what if?

The Greatest Generation

My dear friend, Bonnie Miller Rubin, is a great writer.  Here, Bonnie covers a superb story about The Greatest Generation and their sacrifices.

The outing was courtesy of Honor Flight Chicago, a non-profit group started last year to take World War II veterans to Washington. And with 1,200 such veterans dying every day, there is urgency to the mission.

This group, ranging in age from 78 to 98, was more than willing to put up with the planes and buses to make the 700-mile trip paying tribute to their service. Some called it the best day of their lives--starting with a rousing send-off from Midway Airport„© with a modern-day Andrews Sisters group crooning 1940s-era hits, and ending with a hero's welcome-home reception, with a brass band and cheering throngs.

But what was particularly poignant for the old soldiers, many of whom were in wheelchairs, some tethered to oxygen tanks, was the number of strangers--young people, school groups and new immigrants--who spontaneously approached them throughout the day, taking the opportunity to say thank you.

"I've never experienced anything like this," said Patric Rastall, 84, of Northbrook, wearing a "Wounded in Combat" cap, as a quartet of preteens lined up to shake his hand at the World War II Memorial. "All these bright, young faces ... it's overwhelming."

And be sure to get out your Kleenex box before you read this.

The Other Car Czar

Ion Pacepa was "car czar" in Romania.  His expert advice?  Leave governing to the government - and the automobile industry to the private sector.

Automobile manufacturing and government do not mix in capitalist countries either. In the spring of 1978 Ceausescu appointed me chief of his Presidential House, a new position supposed to be similar to that of the White House chief of staff. To go with it he gave me a big Jaguar car. That Jaguar, which at the time had been produced in a government-run British factory, was so bad that it spent more time in the garage being repaired than it did on the road.

"Apart from some Russian factories in Gorky, Jaguars were the worst," Ford executive Bill Hayden stated when Ford bought the nationalized British car maker in 1988. How did the famous Jaguar, one of the most prestigious cars in the world, become a joke?

In 1945, the British voters, tired of four years of war, kicked out Winston Churchill and elected a leftist parliament led by Labour's Clement Attlee. Attlee nationalized the automobile, trucking and coal industries, as well as communication facilities, civil aviation, electricity and steel. Britain was already saddled by crushing war debts. Now it was sapped of economic vigor. The old empire quickly passed into history. It would take decades until Margaret Thatcher's privatization reforms restored Britain's place among the world's top-tier economies.

The United States is far more powerful than Great Britain was then, and no American Attlee should be capable of destroying its solid economic and political base. I hope that the U.S. administration, Congress and the American voters will take a closer look at history and prevent our automotive industry from following down the Dacia, Oltcit or Jaguar path.

The car czar is speaking.  I hope that someone in Washington is listening.

The American Indian Way

Students sit in detention at American Indian Public Charter school in Oakland for offenses ranging from getting up during class or skipping a problem on a homework assignment. Students who misbehave in the slightest must stay an hour after school; if they misbehave again in the same week, they get more detention and four hours of Saturday detention.

Via Hot Air, one of the absolutely best pieces I've read in a long time.  Forget ever-higher taxation for spending 5 times what was spent when you and I were in school.  Forget "diversity classes" and "sensitivity training".  Forget environmental education.  Forget no punishment for failure to follow rules, and forget automatic moving on to the next grade, irrespective of how a student has performed. 

Welcome to the American Indian Public Charter - a school serving primarily poor and minority children in Oakland, California - where the kids are turning in the best test scores in the state.  If you're a liberal, then prepare yourself before you read further and look at the article.  It may blast everything you always thought to the other side of the planet.

Not many schools in California recruit teachers with language like this: "We are looking for hard working people who believe in free market capitalism. . . . Multi-cultural specialists, ultra liberal zealots, and college-tainted oppression liberators need not apply."

That, it turns out, is just the beginning of the ways in which American Indian Public Charter and its two sibling schools spit in the eye of mainstream education. These small, no-frills, independent public schools in the hard-scrabble flats of Oakland sometimes seem like creations of television's "Colbert Report." They mock liberal orthodoxy with such zeal that it can seem like a parody.

School administrators take pride in their record of frequently firing teachers they consider to be underperforming. Unions are embraced with the same warmth accorded "self-esteem experts, panhandlers, drug dealers and those snapping turtles who refuse to put forth their best effort," to quote the school's website.

Students, almost all poor, wear uniforms and are subject to disciplinary procedures redolent of military school. One local school district official was horrified to learn that a girl was forced to clean the boys' restroom as punishment.

Conservatives, including columnist George Will, adore the American Indian schools, which they see as models of a "new paternalism" that could close the gap between the haves and have-nots in American education. Not surprisingly, many Bay Area liberals have a hard time embracing an educational philosophy that proudly proclaims that it "does not preach or subscribe to the demagoguery of tolerance."

It would be easy to dismiss American Indian as one of the nuttier offshoots of the fast-growing charter school movement, which allows schools to receive public funding but operate outside of day-to-day district oversight. But the schools command attention for one very simple reason: By standard measures, they are among the very best in California.

The Academic Performance Index, the central measuring tool for California schools, rates schools on a scale from zero to 1,000, based on standardized test scores. The state target is an API of 800. The statewide average for middle and high schools is below 750. For schools with mostly low-income students, it is around 650.

The oldest of the American Indian schools, the middle school known simply as American Indian Public Charter School, has an API of 967. Its two siblings -- American Indian Public Charter School II (also a middle school) and American Indian Public High School -- are not far behind.

Among the thousands of public schools in California, only four middle schools and three high schools score higher. None of them serve mostly underprivileged children.

Someone - anyone - please read this entire article.  Then, let me know why almost every city in our nation shouldn't be experimenting with at least some schools modeled after this one.  Poor kids can learn.  Kids of color can prosper.  If educators and administrators are willing to deliver the education - along with a strong dose of tough love and discipline - it can be done.

I don't want one more generation of children to be deprived of a strong and meaningful education.  Do you?

Bailout Nation

Who knew when we voted for President last year that we were selecting the new head of Government Motors?  Not I.

Get ready, folks: America is about to buy a car company. As of Monday, we the taxpayers will own more than 70 percent of GM. Whether the company will be formally renamed Government Motors remains to be seen. But that's what it will be.

Instead of putting the failed car enterprise into bankruptcy six months ago -- where Carl Icahn or Wilbur Ross could have bought it -- the Bush administration chose Bailout Nation. Under Team Obama, that bailout has morphed into full-scale government ownership. Twenty billion dollars of TARP money is already invested in GM, with another $50 billion on the way. And that number could easily double unless GM car sales miraculously climb back to 14 million this year. That's highly unlikely, with sales presently hovering around 9 million a year.

In other words, taxpayers are not going to get their money back.

Yes, we the people will be left holding the bag for the mistakes of GM's management and labor leaders over the last four decades.

And with CAFE mileage standards ratcheting up -- all while GM is going down -- Team Obama's green vision for the economy will soon be crystal clear. With President Obama in the driver's seat, we're going to get little green two-door cars that most folks won't want to buy.

Even worse, UAW chief Ron Gettelfinger has made it plain that his powerful union won't let these cars be manufactured in low-cost non-union plants overseas. The result? Obama's little green cars are going to be unprofitable, as well.

The State as The House

If you're of a libertarian bent, as I am, then you are hesitant to prevent adults from living their lives as they so choose.  Needless to say, acts like murder or theft can never be sanctioned.  Yet, "gray areas" such as the use of prostitution, drugs, alcohol and the like should not be criminalized by the state.

Nevertheless, there is a world of difference between the government not locking folks up for what some consider to be poor choices - and running the whore house or casino.  Yet, in Illinois, that state is on the brink of doing just that.

What are the risks of video poker?  That people literally lose their minds.

"I had a gambling problem when I was younger.  I've stopped gambling for years.  I was on the business trip and got to get cash from three different stores.  I went to the casino for fun but things got big and lost my mind.  I started losing and couldn't control myself."

This 24-year-old man is the latest in a long line of defendants I've met who have stolen large amounts of money to fuel their compulsive gambling.  Years ago there was Faramarz, a clerk at the 7-11.  He was good for about $30,000. When one of my detectives called him to come in voluntarily to be interviewed, Faramarz showed up with a little gym bag packed with socks and underwear and a toothbrush. He greeted the detective by saying "I thought I was going
away to jail so I packed a bag."  Another time, just before Christmas, there was a girl in her twenties with a taste for blackjack who took her employer for nearly $20,000.  None of the three that I just described had any real criminal history, or any indication in their background that they would one day become felons.  None of them were suited for the criminal lifestyle.  The sales rep actually called me after he posted bond and asked for advice on what to tell his mother.  How un-criminal is that?  

Just before I got off work tonight I saw a missing person flyer that a nearby department sent out.  A 40-year-old man was reported missing by his family, who haven't seen him in a month.  They reported that he "has a serious gambling problem" and is possibly in debt to bookies for over $90,000.

I am someone who believes it is impossible for the government to prevent everyone from gambling compulsively, just as it is impossible to prevent them from developing alcoholism or becoming addicted to other substances.

Still, one should not theorize that if you can't stop 'em, join 'em.  Most would be horrified if our government ran a brothel.  They should be no less horrified that the State of Illinois is planning on setting up video poker machines that will be instrumental in ruining lives.

Defender of Freedom

Once we were.  Once, we liberated Europe.  We stepped in when people too weak or poor to defend themselves were under attack.

But - that was then and this is now.  Today, instead of protecting the free world, we are protecting America to prepare it for socialism.

Mark Steyn rarely minces words; today is no different.

The Last of the First Amendment

Most everyone is familiar with the right to free speech in the First Amendment.  But - it has other protections, too.  One is the right of the people to petition their government.

For those who wanted "hope and change" - they are getting it!  Apparently this administration believes that the First Amendment is woefully lacking and thus is changing it.

“First, we will expand the restriction on oral communications to cover all persons, not just federally registered lobbyists. For the first time, we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process. We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program. [emphasis mine -- Ed]

“Second, we will focus the restriction on oral communications to target the scenario where concerns about merit-based decision-making are greatest –after competitive grant applications are submitted and before awards are made. Once such applications are on file, the competition should be strictly on the merits. To that end, comments (unless initiated by an agency official) must be in writing and will be posted on the Internet for every American to see.

“Third, we will continue to require immediate internet disclosure of all other communications with registered lobbyists. If registered lobbyists have conversations or meetings before an application is filed, a form must be completed and posted to each agency’s website documenting the contact.”

Silencing dissent and criticism is “necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program”?  Gee, what “unique circumstances” might those be?  Perhaps the fact that it costs more than the Moon shot, and has yet to halt the economic skid.  Maybe it’s the fact that most of the stimulus package doesn’t actually stimulate anything except doctrinaire liberal dreams and the pens that check off the items from the Democratic wish list.

Remember when the Left took to the streets to declare dissent “patriotic” during wartime?  I didn’t have a problem with dissent then, but apparently the Left has a curious definition of “patriotism”.  Now, suddenly, the federal government can silence their critics at will, not to protect critical national-security programs or keep from undermining a war effort, but to protect a Democratic president intent on seizing control of private industry across a wide swath of the nation.  Suddenly, that kind of dissent threatens America.

Never mind that this "change" is simply unconstitutional.  Never mind that, as Ed says above, dissent was "patriotic" to the left when a Republican administration was in charge.  No matter what flowerly or attractive language the President uses to describe it, this is an assault on our freedoms as Americans.  "Change we can believe in?"  Only if we believe that this is the last stand of the First Amendment.

OPM - Other People's Money

Oftentimes, we achieve a system that "works" when underlying rules and regulations are relatively balanced and ultimately make overall sense.  Part of why my favorite game - bridge - is so engaging and intriguing is that it achieves this.  All participants have a keen interest in playing their particular part.

We hope that our Real World is this way, too.  Unfortunately, however, sometimes that integral balance gets out of whack.  It happened to much of our financial, credit and housing world in the last decade or two - and in particular, it happened to executive corporate compensation.

Many liberals I know seem to think that conservatives are simply pigs at the trough.  The more money that can be handed over to people in business, the better.  And, while liberals are correct that most conservatives I know applaud free markets and the ability of people to make Big Bucks, they nevertheless appreciate that compensation - just like pricing and and value and quality and all the rest of the components that go into business and its products and services.

Many of the conservatives I know were very worried about outrageous compensation delivered to top people - without commensurate value being delivered in return.  These conservatives were loath, nevertheless, to see government step in to private business and set ultimatums in law.

Alan Blinder, Princeton professor and former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, has a very good column on what went wrong with compensation - and, what should be done to fix it.

Empathy versus Reason

David Brooks has an excellent column today.  Should judicial decisions be based upon reason alone?  Or, should emotion have some role?  Brooks' thoughts:

Decisions are made by imperfect minds in ambiguous circumstances. It is incoherent to say that a judge should base an opinion on reason and not emotion because emotions are an inherent part of decision-making. Emotions are the processes we use to assign value to different possibilities. Emotions move us toward things and ideas that produce pleasure and away from things and ideas that produce pain.

People without emotions cannot make sensible decisions because they don’t know how much anything is worth. People without social emotions like empathy are not objective decision-makers. They are sociopaths who sometimes end up on death row.

Supreme Court justices, like all of us, are emotional intuitionists. They begin their decision-making processes with certain models in their heads. These are models of how the world works and should work, which have been idiosyncratically ingrained by genes, culture, education, parents and events. These models shape the way judges perceive the world.

The column has more critical points; I highly recommend reading the whole piece. Here, however, Brooks makes a key, bottom-line judgment:

Sonia Sotomayor will be a good justice if she can empathize with the many types of people and actions involved in a case, but a bad justice if she can only empathize with one type, one ethnic group or one social class.

Justice can only be justice if is applied equitably to all.  Brooks is correct; it is impossible to divorce reasonable people from their emotions.  We must, however, make certain that we apply both our reason and our emotion fairly to those who are being judged.

Bubble, Bubble - Toil and Trouble?

Is higher education the next bubble in trouble?

Authors Joseph Cronin and Howard Horton (respectively a past Massachusetts secretary of Education and the president of the New England College of Business and Finance) comment:

“The middle class, which has paid for higher education in the past mainly by taking out loans, may now be precluded from doing so as the private student-loan market has all but dried up. In addition, endowment cushions that allowed colleges to engage in steep tuition discounting are gone. Declines in housing valuations are making it difficult for families to rely on home-equity loans for college financing. Even when the equity is there, parents are reluctant to further leverage themselves into a future where job security is uncertain.

Consumers who have questioned whether it is worth spending $1,000 a square foot for a home are now asking whether it is worth spending $1,000 a week to send their kids to college.”

Even this underestimates the severity of the situation, however. The 2006 Economic Report of the President presents a remarkable fact: Between 2000 and 2005, the average wages of college graduates declined after adjusting for inflation.

From an economic point of view, in other words, a college degree costs more and more and returns less and less. Kind of like a hot stock with a price-to-earnings ratio of 32, it’s a prelude to a crash.

Just as housing prices began to seem more and more nutso to me in the mid 2000's, the stratospheric cost of a college education also has appeared to morph into insanity terrority.  We'll see if Cronin, Horton - and yours truly - are correct or not.

Horror Movie

If you don't like 'em, don't look.  This is definitely scary stuff!

Small Government

Another conservative, Ed Morrissey, links us to Douglas Kmiec's creative idea vis a vis marriage:  let the government get out of it altogether. 

Kmiec has the better argument, mostly because the “state” gave up protecting marriage and children decades ago.  The advent of no-fault divorce, in which one party can abrogate the marriage contract without penalty or consideration of the other party, has completely destroyed the notion that the government plays a role in protecting “integrity and well-being of the family.”  In fact, I’d argue that serial marriers of the kind seen in Hollywood (or in Washington DC) do more to undermine marriage than single-gender unions would ever do.

The state could get out of the marriage business entirely, and have its citizens enter into partnership contracts instead.  That might have the salutary effect of putting mechanisms into place for dissolutions that would keep divorces from dragging on through the courts, but also give the state more ability to enforce the terms of the contract than government is willing to do with marriages that lack pre-nuptial agreements, especially on penalties for abrogation. 

Some I know argue that the state should oversee marriages for the protection of children.  I have two responses, however, to this argument.  First, as Ed says, we long ago seemed to have given up the notion that marriage is there simply to protect children.  If that were the sole purpose of state endorsed marriages, we wouldn't have marriage for the elderly, or for those who could not or would not conceive children.  Second, if the state does judge it still has a compelling interest in couples with children, we can have laws for those couples - irrespective of whether they are legally married or not.

If your church, synogogue, mosque or temple wishes to acknowledge your union as a marriage; bravo!  For everyone else in the eyes of the law, draw up your agreements as you wish your union to be.  I like it; just wonder if it has the proverbial snowball's chance in hell of becoming law and custom anytime soon.

Half a Loaf

From my most formative years, Dad has taught me many of the old saws.  One was the ancient, "half a loaf is better than none."  It was true when I was 5; it's still true today.

Michael Gerson explains why some Republicans are holding out for the whole loaf, yet are more likely to not even get a slice of bread because of it.

It is Powell to whom Republicans should be listening. A party more focused on excommunication than proselytization is in trouble. And Powell is calling attention to some unavoidable truths.

First, it is a myth that a single, conservative message can win everywhere in America. There is no "pure" ideological approach, liberal or conservative, that can consistently carry both Alabama and Oregon. Even at the height of the Reagan Revolution, the Republican Senate included moderate and liberal voices such as Mark Hatfield and Robert Packwood of Oregon, Charles Mathias of Maryland, Robert Stafford of Vermont and Charles Percy of Illinois. A political party that appeals across a diverse, continental nation will be a diverse, ideological coalition.

Second, Powell is correct that the next successful Republican leader must include an element of nontraditional appeal. Powell cites as his ideal the recently deceased Jack Kemp, who "was as conservative as anybody" but who "believed in inclusiveness, reaching out" to minorities and the poor.

Obama's party has assembled its current majority among groups of growing demographic (and thus democratic) influence -- particularly nonwhites, the young and college-educated voters. It is difficult to imagine Republicans regaining momentum in these groups without an aggressive, unexpected message of social justice, inclusion, environmental stewardship and social mobility -- in addition to the economic and moral conservatism that will motivate much of the Republican coalition for the foreseeable future.

We all have our ideals and our perfect worlds.  Once in a blue moon we can achieve them.  Reality, however, generally dictates that we should judge what "half a loaf" will be acceptable.  Unless the Republican party accepts this reality, they will continue to sit on the sidelines as Democrats continue to seize power and run our government.

Hey Big Spender

Of course, one's spending proclivities have utterly nothing to do with one's competency as a judge.  Nevertheless, Professor Mankiw points out that President Obama's liberal selection for SCOTUS is also liberal with her pocketbook.

Apparently, the new Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is an example of the latter. The Washington Post reports that the 54-year-old Sotomayer has a $179,500 yearly salary but

On her financial disclosure report for 2007, she said her only financial holdings were a Citibank checking and savings account, worth $50,000 to $115,000 combined. During the previous four years, the money in the accounts at some points was listed as low as $30,000.

My grandmother would have been shocked and appalled to see someone who makes so much save so little.

Perhaps the "wisdom" of Judge Sotomayer doesn't extend to finances....

 

I Hate Guns

Nevertheless, they exist - and the right to bear arms is part of our Constitution.  Thus, this story is almost as frightening as the violence and mayhem that gun haters fear.

A student who wants to form a gun-rights group at the Community College of Allegheny County (CCAC) has been threatened with disciplinary action for her efforts. Student Christine Brashier has turned to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for help after reporting that administrators banned her informational pamphlets, ordered her to destroy all copies of them, and told her that further "academic misconduct" would not be tolerated.

"CCAC has demonstrated a shocking lack of respect for the rights of free speech and free association," FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. "Across the country, students are increasingly denied the First Amendment right to debate the Second Amendment. At CCAC, this censorship trend has reached a new low."

Scary that a university - purportedly a place of sharing ideas and openness - would stop the free speech rights of a student.

Equal Rights

Many of my conservative friends think that "gay marriage" is a contradiction in terms.  To them, "marriage" means "a man and a woman."  Some conservatives I know would be willing to extend "civil partnerships" to gay couples; some not.

Still other conservatives find themselves on the same page that I am on:  marriage is a relationship that can and should be enjoyed by all adult couples who wish to legally commit to one another.  A high profile conservative quite publically made that decision today:  Ted Olson.

Olson explains his position:

Olson is suing on behalf of two same-sex couples in California, The Advocate reports: Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier of Berkeley, who have been together for nine years and are the parents of four children, and Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo of Burbank, who have been together for eight years.

Their argument: the State of California giving same sex couples "the separate-but-unequal institution of domestic partnership," instead of full marriage, violates equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, creating a class of "second-class citizens"

"We believe this is the kind of matter where Americans must come together and recognize the rights of all citizens," Olson told the AP.

"This is a federal question," he said, expressing the desire that the case end up before the US Supreme Court. This is about the rights of individuals to be treated equally and not be stigmatized."

“For a long time I’ve personally felt that we are doing a grave injustice for people throughout this country by denying equality to gay and lesbian individuals,” Olson told The Advocate. “The individuals that we represent and will be representing in this case feel they’re being denied their rights. And they’re entitled to have a court vindicate those rights.”

Olson said that recent US Supreme Court rulings “make it clear that individuals are entitled to be treated equally under the Constitution. I’m reasonably confident that this is the right time for these [injustices] to be vindicated.”

If anyone can be described as a conservative, it is Ted Olson.  Let's hope his arguments convince others of the rightness of this position.

It should be noted, for those not fully aware of Mr. Olson's resume, that he is a full-throated conservative, a Federalist hero who in 1999 welcomed conferees to  "the heart" of the proverbial "vast right-wing conspiracy" he is perhaps the most highly respected conservative lawyer in the land. As Assistant Attorney General, he defended President Reagan during the Iran-Contra scandal, served on the board of directors of The American Spectator, and helped Paul Jones's lawyers prepare for their case.

For What It's Worth

Via my buddy Christopher Fountain, some info about public servants.  Of course, the phrase "public servant" doesn't quite have the proper ring to it. . . . Government nurses making over $350,000?   I guess I should have thought more about becoming Nurse Kaplan.

If you wonder why governments are going broke, this would be prime evidence.

The Greatest Game

Recently, I was interviewed by Halogen Life about My Favorite Game:  bridge.  Here is the story, along with a shot I took last year in Omaha of one of the game's devoted students.

An Object Lesson

Yes, my tournament is over, no, I did not play perfectly, yes I had fun.

Now - on to the real world!

Liberals believe that you simply are being a greedy bastard if you state that tax rates shouldn't be too high, even on the wealthy.  Nevertheless, reality is that if rates are not perceived to be "fair" - you truly can net less money with higher rates.  Really and truly.

The evidence.

Maryland couldn't balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy. Politicians in Annapolis created a millionaire tax bracket, raising the top marginal income-tax rate to 6.25%. And because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as 9.45%. Governor Martin O'Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were "willing and able to pay their fair share." The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would "grin and bear it."

One year later, nobody's grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller's office concedes is a "substantial decline." On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year -- even at higher rates.

Unless we end up destroying our system of government, and no one has other states to which they can flee, charge too much and you will see your rich folks run.  Bottom line?  This:

All of this means that the burden of paying for bloated government in Annapolis will fall on the middle class. Thanks to the futility of soaking the rich, these working families will now pay Mr. O'Malley's "fair share."

Obama's America

Whoever thought we would live to see this in our country?  Not I.  Not I......

My name is George C. Joseph.  I am the sole owner of Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu, a family owned and operated business in Melbourne, Florida. My family bought and paid for this automobile franchise 35 years ago in 1974. I am the second generation to manage this business.

We currently employ 50+ people and before the economic slowdown we employed over 70 local people.  We are active in the community and the local chamber of commerce. We deal with several dozen local vendors on a day to day basis and many more during a month.  All depend on our business for part of their livelihood.  We are financially strong with great respect in the market place and community.  We have strong local presence and stability.

 

I work every day the store is open, nine to ten hours a day. I know most of our customers and all our employees.  Sunshine Dodge is my life.

 

On Thursday, May 14, 2009 I was notified that my Dodge franchise, that we purchased, will be taken away from my family on June 9, 2009 without compensation and given to another dealer at no cost to them. My new vehicle inventory consists of 125 vehicles with a financed balance of 3 million dollars.  This inventory becomes impossible to sell with no factory incentives beyond June 9, 2009. Without the Dodge franchise we can no longer sell a new Dodge as "new," nor will we be able to do any warranty service work. Additionally, my Dodge parts inventory, (approximately $300,000.) is virtually worthless without the ability to perform warranty service.  There is no offer from Chrysler to buy back the vehicles or parts inventory.

 

Our facility was recently totally renovated at Chrysler's insistence, incurring a multi-million dollar debt in the form of a mortgage at Sun Trust Bank.   

 

HOW IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CAN THIS HAPPEN?  

 

THIS IS A PRIVATE BUSINESS NOT A GOVERNMENT ENTITY

 

This is beyond imagination!  My business is being stolen from me through NO FAULT OF OUR OWN.  We did NOTHING wrong.

 

This atrocity will most likely force my family into bankruptcy.  This will also cause our 50+ employees to be unemployed. How will they provide for their families?  This is a total economic disaster.

 

HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN IN A FREE MARKET ECONOMY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

 

I beseech your help, and look forward to your reply. Thank you.

 

Sincerely,

 

George C. Joseph

President & Owner

Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu