5-15-13 by Ronald C. Lazof


Trend is Toward Fewer Hours Not More Jobs
First, let me offer congratulations to the 165,000 families who’s personal unemployment rate went from 100% to 0%, always a joyous event, both in terms of economics, as well as self-worth and esteem, during the last month!

Unfortunately, it is widely estimated that the minimum average monthly number of new jobs needed, to maintain both work force participation levels and reduce underemployment and unemployment numbers (U6 is currently in excess of 22,000,000 Americans, and the civilian work force increases by more than 200,000 a month) is 250,000!  And the percentage of those employed to our total population has now shrunk to a  low of 56.8%.  This is a different number than the civilian work force participation rate which is now at 63.3% (the ratio of those in the work force to those that are employed and unemployed and still looking for work.)  Of the 165,000 added 176,000 were in the private sector.  This is also a cause for celebration, as it means government employment shrunk by 11,000!

Let’s look closer at one segment of the employment numbers, that of the food and beverage (sometimes denominated as the leisure and hospitality) industry.  We were told that included the 165,000 new jobs were 39,000 jobs in this sector – that is clearly a good thing.  We were also told that included within the 165,000 new jobs were 278,000 involuntary part-time and 163,000 voluntary part-time or temporary jobs, for a total of 441,000 new part-time jobs, which in turn means that the reciprocal or 276,000 FULL-TIME JOBS WERE LOST – CLEARLY NOT A GOOD THING.  Part-time being defined as all jobs less than 32 hours per week. During the past year involuntary part-time employment increased by 222,000 jobs.  Another factor to consider is that the average work hours continued to fall and is now down to 34.4 hours.

If we put all of this information together with the number of total jobs existent in the food and beverage sector we can easily make an explanatory supposition that this increase is related causally to Obama-care.  We know that employers in general are acting to arrange their affairs to comply, or avoid the necessity to comply, with the mandatory coverage and penalty provisions.   This would naturally lead to reduced hours, less than 30 per week and additional part time employee head-counts, at the ratio of 3 to 1.  In other words if an employer has 21 employees capable of part time scheduling and had previously had them working 40 hours, the employer could now provide the same hourly coverage with 28 employees working 30 hours per week.

There are 14,000,000 employees in the food and beverage sector of the labor market. If only 50% of those jobs were capable of part-time scheduling and only 50% of the employers capable of scheduling those employees were to make this calculation and take the above action, this would result in the “manufacture” of 1,112,000 additional “jobs” (all of them part-time) and the loss of 3,500,000 fulltime jobs, having the result of changing the “Job Report Top Line Unemployment Rate from 7.6% to 6.8% without doing our economy any good at all!

Perhaps that is the real intention of Obama-care; if we can just (a) encourage more employers to make their employees part-time and (b) encourage more former employees to leave the work force we can drive the Unemployment Rate down and at least claim to have a fully recovered economy, unless of course you really care about more than just having fun with numbers!

Lets talk about the Second Amendment; and “Gun Control”

Lets talk about the Second Amendment;


1. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of The United States of Americ

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

2. Infringed, as per the new on line Dictionary

Infringe – To impinge, to come into contact or encroach or have an impact; to infringe is to encroach on a right or privilege or to violate.”

 3. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of The United States of America

 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 4. Arms, as per the new on line Dictionary


 A weapon, especially a firearm


 For those of us for whom the words of the Constitution still have the meaning for which they were intended, the issue of regulation of arms by the Federal Government would seem particularly straight forward.  Clearly by the ordinary meaning of the words used, it was the Framers intent to prohibit the Federal Government from any regulation of arms.  Since any ‘regulation’ is by definition an infringement, and the power to regulate implies the power to abolish or terminate, this should be case closed on national regulation!

If there is a consensus of the People (the citizens of the United States of America) to change this mandate, then the Framers provided not one, but two methodologies for Amending the Constitution.  One of which has never been used (the calling of a Constitutional Convention) but the other was been successfully used 27 times. Accordingly if the President and or his allies or others wish to advocate the abridgement or infringement or regulation of the 2nd Amendment their Constitutional course of action is clear, and they should proceed to the work.  If I am given the opportunity to vote or participate by advocacy or other means I will oppose such an amendment.  If not, and it passes, I will abide by the then revised law of the land.

Alternatively, those who would regulate arms may proceed at the State level.  In many (44) States such as Colorado and Texas the State Constitutions contain similar provisions;

Colorado “The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.”  Art. II, § 13 (enacted 1876, art. II, § 13).

Texas Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.  Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1876)

So in Colorado you may carry arms openly but not concealed unless the State so permits and in Texas the State reserved to itself the right to regulate the carrying of arms whether concealed or not.  In each case further regulation would seems to require Amendment of the State Constitutions.  No where is there a right to further regulate or specify the kind, size, description, features, rate of fire, size of magazine, components, or color of the arms.

Furthermore or all State Constitutions contain provisions for their amendment so again if there be the “will of the people” for regulation the course of required action is clear.  Proceed under our laws and advocate and pass, if you can and dare, the amendment you desire.  As for me, and many others, again, if I am given the opportunity to vote or participate by advocacy or other means I will oppose the proposed amendment.  If not, and it passes, I will abide by the law of the land.

It is not the Constitutional exercise of our laws, including the right of the people or any group of people to assemble and petition the government, be it at the Federal or State level that creates issues for many of us described as “on the right,” but rather the Extra-Constitutional use of power not granted, that cannot be endured or permitted!

Therefore, if you believe in regulating arms, at the State or federal level, proceed as you would have others proceed, within the law!

On Presidential Debates

THOUGHTS ON PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES: I just know you thought this article was going to be a “rant” about the personalities and politics of 2012, but you are WRONG!  I want to take on the process itself, which I find to be both necessary in the provision of consumable information to the electorate and ridiculous in its operational mechanics, in other words like many things our government is involved with and managing, I find it broken.

The problem is with the format and management and I believe it is easy to fix.  Hence my proposal as follows;

  1. There should be 3 Presidential debates and 1 Vice Presidential Debate, televised and broadcast without cost to the candidates or the federal government by any and all stations desiring same;
  2. The Federal government as the administrator of the electro-magnetic spectrum owned by “We the People” should mandate that each user, to which it licenses use, provide, without charge, every two years 1 hour per night of Presidential political coverage time slots to be allocated based solely on the proportion of support enjoyed by each (perhaps determined by a poll) and prohibit all other TV and Radio commercials, in order to bring the cost of politics back from the brink of the disastrous wholesale marketing of “access.”
  3. Each debate should be 2 hours long, and consist solely of questions (to be equally divided between the camps on the same basis as above) to be asked by one candidate to the other, to be preceded by the question and a statement of the asking candidate’s position on the issue, with all questions and answers to be of equal time length.
  4. Strict and equal time allocations should be enforced by turning off the “mike” automatically at the end of each person’s time.
  5. In lieu of moderators there should be a referee or judge from each camp who’s sole function is to verify the time allocations with no speaking role whatsoever.
  6. The candidates should be prohibited from talking over each other, approaching each other or otherwise being impolite by gesture or body language.
  7.  At the debates end each participant will have 5 minutes to make their case or summarize their position.