Those that are responsible are left to continue paying for those who are not.
Again - a family that experiences a sever hardship deserves assistance. We should all continue to assist those in need through individual and community acts of charity - this is what is right. We should not be held accountable for people who continue to oversubscribe to societies wants. BTW, how many of the people affected in the mortgage crisis have cable television, a car less than 5 years old, a cell phone and a big screen TV? If you have all 4 of these and experiencing a housing criss where you can't pay the bill - the problem is not with the lending institution .... it is with you.
While I really want to blog on a number of different issues - reading the latest report on helping 'Main Street' has started to boil my blood. I have long believed that helping those in need was our responsibility from a moral perspective. I have never believed that changing policy based on social class was a good thing. Apparently I just don't get it. When an individual or family faces a hardship (unemployment, major health issue, loss of a family member), communities should act to assist as they are able. When someone foolishly enters into a loan that they have no ability to repay - they should pay the price. It hurts fewer people in the long run.The federal government has no business adjusting mortgage rates to fit an individuals financial needs. This is outright Socialism.
Consider for example: The Smith family that buys a home based on aggressive financing terms (40 year loan at 5% adjustable). They qualify for the loan that will absorb 40% of their gross income (personally, I think this is insane) . By way of example - the family makes approximately $55,000 a year and takes a loan on a $300,000 home - principle & interest of $1,821. A simple move of 1% on the adjustable note would move the monthly payment to $2018 (increase of $197) which would then equate to 44% of their income, if nothing else changed. This new payment is definitely a hardship for the family (a 4% move in debt ratio over a small period of time). Who is at fault? The bank? The government? The home owner?
Personally, I think all three are at fault but if the bank and government did not deliver the loan they would be considered not assisting someone with achieving the American dream. So, now what do we have? We have a situation that where the home owner needs help - and where is the help supposed to come from? The current plan of the government is to adjust the loan to make it fit the home owners lifestyle (more on that below). Restructure the loan (change the interest rate and principle) so that it fits within a 38% debt ratio. Who does it hurt after all? It hurts the bank, who now needs to lose money on the deal by changing the principle (devaluing all home prices) and interest at a rate below the agreed upon level (hurting share holders and employees of the financial institution).
To qualify for this program you will need to go through a 'uniform eligibility test'. This is code for - we will decide who gets to take advantage of this program.
What abut the family who bought a smaller house, paid a higher interest rate because it brought consistency to their lives (30 year fixed loan with a 32% debt ratio). Apparently there is nothing for them. This breeds a society that will continue to over spend and expect others to bail them out. Those who save are punished. Those that are responsible are left to continue paying for those who are not.
Again - a family that experiences a sever hardship deserves assistance. We should all continue to assist those in need through individual and community acts of charity - this is what is right. We should not be held accountable for people who continue to oversubscribe to societies wants. BTW, how many of the people affected in the mortgage crisis have cable television, a car less than 5 years old, a cell phone and a big screen TV? If you have all 4 of these and experiencing a housing criss where you can't pay the bill - the problem is not with the lending institution .... it is with you.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
We are accelerating down the wrong road.
When the government started planning for TARP 1, the hair on the back of my neck stood up. Face it - the banks in the U.S. were in a difficult position but it was the government that helped them get there so perhaps they should help bail them out. I was against the 'covering of the tracks' by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts but knew that I did not have a vote in the outcome. The government decided to spend 'my money' because they are smarter than the common man (tongue firmly planted in cheek at this point) and they gave the banks the first $350 billion dollars .... with absolutely no strings.
Follow along:
Mistake number 1 - all the garbage pressure place on the banking industry to loan money to those that can not afford to purchase a home.
Mistake number 2 - TARP 1 .
Mistake number 3 - Failure to control, watch, manage or even track where TARP 1 funds actually went.
Mistake number 4 - Requesting TARP 2 funds.
( up to this point this has been on President Bush' watch, except mistake number 1 that started back during the Carter administration)
Now, in addition to the proposed 'stimulus' package which is nothing more than a big list of pet programs, bailouts for states that can't manage their own budgets, and a justification to spend more taxpayer money now and in the future, President Obama is raising the concerns about how banks spend their money. Face it - the banks are making huge political mistakes with the way they continue to spend money. BUT - IT IS THEIR MONEY! It is very easy to be swept up in the anti-Wall street sentiment if we allow our jealousy to get the better of us, but consider what this means. How much is enough? How much is too much? I am no longer talking about Wall street - I am talking about an individual or corporation - in the eyes of the government. There are plans to limit executive compensation to any bank that received funding to $500,000. Granted that is a lot of money to someone who makes less than $100,000 but what business is it of the government to dictate how a business operates? If they want to start setting limits and controlling compensation - perhaps they should look at themselves first - Fannie Mae anyone and this is a government 'corporation'?
So now consider that a corporation is no different than a citizen in this country. Does the government have the right to regulate how much money you make? Yes the incrementalism argument begins to build at this point. What if the government decided that any individual, organziation or company that has ever received government assistance was then beholden to any regulation on compensation they want to impose (after award of the assistance )? If BIG GOVERNMENT wants to start down this path - let's start by limiting compensation for any artist (actor) that ever participated in any activity paid for by the NEA. Next, any athlete that attended school on any form of government paid scholarship can only receive compensation of $150,000 (roughly 5 times that of the average American according to U.S. Department of Labor)? University professers are limited on compensation and length of employment - afterall they are paid for partly from the government trough. I can continue ..... but won't.
The point of my argument is taxes are a voluntary (according to Harry Reid) contribution to the government. The government(at least the legislative branch in this blog entry) has completely lost site of this simple fact. The money is not theirs - it is ours. Our founding fathers knew this and warned against a government becoming too powerful for the common good. We are heading down the wrong road and someone is standing on the gas pedal. How do you get off of this ride?
Follow along:
Mistake number 1 - all the garbage pressure place on the banking industry to loan money to those that can not afford to purchase a home.
Mistake number 2 - TARP 1 .
Mistake number 3 - Failure to control, watch, manage or even track where TARP 1 funds actually went.
Mistake number 4 - Requesting TARP 2 funds.
( up to this point this has been on President Bush' watch, except mistake number 1 that started back during the Carter administration)
Now, in addition to the proposed 'stimulus' package which is nothing more than a big list of pet programs, bailouts for states that can't manage their own budgets, and a justification to spend more taxpayer money now and in the future, President Obama is raising the concerns about how banks spend their money. Face it - the banks are making huge political mistakes with the way they continue to spend money. BUT - IT IS THEIR MONEY! It is very easy to be swept up in the anti-Wall street sentiment if we allow our jealousy to get the better of us, but consider what this means. How much is enough? How much is too much? I am no longer talking about Wall street - I am talking about an individual or corporation - in the eyes of the government. There are plans to limit executive compensation to any bank that received funding to $500,000. Granted that is a lot of money to someone who makes less than $100,000 but what business is it of the government to dictate how a business operates? If they want to start setting limits and controlling compensation - perhaps they should look at themselves first - Fannie Mae anyone and this is a government 'corporation'?
So now consider that a corporation is no different than a citizen in this country. Does the government have the right to regulate how much money you make? Yes the incrementalism argument begins to build at this point. What if the government decided that any individual, organziation or company that has ever received government assistance was then beholden to any regulation on compensation they want to impose (after award of the assistance )? If BIG GOVERNMENT wants to start down this path - let's start by limiting compensation for any artist (actor) that ever participated in any activity paid for by the NEA. Next, any athlete that attended school on any form of government paid scholarship can only receive compensation of $150,000 (roughly 5 times that of the average American according to U.S. Department of Labor)? University professers are limited on compensation and length of employment - afterall they are paid for partly from the government trough. I can continue ..... but won't.
The point of my argument is taxes are a voluntary (according to Harry Reid) contribution to the government. The government(at least the legislative branch in this blog entry) has completely lost site of this simple fact. The money is not theirs - it is ours. Our founding fathers knew this and warned against a government becoming too powerful for the common good. We are heading down the wrong road and someone is standing on the gas pedal. How do you get off of this ride?
"There are two distinct classes of men...those who pay taxes and those who receive and live upon taxes." -- Thomas Paine (1737–1809)
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Times have changed
Governments have long been the safeguards for those less fortunate. At least that is what they have claimed - in reality it has been the charitable organizations that do the real work. Have we just seen the beginning of a new era of entitlements? Take a read here and tell me if you can see the same thing coming to your government decision body.
Seriously - television being essential? I guess iPhones, high speed internet and convection ovens are the new food and shelter staples. Yes, the story is from Brazil but what makes you think the U.S. government won't follow the path? We already have a government wanting to give out contraception to our kids in schools and a massive 'Share the wealth' plan with the latest 'stimulus package'.
Elected representatives - please go back to taking care of the things that really matter. Pay down the debt so my grandchildren don't need to do it. Protect this great country and the principles it was founded on. Read the Constitution and understand why it was written the way it was. And please hold criminals accountable for their offenses before you start making more people criminals by passing ridiculous frivolous laws.
Seriously - television being essential? I guess iPhones, high speed internet and convection ovens are the new food and shelter staples. Yes, the story is from Brazil but what makes you think the U.S. government won't follow the path? We already have a government wanting to give out contraception to our kids in schools and a massive 'Share the wealth' plan with the latest 'stimulus package'.
Elected representatives - please go back to taking care of the things that really matter. Pay down the debt so my grandchildren don't need to do it. Protect this great country and the principles it was founded on. Read the Constitution and understand why it was written the way it was. And please hold criminals accountable for their offenses before you start making more people criminals by passing ridiculous frivolous laws.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
