Politics In America

The Effect of Inflation and Deflation on Retirees

2009-11-04T15:45:00.001-08:00

Article Presented by:
Copyright © 2009 Irene A. Majchrzak

When we worry about how long our retirement income will last, we consider so many factors. The current economy is causing a drain on 401(k)'s and IRA's. So we have become much more cautious about withdrawing money to use it as part of our pensions. Now we are limited to living within the Social Security benefits of those 65 and older. Social Security is in the process of being changed to stop the cost of living benefits for the next couple of years, as well.

The Dow Jones continues to fluctuate between 9200 and 9500 for almost all of 2009, so it will be difficult to feel confident that we will be accessing our savings for any big ticket items like a new car or vacations within the near future. The unemployment rate is over 9% and still rising. This emphasizes the concern that the country is not really coming out of the recession as is being argued by many economists.

As my friends and I discussed the impact of inflation I wonder if the inflation level will rise from the 3% that I routinely use to determine the growth of liabilities and consumer goods for my clients, as I help them with their retirement planning.

I ask myself should I start using 4% as a better indicator of the amount of savings my clients will need at retirement? As a result I went on to Google and entered "current inflation rate" and what I found was very surprising and worthwhile discussing for all of us trying to make sense of the economy.

While all of us have heard about inflation and recognize that when it occurs it could cause problems for us, personally. What we may not have is an easy definition that describes inflation as occurring when money becomes relatively less valuable than goods.

Knowing this I expected to see inflation rising over the past few months but instead, since March, 2009 our economy has been in continued periods of deflation. September's number will be due out on October 15^th and it is likely that the trend of deflation will continue.

So now I went back to Google and asked what causes deflation? **According to Kimberly Amadeo of _About.com_ deflation is defined as the time that "asset and consumer prices continue to fall." This may seem like a great thing to consumers, because it may seem a positive concept that consumer prices are becoming more affordable, except that the cause for deflation is a long-term drop in demand.
Unfortunately as Ms. Amadeo continues, "a drop in demand means that a recession is already underway, with job losses, declining wages, and an ongoing decline in the value of your home and your stock portfolio. Deflation is a result of businesses dropping prices in a desperate attempt to get people to buy their products.

Officially, deflation is measured by a decrease in the Consumer price index. However the index does not measure stock prices which retirees use to fund purchases and businesses use to fund growth."

Can Anything Be Done About Deflation?

Google.com has become my research source. In seeking the answer to the prevention and possibly a cure for deflation many interesting perspectives were presented. The table presented on _Inflation Data.com_ shows the drop in the inflation rate in Dec./08 and continuing into Jan. and Feb./09 and the subsequent rate of deflation often linked to recessions, that started in Mar/09.

Inflation is defined in the _Merriam Webster Dictionary_ as a continuing rise in the general prices due to an increase in the volume of money and credit with less goods and services available for purchase. Deflation seems to be caused by a long term drop in demand for goods. Of course this is only a part of the story. We need to ask ourselves why is there a drop in demand for goods?

Mike Moffatt writing on "What is Deflation and How Can It Be Prevented" @ _About._com. gives us further insights. Mike quotes Colin Asher speaking to _Radio Free Europe_, and Mark Gongloff @ _CNN Money_.

Colin Asher, an economist at Nomura Securities, told _Radio Free Europe_ that the problem with deflation is that "in deflation [there's] a declining spiral. Businesses make less profits so they cut back [on] employment. People feel less like spending money. Businesses then don't make any profits and everything works itself into a declining spiral." Deflation also has a psychological element as it "becomes rooted in peoples' psychologies and becomes self-perpetuating. Consumers are discouraged from buying expensive items like automobiles or homes because they know those things will be cheaper in the future."

Mark Gongloff at _CNN Money_ agrees with these opinions. Gongloff explains that "when prices fall simply because people have no desire to buy -- leading to a vicious cycle of consumers postponing spending because they believe prices will fall further -- then businesses can't make a profit or pay off their debts, leading them to cut production and workers, leading to lower demand for goods, which leads to even lower prices."

So the recession is the fault of the consumer? Or could it be caused by the continued increase in printing money whenever the government needs more for its own special use. Glen Beck @ Glenbeck.com displayed a graph that outlines the spending that has taken place in America. In 1971 President Nixon decided to stop using the gold standard to back our money. Over the ensuing years the outpouring of printed money being pumped into the economy will so devalue our dollar as to be almost worthless.

The consumer anxiety is this. We are concerned about the effect of inflation and deflation on our lifestyles. We are concerned about the level of our retirement funds and the slow return to the pre-October 2008 level. What if we continue to withdraw funds to augment our Social Security or pensions and the recession finally ends after we have drained our savings. As the economy surges forward the young, with jobs, will need to start over and the elderly on fixed incomes, can become greeters.

We are also, concerned about the continued recession no matter that many economists say the US economy is finally coming out of the recession. Look at the numbers and decide for yourself. We are still seeing unreasonable growth in unemployment numbers and fewer new jobs being developed except in bigger government or in lower paying homecare fields.

What is the answer? The job of preventing recessions over the past few years lies with the Federal Reserve Bank and the Federal Government. Decreasing the interest rates has helped to increase the supply of money into the economy. Lowering interest rates has worked in the past but now the interest rates are already low and the feds hesitate to cut the rates further.

The government can help by putting more money into the economy by lowering taxes and increasing government spending with a temporary deficit. The government is already printing money for many new ideas such as the stimulus package for AIG and loaning money to the banks and the auto industry thus causing a real deficit, not a temporary one.

Why not lower taxes? This would benefit the common people not only the banks and corporations. Why not beg the feds to print more money to be used to buy bonds to decrease our interest rates? Is it such a big deal to cut the rate by 1/8^th of a percent to help the economy? The feds have usually lowered the rates by 1/4% or greater.

Last quarter the feds decided against cutting the interest rate. When economists talk about "printing more money" and "the Fed lowering interest rates" they're talking about the same thing. The Government is printing money but not reducing taxes or lowering interest rates. While already low, there is still room to lower them further, so using this policy to fight deflation will support growth in the economy.

About the Author:
Irene A. Majchrzak helps people retire debt-free with a sense of well-being and the freedom to have the things they want. Get her free ebook, Debt Free to Retire, by going to http://debtfreetoretire.com

Read more Articles written by Irene A. Majchrzak.

Government Grant Writing: Doing It Yourself

2009-10-30T18:15:00.001-07:00

Article Presented by:
Copyright © 2009 Brendon Turner

Chances are, if you're looking for a grant to start up your small business or not-for-profit organization, you don't have the money to hire grant writers. A few will work with the promise of payment once the grant money comes in, but these are few and far between. The alternative? Do the government grant writing yourself.

Benefits of DIY Government Grant Writing

You'll find that there are a number of reasons to learn how to apply for grants yourself. Obviously, you can save quite a bit of money during the startup period when most businesses are looking to save money. Often, it's best for the business owner or one of the partners to take on as much of the grunt work as possible until the funding comes through. This will allow you to spend nothing, apart from time.

In addition, you can tailor each application to the government grant that you are applying for. With grant writers, this would be extra. Doing the writing yourself lets you make changes quickly and easily, based on which funding option you are doing the grant proposal for.

How to Write a Grant Proposal

There's a reason grant writers are expensive. It can be difficult to figure out how to write a great proposal if you don't know what you're doing. There are many areas that need to be covered, including budgets, timelines and project descriptions. It can be very confusing at first glance, but it is also very important that you include all the information needed or you could lose out on a chance to get grant money for your business or organization.

The best way to ensure that you are doing everything correctly is to get some help. Government grant writing isn't like writing an article or a letter, you need to include very specific, very detailed information so the decision makers have everything they need in order to choose you to receive the money. Most people prefer to keep their tips for success a secret, but you can still learn how to write a successful proposal and get the most out of your application.

Looking at sample applications can be a huge help and will let you style your own paperwork after something that has already been successful. While you certainly don't want to copy, you should get a feel for what is required when it comes to government grants. Writing your own proposals can save you a lot of time and money, so it is certainly worth looking into.

About the Author:
If you need more help with government grants writing, then you should check out Government Grants Source. The site features a full database of government grants, as well as tutorials and samples to help you write the best proposal possible. Written by Brendon Turner for http://www.governmentgrantsource.net/

Read more of Brendon Turner's articles.

Pearl Jam Sells Out

2009-09-05T06:45:00.001-07:00

Article Presented by:
Copyright © 2009 Ryan Hogan

When fans, especially those of the casual variety, think of Pearl Jam they generally conjure up an image of a "fight the power" type of band who's politically active and bent on not succumbing to the "Man" running the music industry.

That's pretty much the band's reputation, just ask anyone with Pearl Jam concert tickets.

In 2006, Rolling Stone magazine wrote that Pearl Jam had "spent much of the past decade deliberately tearing apart their own fame. " The band stopped making both television appearances and music videos. Meanwhile, they unsuccessfully took on Ticketmaster.

The band has always been politically active. They support the pro-choice movement, environment and wildlife protection groups (the band has a carbon neutral policy), and the Green Party (suppress chuckle now).

This may come as a shock, but they weren't fans of George W. Bush.

In addition, Pearl Jam has performed in concerts benefiting the U.N.'s fight against world hunger, victims of Hurricane Katrina, Habitat for Humanity and the American Red Cross.

It's clear that Pearl Jam is all about saving this and protecting that and fighting this injustice and battling that travesty. However, if you look around, this seemingly socially progressive juggernaut is in cahoots with a plethora of big-time corporations.

In fact, Pearl Jam is hawking more products than Peyton Manning.

Their upcoming ninth studio album, Backspacer, set to be released September 20th, is being sold exclusively at Target (and indie retailers but who goes to them anymore).

You can also download the album from the iTunes Music Store (Apple). Overseas, album is being distributed by Universal Music (Vivendi).

Recently, the band has joined up with Verizon's V Cast platform to offer fans access to Pearl Jam content.

Backspacer uses Sony technology to house extra material and the entire album with get the full DLC Rock Band 2 treatment, possibly paving the way for a Pearl Jam Rock Band game (Electronic Arts) in 2010.

In the 1990's, Kurt Cobain accused the band of being sellouts but he probably didn't imagine the band would ever sell out to an army of corporations.

Cobain was referring to the way the band was selling albums, t-shirts and concert tour tickets. He was not referring to the band's vertical commercial integration with consumer oriented media synergy (okay, we made that up but you get our point).

Now you might argue that using Sony's software or being immortalized by Rock Band doesn't make one a sellout. That's true, but the more corporations you do business with and the more politically active you are, the greater the risk of biting the hand that feeds.

What is the target of most political activism? It's the government and corporations. Take the environment for example. It's not being polluted by orphans and puppy dogs. It's being polluted by big business. Some of which would love to have Pearl Jam pimp their products.

The only difference between bands that sell out and bands that don't sell out is the bands that didn't sell out were never given the chance. Face it, selling out is as American as apple pie and a 401k plan.

If I was in a band as big as Pearl Jam I would be selling out faster than you can say "I'm going to Disneyland."

I would allow my songs to be used as jingles for enriched uranium if they paid me enough.

If my manager didn't have my cheesy, pensive single playing at the end of every emotional episode of every two-bit drama on television I would have her fired.

If they gave me a good enough deal, I would get a Ticketmaster tramp stamp.

Before you start accusing me or Pearl Jam of being greedy "you know whats," stop and think for a moment how expensive it is to live. Then think of how expensive it is for Pearl Jam to live. They have kids, mortgages, college tuitions, wives who have to shop, mistresses who need apartments, and those prescription drugs don't buy themselves.

Sure there are bands that walk the walk and wouldn't take a dime from a corporation to save a spotted owl. But those bands sell 11 albums a year and play for 100 fans at a venue that doubles as a furniture store.

The best way for Pearl Jam to spread their message and affect change is by reaching as many people as possible. Sometimes that involves producing albums, sometimes that involves selling concert tickets and sometimes that involves working with corporate America.

After all, the best way to bring down the machine is from within. Fight the power and pass me my iPhone.

Copyright 2009, ClickItTicket.com

About the Author:
Ryan Hogan is a writer for the ClickitTicket sports and music blog. At ClickitTicket.com you'll find concert tickets to purchase like Pearl Jam tickets. Find a huge selection of event tickets and a wealth of original entertainment content at http://www.ClickitTicket.com/

Read more of Ryan Hogan's articles.

Considerations for Executive Protection

2009-08-22T23:30:00.001-07:00

Article Presented by:
Copyright © 2009 Harold German

According to the FBI, there is an average of 6.7 kidnappings and 5.5 murders for every 100,000 people in the United States. Although these statistics refer to the general population, executives and high profile individuals, as well as their families, are included in this figure. In a continuous effort to curb these numbers, many organizations seek out executive protection services, which are typically performed by high-end security companies. As part of their initial process a security guard company usually begins its executive protection plan by performing a comprehensive risk assessment. It is here that the risks against the executive are identified, measured and are implemented to prevent these risks from materializing. Many considerations are factored into this process, which can vary depending on the client and circumstances. For instance, the client may be a political figure with a controversial stance, or the child of a prominent business tycoon. The former might run a higher assassination risk, whereas the latter might have a higher risk for kidnapping. Each scenario poses a completely different set of challenges.

Risk Assessment Does Not Fit Into a Perfect Mold

As those who have been in the executive protection business for any length of time will tell you, in many cases, risk assessment for executive protection-in practice-is not always that straightforward. There are instances where one is assigned to a principal against whom there is really no obvious threat. With a case of this type, many security professionals working alone-and even some working in a group-run the risk of falling into complacency, which can result in grave mistakes and security holes if a situation were to arise.

For instance, take a situation where you are assigned to protect a much-loved philanthropic business executive. A background check on the principal may show that this is a person who has worked his way up using the straight and narrow path, making no enemies in the process-or so it seems. The problem with most of the methods used for checking these kinds of facts is that they tend to take note of only the major incidents in a person's history; therefore, no mention is made of things like the insubordinate employee that the executive might have had to fire. The affected individual might still be holding a grudge-perhaps feeling that his/her life was ruined by, what they consider to have been, an 'unfair dismissal.' As surprising as it might seem, there have been cases of people killing others over matters of even less significance.

Moreover, some methods used to establish the kinds of risks facing an executive tend not to mention some of what might be considered significant happenings in his/her personal life, which could also turn out to have major security implications. Take for instance love triangles, which may have left behind a partner who felt that their 'lover was stolen' and still yearns for any opportunity to exact revenge. As improbable as it may sound, this experience may be of enough concern to pose a security threat, and as such, should be considered as part of the risk assessment.

The Low-Risk Case

What emerges from all of these scenarios is that while there are indeed some executive who might be considered relatively 'low risk' cases, there is clearly no executive who can be considered a 'zero risk' case. A security professional's perspective on this matter should be that 'if there was no risk against the executive, then there clearly would be no need for me to be here.' Security professionals are hired to guard against certain risks, so it is their duty to accurately identify such risks and implement measures to guard against them. This is a fact that security professionals might lose sight of if they think that their hiring is due to a matter of procedure, rather than due to actual need or risk. For instance, if a given organization's top executives are always assigned bodyguards, there is a risk of a newcomer feeling that they are there because having a bodyguard is one of the 'perks' of being a top executive for the organization and that there is no actual risk. This would be a huge departure from the proper perspective on this matter. The assignment of bodyguards, or security staff, to these top executives is necessary because there is always a risk when you are in any high-profile role, whether it be business, political, religious or social. There might be 'low risk' cases, but there is never a 'zero risk' case, as far as executive protection assignments go.

Equating 'Low Risk' with 'No Risk'

The ramifications of equating 'low risk' with 'no risk' can be grave. This is a business where mistakes can result in death, either of the executive or of the guard. The first and foremost danger of equating 'low risk' with 'no risk' is, as previously mentioned, that the security professional charged with overseeing the wellbeing of an executive may fall into complacency, thereby making serious blunders with regard to security arrangements. It is due to these lapses that we hear about cases of executives, or their families, being kidnapped in spite of having bodyguards, or security staff, by their side.

Another danger of inaccurately gauging risk becomes apparent when you consider that the perpetrators will be looking out for behaviors and telling signs that depict this type of scenario by simply reading the guards and the supposedly protected environment. Criminals can read a secured environment and spot weaknesses and mood. They can be spurred into action, or completely diffused, simply by what they see. They may also make adjustments their plans. Rather than assassinate an executive, perpetrators might decide to instead kidnap him. For instance, if the security environment is close to an open body of water, and the guards are not in possession of fast nautical transportation, the perpetrators can easily take advantage of this clear security weakness. They have, essentially, been provided with an easy method of escape, which can be identified by a simple visual inspection. Hence, if the guards charged with the client's safety only implemented safeguards against assassination, and absolutely no measures to counter the risk of abduction, there is no telling what harm can be done.

Yet another danger of equating 'low risk' with 'no risk' is that it can lead to loss of professional credibility, even where the potential risk is caught before fully manifesting. Your role as an security professional is to ensure the well being of the executive in question; therefore, should you let the executive fall into harm's way, it would reflect poorly on your professional capabilities. In the aftermath of such an incident, it should be of no surprise if you end up losing your executive protection role.

Executive protection is a specialized security service and customers expect all bases to be covered. Therefore, it reflects very badly on the executive protection professional charged with ensuring the wellbeing of the principal in question (and, consequently, the company they work for) when it emerges that some potential risks were left unidentified during risk assessment. Granted, bad things do happen in spite of best efforts; but should that fate befall an executive in your care, it should be clear in the inevitable investigation that follows that you-as an executive protection professional-had at the very least anticipated the event in your risk assessment. This means that it would be a case of protective measures failing, rather than a case of failing to anticipate risks.

How Preparedness Can Affect the Outcome

There are many instances of executives falling into grave danger because of what appears to be security detail neglect (typically not deliberate) that one can learn from. Perhaps one of the most famous cases is the death of Princess Diana of Wales. On the 31st of August 1997, Princess Diana died in a car accident in the Pont de l'Alma road tunnel in Paris, France. She was accompanied by her companion and guards assigned to protect the couple during their evening out on the town. After an eighteen-month French judicial investigation, they concluded that the crash was caused by the security team driver, whose errant driving had been incited by paparazzi photographers, and impaired by the influence of drugs and alcohol. A subsequent inquest conducted at the Royal Courts of Justice in London concluded that the accident was the result of the negligent driving of both the security team driver, as well as the paparazzi photographers, whom they had sought to evade. Either way, proper planning and an accurate assessment of the security risk, should have been effected. In this case, the security team driver decided to solve the security challenge at hand by placing the individuals, which he had been assigned to protect, in unnecessary levels of danger.

Sometimes security threats aren't caused by the actions of others. As a security professional assigned to ensure the health and safety of your customers, you must be ready to confront and solve every security challenge that arises, even if it comes from the customer himself. As an example of executive protection done right, take the case of popular Australian musician and reality TV executive Ozzie Osbourne. Osbourne found himself facing danger not from a human saboteur, but from his own bike, and were it not for his bodyguard's quick action (and knowledge of CPR), Osbourne would have, in his own words, "lost his own life." These examples underscore the need to ensure that proper security assessments of every risk are considered and conducted when it comes to executive protection.

Whether you operate a security company in New York or in California, the rules are the same. Assessment skills can be just as effective and useful as any other skill that a guard may have. It may even be the most important when it comes to preventing security situations. These skills need to be honed even in a low-risk environment, and no risk should be left unplanned for simply because it is unlikely to happen. Security guards tasked with providing executive protection must cover all the bases if they expect to keep their client's free from danger. It should be every protection professional's basic view that anyone they are assigned to is at every imaginable risk (albeit in varying degrees.) By executing proper assessments and assigning appropriate risk levels, security professionals can more effectively and accurately safeguard their clients against all types of security threats.

About the Author:
Harold German is a renowned author and contributor, with appearances on CNN and in noted international publications, such as The Economist. Mr. German is senior writer for Partner Service Sites, where he covers a variety of topics, including technologies and procedures that would be used by a security company in New York or elsewhere, in addition to developments on the latest security services at http://www.arrowsecurity.net/

Read more of Harold German's articles.

George Washington, Known OPSEC Practitioner - OPSEC In His Own Words

2009-07-27T15:24:00.001-07:00

Article Presented by:
Copyright © 2009 Chris Cox

Arguably, no President in history has received a legendary status equal to George Washington. His reputation as a gifted military leader stems partially from his unique perspective as the leader of counterinsurgency forces (as a young officer in the Seven Year's War) and as the leader of an insurgent army (in the Revolutionary War).

Within OPSEC circles, Washington is often quoted as saying, "Even minutiae should have a place in our collection, for things of a seemingly trifling nature, when enjoined with others of a more serious cast, may lead to valuable conclusion." While this is certainly true you must understand that this is a lesson our first president learned through bitter, near fatal experience.

Washington's first experience with OPSEC (a term not used at the time, but the principles remain the same) came at the age of 21 when he was a young officer in the Seven Year's War under British General Braddock. The effective French intelligence network (no doubt enabled by ineffective security) was able to ascertain Braddock's moves well in advance and successfully ambushed the combined British and Colonial forces on their first expedition. In this attack, the combined forces lost 615 of their officers and 914 soldiers; in addition General Braddock was mortally wounded and barely escaped with the aid of Washington. Before his death four days later, Braddock gave Washington his ceremonial sash, one of the two reminders of this lesson that would stay with him forever.

If this hard lesson taught Washington one thing, it was the necessity of effective intelligence, as well as that of secrecy. He was later quoted as saying, "(U)pon Secrecy, Success depends in Most Enterprises - and for want of it, they are generally defeated."

With this philosophy, Washington would establish and lead an effective spy network during the Revolutionary War. These spies would operate, at times, directly with or under British forces and would provide Washington with critical military information regarding British plans, strategies and objectives. In order to evade detection, all agents would memorize and refer only to code names (for instance, George Washington was only referred to as "711" and New York was "727"), which demonstrates a clear understanding of the importance of obfuscating key names and locations. Using the same scheme for names and locations also helped to hide their true meaning. In addition, the use of secret codes, invisible ink and encryption demonstrated Washington's awareness of the necessity of not only attempting to avoid the capture of information, but also to prevent the use of information should capture occur.

Unfortunately, this valuable lesson seemed to be forgotten when Washington sent a seemingly harmless letter to his dentist in Philadelphia asking for denture wires and a cleaning tool. In and of itself, this letter provided no military intelligence of value when it and other messages were captured by the British. However, some of the other messages indicated a potential attack on New York. Sir Henry Clinton, then chief of the British Army, was skeptical. The letters almost seemed too good to be true especially when you understand that Washington's skill in military deception was known by the enemy. Clinton was left to wonder of the validity and value of the "intelligence." However, Clinton correctly reasoned that this letter would most likely not have been included in a package was to be intentionally "captured" and surmised that the captured intelligence was legitimate. Clinton was able to strengthen his forces in New York, prompting Washington to abandon that campaign.

This setback did not discourage Washington from continuing to use deception and disinformation however. This lesson learned became a very effective strategy to fabricate documents to be "captured", or to instruct agents to discuss certain matters in areas that British soldiers or spies were able to overhear, or even to intercept messages meant for British forces and alter them before passing them along seemingly unchanged. For example: When Washington had his army outside of Philadelphia he instructed his procurement officers make sizable purchases of supplies, and even constructed fake military facilities, which convinced the British that his 3,000-strong army contained 40,000 men.

Throughout the war, Washington relied heavily on espionage and intelligence. The Culper Spy Ring, headed by Major Benjamin Talmadge (under the pseudonym "John Bolton") learned that the British had plans to attack an allied French expedition in Rhode Island (it is not clear how British Forces learned of the landing). Washington responded by planting false intelligence with British agents indicating that he intended to move against New York City. In response, the British Commander held his forces at New York, which had the additional benefit of masking Washington's movement towards Chesapeake Bay and Yorktown. It was imperative that Washington's forces practice good OPSEC in order to avoid detection of this grand deception.

Washington understood the importance of educating those under him about what we've come to call OPSEC. In a clear early understanding of what we now know as the OPSEC process, Washington wrote to thank James Lovell for a piece of intelligence, saying, "it is by comparing a variety of information, we are frequently enabled to investigate facts, which were so intricate or hidden, that no single clue could have led to the knowledge of them. . . intelligence becomes interesting which but from its connection and collateral circumstances, would not be important." He also spoke to General Rufus Putnam in August 1777 about calculating an adversary's strength, saying, "Deserters and people of that class always speak of number. . . indeed, scarce any person can form a judgment unless he sees the troops paraded and can count the divisions. But, if you can by any means obtain a list of the regiments left upon the island, we can compute the number of men within a few hundreds, over or under." This "training" prompted Federalist William Duer to write, "To say more in a Letter, might be imprudent" when discussing a matter of potential value.

Similarly, to the credit of the Continental Congress, the first secrecy agreement was adopted for government employees. It read, in part, "I do solemnly swear, that I will not directly or indirectly divulge any manner or thing which shall come to my knowledge as (clerk, secretary) of the board of War and Ordnance for the United Colonies. . . So help me God."

Perhaps the best example of OPSEC in Washington's strategy was in the attack on Stony Point. Stony Point was an ominous British fort on the Hudson River, with walls 150 feet high, water on three sides and a swamp on the fourth, and an imposing garrison of 500 men and many cannons. Colonel Wayne was convinced that it could be taken, and eventually convinced Washington that it could be done. Washington approved the plan with the advice, "That it should be attempted by the Light Infantry only, which should march under cover of the night and with the utmost secrecy to the enemy's lines, securing every person they find to prevent discovery". Note especially the use of darkness to mask movement and the securing of potential witnesses/agents. Because of this secrecy, the surprise attack was a success resulting in only 15 American deaths versus 63 British.

Clearly, George Washington effectively led the newly formed army to victory not only because of excellent military tactics, but also because a solid understanding of OPSEC. If OPSEC (http://www.opsecprofessionals.org) can help General Washington win a war then who are we to deny its use today to protect our sensitive information?

About the Author:
Written by: Chris Cox. The Operations Security Professional's Association (OSPA) is an International entity dedicated to promoting OPSEC by providing free resources and member collaboration. OSPA works with groups all over the world, from US Federal Agencies to Neighborhood Watch programs, and believes that each one deserves security. http://www.opsecprofessionals.org/

Read more Articles written by Chris Cox.

Let There Be Peace

2009-05-01T17:09:00.001-07:00

Article Presented by:
Copyright © 2009 Joyce C. Lock

If we believe we are in the last days, we need to quit calling God's messengers 'false prophets' (Je.25:4). Hell, fire, and brimstone preaching is not a prophet's passion, but the result of other's unbelief. Prophets feel whatever God feels and are honor bound to warn unbelieving people they also love.

For fear of an antichrist or Jonestown type experience, leaders hush prophets by whatever means possible; all the while, feeling justified. And, people continue to believe whatever they are told.

"And (they) say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets." Mt. 23:30

Most prophets dare not come out of the closet. 'If we talk to God, we are spiritual. If God talks to us, we are scitsophrenic.'

While many truly have a heart for God's people, they error in deciding when, who, and how people can serve (becoming Pharaohs, creating spiritual wounds) when all they would need do is to listen for the Spirit and let God sit on their throne. The Spirit cannot lie.

It makes no difference how one is qualified, as faithful is He who calls you, who also will do it. For, it is God who builds HIS church.

Instead, pride is placed upon one's knowledge and abilities; forgetting such will pass away. You might notice who Jesus would become angry with (not the spiritually weak, poor, sick, or lame) but leaders who kept them that way.

God will do whatever it takes to make sure those who are saved will be saved. When I asked how many prophecies have to come to pass, God answered, "As many as it takes."

"For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows. Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another," Mt. 24:7-10.

While people look to giant earthquakes, they are missing that the very foundation of their families are being shaken; the center of their world. The famine is spiritual, and they are starving for prophets to be allowed to show them the way, Re.22:6.

Prophecies are happening individually, everywhere, while the church sleeps on. We are Jews who worship in Spirit and truth, and adopted Israelites (Ro. 9:4).

With all the religions in the world, it is insulting God to think any have all the answers. There is only one omnipotent, all knowing God. Stop telling God what He believes. Do not believe everything you hear and let us not quench the Spirit before God has had a chance to speak.

If your life is not peace, it would be good to consider what is really going on. God wants His throne back. If you really want to see revival; Let My People Go, so they can serve God.

Perhaps peace begins once we realize we are all in the same boat and God gave us gifts to help each other find our way.

About the Author:
Joyce C. Lock is a published author, poet, columnist, and Senior Writer for the Storytime Tapestry Newsletter. Her latest adventures include her new website Glimpses of God http://iam.homewithGod.com/glimpsesofgod/ unveiling mysteries via scriptural methods of Bible study. Joyce's writings encourage us in our relationship with God and each other. Find fresh new articles, on a variety of topics, at: http://www.thephantomwriters.com/recent/200/index.html

Read more Articles written by Joyce C. Lock.

Gambling Online - Is Gambling Online Illegal?

2009-04-25T08:45:00.001-07:00

Article Presented by:
Copyright © 2009 Skyler Ace

The legality of Gambling Online has always been a debatable topic. It is not an easy question to answer. The reason is because the whole situation of legality depends on where you are when you play. The matter of gambling online has always been a gray area as it is an unconventional phenomenon.

The concept of gambling online started somewhere around the mid 1990s. This was when the online casinos were launched in Antigua for the first time. This introduction was glorious because a large number of people got interested and turned on by the idea of making a lot of money so conveniently and without ever leaving home. People were impressed by the idea of earning money by just spinning some reels or playing a few hands from the convenience of their home.

From the time of its' introduction in the mid 1990s, the concept of gambling online has grown at a fast pace and a lot of online companies have been able to earn lucrative sum due to their listing in public stock trading worldwide. Internationally, it took some time for lawmakers from different nations to realize that a new concept has hit the market and that this would require a new set of regulations. It is surprising but true that certain territories with state-sanctioned gambling were also unaware of something that had so strongly caught the fancy of general public.

When it comes to solving the complicated issue of whether or not gambling on the internet is legal, different nations and lawmakers have different views. Some officials believe that the whole thing is against the law. They think that one cannot wager over the World Wide Web or the telephone. On the other hand, some feel that the illegal part about online gambling is its' operation and that too if it is set up in the United States. This is the reason websites prefer operating from overseas locations such as Australia, Caribbean and Latin America.

There are also people who think that it is not worth debating on the topic as the government has other major issues to act upon.

According to Sue Schneider, publisher of a well known interactive gaming news, there is nothing specifically written or prophesied in the law books about gambling online being illegal. This is the reason most online gambling companies do not shy away from openly advertising on different stations across the radio dial. It is also true that no one will be charged with a crime for betting with any of the services available across the globe.

The business of gambling online is booming. The Land of Antigua is known to possess most online gambling sites. According to estimations, the industry has been declared to hold a worth of $200 million each year. The revenues tend to top $1 billion on an annual basis.

Antigua is certainly a winner but it is also true that about seventy-five governments across the globe license Gambling Online. Currently more than about 1,800 online gambling websites exist.

This leaves lawmakers in the United States with three options namely: regulate, ban or continue to ignore. In case, they choose to regulate, name brand gambling betting interests in Las Vegas will be the first to leap in and obtain legitimacy to online gambling. In case the law opts to ban, the huge gambling online network and people betting would face huge losses. Hence, it is not easy to make out whether online gambling is actually legal or not.

The only thing people across the globe are sure of today is that gambling online is very lucrative. All one requires to do is to sit comfortably at home, spend some time and start making money. There are a lot of people world wide from different walks of life and age groups who have earned great profits through gambling online.

One also requires considering the risk factor of online gambling and its bad affects due to addiction, especially among teenagers.

Addiction to gambling can have adverse health, financial and mental effects on an individual.

It is advised that if you have an addictive personality, you should avoid online gambling altogether, as your future financial stability does require a measure of self-control when facing the urge to gamble on just one more roll of the dice or slot machine.

Simply put, gambling online is not a bad thing, unless you simply find it too hard to walk away when you are losing.

About the Author:
This article was written by gambling pro Skyler Ace. Warning: Do Not Gamble Another Dollar Online Until You Read This. Free Consumer Awareness Guide Reveals The Seven Deadly Mistakes All Gamblers Make: http://www.jobsource20-23.com/casclok.html Also feel free to visit our gambling blog for tons of winning tips: http://onlinegambling23.blogspot.com/

Read more of Skyler Ace's articles.

Investing in Life's Necessities

2009-04-09T22:27:00.001-07:00

Article Presented by:
Copyright © 2009 Mack Courter

With the stock market down 55% or so from its high of October 2007, many investors feel they are between the proverbial rock and a hard place. We've all seen the data that shows that over the long term, stocks outperform every other common asset class, but that knowledge certainly doesn't make the going any easier on a day to day basis. And with the shocking events surrounding the instability and collapse of some of this country's biggest and reputable institutions, the long-term picture gets even hazier.

So what are your options, knowing that you need equities for portfolio growth and inflation protection, but are very uncomfortable with the stock market? Here's an idea I've been sharing with other investors that makes sense to them.

For starters, all successful investors from Warren Buffett to Peter Lynch focus on companies whose products and services stack up nicely from a supply and demand standpoint. On the demand side, investing in areas where demand is stable or increasing would appear to fit these guidelines. An area that I feel meets these criteria is the consumer staples sector. Thankfully, I am not alone in this assessment. Wall Street strategists such as Richard Bernstein are expecting good relative performance from this industry.

Consumer Staples contains such household names like Wal-Mart, Procter and Gamble, Coca Cola, and General Mills. Economists have touted the inelasticity of consumer goods for years, and with good reason. Regardless of how poorly we are doing financially, we still find the money to buy food, beverages, and toiletries.

The County Fair

Every year I go to an old fashioned county fair. This is not just any ordinary fair; it is reputedly the largest tent fair in the nation. Yes, believe it or not, people actually pitch tents or park their RVs and camp out for a whole week. And there is a 40-year waiting list to get a campsite! Thousands come from miles around for the fellowship, competitions, and well, the food. Frankly, many people I talk to come solely for the last reason. There are vendors offering everything from French fries to snow cones.

With the economy in recession, I was very interested to see if this fair would be slower than most. I spent practically the whole weekend at it. There were no signs that attendance was down or that concession stands were less busy than normal. Matter of fact, I had my normal tedious time making my way through the throngs of people to the next concession stand.

Just to make sure I wasn't imagining anything, I spoke with one of my friends who own a stand. He said business was even better than normal. A phone call to the Fair management also confirmed this. Attendance was as good as last year, and the vendors reported an average increase of 10% in sales. And this considering that food at a fair is not exactly cheap. You can get an ice cream cone one block from the fairgrounds for half the price. It did not make a difference.

Some analysts on Wall Street have been concerned about consumer goods companies this year, because they feel that rising commodity costs impact the bottom line. With the price of oil and other commodities well off last summer's highs, this fear seems to have dissipated somewhat. Also, it seems to me that these companies are not exactly taking these increases lying down. They're passing them on to the consumer. I noticed this at the fair. Prices on many of my favorite things were up 5 or even 10%.

I am noticing a different approach at restaurants I routinely visit. Instead of raising prices, many are cutting portion sizes.

How have consumer staples done so far in this downturn? Over the past twelve months, the Dow Jones U.S. Consumer Goods Index is down 35% as of the date of this writing. The S&P 500 Index is off 45%. Over the past three years, this consumer goods index has outpaced the S&P by around 7% annually.

The Historical Perspective

A look further back into history shows consumer staples out performance during bear markets is not unusual. During the 2000-2002 bear market, the cumulative return for the Dow Jones U.S. Consumer Goods Index was -1.56%, according to Morningstar data. As we all know, it could have been worse. The S&P 500 lost over 37% during that time.

According to Russell Napier in his excellent book, Anatomy of the Bear, consumer staples stocks have been strongholds in the three great bear markets since 1929.

He writes that during the 1968-1982 secular bear market, even though the S&P Composite Index increased by 82% cumulatively in nominal terms, it lost value in real terms. The "Consumer Price Index" increased by 174% during the same timeframe. At this time, there were 30 industrial sectors, and the average return for them was 107%. Only 9 of the 30 sectors did better than average. Among them was Food. The best sector at this time was Tobacco, a sub-category of consumer staples. It boasted a cumulative return of 420%.

Table 1:: Key Sector Performance from December 1968-August 1982
Tobacco... 420%
Oil... 185%
S&P Composite... 82%
Source: Russell Napier

Let's look at the mother of all bear markets, the 1929-1932 plunge that ushered in the Great Depression. Again we see that the qualities of Consumer Goods held up-at least on a relative basis. The Dow shed an incredible 89% of its value. Food and tobacco stocks lost a lot of money as well, just not as much. Tobacco stocks again turned out to be the best performer, with a 38% loss. Food dropped 72%. Napier surmises that perhaps this decline occurred because packaged food was not yet mainstream. 85% of bread was still homemade in 1932. Therefore, people were not as dependent on grocery stores as we are today. Granted, losing 72% or even 38% of your money compared to 89% isn't much consolation. But at least this tells us what happened in the acid test for investing.

Table 2:: Key Sector Performance from September 1929-June 1932
Tobacco... -38%
Oil... -74%
Food... -72%
Dow Industrial... -89%
Source: Russell Napier

Three Ways to Invest

Here are three ways venture into the sector without risking your shirt:

Consider buying ETFs, not individual stock. This hopefully minimizes the negative impact of such events like Pepsi's recent fall from favor. Some examples include State Street Global Advisors Consumer Staples SPDR (XLP) or iShares Dow Jones U.S. Consumer Goods (IYK). The former has 41 holdings and sports an expense ratio of 23 basis points. The latter owns 148 stocks and has an expense ratio of 48 basis points.

Consider using Stop Losses. Place a good 'til canceled stop loss order under the ETF or stock. I've placed these at either support levels for the security or at absolute loss levels a client is willing to sustain.

Consider selling covered calls. Selling a covered call on the ETF or stock you own is another way to reduce the risk. The premium gives you an immediate return on your money, and also serves as a buffer if the investment declines. Recently, I've found myself considering at-the-money or in-the-money options since they afford the most downside protection. I would avoid using ETFs that do not have a lot of open interest and volume in options trading.

Although there are never any guarantees when investing in stocks, the consumer staples industry may be a more conservative alternative at a time like this. And using some of the strategies above, you can hopefully lower your risk even more.

Disclosures:

The principal and yield of investment securities will fluctuate with changes in market conditions. The information presented is general in nature and should not be considered legal or tax advice.

The opinions offered are not to be construed as an offer to buy or sell individual securities mentioned herein.

Securities offered through Cadaret, Grant and Co., Inc., member FINRA/SIPC.

About the Author:
Mack Courter is a Certified Financial Planner (tm) who specializes in Retirement Investing in State College, Pennsylvania and works with clients nationwide. If you have any questions about the article, or would like a complimentary copy of his report "7 Critical Mistakes Investors Make," visit his website at http://www.courterfinancial.com or email him at his website.

Learn From History - The Anatomy Of An Economic Meltdown

2009-03-30T16:09:00.001-07:00

Article Presented by:
Copyright © 2009 Arlo Mooney

Over the last couple years, many consumers were burned badly by the state of the economy and the failing of many of the banks people have relied upon for generations.

At the beginning of 2007, the United States had five investment banks, through which a lot of investment transactions occurred. By the end of 2008, there were zero investment banks in the United States. The investment banks that did not fail outright, changed their charters to commercial banks, thereby eliminating all investment banks in the U.S. by the end of 2008.

Where people got hurt the worst in the recent economic meltdown was when banks stopped loaning money to consumers and businesses.

Banker fears turned our economy on its ear, erasing positive growth and replacing it with recession.

Bankers started to question the viability of their competitors and stopped loaning money to their competitors. Suddenly, when major banking institutions were no longer able to get money to loan to their own clients, banks began to turn off the business credit and consumer credit tap.

We knew the gig was up when General Electric could no longer get loans to float their production cycles. We also knew that the situation was getting bad when banks started freezing credit lines to the automakers. And when the State Of California could not get loans to carry the state through the course of a single economic year, we knew it was ready to hit the fan.

Economic Contraction Has Deep Roots

The lack of business credit is not what killed the auto industry. What brought the automakers to their financial knees was the inability of consumers to get auto loans for new vehicles. This started to happen nearly a year before the commercial credit began to dry up.

When consumers could no longer get loans for major purchases, the economy began to contract significantly, as manufacturers could no longer sell products already in inventory.

As major manufacturers begin to fall by the wayside, the ripple effects hurt hundreds of other businesses, employing thousands.

For every automaker that falls, there are companies that produce tires, car seats, carpet, radios, and automotive parts that will also have to lay off people. The automaker is the easiest example to show the ripple effects of a crumbling economy.

When auto sales fall, car dealerships begin to shut their doors. Dealerships provide hundreds of additional jobs in small towns across America, providing employment for sales people, mechanics, supplies and support. Once you get past the jobs supplied directly by the dealerships, then one must realize that local detail shops generally contract most of their work from car dealerships.

If General Motors fails, jobs are not lost only in Detroit, but in Oklahoma City; Lansing, Michigan; Doraville, Georgia; Ontario, Canada; Spring Hill, Tennessee; Moraine, Ohio; Flint, Michigan; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Ypsilanti, Michigan; and Portland, Oregon. (This list is actually derived from a GM plant closing list from 2005.)

In 2008, GM also closed plants in Grand Rapids, Michigan and Janesville, Wisconsin.

As 2009 approached, GM announced further plant closings. When the announcement came in December of 2008, there were 20 more GM plants on the cutting block for temporary shutdown. This round of plant closings will affect plants in the U.S., Canada and Mexico. Specific states affected by these plant closings include plants in Delaware, Maryland and Texas.

Consumer Credit Dried Up One Year Before Commercial Credit Ended

I mostly respect Bill O'Reilly's view on the world, but one day, he went on a rampage about the economic meltdown, stating that he pays attention to things and did not see the economic meltdown coming. He was complaining that no one warned us of this happening.

I wrote to O'Reilly that day, for the first time ever. I told him that if he watched his own news channel - we knew it was coming. If only he had turned on Neil Cavuto once in a while or watched the Saturday morning business block, then he would have seen this mess coming too.

It all started with a real estate bubble that we all knew was there.

When the real estate bubble began to pop in remote areas of the country and banks started to realize that home foreclosures where on the rise, banks reacted by stopping consumer loans for big ticket purchases, such as homes, cars, furniture and electronics.

The economy began to contract, as consumers could no longer drive the economy unimpeded.

It took business a little while to notice the contraction of business. Most assumed the contraction in sales was more related to the price of gasoline, without noticing that the problems ran deeper than that.

Most business managers assumed that once the price of gasoline dropped back to its historical threshold that all would recover. But gasoline prices only masked the real problem - the lack of consumer credit.

The Roots Of The Real Estate Bubble

The roots of the real estate bubble and subsequent implosion began in the 1990's. Interestingly, both G.W. Bush and Bill Clinton opposed the policies that created this mess, but both were either ineffective or unable to change the course of government policy in this matter.

Bush and Clinton seemed to agree that the credit practices of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were bound to create problems that could not be overcome easily. In the discussion I was listening to about this issue assumed that both Bush and Clinton were "unable" to fix this problem, although both spoke about it regularly.

I tend to find it hard to believe that any President of the United States is "unable" to do anything... but then again, Bush was "unable" to address the political hot potato of Social Security in his second term.

In the early 1990's, the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was changed from helping the underprivileged to buy a home, to guaranteeing banks that wrote loans to anyone and everyone who wanted to buy a home.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began buying loans from banks, packaging those loans, and selling them to investors. Ah... you see the connection... you have heard about that stuff on the news... Good.

Since bank interest rates were so low, banks and mortgage brokers soon realized that they could not make their money collecting interest. So, they began the transition to selling loans to consumers based on closing costs. So long as the consumer could meet and pay for the required closing costs, then the bank would be able to write a loan to the consumer.

If that loan to the consumer was for a home, then the bank could sell those loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who would then package a group of loans to sell to investors.

Here is where the story goes south.

Since banks were selling loans only for the closing costs and selling the loans to a third-party investor, banks stopped looking at whether an individual could afford the loans being given to the consumer.

You know, if I can only afford $900 per month on my mortgage, what makes anyone believe that I can repay a mortgage worth $1200 per month?

Within the system as it was constructed, the bank could care less if I could afford to pay $1200 per month. They only cared that they could sell me the loan, get their closing costs, and then they would pass the liability of my problem loan to a third-party investor.

Because the bank had no financial interest in my ability to repay the loan, they did not concern themselves with writing loans that could be afforded by consumers.

As a result, banks lined up to write consumer loans that consumers could not afford to repay. (We can also slap the consumer at this point, because the people who took those loans also knew that they could not repay them.)

The Contribution Of The Consumer

Each consumer who took a mortgage they could not hope to repay contributed to our current economic meltdown.

I know that many felt strongly that they could repay the loan or that they could get a salary increase to help ends meet. But when consumers are struggling to get by, it only takes one unexpected car repair or other large expense to bring the house of cards tumbling down. The end of the road could also come as soon as one got sick enough to miss a couple days of work.

The consumer should have known better than to take the loans they were offered. But many people also expected that banks still worked the way they did in the 1970's and 1980's - making sure that consumers could afford a loan, before offering that loan.

Lining Up The Dominoes

Consumers had taken loans that they could barely hope to repay. But when an unexpected expense came up, people began to get behind on their mortgage payments. Eventually, the added pressure of being behind on payments pushed consumers to cut their losses and default their home mortgages.

Of course, this process was accelerated when the real estate bubble burst and homeowners began to realize that they owed $120,000 on a home only worth $100,000!

As consumers began to default on their home mortgages, banks started to tighten up their credit policies on other large consumer loans such as cars, furniture and electronics.

As consumers became unable to get loans for the things they desired to purchase, manufacturers and retailers began to struggle under slowing sales.

Slowing sales further complicated the issue, because banks began to realize that their business clients were having a harder time paying back business loans.

At this point, the banks worried about their business clients, but they did not close all commercial credit just yet.

Like you and I, banks borrow money from each other, in order to enable ensure that bank liquidity is maintained. In the banking industry, the government requires that a bank always has cash-on-hand to match 10% of the total loans it has in the marketplace.

On days like payday, banks will often borrow enough money from another bank to help them cash all of the checks that will be brought to their bank. They borrow that money to be able to meet their cash needs, without tapping into the money in their safe that is required to meet federal lending standards.

Of course, banks will cash a check on Friday and they will have that money back in their own coffers by the following Wednesday, when the employer's bank is able to send the money back to the bank who cashed the check. Within the banking industry, few-day loans and one-week loans between banks are common for this reason.

It did not really hit the fan until banks stopped loaning money to each other. When the investment banks began to fall, other major banks also began to fail. With banks failing everyday, bank managers began to wonder about the banks to whom they loan money.

Fear crept into the bank-to-bank lending cycle, and bank-to-bank credit came crashing to a halt.

This is the point where commercial credit died. It was September of 2008 - only weeks before the Presidential election. John McCain handled himself badly during this time frame, ensuring that he would forever be only a footnote in history. "I am suspending my campaign to focus on this problem," - John McCain, famous last words of the top dunce of 2008.

When banks stopped lending to each other, other banks had to freeze commercial credit lines. When General Electric's top lender was unable to get bank-to-bank loans, it was unable to loan money to GE, regardless of their belief in GE's ability to pay back the loan.

The Fallout Is Wide And Painful

When GE can no longer get loans to finance the manufacturing cycle of their products, then GE is forced to lay off workers.

When the automakers customers cannot get consumer loans and the automakers cannot get loans to keep them afloat during this economic downtown, the automakers are forced to lay off people. Along with the automakers laying off people, part suppliers and dealerships also have to lay off people.

When the State Of California cannot get loans to keep the state operational until tax payments start coming in, Governor Schwarzenegger has to make some hard decisions, stopping certain government services and stopping production of development projects. Of course, Schwarzenegger does not have the political courage to fix the problem, but only to survive the crisis. Either way, money stops flowing in California from government coffers, leading to taxpayers receiving IOU's from the California tax agency and people losing their jobs in state construction projects.

The Downward Spiral

Consumers cannot borrow money to buy consumer goods, which in turn slows sales at major manufacturers and major retailers. Slowed sales leads to more layoffs and fewer jobs. Slowed sales also leads to lower stock prices and fewer stock dividends.

Sometimes the pain felt at the business level leads to business failures, which in turn leads to more lost jobs. Fewer jobs leads to more defaulted loans and home foreclosures.

It is a cycle that is hard to break.

According to a story by the Fox Business Network last week, American consumers have lost $11 trillion dollars in their net worth over the last one year.

Is there a light at the end of the tunnel? Certainly there is, although it is a bit hard to see right now. Every down cycle in an economy ends with an up cycle. It is just that we have yet to discern a bottom in this economic downturn, so it is hard to predict when recovery will come.

I am an optimist by nature. I see good days ahead, although those good days will necessarily be preceded by some pain.

The best advice I can give anyone in this current recession is to only spend within your means, until this economy recovers its vitality. At my house, we are still spending, but we are not doing it with credit. Instead, we are paying cash for what we want and making darn sure not to increase our debt load during this down cycle.

Author's Note: This article was originally published at: http://cash-advance-payday-loans.org/blog/economic-meltdown/2009/03/

About the Author:
Arlo Mooney writes about the economy and credit. The only loans he will consider at this time are short term loans, in the form of payday loans or cash advance loans to bridge a cash shortage until the following payday. You can read more of Arlo's work at: http://cash-advance-payday-loans.org/blog/

Obama Leadership: 8 Ways to Lead in the 21st Century

2009-03-26T04:36:00.001-07:00

Article Presented by:
Copyright © 2009 Sharif Khan

"I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends." - Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States

The world is looking for a new kind of leader who can bring hope and stability in dark economic times. President Obama could very well be that leader. Only time will tell. What can we learn so far from Obama's style of leadership? Here are some observations to note for leading in the 21st century:

1. Survival of the Fittest

Charles Darwin spoke of survival of the fittest belonging to the species that is not necessarily the strongest, but the most adaptive. Obama was strong, bold and fiercely determined at the very start of his campaign. But what catapulted his success into the stratosphere was how his communications team adapted to the power of the internet to engage voters through various online social media channels such as Facebook, Myspace, YouTube and Twitter, and by developing a powerful web presence that helped raise over half a billion dollars online for his campaign.

2. Foes to Friends

Will Lincoln's "team of rivals" strategy of appointing campaign opponents to his cabinet work for President Obama? That remains to be seen; but Obama has shown so far that he is a charismatic leader who can successfully put differences behind and get opponents onboard his team using charm and intelligence. Although easier said than done, an enemy turned into a true friend can prove to be a loyal ally. On a broader scale, Obama's consensus building approach to international relations by seeking to understand before being understood and welcoming multilateral decision making, could help ease world tensions and maybe even convert certain enemy nations into allies. Naïve yes, impossible no.

3. Lead by Example

On his first day of office, President Obama froze senior White House staff salaries exceeding $100,000 and promised more openness and transparency to "make government more trustworthy in the eyes of the American people." His example sends a clear message to the public that his leadership team is willing to share in the sacrifices necessary to turn the economy around.

4. Bold and Swift Action

Rhetoric has to be backed by action. In his inaugural speech, Obama spoke of 'bold and swift' action. From the decision to close down Guantanamo prison in a year, to vowing to pull out American combat troops from Iraq in sixteen months, not to mention the herculean task of getting Congress to pass an $800 billion-plus stimulus package, Obama has so far delivered on his call for 'bold and swift' action. Leadership is about judgment - the ability to make decisions. Some of the choices may be wrong in retrospect, but leadership, like a river, must keep moving forward.

5. Admit Mistakes

It takes a special person of character to readily admit mistakes. When Tom Daschle pulled out of the nomination process for the post of Health Secretary after controversy over his personal tax records, Obama admitted, "I screwed up." He was sincere, direct, and to the point. True leaders earn respect by honestly admitting their mistakes. False leaders are despised, and their plans eventually undermined, because they hide behind their title or position and blame someone else for their own mistakes.

6. Maintain Poise

Whether in a public debate, press conference, or media interview, Obama has shown his trademark signature of remaining cool, calm, and collected by neither overreacting nor underreacting to curve ball questions and attacks. When all is said and done, the person who can keep cool when others are hot is usually the one to boss the job.

7. Powered by Purpose

One of the reasons why President Obama has such a high approval rating is that people see that he is driven by a genuine sense of moral purpose. While he could have easily pursued a high paying corporate law career, Obama chose civil rights law practice instead and served as a community organizer who took a grassroots approach to improving his community in the South Side of Chicago. He is a caring and compassionate leader who burns for justice. In perhaps the greatest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in the history of America, Obama expresses outrage at Wall Street execs who pocketed billions in bonuses from taxpayer bailout money and calls for a 'new era of responsibility'.

8. Hope Rooted in Reality

Abraham Lincoln once said, "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." With unprecedented access to information today, it is becoming nearly impossible to fool all the people even some of the time. People want the facts and aren't fooled easily. Leaders who make the mistake of blind optimism or obscuring the facts are in for a rude awakening. Without the facts, without the proper diagnosis, the disease will only get worse and spread.

President Obama understands this phenomenon and is a leader who provides hope rooted in reality. With sobering resolve, Obama is telling his people that they will have to hunker down, roll up their sleeves, and work hard to rebuild the American dream; a dream that may take more than a term to rebuild, but that can become a reality - with the audacity of hope.

About the Author:
Sharif Khan (http://www.herosoul.com; sharif@herosoul.com) is a freelance writer, consultant, speaker, and author of the inspirational leadership book, Psychology of the Hero Soul.

Federal Jobs Are Plentiful

2009-02-27T11:27:00.001-08:00

Article Presented by:
Copyright © 2009 Benji O. Anosike

Think we have a severe economic recession in the United States today, right? Or, at least, that the magnitude of the apparent severe unemployment situation that we have today, is such that you probably can't find any significant job openings existing just about anywhere in America today, and that there simply aren't any employer today who is making any significant hiring of new workers, right?

Well, think again!

Oh, I know. There's this virtual avalanche of grim economic news flooding Americans even by the minute these days out of Washington, telling about growing business and industry shut downs, worker lay offs and rising unemployment. And sure, it's real. But, this is probably the biggest job-related secret in America today, the common, conventional thinking of general joblessness in America today. Actually, the plain FACT is that there are, in fact, plenty of Federal government job hiring going on right now, and plenty of job openings available around the clock right this minute, and you'd just need the "informed tricks" that' are required for it, and you'd be able to properly job search for and dig out those Federal job openings, then properly apply for them and get one of them.

Point is, what we actually have here in the American job market today, is a diminution, or, if you will, a shrinkage in certain types of jobs. But there is no overall shortage of jobs, no complete dry-up of employment or employment opportunities in the totality of the American economy. Particularly, there is our own Federal Government of the United States. It has large job openings right now and continues to hire new workers in large numbers all along even as we speak right now. And, will not only continue to have need for new workers, and to hire sizable numbers of them in the months ahead, but in numbers even higher and larger.

In deed, several studies by respectable labor and manpower economists and experts, including a recent report by experts (http://www.cnbc.com/id/28948055; http://news.aol.com/article/despite-layoffs-federal-work-force-is/324326?cid=9), released in January 2009 by the White House Council of Economic Advisers, have amply projected that a large number of jobs are to be created by the Federal Government in this 2009 year, and beyond. For example, this latest study estimates that, just based on a $600 billion economic stimulus package by the new Obama administration (a higher amount of some $800-900 billion is what is currently being discussed), about 244,000 newly created government jobs at Federal, state and local levels, are to be expected by that measure alone.

In deed, this is actually totally in keeping with the expected Federal government role in times of unusually hard economic times or crises such as we have today. At such times, the Federal Government is expected and anticipated to have an even higher job-creation and worker and labor hiring load than usual, for one fundamental reason, which is simply that such a role is, in fact, the natural, responsible role meant for the Federal government to play. The Federal Government just has to step in, in such a dire national economic time (the kind we seem to have right now), and play the role of a stabilizer." In fact, the notion has become the common thinking among labor management experts and economists today, that in unusually severe economic times such as today when general employment continues to dwindle, and when major American employers (Microsoft corp., Pfizer, Caterpillar, Home Deport, and the Wall Street, to name just a few) are massively laying off workers, it becomes therefore the "natural, built-in" role of the Federal government to step in and try to pick up the employment slack by stepping up worker hiring, not lessening it.

THE CENTRAL QUESTION: Given the FACT, solidly established, that the Federal government has an abundance of job openings available, and is poised for even higher levels of new worker hiring in the near future, if you are a job seeker who is serious about securing a job with the Federal Government, what would you need to do to secure one of these Federal jobs? Essentially, what and what to do, fundamentally lies in the serious job-seeker making certain to have the vital knowledge, information and skill, to be able to properly job search for where the jobs actually are (in terms of the specific agencies of the Federal government having them, as well as their geographic locations across the country), and to uncover them; and having located those jobs, the other critical necessity is that the job-seeker has got to be able to know how exactly to properly apply for them in a way that will meet the special Federal job standards, and thereby result in his or her landing the priced Federal job.

The question, in short, will really boil down to this: which and which ones among the American jobless or those who want jobs, will be equipped enough and informed enough to be able to take proper advantage of these real, existing 'recession proof' Federal job openings, and therefore be able to walk away with those jobs for which they're qualified?

GETTING FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT IN THE MIDST OF SEVERE UNEMPLOYMENT CLIMATE!?

Here, in a nutshell, are some of the major things that my own new publication, published by the Self-Helper Law Press of America, titled The Handbook of Federal Jobs: How to Job Search for, Apply for and Get Federal Job (www.GetFederalJobNow.com), provides you, as it methodologically guides the reader, in a simple, step-by-step outline, through a maze of the entire Federal job hiring process:

information on the present and projected civilian job openings and career opportunities that are continually available in the federal government;

the present as well as the projected future areas of Federal job growth and openings, and where exactly those jobs are or will be in the future (in terms of the particular government agencies that are applicable, as well as the jobs' geographic locations);

how to search for them and to find them, how to understudy precisely the actual core qualifications required for the job, and to "decode" them;

how to properly apply for the jobs using precisely the appropriate Federal-style procedures and standards (including the Federal-style job interviewing, job resume and KSA writing standards), and

how to successfully process your job application, from the very start to the end, in such a way as to win the Federal hiring officer's nod for the job, etc.

IN SUM: "Just arm yourself with a copy of this Handbook," chimed Dan Benjamin, the Sales Manager of the book's publisher, "and you'll see yourself go quickly, from the ranks of the despairing long lasting unemployed, to the ranks of the happy newly Federally employed."

In this ground-breaking Federal job-hunting Handbook, the Publishers of this Handbook have become even more encouraged and more emboldened by one major, new, unique development that was not earlier unanticipated but which busted lately on the American economic scene, to make an even better and more compelling case for why it's now almost like a dire necessity of life for any serious Federal job hunter today to hurry and grab a copy of the book: the new Obama Presidency! The projected infusion of humongous sums into the economy out of the Obama economic stimulus program, some one trillion dollars or so of it, will clearly mean far more big-government programs and initiatives, and, hence, the creation of a lot more new government jobs across the board in the months ahead. And, even more so, still more new Federal government civil service jobs and new federal hires to be had!

Those are the virtually GUARANTEED new Federal job opportunities that are either already here, or are soon to come! Again, which American jobless or job-seekers would have been properly equipped, informed, and adequately prepared, to take proper advantage of these opportunities? That's the central question! Having in hand this prime essential tool you'd need for it (a copy of The FEDERAL JOBS HANDBOOK), according to author Anosike, will assure precisely that you'd be up to that challenge - an the tremendous opportunity to become a prized Federal employee.

About the Author:
Benji O. Anosike, has been characterized by one analyst as "one of the keenest-eyed Federal government employment researchers and experts around." His latest new study just released, is titled THE FEDERAL JOBS HANDBOOK: HOW TO JOB SEARCH FOR, APPLY FOR AND GET FEDERAL JOB. SUBTITLE: "America's Biggest Job Secret: How the Federal Government is Loaded with Jobs, Where they are, and How to Get Them." (http://www.GetFederalJobNow.com). A recognized national expert on self-help law and consumer cost-saving techniques, Dr. Anosike, holds graduate degrees in labor management economics and a Ph.D. in jurisprudence, and is the acclaimed author of some 26 books, guidebooks and manuals, including several best-sellers, on various topics of American consumer interests and savings.

Understanding The Due On Sale Clause On Your Home Mortgage

2009-02-05T22:54:00.000-08:00

Article Presented by:
Copyright © 2009 Cory Shrader

The "Due On Sale Clause" is among the most frequently misunderstood and most-feared legal terms in American contractual law. In this article, we are going to take a look at what it is, what it is not, and how to avoid violating it.

What Is The Due On Sale Clause?

On nearly every home mortgage and loan contract written in the United States, the Due On Sale Clause is one of those fine print inclusions that a lot of home buyers overlook.

In essence, the Due On Sale Clause is a legal term that means that if a mortgage holder transfers interest in a real property to a third-party, then the bank or other lender has the "right" to call the loan "due in full", and if the mortgage holder cannot pay the loan in full at that time, the bank has the right to foreclose on the property.

It must be noted however that many banks and lending institutions do not enforce their rights in association to the Due On Sale Clause. Banks and lending institutions are "not required" to enforce the Due On Sale Clause, but they have the "right" to do so at their discretion.

Understanding The Foreclosure Process

This is an area that most consumers simply do not understand. In fact, just ten years ago, even I believed that if a home were foreclosed, the bank would hold the property until they could sell it at its full retail value.

But the truth is that banks and lending institutions generally do not make money when they foreclose a property. Instead, most banks will lose tens of thousands of dollars if they are forced to foreclose on a property.

Here is the reason why.

When a bank forecloses a property, they cannot afford to have non-performing real estate on their books. Banks and lenders also borrow money and have debts to service. So a piece of real estate on their books that is not generating an income is contrary to the lenders business model.

As a result, when banks foreclose on a property, they need to sell that property quickly. Foreclosed properties are sent to a sheriff's sale, usually within 90 days of the completion of the foreclosure process.

Now, here is where we get into the dollars and cents of why your lender is going to lose tens of thousands of dollars when they are forced to foreclose your property. The average property sold at a sheriff's auction will only generate 20- to 40-cents return against the retail value of the property!

So, if you have a 40% equity stake in your home at the time of foreclosure and your bank will only be able to collect 20% to 40% of the homes' retail value at auction, your bank is still going to lose 20% to 40% of the retail value of the property at auction. If your home is worth $100,000, you will lose your 40% equity in the property or $40,000, and your bank will lose 20% to 40% of the retail value of the property or $20,000 to $40,000 when they sell your home at auction.

When you begin to understand why a bank or lender would not want to foreclose your home, then you begin to understand why a bank or lender may choose not to exercise its rights under the Due On Sale Clause.

The History Of The Due On Sale Clause

The Due On Sale Clause began to work its way into mortgage contracts during the 1970's. Homeowners who took loans in the 1950's and 1960's were getting really low interest rates on home loans. But, during the 1970's, interest rates began to spiral upwards.

Home sellers who were willing to entertain "creative financing alternatives" to sell their homes began to sell their homes to other parties through Contract For Deed arrangements. This enabled buyers to avoid going to the bank to get new loans, which would require a much higher interest rate than the rate the current homeowner was paying on the home.

The math was easy to follow. The existing homeowner was paying 2% to 4% interest on his or her mortgage. Buyers getting new loans would be paying 8% to 16% to buy the same house. Assumable mortgages were a clear winner for homebuyers, due to the higher interest rates on new loans, and they were a clear winner for home sellers who would be able to sell their homes more quickly to motivated buyers.

Banks viewed the Due On Sale Clause as a method to force buyers into a higher interest rate. So banks began to include the Due On Sale Clause on all mortgage contracts.

Early on, a few states sided with buyers who felt that the Due On Sale Clause was tantamount to predatory lending practices. So in the late-1970's and early-1980's, state governments began to outlaw the Due On Sale Clause.

However, the federal government sided with the banking and savings and loan industries and passed a law in 1982, The Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982, that made the Due On Sale Clause legal in all fifty states - with a few exceptions defined by the legislation: (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00001701---j003-.html)

The Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 Exceptions

As with any document filled with legalese, the language can be somewhat confusing, leaving room for interpretation in the law. As a result, many real estate investors operate on the fringes of this legislation, doing things that some people consider legal and other people consider illegal.

In the 27 years since this legislation was passed, the federal government has not taken steps to clarify any of the ambiguity in the legislation. As a result, it is entirely possible to find lawyers who argue for each side of the specific interpretation of the legislation.

Although some elements of this legislation remain ambiguous, some elements of the legislation are crystal clear. (As always, you should consult with an attorney before signing any contract.)

One point that is crystal clear is that any loan written on a manufactured home (mobile home) cannot include a Due On Sale Clause. All loans made on a manufactured home may be assumed by a third-party. Vanderbilt Mortgage, one of the largest lenders on manufactured homes, makes the process super easy. They will send you a credit application for your buyer, and if the person passes credit check, that person can take over your home loan immediately under whatever terms you set.

Another exception includes the ability to sign a lease of up to three years, so long as that lease does not include an Option To Buy.

Allowances for an exception to the Due On Sale Clause have been included to reflect the possibilities of the death of a borrower or a couple getting a divorce.

One more important exception to the Due On Sale Clause has to do with Inter Vivos Trusts. Also called a Living Trust, the Inter Vivos Trust is a legal instrument that permits the transfer of the ownership of the property from the individual to a legal trust, managed by a trustee and held by the homeowner as beneficiary. This was important to note, because many real estate investors use this as a tool to protect the interests of the buyer and seller in the real estate transaction.

If you want to know all of the specifics of this legislation, please refer to the Cornell Law URL included above.

The Due On Sale Protects The Lenders' Interests

Although banks and lending institutions have the "right" to enforce the Due On Sale Clause, most lending institutions will not exercise that right.

Some of the ambiguity that accompanies the legislation regarding the Due On Sale Clause is whether a borrower is required to notify his or her lender of a transfer of interest in a property. While it is fraud and a crime to mislead your lender, some argue that if you don't tell your lender, then you will have circumvented the legal ramifications of violating the Due On Sale Clause. After all, if you don't lie to your lender, then you have not committed any fraud.

The people who take this approach also believe that if the lender never figures it out, then nothing is lost if the buyer continues to make all of his or her payments on time every month.

Personally, I prefer that you play straight with your lender. As someone who buys homes that have a mortgage, it is in my best interest also, if the lender is aware of our intent to do a transaction. I would hate to buy your house under contract, pay on that house for one payment or dozens, and then have your lender discover that you did not tell them that I was buying your house. If your lender calls the Due On Sale Clause after I have worked out a purchase deal with you, then that would be a pain in my you-know-what.

Some lenders will not hesitate to call the Due On Sale Clause, although most are happy so long as they continue to receive on-time payments for the life of the loan.

That is why I suggest always to call your lender with a "If I wanted to" scenario. Don't tell your lender "you did it". Tell your lender before you sign the paperwork "you would like to do it".

Test the waters with your lender before you venture into the deal. Chances are that your lender will agree, so long as the buyer knows that if the payments come late, that the bank may exercise its right to Due On Sale.

One More Note

Someone asked what a Demand Clause was and if it is similar to the Due On Sale Clause. It is similar, but very different. The Demand Clause allows the lender to demand full payment at any time for any reason. With the Due On Sale Clause, then full payment can only be required if the interest in the property changes hands.

In Conclusion

Tens of thousands of deals are done every year, where the mortgage holder sets up a Contract For Deed deal with a buyer, and the lending institution permits the transfer to happen unimpeded - even though the lending institution has the right to stop the transaction at any time under the terms of the Due On Sale Clause.

If you want to sell your home during this housing crisis and credit crunch, your first best bet is to call your lender and have a discussion about "If I wanted to sell my house through a Contract For Deed" scenario.

If your lender says that they would call the note, then you know that this option is not for you. However, if they indicate that they would be happy to let you go through with such a deal on certain terms, then you will know that you have another option for getting out of that house that you do not want anymore.

Author's Note: This article originally published here:
http://www.libertyhomesellers.com/blog/2009/02/due-on-sale-clause/

About the Author:
Cory Shrader writes for the Liberty Home Sellers website. Liberty buys and sell homes in Oklahoma and has regular contacts with other real estate investors in many U.S. states, who also offer single-family homes for sale. If you are looking to sell a home, buy a home, or buy handyman specials, please visit our website and fill out the appropriate form on our website: http://www.LibertyHomeSellers.com

Is Government Working For You - Or Are You Working For Government?

2009-02-03T22:36:00.001-08:00

Article Presented by:
Copyright © 2009 Fred Vanhoosen

The new Congress and President are hard-at-work trying to push through a new economic stimulus package. Our elected leaders are claim the stimulus package will cost $825 billion, but the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) - which is known for its accurate accounting - says that with interest costs, the package will actually cost $1.1 trillion.

To put the $825 billion into perspective, Glenn Beck suggested today that the government could give a $17,000 check to every American and the numbers would add up to the same amount of the new "stimulus" package.

We all know it - the government is not going to send any of "us" a $17,000 check in the mail. This stimulus is about helping political causes as opposed to helping the people who are suffering in a bad economy.

If the current stimulus package will cost us $17,000 each, then the TARP funds cost us the equivalent of $14,000, just a few months ago. Between the two stimulus packages, the government is spending at least $31,000 for every American in 2008-2009, and that number only accounts for the "emergency stimulus"; it does not even take into account the governments normal spending habits.

I don't know about you, but $31,000 is equal to more than half of what I earned last year.

If we believe in our leaders, we would be safe to assume that the government will not come to us to collect the full $31,000 they borrowed in our names. Instead, our leaders would have us believe that you and I will get a tax cut and "the rich" will pay all of that debt back to lenders. 95% of us will get a tax cut and the 5% who are rich will pay our tax bills for us. So every rich person will pay the tax bill for the 19 of us who are in the middle- and lower-income tax brackets.

If this is an accurate assessment of the cost of these two stimulus packages, then "the rich" will be responsible for an additional $589,000 each. If the rich are really those who make more than $250,000 per year, then I suspect that most of "the rich" people won't be able to pay off our debts for us. But what do I know... I am not a politician.

What Do I Know?

I will tell you what I do know. I do know that I cannot manage my own family's finances with the same fuzzy math that government uses to manage its money.

I know that if I only have $3500 per month to pay my bills with, then I only have $3500 per month to pay my bills with. I also know that if I can find a mortgage company to finance my next home purchase, at a monthly payment I can afford to make, then I can buy a home. I also know that if I can find a finance company, which will loan me the money to buy a car, I can buy a car on credit.

At every step in the process, I need to know that I can reliably make all of my payments; within the context of the money I will reliably earn every month.

When my income drops, I need to find something to cut from my monthly expenses. If I cannot afford something this month, then I will not be able to afford it next month either. Rather than to try to live beyond my means, I have to cut something from my monthly expenses, because in the end, I need to do what is best for my family.

If the cash shortfall is temporary, like when I need to pay the mechanic to fix my car, or my wife gets another speeding ticket, then I can look to a payday loan company to help me cover that short-term cash shortfall.

In my case, the cash advance or payday loan is cool to use, but only if I am using it to cover a smaller, unanticipated expense. On the other hand, if the cash shortfall is expected to last several months, like when I needed to pay out $1100 over several months to pay the transmission shop for the new transmission in my car, then I would never consider a payday loan. Instead, I would find something that I could do without for several months and then do without that item.

Why Is This A Difficult Concept For Politicians To Understand?

At all times, we do what we can to live within our means, If we need to borrow money, we only do so when we are reasonably sure that we can pay that money back. If we cannot afford to borrow the money, then we look for things in our budget that we can cut.

But our politicians will never do such things. Even cost-cutter Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger cannot seem to figure out how to stop spending money. Experts are now suggesting that the State of California is only collecting 60 cents on every dollar it spends! OMG... Where does it end?

So, California is looking for money to borrow, and the federal government is borrowing money and printing money so that they can spend well beyond their means as well. And why are the politicians still spending money like this? Because we are in dire economic circumstances!

You and I cannot borrow our way to prosperity, so why would the politicians believe that the U.S. Government could borrow its way to prosperity?

If you ask me, it is because our elected officials are just plain stupid. They have decided that you and I exist so that we can take care of the needs of the government, instead of the government existing to take care of our needs.

"The rich" are not going to be able to afford to take care of all of the costs or our government, so in the end, you and I will be paying out of our very limited budgets to take care of the financial needs of our government. They have stopped working for us - now, we work for them. We just don't know it yet.

About the Author:
Fred Vanhoosen writes about the payday loan / cash advance loan industry. Occasionally, he feels compelled to comment on the financial habits of our government. To learn more about cash advance loan products, he recommends visiting the following website: http://www.fastcash4all.net/

Resolve to Improve Transparency with Your Constituents: The Benefits of Citizen Request Management Software

2009-01-22T06:36:00.001-08:00

Article Presented by:
Copyright © 2009 Anne Sych

Well it's a New Year, with all of its promises of fresh starts and new beginnings, but you may not be as optimistic as in years past. Everyone is feeling the squeeze of the struggling economy. Municipalities are being forced to do business-as-usual with less staff, and budget cuts have butchered most cities and counties plans to purchase much needed equipment.

What can you do to continue to provide essential services with fewer staff?

Automate your 'City Services' with 311 Citizen Request Management (CRM) software!

Read what others are saying about 311 City Services:

"311 is not just a citizen service hotline; it's the most powerful management tool ever developed for New York City's government. I can't imagine running a city without it!" -- Michael Bloomberg, Mayor, City of New York

"The 311 call centers have been a very important customer service tool to provide centralized services and centralized points of access to cities." -- Rishi Sood, Vice President, Gartner Research

"311 has been a miracle...311 saved us not only from having our 911 system swamped but saved our citizens who had true emergencies, such as heart attacks and crimes in progress, from getting a busy signal." -- Ed Harris, Emergency Communications Director, Austin Police Dept.

311 Citizens Request Management Software engages a powerful knowledge base tool, which can be used for citizens and agents alike. Flexible permission settings allow administrators to display selected information to selected users. The help desk component of the CRM system can be set up strictly for agents, or for both agents and citizens - storing all of the valuable data into the same system.

CRM web-based tracking software facilitates communication across an entire organization, eliminating redundant processes and providing assurance that issues are being resolved quickly and efficiently.

311 Citizen Request Manager Software manages time consuming, common issues such as:

Traffic Issues (signage, traffic signals, etc.)

Trash Collection and Recycling

Street and Road Issues (potholes, sidewalk repair, street sweeping, etc.)

Public Landscape Issues (fallen trees, overgrowth, etc.)

General Complaints (graffiti, rodents, etc.)

Building Permit Requests

...and much more

Essentially, any type of issue or complaint can be logged and tracked within the system. And by selecting a 311 tool that is fully web-based, implementation takes place within hours or days, not weeks or months. Once deployed on your website, citizens can begin making their own requests online, taking a load off your staff.

About the Author:
Written by: Anne Sych, Marketing Manager for Novo Solutions, Inc. Novo Solutions is an Independent Software Vendor (ISV) in Virginia Beach, Virginia, specializing in Citizen and Customer Support Software. Free trial versions of the Novo Help Desk Software, Knowledge Base Software, Asset Management Software and suite of web-based Customer Support Solutions are available. Contact http://www.novosolutions.com for more information.

The Relationship Between The NASA Space Shuttle And The Struggling Auto Industry

2008-11-20T08:57:00.001-08:00

Article Presented by:
Copyright © 2008 Arlo Mooney

With all of the talk in the news about the potential failure of U.S. automakers, many have begun to talk about the far-reaching effects of the auto industry on the U.S. economy.

Few people realize the reach of the auto industry and how integral it is to the whole of the U.S. economy. It has been said that one-of-ten jobs in the United States are connected to automotive manufacturing, sales and maintenance.

It is hard to track down with any certainty how many U.S. cities would be directly affected by the failure of a single automobile model, let alone an entire company or industry. To put the impact of the potential failure of the auto companies into better perspective, it is easier to study the economic reach of another vehicle in which we are all familiar: NASA's space shuttle.

Manufacturing The NASA Space Shuttle

Since NASA is an enterprise of the U.S. Federal Government, its employees tend to create reams of reports and make those reports available online, for the person willing to hunt them down.

While a car is not nearly as complex as the space shuttle to build, the manufacturing base behind the space shuttle is nearly as far-reaching as the manufacturing base behind the automakers.

The space shuttle program relied upon hundreds of manufacturers, located in 165 U.S. Cities in 32 states, with one component built in Canada and one other component built in Paris, France.

These manufacturers create parts as small as the screws used to hold components together, to the parts that make wings and the shuttle fuselage. But NASA projects cannot stop with the building of the flight components, since life support systems are also essential to NASA missions.

Most space shuttle components were built in California and New York, but components were also manufactured in nearly every state in the southwestern, south-central, and southeastern U.S., including: California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Alabama and Florida. Other states that filled out the remainder of the list include: Washington, Utah, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa, Tennessee, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Delaware, New Hampshire and Vermont.

When the space shuttle building era ended in 1988, a vast number of companies had to return to the process of working in the private sector to keep workers employed.

The Coming End Of The American Automotive Manufacturing Era?

The U.S. Congress is trying hard to find ways to finance a bridge to the future for General Motors, Ford and Chrysler.

Some argue that the U.S. auto industry is handicapped by the retirement plans it had set up for employees in past decades. Whereas the U.S. automakers have large sums of money set aside for the retirement of their employees, European and Asian auto manufacturers who have set up plants in the United States do not have the same kinds of long-term financial commitments to their employees.

Financial gurus argue that the combination of retirement fund commitments and UAW contracts prevent American automakers from competing with foreign automakers on a level playing field. This is the reason why some are suggesting that the best thing that could happen to GM, Ford and Chrysler is to go under, and have other companies pick up the broken pieces of these legacy auto companies to start again from scratch.

But as shown in the NASA space shuttle example, the effects of this outcome will have far-ranging and deep effects on the stability of the U.S. economy.

Perhaps failure will be good for the auto business, but it seems likely that Congress and the soon-to-take-office President Obama will prevent this from happening.

The greater question for General Motors is whether they will be able to survive until January 20th, when Obama takes the reigns of the country from George W. Bush. It is rumored that GM only has enough cash on hand to keep them afloat until December of 2008.

Final Thoughts

My gut tells me that it may be a bad idea to let any American automotive manufacturer fail. My gut tells me that the Chrysler bailout of the 1980's proved to be a good investment that the U.S. taxpayer eventually got back with interest paid.

But my gut also tells me that it is a bad idea for the U.S. government to be in the business of bailing out every company with a hand extended to Congress. Maybe it would be best to let the carmakers fail, so that whatever company rises from the ashes could compete with foreign automakers on a level playing field.

In the end, whether Washington D.C. comes to the rescue of the automotive industry, in time or not, America will survive and eventually thrive once again.

About the Author:
Arlo Mooney has dedicated himself to helping people properly manage their personal finances, by helping them to understand the gravity of their personal financial decisions. With his background in economics, he strives to help people understand complex economic principles, by explaining conditions in ways that few people have the patience or skill to do. Read more of his work at: http://cash-advance-payday-loans.org/blog

Let Us Not Mince Words About Taxes, Tax Cuts and Tax Increases

2008-09-26T22:07:00.000-07:00

The Minimum Wage Rate Increase Is An Illusion

Politicians in America are fond of minimum wage increases, as it buys votes from those who are poorest among us.

I was working at minimum wage in the early 1980's when Ronald Reagan increased the American minimum wage from $3.15 and hour to $4.25 an hour.

As a lowly dishwasher in a restaurant, I was happy to be able to take home more money for the amount of time I spent on a job. It seemed like a really good deal at the time. But, experience has taught me the fallacy of the minimum wage increase.

Sure, my wages went up, but so did my cost of groceries, cost of fuel, and cost of rent. It was a zero sum game.

Yes, that $1.10 increase in my wages resulted in another $2288 income for me in that next calendar year. But, my cost of living went up by an equally large amount.

I learned from that first minimum wage increase that as a minimum wage earner, "I" would not gain from a minimum wage increase, nor would those other million plus wage earners, who were currently earning minimum wage at that time.

When the next minimum wage increase came about during the Clinton years, I was confused why Congress would go through that exercise once again. It was said that it was a good idea, since the people at the bottom of our economy would benefit most from a minimum wage increase, BECAUSE the poor would see an increase in their spending power.

Yes, the spending power of the poor does increase for a period of about six months, up and until the retail prices of products and services catch up with the new real cost of producing those products and services.

The minimum wage increase will increase the costs of products and services for "all" consumers. So in effect what the minimum wage increase does is to lower the "real wages" of those earning more than minimum wage, and to trick minimum wage earners into thinking that the government gave them a step up in the world.

The Sly Truth Behind The Minimum Wage Increase

I was confused at why our Congress would be so intent on selling a new "zero sum game" to the American public. I was confused up until the point when an economist pointed out that the government collects a "set percentage" of a wage earners' income.

If the poorest members of our society were earning $4.25 an hour and paying an average of 20% of their wages to the Federal Government, then the government would be collecting $4.25 x 20%, or 85 cents on the hour from the poorest folks in our country.

But, if the poorest members of our society were able to see an increase in their base wages from $4.25 an hour to $5.15 an hour, then the government would be able to collect its 20% on $5.15 an hour, which means that at the higher minimum wage rate would bring the government's take to $1.03 per hour worked by our underclass.

When reviewed at the basic dollars and cents level, this increase to the governments' income does not seem that sizable. But, to view this in the terms of percentages, then this was a rather direct and distinct tax increase against those who are poorest in our communities. The 18 cent increase per working hour from our poorest citizens, from 85 cents to $1.03 per hour, is a mathematical increase in the governments' revenue collections from the poor by a rate of 21.2%.

I finally understood that the reason why Congress is so fond of minimum wage increases is two-fold. One, it endears Congress to minimum wage voters back home, because it sells them on the illusion that Congress is keeping the best interests of minimum wage earners in mind. And two, it enables Congress to extract more money from the very people that they are suggesting that they are going to help.

I hope this explanation clears some smoke and breaks some mirrors designed to hide the truth from you.

Smoke And Mirrors

In February of 2008, I found myself rooting for Barrack Obama. As a lifelong Republican, I was torn between Obama and the presumptive nominee of the Republican party, John McCain. Obama was an impressive guy and McCain was a lackluster candidate.

I was torn, because I was the first registered Republican in my family's history. It is a fact that I am descended from a previous Democratic Presidential candidate, William Jennings Bryan. Now in my early-40's, everyone in my family, with the exception of my sister has moved to the right in their politics.

I was torn, because after having helped lead my family members into the red column of American politics, I was thinking about voting left. Until the Democratic National Convention, I was holding myself to the right of center, but I was watching Obama with interest. The only area that I seemed to disagree with Obama was on his stance on Iraq.

But, my mind was firmly set against Obama on the last night of the Democratic National Convention. My mind was set in response to what was probably stated in a paragraph or two.

I was repulsed by Obama's tax plan. I was repulsed, because he was playing smoke and mirrors game with his tax plan, just as Congress has played smoke and mirrors several times before with the minimum wage increases of previous years.

In one sentence, Obama stated that he was going to reduce taxes for 95% of Americans. He immediately followed that statement with another statement that he intended to raise taxes on businesses.

Here is the trick of the words: Businesses will make a profit regardless of what our governments tax policy is or is not. So, if Obama is going to increase taxes on businesses, then those businesses are going to pass the cost of those new taxes on to their consumers.

A business tax increase will be passed to consumers in the form of higher prices for all products and services available in the marketplace, and all of us will be paying for those tax increases that are passed to businesses.

So while Obama promises a tax cut for 95% of the American citizenry, he is promising a tax increase for 100% of Americans through higher prices for products and services. It is another "zero sum game" from our government.

Obama is promising to put money into my front pocket with his right hand, while with his left hand, he is pulling money from my back pocket!

Now that I understand Obama's tax plan, I scream at the TV everytime Obama repeats his assertion that 95% of tax payers will see lower taxes... And while he may be right that my personal tax bill will be smaller, you and I and everyone else will be paying for his tax increases in the form of higher prices and a higher cost of living!

The Second Problem With Business Tax Increases

The United States already has the second highest business tax rates in the world.

For years, the American people have been complaining about how our jobs are being shipped overseas to lower-cost localities.

You know. The reason why companies have relocated to overseas locations en masse is not because wages are significantly smaller in those foreign countries.

As John McCain elegantly pointed out in the first Presidential Debate, companies can earn more money by moving to another country, simply by looking at their tax bills. The U.S. has the second highest business tax rate of 35%, and when measured against the 11% business tax rate for businesses in Ireland, one can easily see that a 24% reduction in taxes could easily translate into more net income, which easily translates into the ability of the business to hire more employees and to expand their businesses at a much quicker rate.

As more businesses see the light that their businesses can see faster business growth by moving overseas, more jobs will leave the United States, resulting in an even further decrease in U.S. tax revenues. As more jobs go overseas, there are fewer employees to tax in the form of income taxes.

Increased Business Taxes Undercut The Federal Government's Ability To Increase Revenue

Increased business taxes are not in your best interests or mine. It means more jobs will go overseas, which leaves a much smaller tax base from which the U.S. Federal Government can draw. You and I will pay for those increased business taxes in the form of lost jobs.

As the tax base shrinks, you and I will be asked to pay more taxes to offset government's revenue losses. Of course, in an Obama Presidency, business taxes will be increased to offset those losses. All the while, you and I will be paying higher prices for products and services, because you and I will be required to pay those new taxes which have been levied against businesses.

All of us will pay for Obama's tax plan. Those 95% of Americans who believe that Obama's tax plan will reduce our personal tax bill are only fooling themselves.

Your tax cut is under all three shells, and the business tax increases (higher product and service prices) are under all three shells as well. So, which one of those three shells are you going to pick?

Why I Am Angry?

I am angry with Obama. I am angry, because he entered this race claiming to be above the same old politics of yesteryear. But he is not. He is just like every other politician who has angered me in my life. He is running a shell game with our votes. He is being dishonest about his tax plan by claiming that 95% of us will see tax cuts under his plan, when the truth is that under his tax plan, 100% of us will pay more taxes.

His tax increase will not simply affect those people who earn $250,000 or more as he claims. Even if you only earn $10,000 per year, you will pay more taxes under Obama's tax plan.

When Obama says that "your" taxes will not be increased, and that "your" taxes will definitely be lowered or eliminated, he is lying to you!

Obama is lying to you, me and everyone else. And I am pissed about it, and perhaps you should be pissed too.

My name is Bill Platt from Stillwater, Oklahoma, and I approved this message.

Click here to read my rant about the banking industry meltdown.

If Ever the World Needed Women Leaders, the Time is NOW

2008-09-24T05:30:00.001-07:00

Article Presented by:
Copyright © 2008 Lois P. Frankel, Ph.D.

War, famine, poverty, random acts of violence, and corporate greed are just a few of the most critical problems facing communities, companies, the country and the world today. And exactly who predominates in all leadership arenas? Of course, men. Women don't make better leaders than men, they make different leaders. They're not afraid to bring in people with more expertise when there's something they don't know. They work to build collaborations, rather than operate from a top down principle. And their well-honed emotional intelligence enables them to effectively influence others using the least muscle necessary.

For centuries women have held a wide array of leadership role - but they haven't always been given credit for their accomplishments, nor have they been so bold as to call themselves leaders. Yet through nature and nurture they have honed the quintessential skills needed to make a difference in the workplace, the community, and the world. If ever there was a time in history that cried out for women's leadership, that time has arrived. Women must make sure their voices are heard, they have a place at the table, and, regardless of the resistance they get, they help change the course of history.

Whether you lead a work team, a volunteer organization, or even just a project, here are 7 tips to help you step confidently and courageously into your leadership zone.

1. Articulate your leadership vision. Write down what you want people to say about you when you leave a room. Fill in the blank, "She's a leader who ___________." Be as specific as possible. Include what you want to do, how you want to do it and what people will get out of doing it with you. Then act in ways to make it a reality.

2. Be strategic. If it's a problem you're solving or a change in direction you want to undertake, develop your overarching strategy for addressing the challenge before diving in. Avoid the tendency to approach everything with a high sense of urgency or to jump to action before thinking through a situation. Strategy takes time.

3. Resist perfectionism. We've all heard the saying, "a woman has to work twice as hard to be considered half as good." Don't let it guide your actions. Thinking that you have to be perfect causes your strategic thinking and willingness to take risks to be constricted. The balance of strategic thinking and tactical implementation is by nature imperfect - and always a risk.

4. Get to the point. Women have the tendency to use more words when fewer would do. More words used always soften a message. Fewer words strengthen a message. Keep in mind the maxim, "short sounds confident." Begin your communications with the one statement you would want others to remember if you had only enough time to say that. Rather than continue speaking ask, "Do you have any questions?" or "Have I made myself clear?"

5. Volunteer to make formal and informal presentations. If you want to become really good at influencing others, seize every opportunity to go outside your comfort zone and speak before large and small groups. Also consider joining Toastmasters International.

6. Solicit 360 degree feedback. Asking three simple questions will yield a wealth of information - usually about behaviors related to emotional intelligence: What do I do well that I should continue doing? What can I do more of to be even more effective? What can I do less of to be even more effective? As with any kind of feedback or survey, be prepared to take action.

7. Balance your natural leadership skills with new behaviors. Women are good at bringing out the best in people through coaching. Combine these with more direct and assertive communication, deliberate decision-making, and an increased understanding of the political landscape of your company culture and you'll be the leader you were destined to become.

About the Author:
To receive free monthly coaching tips like this one contact Dr. Frankel at info@corporatecoachingintl.com or visit her website, http://www.corporatecoachingintl.com

High Fuel Prices and the Inevitable Game of Political Hot Potato

2008-08-30T23:48:00.001-07:00

Article Presented by:
Copyright © 2008 Bill Platt

The price of gasoline raced passed the $4 per gallon mark and teases another race to $5 per gallon, and hard-working Americans across the country are bracing for the worst. The price of fuel is not just affecting the price at the pump, but it is also affecting the prices at the grocery store and at the department store.

Some of the factors that are directly affecting this inflationary cycle are outside the control of the U.S. Government, such as wheat and corn crops destroyed by flood waters in the Midwest, but other factors could be dampened, if only our political leaders had the will to influence real change.

Many economic analysts point to a weak dollar, speculative trading and growing demand from China and India as the driving force behind the astronomical increase in fuel prices. In testimony in front of Congress, Energy Policy Analyst, Kevin Book estimated that current oil usage is running at 97% of the current oil supply.

Wagging The Finger Of Blame

As American families are feeling the pinch of high gas prices, combined with high food prices, and businesses struggle with the economic downturn, our elected officials stick to their talking points and wag their fingers at other people in the blame game.

Today, in the area of energy policy, America is sorely in need of good leadership. But our leaders are neglecting us in this time of dire need.

Historically, we have had decent leaders over the last forty-years, with Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, daddy-Bush, Clinton, and Bush Jr. in the White House. Each of these individual Presidents had their strengths and their weaknesses.

I may have disliked at least one of these guys, and you may have disliked several of them. But regardless of our personal feelings for these men, if you are at least honest with yourself and the rest of us, you have to admit that each of these men have given us good leadership in certain areas.

My grandmother always told me to look for the positives in other people. She insisted that all people had some redeeming value as a human being, and I should seek that out in people, as others looked for the same in me.

Each of our last seven Presidents have brought something positive to the table, providing good leadership, each in their own unique ways.

Unfortunately, our last seven Presidents have all let us down in one very important area, and that area is energy policy. Today, we are paying the high price of ignoring a coming storm for 34 years.

And yet today, as we are in the midst of the economic storm, our leadership in the White House and in the Congress is more interested in finding someone to blame for the crisis, than in finding solutions that will help resolve this situation.

Some politicians are saying, "Oh, that solution will take ten years to reach fruition..." so they sit on their hands feeling justified that they said the right words. Well, if it really is something that takes ten years to bring to fruition, if we were to start today, it will be ten years, and if we sit on our hands another two years, then it will be twelve years before we find resolution.

Is it any wonder that the White House and Congress are suffering from such low approval ratings?

Weak Approval Ratings For President Bush And Congress

President Bush has been hovering in the 30's since the middle of 2006, and according to Real Clear Politics, his approval rating is right now sitting at 31.0% (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_bush_job_approval-904.html)

Congress has it much worse. Even though the Democrats managed to overtake the Republicans in the 2006 election cycle, their current approval rating is hovering near 18.5% according to Real Clear Politics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html)

Congress' current approval ratings are still lower than its approval rating in December 2006 (21%), when the Democrats won the majority in both houses of Congress. According to the Gallop folks, they began tracking this data in 1974, and Congress had reached its all-time low in August of 2007 when it reached its 18% approval rating. Congress' rankings have hovered in that range for most of the last year.

Previous lows included: the 19% approval rating in the summer of 1979, during the 1979 energy crisis; and ratings near 18% during the check-bouncing scandal in 1992. Congress enjoyed a brief 6-month honeymoon in the aftermath of the 2006 elections, and then ratings began to fall once again. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/28456/Congress-Approval-Rating-Matches-Historical-Low.aspx)

The Why Of Our Current Situation

Beyond the lack of a coherent energy policy for the last three decades, our current Congressional and Presidential leaders are continuing to fail us today in the midst of this economic storm, by looking for the talking point that will allow them to sell the American public on who is to blame for the current crisis.

My vote in November will be for the people who appear to offer the best hope for fixing our current energy problems. This is something that has been dear to my heart, since I have been old enough to vote in the early 1980's. But as a voice in the wilderness, people were not listening to those who spoke of energy independence and alternative energy over the last three decades.

The "coming energy crisis" has always been tomorrow's problem, which meant that the difficult decisions could be passed to the future. Well, welcome to the future! The future energy crisis has finally arrived, and now we are going to pay for 34 years of inaction on energy.

What The Politicians Are Doing About Gas Prices...

When discussing energy, one should never put their faith into the words of politicians. Our politicians have done one thing, over and again, and that is to distort the answers to questions to support their political causes and to diminish the political positions of their opponents.

In June of 2008, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis) said, "We are kidding ourselves if we think we can drill our way out of these problems." This comment was made to explain the House Appropriations Committee's rejection along party lines of a Republican proposal, to open up U.S. waters between 50 and 200 miles off shore for drilling.

Mr. Obey, I suggest we are kidding ourselves that we can solve this crisis, if we think we can ignore even one piece of the overall puzzle. Drilling is not the whole solution, but it is a major piece to the puzzle.

Congressional Wisdom

While Congress assures that new oil drilling will take ten years to produce new oil, oil-drilling companies suggest that they can bring up the oil in only a few years. Whomever is right on this point, we will get the oil out of the ground sooner if we take action now, as opposed to waiting another two or thirty years until we say yes to new drilling.

Congress assures us that the oil companies currently have the rights to drill on 68 million acres of ground, and they say oil companies should drill that land first. Currently, one quarter of that ground already is being used for drilling. But, let's ask an important question. Is it better to mine gold in New York City where we do not know if gold exists, or should we mine for gold in California where we know there is gold? That is what Congress is telling oil companies to do... drill for oil where they do not know if oil exists, instead of drilling for oil where everyone knows there is oil.

Of course, I am not the only one talking about these issues. The Business And Media Institute recently did a lengthy analysis of how the press is sticking to the "anti-oil talking points", so much so that they are ignoring public opinion and industry experts: (http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080625151619.aspx)

Oil Usage And Supply

According to statistics provided by the federal Energy Information Administration (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov), the assertion that the growth of oil consumption in China and India really is a real factor in the price pressures on a barrel of oil is true.

Since 2000, Chinese consumption has grown by 67% or 3.22 million barrels of oil per day. Other Asian countries are consuming an additional 1.5 million barrels of oil per day, against the 2000 data. And, third-world countries have also increased their consumption by 3.4 million barrels per day.

In fact, total world consumption has increased by 9.72 million barrels per day, since 2000.

Between 2000 and 2005, American fuel consumption continued to grow unabated. When fuel prices started climbing in the United States in 2005, US consumption began to decline. The United States still consumes 20.41 million barrels of oil per day, five-times as much oil as the next five top oil-consuming countries combined.

Since 2005 American consumption has dropped by 1.85%. It is a step in the right direction, but just as we cannot drill our way out of this crisis, we cannot rely solely on conservation as a long-term solution either.

Reducing our fuel use is a temporary step we can take towards resolving our current fuel crisis, but with the growth of consumption in China, India and in other countries, conservation will only help us until the next crisis. Next time around, no amount of conservation will help us.

Steps We Must Take

Americans as individual consumers can do some of these steps on their own. Some of these steps will require government intervention.

Auto manufacturers will never embrace Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) as a fuel source under the current regulatory conditions. It is simply too expensive for any automaker to consider CNG as a viable automotive fuel technology. Natural gas burns cleaner, is in great supply domestically, and costs the equivalent of less than one dollar per gallon in today's market.

NGVAmerica (http://www.ngvamerica.org/) states that there are more than 7 million NGVs in use worldwide, but only 150,000 of those vehicles are in use in the United States. They have put together a detailed report showing how regulations in the U.S. have ensured that automotive manufacturers and after-market providers will stay away from NGV-technology for the indeterminate future: (http://www.ngvamerica.org/pdfs/FAQs_Converting_to_NGVs.pdf)

What Government must do:

Streamline the processes for approving and building:

Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) fueled vehicles (NGV).

New oil drilling platforms and oil refineries;

New nuclear power plants (which are currently operating safely around the world in dozens of countries);

Right-of-Ways for electric transmission lines for Wind-, Solar- and Wave- generated electricity (http://www.pickensplan.com).

Individual consumers should consider:

Solar Panels and small home-sized wind generators;

Green technology in the home;

When replacing a vehicle, buy hybrid vehicles (combining gasoline and electric);

Use proven fuel-conservation techniques with existing equipment (home and car).

In Conclusion

We need to stop looking where to place blame for our energy problems. The time has come for us to start building a regulatory environment where we can start solving the problems we face, now.

Oil drilling may not be the long-term solution that any of us seek, but more oil availability will help us to stay afloat until we can transition our economy to greener technologies.

Government needs to enable private industry to build the technologies of tomorrow and to support the industries that can help us today. When our government gives the American people the ability to excel, the American people always come through and meet the challenges put in front of them. Let's cut through the red tape and get our economy going forward once again.

About the Author:
Bill Platt owns http://www.thephantomwriters.com ghost writing service. To satisfy his personal interest in alternative fuel and green technology, he started http://www.automotivewebmasters.com to share what he had learned. Interestingly, Bill had always noticed that he gets 18-30% better gas mileage in his vehicles, than his wife did. As a writer / researcher, Bill sought out additional gas saving tips to combine with his own observations, to help others increase fuel mileage by at least 30%.

North Carolina Turned Hillary Into Salt

2008-05-06T19:27:00.000-07:00

Going into May 6, 2008, it appeared that Hillary had turned the corner on Barack Obama, stealing his thunder on the road to the Democratic nomination.

Hillary's last hope has always been that she could beat Obama on the popular vote, and then she would have a viable argument to turn the Super Delegates her way to cast the remaining delegates to her side.

This was the only possible option available to Hillary, to swing the Democratic nomination her way. Although Obama has a lead in delegates, which precludes Hillary from winning the delegate count - even with Florida and Michigan on the count list - the only hope Hillary had was to swing the popular vote to her side, forcing the Super Delegates to seriously consider swinging their votes to Hillary, to have the delegate count reflect the popular vote.

Of course, I wanted Hillary to win the popular vote against Obama's delegate lead, but I have to be honest. I did not want Hillary to win the popular vote because I like Hillary better. I wanted to see the controversy stir, in order to lay the groundwork for seriously advancing the idea of killing the Electoral College once and for all. My thought is that popular vote should rule.

The Electoral College had its place in the election cycle, back in the days when it took the news of a nation weeks to move coast-to-coast. But, in today's instantaneous news cycle, it makes more sense for the election to be determined by popular vote, as opposed to the delegate count of the Electoral College.

But, here is the deal. With 80% of votes so far counted in North Carolina, Obama's 220,000 vote lead - against Clinton's 40,000 vote lead in Indiana (yes, I should probably wait until all of the votes in Indiana and NC are counted to make this point, but these early numbers ensure that what I am about to say will be accurate even in the morning), it becomes abundantly clear that Clinton cannot close the gap on the popular vote.

If Clinton had the 180,000 surplus at the end of today in the popular vote, then this race would still be on. But, since Obama is the candidate with the 180,000 vote surplus, it makes certain that the half a million or so votes that Clinton needed to close cannot be achieved at this point.

The upcoming states are small population states. Hillary's only hope for going forward in the process was to close the difference in the popular vote heading towards the last states. But, with today's results, Hillary no longer needs to close half a million votes, but now she needs to close 650,000 votes to own the popular vote.

At this point, I know that Hillary will not be up again until 2012. She is done for '08.

Obama seems to have made this connection as his victory speech in NC was the launch point for him, moving him towards the general election race.

Bill Platt
Stillwater, OK