| Publisher’s Perspective

PUBLISHER’S PERSPECTIVE: It is now time to stop the charade…about “medical” marijuana

Posted on 13 February 2014 by L.Moore

If you truly have Parkinson’s disease, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis or certain types of cancer (the main “legal” reasons now being mentioned), and your doctor recommends for you to smoke marijuana for relief, be sure to get it in writing from the doctor. That is so that when you suffer the negative consequences of smoking marijuana, such as emphysema or cancer, there is someone else to blame and perhaps sue.

It is shameful how this issue is being manipulated by certain politicians, especially a certain former governor, who is proving again that he has no shame, and will do or say anything to try to “win” an election.

Negatives far outweigh any benefits from people smoking pot, at least based on my experience as an employer. One of my first negative experiences a number of years ago was when I sent three of my young mechanics down to a Caribbean Island to install some of our equipment on a sugar plantation. The job should have taken a week.

However, three weeks went by and we had not heard from them. This was before cell phones. Therefore, I called the customer, who checked on them and complained that my guys were just sitting around smoking “pot.” I ordered them back home, fired them immediately and sent a supervisor with some others to finish the job. That one incident cost us tens of thousands of dollars and lost a multi-million dollar customer. Lunch time started becoming a problem as some of our folks began indulging themselves in their pot smoking during lunch and came back to work causing accidents. Our workers compensation rate doubled, then doubled again before we figured out what was causing the accidents and took proper action with drug tests, etc. However, just one of the after lunch “accidents” put a man in the hospital for several months and cost over a million dollars in medical costs.

As a final example, a few years ago thousands of brochures on our products had to be thrown away when our man in charge got high on pot and changed the instructions to the printer to weird colors which made them unusable. We fired him, of course, but thousands of dollars were lost, as the brochures had to be corrected by others and reprinted.

These are just a few examples, and we are just one small company. The Florida Supreme Court recently agreed to put the issue on an upcoming statewide vote requiring only 60 percent approval. Certain special interest entities who will make big money are positioning themselves already to finance pushing it through. If it passes, and I’m being told there’s a good chance it will pass, many people will lose their jobs as many employers will simply “throw in the towel” and invest elsewhere.

David Eller, Publisher

Comments Off

Publisher’s Perspective: We need to protect our schools

Posted on 31 January 2013 by L.Moore

Appropriate personnel should be armed and assigned the responsibility

The first time I had to fire someone (it was for drinking alcohol on the job while running heavy machinery), I was told by the recipient of the firing: “You can’t fire me!”

My father, who owned the company and had taken a well deserved vacation, had let everyone (about 20 employees at the time) know that I was “in charge,” and asked them all to cooperate with my leadership.

I knew that one of our main foremen had a drinking problem, and sometimes drank an alcoholic lunch. My father knew it, but put up with it for some reason. I was not inclined to do so, and asked Dad to tell him in my presence not to be drinking while I was “in charge.”

Dad had only been gone a few days when I smelled booze on the foreman’s breath. I immediately told him to go home and not come back until he could follow the “no drinking on the job” rule. He refused to leave and brought the other foremen over to confront me and back him up.

After a short heated discussion, I told them both that since Dad was gone, I was the only one who could sign the paychecks, and I didn’t intend to sign any for either one of them, so they may as well go home. They both stormed off alter inquiring when Dad would be back.

I then called a general meeting of the rest of the work force and explained that I would temporarily be doing the job of both the foremen, and asked everyone to cooperate. They did, and by the time Dad got back, I had identified replacements and restructured our workforce in a positive way.

Dad was pleased, as though I had taken a couple of thorns out of his side, and he didn’t hire either one of them back.

What has this got to do with protecting our schools? Nothing, except for the good management principle of solving problems as they become obvious.

Today we have a problem of providing security for our schools in a cost-effective manner.

Why don’t we seek out teacher volunteers who can be armed and specially vetted and trained to provide security at our schools? They would be “on call” within the school as needed, and receive a modest “bonus” for assuming that responsibility.

We tried it at our company, and it worked well.

David Eller, Publisher

Comments Off

Publisher’s Perspective: Thank God for my gun: The night I needed it!

Posted on 24 January 2013 by L.Moore

A couple of years ago, about 2 a.m., I was peacefully sleeping at home here in Deerfield Beach when, suddenly, I heard a noise at the window close by. At first, I thought it was the wind blowing a tree branch up against the window. But as I became more conscious, I realized we did not have a tree branch that close and it was someone actually trying to get into our window. My heart started beating fast as I realized the situation.

Suddenly, the noise stopped, but I woke up my wife, whispered to her what I had heard, and we both lay there listening intensely.

A few moments later, we both heard the sound of the sliding glass door in the adjoining living room being pried open by someone. Whispering confirmations of the sound to each other, we both slid out of bed to get our guns.

We keep a 12-gauge pump-action shotgun and a 36-caliber short barrel pistol conveniently close by. I grabbed the shotgun and passed the pistol to my wife, who is an excellent shot (we go to the gun range occasionally).

We quietly opened our bedroom door and, leading with the shotgun, I flipped on the living room light. Suddenly, we heard our patio furniture being knocked over as the home invaders, who obviously had seen us, decided to run rather than confront the mad man who had a big gun and was ready to shoot them at 2 a.m. in the morning.

The loud “ca chunk, ca chunk” sound as I applied the pump action to my shotgun, which loaded the 12-gauge shells into my gun’s shooting chamber, definitely helped to get their attention. I was starting to aim in their direction when I realized they had turned and were running out the door knocking patio furniture in every direction.

If I had pulled the trigger at that point, I could have shot them both in the back, which I knew to be against the law, and they may have been able to sue me. According to my son-in-law lawyer, you can’t shoot someone who is not an immediate threat to you, i.e. running away.

However, if they had been running toward me, I definitely could have, and would have pulled the trigger to shoot them.

This brings up another important point — if you know you would not pull the trigger in such circumstances, you’re probably better off not having the gun because they could then take it and use it against you.

The above described incident is the third we’ve had in the 40 years we’ve lived in this house.

The first incident 40 years ago we slept through as thieves came right into our bedroom as we were sleeping and took the wallet from my pants and my wife’s purse.

We were young and had less than $20 between us in our wallets so maybe the thief world was told not to bother with us again. However, I put in an alarm system after that, and the second break-in, about 20 years later, scared the thieves away when the alarm went off.

The last incident, which was described at the beginning of this article, occurred after we had become lazy about turning on the alarm system at night. The moral of this story, therefore, is if you have an alarm system, use it.

Attention thieves: We now turn on our alarm system every night and both our guns are still loaded.

David Eller, Publisher

Comments Off

Publisher’s Perspective: 180,000 Potentially ineligible voters in Florida

Posted on 16 May 2012 by L.Moore

David Royse, with the News Service of Florida, reported over this past weekend that the Florida Division of Elections plans to verify the eligibility of nearly 180,000 registered voters in the state. Earlier last week, state election officials forwarded the names of about 2,600 registered voters whose citizenship is questionable to local supervisors of elections for further scrutiny.

Whenever a foreign citizen who is a resident in Florida applies for a driver’s license, they are automatically asked if they wish to register to vote. No attempt is made to confirm that the person is a U.S. citizen and many of them respond in the affirmative – without understanding the question – and suddenly become registered voters. When election time rolls around, they receive a ballot to vote by mail and if they do not know any better, they may then vote illegally.

I recently attended a party at a neighbor’s home and I met a young man originally from Nicaragua who has an application for U.S. citizenship pending. Somehow we got on the subject of politics and he told me that he was once sent a ballot to vote, even though he was not yet a citizen. He knew better and, therefore, did not cast the ballot. He wondered out loud how many other noncitizens may have received the same ballot and ended up voting.

Over 30 percent of the residents in Broward County have come here from a foreign country. Many have become citizens and many have not. Our democracy is in jeopardy whenever a non-citizen casts a ballot in one of our elections. This is potentially a big problem that needs to be fixed immediately.

If you agree and love this country, you need to get involved. Tomorrow may be too late.

David Eller

Publisher

Comments Off

Publisher’s Perspective: Obama wants more jobs?

Posted on 01 December 2011 by L.Moore

He needs to decrease taxes … for everyone!

The politicians used to say, “It’s the Economy stupid.” Now Business owners are saying, “It’s the high Taxes (stupid)!”

The formula is really quite simple:

Increased taxes = increased costs = increased prices = decreased business = decreased jobs

Decreased taxes = decreased costs = decreased prices = increased business = increased jobs

Therefore, it should be obvious to the President and his advisers that if they want more jobs, they need to decrease taxes on the people who produce the jobs.

He apparently is willing to consider that, but stubbornly wants to limit it to those making less than $1,000,000. That probably sounds reasonable to most people. However, what he and “they” don’t understand is that if a businessman is fortunate enough to “make” $1,000,000, very little may be left for him to live on after he pays his taxes and, typically, a bank loan from those funds.

For example, assume a businessman or woman borrows $5,000,000 for a business to employ 100 people. First, he would probably need to have saved at least $1,000,000 to invest in the business in order to get a $5,000,000 loan. So he has $6,000,000 invested in the business. But now, he must make enough money from the business to pay back the bank loan and interest. Assuming the loan is at 6 percent, and he has 10 years to pay back the bank, he has to make $300,000 just to pay the bank interest, plus another $500,000 to pay the bank loan principal. If he is successful and “makes” $1,300,000 from the business, he pays the bank $300,000 in interest leaving him $1,000,000 in taxable income. He pays income taxes to the U.S. government of approximately $330,000, leaving him $670,000. From that, he has to pay the bank $500,000 principal on the loan, leaving him $170,000 to live on. To some, he may look rich. However, in order to get that big loan, he probably had to sign away everything he owns, including his home. If business slows down and profits are squeezed, he may lose everything he owns to the bank, including his home. That actually happened to a good friend of mine recently.

However, under Obama’s current plan, it gets worse. If someone grows their business and hires more people, their tax rate will increase from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, for a 13.1 percent increase in tax rate, which equates to a $46,000 tax increase, reducing his net income to $124,000. The employer has taken a lot of risk to try to make that money, and the risk goes up as the tax rate increases, which also decreases the amount of money the employer can pay their employees.

Thus … increased taxes increase costs, which increases prices, which decreases business and decreases jobs.

Whereas … decreased taxes decrease costs, which decreases prices, which increases business and increases jobs.

Bottom line is you can’t increase, or threaten to increase, taxes on the people who create 90 percent of the jobs in America and then wonder why they don’t go out and hire more people. No wonder folks are worried. They ought to be.

Our political gurus need to study the effects of the Kennedy and Reagan Tax decreases. In both cases, the U.S. economy took off, the government income increased substantially, and we obtained essentially full employment for everyone who wanted to work.

David Eller, Publisher

Comments Off

Publisher’s Perspective: Can We Save the USA?

Posted on 11 August 2011 by L.Moore

A Guest Editorial from a famous Historian and our Publisher

 

In 1887, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior:

“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.”

“The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

 

From bondage to spiritual faith;

From spiritual faith to great courage;

From courage to liberty;

From liberty to abundance;

From abundance to complacency;

From complacency to apathy;

From apathy to dependence;

From dependence back into bondage.”

 

Therefore,the question for each of us today as Americans  is — “What am I going to do about it?” (With an emphasis on the “I”). Everyone who loves this country needs to get involved. It will require a massive effort.

We need you!Get involved!

David Eller, Publisher

Comments (2)

Obama wants more jobs? He needs to decrease taxes … for everyone!

Posted on 28 April 2011 by admin

The politicians used to say “It’s the Economy (Stupid).” Now, Business owners are saying “It’s the high Taxes (Stupid)!”

 

The formula is really quite simple:

Increase taxes = increased costs = increased prices = decreased business = decreased jobs.

Decreased taxes = decreased costs = decreased prices = increased business = increased jobs.

 

Therefore, it should be obvious to the president and his advisors that if they want more jobs, they need to decrease taxes on the people who produce the jobs.

He apparently is willing to consider that, but stubbornly wants to limit it to those making $250,000 or less. That probably sounds reasonable to most people. However, what he and “they” don’t understand is that if a businessman is fortunate enough to “make” $250,000, very little is left for him to live on after he pays his taxes and, typically, a bank loan from those funds.

For example, assume a businessman or woman borrows $1 million for a business to employ 20 people. First, he would probably need to have saved at least $200,000 to invest in the business in order to get a $1 million loan. So he has $1,200,000 invested in the business. But now he must make enough money from the business to pay back the bank loan and interest. Assuming the loan is at 6 percent, and he has 10 years to pay back the bank, he has to make $60,000 just to pay the bank interest, plus another $100,000 to pay the bank loan principal. If he is successful and makes $260,000 from the business, he pays the bank $60,000 in interest, leaving him $200,000 in taxable income. He pays income taxes to the U.S. government of approximately $56,000, leaving him $144,000. From that, he has to pay the bank $100,000 principal on the loan, leaving him $44,000 to live on. He certainly is not a rich man, all due respect to the President.

However, under Obama’s proposed plan, it gets worse. If someone is successful, grows their business and hires more people, he wants their tax rate to increase from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, for a 13.1 percent increase in their tax rate. This certainly does not encourage people to grow their businesses and hire people. In fact, it does the opposite and also weakens businesses ability to borrow money.

The fact is the president can’t increase taxes on the people who create 85 percent of the jobs in America and then wonder why they don’t invest more and hire more people. It causes the opposite reaction, which is a big reason why the economy is stifled.

David Eller, Publisher

 

Comments Off

Hurrah for Gov. Rick Scott -protecting us from Florida Power & Light-

Posted on 21 April 2011 by admin


Florida Power and Light (FPL) is trying again to force you and me to pay for expenses which should really be for their own corporate account. Specifically, I’m referring to the $1.5 billion they, and their sister power companies in Florida, are trying to ram through the Legislature to charge us at the rate of an additional $400 million per year to pay for them to experiment with “renewable” energy sources.

Every other business pays for their own R&D from their earnings. Why should they be any different? They are purposely installing energy sources from their own subsidiaries, which are not competitive and have to be subsidized. However, it is a “business plan” that has worked for them for years, as they donate the maximum amount of money allowed to each and every member of the Florida Legislature every session. They then go to these same legislators to get approval to charge us more for electricity. Citizens should thank Gov. Rick Scott for pulling the circuit breaker switch down on them.

David Eller

 

Comments Off

Publisher’s Perspective: Unemployment abuse is self defeating

Posted on 24 February 2011 by admin

Our federal government was bragging last week that nationwide unemployment has dropped slightly, but is still over 9 percent. In Florida, it’s12 percent!

I overheard two employees in a local retail store talking recently in the aisle next to me as I shopped. They were discussing a fellow employee who had quit his job there and had managed to get on the unemployment roll. “Can you believe it?” said one. “He is getting from the government within a few dollars per week of what we are making, and he doesn’t even have to get out of bed in the morning.” They continued, “ However, he’s actually making a lot more than us because he’s already working  “off the book” at another place, part time for cash.” I drifted away to another isle as I heard them questioning whether or not they should do the same thing.

Fast forward to two weeks later. My wife and I were on a long planned cruise from Ft. Lauderdale to Bermuda. Our first night at sea was open seating, so we sat down next to a couple in their late 40s from Pompano. After we’d talked about various amenities on the ship, I asked the couple what they did back on land. The lady spoke up first and said she was a school teacher in Broward County. When I asked her where, she said she was currently unemployed. When I queried her husband, he said “I’m a welder, but I just lost my job too.” Trying to be helpful, I said “I know the owners of several companies trying to hire welders right now. I handed him my card and said, “Give me a call when we get back to Ft. Lauderdale, and I’ll get you an interview.” A few minutes later, as we all left the table, I noticed he shoved my card under his napkin purposely leaving it. I thought to myself  “So much for looking for a job.” The rest of the cruise they pointedly avoided us.

There is a common concept that employees pay into the Unemployment Compensation Fund and, therefore, are simply getting some of their money back. That is simply not true. Only employers pay in! Because Florida’s unemployment roll now exceeds 12 percent, Florida employers are now being required to put in an additional $2 billion into the unemployment compensation fund. This raises the costs for all Florida companies, puts us all at a competitive disadvantage, and is counter-productive to bringing more jobs to Florida. Therefore, when people abuse the system, they are making it more difficult for everyone here, including themselves, to get a job in the future.

David Eller, Publisher

Comments Off

Publisher’s Perspective

Posted on 13 January 2011 by admin

It is amazing to observe the reaction of certain liberal politicians and editorial writers to the Arizona shooting events.  As they try to find a way to blame this event on some right-wing boogy man, they ignore the real culprit, which is illegal drug use running rampant in this country.  Jared Loughner has been described by his 10th grade high school friends as a “sweet and caring” young man who was a great saxophone player.  It was only after he started experimenting with drugs in the 11th grade, that his personality changed to “weird” and led eventually to this tragedy.

Bottom line: It wasn’t politics either from the right or left that caused this event, it was illegal drug use.  Those who want to blame it on politics need to take another look—very possibly in the mirror.

David Eller

Comments Off

Advertise Here
Advertise Here

front page

front page