February 9, 2011: Detroit Public Schools deny students admission on Count Day
Detroit Public Schools is facing a $363 million deficit and needs every dollar it can get to maintain its financial solvency. The school district has suffered continual declining enrollment over the past 10 years. In 2001, there were over 159,000 students enrolled in the Detroit Public Schools system. The student enrollment for the fall count day on September 30, 2010 was 77, 314 students down almost 10,000 students from the 2009-2010 annual count of 83,777 students. School districts receive over $7,000 annually for each student in attendance at their schools, with 75% of funding determined from the fall count day and 25% funding determined from the winter count day. Therefore, for every student that is denied admission on count day the school district loses over $1,700 in funding.
“Why is a school district with such a huge deficit turning students away on count day?” Students are being denied admission to the schools because they are not adhering to the dress code policy. In previous years, count day was a special day for students with “free dress”, pizza and ice cream parties, celebrity visits, and other incentives developed to increase attendance for that day which is used to determine the amount of funding that school systems will receive. However, this year, some schools are being very strict with the dress code policy and actually turning students away at the door for not being in the school uniform even though the school has the potential to lose the over $1,700 for the students not being in attendance for the day. Other schools are requiring students to pay monies for free dress day, with events such as “pajama day”.
For cash strapped school districts, what is more important, the dress code policy or funding? From a financial perspective, the answer would seem simple, funding is more important. Yet, schools are denying the students admission because they are not adhering to the dress code policy. As parents and a community we need to question DPS as to how the school district can continue to function with such a high deficit and such little concern for the funding stream needed to maintain the school district. The dress code policy should never take precedence over the need for funding. This indicates that DPS is focusing on the wrong areas when it pertains to a children’s education and ensuring that the school system is providing a quality education. DPS should be reminded that without funding, the school district will have to close more schools and reduce it workforce, which has nothing to do with the school dress code policy. It should be noted that while count day is the official day for determining school funding, schools do have 30 days to account for a student with an authorized excused absence and 10 days to account for a student with an unexcused absence. However, if a student is out of the dress code on count day, why subject the school or the student to the elongated process when the school needs to funding.
For every problem, there needs to be a solution presented. If the dress code policy can potentially cause DPS to lose funding because students are being denied admission then there is a problem with the policy. It can only be suggested that DPS re-evaluate the dress code policy to determine if this is one of the reasons schools are suffering from declining enrollment each year by sending out surveys and calling drop outs to find out why they are not returning to DPS. Because in some cases, when a student is denied admission, they may not return in a timely manner and eventually drop out. At the end of count day, DPS needs all the funding it can get and denying students admission because they are not adhering to the dress code should not be an option.
Mari Hadley is a graduate of Detroit College of Business with a BBA and MBA in Business Administration. She facilitates courses for the University of Phoenix, Axia College of the University of Phoenix, and Capella University in both the undergraduate and graduate departments. Mari is the Chief Executive Officer for her consulting companies, MDZ Hadley Enterprises and Business and Education Research and Training Organization (BERTO), specializing in Education/Financial Aid, Strategic Management, and Organizational Development Consulting. She is pursuing a PhD. in Higher Education at Walden University. Mari is the author of Michael Jackson Master of Illusion.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Monday, June 1, 2009
Uncaring management
What happened to company loyalty and employee loyalty? In the early 20th century, many employees prided themselves on their company loyalty and longevity at organizations. With the advent of the “at-will” employee this became a thing of the past. Many employees found themselves the product of downsizing, supervisor animosity, and co-worker treachery resulting in unexpected terminations or lay-offs after giving many years of service to the organization. In addition, the employer did not exercise any compassion or sensitivity for disrupting the lives of its employees without notice. Employers expected the employee to give two-week notice if they were terminating their employment, however, they did not give the employee the same consideration.
The “at-will” clause in most employee contracts allows the employer to terminate the employee without prior notice for almost any reason and without compensation.
As managers and leaders, are these employers exercising “Caring management or leadership”? Employees have families and responsibilities that are severely disrupted by the loss of their income. Management shows no remorse for terminating the employee and often escorts the employee from the building thereby increasing their humility and causing irreparable mental anguish.
Organizations should be considerate of its employees and their values and feelings. The perception of an organization in its treatment of employees should be a factor when determining a career within the organization. Organizations that have a high turnover rate of employees need to evaluate how their employees perceive the organization and its culture. Employees that perceive the organization and its managers (leaders) as uncaring may have been the recipients of an atmosphere that demonstrated the lack of understanding of the organization in a stressful situation. The employee may have experienced a situation in which the manager mishandled the matter and did not show concern for the employee. This ultimately leads to discontent and low morale among employees as information concerning the matter is disseminated within the organization.
Management should find a balance between company loyalty and employee relations. How the employee perceives the organization will determine their loyalty to the organization. Organizations spend millions of dollars to train new employees. Some of this funding should be expended to train managers to have a more caring attitude toward their employees. This will improve the retention of valuable employees that the organizations has already vested time and training in. Often Managers do not realize they are alienating the employee or that they are exhibiting an uncaring attitude. Managers perceive their behavior as representation of the culture of the organization. They are often exhibiting the behavior they have been trained to use by Human Resources or upper-level management. If the management style is not changed the organization can become fragmented costing the organization more time and money as they continuously retrain new employees.
The “at-will” clause in most employee contracts allows the employer to terminate the employee without prior notice for almost any reason and without compensation.
As managers and leaders, are these employers exercising “Caring management or leadership”? Employees have families and responsibilities that are severely disrupted by the loss of their income. Management shows no remorse for terminating the employee and often escorts the employee from the building thereby increasing their humility and causing irreparable mental anguish.
Organizations should be considerate of its employees and their values and feelings. The perception of an organization in its treatment of employees should be a factor when determining a career within the organization. Organizations that have a high turnover rate of employees need to evaluate how their employees perceive the organization and its culture. Employees that perceive the organization and its managers (leaders) as uncaring may have been the recipients of an atmosphere that demonstrated the lack of understanding of the organization in a stressful situation. The employee may have experienced a situation in which the manager mishandled the matter and did not show concern for the employee. This ultimately leads to discontent and low morale among employees as information concerning the matter is disseminated within the organization.
Management should find a balance between company loyalty and employee relations. How the employee perceives the organization will determine their loyalty to the organization. Organizations spend millions of dollars to train new employees. Some of this funding should be expended to train managers to have a more caring attitude toward their employees. This will improve the retention of valuable employees that the organizations has already vested time and training in. Often Managers do not realize they are alienating the employee or that they are exhibiting an uncaring attitude. Managers perceive their behavior as representation of the culture of the organization. They are often exhibiting the behavior they have been trained to use by Human Resources or upper-level management. If the management style is not changed the organization can become fragmented costing the organization more time and money as they continuously retrain new employees.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Future Generation: The children of the unemployed and homeless today
To the Republicans … thanks for all your concern for the economic burdens that the future generations will have to endure based on the fiscal spending of today. While your concern is amicable, do you realize that the future generation is the children of today that are homeless, hungry and destitute in many cases due to the financial crisis that the United States is enduring now. Many of these children are not concerned about the financial status of the United States next year, five years, or even ten years from now because they are more concerned with the fact that their standard of living has changed tremendously due to their parents losing their homes and living in tent cities, being laid off and forced to receive unemployment benefits, or ineligible for unemployment and having to apply for welfare benefits that do not cover the families basic needs, let alone allow the child to enjoy some of the “joys of life” that they had before the economic crisis. Children of today are the “now” generation that is concerned with what is happening today and not in the future. They understand that in order for the economic crisis to be resolved there has to be spending. They want their parents to be able to keep their homes or cars. Republicans keep complaining about the federal deficit and how it will affect the future generations that will have to absorb the debt. Did you ever stop to think who the future generation is? If so, you would see the absurdity of your argument and defense. In addition, the future cannot be predicted because if that was the case then President Clinton or President Reagan would have known that they world would be in a financial crisis in 2009 during their terms and creating a significant “surplus” that could would have alleviated the trillion dollar deficit that we are not facing. The United States could stabilize within the next five years and see an increase in employment and the financial crisis could be alleviated. In considering the current economic crisis, a five year old is less concerned about a federal deficit in 2020, than having food and shelter in 2009. The Republicans keep promoting the defense that “future generations will bear the burdens of the federal deficit of today”. In reality, the current generation is shouldering the financial burden as we see costs rising, unemployment rising, healthcare cost rising, etc. The only individuals truly complaining about the federal deficit are the Republicans and “affluent” that are not financially affected by the economic crisis. Therefore, to the Republicans and “affluent”, the unemployed and low income US Taxpayers say “Thanks for your concern for future generations and if you are so truly concerned then donate 10% of your current salary per month to reducing the federal deficit to make the future generations financial burdens less”. Otherwise, let President Obama do what is necessary to make sure that the future generations (children of today) receive the necessities that it takes for them to thrive and grow today.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
The next Third World Country: The United States of America
There are over 6 million individuals unemployed in the United States. Many of these individuals are collecting unemployment benefits and some welfare benefits. However, in today’s economy the funds being received are barely enough to cover the costs of “having a roof over your head”. Thus many families are existing on less food than when the parents were gainfully employed. According to a Feeding America, a non-profit agency, more than 3.5 million children will not receive the recommended daily allowance of food need for their cognitive development. This makes the United States of America the next Third World country with families and children that are impoverished. The children would be suffering from malnutrition and physically and mentally underdeveloped. How can the United States allow so many children to be undernourished when they are allowing “big business” to pay retention bonuses to dysfunctional employees. The characteristics of many third world countries focuses on the underdevelopment of standards of living, healthcare, education, economics, and globalization. While the US had made some gains in globalization, there are significant deficiencies in standards of living, healthcare, education, and economics that can categorize the US as a Third World country. The standard of living in the US has been impacted by the financial crisis with many families homeless and without money for even their basic needs, such as food and water. The healthcare system in the US promotes the provision of healthcare to the employed and not the unemployed which contributes to the societal genocide as many families are unable to seek medical attention when needed. The education system is still focused on the elitest although it touts open access, yet SAT and ACT test alienate the minorities that are unable to meet the tough standards of the tests that provide for scholarships and grants that alleviate some of the financial burdens that can make college more accessible. The question for President Obama, Secretary Sebelius, and Congress is “What strategies can be put forth to alleviate the lack of ability to meet the basic needs of the common US Taxpayer when unemployment and welfare benefits are not sufficient?” The answer, without a doubt, is the raise the amount of unemployment benefits and the welfare benefits to a level that is appropriate to meet the standard of living for society in general. This means that families cannot survive on $312 per week in unemployment benefits or $240 per month in food stamps and be at the standard of living that they had when employed. When the US continues to provide billions of dollars to corporations so that they can survive (and the corporations use the monies to pay retention bonuses) then surely they can increase benefits for unemployment and welfare so that families can afford to meet their basic needs, especially when there is the potential for so many children to face severe hunger in the next few years.
3.5 Million Children Under 5 on the Verge of Going Hungry:http://wcco.com/health/kids.hunger.families.2.1003701.html
3.5 Million Children Under 5 on the Verge of Going Hungry:http://wcco.com/health/kids.hunger.families.2.1003701.html
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
AIG: President Obama and the Federal Government Jokes on you … again
AIG: President Obama and the Federal Government Jokes on you … again
AIG has indicated it paid out over four times the original amount in retention bonuses to its employees. The company indicated that it paid these bonuses across several divisions with the average individual receiving between $4-11K as retention bonuses. This is a change from the earlier disclosure in which it was indicated that some employees received bonuses of over $1 million dollars. It would seem that AIG has been using “selected” accounting methods to indicate their retention bonus payments. While the amount that has been paid out in retention bonuses by AIG is a source of great concern. The more fundamental question is “What is President Obama, Secretary Geithner, and Congress going to do about this debacle that is being created by AIG? When the country is in a state of financial crisis, with the 6.1 million people on unemployment receiving at modest $315 per week, when their previous income was at least $1000 per week and you have a company like AIG that had a substantive impact on creating the financial crisis receiving significant government bailout monies and then using the taxpayer monies to pay out over $400 million dollars in retention bonuses. President Obama campaigned on the “Yes, We Can” and has talked of change and how businesses cannot continue to operate as they have in the past. Well, it is time for President Obama to “walk the walk” and demonstrate to the American Taxpayers that AIG is not to big to be held accountable for their actions. It is time to step up to the plate and bring AIG to their rightful place and indicate that they cannot continue to “dupe” the Federal Government without repercussions. When an American Taxpayer provides “erroneous” information on their taxes or does not disclose their financial status, they are held “accountable” by the IRS and required to pay monies back and penalties, as well. How can AIG not be held by the same requirements, even though it is a corporation? The Federal Government and President Obama have got to make a stand now on corporations that receive bailout monies and use the monies to pay out retention bonuses rather than for the “operating expenses” that they indicated the funds were needed for.
The first step for President Obama and the Federal Government should be to require that CEO Edward Liddy “step down”. He is not an effective leader when he allowed the bonuses to be paid without full disclosure. CEO Liddy represents the same philosophy that permeates throughout so many other corporations among the leadership, “It is okay for the Rich get Richer and the Poor get Poorer”. AIG needs a leader with “empathy” (the new President Obama buzzword”) that understands the plight of the American Taxpayers and that AIG cannot continue to operate as it has in the past. For the AIG employees that receive the retention bonuses, the Federal Government needs to require that AIG provide the names of the individuals and they need to be terminated from AIG for receiving retention bonuses for which they were not entitled. It is up to President Obama and the Federal Government to make sure that AIG is held accountable for their actions. If they do not then they are not representing the “will” of the American Taxpayers.
AIG bonuses four times higher than reported: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22134.html
AIG has indicated it paid out over four times the original amount in retention bonuses to its employees. The company indicated that it paid these bonuses across several divisions with the average individual receiving between $4-11K as retention bonuses. This is a change from the earlier disclosure in which it was indicated that some employees received bonuses of over $1 million dollars. It would seem that AIG has been using “selected” accounting methods to indicate their retention bonus payments. While the amount that has been paid out in retention bonuses by AIG is a source of great concern. The more fundamental question is “What is President Obama, Secretary Geithner, and Congress going to do about this debacle that is being created by AIG? When the country is in a state of financial crisis, with the 6.1 million people on unemployment receiving at modest $315 per week, when their previous income was at least $1000 per week and you have a company like AIG that had a substantive impact on creating the financial crisis receiving significant government bailout monies and then using the taxpayer monies to pay out over $400 million dollars in retention bonuses. President Obama campaigned on the “Yes, We Can” and has talked of change and how businesses cannot continue to operate as they have in the past. Well, it is time for President Obama to “walk the walk” and demonstrate to the American Taxpayers that AIG is not to big to be held accountable for their actions. It is time to step up to the plate and bring AIG to their rightful place and indicate that they cannot continue to “dupe” the Federal Government without repercussions. When an American Taxpayer provides “erroneous” information on their taxes or does not disclose their financial status, they are held “accountable” by the IRS and required to pay monies back and penalties, as well. How can AIG not be held by the same requirements, even though it is a corporation? The Federal Government and President Obama have got to make a stand now on corporations that receive bailout monies and use the monies to pay out retention bonuses rather than for the “operating expenses” that they indicated the funds were needed for.
The first step for President Obama and the Federal Government should be to require that CEO Edward Liddy “step down”. He is not an effective leader when he allowed the bonuses to be paid without full disclosure. CEO Liddy represents the same philosophy that permeates throughout so many other corporations among the leadership, “It is okay for the Rich get Richer and the Poor get Poorer”. AIG needs a leader with “empathy” (the new President Obama buzzword”) that understands the plight of the American Taxpayers and that AIG cannot continue to operate as it has in the past. For the AIG employees that receive the retention bonuses, the Federal Government needs to require that AIG provide the names of the individuals and they need to be terminated from AIG for receiving retention bonuses for which they were not entitled. It is up to President Obama and the Federal Government to make sure that AIG is held accountable for their actions. If they do not then they are not representing the “will” of the American Taxpayers.
AIG bonuses four times higher than reported: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22134.html
Friday, May 1, 2009
Texas secedes from the Union: The Republic of Texas (Fictional)
Texas secedes from the Union: The Republic of Texas (Fictional)
*Disclaimer: This blog is fictional and does not imply or suggest that Texas secede from the United States.
On January 1, 2010, Governor Perry indicated that Texas has seceded from the Union (The United States of America) and is now “The Republic of Texas”. Governor Perry has declared himself “The President of Texas” with Chuck Norris as the “Vice President of Texas”. Due to the new status of Texas the following have been enacted:
The 13th Amendment has been repealed. All minorities are to report to processing stations in major cities for deportation to the United States or assignment to job stations at plantations around the state.
Residents of Texas cannot hold dual citizenship as a United States Citizen and a Texas Citizen and must indicate their preference by January 30, 2010 or face deportation to the United States.
Individuals traveling between the United States and Texas must have Passports for entry as border checkpoints have been established at all entry points.
The Federal Department of Human Services will be replaced by the Texas Republic Department of Human Services (TRDHS). The TRDHS will provide short term assistance to Texas Citizens in the form of cash, housing, and medical assistance. Recipients of services must pass drug and alcohol testing to receive services. Services are limited to six months and once the maximum six months has been utilized the individual (or family) is not eligible for subsequent services for three years.
Texas citizens receiving unemployment benefits will be re-evaluated as of January 30, 2010. The maximum amount of benefits is limited to $200 per week for a total of 13 weeks. Recipients should be employed by the 13th week as no extension will be given.
Texas citizens attending colleges and universities will no longer be eligible for US Student Loans and will have to apply for Texas Republic Student Loans in a competitive process. Student loans will no longer be guaranteed. Students will have to pass a rigorous process to receive funding for postsecondary education as students with a high school GPA of 2.5 or lower will not be allowed to pursue a college degree. Minorities are not eligible for postsecondary education funding.
A special meeting of the Texas Legislature is scheduled for January 31, 2010 to discuss further legislation to be enacted in the Republic of Texas.
*Disclaimer: This blog is fictional and does not imply or suggest that Texas secede from the United States.
On January 1, 2010, Governor Perry indicated that Texas has seceded from the Union (The United States of America) and is now “The Republic of Texas”. Governor Perry has declared himself “The President of Texas” with Chuck Norris as the “Vice President of Texas”. Due to the new status of Texas the following have been enacted:
The 13th Amendment has been repealed. All minorities are to report to processing stations in major cities for deportation to the United States or assignment to job stations at plantations around the state.
Residents of Texas cannot hold dual citizenship as a United States Citizen and a Texas Citizen and must indicate their preference by January 30, 2010 or face deportation to the United States.
Individuals traveling between the United States and Texas must have Passports for entry as border checkpoints have been established at all entry points.
The Federal Department of Human Services will be replaced by the Texas Republic Department of Human Services (TRDHS). The TRDHS will provide short term assistance to Texas Citizens in the form of cash, housing, and medical assistance. Recipients of services must pass drug and alcohol testing to receive services. Services are limited to six months and once the maximum six months has been utilized the individual (or family) is not eligible for subsequent services for three years.
Texas citizens receiving unemployment benefits will be re-evaluated as of January 30, 2010. The maximum amount of benefits is limited to $200 per week for a total of 13 weeks. Recipients should be employed by the 13th week as no extension will be given.
Texas citizens attending colleges and universities will no longer be eligible for US Student Loans and will have to apply for Texas Republic Student Loans in a competitive process. Student loans will no longer be guaranteed. Students will have to pass a rigorous process to receive funding for postsecondary education as students with a high school GPA of 2.5 or lower will not be allowed to pursue a college degree. Minorities are not eligible for postsecondary education funding.
A special meeting of the Texas Legislature is scheduled for January 31, 2010 to discuss further legislation to be enacted in the Republic of Texas.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
US Treasury: Just say “NO” to Citigroup bonus requests
US Treasury: Just say “NO” to Citigroup bonus requests
Citigroup has requested permission from the US Treasury to pay bonuses to certain employees that may feel demoralized by the current economic situation and that may defect to other banks due to the executive pay limits. They want to pay these employees to retain them, just as AIG stated it wanted to pay out the $165 million in retention bonuses. This is the same “ol’ tired” argument that we keep hearing about executive bonuses when we have families that are losing their homes, unemployment at a record high, and imminent layoffs coming from the Auto Industry. Again, it needs to be stressed that these organizations received Federal Bailout monies because they indicated they were unable to survive financially without the funding. Yet, less than a year later they are requesting to compensate employees above and beyond their salaries. To these employees the US Taxpayers say “You are lucky to have a job and if you are unhappy that you are not receiving a bonus, then join the 6 million on the unemployment rolls”. There should be no more bonuses paid to executives or employees regardless if the company has paid back the Federal Bailout monies or not. The problem with the executive bonuses is that is it “funneled” back down on the backs of the US Taxpayers in the form of higher interest rates and fees. It is in the form of foreclosures and mortgages that are not worth the paper they were printed on. The banks and other companies that are seeking to pay executive bonuses are not concerned with the current economic condition. Most of the employees that would be receiving the bonuses already received enormous salaries that allow them to live at a means that the ordinary US Taxpayer could only “dream” about. The bonuses that the banks are paying out could be used to employ more workers and to alleviate some of the 6 million on the unemployment rolls. It could be used to sponsor programs within the communities that the banks serves or as donations to schools and other organizations that are experiencing financial crisis as a result of the economic crisis caused by these very entities. So to the US Treasury, it is your civic duty to the US Taxpayer to “Just say NO to any bonuses” requested by any banks or other organizations to be paid to the executives as retention bonuses. It needs to be stressed that if the employees feel demoralized then they need only look at the 6 million workers that are on the unemployment rolls and then they will truly understand that they are “lucky” to be employed.
WSJ: Citi asks Treasury if it can pay bonuses:
http://www.seattlepi.com/business/1310ap_us_citigroup_bonuses.html
Citigroup has requested permission from the US Treasury to pay bonuses to certain employees that may feel demoralized by the current economic situation and that may defect to other banks due to the executive pay limits. They want to pay these employees to retain them, just as AIG stated it wanted to pay out the $165 million in retention bonuses. This is the same “ol’ tired” argument that we keep hearing about executive bonuses when we have families that are losing their homes, unemployment at a record high, and imminent layoffs coming from the Auto Industry. Again, it needs to be stressed that these organizations received Federal Bailout monies because they indicated they were unable to survive financially without the funding. Yet, less than a year later they are requesting to compensate employees above and beyond their salaries. To these employees the US Taxpayers say “You are lucky to have a job and if you are unhappy that you are not receiving a bonus, then join the 6 million on the unemployment rolls”. There should be no more bonuses paid to executives or employees regardless if the company has paid back the Federal Bailout monies or not. The problem with the executive bonuses is that is it “funneled” back down on the backs of the US Taxpayers in the form of higher interest rates and fees. It is in the form of foreclosures and mortgages that are not worth the paper they were printed on. The banks and other companies that are seeking to pay executive bonuses are not concerned with the current economic condition. Most of the employees that would be receiving the bonuses already received enormous salaries that allow them to live at a means that the ordinary US Taxpayer could only “dream” about. The bonuses that the banks are paying out could be used to employ more workers and to alleviate some of the 6 million on the unemployment rolls. It could be used to sponsor programs within the communities that the banks serves or as donations to schools and other organizations that are experiencing financial crisis as a result of the economic crisis caused by these very entities. So to the US Treasury, it is your civic duty to the US Taxpayer to “Just say NO to any bonuses” requested by any banks or other organizations to be paid to the executives as retention bonuses. It needs to be stressed that if the employees feel demoralized then they need only look at the 6 million workers that are on the unemployment rolls and then they will truly understand that they are “lucky” to be employed.
WSJ: Citi asks Treasury if it can pay bonuses:
http://www.seattlepi.com/business/1310ap_us_citigroup_bonuses.html
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Call for Federal Intervention: Closing US Auto Plants is not the answer
Call for Federal Intervention: Closing US Auto Plants is not the answer
Closing US Auto Plants is not the answer for improving the failing financial economy. It is only contributing more to the economic crisis. For many organizations, the first option is layoffs and closing offices or businesses. This is only a short term “fix” because when you close plants you are really only adding to the economic crisis and causing your organization more economic problems. Closing US Auto Plants increases the number of individuals seeking unemployment and reduces the disposable income of families. Thus families are unable to spend more on buying US Cars or in buying goods and services that can increase demand and make the supply chain more profitable. The key to long term sustainability for organization is to reduce wages and benefits while keeping employees on the payroll so that the employees are not reduced to unemployment benefits which do not cover their basic needs and in reality can cause the individual to join the millions of homeowners in foreclosure. Before organizations consider downsizing, there should be an evaluation of other options that would keep the organization viable and yet maintain the current workforce. This is not often done. Management and leadership consider layoffs as the first alternative. Salary reductions are never considered, especially at the leadership level where the most amount of salary expenditures are. Closing US Auto Plants and sending more then 19,000 workers to the unemployment lines should not be an option for the General Motors. The US Taxpayers have already suffered enough in providing bailout monies to the US Auto Industry and now for the Federal Government to “allow” them to increase the economic crisis by laying off workers is diabolical. We need an accounting of what the General Motors and Chrysler used the bailout monies for that has continued to cause them to be in such a financial state. When an organization has received such enormous amounts of bailout monies and not seen any viability, it indicates that the organization has a problem with mismanagement of funds rather than that their sales are not appropriate for maintaining the organization. General Motors and Chrysler are actually “living beyond their means” when it comes to their accounting practices and their expenditures. There are oversight committees that were established to determine how General Motors and Chrysler can become profitable organizations again. The problem with the oversight committees and the current leadership at General Motors and Chrysler is that they are still “leadership styles and ideals” from the 20th century. They are not utilizing the leadership and management ideals of the 21st century. When you have the same people that have been in the organization for the past 10-20 years “running the ship” the potential for “Out-of-the-Box Thinking” is significantly reduced. These organizations need “NEW BLOOD” infused into the leadership that brings a new way of thinking and that brings fresh ideas to the organizations that are essential for removing the old biased and misconceptions of how organizations should function. We can see this in the case of Chrysler Financial that refused the Federal Bailout monies because they do not want to adhere to limitations on executive pay rates (http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/20/news/companies/chrysler_bailout/index.htm). This indicates that Chrysler Financial is more concerned with its executives “draining” the organization dry rather than the survival of Chrysler. Thus Chrysler Financial is more concerned with lining the pockets of its executives than ensuring that the employees at Chrysler, as well as, Chrysler Financial continue to have a job for the next six months. In 2006, General Motors did indicate it was cutting salaries and bonuses for its executive (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/02/08/1139379572293.html). However, let’s be realistic, their salaries are so high that the reductions probably did not make a “dent” in their actual compensation. General Motors and Chrysler have got to get serious on what it means to truly reduce executive level compensation, which has more of an impact on the profitability of the organization than the hourly workers compensation. As a matter of fact, an investigation of General Motors and Chrysler would probably find that many of the leadership and high level managers are still receiving outrageous salaries and benefits that are not conducive to ensuring that the organization restructures so that it can be more profitable.
The Federal Government needs to intervene and indicate to General Motors and Chrysler that any monies received are to be used to sustain the US Autoworkers and that they cannot close any more US Plants without government approval. The Federal Government can establish a subsidy program that provides a portion of the US Autoworker salary until it can be determined how to restructure the organization. In addition, the Federal Government may need to establish a “new” Auto taskforce that consists of individuals that are not in the auto industry, but are strategists that can provide a “new perspective” on how the organization can reach a sustainable stage over the next few years based on an unbiased approach that is not focused on the old views and concepts of what the auto industry should be and on the beliefs, values, and norms of the Industrial Revolution.
Closing US Auto Plants is not the answer for improving the failing financial economy. It is only contributing more to the economic crisis. For many organizations, the first option is layoffs and closing offices or businesses. This is only a short term “fix” because when you close plants you are really only adding to the economic crisis and causing your organization more economic problems. Closing US Auto Plants increases the number of individuals seeking unemployment and reduces the disposable income of families. Thus families are unable to spend more on buying US Cars or in buying goods and services that can increase demand and make the supply chain more profitable. The key to long term sustainability for organization is to reduce wages and benefits while keeping employees on the payroll so that the employees are not reduced to unemployment benefits which do not cover their basic needs and in reality can cause the individual to join the millions of homeowners in foreclosure. Before organizations consider downsizing, there should be an evaluation of other options that would keep the organization viable and yet maintain the current workforce. This is not often done. Management and leadership consider layoffs as the first alternative. Salary reductions are never considered, especially at the leadership level where the most amount of salary expenditures are. Closing US Auto Plants and sending more then 19,000 workers to the unemployment lines should not be an option for the General Motors. The US Taxpayers have already suffered enough in providing bailout monies to the US Auto Industry and now for the Federal Government to “allow” them to increase the economic crisis by laying off workers is diabolical. We need an accounting of what the General Motors and Chrysler used the bailout monies for that has continued to cause them to be in such a financial state. When an organization has received such enormous amounts of bailout monies and not seen any viability, it indicates that the organization has a problem with mismanagement of funds rather than that their sales are not appropriate for maintaining the organization. General Motors and Chrysler are actually “living beyond their means” when it comes to their accounting practices and their expenditures. There are oversight committees that were established to determine how General Motors and Chrysler can become profitable organizations again. The problem with the oversight committees and the current leadership at General Motors and Chrysler is that they are still “leadership styles and ideals” from the 20th century. They are not utilizing the leadership and management ideals of the 21st century. When you have the same people that have been in the organization for the past 10-20 years “running the ship” the potential for “Out-of-the-Box Thinking” is significantly reduced. These organizations need “NEW BLOOD” infused into the leadership that brings a new way of thinking and that brings fresh ideas to the organizations that are essential for removing the old biased and misconceptions of how organizations should function. We can see this in the case of Chrysler Financial that refused the Federal Bailout monies because they do not want to adhere to limitations on executive pay rates (http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/20/news/companies/chrysler_bailout/index.htm). This indicates that Chrysler Financial is more concerned with its executives “draining” the organization dry rather than the survival of Chrysler. Thus Chrysler Financial is more concerned with lining the pockets of its executives than ensuring that the employees at Chrysler, as well as, Chrysler Financial continue to have a job for the next six months. In 2006, General Motors did indicate it was cutting salaries and bonuses for its executive (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/02/08/1139379572293.html). However, let’s be realistic, their salaries are so high that the reductions probably did not make a “dent” in their actual compensation. General Motors and Chrysler have got to get serious on what it means to truly reduce executive level compensation, which has more of an impact on the profitability of the organization than the hourly workers compensation. As a matter of fact, an investigation of General Motors and Chrysler would probably find that many of the leadership and high level managers are still receiving outrageous salaries and benefits that are not conducive to ensuring that the organization restructures so that it can be more profitable.
The Federal Government needs to intervene and indicate to General Motors and Chrysler that any monies received are to be used to sustain the US Autoworkers and that they cannot close any more US Plants without government approval. The Federal Government can establish a subsidy program that provides a portion of the US Autoworker salary until it can be determined how to restructure the organization. In addition, the Federal Government may need to establish a “new” Auto taskforce that consists of individuals that are not in the auto industry, but are strategists that can provide a “new perspective” on how the organization can reach a sustainable stage over the next few years based on an unbiased approach that is not focused on the old views and concepts of what the auto industry should be and on the beliefs, values, and norms of the Industrial Revolution.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
The Bank of the United States of America
The Bank of the United States of America
For decades banks and credit card companies have taken advantage of the American Taxpayers through high interest rates and bad lending practices. The duped the Federal Government and the American Taxpayers during the 3rd quarter of 2008 by indicating that they were in financial distress and without Federal bailout monies they would not be able to survive, when in reality they wanted to use the Federal bailout monies to pay millions of dollars of executive level compensation packages. These banking entities were never in any type of financial crisis, which in seen in the fact that less than six months later, many are indicating that they have billions in profit and are ready to pay back the Federal bailout monies because they do not want to be “regulated” by the government in how they award and pay executive level compensation. It is time for the Federal government to make banks realize that there can be competition in the banking industry that will limit their abilities to remain so profitable that they are able to even pay executive level compensation. There are complaints from politicians that with government intervention, the United States is moving from a Capitalist Society to a Socialist Society. If this is the case, then the American Taxpayer should be able to decide if they want to live in a Capitalist Society derived from the greed of business owners or in a Socialist Society where they have a choice of how they want to live. The Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve need to establish The Bank of the United States of America (BUSA), a government controlled and sponsored banking entity. The Bank of the United States of America would bring some competitiveness to the banking industry as it would offer interest rates between 5-16% for credit cards and higher interest for deposits than the current banks. The BUSA would start to refinance mortgages directly, bypassing the banks, which would allow more homeowners to remain in their homes and alleviate some of the “bureaucracy” of the current banking industry which is not focused on helping homeowners. As there are many banks that have become insolvent and their facilities are now empty, the BUSA would be able to open branches in major cities to allow American Taxpayers to begin making wire transfers from their existing banks and transferring credit card balances. The BUSA would also offer online banking services to allow American Taxpayers to establish accounts online and receive debit and credit cards via the mail just as the current banks do. The advantages of opening The Bank of the United States of America is that the interest monies received could be used to reduce the Federal Deficit, it would alleviate the size of banks that are thought to be too big to fail, it would create jobs locally as new offices are opened, and it would provide the American Taxpayer with a better solution for investing and saving their monies than in the current banks that are using the monies to pay the executive level bonus compensation packages.
It would be a “win-win” solution for the American Taxpayers and the Federal Government and let the current banks know that the American Taxpayers have a choice in how they want their hard earned monies to be used.
How to start a bank: http://www.ehow.com/how_2062432_start-bank.html?ref=fuel&utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=ssp&utm_campaign=yssp_art
For decades banks and credit card companies have taken advantage of the American Taxpayers through high interest rates and bad lending practices. The duped the Federal Government and the American Taxpayers during the 3rd quarter of 2008 by indicating that they were in financial distress and without Federal bailout monies they would not be able to survive, when in reality they wanted to use the Federal bailout monies to pay millions of dollars of executive level compensation packages. These banking entities were never in any type of financial crisis, which in seen in the fact that less than six months later, many are indicating that they have billions in profit and are ready to pay back the Federal bailout monies because they do not want to be “regulated” by the government in how they award and pay executive level compensation. It is time for the Federal government to make banks realize that there can be competition in the banking industry that will limit their abilities to remain so profitable that they are able to even pay executive level compensation. There are complaints from politicians that with government intervention, the United States is moving from a Capitalist Society to a Socialist Society. If this is the case, then the American Taxpayer should be able to decide if they want to live in a Capitalist Society derived from the greed of business owners or in a Socialist Society where they have a choice of how they want to live. The Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve need to establish The Bank of the United States of America (BUSA), a government controlled and sponsored banking entity. The Bank of the United States of America would bring some competitiveness to the banking industry as it would offer interest rates between 5-16% for credit cards and higher interest for deposits than the current banks. The BUSA would start to refinance mortgages directly, bypassing the banks, which would allow more homeowners to remain in their homes and alleviate some of the “bureaucracy” of the current banking industry which is not focused on helping homeowners. As there are many banks that have become insolvent and their facilities are now empty, the BUSA would be able to open branches in major cities to allow American Taxpayers to begin making wire transfers from their existing banks and transferring credit card balances. The BUSA would also offer online banking services to allow American Taxpayers to establish accounts online and receive debit and credit cards via the mail just as the current banks do. The advantages of opening The Bank of the United States of America is that the interest monies received could be used to reduce the Federal Deficit, it would alleviate the size of banks that are thought to be too big to fail, it would create jobs locally as new offices are opened, and it would provide the American Taxpayer with a better solution for investing and saving their monies than in the current banks that are using the monies to pay the executive level bonus compensation packages.
It would be a “win-win” solution for the American Taxpayers and the Federal Government and let the current banks know that the American Taxpayers have a choice in how they want their hard earned monies to be used.
How to start a bank: http://www.ehow.com/how_2062432_start-bank.html?ref=fuel&utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=ssp&utm_campaign=yssp_art
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Spring Cleaning: Strategies for School Districts to reduce deficits
Spring Cleaning: Strategies for School Districts to reduce deficits
All across the nation, school districts are indicating that there are millions in deficits that must be addressed for the school system to remain viable. The strategy that many school boards are utilizing is to layoff teachers and support personnel, not administrators. Teachers are the “front line” workers that facilitate the learning environment for the students. An alternative strategy can be to evaluate the need for administrators. In many cases, schools have multiple administrators performing the same tasks and duties within a school or even district. These administrators are making high five to six figure salaries, which in many cases could keep 2-3 teachers employed. In some schools, there may be as many as five principals in the same school, the Main Principal and Principals for each grade level. In addition, there may be many different “Area” offices that provide the same services only to different schools within the district. When indicating strategies for reducing deficits, there has been no indication that administrators will be terminated or laid off as a method of reducing the deficits. In Los Angeles, 5,400 teachers and support personnel may be laid off. In Detroit, over 600 teachers and support personnel will be laid off. It is time to review the School Boards and their logic for the layoff teachers when classrooms are already overcrowded with teachers instructing so many students that is it hard to maintain order within the classroom, let alone provide the necessary instruction for students to strive and excel in the educational environment. While it is understood that a strategy must be developed to reduce the deficits, it would seem that financial managers and school boards are opted for the same old strategy, reducing the teaching workforce. While a Turnaround Strategy may be applied that focuses on Capital Expenditures and Workforce Reduction, it should not be relegated to the layoff of teachers, but rather to analysis and reduction of Administrators, as well.
School Districts need to conduct a “Spring Cleaning”, which entails working from the “attic to the basement” and depending on how many floors the cleaning may be extensive. When cleaning the attic, an analysis of the Administrators and their roles needs to be conducted. While longevity and dedication can be applauded, many of the Administrators have been in positions for decades utilizing archaic educational practices and sometimes just drawing a paycheck for sitting behind a desk. If “Spring Cleaning” is conducted effectively, much of the deficit will be reduced in the termination of high paid Administrators and redundant positions and the replacement of some with new Administrators at a lower salary. President Obama signaled a new era with the concept of “Change” and how organizations cannot continue to operate under the same status quo that they have for decades and even centuries. This is true of school districts as well. School districts cannot expect to become fiscally sound if you keep the same leadership in place that has made “poor and inappropriate” decisions in the past. Reorganization and restructuring should start at the top with Administrators and Leadership, rather than teachers. If School Districts find it necessary to reduce the number of teachers, then it would be more appropriate to retire older teachers and reduce Administrators to maintain an equilibrium within classrooms that does not alienate the students which results in higher drop out rates.
LA School Board to layoff 5,400 employees:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090415/ap_on_re_us/la_schools;_ylt=AkAHM3ZtTnIVUzgV.gGbRDRH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTJkdG9rMnF1BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwNDE1L2xhX3NjaG9vbHMEY3BvcwM2BHBvcwM2BHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDbGFzY2hvb2xib2Fy
Detroit to close 23 schools, layoff 600 teachers:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/04/09/20090409detroit-schools0409-ON.html
All across the nation, school districts are indicating that there are millions in deficits that must be addressed for the school system to remain viable. The strategy that many school boards are utilizing is to layoff teachers and support personnel, not administrators. Teachers are the “front line” workers that facilitate the learning environment for the students. An alternative strategy can be to evaluate the need for administrators. In many cases, schools have multiple administrators performing the same tasks and duties within a school or even district. These administrators are making high five to six figure salaries, which in many cases could keep 2-3 teachers employed. In some schools, there may be as many as five principals in the same school, the Main Principal and Principals for each grade level. In addition, there may be many different “Area” offices that provide the same services only to different schools within the district. When indicating strategies for reducing deficits, there has been no indication that administrators will be terminated or laid off as a method of reducing the deficits. In Los Angeles, 5,400 teachers and support personnel may be laid off. In Detroit, over 600 teachers and support personnel will be laid off. It is time to review the School Boards and their logic for the layoff teachers when classrooms are already overcrowded with teachers instructing so many students that is it hard to maintain order within the classroom, let alone provide the necessary instruction for students to strive and excel in the educational environment. While it is understood that a strategy must be developed to reduce the deficits, it would seem that financial managers and school boards are opted for the same old strategy, reducing the teaching workforce. While a Turnaround Strategy may be applied that focuses on Capital Expenditures and Workforce Reduction, it should not be relegated to the layoff of teachers, but rather to analysis and reduction of Administrators, as well.
School Districts need to conduct a “Spring Cleaning”, which entails working from the “attic to the basement” and depending on how many floors the cleaning may be extensive. When cleaning the attic, an analysis of the Administrators and their roles needs to be conducted. While longevity and dedication can be applauded, many of the Administrators have been in positions for decades utilizing archaic educational practices and sometimes just drawing a paycheck for sitting behind a desk. If “Spring Cleaning” is conducted effectively, much of the deficit will be reduced in the termination of high paid Administrators and redundant positions and the replacement of some with new Administrators at a lower salary. President Obama signaled a new era with the concept of “Change” and how organizations cannot continue to operate under the same status quo that they have for decades and even centuries. This is true of school districts as well. School districts cannot expect to become fiscally sound if you keep the same leadership in place that has made “poor and inappropriate” decisions in the past. Reorganization and restructuring should start at the top with Administrators and Leadership, rather than teachers. If School Districts find it necessary to reduce the number of teachers, then it would be more appropriate to retire older teachers and reduce Administrators to maintain an equilibrium within classrooms that does not alienate the students which results in higher drop out rates.
LA School Board to layoff 5,400 employees:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090415/ap_on_re_us/la_schools;_ylt=AkAHM3ZtTnIVUzgV.gGbRDRH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTJkdG9rMnF1BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwNDE1L2xhX3NjaG9vbHMEY3BvcwM2BHBvcwM2BHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDbGFzY2hvb2xib2Fy
Detroit to close 23 schools, layoff 600 teachers:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/04/09/20090409detroit-schools0409-ON.html
Friday, April 3, 2009
Tammy Bruce … Eat Your Heart Out!!!
Tammy stated: ”That's what he's married to," Bruce said. "...You know what we've got? We've got trash in the White House. Trash is a thing that is colorblind, it can cross all eco-socionomic...categories. You can work on Wall Street, or you can work at the Wal-Mart. Trash, are people who use other people to get things, who patronize others, who consider you bitter and clingy..."
Tammy Bruce called the Obamas “Trash in the White House” because of the First Lady’s discussion with children on getting an “A” and being called out for “talking like a white person”. Thank you Tammy Bruce for your perspective on the First Family, We truly admire your candor. At the same time, we can only surmise that the demonstration of your ignorance and insolence is an indication of your anger that there are finally “African Americans” in the White House and not as servants. That you could have the gall to call the President of the United States and the First Lady “trash” demonstrates that you are truly prejudice and discriminatory. Laura Bush visited many schools and even had commercials with children promoting education in which the children were not allowed to touch the First Lady and she looked very distant and uncomfortable in the “situation”. That the First Lady can look so natural among the children and that she is a success story in her own right is enough to make the most conservative American cringe as they realize that there is hope that minority children around the nation can grow up to be successful business people and entrepreneurs despite the fact that they have been oppressed for so long. Ms. Bruce, Eat your Heart Out, that you are not a First Lady and that your brand of journalism is not the type of news that appeals to the masses of American that are offended by your labeling of the First Lady as “trash”. When Ms. Bruce defines trash as “colorblind”, she was missing the point that “trash” is a substandard individual with low morals and self-esteem that is demonstrated in their behavior. With that being said, take a look in the mirror and see the true nature of “trash”. Based on the definition that Ms. Bruce puts forth, “Trash” is someone who uses others to get things, to patronize others and that are bitter and clingy. What a great reflection of Ms. Bruce. The only recourse is the pity Ms. Bruce that she would have to lower herself to such standards of calling the President and First Lady “trash” to identify her perception of self. Your analysis of the First Family only demonstrates your jealousy of individuals that you wish you could be.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/23/tammy-bruce-calls-the-oba_n_178109.html
Tammy Bruce called the Obamas “Trash in the White House” because of the First Lady’s discussion with children on getting an “A” and being called out for “talking like a white person”. Thank you Tammy Bruce for your perspective on the First Family, We truly admire your candor. At the same time, we can only surmise that the demonstration of your ignorance and insolence is an indication of your anger that there are finally “African Americans” in the White House and not as servants. That you could have the gall to call the President of the United States and the First Lady “trash” demonstrates that you are truly prejudice and discriminatory. Laura Bush visited many schools and even had commercials with children promoting education in which the children were not allowed to touch the First Lady and she looked very distant and uncomfortable in the “situation”. That the First Lady can look so natural among the children and that she is a success story in her own right is enough to make the most conservative American cringe as they realize that there is hope that minority children around the nation can grow up to be successful business people and entrepreneurs despite the fact that they have been oppressed for so long. Ms. Bruce, Eat your Heart Out, that you are not a First Lady and that your brand of journalism is not the type of news that appeals to the masses of American that are offended by your labeling of the First Lady as “trash”. When Ms. Bruce defines trash as “colorblind”, she was missing the point that “trash” is a substandard individual with low morals and self-esteem that is demonstrated in their behavior. With that being said, take a look in the mirror and see the true nature of “trash”. Based on the definition that Ms. Bruce puts forth, “Trash” is someone who uses others to get things, to patronize others and that are bitter and clingy. What a great reflection of Ms. Bruce. The only recourse is the pity Ms. Bruce that she would have to lower herself to such standards of calling the President and First Lady “trash” to identify her perception of self. Your analysis of the First Family only demonstrates your jealousy of individuals that you wish you could be.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/23/tammy-bruce-calls-the-oba_n_178109.html
Lay offs: The Follow the Leader Philosophy
Each day we see more organizations that are in the process of a lay off of employees. It started with one organization and the cycle has continued daily. Is it really necessary for these organizations to lay off employees? That is a good question. Are these organization really in the financial crisis that they state or just “following the leader” so that the perception that they are in a financial crisis is displayed. Some organizations are indicating losses rather than profits. In some cases, this can be a falsehood.
Scenario:
Organizations predict their profit for the year. ABC Organization predicts that it will have a $1 million profit for 2008. The profit for 2007 was $500,000. ABC Corporation did not hire any new employees during 2008 and expenses remained constant. ABC Corporation has a $510,000 profit for 2008. The company indicates that it has a loss of $490,000 based on the fact that it predicted a profit of $1 million for 2008. However, the company really is sustainable based on the profit of $510,000 as the profit was more than in 2007 and covered the expenses and overhead that the company incurred for the 2008 year. The companies will layoff employees on the basis that they did not meet the anticipated profit for 2008.
Companies are laying off employees to follow the “current trend” of the market that formulates that the economic crisis is causing less of a demand for goods and services. While the unemployment rate is 8.5%, there are still 91.5% of the American citizens that are still employed. Therefore, there is spending that is occurring and businesses are still having some profit. It just is not the profit that they are predicting. The solution … reduce profit expectations to a realistic amount. Each year, corporations increase profit predictions by a “certain” percentage and when that percentage is not reached, then a loss is indicated. This is Accounting 101. As demand for products increased, companies increased their profit expectations. This cycle has continued for years and now that there is a “perceived” financial crisis, companies are using the “inflated” profit expectations to indicate that their company is in financial turmoil and to base the need for lay offs. When in reality, the company could continue with the current workforce based on the historical profit margins of the past and by maintaining current expenses. An Audit of the organizations would find that these organizations have significant reserves generated from years of profit that would provide the “capital” needed to sustain the organization and its current workforce without lay offs.
Scenario:
Organizations predict their profit for the year. ABC Organization predicts that it will have a $1 million profit for 2008. The profit for 2007 was $500,000. ABC Corporation did not hire any new employees during 2008 and expenses remained constant. ABC Corporation has a $510,000 profit for 2008. The company indicates that it has a loss of $490,000 based on the fact that it predicted a profit of $1 million for 2008. However, the company really is sustainable based on the profit of $510,000 as the profit was more than in 2007 and covered the expenses and overhead that the company incurred for the 2008 year. The companies will layoff employees on the basis that they did not meet the anticipated profit for 2008.
Companies are laying off employees to follow the “current trend” of the market that formulates that the economic crisis is causing less of a demand for goods and services. While the unemployment rate is 8.5%, there are still 91.5% of the American citizens that are still employed. Therefore, there is spending that is occurring and businesses are still having some profit. It just is not the profit that they are predicting. The solution … reduce profit expectations to a realistic amount. Each year, corporations increase profit predictions by a “certain” percentage and when that percentage is not reached, then a loss is indicated. This is Accounting 101. As demand for products increased, companies increased their profit expectations. This cycle has continued for years and now that there is a “perceived” financial crisis, companies are using the “inflated” profit expectations to indicate that their company is in financial turmoil and to base the need for lay offs. When in reality, the company could continue with the current workforce based on the historical profit margins of the past and by maintaining current expenses. An Audit of the organizations would find that these organizations have significant reserves generated from years of profit that would provide the “capital” needed to sustain the organization and its current workforce without lay offs.
Call 911 The Stock Market is a Joke!!!
Call 911 … The Stock Market is a Joke!!!
“Call 911. The Stock Market is a joke in your town”. The World bases whether the economy is improving on the buying and selling of stocks on a stock exchange. How ludicrous is that. The stock market consists of a combination of corporations and small businesses and their stock volume, along with the value of the stocks. Each day, we watch the stock market and see the ups and downs of how the stocks are faring. STOP!!! We do not have enough information or access to information to determine the validity of this process as a basis for how the economy is progressing. How do we know what stocks are being bought and sold? It could be the same stocks each day? All we see is that the stock market is increasing or decreasing based on supposedly what the stockbrokers believe as affecting the market, such as an economic crisis, raw material shortages, politics, etc. These stockbrokers are “playing” with our lives. They are giving the illusion that our economy is in a financial crisis based on how the stocks market numbers are being displayed. WE need to take this information with a “grain of salt”. Why don’t we know what stocks are being bought or sold? Because that would eliminate the ability of the stock market to provide the illusion that has made it so famous today. Government and society needs to stop putting so much faith in the stock market as an indicator of the economic condition. If this perception can be changed, then it will lead to recovery. As long as, we are made to believe that the stock market is an indicator of the economic conditions of the world, then we will continue to limit our spending. Stop investing in the stock market. Why provide the stock market with the ability to utilize your funds for the improvement of the wealth of stockbrokers and corporations that have already striped the nation of its dignity and that continue to increase their own coffers with no consideration for the American taxpayer. The stock brokers control our perceptions based on their activities. If they want to continue the fear of economic crisis, then they can sell stocks and the stock market shows a decrease in the value of stocks. If they want to make it seem like the economy is getting better, then they can buy stocks. The stock market needs to be discounted as a basis for economic status as it is controlled by human behavior and not by economic indicators. Strip these stock brokers of their ability to control our lives and begin to develop your own perceptions of the economy. Once you take the stock market out of the equation, you will find that the economy can rebound as businesses begin to use their own forecasting and strategies to improve their economic condition and not rely heavily on the buying and selling of corporate stock that we have no significant information on. Is it GM stock or IBM? We have no idea and thus we become the believers of a cruel joke that never ends.
Want to know more about stock trading: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2116/how-does-the-stock-market-work
“Call 911. The Stock Market is a joke in your town”. The World bases whether the economy is improving on the buying and selling of stocks on a stock exchange. How ludicrous is that. The stock market consists of a combination of corporations and small businesses and their stock volume, along with the value of the stocks. Each day, we watch the stock market and see the ups and downs of how the stocks are faring. STOP!!! We do not have enough information or access to information to determine the validity of this process as a basis for how the economy is progressing. How do we know what stocks are being bought and sold? It could be the same stocks each day? All we see is that the stock market is increasing or decreasing based on supposedly what the stockbrokers believe as affecting the market, such as an economic crisis, raw material shortages, politics, etc. These stockbrokers are “playing” with our lives. They are giving the illusion that our economy is in a financial crisis based on how the stocks market numbers are being displayed. WE need to take this information with a “grain of salt”. Why don’t we know what stocks are being bought or sold? Because that would eliminate the ability of the stock market to provide the illusion that has made it so famous today. Government and society needs to stop putting so much faith in the stock market as an indicator of the economic condition. If this perception can be changed, then it will lead to recovery. As long as, we are made to believe that the stock market is an indicator of the economic conditions of the world, then we will continue to limit our spending. Stop investing in the stock market. Why provide the stock market with the ability to utilize your funds for the improvement of the wealth of stockbrokers and corporations that have already striped the nation of its dignity and that continue to increase their own coffers with no consideration for the American taxpayer. The stock brokers control our perceptions based on their activities. If they want to continue the fear of economic crisis, then they can sell stocks and the stock market shows a decrease in the value of stocks. If they want to make it seem like the economy is getting better, then they can buy stocks. The stock market needs to be discounted as a basis for economic status as it is controlled by human behavior and not by economic indicators. Strip these stock brokers of their ability to control our lives and begin to develop your own perceptions of the economy. Once you take the stock market out of the equation, you will find that the economy can rebound as businesses begin to use their own forecasting and strategies to improve their economic condition and not rely heavily on the buying and selling of corporate stock that we have no significant information on. Is it GM stock or IBM? We have no idea and thus we become the believers of a cruel joke that never ends.
Want to know more about stock trading: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2116/how-does-the-stock-market-work
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Memo to Mr. DeSantis
Memo to Mr. DeSantis
Date: March 26, 2009
To Mr. DeSantis
From: The American Taxpayer
Subject: Resignation
Thank you so much for your resignation letter from AIG. While we applaud your action to resign from AIG, we would also like to express that we are not empathetic with you and the rationale for your resignation. You are upset that after we, the American Taxpayers, provided AIG with billions, not millions, of dollars in bailout monies that we do not see the need for retention bonuses to be paid to “ANY” AIG employee regardless if you were instrumental in the organization’s despicable behavior that has significantly contributed to the financial crisis that the American economy is experiencing. When a company indicates that they are not profitable, then how can they pay bonuses to employees without profit? Think logically. Your complaint is that you are not receiving over $700, 000 in retention bonuses. I can only imagine what your salary must be. While you are crying “foul”, there are American Taxpayers that provided the bailout monies to AIG that are homeless and destitute and you have the audacity (and that is not “of hope”) to contend that Attorney Generals Cuomo and Blumenthal should be embarrassed for threatening to expose you to the American Taxpayers and to place you in the “Hall of Shame” for which you belong. Wise up!!! You have been “playing” on the ignorance of the American Taxpayers for so long that you have actually begun to believe in your own superiority. So as the American Taxpayer that now holds 80% equity in AIG, I accept your resignation and also tender that no letter of recommendation will be offered. I will contest any applications for unemployment benefits and lastly, you have just subjected yourself to the “Hall of Shame”. Your picture and name will be forever remembered by the American Taxpayer as a member of the illustrious group of people that crumbled the American economy and expected a “reward”. With that being said, do not complain if the American Taxpayers continues to harass you or if you are not “snapped” up immediately by another firm, as you will be forever “blacklisted” by the American Taxpayers as an unsavory character that has lived in the “life of luxury” so long that you are out of touch with reality and the Middle Class.
More on Mr. DeSantis resignation: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_bs272
Date: March 26, 2009
To Mr. DeSantis
From: The American Taxpayer
Subject: Resignation
Thank you so much for your resignation letter from AIG. While we applaud your action to resign from AIG, we would also like to express that we are not empathetic with you and the rationale for your resignation. You are upset that after we, the American Taxpayers, provided AIG with billions, not millions, of dollars in bailout monies that we do not see the need for retention bonuses to be paid to “ANY” AIG employee regardless if you were instrumental in the organization’s despicable behavior that has significantly contributed to the financial crisis that the American economy is experiencing. When a company indicates that they are not profitable, then how can they pay bonuses to employees without profit? Think logically. Your complaint is that you are not receiving over $700, 000 in retention bonuses. I can only imagine what your salary must be. While you are crying “foul”, there are American Taxpayers that provided the bailout monies to AIG that are homeless and destitute and you have the audacity (and that is not “of hope”) to contend that Attorney Generals Cuomo and Blumenthal should be embarrassed for threatening to expose you to the American Taxpayers and to place you in the “Hall of Shame” for which you belong. Wise up!!! You have been “playing” on the ignorance of the American Taxpayers for so long that you have actually begun to believe in your own superiority. So as the American Taxpayer that now holds 80% equity in AIG, I accept your resignation and also tender that no letter of recommendation will be offered. I will contest any applications for unemployment benefits and lastly, you have just subjected yourself to the “Hall of Shame”. Your picture and name will be forever remembered by the American Taxpayer as a member of the illustrious group of people that crumbled the American economy and expected a “reward”. With that being said, do not complain if the American Taxpayers continues to harass you or if you are not “snapped” up immediately by another firm, as you will be forever “blacklisted” by the American Taxpayers as an unsavory character that has lived in the “life of luxury” so long that you are out of touch with reality and the Middle Class.
More on Mr. DeSantis resignation: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_bs272
To Impeach or not to Impeach?
To Impeach or not to Impeach? That is the question.
Many states are experiencing significant financial crisis with many citizens homeless, unemployed, and destitute. The Federal Government is offering stimulus funds to the states to assist in alleviating some of the financial burdens that are plaguing the states and to get the economy “flowing again. However, some decision making bodies are being selective in the funds that they will accept due to the fact that they “fear” there is too much Federal Government control being exhibited and they do not want their decision making capabilities to be affected by the potential for Federal Government mandates on State or City processes (of which many are probably antiquated and need to be revised). Well, American Citizens are subjected to government mandates daily both personally and professionally. Why should state government be any different?
The big question becomes … Why would a decision maker deny its constituents funding based on the perception of how the funding may or may not affect the future of the state, when the citizens are suffering financially? Because the decision maker is “out of touch” with their constituents. When you live in a state funded home and your livelihood is funded by the state, then you cannot understand the plight of your constituents. You do not understand that they need assistance now to survive rather than be concerned about 2, 3, or even 5 years from now. With the condition of the economy many are not even sure they will be alive over the next few years, if they are homeless or destitute.
Now the question for the ordinary citizen is whether the decision maker is committing an offense that could be considered “impeachable” so that they could be removed from office and a more amicable decision maker elected that would represent the people and make decision based on the “welfare” of the people. In researching impeachable offenses the only term that could be applicable is “Impeachment for High Crimes or Misdemeanors”. Is a decision maker that refuses stimulus funds that could improve the public welfare and in the public interest committing a “high crime or misdemeanor”? Is the non-acceptance of stimulus funds that are focused on education, unemployment, medical records technology, and public safety violating the public welfare and the public interest? You decide.
For more on Impeachment visit http://essential-book.org/books/impeach/#eleven
Many states are experiencing significant financial crisis with many citizens homeless, unemployed, and destitute. The Federal Government is offering stimulus funds to the states to assist in alleviating some of the financial burdens that are plaguing the states and to get the economy “flowing again. However, some decision making bodies are being selective in the funds that they will accept due to the fact that they “fear” there is too much Federal Government control being exhibited and they do not want their decision making capabilities to be affected by the potential for Federal Government mandates on State or City processes (of which many are probably antiquated and need to be revised). Well, American Citizens are subjected to government mandates daily both personally and professionally. Why should state government be any different?
The big question becomes … Why would a decision maker deny its constituents funding based on the perception of how the funding may or may not affect the future of the state, when the citizens are suffering financially? Because the decision maker is “out of touch” with their constituents. When you live in a state funded home and your livelihood is funded by the state, then you cannot understand the plight of your constituents. You do not understand that they need assistance now to survive rather than be concerned about 2, 3, or even 5 years from now. With the condition of the economy many are not even sure they will be alive over the next few years, if they are homeless or destitute.
Now the question for the ordinary citizen is whether the decision maker is committing an offense that could be considered “impeachable” so that they could be removed from office and a more amicable decision maker elected that would represent the people and make decision based on the “welfare” of the people. In researching impeachable offenses the only term that could be applicable is “Impeachment for High Crimes or Misdemeanors”. Is a decision maker that refuses stimulus funds that could improve the public welfare and in the public interest committing a “high crime or misdemeanor”? Is the non-acceptance of stimulus funds that are focused on education, unemployment, medical records technology, and public safety violating the public welfare and the public interest? You decide.
For more on Impeachment visit http://essential-book.org/books/impeach/#eleven
Thursday, March 19, 2009
No more money for the Mortgage Industry lenders. Explore other options.
No more money for the Mortgage Industry lenders. Explore other options.
Thank you Federal Reserve for releasing another $1 Trillion into the American Economy to provide more money for banks to buy other banks, to pay off other banks, and to give retention bonuses on the pretense that it will reduce mortgages and enable banks to start lending again. The first monies released did not alleviate the credit problems. What makes you think that another Trillion dollars to the mortgage industry is going to do any better. The fallacy is that the Federal Reserve is under the false ideology that if they continue to give money to the mortgage industry that the economy will improve. The premise of the additional infusion of monies is that interest rates will be lowered and homeowners will be able to afford the lower mortgage payment. The issue with the premise is that there are millions of homeowners that are unemployed and no matter how low the interest rate is the homeowner “WILL NOT” be able to make mortgage payments based on their unemployment benefits. In addition, the mortgage industry gives the false impression that they are concerned about the homeowner, when they are the very entities that caused the foreclosure dilemma. Rather than infusing monies into these organizations, the Federal Government needs to switch these homeowners over to the Housing and Urban Development Programs, such as the Section 8 program, for low income homeowners whereby the Federal Government subsidizes part of the mortgage payment and the portion that the homeowner pays is minimal. This would continue until the homeowner became employed again and then the payment would increase in proportion to their income. Utilization of the Housing and Urban Development Programs, such as the Section 8 program, which is a Federal program, American Taxpayers would know that their tax dollars are truly assisting them. The mortgage industry would not be privileged to taxpayer dollars that they can use for any purpose without accountability. There should be more options explored rather than immediately assuming that the only avenue for improving the foreclosure crisis and the problems that homeowners are experiencing is to keep “shoveling” monies into the mortgage industry.
For more information on the Housing and Urban Development Programs, such as the Section 8 program, visit http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/hcv/homeownership/
Thank you Federal Reserve for releasing another $1 Trillion into the American Economy to provide more money for banks to buy other banks, to pay off other banks, and to give retention bonuses on the pretense that it will reduce mortgages and enable banks to start lending again. The first monies released did not alleviate the credit problems. What makes you think that another Trillion dollars to the mortgage industry is going to do any better. The fallacy is that the Federal Reserve is under the false ideology that if they continue to give money to the mortgage industry that the economy will improve. The premise of the additional infusion of monies is that interest rates will be lowered and homeowners will be able to afford the lower mortgage payment. The issue with the premise is that there are millions of homeowners that are unemployed and no matter how low the interest rate is the homeowner “WILL NOT” be able to make mortgage payments based on their unemployment benefits. In addition, the mortgage industry gives the false impression that they are concerned about the homeowner, when they are the very entities that caused the foreclosure dilemma. Rather than infusing monies into these organizations, the Federal Government needs to switch these homeowners over to the Housing and Urban Development Programs, such as the Section 8 program, for low income homeowners whereby the Federal Government subsidizes part of the mortgage payment and the portion that the homeowner pays is minimal. This would continue until the homeowner became employed again and then the payment would increase in proportion to their income. Utilization of the Housing and Urban Development Programs, such as the Section 8 program, which is a Federal program, American Taxpayers would know that their tax dollars are truly assisting them. The mortgage industry would not be privileged to taxpayer dollars that they can use for any purpose without accountability. There should be more options explored rather than immediately assuming that the only avenue for improving the foreclosure crisis and the problems that homeowners are experiencing is to keep “shoveling” monies into the mortgage industry.
For more information on the Housing and Urban Development Programs, such as the Section 8 program, visit http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/hcv/homeownership/
Take a Walk in an (Unemployed) Americans Shoes
Take a Walk in an (Unemployed) Americans Shoes
The Federal Government and President Obama continue to use the top down spending method rather than bottom up spending. There is not the realization that spending does not occur as much with the Middle Class as with the lower class. Many middle class families have purchased most of the “big ticket” items and are only spending on basic needs items. It is the lower class that has been the true spender purchasing big ticket items with disposable income. Most Middle Class families are saving disposable income rather than spending it. It would seem that the Federal Government and President Obama are not relating to the plight of the unemployed taxpayers. They cannot understand the “Plight of the Unemployed and Low Income Americans” because they have not walked in their shoes. When you have money and a job, you cannot understand how these Americans are not surviving. There are many Americans unemployed receiving unemployment benefits that do not cover even their basic needs. There are Americans homeless and living in tents. There are families living in cars and without food or water. Yet, the Federal Government and President Obama are concerned with how big corporations are “faring” during the financial crisis. As a country, we are concerned with Third World Countries and providing food and monies for improving their living conditions, yet we cannot even resolve our own conditions of American citizens. Charity begins at home. The Federal Government and President Obama have got to start to think about the American people and what they need to survive in these bad financial times. There is this perception that the Federal Government does not want to provide monies directly to the people. How else can spending be generated? If money can be “loaned” to big corporations with the “assumption” that it will be paid back over time, then why can’t the American Taxpayer get a loan so easily to assist them in overcoming their financial barriers that are really not a product of their own doing, but that of the very corporations that are receiving these taxpayer dollars.
The Federal Government and President Obama continue to use the top down spending method rather than bottom up spending. There is not the realization that spending does not occur as much with the Middle Class as with the lower class. Many middle class families have purchased most of the “big ticket” items and are only spending on basic needs items. It is the lower class that has been the true spender purchasing big ticket items with disposable income. Most Middle Class families are saving disposable income rather than spending it. It would seem that the Federal Government and President Obama are not relating to the plight of the unemployed taxpayers. They cannot understand the “Plight of the Unemployed and Low Income Americans” because they have not walked in their shoes. When you have money and a job, you cannot understand how these Americans are not surviving. There are many Americans unemployed receiving unemployment benefits that do not cover even their basic needs. There are Americans homeless and living in tents. There are families living in cars and without food or water. Yet, the Federal Government and President Obama are concerned with how big corporations are “faring” during the financial crisis. As a country, we are concerned with Third World Countries and providing food and monies for improving their living conditions, yet we cannot even resolve our own conditions of American citizens. Charity begins at home. The Federal Government and President Obama have got to start to think about the American people and what they need to survive in these bad financial times. There is this perception that the Federal Government does not want to provide monies directly to the people. How else can spending be generated? If money can be “loaned” to big corporations with the “assumption” that it will be paid back over time, then why can’t the American Taxpayer get a loan so easily to assist them in overcoming their financial barriers that are really not a product of their own doing, but that of the very corporations that are receiving these taxpayer dollars.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Bad Performance, Bailout Money … How about a Retention Bonus?
Chrysler is the next organization that received bailout funds and yet they are still considering paying retention bonuses to its top executives (http://www.freep.com/article/20090318/BUSINESS01/90318099/1003/NEWS) despite the Free Press warning Chrysler to “think hard” before making the same blunder as AIG. Chrysler contends that the US Treasury knew about the bonuses when they provided the bailout monies. Do the American Taxpayer care what was said before March 15, 2009, concerning payment of retention bonuses? No. The American Taypayers are concerned that these big companies received such absorbent bailout monies on the pretense that it was needed to remain solvent and yet they are paying out bonuses that is really taxpayer monies. We want our monies back!!! The average taxpayer could survive for years based on our standard of living if we received the retention bonuses of these executives. There is no excuse that the CEO of Chrysler can provide for paying the retention bonuses based on how the organization is functioning. As we have stated about AIG, why would you reward incompetence? Get rid of all the executives, hire new ones and let the organization start with a new slate. The Federal Government needs to send in a “Sweeper” When organizations initiate a downsizing or re-engineering process, they may utilize a ”Sweeper”. “Sweeping” entails terminating non-productive employees and replacing them with new employees. These executives have shown that they are non-productive. The CEOs continue to indicate that the organization could not function appropriately and profitably without the executive. Let’s be realistic, the organization is in the current financial state due to the performance of these very CEOs. As “stockholders” in Chrysler, due to the utilization of taxpayer monies, the American Taxpayers request that the Federal Government excise its right as representative for the people and demand that these organizations not pay “ANY” retention bonuses until the organization is profitable and has paid back all of the loan monies. In addition, the salaries of the executives should be scrutinized and reduced for lack of performance. If a regular employee was not performing, they would be either terminated or demoted. Why are these executives still in their positions? Receiving the same salaries? And even being considered to receive retention bonuses? Call them all before the Senate and the House and let them occupy the “Seat of Shame” that was occupied by CEO Liddy.
Contact your US Senator and Representative and let them know “We are not going to take it anymore”. We want our monies back, now!!!
Contact your US Senator and Representative and let them know “We are not going to take it anymore”. We want our monies back, now!!!
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Presidential Call to Action on Credit Card Companies that received TARP funds
Presidential Call to Action on Credit Card Companies that received TARP funds
Credit card companies are preying on the plight of Americans that are already in a financial crisis. Many credit card companies are raising annual interest rates on credit cards making minimum payment raise an average of 30-50% regardless of the consumer credit scores or payment history. These are banks that received taxpayer government assistance under the TARP program and now they are receiving double benefits through their hikes in minimum monthly payments. As the already financially strapped consumer tries to make the minimum monthly payment to at least maintain their good credit through the economic crisis they are finding themselves in a significant dilemma of whether to continue making the payment, seek debt relief, or simply default on the credit card payments and accept the credit hit. Credit Card companies hope that the consumer will chose the last option so that they can receive more bailout monies as the demonstrate to the Federal Government that they are unable to meet their own financial obligations.
As taxpayers that has already given a hefty bailout to these credit card companies through the banking system, it is up to the Federal Government to step in and regulate the interest rates that banks can charge during this economic crisis. If a bank has received bailout monies, they should not be able to increase interest rates over the next ten years to allow consumers and the economy to recuperate from this economic dilemma that they have created. Why should the American taxpayers receive a double hit, bailout monies and increased monthly payments, to supplement the high salaries of the executives at these banks (http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/12/23/executive-compensation-at-banks/)? The concern of many is that there was not due diligence by the Federal Government to investigate past practices of these organizations to determine what caused the financial instabilities prior to the bailouts. There was no financial analysis of the organization to determine where the organizations sustained the losses and why. When the banking industry indicated that they would fail without government assistance, there was no government officials saying “why, when, how, where, and what”.
When a taxpayer requests government assistance through the Department of Health and Human Services, they are subject to intense scrutiny. They have to provide their income, household information, bank data, and everyone within the household income. Many are subject to interrogations as to why they need the money, why they are not working and limitations are put on how long they can receive the money and what it can be used for. When the banking system requested assistance, the only question was “How much?” What is wrong with this comparison? Ordinary citizens are homeless, without utilities, families are living on the streets while what are rightfully taxpayer monies is being used by the Federal Government to increase the wealth of the CEOs.
This is a call to action for the Federal Government and President Obama to intercede with the credit card companies and banks and indicate that if they received bailout monies they cannot increase the annual rates and that they should actually be lowered to less than 10% to allow the American taxpayers to be able to “survive” in this economic crisis. While there are debt relief organization that can assist consumers, they are of little assistance when the consumer can barely make payments and while using the debt relief organization they are paying a fee for the organization to be an intermediary. There should be automatic debt relief programs offered directly from the credit card companies for consumers that are unemployed so that they are not subject to the continuing interest rates while unemployed. Federal Government and the President have an obligation to the consumers to enforce that reduction of interest based on the utilization of taxpayer monies to assistance these companies.
Visit http://eveningsofdialogue.blogspot.com/ for more blogs.
Credit card companies are preying on the plight of Americans that are already in a financial crisis. Many credit card companies are raising annual interest rates on credit cards making minimum payment raise an average of 30-50% regardless of the consumer credit scores or payment history. These are banks that received taxpayer government assistance under the TARP program and now they are receiving double benefits through their hikes in minimum monthly payments. As the already financially strapped consumer tries to make the minimum monthly payment to at least maintain their good credit through the economic crisis they are finding themselves in a significant dilemma of whether to continue making the payment, seek debt relief, or simply default on the credit card payments and accept the credit hit. Credit Card companies hope that the consumer will chose the last option so that they can receive more bailout monies as the demonstrate to the Federal Government that they are unable to meet their own financial obligations.
As taxpayers that has already given a hefty bailout to these credit card companies through the banking system, it is up to the Federal Government to step in and regulate the interest rates that banks can charge during this economic crisis. If a bank has received bailout monies, they should not be able to increase interest rates over the next ten years to allow consumers and the economy to recuperate from this economic dilemma that they have created. Why should the American taxpayers receive a double hit, bailout monies and increased monthly payments, to supplement the high salaries of the executives at these banks (http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/12/23/executive-compensation-at-banks/)? The concern of many is that there was not due diligence by the Federal Government to investigate past practices of these organizations to determine what caused the financial instabilities prior to the bailouts. There was no financial analysis of the organization to determine where the organizations sustained the losses and why. When the banking industry indicated that they would fail without government assistance, there was no government officials saying “why, when, how, where, and what”.
When a taxpayer requests government assistance through the Department of Health and Human Services, they are subject to intense scrutiny. They have to provide their income, household information, bank data, and everyone within the household income. Many are subject to interrogations as to why they need the money, why they are not working and limitations are put on how long they can receive the money and what it can be used for. When the banking system requested assistance, the only question was “How much?” What is wrong with this comparison? Ordinary citizens are homeless, without utilities, families are living on the streets while what are rightfully taxpayer monies is being used by the Federal Government to increase the wealth of the CEOs.
This is a call to action for the Federal Government and President Obama to intercede with the credit card companies and banks and indicate that if they received bailout monies they cannot increase the annual rates and that they should actually be lowered to less than 10% to allow the American taxpayers to be able to “survive” in this economic crisis. While there are debt relief organization that can assist consumers, they are of little assistance when the consumer can barely make payments and while using the debt relief organization they are paying a fee for the organization to be an intermediary. There should be automatic debt relief programs offered directly from the credit card companies for consumers that are unemployed so that they are not subject to the continuing interest rates while unemployed. Federal Government and the President have an obligation to the consumers to enforce that reduction of interest based on the utilization of taxpayer monies to assistance these companies.
Visit http://eveningsofdialogue.blogspot.com/ for more blogs.
Monday, March 16, 2009
President Obama and Education Reform
I applaud President Obama and his new agenda for education. Education Reform needs to be conducted of schools system nationwide as so many are substandard and need a complete overhaul. I do differ on Education Reform focused on increasing the number of hours that students are in school daily or yearly (shortening the summer break). Children are already in school for over 10 months. We want our children to have a healthy balance of education and life, which is something that they will not have when they become working adults based on the careers of today and the future. The key to Education Reform is the “Work Smarter, not Harder”. By extending school hours we are really working harder.
For true Education Reform to occur, we need to analyze the schools systems and do an overhaul of the educators from the Principals to the Janitors. Most of these individuals have a negative attitude toward school children and their ability to succeed. If you are not a 3.5 – 4.0 student, then you do not warrant the assistance of the Teachers, Guidance Counselors, and Principals in maintaining your educational endeavors in elementary and high school because you lack the potential to excel at a college or university. Therefore, you are relegated to the students that are not “college material” and thus should be concentrating on joining the working class rather than going to college. I gleamed this knowledge when working as a Admission Representative for a school. When approaching the Principals and Guidance Counselors, about visiting the schools, the typical response from many Michigan High Schools was, “Our students are not college material and it would not be beneficial for you or them to visit the school.” If I am receiving these message just image the verbal abuse that the students are receiving on a daily basis.
The strategy for Education Reform should be an analysis of all of the entities that directly or indirectly interact with the students and a determination of whether they are focused on student success or on providing barriers to success for the students that can become so imbedded that the student is destined to fail. Every school system need to develop a strategic plan for how they are going to improve the graduation rates and the federal and state funding that they receive should be determined by their strategic plan and the feasibility of its implementation in meeting Education Reform. Work Smarter, not Harder!!! It is not the length of the school day or the school year that will improve the graduation rates, but the improvement of the school environments that will be more conducive to providing educational services to the generations of today and the future.
For true Education Reform to occur, we need to analyze the schools systems and do an overhaul of the educators from the Principals to the Janitors. Most of these individuals have a negative attitude toward school children and their ability to succeed. If you are not a 3.5 – 4.0 student, then you do not warrant the assistance of the Teachers, Guidance Counselors, and Principals in maintaining your educational endeavors in elementary and high school because you lack the potential to excel at a college or university. Therefore, you are relegated to the students that are not “college material” and thus should be concentrating on joining the working class rather than going to college. I gleamed this knowledge when working as a Admission Representative for a school. When approaching the Principals and Guidance Counselors, about visiting the schools, the typical response from many Michigan High Schools was, “Our students are not college material and it would not be beneficial for you or them to visit the school.” If I am receiving these message just image the verbal abuse that the students are receiving on a daily basis.
The strategy for Education Reform should be an analysis of all of the entities that directly or indirectly interact with the students and a determination of whether they are focused on student success or on providing barriers to success for the students that can become so imbedded that the student is destined to fail. Every school system need to develop a strategic plan for how they are going to improve the graduation rates and the federal and state funding that they receive should be determined by their strategic plan and the feasibility of its implementation in meeting Education Reform. Work Smarter, not Harder!!! It is not the length of the school day or the school year that will improve the graduation rates, but the improvement of the school environments that will be more conducive to providing educational services to the generations of today and the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)