Abortion Video

Here is a link to VFM video on Abortion - the "Choice" no woman wants to make.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Varfz_lE9JE

Here is a link to the "Debt and Taxes" video:

Debt & Taxes video

Sample letter to Congressman

Senator (Put your Senator’s name here)                           Jan. 17, 2013

320 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

Phone: (202) 224-4843

Fax: (202) 228-1371

Dear (Blank),

I hope you have read Kevin Canfield’s columns from his “View From the Middle” perspective on debt and taxes, or seen his video.  I Share Kevin’s concern about our annual deficits and the accumulated debt that they have delivered.  I believe this is the most important issue that faces us as a country today, and I am asking you to do all you can to eliminate our deficits and balance our budget.  Here are just a few things that I would like you to pursue as you try to resolve this situation:

         -Partner with business, large and small, small to create jobs. This will both increase government revenues but will also reduce our spending.

         -Reform taxes.  No company should be able to make ten billion dollars in profit and pay no taxes, as GE did.

         -Eliminate wasteful programs and departments like the department of education

         -Reform Social Security and Medicare.  They can not be sustained with their current structures.

John, we need to make these tough choices today or our children will inherit a future with more debt than they can handle and with less freedom and less opportunity.  Please push for these common sense changes.

Sincerely,

Your Name

Your Address

Intro to "View From the Middle" Video

Intro to "View From the Middle" Video

Intro to View from the Middle

Obamacare - Making Business Think Small

Obamacare – Making Business Think Small

The View from the Middle

Since Obamacare was passed I’ve wanted desperately to understand what was in it, but struggled with how to do that.  Should I read the almost 3,000 page bill, and would I even be able to understand what was in it once I did.  Even Nancy Pelosi famously said, “We have to pass the bill so that we can find out what’s in it.”  If she didn’t totally understand it after she read it (I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt), what chance would I have?  It would take me weeks and I would be no better off.

So, I decided to talk to a small businessman, and friend, who has already had to work within its regulations and would have to comply with future rules as they come into effect.  What I found was that there are many regulations that will challenge small business owners and there is one huge unintended consequence we should all understand.  But first let me tell you about the entrepreneur that I interviewed.

His company employs well over the 50 full time people that will require him to provide insurance or be fined.  They also employ hundreds of part-time employees.  They currently offer insurance to their full time employees, but do not for their part-timers.  Currently everyone in the company is happy with this set up and just likes the idea of having a job. 

My friend indicated that there are plenty of intended consequences in this 2,700 page bill, containing 4,000 new regulations requiring 13,000 pages of supporting documentation.  There are taxes, fines and penalties galore designed to make sure that each employer and employee jumps through their respective hoops as they comply with this new law.  There are also thousands of unintended consequences that will dribble out over the next few years, but there is one crippling unintended consequence that my friend pointed out to me.  This law is going to make businesses across the US think small.

Let me give you some examples.  If you are a business that employs slightly over the 50 full time employees that puts you under the Obamacare microscope, you are going to try to figure out how to reduce your employees to get under that level.  If your company is over the 200-employee threshold for the act’s “auto enrollment” provision, you will be trying to get under that limit. 

Almost all companies in the retailing and restaurant businesses will be looking hard at reducing the hours of their part time workers. Typically, these industries do not offer health care insurance for these workers.  These jobs are often occupied by a secondary household income earner who is still being covered by another family member’s policy.  The workers are happy to have the income and the companies recognize savings, which they can pass on to their customers in the form of lower prices.  Everybody benefits.  Under Obamacare, part-time hours are accumulated to calculate their “full time equivalents” which then make them subject to mandatory coverage.

All of these rules, regulations, fines, taxes, etc. are causing employers to think small as they make their plans for the future.  This is not what made America great and it is not what we need right now. 

What we need is the America that encourages employers to think big!  We need American businesses that are willing to take risks and are trying to expand their enterprises in order to (heaven forbid) make more profit.  If you are an entrepreneur, no matter how large your business is, you are already being forced to deal with these realities.  If you work for one of these companies you are about to pay a price for this government intrusion.  You may not connect the dots between your layoff or reduced hours and Obamacare, but the connection is direct and unavoidable. 

There is a final insult that workers should be prepared for.  Many employers, even well intentioned, may find that buying insurance for their employees and dealing with the spider’s web of regulations is just too difficult and will default to paying the fine / tax.  This will mean that each worker would also have to pay a fine or buy insurance on his or her own or sign up for one of the government’s insurance exchanges. 

The final chapter of Obamacare could go something like this.  Huge numbers of people are forced into the exchanges.  Insurance companies will not be able to compete with government-subsidized plans and we end up with a single payer system.  Or was that the plan from the beginning?

The Choice No Woman Wants to Make

The Choice No Woman Wants to Make

The View from the Middle

While I never suggest Bill Clinton as a moral role model and I frequently question his motives, I find myself more and more often in support of his fiscal and even social policies.  In 1997 Bill Clinton said that abortion should be safe, legal and rare.  I think this captures the heart of America and should be our official position on this important issue.  Unfortunately, we have all been distracted by the extremists in both political parties and consequently have made no progress in this area. The left wants abortion on demand and the far right has a no tolerance approach without an exception for rape or incest.  While I believe life begins at conception, even I would be conflicted if the rape victim were my daughter. 

As these two sides battle, we have experienced over 54 million abortions in the US since Roe v. Wade in 1973.  Today, we abort 1.2 million lives per year vs. just 200,000 in 1970.  According to the CDC, that is more than the lives ended annually by heart disease and cancer, the top two killers in the US – combined. It’s time we looked for common ground for the sake of women everywhere and for the yet unborn.

Some would argue that a woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her own body.  Of course, that isn’t true.  If a woman decides to fill her body with alcohol and then drive a car, she begins to infringe on the rights of others.  Others would say abortion is between a woman and her doctor. Unfortunately, that isn’t true either.  When a man and woman conceive a child, a new person is created instantly.  This new person has a new and unique DNA that has never existed in the history of the world and will never exist again.  When a woman decides to have an abortion, she is infringing on that new person’s right to life, which is the first right enumerated in our Declaration of Independence.

The life of the mother is also better off without an abortion.  There are huge risks for women during and after an abortion.  Surgical risks include pelvic infection, heavy bleeding, perforation of the uterus, cervical injury, heart attack and death. Then there are psychological risks even after a successful surgery.  Women who have abortions are six times more likely to commit suicide than women who give birth.  They are also more likely to experience anxiety, depression, fear of exposure and eating disorders.  Many believe that there is also a significant increase in the risk of breast cancer.  Given these facts, I would love to hear the argument that the world needs more abortions.  So, if we all agree that we should have fewer abortions, how do we get there?

First, we need to consider the number one provider of abortions in the US, Planned Parenthood.  In 2010 they performed almost 330,000 abortions and executed a whopping 841 adoption referrals.  Since the government (actually you and me) gave them 487 million dollars in that same fiscal year, we could incent them to reduce the number of abortions they perform or lose that support.  They could do this easily by using their facilities to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies through education and by increasing the number of adoption referrals by honestly discussing all of the options available to the pregnant women they serve.  We should set a goal for them to reduce their abortions by 10% a year for the next five years as a requirement to get continued funding.  Personally, I would be willing to give them even more money if they were able to achieve these goals.

Second, our black leaders are righteously indignant about the fact that 38% of our prison population is African American while they only represent 13% of the overall population.  When it comes to abortion, however, the statistics are even worse, but black leadership is stunningly silent.  According to the CDC, over 40% of abortions are performed on black women and about one half of all black pregnancies end in abortion.  Where is the outcry, and where is the plan to address this terrible inequity.  Black leaders should commit to cut this number in half over the next five years.  This would still represent an imbalance but will save the lives of over 250,000 black children along the way. 

Finally, did you know that over 45% of abortions are performed on women who have already had at least one, and 8% are for women who have had three or more?  Could a national advertising campaign, proclaiming the preciousness of life and exposing the perils of multiple abortions, reduce these numbers by even 5% a year?  If these three strategies were pursued, in five years we could save 500,000 innocent lives and cut our current annual pace almost in half.  It will take commitment and resolve as a nation, but if one life is precious what value do we put on half a million?

Occupy Wall Street

Is the “Occupy Wall Street” a legitimate movement like the Tea Party or just a short-term delusional venting campaign being propped up unions and other far left ideologues?  As you might guess, the “View From the Middle” would say - yes.  First, let’s do a real comparison to the Tea Party.  The Tea Party has been in place for over two years now.  Whether you like it or not, about 15 percent of the country claim to be part of the Tea Party even according the SEIU weekly poll done on October 6^th of this year.  It is in every state and is totally volunteer.  It also has a very clear and achievable agenda.  Its 10 points include the elimination of excessive taxes and deficit spending, abide by the constitution and reduce the size of government.  All of which are achievable, even if you don’t agree with them.  Their rallies have also been orderly and peaceful, acquiring all the correct permits to assemble.  The rally in Washington DC arguably left the National Mall cleaner when the hundreds of thousands of participants left than when they came.

By contrast, the Occupy Wall Street group appears to be unorganized, belligerent and lacking in focus.  While all Americans should applaud their right to protest, that protest needs to win the hearts and minds of all of us with their character and direction.  They have trashed most of the areas that they have occupied including “relieving” themselves on police cars and in other public areas.  This by itself tarnishes its reputation, but it also boasted an original 13 point list of demands that included the global elimination of debt, free college education for all and absolute open boarders.  These demands with almost all the others are delusional and unachievable.  Interestingly, its 13^th demand involved union voting changes which seemed odd compared to its first 12 demands and hints at who might be sponsoring these people to protest for a month at a time.  If they truly want to become a movement like the Tea Party, they have a long way to go.  Not only do they need to last a lot longer and show they can influence an election, they need to clean up their act and develop a reasonable and rational platform.  The good news for them is that in recent days they have expressed their desire to do exactly that.  Good for them.

The bigger point is – do they have a point?  Actually, that depends on what their point is.  If they really think that Wall Street is our biggest problem, than I think their target is too small.  If they actually are protesting the disparity between the “haves” and “have-nots”, then they might have a point.  If you look at the ratio of CEO (Chief Executive Officer) pay and the average worker in the US, you will find that in 2010 the average CEO in the Fortune 500 made $325 for every one dollar the average worker for those companies made.  That sounds high, but some may tell you that ratio is down from last year, so it’s not bad.  The best way to deduce the truth is to compare that ratio over the long haul and to compare it to other countries.  That’s when we start to see the issue.

In 1965 that same ration in the US was just 24 to one and in 1978 it was 35 to one.  In my opinion, this is a ratio that should stay fairly static as long as both CEO’s and workers are earning the same dollar.  Unfortunately, in 1989 that ratio had grown to 71 to one and by the year 2000 it had ballooned to over 500 to one.  Again, that sounds bad, but how do we compare to other countries.  The answer is – not so good.  In 2000 the US ranked number one in this ratio at 531 to one.  Number two on the list was Brazil at 57 to one and number three was Venezuela at 54 to one.  That same year, France had a ratio of 16 to one, Germany was 11 to one and Britain was only 25 to one.  While I haven’t seen a similar ranking since 2000, the evidence would suggest that the relationships have not changed dramatically.

THIS is an indication that the Occupy Wall Street group might have a legitimate point, especially if companies in the US have laid off workers while paying their executives hefty salaries and bonuses.  Using this year’s numbers, if the average CEO in the Fortune 500 would cut his or her salary in half, they could hire over 160 workers, and still make over 160 times what their average worker earns.  Multiply that times all of those 500 companies, and that would create 80,000 jobs.  Would that help stimulate the economy?  I’ll let you decide.