RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS VS. RIGHT TO LIFE

I have remained quiet so far on the issue of guns. 

My silence is not however because I have no feelings or opinions on guns and the deeply engrained place they hold in our culture. While my ballistics knowledge may be far from encyclopedic, my silence on guns does not stem from a lack of looking at any of the wide selection of statistics and facts available to make one's point.

My silence thus far on guns comes merely from frustration.

The issue has been "debated" tirelessly. All points of consideration have been put forth. Everything has already been said. 

Yet despite all the statistics repeatedly showing the unceasing deathly effects of our insane American gun culture, tools of the NRA will ONLY acknowledge studies suggesting a correlation between gun control and increases in crime. They shout this talking point loudly enough to be certain the bigger picture is either overlooked or simply unrecognized. America has a serious problem with guns. Google the numbers yourself. Compare gun deaths in America to gun deaths in other "civilized" nations. Those statistics can no longer be ignored or silenced in the war of perception on gun control issues.

Invariably, every time someone tries to address the issue, we hear the auto-responses about how it is "too early" or "don't politicize the tragedy". Sorry NRA tools. When there are more national gun tragedies than national holidays, thus making it ALWAYS "too early" to talk about it, then your trying to silence the honest discussion about guns in America IS the politicization of the tragedy.

Speaking of politics and NRA tools, what inspired me to start writing this very post was seeing Bob Schieffer this morning say that NO Republicans would come on Face The Nation today. EVERY ONE of them said they either had a scheduling conflict, or flatly said no.

At least for once, the severity of the gun issue is being discussed without being drowned out by the auto-response cries intended to silence an honest discussion about how the right to life needs to be brought back into balance with the right to bear arms.

I for one have no desire to eliminate the right to bear arms.

We are far beyond that now however as we allow individuals to arm themselves with weapons of mass destruction.

Exactly where we draw the lines and how we craft the regulations concerning allowable civilian firepower and require the burden of proof of responsible gun ownership, (including mental health and mechanical proficiency) is yet to be worked out. But it is WAY beyond time to finally bring the right to bear arms back into balance.

To see more thought provoking images, visit SnarkySigns on Facebook.

Be sure to "Like" the page.

www.SnarkySigns.com

PAPA JOHN'S POSTAL SERVICE-PART 2

In Part 1, proposed anti-Obamacare actions by some food-chain owners were covered in detail. So too was the even larger backlash against these politicized comments.

Since that posting, the scope and damage of the backlash against food chains offering anti-Obamacare shortcuts has proven even larger. As reported by Forbes, 1 the public perception rating for a business or brand known as the "buzz", has dropped dramatically for all restaurant brands playing this game.

Papa John's' buzz score dropped from 32 to 4! YouGov BrandIndex, the market research company responsible for polling the buzz ratings, says this this the sharpest drop of the year, and it brings Papa John's well below Pizza Hut's buzz rating.2 After Papa John's tripled their stock price during the Obama years, to now drop so far below their competitors has to cause some serious re-thinking.

Then there is Applebees' buzz rating. Before Zane Tankel's comments, it was 35. Now it is 5! Even though Zane Tankel doesn't speak for all Appleebees (he runs 40 of them in the New York area), the backlash against his anti-Obamacare comments on a FoxNews interview have harmed the entire Applebees brand.

Jimmy John's has no buzz ratings to compare. But at least one Minneapolis franchisee has a long standing issue with healthcare and public perception.3 Well over a year ago, workers attempting to unionize eventually went public with the franchisee's policy to economically punish workers who call in sick with no substitute. Those whistleblowers were fired. In April of this year, a federal administrative law judge ruled that the fired workers are to be reinstated with back pay. Now the appeals process may drag out for years. In a side note, in Oct 2010, that unionization attempt narrowly failed in an 85-87 vote.

Denny's fared the best. Though Denny's buzz score dropped from 10 to 0, it did rebound back to a 6. Presumably because after franchisee John Metz proposed a 5% Obamacare surcharge to all his customers saying they should then reduce their tip accordingly if they don't like it, Denny's CEO was quick to respond that such views and actions were "inconsistent" with the Denny's brand. It must be pointed out that even with Denny's drop to 0, the resulting rebound stunningly gives Denny's a higher buzz rating than both Papa John's and Applebees. 2

Then there is Darden Restaurants. Their "experiments" with reducing workers to just 28 hours/week in order to avoid any healthcare responsibility under the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") have proven a bad choice. We do know that they expect at least some loss. They are lowering their projected profit, citing in part the backlash against their anti-Obamacare experiments.1

On Dec. 6, Darden announced they were done with their experiments, and would proceed no further with the idea of reducing workers' hours. Darden CEO Clarence Otis said "...we are pleased we know enough at this point to make firm and hopefully reassuring commitments to our full-time employees."4 Additionally, they released the following results of their "experiments":

None of Darden's current full-time employees, hourly or salaried, will have their full-time status changed as a result of healthcare reform.

Each of Darden's new and existing restaurants will have full-time hourly employees because that is what it takes to fully deliver the experiences guests expect.

In 2014, all of Darden's full-time employees, including hourly, salaried and executive employees, will have access to the same insurance plan coverage.

3 out of 4 restaurants surrounding this mall are Darden Restaurants

Yet even with all this detail of political games played and lost over "Obamacare" in the food indsutry, the bigger more crucial pictures are still missed. 

Business owners, restauranteur or otherwise, are right to complain that they must bear the burden of providing healthcare. Employees are right to complain that access to healthcare requires an indentured servitude to their employer.

As Americans, we pride ourselves on our freedom to choose one's own path, yet we are the civilized nation that establishes a healthcare system interminably tied to a profit-driven industry, then makes access to even that industry a condition of employment loyalty. Many may miss the hypocrisy there, but it only takes a moment of thought to comprehend the absurdity of it all.

There is an underlying entrepreneurial psyche of the nation for each to make one's own way and become a great financial success. Yet despite that proud ever-present element of the American dream, the American economy ironically relies far more heavily on the majority of its citizens to be loyal workers and not entrepreneurs.

It could be argued (however nebulously) that at one time, tying such an elemental need like healthcare access to the employer/employee relationship served the purpose of business owners. When wages allowed one to raise a family on the single income while simultaneously providing the peace of mind over healthcare access for the whole family, company loyalty and thus a stable workforce was fairly well secured.

That was then.

We now have a different economy. Different players. Different culture. Different rules. A different equation all together. 

Healthcare tied to one's employer plus global competition plus lower wages and higher healthcare costs. What little tenuous argument there once was for tying healthcare access to the employer/employee relationship no longer serves any useful purpose. Instead, that link stifles the entrepreneurial spirit, and helps further the wealth gap to new extremes. It does not help stabilize a workforce and a nation's economy. It does only harm to the entire nation.

It is such a high-risk endeavor to break free of that reliance on one's employer and act on entrepreneurial dreams and ideas, that few will dare try. Instead, out of necessity, most Americans show a loyalty to their employer for fear of losing what degree of healthcare coverage they do have. Risk losing that and it takes but one serious illness to completely wipe out a lifetime of family savings. Simply put, we have institutionalized a pathway to stagnation.

Now that we also institutionalized sending jobs overseas; first by advancing the technology that allows that to be a serious option, and secondly by writing laws and tax code that actually rewards moving jobs outside of America, we now have a buyer's market for labor. Even for those jobs that cannot be outsourced, the demand for jobs in America is now so high, that even at minimum wage, a business owner has no problem quickly filling any job positions.

Economic structures that prioritize long-term stability of the nation's middle-class work force have been replaced with the culture of short-term top-end financial gain. These ill-conceived priorities have become deeply entrenched in a minority of legislators. So much so that despite mountains of evidence over decades to the contrary, they insist that such an ideology of immediately expanding wealth at the top magically transforms into an abundance of American jobs and growth of the middle-class.

Despite getting 51 votes, Republicans filibustered the Buffett Rule,
requiring 60 votes to pass. The bill would have required a minimum
tax rate of 30 percent on individuals making over a million dollars a year.
Mitt Romney famously paid only 17 percent.

The degree to which these legislators hold themselves in bondage to such absolute ideology is blatantly clear from all the recent budget battles, including the current Congressional "fiscal cliff" fight. Despite saying they also want tax cuts for the middle class as well as the wealthy, they refuse to allow ANY tax cuts unless they can guarantee that the wealthiest Americans get ADDITIONAL tax cuts for their income over $250,000!

What fuels such thinking is a simplistic and absolute interpretation of role of government. It is the idea that government can not do anything well or better than the individual or the "free market".

It is summed up by the oft-repeated quote from Ronald Reagan. "Government is not the solution to our problem, government IS the problem."

Remove that quote from the inaugural address as a whole and place it as a foundational prime directive. This is the fallacious ideology that has infected too many, including some recent legislators. 

Take that Reagan excerpt as an absolute, and you create the rage that was core to much of the tea party movement.

As much as Ronald Reagan may have railed against government becoming too big, cumbersome and expensive, the fuller context of his first inaugural speech must be noted. It contained many more than just those twelve words. In fact, those famous words were not even the entire sentence. Play the embedded video above and hear for yourself. The quote begins - "In this present crisis..."

The present crisis he was discussing was a bad economy. Even in stating that government is the problem in that particular crisis, this did not mean Reagan was calling to eliminate or even decimate government role. 

But steadfast adherences to such small government ideology since the days of Ronald Reagan have transmogrified into the simplistic manifestos of Grover Norquist and his followers of the no-tax hike pledge. Having a life goal to shrink the size of government until it could be drowned in a bathtub is absolutely ridiculous, yet this is the committed singular mission for Grover. He so oversimplifies this small government/low tax ideology that he even writes "Raising taxes is what politicians do when they don't have the strength to actually govern."

Back to Ronald Reagan, who unlike Grover Norquist, did actually have to govern. To do so effectively, he had to raise taxes multiple times, no matter how much he hated it.

Reagan also clarified in that same inaugural speech, that despite his penchant for smaller government and lower taxes, that government had a vital role.

"Now so there will be no misunderstanding, it's not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work - work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it."

"Government can and must provide opportunity." I imagine most who preach the "...government is not the solution to our problem, government IS the problem" quote would be surprised to hear (and maybe even deny) that Ronald Reagan stated those very words in the same speech.

But here is where the big picture comes into focus. Neither of these two quote extractions can be taken as absolutes. Balancing these two seemingly divergent statements gets to the very core of what defines effective government. The two ideas must keep each other in check.

Of course interpreting what defines appropriate balance is the real nitty gritty work of political oversight. Right or left, both statements can be twisted to make one's case. One person's opportunity is another's exploitation. One person's "problem" with government is another's only protection from injustice. Face it. Since long before Reagan, and certainly through today, government HAS been sought as the solution for legislating nearly every viewpoint. Depending upon perspective, government action, or government inaction, could be seen as the problem.

Take the idea of regulating the workplace. Practically any business owner will tell you that complying with all the regulations is burdensome, even if only for the time involved in keeping proper logs to verify their compliance. Yet virtually every regulation protects against some excess or abuse.

Too often the big picture value and need for those protections are not recognized. Complaints and arguments for government reduction tend to follow. This is especially true in the realm of large business where the pressure to increase shareholder profits becomes the primary driver in deciding a business' policy and actions.

Not that actual small business owners never rail against burdensome government regulations over how they run their business. One could find plenty of small business owners who feel that way, but there is a distinct difference between true small businesses and the very large businesses that many politicians lump under that "small business" label. For one, actual small businesses with less than 50 employees, are exempt from "Obamacare" requirements. Those with 25 or fewer employees that do provide such healthcare for their workforce will get significant tax breaks for doing so.

Compare that to the U.S. Small Business Administration's definition of a "small business". For the retail trade they partially define "small business" as having "500 or fewer employees".5

A Wal-Mart store has less than 500 employees.
Should it be classified as a "small business"? 

Seriously. Ponder the huge difference between a true Mom and Pop store to a retail store with 500 employees. Even if you divide the total number of Wal-Mart employees by the total number of Wal-Mart stores, you can't reach 500 employees per Wal-Mart store.6 Consider that reality the next time you hear a politician arguing that without tax cuts above $250,000, "small" businesses will be hurt.

When politicians say "small business", they are not necessarily talking about a truly "small" business. Yet the policies they are trying to sell by appealing to the idea of "small" businesses will invariably present great opportunity to one at the expense of the other.

"Government can and must provide opportunity." It always does. The problem with government is that the opportunity it provides almost always comes at the expense of someone else. When it favors opportunity to those who have already reaped great benefits of earlier opportunities, it no longer represents the land of opportunity, but the land of continued opportunity for the few.

This has been part of the problem for some time. Opportunities sway more towards the big guy. The well-established large businesses get legislation written to their benefit. Minimum wage, tax code, double-down on trickle-down economics. No one is saying large business is not entitled to profit. Even big profit. But the wealth gap has grown exponentially out of control. CEO pay is beyond silly, yet workers' wages remain stagnant. Minimum wage is so low, there is not one city in America where a full time minimum wage worker can afford a 2-bedroom apt. If you look back in history, wealth gaps this huge always seek equilibrium. Usually at a high cost.

Take a 2 week vacation from a minimum wage job,
and you fall BELOW the poverty line for a family of 2.
Even with NO hours missed in a year, a minimum wage
job requires food assistance support just to survive.

Yet despite this, we see increasing refusal from politicians to even acknowledge the gap, let alone the consequences for the entire nation. This cold-hearted focus on prioritizing profits at the top had plenty to do with the recent election.

Conservative journalist Chris Ruddy stated the reason Mitt Romney lost was because people didn't like him. Howard Fineman offers this observation:

"The reason that people didn't like Mitt Romney is that he seemed only to care about money. He seemed only to care about profit. He didn't have any communal sense to him that could be applied to government. The Republicans don't see that a pure obsession with free market economics comes across to everybody else in the country who isn't them as too cold-blooded, as too cold-hearted. And the fact that with almost 8 percent unemployment, with the people thinking that the country is going in the wrong direction, that they still voted for Barack Obama, makes it an even bigger rejection of the Republicans and conservatism than they are willing to admit to themselves."7

No communal sense to him that could be applied to government. That description could certainly be applied to far more than just Mitt Romney. Take Congress for example. Especially those who gained their Congressional seat via the tea party wave. Even former Republican US Senator Alan Simpson has noted this trend in his recent interview on The Daily Show:

"Now there's seventy of them - the tea party guys. These are the guys who went to Congress not to limit government, but to stop it."8

He has a real point. Many Republican Representatives have taken the idea of government being the problem in every situation to an extreme. They rejected the very idea of compromise. They complain of government incompetence, and now that they ARE government, they are dead set to prove it.

This anti-government free-market proposal to everything is a serious threat to the entire nation. There have always been a handful of individuals who sought to dismantle government functions and place them in the hands of private profit-driven companies. But up until now, very few of them ever infected the legislative power of Congress.

Simply put, in order to provide and secure the infrastructure that not only allows basic function of a society but that must also be relied upon in order for there to be opportunity to many, it is integral that some functions remain squarely the responsibility of everyone via government control, and not private industry.

This does not mean that there will be no opportunity in doing the work of these functions. The physical labor and architectural design of building roads and bridges is not done by politicians. The work is contracted out to the private sector. Yet their planning, financing, management and responsibility is the work of government. The resulting roads and bridges are thus "owned" by all of us collectively. Every one of us is reliant upon them daily. Goods and services require round-the-clock transport of people and things. Even the car-less city dweller who walks to the corner store and never travels is dependent upon the uninterrupted function of our roads and bridges simply by buying groceries. Turn that basic infrastructure over to the profit-driven private sector, and the whole system collapses.

It's not just roads and bridges. It's also the means to get basic documents, goods, catalogs and more from point A to point B at a reasonable cost. You can't underestimate how vital it is to the entire economy to have reliable low cost delivery always available. Since even before our Constitution, we have had the USPS establishing this vital infrastructure.

Try sending a payment by FedEx or UPS. It will cost closer to $10 than 45 cents.

This indeed creates opportunity. Opportunity for the consumer to order goods by mail that are not otherwise available in their community. Opportunity for small businesses to sell goods to far larger markets. Opportunity for all businesses to mail promotions, catalogs, bills and payments. It even leaves the opportunity for private for-profit delivery companies to deliver all sorts of expedited goods at premium prices.

Note that neither FedEx nor UPS are suffering. But the next time you hear someone grumble that the USPS can't compete, try comparing the flat-rate shipping options of the USPS at around $5 to the rates of FedEx and UPS. Ask them where else they can mail a letter or a check from one coast to the other for a mere 45 cents.

Not just that, the delivery service that those few coins can purchase far surpasses the guarantees of FedEx or UPS.

First, USPS does not refuse delivery to remote rural areas. The other guys have "no delivery" areas because delivering to those far outlying areas would cost them too much. Additionally, USPS makes every effort to forward items mailed to incomplete, or outdated addresses. No extra charge. The other guys? Not so much. You must request such address changes, and you will pay extra for it.

Rather than sticking a 45 cent stamp on that letter or check you need to mail, try sending it via FedEx, and the rate starts at about $10. And that's only if it is being sent to a nearby region. There is real truth to the conservative comment that the USPS can't compete in the free market. Any for-profit letter carrier would instantly price itself out of the market. They couldn't even touch the USPS!

The point that must be stressed here is the vital nature of the service the USPS offers at such low price. You will still hear some arguing that the government has no business being in the delivery market. All services that can be done by the private sector should not have competition from the public sector they will argue.

Of course they have not considered the real effects of implementing such simplistlc absolute ideology.

What happens if the USPS really was privatized? How does the nation handle the jump in cost to mail simple letters, documents, payments or checks from just 45 cents to $10? Even assuming that private letter carriers began to really compete and quickly became more efficient, the sudden existence of the USPS for the purpose of profit rather than vital infrastructure will exclude them from ever offering postage as cheaply as the USPS.

Postage prices would have to be seriously increased and service would have to seriously decline. 

First, far out rural areas will lose delivery. Period. No for-profit letter carrier is going to drive a day's drive to deliver envelopes to the farthest reaches of the boondocks. FedEx and UPS don't do it now for premium prices. 

Consider that it costs the USPS an average of $0.513 to handle each piece of mail that is undeliverable as addressed.9 Any privatization of the USPS will require postage prices be increased well beyond this cost of operating. Then dropping the policy of trying to forward mail to the correct address would follow. Or a "Cash On Delivery" fee could be implemented on such pieces of mail. One thing that certainly would not happen is the hiring of more employees to verify that every piece of mail is correctly addressed.

But let's even assume that a privatization of the USPS immediately got efficient enough to charge not $10 per envelope, but just $2. A very unlikely speculation given the need to not only continue some semblance of sustaining current USPS service, but also to make room for profit. Nonetheless, let's just go with that conservative estimate of postal rate increase in the event of privatizing the USPS. Consider the shock waves throughout the entire economy.

We may send far fewer cards as a nation than we once did, but imagine how much less birthday money Grandma can afford to put in that birthday card.

Only a small sacrifice you say? What happens to Social Security checks? Will the dramatic increase in postage costs simply be deduced from each SS check? Will it be charged to the government? If so, will those who insisted the USPS be privatized now be just as indignant that the net result is a handing over of billions of taxpayer dollars to private companies? Will the retirement age be increased just so Social Security can meet the increased cost of mailing out checks? Again, will this bother the "free-market" criers as much as the USPS did in the first place? Or will they then seek to privatize Social Security as well?

Consider the effect on the truly small businesses that sprang from online reselling. How will such a large postage price increase affect E-Bay? or Amazon? Did you realize that right now E-Bay even works right with the USPS, offering online printing of shipping labels, and even arranging for your mail carrier to pick up your packages?

What about the cost to businesses for mailing monthly publications? Consider the ultra low discount rates they get from the USPS not only through the media rate, but from bulk mailings. That basic cost of doing business would immediately multiply considerably.

What about the costs for sending out credit card offers? Or membership renewal requests from non-profit organizations? Or recall notices to consumers?

Or what about mailing promotional ads? Well, maybe that approach would still be cheaper for Papa John's, considering their $250 million class action lawsuit for illegal text message ad spamming in 2010. 

But with a privatized USPS offering major hikes in postal rates, consider the self-defeating result. As businesses suffer these higher costs, they will do whatever they can to cut back on postal expenditures. That makes the privatized version of the USPS need even more revenues, meaning even more rate hikes. Since it would then be a private company not needing Congressional authority to institute every change, they could raise postage rates or drop services as they saw fit. It would be an economic disaster for the entire nation.

Yet despite these realities of what a USPS privatization would mean, there is still a larger segment than usual of anti-government ideologies calling for such privatization. Considering the title of this piece, you can probably guess that Papa John's CEO John Schnatter is among that crowd.

Schnatter has since backtracked on the anti-"Obamacare" stances and comments since the backlash has proven to cost him more financial damage than his proposed means to "... find tactics to shallow out any Obamacare costs and core strategies to pass that cost onto consumers in order to protect our shareholders' best interests...".10

In his oped piece, Schnatter even tried to imply that he never meant such things,11 but he IS the one who complained about the 11-14 cents per pie he figured it would cost him, and until his oped pieces, he did not reject in any manner the strategy of reducing workers' hours to avoid the "Obamacare" health requirement.

Schnatter's anti-government comments went beyond just his clearly stated opposition to the new healthcare law ("We're not supportive of Obamacare, like most businesses in our industry..."10). Schnatter also compared governmental role in health care to his perceived incompetence of governmental role in the US Postal Service, saying "the worst entity in the world for running the thing is the government."12

I have tremendous doubt however that Schnatter has given even the smallest amount of thought into what privatization of the USPS would really mean. Either for him personally or for Papa John's, let alone how financially damaging it would be for the entire nation.

But John Schnatter is far from the only one with such vacuous anti-USPS thoughts. The folly of this idea has invaded Congressional members. Take the boisterous one-term tea party Republican Representative Joe Walsh for example. Privatization of the USPS was not just an under-the-radar issue like it is for other tea party Congressional members, it was actually a blatant issue in Joe's campaign. Fortunately, his opponent Tammy Duckworth sees the crucial value of our USPS, and she soundly defeated him last month.

Tammy Duckworth soundly defeated tea party one-termer Joe Walsh

But even with a shrinking tea party faction in Congress, the USPS is still under serious threat from Congressional action steering it towards privatization.

In 2006, Congress passed a law requiring the USPS to PRE-fund its pensions benefits by 75 years. That is not a typo. Congress requires the USPS to PRE-fund the pensions of workers who have yet to be born!

To achieve this intensely unique requirement, they are now obligated to pay $5.5 Billion in to this fund EVERY year until that extraordinary goal is reached!13 This is a 10 year plan. This immense and singular burden is now beginning to seriously take its toll.

The resulting financial burden unsurprisingly now has the USPS running deficits. They do not have the power to simply raise the price of stamps, or offer new services like internet cafes, etc.. The USPS is an unusual construction. It is under control of Congress, yet receives no taxpayer money. Its operating funds come from postage and delivery fees. Despite the lack of Congressional funding, Congress must approve all changes.

That is not an easy task. Particularly when there is a Republican faction of Congress dead set on destroying the public sector unions and ideologically bound to the concept of privatization.

With the vice-grip they have placed upon the USPS via the pension pre-funding requirement, the anti-union faction of Congress is not about to release their grip on the American Postal Workers Union, even if it means closing post offices and mail processing plants. Damn the economic damage this may cause, for shrinking government at any cost IS their cause.

The irony is that in the resulting actions to reduce the USPS, rural post offices are the ones that are being shut down. The very ones most relied upon. The ones where FedEx and UPS refuse to go. The ones where the post office virtually IS the town. They are the post offices servicing the places that Sarah Palin would call the "real" America. These are the post offices whose services are being ended, and jobs are being eliminated.

The further irony is that the money the USPS has already paid into their pension fund is already sufficient to fund its pension obligations for decades. Yet Congressional Republicans refuse to allow the USPS to take any hiatus from these annual PRE-funding payments. The resulting shortfall lies squarely on the shoulders of Congress' imposed burden.

So what if the USPS defaults on these annual $5.5 billion payments?

The bottom line is that even though the USPS is responsible for the costs of postal workers' pensions, and even though the USPS pays those future costs in to a pension fund, as federal employees, retired postal workers receiving pension payouts are paid from the US Treasury. Even if the USPS' pension fund contains fewer funds than the pension payments going out, the Treasury makes those pension payments. Taxpayers then make up the difference.

Taxpayers must also pick up the remaining tab if the USPS is not solvent. The USPS has not taken tax dollars in 30 years.

So the questions must be asked. Since the USPS has the funds to cover all operating costs AND already has decades of future retiree's pension obligations covered, why does Congress lock the USPS into this situation? Why reduce the USPS and diminish its service by closing rural post offices and mail processing plants? Why begin dismantling our national Postal Service and do this to the nation and to the postal workers when there is no need? Why set the USPS on a course that will either dismantle it, or require a taxpayer bailout? Note again, it has been 30 years since the USPS required taxpayer money to stay solvent.

Why force the USPS on this course? When it can serve the nation with full function except for one thing and one thing only - Congress' insistence that it do something NO other organization must - first pay for retirees' pensions 75 years from now?

Ideology. Plain and simple.

Remember the words of Ronald Reagan - "Government can and must provide opportunity."

Contemplate the lost opportunity if we close post offices. Contemplate the true scope of lost opportunity if the USPS were to be profitized/privatized. Some company buying out our USPS would have the opportunity to make great profit, but at the expense of the entire economy.

The United States Postal Service IS infrastructure. We ALL need it, even if we are too ignorant to recognize it.

Be it simply earning a living wage from full time work, expecting construction and maintenance of public roads and bridges, or even the vital basic function of the USPS, another extraction from Ronald Reagan's inaugural speech is appropriate. 

"All must share in the productive work of this "new beginning", and all must share in the bounty of a revived economy...."

Privatize the USPS, and we fail that core nature of being American.

1 - http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/12/04/papa-johns-applebees-and-others-pay-huge-price-for-anti-obamacare-politicking/

2 - http://www.brandindex.com/article/anti-obamacare-rhetoric-buzz

3 - http://www.startribune.com/business/148530485.html?refer=y

4 - http://investor.darden.com/investors/news-releases/press-release-details/2012/Darden-Provides-Update-on-its-Restaurant-Staffing-Plans-Under-Healthcare-Reform-Company-Announces-Commitments-to-its-Current-/default.aspx

5 - http://www.sba.gov/content/summary-size-standards-industry

6 - http://www.statisticbrain.com/wal-mart-company-statistics/

7 - Howard Fineman - 11/26/12 - on Hardball with Chris Matthews - MSNBC

8 - Former US Senator Alan Simpson Republican 12/5/12 - on The Daily Show - Comedy Central

9 - http://blog.strahm.com/tag/undeliverable-as-addressed/

10 - http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/08/papa-johns-obamacare-will-raise-pizza-prices-131331.html

11 - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-h-schnatter/papa-johns-obamacare_b_2166209.html

12 - http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2012/nov/07/papa-johns-ceo-obamacare-likely-to-raise-costs/

13 - http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/07/19/546851/postal-service-default-congres/

PAPA JOHN'S POSTAL SERVICE-PART 1

By now, we have all heard about John Schnatter's (Papa John's CEO) "Obamacare" comments. 

First he complained this August over the projected 11-14 cents per pizza pie he says it would cost to give his employees the required healthcare under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"). As reported by Politico, Schnatter offered the following comments to his shareholders:

"We're not supportive of Obamacare, like most businesses in our industry. But our business model and unit economics are about as ideal as you can get for a food company to absorb Obamacare,"1

Schnatter added:

"If Obamacare is in fact not repealed, we will find tactics to shallow out any Obamacare costs and core strategies to pass that cost onto consumers in order to protect our shareholders best interests,"1

Then the day after President Obama won re-election, Schnatter stated some employees' schedules may get cut to under 30 hours/week.2 Under the new law, employers are exempt from the requirements of providing healthcare to part-time workers, which the law defines as less than 30 hours/week.

As a CEO, it is generally bad business to politicize your brand. You are bound to offend millions of potential customers. The optics here with Schnatter's Papa John's are even more dangerous. Politicizing "Obamacare" over complaints that it will cost 11-14 cents per pizza to give healthcare to your workers, while simultaneously running a promotion to give away 2 million free pizzas is nothing but bad publicity.

Look at the lavish mansion Schnatter lives in, complete with private golf course and 22 car garage. The aerial photo of his estate is making the rounds online faster than cats asking for cheeseburgers. Contrast that image with Schnatter's complaint that up to 14 cents per pie is such an unreasonable burden to ensure healthy workers, and even Mr. Burns wants to boycott Papa John's.

Even worse, consider that Schnatter's mansion was the site of Romney's fundraiser where Mitt offered a slew of financially elitist statements including the now infamous 47% quote. The embedded video here includes the question to Romney that set him up to give his 47% soliloquy.

"For the past three years, all everybody's been told is 'Don't worry, we'll take care of you.' How are you going to do it, in two months before the elections, to convince everybody, you've got to take care of yourself?"

The video is both filmed and purposefully obscured to ensure no identities are clear beyond Mitt Romney's, so we don't know who actually asked the question. The one person we do know was there besides Mitt however, is John Schnatter. The very real possibility that it was John Schnatter himself who asked this question is undeniable.

Regardless of who asked the question, consider that the 11-14 cents per pie is Schnatter's assertion, with no math offered to support that claim. Forbes' staff writer Caleb Melby does the math for us.3 Surprise. His results show far less cost per Papa John's pizza pie to fully implement "Obamacare". About 3.4 to 4.6 cents per pie.

Either way, when considering just how burdensome "Obamacare" really is on Papa John's business, recall Schnatter's quote from August:

"We're not supportive of Obamacare, like most businesses in our industry. But our business model and unit economics are about as ideal as you can get for a food company to absorb Obamacare,"1

There is no doubt that despite all the tax breaks in the Affordable Care Act for small businesses that provide healthcare to their employees, insuring more employees will certainly not be free. Yet wherever the true maximum costs for Papa John's lays in between the two assertions of 4.6 cents and 14 cents, we cannot overlook that Papa John's has a history of gaining more money from customers, yet hiding those price increases through mislabeled "fees". Again, recall Schnatter's statement from August:

"If Obamacare is in fact not repealed, we will find tactics to shallow out any Obamacare costs and core strategies to pass that cost onto consumers in order to protect our shareholders best interests,"1

Try ordering a Papa John's delivery. They tack on a "delivery fee" of usually around $2-3. Sounds fair enough, only that "delivery" fee does not go to the delivery driver.4 It is instead a tactic to shallow out costs and pass that onto consumers in order to protect shareholders' best interests. 

Note the effect this "delivery fee" tends to have on the delivery drivers when customers refuse to tip them, thinking that the fee added on to their bill has already taken care of that. So is it unrealistic to think that Schnatter would simply use "Obamacare" as an excuse to somehow raise prices and/or cut costs?

No. Of course not. He's already been blaming others for mislabeled price increases for many years.

Put all that together and no wonder there has been great backlash against Papa John's.  

The irony here is that over the last 4 years, Papa John's has experienced tremendous growth. Since President Obama's inauguration, the stock price has more than tripled! Yet since Schnatter's talk of potential cutbacks in employee hours to get around the "Obamacare" requirements, the backlash has already done damage equal to the entire 8 years of Papa John's stock growth under President Bush. The specifics are laid out here.5 Graphics and all.

Granted, that stock price drop now has two drivers. First there is the consumer backlash to Schnatter's comments and priorities. There is also now worry over a $250M lawsuit against Papa John's for illegal text message spamming of their customers in 2010. Even though the lawsuit is likely to fail because it was a third-party company that Papa John's hired to do the ads for them, the fact that this lawsuit has already passed it's first hurdle only acts to hurt Papa John's stock price. As Schnatter offers concerns that 14 cents per pizza pie is too heavy a burden, compare that to the effects (both best case and worst case scenario) of this lawsuit.

Click here to see the math

Schnatter is not the only food chain CEO to politicize "Obamacare" and announce they will do anything to ensure any "Obamacare" related costs come from employees and customers and not their profits.

Take Jimmy John's Gourmet Sandwiches CEO Jimmy John Liautaud. In an interview with Neil Cavuto on Oct. 15 this year, these extracted quotes follow the same talking points as Schnatter's comments, only he is first upfront about how well his business has done in the last 4 years:6

"the last four years have been very good to us"
"60,000 hourly workers"
"bring 'em down to 28 hours"
"there's no other way we can survive it"
"we think it will cost us 50 cents a sandwich"

Given what we already know about Papa John's, these statements from Liautaud sound awfully suspicious, especially the "no other way we can survive it" and "we think it will cost us 50 cents a sandwich" comments. However, without any math being shown, all we can do for now is be suspicious.

Given that these men are the CEOs of their franchises, they deserve more scrutiny over their entire brand name, as they generally have the power to pass policy down the chain from their minds to implementation by individual franchisees.

Already "experimenting" with the no full-time employees approach is Darden Restaurants.7 Among others, the company operates the Red Lobster, Olive Garden and Longhorn Steakhouse chains. They are now testing a 28 hours/week policy for all employees at "a select number" of restaurants in four markets.

Consider though the drop in labor costs they have already squeezed out. In 2010, Darden's labor costs were 33.1% of sales. It has steadily dropped to 30.8%.

3 out of 4 restaurants surrounding this mall are Darden restaurants.

But did they gain that extra profit through unethical labor practices?8 It's possible. Especially if you consider the charges and practices covered in this July article about another one of their restaurants, Capital Grille. They discuss underpayments, forcing workers to work off the clock, denial of overtime, and using servers' tips to supplement the pay of other non-tipped workers. Will such practices be pushed to the limits to squeeze every last penny from labor costs across all Darden restaurants? If so, will they then blame it on "Obamacare"?

Note that other individual restauranteurs are jumping on the "I'll cut employees' hours" bandwagon as a protest to "Obamacare".

Zane Tankel runs 40 Applebees franchises. While not CEO of the entire Applebees franchise system, Tankel is CEO of Apple-Metro, managing 40 New York area Applebees restaurants. He has publicly noted that he is considering the reduction in worker's hours for the Applebees restaurants he operates, but has yet to make any decision.9

It is fair to note that in the same interview, Tankel also offers a swirl of conflated comments over unions. He says that when he saw the President of the United Steelworkers Union speak, he likened it to him having just invaded Benghazi and won. He goes on to summarize that it was "truly a declaration of war", repeating that the Union President said he won.

Additionally, Tankel spoke of President Obama. "I think he's got to sit down and he's got to get in a closet, a dark closet.... Forget about dinner with Malia and his wife and all the kids. Invite the various parties over to the White House...Have them for dinner instead of quitting and going to dinner with family."9

Now I've heard the saying many times about locking differing parties in a room until they hammer out a compromise. But I've never heard someone proclaim that anyone, let alone the President of the United States, has got to get in a closet, let alone a dark closet. Is this a New York colloquialism I am not familiar with, or is the statement something else? I honestly cannot say.

Then there is John Metz, a Denny's franchisee. He openly commented about adding a 5% Obamacare surcharge to every bill, suggesting that customers could accordingly reduce their tip to their server.

Immediately afterwards, other Denny's locations saw drops in sales and got angry phone calls about Metz's comments.

Denny's CEO John Miller was not too pleased about that. In a Huffington Post article 10, he says:

"...his [Metz's] comments suggesting that guests might reduce the customary tip provided to their server as an offset to his proposed surcharge are inconsistent with our values and approach to business throughout our brand."

Currently, no such surcharges exist, nor are there any plans at the moment for any such Obamacare surcharge at any Denny's. Especially given the immediate backlash at the very mention of it by Metz, the idea is not likely to resurface.

This highlights the complicated interplay between corporate brand as a whole and the individual franchisee. Metz's Obamacare surcharge comments hurt other Denny's franchisees, even though they had no connection to Metz or his comments. Even Schnatter as CEO of the whole Papa John's brand has done damage to franchisees, many of whom ironically, are already exempt from providing healthcare to their employees by being small enough to have fewer than 50 employees.

But as the handful of restaurant companies and franchisees have been making headlines with their threats of surcharges and cutbacks in employees' hours all in the name of protesting "Obamacare", so has the backlash against such politicized actions. The backlash has been growing faster than the rate of business owners jumping on the anti-Obamacare bandwagon.

Note Schnatter's recent post Huffington Post contribution - "The Real Scoop on Papa John's and Obamacare".11 He clarifies that he never said he was going to cut jobs or close stores in response to "Obamacare". Frankly, I never saw that reported anywhere, but we all know there are many sources of really bad "reporting", so nonetheless, the clarification is not only just, but almost certainly factually true. Just as I'm sure is the following quote:

"And, we have no plans to cut team hours as a result of the Affordable Care Act."

Of course not. Even if all you did before was contemplate the idea and not plan it, it's already been shown that the potential backlash may cost even more than any potential savings.

But trying to give the appearance that the idea of reducing all employees to part-time status was never a serious consideration from his standpoint as CEO is where the offered transcription belies the goal.

When asked if franchise owners would do this, Schnatter responded:

"Well, in Hawaii there is a form of the same kind of health insurance and that's what you do, you find loopholes to get around it. That's what they're going to do."

Schnatter then clarifies that the reporter was asking him wether franchise owners would do this, not him as the CEO. The distinction is much harder to make when you as the CEO then answer "It's common sense." and offer no clarification that you as Papa John's CEO do not support the idea.

Nonetheless, Schnatter has now gone on record in his own words stating that he has no plans to cut workers' hours in response to the Affordable Care Act. That statement however does not negate the original statement he offered on "Obamacare" back in August:

"If Obamacare is in fact not repealed, we will find tactics to shallow out any Obamacare costs and core strategies to pass that cost onto consumers in order to protect our shareholders best interests,"1

If you noted the title of this piece, you may be asking by now what does all this have to do with the Postal Service. For the answer, be sure to read the next Liberal Heart, Moderate Mind post - the second half of this piece, coming soon...

1 - http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/08/papa-johns-obamacare-will-raise-pizza-prices-131331.html

2 - Jessica Lipscomb reported in Naplenews.com- http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2012/nov/07/papa-johns-ceo-obamacare-likely-to-raise-costs/

3 - http://www.forbes.com/sites/calebmelby/2012/11/12/breaking-down-centi-millionaire-papa-john-schnatters-obamacare-math/

4 - http://tipthepizzaguy.com/qna/2dollarfee.html

5 - http://www.mediaite.com/online/papa-johns-pizza-stock-price-tripled-under-president-obama/

6 - http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-world-cavuto/2012/10/16/jimmy-johns-founder-business-owners-unsure-future

7 - http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-10-07/business/os-darden-part-time-workers-20121007_1_darden-restaurants-health-insurance-olive-gardens

8 - http://www.inthesetimes.com/working/entry/13585/restaurant_workers_target_unsavory_labor_practices_at_darden/

9 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtrcxQwdquU&feature=player_embedded

10 - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/20/john-metz-dennys-obamacare-surcharge-_n_2146735.html

11 - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-h-schnatter/papa-johns-obamacare_b_2166209.html

DON'T VOTE!

I've got friends on the left, and I've friends on the right

I've got friends with a great libertarian plight

Of not having a candidate perfectly suited

To implement instantly everything rooted

In policy preferences seen as ideal

So they offer a statement that's simply surreal.

A phrase that they like to repeatedly claim -

That all of their choices are simply the same.

A rhetoric running now rampant and wild

That says 'cause our choices are too tame and mild,

A stand we should take - and the rest I do quote -

"The best choice of all is to simply NOT VOTE!"

Both candidates suffer big money donations

So surely they're equal in needing damnations

As issues exist where they both are remiss

Then everything else they will simply dismiss

But in tax codes and health care and energy sources

For millions of people the outcome of course is

No trivial matter they just can ignore

For they deeply impact all their lives to the core

Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security

Tested by ideological purity

FEMA and help to the poor through food aid

One candidate strengthens, the other would raid.

One views these programs as social contracts

The other as means to extract for more tax

breaks for status quo wealthy at any expense.

The other guy thinks this just makes no damn sense.

One will undo real accomplished big missions

And quickly return pre-existing conditions.

The other stands firm in these patient protections

Rather than health care through ER collections.

Rights of women is something that one would ensure.

The other would weaken and fully obscure

From day one all the progress that women have gained

And sign legislation to keep them restrained.

The candidate paying just 13 percent

Has balls to ask where all the tax money went.

Entitlements all - he says we must cut

As he lives in extreme economic self glut

The election DOES matter, the differences glaring

No matter the claims some are generally swearing.

For millions of people the stakes are quite high

To say any different is simply a lie.

So on who wins the ballots contested so fierce,

Illusion of similar outcomes let's pierce...

Or if you prefer this deceit to promote

Then sure, by all means, then really DON"T VOTE!

For more goodies like this, visit www.SnarkySigns.com

or find SnarkySigns on Facebook

Women and the GOP - a poem

I just finished animating this poem I did earlier this year. In the style of Dr. Seuss, the poem expresses my disgust with Congressional Republicans' focus not on jobs, but women's reproductive choices and access to such services.

The poem

If you like this, you can see many more images at SnarkySigns. 

On Facebook, visit the SnarkySigns page. Or visit www.SnarkySigns.com 

Currently, the Facebook page has the entire SnarkySigns album.

THE FUTURE OF DELMARVA PUBLIC RADIO

The Eastern Shore region of Delaware, Maryland and Virginia is known as Delmarva. The local public radio network features 2 stations. WSCL 89.5FM programs Classical Music, award-winning local news, and NPR. WSDL 90.7FM focuses on NPR talk radio. Together they are known as Delmarva Public Radio (DPR).

DPR is facing a real problem right now. Drastic changes are being seriously considered. Tuesday night was the only public forum on its future. 

WSCL 89.5FM began in 1987. Since its inception, it has been a partnership with Salisbury University (SU). Both DPR and SU had different names back then, but SU has housed the local public radio's operation from the beginning. Through the Salisbury University Fund (SUF), it has also had the oversight in securing not only that partnership, but the financial stability and future of the stations.

DPR was always told its home at SU was secure. But now there is a kink in that lifeline. DPR has been housed in Caruthers Hall from day one. Caruthers Hall is scheduled for demolition this Spring. The kick in the pants? This demolition is not news. It has been part of the plan for SU's growth for a decade now. DPR has been told all along not to worry. Even though any plans for DPR's new location have yet to be offered, their home at SU is safe.

Then comes Mother Nature and an economic recession. 

DPR's tower was hit by lightning last year. With a cost of over $100,000 to replace that, and budgets tightening from listeners and state coffers alike, DPR is now running in the red. The SUF did not have assets secured to cover such emergency costs.

DPR is not allowed to raise such funds outside of normal pledge drives, so not only did the SUF fail to be prepared for such an emergency as lightning, DPR had no means to secure such vital "rainy day" (or "lightning day") emergency funds.

Now, with no prior warning of any problems, SUF publicly released in September a report they contracted from the consultant group Public Radio Capital (PRC). This report was ordered to offer opinions and options on the sustainability and future of Delmarva Public Radio (DPR). 

PRC's report offers four options. First is the status quo option which it concludes is not sustainable and forecasts will only increase deficits every year. 

Option two is the "repeater" option where WSDL would drop the NPR talk programs and simply broadcast the same signal as WSCL. This they say would not produce the required financial savings.

The third option is the "PSOA Scenario". Under this proposal, current DPR staff would be let go and another broadcaster would contract to take over running the stations at reduced staff. Additionally, WSDL would be converted to "AAA" format. Translation - end the NPR talk radio and replace it with modern rock music.

From their own report, PRC states:

"As the operator takes over broadcasting on WSDL-FM, DPR will reduce expenses through elimination of news program acquisition, cuts in local programming, and reductions in various other expenses."

Despite painting this as the best scenario, PRC also says that this "…will result in loss of revenue in the first few years…"

The last option they present is one of license transfer to a new non-profit. They claim to have "discovered no local evidence that this scenario is either desirable or feasible", concluding in bold type that "Given the low probability of success, PRC cannot recommend the License Transfer Scenario."

In short, what PRC is proposing is a PSOA with 2 key elements: 

1) WSDL changes format to adult rock and reduces personnel to a skeleton staff. 

2) WSCL drastically scales back on NPR, local news, and in-house Classical programming.

However, given that DPR is often awarded for its local content, it will remain, but in a reduced capacity. Again from the PRC report:

"Finally, a PSOA does not come at the expense of local programming. While there may be less, what will remain or be created will fit best practices for public radio."

Best practices rarely means best services. It almost invariably means cheapest method. 

Consider the state of for profit radio stations today. No in depth news. That costs too much. Even headline news cuts profit. Many have automated music systems with a low paid babysitter. Most stations don't even go that far, opting instead to have one announcer pre-record intros and outros, program them into the computer, then leave the system to broadcast 24/7 while only paying a single announcer for a few hours of recording and programming. Best practices. Skeleton staff. Profit first. Quality last. 

Best practices in the realm of public radio may mean the same thing but with slightly better quality. Target vs. Wal-Mart maybe, but regardless of how "best practices" are sold as an abstract solution, it is a virtual guarantee of quality decline. Further consider how for profit radio stations competing in "best practices" are bought and sold faster than banks. Start to forego quality in public radio programming, even in desperate financial squeezes, and It is a foreseeable slippery slope to the loss of a national asset that is even more vital in today's over-saturation of sensationalism masquerading as journalism.

The reality though is that DPR is in this bind now. Lightning strike on the broadcast tower, fast approaching demo date for Caruthers Hall, and an economy improving too slowly to quickly resolve this dilemma. While it appears they dropped the ball in letting a situation advance to such a dire point without addressing it long ago, the board of the SUF is now faced with hard choices. 

The SUF board purchased the report from PRC. In September, they made the report public. On Tuesday Oct. 16, they held a public forum on the matter where PRC made its presentation, and the public was invited to comment. Well over 200 people attended. Dennis Hamilton delivered the PRC presentation.

The crowd gathers for the public hearing on the future of Delmarva Public Radio

Speaking of the status quo option, Hamilton stated that no matter who wins the coming election, "the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is going to be cut. Period." 

Federal funding for public broadcasting doesn't go direct to NPR or Big Bird, but instead to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). CPB then helps fund public broadcasting in areas that are in most need. On average, every federal dollar invested this way into public broadcasting is matched sixfold with listener and sponsor donations. In more rural areas, the CPB funding plays a heavier role. Frankly, though federal funding for public broadcasting is small, it does make the very real difference in many rural areas wether or not they have access to Big Bird and NPR.

However, federal funding is a related but separate issue here. There have been Conservative efforts to end such federal funding of public broadcasting for as long as there has been federal funding for public broadcasting. In the end those efforts to eliminate such taxpayer support have been stopped every time due to the public outcry of support over the value they bring to every community.

Still, Hamilton uses an expectation of withdrawal of federal contributions to public broadcasting as a bullet point in predicting an increasing financial unsustainability of Delmarva Public Radio. Hamilton later clarified that his statement on CPB being cut no matter election outcomes was just his opinion.

When offering a market analysis of public radio on Delmarva, Hamilton's presentation focused on the increased number of public radio channels in the region. 

On the other side of the Chesapeake Bay from Delmarva is the Washington, DC/Baltimore area. In recent years, public radio stations from that market have added repeater stations in Delmarva. These channels do not focus on Delmarva. They do however broadcast traffic conditions in DC and Baltimore. While hearing such updates may be a nice little reminder of why many have decided to live in the more peaceful Delmarva area rather than the hustle and bustle of Baltimore/DC, such information does nothing to serve the Delmarva public radio listenership.

Still, they are competition for public radio listeners on Delmarva. Hamilton presented a graphic of overlapping circles showing the reach of all the public radio frequencies in the region. There is overlap, and Hamilton saw no value in that. He asked if this is what was intended in the creation of public broadcasting by having "…these valuable channels duplicating one another…". Then he asked how we could "…rationalize and better use these channels here."

Hamilton was pointing to the overlap of public broadcasters in the area as an example of market saturation and rationale for DPR to drastically alter its broadcasts in response. I later thanked him for this presentation when I had my chance to speak. His chart of broadcast area circles may have been justification to him for PRC's proposals, but they also served to visualize a point I went there to make.

The largest circle with the widest reach in the area is WSCL. Classical programming by day, award-winning local segments, and vital NPR standards like Morning Edition and All Things Considered. Via WSCL 89.5FM, this core of Delmarva Public Radio still reaches more of the region than any public broadcasting frequencies added since 1987. A change in programming on WSCL would be far more than just one less frequency with which to receive NPR on Delmarva. It would mean large areas of Delmarva would lose their ONLY frequency with which they can receive NPR.

Many in the Delmarva area regularly commute to and from the metropolitan areas of DC and Baltimore. This requires travel along Route 50 over the Chesapeake Bay Bridge. As it stands now, the broadcast reach of public broadcasters in that metropolitan area extends only a short distance beyond the Bay Bridge before the signal degrades. That outer reach is roughly the same area where WSCL's signal begins to be solid. It is a simple task to hear All Things Considered in its entirety by switching from a western shore station to WSCL or vice versa. Eliminate NPR duplication on WSCL, and you simply lose access to NPR content for a good portion of that drive. 

The travelers this affects is not something to be taken lightly. Not only are the metropolitan areas west of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge business and work places of many who live on the Delmarva Eastern Shore, the Delmarva area is an oft-visited getaway for thousands of Washington, DC and Baltimore area residents.

The support for DPR extends beyond just the Delmarva Eastern Shore it directly services. Contrary to rumors that State officials seek to cut DPR, its value is recognized by many. Following Dennis Hamilton's PRC presentation Tuesday night, Mike Pretl gave a presentation on behalf of Friends of Delmarva Public Radio. He said:

"We have spoken to a number of State officials -- in the General Assembly, the Higher Education Commission, and Governor O'Malley's office -- about whether pressure was being asserted on the University to divest itself of DPR or other community assets or projects.  We were told reliably, that to the contrary, such a measure regarding our public radio station would be regarded as short-sighted by State officials, who believe that our scattered universities should play a productive role in the communities they were created to serve."

The board of SUF has decisions to make. They got their recommendations from PRC, and not one of them was good. The drastic proposals all centered around financial shortcuts over long-term quality. The SUF board also had the public hearing, and from that they saw the strength of support DPR has from every corner where its signal can be heard. 

Following any of PRC's proposals will not be easy. Any decisions they make regarding the future of DPR must now be carefully weighed against not only the economic, but also the long-term benefit of all the positive branding and goodwill DPR brings to Salisbury University. For 25 years, DPR's partnership with SU has synergistically benefitted both the region and the University alike. To follow the recommendations of PRC would put that all at risk.

Before deciding, I would suggest looking closer at the history of what PRC has actually done with the capital of other public radio they have been dealt with. The integrity of public radio they claim to protect through their involvement is contradicted in more than one instance. They have even been called the Bain Capital of public radio. This linked article offers a multitude of detailed examples:

http://keeppublicradiopublic.com/2011/08/26/public-radio-capital-money-from-the-sky/

Suffice it to say that getting involved with Public Radio Capital(PRC) beyond simply purchasing a report of their opinions is not likely to offer a path of long-term sustainability and integrity. Nor is such a compact likely to result in anything but a profit for PRC, regardless of how DPR fares in those dealings.

Note in the linked article that PRC has a history of being the PSOA and even lowball purchasing public radio stations for themselves.

Then consider these two phrases from PRC's report to DPR:

"A PSOA gives the owner the flexibility of selling the station at the conclusion of the PSOA term, or extending the term of the PSOA."

"By executing an option agreement, which can be attached to a PSOA, the operator could acquire the station at a predetermined price."

PRC may list any potential PSOA as "to be determined" in their reports, but they are at the ready to become that PSOA if they can profit.

Is that where this is heading for Delmarva Public Radio? I certainly can't say for sure. But I can't allow that to happen without me having at least asked these pertinent questions.

In the Delmarva Region, it is true that there is overlap in signal delivery. I can tell you from experience that in some areas of the region, I can pick up All Things Considered on 4 or 5 stations. I also can tell you that signal strength and stability for any given station depends on where you are in the region part of the region. In almost all areas, WSCL is the strongest and clearest signal. As described, in many, especially as you head toward the Chesapeake Bay, WSCL is the ONLY signal.

Hamilton offered concern over "…these valuable channels duplicating one another…", but I offer concern in dismantling that duplication. There are two aspects of duplication. Complete duplication where not only content, but time aired is consistent from one channel to the next. I rely on this when traveling so that I may have unbroken access to All Things Considered. Secondly, there is content duplication aired at differing times. I rely on this as well, especially on weekends so I have far greater chance of catching my favorite NPR weekend programs at the moment I must travel. 

This may seem to some like I just feel entitled to an expensive convenience that I do not have to pay for. Frankly, given the great worth that comes from our public broadcasting, it can be difficult at times to not individually feel over-rewarded by public broadcasting when only looking at public radio financing and what any one listener actually pays for that service. That reward however is never limited to the convenience of individual listeners. Every listener gains individually from public broadcasting. That is multiplied thousands of times over to an audience that may be tuning in one radio at a time, but is still far larger than an audience of one. Society itself benefits. 

Though the tangibles of these benefits may be hard to quantify, they are indeed great. The costs of their loss must be seriously considered before allowing economic concerns to dictate even the smallest degree of compromise on the integrity of these broadcasts. Once compromises on quality begin in the name of economics, the compromises will never stop. The excellence that is Delmarva Public Radio will cease to exist even in reduced form.

SU always has, and continues to offer tremendous value to the whole region. Arts programs, debate hosting, educational outreach all are open to not just the students of SU, but to the community at large. The enrichment not just to Salisbury, MD, but to the region at large is an invaluable core of SU. DPR has been an ingrained part of that outreach for 25 years. I thank the board for having this public hearing and not just jumping on PRC's report. I for one hope that the board of the SUF finds a way continue the partnership between SU and DPR that the whole region benefits from. 

Note that this public forum on the future of Delmarva Public Radio was on the same night as the second Presidential debate. Lousy scheduling, sure. However, on the drive home, I was able to listen to the debate in progress. The channel that carried the debate? WSDL 90.7FM. The same channel being proposed by PRC to either be sold or change formats to rock music. Ironic.

To read the report from Public Radio Capital (PRC) on Delmarva Public Radio:

http://www.salisbury.edu/foundation/docs/SUF-DPR-Report-8-30-2012.pdf