Winning

Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse reported the following:

The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) just released another survey.  The Small Business Optimism Index has soared to 108.8 in August; that’s an all-time record in the survey’s 45-year history, topping the July 1983 highwater mark of 108.  This incredible surge in economic outlook began with the era of President Donald J Trump.

The article includes the following chart:

Wow.

The article further reports:

According to the release:

“At the beginning of this historic run, Index gains were dominated by expectations: good time to expand, expected real sales, inventory satisfaction, expected credit conditions, and expected business conditions,” said NFIB Chief Economist Bill Dunkelberg.

“Now the Index is dominated by real business activity that makes GDP grow: job creation plans, job openings, strong capital spending plans, record inventory investment plans, and earnings. Small business is clearly helping to drive that four percent growth in the domestic economy.”

  • 26% of companies plans to increase employment.
  • 38% of companies have current job openings.
  • 34% of companies consider this a good time to expand.
  • 34% of companies expect the economy to improve.

Economic policies make a difference.

This chart shows some other areas of progress:

This is President Trump’s recovery. If you would like this recovery to continue, I suggest you elect Republicans to Congress in November. If you elect Democrats, they will quickly end the tax breaks and other policies that have resulted in this exceptional economic growth.

Small Business Growth Was Killed Under Dodd-Frank

On Friday, Investor’s Business Daily posted an editorial about the impact of the Dodd-Frank Bill on the growth of small businesses in America.

The editorial reports:

A new study released by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), the quasi-private think tank that serves as the referee for deciding U.S. upturns and downturns, shows the damage done by Dodd-Frank to small businesses was severe.

The study, “The Impact of the Dodd-Frank Act on Small Business,” by economists Michael D. Bordo and John V. Duca, goes a long way toward explaining why GDP growth under Obama was a mere 2%, a full third slower than the long-term average.

It’s based on a long-term and well-known dynamic. Small businesses grow faster than large ones, and account for over two-thirds of all U.S. jobs growth. Dodd-Frank’s damage was substantial and persistent.

The editorial explains how the regulations impacted small businesses:

Dodd-Frank made making loans to large companies far more attractive. They did so by new compliance rules that treated small and startup loans as inherently more risky than big-business loans.

In economic terms, Dodd-Frank increased the fixed cost of making a loan to smaller companies. So banks simply stopped lending to them. Overnight, businesses that once had lines of credit lost them. Many closed. Startups could get nothing.

This may sound like a wonky debate, but it isn’t. Dodd-Frank’s destructive lending restrictions destroyed millions of jobs and kept entrepreneurs from creating thousands and thousands of new, wonderful businesses.

And it also explains why, with a few deft strokes of his presidential pen, cutting both regulations and taxes sharply, President Trump has been able to offset Dodd-Frank’s growth-killing rules and restored 3% growth to the economy.

The cutting of regulations and the tax cuts created the economic atmosphere that has resulted in stunning economic growth in the past year. Now if the Federal Reserve will be very careful as it raises interest rates to reasonable levels, we should be able to come out of the slump we were in during the Obama administration smoothly.

Sometimes Reality Is Just Not Fun

The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is known for its fight for a $15 minimum wage for fast food workers. The union chooses to ignore the fact that these are entry-level workers learning the basics of holding a job–showing up on time, being conscientious, treating people with respect, etc. Recruiting these people into the SEIU provides a larger base for union dues (and bigger donations to Democratic candidates), but where has the battle gotten the workers?

Ed Rensi posted an article at Forbes on Tuesday talking about the consequences of the push for a $15 minimum wage for fast food workers.

The article points out a few of the unintended consequences:

Let’s start with automation. In 2013, when the Fight for $15 was still in its growth stage, I and others warned that union demands for a much higher minimum wage would force businesses with small profit margins to replace full-service employees with costly investments in self-service alternatives. At the time, labor groups accused business owners of crying wolf. It turns out the wolf was real.

Earlier this month, McDonald’s announced the nationwide roll-out of touchscreen self-service kiosks. In a video the company released to showcase the new customer experience, it’s striking to see employees who once would have managed a cash register now reduced to monitoring a customer’s choices at an iPad-style kiosk.

…Of course, not all businesses have the capital necessary to shift from full-service to self-service. And that brings me to my next correct prediction–that a $15 minimum wage would force many small businesses to lay off staff, seek less-costly locations, or close altogether.

…The out-of-state labor groups who funded these initiatives aren’t shedding tears over the consequences. Like their Soviet-era predecessors who foolishly thought they could centrally manage prices and business operations to fit an idealistic worldview, economic reality keeps ruining the model of all gain and no pain. This brings me to my last correct prediction, which is that the Fight for $15 was always more a creation of the left-wing Service Employees International Union (SEIU) rather than a legitimate grassroots effort. Reuters reported last year that, based on federal filings, the SEIU had spent anywhere from $24 million to $50 million on the its Fight for $15 campaign, and the number has surely increased since then.

This money has bought the union a lot of protesters and media coverage. You can expect more of it on November 29. But the real faces of the Fight for $15 are the young people and small business owners who have had their futures compromised. Those faces are not happy ones.

I suspect that over time many of the businesses involved would have switched to kiosks anyway, but the drive for $15 an hour definitely helped speed up the process. The fact that the SEIU was able to gather (or pay) protestors and that the news covered this story in a positive light is evidence that we are not teaching people basic economics in school. Somehow we have lost sight of the fact that businesses are in business to make a profit. When businesses are no longer profitable, they go out of business. In this case even the businesses that could afford to automate cut back on their workforce because of increasing labor costs. This is another example of shortsightedness on the part of the unions and of the law of unintended consequences.

Finding More Ways To Spend Americans Tax Dollars In Other Countries

CNS News reported today that the new Women’s Entrepreneurship Trust Fund, announced by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last month on a visit to Peru, is making an initial contribution of $900,000 to launch pilot programs here in Peru and in El Salvador, What??!!!

The article reports:

The money, according to Clinton, will be used to train rural women in Peru and in El Salvador for jobs as entrepreneurs and small business owners.

Clinton said the U.S. and Peru were working together as partners to support women in rural areas who “are replacing thousands of hectares of illegal coca fields with profitable crops, like chocolate and coffee and palm oil.”

Approximately $500,000 of the money will go to Peru. The program will go far beyond job training, Clinton said.

“With $500,000 in initial funding, we’ll focus on helping Peruvian women advocate for their own needs, mobilize broad national support for issues affecting them, particularly rural women.

Why is the American government doing this? What guarantee do we have that the money will go to the people who actually need it? Could this money be better spent to help American entrepreneurs and small business owners who are struggling under the Obama economy?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Unionization of Home Based Family Care Providers In Massachusetts

The following letter is reprinted with the permission of the writer. It originally appeared in the Community Advocate which covers Hudson, Marlboro, Northboro, Southboro, Westboro, and Shrewsbury.

Dear Editor,

I’m writing to set the record straight about the recently passed legislation forcing family care providers into a state employee union if they accept one child on a state voucher.

Rep. Carolyn Dykema has claimed that is untrue. As a family care provider who is living with the situation, Dykema is wrong. We are home based businesses that care for children. We are the ultimate small business.

For the past eight years, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has tried to recruit us into their union. No one joined. That should be an indication that we don’t want to be part of a union. Unfortunately, the legislature did not pay attention to what we wanted and they passed the bill anyways.

Dykema will say there were hearings and testimony. The people who testified were connected to the SEIU. The rest of us were working managing our small business. How were we supposed to know about this legislation being forced upon us?

Unlike the big corporate centers which are exempt from being forced into a union, we don’t have a lobbyist. We are just normal people trying to run a home based business. We expect that our legislators will protect us not betray us for a big powerful labor union.

Dykema will also say that this legislation was passed to help us providers get an increase in our reimbursement rates from the state. That’s untruthful as well. The legislature can increase those rates without forcing us into the union. The Senate took a vote on increased rate in July and it was rejected.

If this can happen to home-based family care providers like us, then it can happen to your business. I urge voters to hold Rep. Dykema accountable for this very anti-small business vote.

Kathy D’Agostino
Kathy’s House Family Child Care and PreSchool
Watertown

Just for the record, Marty Lamb is opposing Carolyn Dykema in the 2012 House of Representatives election in Massachusetts. He does not support this legislation.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

There Is A Time And A Place For Fun–This Is Not It !

This is a campaign ad from the Republican party. It is not a joke–the audio you hear is actually real. I have no problem with having fun and being lighthearted, but this is a presidential campaign that will decide the future of America and American small business. The bottom line here is, “How much freedom do you want as an American citizen?”

This is the video (now on YouTube):

Enhanced by Zemanta

Words Have Consequences

Yesterday Guy Benson at Townhall.com posted a story about the “Crumb and Get It” Bakery in New River Valley, Virginia. This mom and pop bakery has been open for about three months, and the advance team for Vice President Joe Biden was hoping to use the bakery for a photo-op for the campaign. When the advance team approached the owners about doing the photo-op, Chris McMurray, the owner of the bakery said, “no.”

The article reports:

Why in the world would a new business owner say “no” to a photo op with the Vice President of the United States? McMurray said it was President Obama’s recent remarks about small business and who built what. “Very simply, ‘you didn’t build that’” McMurray said. “Speaking of small businesses and entrepreneurs all across this country and actually last night my wife was up all night. No sleep, she’s worked a full 24 hours.”

It isn’t surprising that the owners said no to the photo-op. What is surprising is what happened next.

The story continues:

Secret Service officers associated with Vice President Joe Biden bought a pile of cupcakes from the baker who refused to host Biden at his shop — and they did so out of gratitude. It’s a startling news nugget at the bottom of a local report. “Shortly after Crumb and Get It told Biden’s advance people ‘no’ — the secret service walked in and told [owner] Chris McMurray “Thanks for standing up and saying ‘no’ — then they bought a whole bunch of cookies and cupcakes,” according to the Valley Reporter (Va.). McMurray refused to host the Biden entourage as a protest of Obama’s comment, made in the nearby town of Roanoke, that “if you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.” The Secret Service’s purchase proved to be a herald of things to come, as Virginia locals rewarded McMurray with a rush of business this morning. The bakery ran out of food by 1:15 pm.

I think there are a lot of small businessmen who have worked long hours to build their businesses and are trying to keep their businesses running in the Obama economy who feel that way. The combination of over-regulation and the impending taxes which will take effect on January 1st have created a very difficult business climate. I am very concerned as to whether or not America’s economy can survive four more years of Obamanomics.

Thank you, Chris McMurray, for your courage.

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

When Legislation Gets Out Of Hand

Yesterday the Daily Caller posted an article about the Dodd-Frank bill that was supposed to remedy the problems that caused the 2008 economic meltdown. Aside from the fact that the bill does not address the major cause of the meltdown–the sub-prime mortgage market, there are a few other issues with the bill.

The article reports:

According to a release The Daily Caller obtained that will be sent out with the announcement of the new Web service, the legislation — and the rules government regulators have written to go with it — has already had a profound effect on the financial sector.

Regulators have written only 185 of the expected 400 rules. But those 185 rules are expected to cost the private sector more than 24 million man-hours each year to comply.

How much money does 24 million man-hours actually cost the private sector?

The article further points out:

Texas Republican Rep. Randy Neugebauer, the chairman of the committee’s subcommittee on oversight and investigations, told The Daily Caller that means that instead of hiring people to handle small business loans, banks will be hiring staff to comply with the new government regulations, ultimately having a negative impact on job creation.

“For example, let’s just get it down to the community banker — the person that loans money to most of the small businesses in our country,” Neugebauer said in a phone interview. “We’ve had a few community bankers come in here and say, ‘you know, they’re hiring a lot more compliance officer than they are loan officers.’ That is increasing the cost of banking and, ultimately, they have to charge higher interest rates and higher fees.”

Punishing people who make a profit will not prevent financial difficulties in the future, it will only create them. It is time we repealed Dodd-Frank and waited for a pro-business Congress to rewrite it. There is nothing wrong with being pro-business–business provides jobs and income for Americans. If we do not support business, we will eventually have a nation where everyone expects the government to support them and there is no one to pay taxes to the government. Unless there is serious change in Washington, that is where we are headed.

 

 

 
Enhanced by Zemanta

The Senate Campaign In Massachusetts Has Begun

Scott Brown, Republican U.S. Senator represent...

Image via Wikipedia

The election is a year away, but in Massachusetts the race for the Senate seat currently held by Scott Brown is already underway. I have seen ads on television from various groups. I have seen some of the snide remarks made in the debates between Democrat candidates. I guess it’s going to be a long year.

Massachusetts voters are responsible for the people they send to Washington and the impact those people have on the economy. I received the following press release in my email tonight on some recent statements by Democrat Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren:

Professor Warren Calls For Higher Payroll Taxes On Small Business Owners
In The Same Speech, She Hypocritically Blames Others For “Voting Against” Small Businesses

 BOSTON – During a speech to the Blackstone Valley Chamber of Commerce yesterday, Harvard Professor Elizabeth Warren advocated raising payroll taxes on people making as little as $108,000 a year – a proposal that would impact the very same small businesses she accuses Republicans of “voting against.”

 As reported in today’s Worcester Telegram & Gazette, Warren answered a question from an audience member about payroll taxes by saying:

 Not shying away from point-blank questions from Gaudette Insurance Agency President Lee Gaudette about funding Social Security for the baby boom generation, Ms. Warren said that if income were taxed for Social Security at a flat rate, instead of having the taxable portion capped at $108,000, the program would pay for itself.

 Earlier in her speech, however, Warren said that “small businesses are the crucial engine of job creation in Massachusetts and across the country” and went on to accuse Republicans of “voting against small businesses.”

 “Professor Warren’s double-speak on small businesses is breathtaking,” said Nate Little, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Republican Party. “Her endorsement of a tax hike on those making $108,000 a year demonstrates how fundamentally out-of-touch she is with the concerns of entrepreneurs and small business owners. Next year’s election will be about the economy, and it’s clear that Professor Warren’s economic plans would crush the people she rightfully describes as the ‘engine of job creation.’”

The race begins.

Enhanced by Zemanta