Friday, November 21, 2008

Waste Industries Abandons Customers and Charges Them a Deactivation Fee

Even though this is a local issue in Gwinnett County Georgia, it could be affecting other unsuspecting customers in the United States. How can a company charge you a deactivation fee when they are discontinuing service? The company I’m referring to is Waste Industries, one of the largest Solid Waste Collection Agencies in the south, with reported annual revenue of over 100 million dollars. This is the company that I regretfully have had my service with.

In yesterdays’ post I gave a little background on a situation that is happening here in Gwinnet County Georgia. Gwinnett is limiting the number of trash collectors in unincorporated Gwinnett County to just two. We have had several trash collectors (one of which is Waste Industries) who either did not bid, or lost their bid, to continue service in Gwinnett County. I really wanted to give this post then, but I’m glad I waited until today. First of all I was able to give some background to those who are not aware, and secondly, there were some announcements made public this morning.

As you probably can tell by now, my service provider is/was Waste Industries. I received my final bill from them on Monday which should only reflect coverage through the end of the year. I was enraged when I saw the bill included a $23.50 deactivation fee. How could they charge this? I did not deactivate my service, they did. I was not in breach of contract in any way, and my bills were always paid on time. If anyone is in breach of contract it would be Waste Industries for not being awarded the contract through Gwinnett County. As far as I’m concerned they would still be welcome to pickup my trash if they had won the contract. Wanting to get to the bottom of this I wanted to check the Terms of Service on their web site. I found a big link just for those people in Gwinnett County. I found this following explanation from the CEO “Jim Perry” to be laughable.



Dear Valued Customer,


Waste Industries has enjoyed providing service in Gwinnett County for the past thirteen years and I would like to take this opportunity to thank each and every one of you for your loyal patronage. Regretfully, Gwinnett County has elected to take away your right to choose a waste hauler, and we will not be allowed to service you after December 31. Please be assured, however, that we fully intend to continue to provide outstanding service through the end of the year.


While we understand that this transition may cause you some inconvenience, please understand that this situation is solely a result of Gwinnett County’s action. We also ask that you consider the impact this will have on our local employees and their families. As a result of the County’s decision we are forced to close our Atlanta East branch. We are making every attempt to find jobs for these hard working men and women but, unfortunately, many of them will be without a job at the end of the year.


Your last invoice from Waste Industries will include an account deactivation fee. Please allow me to explain this charge. The modest $23.50 charge is a demobilization fee and not a rate increase. We regret being unable to issue advance notice of this fee, but Waste Industries was not informed that it had not been given the right to continue to provide service in the county until November 5. The short notice that we are now required to be out of the county by January 1 has placed substantial hardships on us. The fee addresses an array of additional costs and difficulties including, but not limited to:


• Demobilizing an entire branch.

• Extending employee COBRA health benefits beyond employment.

• Protecting a workforce that knows it will no longer be needed.

• Recovering assets.• Setting up call centers to deal with inevitable transition issues.

• Collection of accounts receivable in a short period of time.


As you can see from the examples above, the costs incurred by Waste Industries to demobilize will far exceed the amount it will receive through the deactivation fee.
We appreciate your understanding in this matter and hope to have the opportunity to serve you in the future.


Sincerely,


Jim Perry, CEOWaste Industries



Mr. Perry guess what, those bullet points are called a cost of doing, or not doing business. Most of which you would still have if you continued service in Gwinnett or not. You address me as a “valued customer”, and you thank me for my “Loyal Patronage”. Do you think I am a fool? I guess you don’t value my being a customer enough to win the contract. It is also obvious that you don’t want my loyal patronage to write to, or petition, Gwinnett County on your behalf. Obviously, you want to show thanks to your “loyal customers” by sticking us with the bill that finances your cut and run. If you had been awarded the contract, or even a portion of it, would I still be a valued customer and be paid an appreciation fee? I would bet not!

Well, I am not about to take this laying down. I sent a firm, but polite email to Gwinnett Clean and Beautiful regarding this issue Tuesday. Shannon Waldo from GCB kindly responded to me on Thursday with the following:


As Gwinnett County noted publically yesterday, they officially notified Waste Industries that they have allegedly violated the Gwinnett County Solid Waste Ordinance by charging an unauthorized de-activation fee. We cannot advise you to pay the fee or to not pay the fee, all we can advise is to direct your inquiry back to Waste Industries. Gwinnett County has stated that it will take any and all actions authorized by the Ordinance and law, including calling waste Industries performance bond.


Shannon Waldo
Program Coordinator


Gwinnett Clean and Beautiful Services, Inc.
770-822-5187 Phone
770-822-5179 Fax
http://www.gwinnettcb.org/
http://www.gwinnettcbservices.org/



I further inquired with her if any other company was trying to charge the same sort of deactivation fee. Her reply was that Waste Industries was the only one. I think if there was some sort of legal way to do this all of the companies would be doing it. I then called Waste Industries at a local number I found (678) 328-1650. I informed the person on the phone that I had no intention of paying that fee. He asked me for my address and said OK. He definitely did not want to talk about the issue but when pressed for some answers he would only say his company informed him it was totally legal for them to charge that fee. I don’t think this will be the end of it. This morning Benjamin Thomas, a lawyer representing Waste Industries, posted a reply to the allegation of Gwinnett County about Waste Industries violating a County Ordinance. In it, he defends the company’s action by stating, the additional fee does not fall subject to the ordinance because it is not an increase of the rate. He continues to threaten Gwinnett with legal action if they call in the $150,000 performance bond. The battle continues.

As for me, I have canceled my automatic bill payment and will be paying it manually. I don’t mind paying for services rendered, but my remittance will not include the deactivation fee. I will however include the following letter:





Dear Waste Industries,


Your attempt to levy a $23.50 deactivation fee to my final bill is unacceptable, and per Gwinnett County’s notification to you on 18-Nov-08, may not be legal, to the extent that they have mentioned revoking your $150K performance bond. Your response to this notification posted on your website today states that this is not a rate increase but an additional fee. I would have to argue. Per Mike Ingle, as interviewed by AJC, and Jim Perry CEO, this fee is to cover benefits to employees and other items related to loosing business in Gwinnett. These items as described are normally considered normal costs of doing business and are already reflected in your rate. I don’t mind if you keep your branches and employees in Gwinnett, so as far as I’m concerned you don’t have to fire anyone or shut anything down. Feel free to use these resources to service customers in neighboring areas where you are permitted to do business.


By no fault on my part were you unable to competitively bid for my business. If you and your employees are unable to continue my service due to contractual issues with the county, I was not in breach of any agreement. In fact, as a paying customer in good faith your fiduciary responsibility belongs to me, and if any breach of agreement has been committed, it would have been by your Company in failure to continue service. Gwinnett County may have given us both a raw deal. You lost my business and I lost the advantages of a free market. However, it is not my responsibility to recover your costs of doing business.


I explained my intention on this, to one of your representatives when I made a phone inquiry. He took my address and it was OK. I therefore, will pay my December bill as I always have, minus the $23.50.


I assure you if you try to impact my credit, place a lien against my property, or have a collection agent contact me, I will pursue legal action against you. I have been in contact with Gwinnett County regarding this as well, and I will be forwarding them a copy of this note later this morning.


Sincerely,


Michael Gill



I can not tell you what will happen (or how this will end), but you are welcome to use any of my ideas in a response to Waste Industries. Please feel free to send a link to this post to anyone who might be affected.




Read more...

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Gwinnett County Paying For a Monopolized Utility Through Property Taxes!

About ten days ago, a good friend of mine forwarded me an email informing me Gwinnett County will be going to a mandatory solid waste collection system in January 2009. Evidently, in April 2008, the Gwinnett County Board of Commissioners adopted, and approved a new plan that designated Gwinnett Clean and Beautiful (GCB Services, Inc.) to implement, manage and enforce a new enhanced waste and recycling program. This is supposed to increase recycling, reduce pollution and lead to a “clean and beautiful” Gwinnett County. While this should be a good thing, I always have a bit of skepticism and wonder what it will cost.


Currently in Gwinnett County it appears that everybody and their brother collects trash. Right now, in my neighborhood noisy and smelly trash trucks are running about everyday, and on some days, we have multiple companies and trucks coming through. To be honest, I see more trash trucks than school busses. This should indicate something is really wrong. But one could look at this and say, it is “capitalism at its best”. Several companies competing for your hard earned dollars. This competition should imply better service at a lower cost. Believe me, I am one of the largest supporters of capitalism and the free market society; and I love to see it at work. But, in the case of trash pickup where I live, this did not happen; even with so many choices. Without going into many details, it appears that mutual price fixing was the name of the game here. Over the last several years, service and quality have drastically reduced, while prices skyrocketed. The prices were about the same no matter who you called. You would think I would be happy about a change, but guess what?

Starting in January 2009, only 2 companies will be permitted to pickup trash in unincorporated Gwinnett County. Advance Disposal Service Atlanta LLC will cover the northern part of the county, and Waste Pro of Georgia will cover the southern part. Since the service demand for each of these suppliers will increase, the operational costs per pickup should be greatly reduced. As a result, this should be reflected in a better value. One major problem with this is it eliminates competition for the consumer business, even between these two companies. You are assigned your provider with no choice. This tells me that we are being forced to move from free market participation, to a government contracted monopoly. We all know what abuses can arise with monopolies, so I won’t cover that here. If being forced to be serviced by a monopoly isn’t bad enough, just wait it gets even worse. There will be a phase-in period. From January through June, customers will pay a $20.45 monthly fee directly to their new agency. Good enough, I can understand a company wanted to be paid for services rendered. After June a $17.86 monthly service fee will be added to their property tax bill. What? This can only spell trouble.

The only possible benefit this tax item could have would be it might slow those who illegally dump their trash, or use their neighbors’ trash cans, by enforcing trash collection on each county residence. The probability of this is slim at best. What it does do, is collect money for services NOT rendered. Let’s look at it. If I decide to move and still have this house up for sale, I will be charged for picking up trash that I’m not generating. I will be able to stop other utilities like water, power, gas, phone, cable and Internet. The house will be empty and I will not need them. I also will not be generating trash at that residence, so why should I have to pay for that service? What if I own the empty lot next to mine? Like many have done, it may have been purchased because I wanted to give my family more yard space. I will now have to pay twice for the use of one service. The list can be endless.
There are many more ways this form of payment for a utility is bad, let alone being forced into a monopoly. Please let me know some of your thoughts in a comment. I’m looking forward to here what you have to say.

Read more...

Monday, November 17, 2008

Comments, Suggestions and Feedback



Please leave any comments or in a comment to this post. You are able to leave it anonymously if you wish, but if you leave your name I will gladly give you credit.

Read more...

Sorry for the delay, but some good changes are coming…

I know it has been a few days since I posted, and I would like to apologize. This site however is still in a pre-launch state. I’ve been focusing a lot of my attention to some time consuming tasks, in hopes of creating a successful site and blog. The problem is it did not provide you with any new articles.

Most of the changes have been behind the scenes as in getting some web tools to work. One thing you will probably notice is that I’ve finally got the posts to be expandable. I hope you enjoy this feature. The intention of this was to let viewers see several posts titles with brief descriptions. I’ve also added a new category for “What’s New”. This will be a place to inform you of any upcoming changes. Please leave a comment and let me know what you think. I’ve also been working with the colors a bit. I guess my monitor has some issues. When I looked at the site, from another computer, the background was pink. What a shock! I was hoping for more of a parchment or beige color. Well, work will continue, as I am still in search of a template and design which is easy on the eyes, and has the flexibility to provide a quality product. I will probably learning a lot of HTML programming and template building, and I’m looking forward to it.

Things still to do.

· Start an open comment area where we can discuss just about anything. This will probably be a weekly feature. I hope it will fuel up those authors out there.
· Add a newsletter. I promise this will not be some sort of spam or junk, will protect your privacy, and be able to “opt out” of.
· Add and about page. To let readers know a few things about me.
· Add a Google Search bar.

If you have any suggestions feel free to leave them in the suggestion category.

Read more...

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Should We Bailout General Motors, Ford and Chrysler? Or Let Them Go Bust!

You must have heard by now. The government is bailing out the financial institutions and now pushing the bail out of the Detroit Big Three; General Motors, Ford and Chrysler.

The statement has been made, “THEY ARE TOO BIG TO LET FAIL”. It’s true; these companies employ millions of people, and about 10% of all American businesses are tied to the Auto Industry. Think about it, dealerships, used car lots, insurance, car repair, auto parts, custom accessories, the list goes on. If the Big Three went bust, it could throw this major economic recession, into the greatest depression we have ever seen. It is estimated that at least another 2.5 to 3 million more people will loose their jobs if these companies were “permitted” to fail. But, should Congress rush to bailout these Big Companies just because they are Mega Employers? There definitely is some logic to this argument. But is this the only, or even main reason, President-elect Obama and congress are in such a haste?

I don’t think so. Let’s look at the situation. Why have these companies been closing factories all over the United States in the last several years? It can’t be the recent raise in fuel prices and the collapse of the SUV market. They have been doing this before the SUV became such a status symbol. While the Big Three are closing plants, other companies like BMW, Toyota, Hyundai, VW and Nissan have been opening new factories in the US. It’s not they have such a superior product but more so a better business model. For obvious reasons, these foreign car companies discovered that it could reduce costs if they produced their vehicles near there largest customer. If these foreign companies can do it profitably, why can’t GM, Ford and Chrysler who are based here?

In order for these companies to pull this off, they are building these factories in states like Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina. They are building in states where they can employ Non-Union labor. This fact alone reduces costs, and increases productivity and quality. They can pay their employees based on the merit, not the tenure or status in the Union. Production labor costs are reduced, while the workers can earn and keep more of their money. The workers don’t have to give a large percentage of their income to the Almighty Union. This is the same Union that spends millions of their dollars to sway the opinions of, or should I say buying, politicians. The same Union that tells the laborers who, or what, to vote for. The same Union that makes laborers so dependant on them by discouraging free speech, silent vote, and even individuals expanding their talents into other non-union industries.

Union laborers typically do not have a secondary education, and are skilled only in one trade. They are discouraged by the Union from doing their best, or over achieving. After all, if they do their best it will result in fewer workers. Fewer workers result in less money for the Unions. The Unions would have to raise membership dues, resulting in less take home income and more work for the laborer. As long as they are good loyal union members that are promoting membership, their pay and benefits will grow. What a vicious cycle!

I think this is the reason why the leftwing wants to bail them out so bad. They are using this economic down turn as an opportunity to appease one of their largest lobbyists. The same philosophy of social dependency, used by these lobbyists to increase their power and profitability, is exactly what the democrats and leftwing thrive on. If GM, Ford and Chrysler go into Chapter 11, it will allow them to reorganize and change their business model, in which Unions will lose, or at least have less influence. When they emerge they will be stronger and more competitive. They will produce a better, more fuel efficient product, whose value will increase demand, and thus they will expand to employ more Americans.

Don’t get me wrong, Unions did have their time and place in history. They did help end what was little more than slave labor, but that part of our history is past. Instead of protecting the laborers from big companies, they are promoting a dependency on big unions. I say, let General Motors, Ford and Chrysler reorganize. They will still need skilled workers, but on a more competitive level. Any money that should be spent in this area should be to train displaced workers in other skills.

Let me know your views by posting a comment. I will reply to defend my opinions, or admit defeat.

Read more...

Thursday, November 6, 2008

The People have spoken; the election is over, where do we go from here?

Even though the election did not turn out the way I, or many others wanted it to, I do have to say this; it is truly a great historic day for the United States of America.

I am still very proud to call myself an American and I’m grateful I live in the greatest nation in the world. This election is proof that in this country all men and women are created equal. In this country you are not judged by your gender, race or religion. This moment in time marks when the people of the United Sates elected its first African-American President. This election proves that we can look at ourselves as a nation that has overcome bigotry and racism and thus ending the time of racial preferences. As Americans we should be all be proud. I know that as an American I will proudly serve my President and my Country in with the rights and freedom this great Nation provides. But realistically what type of President will Barack Obama be?

Barack Obama and the Democratic Party ran a brilliant campaign and should be commended. But how will this campaign affect his Presidency? After all, his brief performance and voting record as a Senator earned him the title of one of the most liberal Senators in Congress from the National Review. He was ranked as 16th in 2005, 10th in 2006 and the number 1 most liberal Senator in 2007. Now to be honest the National Review is considered a rightwing conservative magazine; but I have found several other leftwing sources that reflect the same record and scores, and many that point to the National Review rankings with pride. The point here is not who said what, but more so that there is a trend reflected in these rankings.

Is this nation moving to, or has it moved to the far left? I don’t believe so. I do, however, believe it did move more center left. I believe that this country is looking for change, but it did not give the overwhelming mandate the far leftwing was hoping for. After all, while both houses did gain Democratic seats, both houses fell short of numbers hoped for by the Party. Even more evident is the Obama Presidential Campaign itself. I believe his quest to be President started well before his term as Senator. In fact, I believe this goal and ambition was set back in his college days or earlier. But, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that! I commend him on this. Setting and achieving goals are part of the American dream. The point I want to make here, is not when he set his goals and ambitions, but more so how he achieved them.

He is a great speaker and an eloquent orator, but these alone would not achieve his goals if nobody heard him. I will not dwell on his associations with people like Bill Ayers, ACORN and reverend Wright other than to say these were all a means to achieve public notice, and launch his career to the White House. It was through these associations that he became a community activist and then on to the State Senate in 1996. These associations were apparently more for political expedience, at least I hope. As they became more of a liability to him, he did distance himself from what they did or said. This is not new or unique to him or his party. Almost all politicians practice this; liberal, centrist or conservative. If truth be told, we as a people do this as well.

As the approval ratings of the Bush administration and Republican Congress plummeted (due to the war in Iraq, response to hurricane Katrina, deficit spending, etc), Barack and others saw and opportunity to make it on the National Stage, a seat in the Senate. After all, getting to be the Commander in Chief is usually done through a major political office like Vice President, Senator or Governor, especially if you did not have military experience. The time was right to take the seat vacated by Republican Illinois Senator Peter Fitzgerald, and start his Presidential run. But before he could do this, he would have to get his parties nomination.

You may ask, what does this have to do with his senatorial voting record moving more and more liberal? I can see two reasons. First, it is true the political landscape in Washington in 2006 was moving more left, but this would put it back towards the center. The Senate ended up split with 49 democrats, 49 republicans, and 2 independents. Remember it was just 2 years earlier that George W Bush was reelected. I don’t believe he would not have made it to the US Senate as an ultra liberal. Second, if he tried to upstage his parties’ leaders like the Clintons, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry as a junior Senator he would have been abandoned. He has to earn their respect and his place in the party. After all it was widely believed that Hillary Clinton was going to be the next democratic nomination for the Presidency, and thus make history as being the first female presidential nominee. So he started towards the center of his parties’ ideology.

When he announced his run for the nomination, it was considered by many as a mere token attempt to get noticed. Maybe he could make a name for him self for an upcoming attempt. He was relatively unknown on the national stage and had little financial backing. He did however have a couple of things going for him. First and foremost he has his outstanding skills as a statesman. Second and I hate to say it, or it have any bearing on an election; but he is a young, attractive man. He is very appealing, easy to listen to as well as look at. This is a key to capture the young vote. These, as well as the canvassing of his previous association got him noticed, started his financial backing, and kicked off his run for the nomination. The more he was seen the more popular he became. But he still had to defeat the Hillary Clinton and the Democratic machine.

One very important thing can not be overlooked. Obama knew that the people of this country were crying out for change, and the leadership of his party wants to push a far left agenda in order to appeal to its growing liberal base. If he wanted to gain the support of Howard Dean, Al Gore and John Kerry, Obama has to appear more liberal than Hillary and thus goes his voting record. Now, on the other hand, Hillary was already looking past the party nomination to the General Election. In doing so, she has to play a more centrist roll. Also, since she was considered to be the front runner, she was under constant attack by the rightwing. This started in the Clinton administration when she was accused of making the decisions for Bill. It only grew worse when she kicked off her own political career as Senator of New York. The rightwing opinions were then further echoed by the other front runners for the Democratic Party nomination.

While the front runners for both the Democrats and Republicans fought it out against Hillary, the appeal of Obama enabled him to a gain very favorable position and coverage with the mainstream media. This young, attractive, well spoken African American man, seeking a major party nomination could only help their ratings and viewership. Everybody likes the stories of the underdog making it big. This was the political situation and coverage he needed. Everyone was attacking the front runner and he was gaining popularity. He knew that as he gained popularity he would also become the target of attacks. But this was, and still is, a very touchy issue. How does one go about criticizing a political figure who is a “person of color” without being labeled a racist? It’s sad to have this still going on today, but it’s true. It’s not just the civil rights activists, but even the mainstream media promoted and fostered this separatist ideology. In fact, even when someone tried to express a favorable opinion of this Senator by saying “he is charismatic” or an “eloquent speaker”, they were labeled as being racist. I just don’t see it. What is wrong or racist about noticing these outstanding qualities? Not many people have this notoriety, and personally I would be honored. It is really saying this person has the same great qualities as other outstanding leaders in their time; people like Bill Clinton, Mother Teresa, Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Regan, Gandhi, John F Kennedy, Winston Churchill, the list goes on.

For the media labeling political figures as racist, points to scandal, corruption and bias, for which the public will pay for in the way of subscriptions and advertisements. This sells as much as, if not more than, those sexy ads we see for Victoria Secrets, Levi Jeans and others. This made it very hard to run against him, and affectively gave Obama a free pass from criticism. Anything said about him, his character, or questionable associations would get you labeled as a racist. The conservative rightwing media started pointing out his previous associations with ACORN, Ayers and Reverend Wright only when the race for the Democratic Nomination narrowed. It wasn’t until then these associations started to become a liability, and thus necessitated a gentle subdued distancing. After all, these associations had influence on many people and got him to this point. Since he still had to defeat Hillary, he could not afford a negative influence by these relationships. If this base, many of which are black Americans, lower income people, and liberal left supporters, jumped to Hillary, his run would be over. Then again, he didn’t have to do a major and repeated denouncement. As long as he did say something, it would satisfy the mainstream press; and if Hillary Clinton or John McCain pushed the issue, they would be branded as attacking his race, and not his character. You have to admit making this play was a brilliant political move.

Such a long and hard fought race just to secure the nomination was not something Hillary expected, or really was prepared for. She, and her campaign, felt that after few primaries and caucuses she could focus on the General Election. But for Barack, this long process did nothing but help. Since they were both fighting for their parties’ base, they had to present a more leftwing agenda that focused on ending the war in Iraq, along with several very expensive and liberal social issues. Issues of growing government control of most everything from education and college funding to healthcare and medication. Of course these were going to be paid for by taxing big corporations (like the oil companies) and the wealthy. Hillary, while still having her eye on the General Election, did not move as far left as Barack; but she did move more than she wanted. She did however focus more on the experience issue, and this probably had the greatest effect. She felt that her being in the Senate longer than he, as well as being First Lady, represented she had more executive experience, and could be called upon in the middle of the night.

Other than the experience issue, the tactics and attacks used by Hillary had little negative effect on Barack. They may have even helped him to refine his “rhetorical flourishes” to fend off attacks, as well as suggest agendas without committing or revealing too much. After all was said and done, Barack Obama made history as the first African-American to secure the nomination for president by a major party.

I believe that Barack himself did not truly believe he would make it this far on his first attempt. More likely, Barack felt that if he made it to the top three or four on the democratic ticket he succeeded, and better positioned himself for 2012. I might be wrong; but either way, it was now time to focus on the General Election, and there was little time left. Now was the time he (and the DNC) had to present his campaign in a way that would appeal to the country as a whole. They new they had to win over the independents.

Again, the criticism that seemed to take hold the most, was that of experience. With the country currently in two wars, and John McCain being a war hero, this would definitely be a hurdle. He also had to show he was an effective leader; one that could handle not only domestic issues, but foreign policy and defense issues as well. Without going into all the pros and cons of the VP possibilities, or if Hillary would have accepted and created a super ticket; I will just say that Joe Biden was chosen to limit the impact of experience and foreign policy issues.

It is at this point his policies and agendas also had to move toward the center. While it is true the country is in transition, it has only been from the slight center right position to more of a centrist position, and at most, only slightly center left. Now, instead of withdraw of all military troops by early 2010, it must be a calculated and coordinated withdraw that will take 18 months. Instead of himself, unconditionally sitting down with terrorist leaders, he would open communication channels with them utilizing lower government representatives. Instead of increasing the tax on the wealthy and big corporations, we would just go back to the plan under the Clinton Administration. Instead of raising the capitol gains tax to 40 percent, maybe 15 to 20 would do. He will also reduce taxes for 95 percent of all Americans. Of course, he even redefines this again, from “all” Americans to “working” Americans.

Now the election is over, and history has been made. We have elected our first African-American President. But this election did more than just that. Because of the disapproval of the current administration, congress has moved more to a center left position. This once again puts control of both Houses of Congress and the Presidency in one party. This has many on the right very afraid only ultra liberal agendas will be presented and passed.

Can it really be this bad? Are we as doomed, as the ultra right would have us believe? I hope not, and don’t really think so. After all, having these two branches of government under one party is not new; and it will change once again. Both parties have had it, and both parties have lost it. When the Democrats lost it the last time, it was under the first part of the Clinton Administration when President Clinton tried pushing a liberal agenda. The people saw this and spoke out then as well. President Clinton then had to move more towards the center. I’m sure Barack does not want his legacy to be diminished by losing democratic control once again. I think he is much smarted than that. If he wants a second term and a great legacy, which I'm sure he does, he will have to govern from the middle. If not, this moment in history will be tarnished.

Am I concerned? Yes I am. Am I hopeful? Yes I am. But, I will be watching, and I’m not afraid to vote.

Read more...

Hit Counter

  © Blogger template Newspaper III by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP