Same Road, Same Rules!

In a September 12 article the Washington examiner quotes Shane Farthing saying, "When I ride a bike, I'm putting myself at risk. When you drive, you're putting us both at risk."  This statement is nothing other than complete and utter nonsense.  If a motorist has to suddenly swerve to avoid a collision with a bicycle not following the rules of the road, that puts everyone at risk, including other motorists, other cyclists, and even pedestrians.
The root of the problem is that cyclists have no accountability.  The city requires no licensing and no insurance for cyclists.  Some argue cyclists are more careful because they have a higher risk.  You wouldn't know that by watching the way they ride around here.  If public policy in the area continues to promote cycling over public transit and automobiles, local governments should require all cyclists to be licensed and insured.  If Shane Farthing can't accept that, he has no business advocating for cyclists.

Side note: as a frequent inline skater here in town I can tell you that the, "share the road," mantra many cyclists tout often goes right out the window when they have to live up to it on their end.

It's time that all others put cyclists on notice that they aren't privileged above any other riders on the road.  Same road, same rules!

You can read the full Washington Examiner article here: Cyclists, drivers wary of each other as bikes and crashes multiply.

Thumbtack.com's Next Small Business Survey

A few months ago, Thumbtack.com shared some data with us about small business owners and their perspective on the economy.  They've now produced another survey polling small business owners yet again.  I think this is important because a majority of new job creation comes with the growth of small businesses.  It's testament to the fact that the US has a diverse economy composing of many economic interests and values.

The survey included a number of questions, and I have to say the results caught me by surprise.  I want to focus on two questions in particular.  The first question of interest to me is the following.

How important are the following issues to the success of your business?

The choices ranged across a wide spectrum of issues.  Tax rates and tax-related regulations placed as the highest item of interest, followed closely by health care costs.  Neither of those on their own bring too much surprise to me until I come to this next question.

Independent of who you are voting for, which candidate do you believe is more supportive of small business?

Barack Obama beats out Mitt Romney 39% to 31%.  In the wake of higher tax rates for $250K+ earners, considering most S-corps file as individuals, and also in the wake of Obamacare's regulation, this really surprised me.  I have to confess that I'm really scratching my head over this, because I can't imagine how either would help any small business grow.

The most disturbing aspect of this I take away involves the thought that business owners may view a cozy relationship with government as the more likely avenue of success over producing affordable products and services.  Let's hope we haven't reached that point.

You can view the entire survey here: Small Business Political Survey

Chick-Fil-A

Gay marriage is really a non-issue for me, meaning that it injures me not for two people of the same sex to marry one another.  I just don't care that two people I've never met and with whom I've never had a problem decide to marry.  Valuing a free society means that I don't have any desire to stop them from engaging in that lifestyle.

On the other side, the hard Left has really shown their backside.  Living in a society that protects free speech means that you may at some point hear somebody say something you don't like.  The alternative is totalitarianism, which does not respect free speech at all.  Some issues have a grey area.  This isn't one of them.  Chick-Fil-A funds itself privately with its own profits.  It earns them, and those profits belong to them to do with as they please.  If the company wants to donate their money to Save-The-Whales-R-Us, then they have every right to do so.  If the company wants to donate their money to anti-gay groups, they have the right to do so.  It's just that simple.

Every one of us has the right to say they are in the wrong, and I believe they are in fact in the wrong.  However, to deny them the ability to operate as an independent entity by government obstructing their ability to open their doors to clients is indeed an unhealthy reaction simply based on the popularity of an idea.

Respecting free speech means not obstructing ideas on the basis of our disagreement with them.

On top of all of this, the anti-Chick-Fil-A movement has created such a backlash that stores have had lines of people wrapped around the building, and now they have even more money to donate to anti-gay marriage organisations.  Way to go anti-free speechers!

Aurora

July 20th's massacre in Aurora, CO has stunned the nation in horror.  Several days after the incident, the public still has no idea about the motive of killer James Holmes, other than suspicion that his actions stemmed from sheer sociopathic lunacy.  America has the families of those killed and wounded in their hearts and prayers.  But in the wake of this tragedy, I feel called to recognize and revere three heroes who gave their lives to save the lives of loved ones: Joe Blunk, Alex Teves, and Matt McQuinn all gave their young lives to save those of their girlfriends.  The New York Post has a great article giving them tribute.

'Dark Knight Rises' shooting: Three heroes died in Aurora taking bullets for their girlfriends:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/aurora-shooting-died-bullets-sweeties-article-1.1119395

Before the grieving community could even begin to absorb the reality of what had just happened, some have sacrificed no haste in politicizing the issue.  We have heard new calls for, "reasonable," gun control.  On the Sunday morning news shows, amongst others Dianne Feinstien and Ed Rendell renewed their calls to limit magazine sizes to ten rounds or outright ban semi-automatic weapons asking why would anyone need something more than that?  If such legislation would even just save a few lives, why not make it law?  During those same segments, they rejected the idea of limiting violence depicted in entertainment, despite past repeated outrage over Citizen United's ability to produce political movies.  Paraphrased: It's okay to have movie scenes of 'spray 'n pray' firearms killing masses of people, but it's not okay to make movies about Conservative political ideology within the timeframe of an election.

Note that none of those proposing new gun control recognize that neither Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City) nor Terry Nickels (Unibomber) used firearms in their acts of terror.  Also consider that John Allen Muhammad (Beltway Sniper) killed ten people in single-shot fashion that did not require a semi-automatic weapon or even a magazine of any size.  James Holmes possessed knowledge and ability to kill without the use of firearms.  Demonstrated by how the authorities had to enter his home, he had knowledge of how to create and detonate explosive devices.  Outlawing possession of a high-capacity magazine may well have changed the manner in which he carried out his act of terror, but it would not have impacted his ability or desire to do so as he seems to have been living out a twisted fantasy of being the Joker character of the Batman movie series.

If I asked any of those calling for new gun control measures why not limit or even ban violence in movies and video games, I imagine they would invoke First Amendment protected freedoms, and they would do so correctly.  They would defend those freedoms as attributes of a free society.  Firearm ownership, even of large magazine capacity, is an attribute of a free society as well.  On the other hand, the inability to acquire the tools one deems necessary for self defense is an attribute of totalitarianism.  Some may argue that a high-capacity magazine does not serve the purpose of self defense, but a free society reserves the right to make that determination to the individual, not policymakers.

Next, we come to the issue ordering ammunition in bulk.  This is simply a non-issue gun control advocates are trying to make into an issue.  People who own firearms should have familiarity with them.  Familiarity with firearms means frequently using them, and that of course requires ammunition.  Bulk orders of ammunition is cost effective, expedient, and efficient.  Outlawing them or putting high prices on them effectively becomes restriction to the access of firearms.

I write this post to make the overall point that Aurora is a tragedy of epic proportions.  Asking if we could have prevented it entails a more complex discussion than just gun control.  But at a high level, that discussion really involves the debate of living within a free society versus living under one that creeps towards totalitarianism under the banner of good intentions.  Looking back upon history of past centuries, I ask the question does humankind live safer within a free society or a totalitarian one?

The Obama Wedding Registry - Taking Arrogance to a New Level

The latest fundraising stunt takes the arrogance of the Obama re-election campaign to a new level.  This week, the campaign launched a new fundraising strategy: the use of wedding registries.  Basically, the Obama campaign website provides a way for couples about to wed to use their wedding registries as donation vehicles to the Obama campaign.  When Jane and Joe create their wedding registry, they can include Obama campaign donations amongst their gifts, so their closest friends and family may donate to Obama instead of giving the newlywed couple a gift.

If there is one day that is entirely about two people's joining together forming a lifetime covenant between one another, their wedding day is it.  It's all about them, and that's the entire point of the event.  The idea that the Obama campaign would propose this means that it sees its role not as to insert itself into a couple's most special day.  While the fundraising stunt itself on its own merit holds only a trivial significance, the plausible thought process behind its creation raises a deeper concern.  It begs the question of how far the Obama administration will go to involve itself in US citizens' private lives.  If they have your wedding day on their mind for money, then what will they consider next?  Should we as citizens take this as a cue as to what will come, or should we just wait until an Obama administration has become so invasive in our private lives that we no longer have the ability to resist it?

Sander Daniels, a co-founder at Thumbtack.com, recently sent me some information about a survey of small business owners.

Daniels notes the following as the most interesting findings.

• Small businesses care almost twice as much about licensing regulations as they do about tax rates when rating the business-friendliness of their state or local government.
• An important predictor of small business friendliness was whether small business owners are aware of their state or local government offering training programs for small businesses.
• Small business owners ranked Idaho and Texas as the most business-friendly states, with Oklahoma City and Dallas-Ft. Worth taking top honors among cities across the nation. Vermont and Rhode Island found themselves on the opposite end of the spectrum, joined in the bottom-five by New York and California.

Living in the Washington, DC metro area, I decided to focus on the three local governments of VA, MD, and DC.  I took away the following observations.

• DC actually did better than I would have expected in a number of areas.  Knowing two small business owners here in the District, I know the aches and pains they have.  However, DC comes up short in what the business owners value most: ease of getting their business' started and costs of hiring.  DC scored an F in both of those, earning them an overall grade of D+.  The business owners I know tell of regulators who give conflicting information for regulatory compliance in the process of trying to get the businesses up and running; however, they have to satisfy all of them.  DC also likes to set tight parameters on who business can hire.  They like to mandate a certain percentage of DC residents as employees.  I've heard leaders call for mandating that business hire inmates coming out of prison.  While that sounds like a great thing in general, it may not sit well with a business owner.
• Every week in the newspaper, I read at least one story that illustrates how Maryland's state government seems to want to abuse their taxpayers and businesses with poorly vetted regulatory ideas and taxes.  Maryland has mediocre grades across all categories and doesn't really look attractive even in any one single way.  Speaking to topics outside of the survey, Maryland does offer lower costing real estate with proximity to federal agencies and organizations, such as those in DC itself and Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab.  However, those usually don't weigh into the interests of small businesses of this survey, and they tend to be very industry specific.
• Virginia really knocks it out of the park.  They score A- or better in all categories except for two, and in those they score a B and B+.  Maryland can only really claim lower cost real estate as an advantage, and that's probably a side affect of the supply and demand trends of more businesses wanting to locate in Virginia as opposed to Maryland or DC.  Also, in regards to real estate, I'm primarily considering the Northern Virginia area as opposed to the state as a whole.

Every city and state has its own data with visualization of full results.  The rankings come from information collected from small business owners, such as wedding photographers, auto mechanics, and yoga instructors.

You can read the full survey here: http://www.thumbtack.com/survey.

A reader wrote into the Washington Examiner's letters to the editor making claims that Ronald Reagan's tax policies hurt low income people during his president.  However, his attacking Reagan dismisses important data.

His figure of youths in poverty growing by 0.9 million between 1980 and 1988 is only a snapshot of a bigger picture.  Child poverty rate (18 under) stood at 12,068 in 1981 when Reagan took office and stood at 11,935 when he left.  That figure rose and subsequently fell during Reagan's two terms, likely attributable to the tax reform he enacted during his presidency.

Also, growth in top 5% income earners doesn't damage the other 95%. On the contrary, the top 5% earners' tax contributions increased, which contributed to a 28% increase in income tax revenue, adjusted for inflation.  Furthermore, total privately held wealth is not a fixed aggregate value, meaning one person getting richer does not necessarily require somebody else getting poorer.  More often, it means every other person economically separated by N-degrees can benefit as well.

Lastly, stating that the two lowest quintiles fell from 4.2% to 3.8% and 10.2% to 9.6% respectively between 1980 and 1988 dismisses the fact that total income for each rose at a rate that out-paced
inflation.  Each respectively increased by 39% and by 44%.

At first glance one could interpret Cargill's stats as evidence of Reagan tax policy hurting low income earners, but a complete picture reveals the opposite.

You can read the original letter to the editor here: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/letters-editor/2012/05/letters-editor-may-2-2012/559376.