”Small Businesses Rally for Prosperity”

An enthusiastic crowd of small business owners and politicians poured into the 27th Annual Small Business Hawaii conference yesterday at the Ala Moana Hotel, hoping to hear from the many political and business speakers that Hawaii’s business climate will soon change for the better.

”’To see Melvin Ah Ching’s photo albums depicting the conference, click on:”’ https://www.smallbusinesshawaii.com/2003/Conference2003.html

President of the small business advocacy organization, Sam Slom, opened the meeting at 8 a.m. with a rally for small business owners, many who cheered when he mentioned the newly elected Republican Gov. Linda Lingle promised to vastly improve Hawaii’s notoriously hostile business climate.

Under prior administrations run by a long line of Democrat governors, Hawaii’s business climate has sunk to the bottom in most, if not all, business ratings. Those include recent rankings by Forbes Magazine, the Small Business Survival Index 2002 and Entrepreneurial Hot Spots: The Best Places in America to Start and Grow a Company, 2001.

Many business owners are hoping 2003, a new administration and a change in attitude by leading politicians will bring a new beginning for Hawaii’s businesses and economy that will allow them to prosper, not just struggle to survive.

Slom told business owners they have no excuse –

”Small Businesses Rally for Prosperity”

An enthusiastic crowd of small business owners and politicians poured into the 27th Annual Small Business Hawaii conference yesterday at the Ala Moana Hotel, hoping to hear from the many political and business speakers that Hawaii’s business climate will soon change for the better.

”’To see Melvin Ah Ching’s photo albums depicting the conference, click on:”’ https://www.smallbusinesshawaii.com/2003/Conference2003.html

President of the small business advocacy organization, Sam Slom, opened the meeting at 8 a.m. with a rally for small business owners, many who cheered when he mentioned the newly elected Republican Gov. Linda Lingle promised to vastly improve Hawaii’s notoriously hostile business climate.

Under prior administrations run by a long line of Democrat governors, Hawaii’s business climate has sunk to the bottom in most, if not all, business ratings. Those include recent rankings by Forbes Magazine, the Small Business Survival Index 2002 and Entrepreneurial Hot Spots: The Best Places in America to Start and Grow a Company, 2001.

Many business owners are hoping 2003, a new administration and a change in attitude by leading politicians will bring a new beginning for Hawaii’s businesses and economy that will allow them to prosper, not just struggle to survive.

Slom told business owners they have no excuse –

See copy of speech: “President Bush Taking Action to Strengthen America’s Economy”

”The New York Times”

President Bush did such a good job yesterday talking about the enduring strength of the economy that many Americans might wonder why the nation needs a costly new stimulus plan that imperils its fiscal health. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush wasn’t convinced by his own reassurances, and went on to propose a whopping new package of tax cuts. This plan is much less about the economy than about the White House’s belief that it needs to take action, any action, to show that the president cares. …

With the economy showing signs of recovery, we remain unpersuaded of the need for a pricey stimulus package. Yet if Mr. Bush is truly concerned about the people who “spend their entire adult lives living paycheck to paycheck,” he should be pushing a more targeted plan along the lines proposed Monday by Congressional Democrats. At less than one-fourth the $674 billion cost of the president’s extravagant designs, their plan provides short-term relief to states and working-class Americans, thereby doing more to insure against an economic slowdown.

”Chicago Tribune”

The battle over taxes is now joined. President Bush unveiled his bold, and expensive, tax cut and economic benefits plan Tuesday, estimated to cost $674 billion over the next 10 years. The Democrats have countered with a more modest, one-time $136 billion shot in the arm for the economy. The Democrats have posited that the Bush plan aims too much of its benefits at the wealthy. …

The White House and Congress have to be realistic. The federal government has already fallen back into deficits — justified, perhaps in the short run, by the unexpected costs of homeland defense. They can’t, however, assume they will see a return to the kind of robust and sustained growth enjoyed in the 1990s. If they approve a deep reduction in federal revenues through ambitious tax cuts, they also have to put strict, long-term curbs on federal spending. Anything else will return the nation to a long pattern of growing deficits, and that will be reckless.

”Los Angeles Times”

America may be about to get the debate it needs on how to get the economy moving. By going for broke — as in flat broke — President Bush seems to have awakened sensible critics from a long national snooze. The unexpectedly lavish $674-billion “growth and jobs” stimulus plan he announced Tuesday in Chicago, like the $1.35-trillion tax cut Congress passed in 2001, is focused on helping the wealthy. But the first tax cut package hasn’t revived the economy — and neither would Bush’s latest proposals, at least not with any speed.

House Democrats, finally understanding that they have to do more than complain about Bush, countered with a $136-billion, 10-year proposal that would do more of what a stimulus package is supposed to, yet cost far less. …

Consistent with his previous approach toward Congress, Bush has entered the budget battle with maximal demands. Unlike two years ago, congressional moderates at least seem to be showing some spine.

”Washington Times”

In unveiling his 10-year, $670 billion short-term economic-stimulus and long-term economic-growth package yesterday, President Bush served notice to the burgeoning corps of Democratic presidential aspirants. To wit: This Bush White House is determined to buttress the evolving growth from the faltering economy it inherited. If that means engaging the Democrats in hand-to-hand combat in class warfare, then so be it. …

”Washington Post”

“Bold” and “audacious”: Those were the reactions yesterday when President Bush proposed tax cuts costing nearly $700 billion over 10 years, instead of the previously rumored mere $300 billion. But if $700 billion is bolder than $300 billion, why stop there? Why not cut $1.7 trillion, or $2.7 trillion? Mr. Bush wants to abolish the inheritance tax, which is paid only by the wealthiest estates, and now the tax on stock dividend income, which is also mostly paid by America’s rich. But so far he has proposed only a reduction in income tax rates. Why not abolish that one too? Wouldn’t that be bold? Wouldn’t it be the conservative and — speaking now as beleaguered taxpayers — the compassionate thing to do?

In today’s climate, it may be prudent at this point to note that we are not serious: We don’t favor abolition of all federal taxes. We hold to the old-fashioned opinion that the government ought to provide certain services, and that to do so it must raise a certain amount of revenue. The federal tax burden today is not inordinately high by historical standards, while the demands on the government are large and growing. Mr. Bush himself has not been shy to spend: on defense, for example, and on farm subsidies. Yet the president and most of his fellow Republican officeholders continue to behave as though balancing the books just isn’t part of their job description.

The economic plan that the president proposed yesterday is in keeping with this irresponsible philosophy. …

”Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel”

Members of the 108th Congress have enough business left unattended by members of the 107th to fill all their working days between now and the start of the 109th. But they also must make time for what President Bush has made the centerpiece of his economic agenda for 2003-’04. That doesn’t mean they should accept everything the president proposed on Tuesday — far from it. But there are a few elements in the new tax-cut package that make sense and others that offer the makings of a compromise across party lines. …

The problem with the economy right now is a shortage of demand and an excess of supply. To redress the balance, consumers must spend enough to persuade businesses with too much inventory and many idle factories to invest in rehired or newly hired workers, new plants and new capital equipment. Triggering that demand should be the focus of the upcoming congressional debate — one that also recognizes the dangers of long-term federal deficits.

Copyright 2003 by United Press International. All rights reserved.

See copy of speech: “President Bush Taking Action to Strengthen America’s Economy” ‘The New York Times’ President Bush did such a good job yesterday talking about the enduring strength of the economy that many Americans might wonder why the nation needs a costly new stimulus plan that imperils its fiscal health. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush wasn’t convinced by his own reassurances, and went on to propose a whopping new package of tax cuts. This plan is much less about the economy than about the White House’s belief that it needs to take action, any action, to show that the president cares. … With the economy showing signs of recovery, we remain unpersuaded of the need for a pricey stimulus package. Yet if Mr. Bush is truly concerned about the people who “spend their entire adult lives living paycheck to paycheck,” he should be pushing a more targeted plan along the lines proposed Monday by Congressional Democrats. At less than one-fourth the $674 billion cost of the president’s extravagant designs, their plan provides short-term relief to states and working-class Americans, thereby doing more to insure against an economic slowdown. ‘Chicago Tribune’ The battle over taxes is now joined. President Bush unveiled his bold, and expensive, tax cut and economic benefits plan Tuesday, estimated to cost $674 billion over the next 10 years. The Democrats have countered with a more modest, one-time $136 billion shot in the arm for the economy. The Democrats have posited that the Bush plan aims too much of its benefits at the wealthy. … The White House and Congress have to be realistic. The federal government has already fallen back into deficits — justified, perhaps in the short run, by the unexpected costs of homeland defense. They can’t, however, assume they will see a return to the kind of robust and sustained growth enjoyed in the 1990s. If they approve a deep reduction in federal revenues through ambitious tax cuts, they also have to put strict, long-term curbs on federal spending. Anything else will return the nation to a long pattern of growing deficits, and that will be reckless. ‘Los Angeles Times’ America may be about to get the debate it needs on how to get the economy moving. By going for broke — as in flat broke — President Bush seems to have awakened sensible critics from a long national snooze. The unexpectedly lavish $674-billion “growth and jobs” stimulus plan he announced Tuesday in Chicago, like the $1.35-trillion tax cut Congress passed in 2001, is focused on helping the wealthy. But the first tax cut package hasn’t revived the economy — and neither would Bush’s latest proposals, at least not with any speed. House Democrats, finally understanding that they have to do more than complain about Bush, countered with a $136-billion, 10-year proposal that would do more of what a stimulus package is supposed to, yet cost far less. … Consistent with his previous approach toward Congress, Bush has entered the budget battle with maximal demands. Unlike two years ago, congressional moderates at least seem to be showing some spine. ‘Washington Times’ In unveiling his 10-year, $670 billion short-term economic-stimulus and long-term economic-growth package yesterday, President Bush served notice to the burgeoning corps of Democratic presidential aspirants. To wit: This Bush White House is determined to buttress the evolving growth from the faltering economy it inherited. If that means engaging the Democrats in hand-to-hand combat in class warfare, then so be it. … ‘Washington Post’ “Bold” and “audacious”: Those were the reactions yesterday when President Bush proposed tax cuts costing nearly $700 billion over 10 years, instead of the previously rumored mere $300 billion. But if $700 billion is bolder than $300 billion, why stop there? Why not cut $1.7 trillion, or $2.7 trillion? Mr. Bush wants to abolish the inheritance tax, which is paid only by the wealthiest estates, and now the tax on stock dividend income, which is also mostly paid by America’s rich. But so far he has proposed only a reduction in income tax rates. Why not abolish that one too? Wouldn’t that be bold? Wouldn’t it be the conservative and — speaking now as beleaguered taxpayers — the compassionate thing to do? In today’s climate, it may be prudent at this point to note that we are not serious: We don’t favor abolition of all federal taxes. We hold to the old-fashioned opinion that the government ought to provide certain services, and that to do so it must raise a certain amount of revenue. The federal tax burden today is not inordinately high by historical standards, while the demands on the government are large and growing. Mr. Bush himself has not been shy to spend: on defense, for example, and on farm subsidies. Yet the president and most of his fellow Republican officeholders continue to behave as though balancing the books just isn’t part of their job description. The economic plan that the president proposed yesterday is in keeping with this irresponsible philosophy. … ‘Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel’ Members of the 108th Congress have enough business left unattended by members of the 107th to fill all their working days between now and the start of the 109th. But they also must make time for what President Bush has made the centerpiece of his economic agenda for 2003-’04. That doesn’t mean they should accept everything the president proposed on Tuesday — far from it. But there are a few elements in the new tax-cut package that make sense and others that offer the makings of a compromise across party lines. … The problem with the economy right now is a shortage of demand and an excess of supply. To redress the balance, consumers must spend enough to persuade businesses with too much inventory and many idle factories to invest in rehired or newly hired workers, new plants and new capital equipment. Triggering that demand should be the focus of the upcoming congressional debate — one that also recognizes the dangers of long-term federal deficits. Copyright 2003 by United Press International. All rights reserved.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 (UPI) — “Never assume you know a man until you have divided an estate with him.” This piece of Confucian wisdom came in a fortune cookie.

Now, as baby boomers are splitting up trillions of dollars in assets passed down from Depression-era parents, two Toronto attorneys have written a book aimed at preventing enmity among middle-aged siblings.

“I’m seeing really bad fights,” Les Kotzer said in a phone interview. “I had a woman smash a crystal vase in my parking lot because she had bought it for her mom, and the mother didn’t think to leave it back to the daughter. The mother left all her personal possessions to be sold and liquidated. This woman didn’t want her brothers to sell it, and out of spite they didn’t want to let her have it.”

“The Family Fight: Planning to Avoid It,” by Kotzer and his partner, Barry Fish, is available in both American and Canadian editions. Based on their years of experience as wills and estates lawyers, the authors suggest strategies to consider in order to preserve harmony within the family. They propose questions to ask your attorney and warn of the pitfalls in homemade wills. The authors try to get readers to think about eventualities most people would rather avoid.

“It’s not a book about how to save taxes,” Kotzer said, “but rather how to save your family — how to prevent the people gathered around the Thanksgiving table from conflict after your death.”

Kotzer described a Jaguar-driving, gold-bedecked boomer who came into his office with his wife. The car was leased and the home heavily mortgaged. “What do you do for a living?” the attorney asked.

“My husband’s a waiter,” the woman answered. “He’s waiting for his inheritance.”

Many of these “waiters” enjoy lifestyles far more comfortable than their parents, who learned how to pinch pennies during the Depression, ever allowed themselves. A typical widow “didn’t go to the movies every two weeks, doesn’t know what a DVD player is, and doesn’t go out to buy CDs for $25 bucks,” Kotzer told United Press International. “Everything was saved with coupons. We laughed at those parents when we bought the Internet stock. … Now they’re the mattress that my generation is falling back on.”

The language in this area of law scares people off, so they tune out and neglect their wills and matters of inheritance, Kotzer said. The first step is to understand the basics and to know that it’s not something that only rich people do. It affects everyone. About 70 percent of Americans don’t have a will in place.

And people must plan for incapacity, which requires power of attorney, not just death.

“Having a will in place is not good enough,” Kotzer said. “A will takes effect when you die.

“A lot of people don’t understand that if they become incapacitated — Alzheimer’s, stroke, what have you — their assets are for all intents and purposes frozen. Their executor named in their will cannot deal with those assets. So children are making competing applications in court to take over for Dad. That’s why you need the power of attorney. If not, these kids can fight tooth and nail over who’s going to be appointed. Often the one with the most money wins the legal battle.”

Kotzer said many parents don’t pay enough attention to who they appoint as their power of attorney and the executor of their will. “Don’t assume that the one who is appointed wants the responsibility, and don’t assume that those not appointed don’t care that they were not consulted.”

The “code of silence” about inheritance between parents and their children must be overcome, Kotzer said. “Secrecy is not golden.”

How to broach the subject? Let them understand the horror stories in the 20-page section titled “Inheriting Turmoil — Real Life Examples.”

The principle that equality isn’t always fairness is best illustrated by the care-giving child, who could feel slighted or used by an equal share of the inheritance.

“A caregiver waits in doctors’ offices and in hospital rooms,” Kotzer said. “She’s up at night waiting to give the 3 a.m. medication. The other kids don’t have to do all this. If you leave everything equally to all three kids — and one is your caregiver, and the others you haven’t seen in five years — you could have a tremendous war among your kids.”

The authors advise leaving a separate letter as well as a provision in the will to explain why the care-giving child is getting more.

Parents should not assume goodwill among their children, Kotzer said, because what appears to be goodwill among siblings may disappear after their parents die.

“Don’t leave money to one child on the assumption that he will take care of his sister. They may love each other, but their spouses may hate each other. You can’t depend on your son’s wife to protect your daughter. Don’t assume your children will have permanent marriages. Don’t assume that your daughter-in-law will be your daughter-in-law in 20 years.”

Kotzer said people don’t just fight over money, but also items of sentimental value. “They fight over memories,” he told UPI, “and they fight over feelings of being slighted.”

Parents don’t realize that if they leave their assets to their less successful children — who need the money the most — they emotionally disinherit their more successful offspring, the attorney said. “Deal with those personal items. Just because your child is wealthy, don’t think that he doesn’t value them. I always hear, ‘Ah, the kids will work it out.’ Well, quite often they don’t work it out. The watch that the son always wanted goes into the pot and is sold.

“Think long and hard before you cut a kid out of the will, because you may never be able to put him back in,” Kotzer warned. “You may get sick, infirm. And before you cut a kid out of a will, speak to the child who stands to benefit.” Many favored children would rather forgo the benefit rather than face the disinherited sibling. “You’re not helping your kid, necessarily, by cutting their sibling out.

“Don’t use a will as a weapon. Who are you really teaching a lesson? You’re hurting your other kids as well because they have to live with this disgruntled brother.

“Be aware of the little things that can destroy your family.”

“The Family Fight” is not available in stores but can be ordered on the toll-free number (877) 439-3999 and on familyfight.com.

Copyright 2003 by United Press International. All rights reserved.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 (UPI) — “Never assume you know a man until you have divided an estate with him.” This piece of Confucian wisdom came in a fortune cookie. Now, as baby boomers are splitting up trillions of dollars in assets passed down from Depression-era parents, two Toronto attorneys have written a book aimed at preventing enmity among middle-aged siblings. “I’m seeing really bad fights,” Les Kotzer said in a phone interview. “I had a woman smash a crystal vase in my parking lot because she had bought it for her mom, and the mother didn’t think to leave it back to the daughter. The mother left all her personal possessions to be sold and liquidated. This woman didn’t want her brothers to sell it, and out of spite they didn’t want to let her have it.” “The Family Fight: Planning to Avoid It,” by Kotzer and his partner, Barry Fish, is available in both American and Canadian editions. Based on their years of experience as wills and estates lawyers, the authors suggest strategies to consider in order to preserve harmony within the family. They propose questions to ask your attorney and warn of the pitfalls in homemade wills. The authors try to get readers to think about eventualities most people would rather avoid. “It’s not a book about how to save taxes,” Kotzer said, “but rather how to save your family — how to prevent the people gathered around the Thanksgiving table from conflict after your death.” Kotzer described a Jaguar-driving, gold-bedecked boomer who came into his office with his wife. The car was leased and the home heavily mortgaged. “What do you do for a living?” the attorney asked. “My husband’s a waiter,” the woman answered. “He’s waiting for his inheritance.” Many of these “waiters” enjoy lifestyles far more comfortable than their parents, who learned how to pinch pennies during the Depression, ever allowed themselves. A typical widow “didn’t go to the movies every two weeks, doesn’t know what a DVD player is, and doesn’t go out to buy CDs for $25 bucks,” Kotzer told United Press International. “Everything was saved with coupons. We laughed at those parents when we bought the Internet stock. … Now they’re the mattress that my generation is falling back on.” The language in this area of law scares people off, so they tune out and neglect their wills and matters of inheritance, Kotzer said. The first step is to understand the basics and to know that it’s not something that only rich people do. It affects everyone. About 70 percent of Americans don’t have a will in place. And people must plan for incapacity, which requires power of attorney, not just death. “Having a will in place is not good enough,” Kotzer said. “A will takes effect when you die. “A lot of people don’t understand that if they become incapacitated — Alzheimer’s, stroke, what have you — their assets are for all intents and purposes frozen. Their executor named in their will cannot deal with those assets. So children are making competing applications in court to take over for Dad. That’s why you need the power of attorney. If not, these kids can fight tooth and nail over who’s going to be appointed. Often the one with the most money wins the legal battle.” Kotzer said many parents don’t pay enough attention to who they appoint as their power of attorney and the executor of their will. “Don’t assume that the one who is appointed wants the responsibility, and don’t assume that those not appointed don’t care that they were not consulted.” The “code of silence” about inheritance between parents and their children must be overcome, Kotzer said. “Secrecy is not golden.” How to broach the subject? Let them understand the horror stories in the 20-page section titled “Inheriting Turmoil — Real Life Examples.” The principle that equality isn’t always fairness is best illustrated by the care-giving child, who could feel slighted or used by an equal share of the inheritance. “A caregiver waits in doctors’ offices and in hospital rooms,” Kotzer said. “She’s up at night waiting to give the 3 a.m. medication. The other kids don’t have to do all this. If you leave everything equally to all three kids — and one is your caregiver, and the others you haven’t seen in five years — you could have a tremendous war among your kids.” The authors advise leaving a separate letter as well as a provision in the will to explain why the care-giving child is getting more. Parents should not assume goodwill among their children, Kotzer said, because what appears to be goodwill among siblings may disappear after their parents die. “Don’t leave money to one child on the assumption that he will take care of his sister. They may love each other, but their spouses may hate each other. You can’t depend on your son’s wife to protect your daughter. Don’t assume your children will have permanent marriages. Don’t assume that your daughter-in-law will be your daughter-in-law in 20 years.” Kotzer said people don’t just fight over money, but also items of sentimental value. “They fight over memories,” he told UPI, “and they fight over feelings of being slighted.” Parents don’t realize that if they leave their assets to their less successful children — who need the money the most — they emotionally disinherit their more successful offspring, the attorney said. “Deal with those personal items. Just because your child is wealthy, don’t think that he doesn’t value them. I always hear, ‘Ah, the kids will work it out.’ Well, quite often they don’t work it out. The watch that the son always wanted goes into the pot and is sold. “Think long and hard before you cut a kid out of the will, because you may never be able to put him back in,” Kotzer warned. “You may get sick, infirm. And before you cut a kid out of a will, speak to the child who stands to benefit.” Many favored children would rather forgo the benefit rather than face the disinherited sibling. “You’re not helping your kid, necessarily, by cutting their sibling out. “Don’t use a will as a weapon. Who are you really teaching a lesson? You’re hurting your other kids as well because they have to live with this disgruntled brother. “Be aware of the little things that can destroy your family.” “The Family Fight” is not available in stores but can be ordered on the toll-free number (877) 439-3999 and on familyfight.com. Copyright 2003 by United Press International. All rights reserved.

Birmingham – The Alabama Policy Institute released a new independent research study titled, Dollars and “Sense”: How Outsourcing Can Save Money for Alabama’s Schools. Dollars and “Sense” examines the issues surrounding the outsourcing of three key support services in Alabama’s public schools: student transportation, food services, and maintenance.

“Alabama’s struggles with proration have left no school district untouched,” said Dr. John Hill, director of research and author of this study. “To help direct more resources to the classroom, some school districts have turned to the private sector for services such as transportation, facilities maintenance, and cafeteria operations.”

Among its findings, this report shows:

Of the more than $4.04 billion projected for Alabama’s education budget for FY 2001-2002, $807.8 million was spent on non-education services.

On average, schools districts in Alabama that fully outsourced their groundskeeping saved a minimum of 25 percent on their overall costs. If every school district in the state saved only half that amount, $2.7 million in savings could be realized.

An across-the-board savings of just six percent for student transportation resulting from outsourcing would allow an additional $10.8 million to be redirected to the classroom.

Forty percent of the nation’s school districts outsource their transportation and 21 percent outsource food services.

A copy of Dollars and “Sense” will be available on the API Web site (https://www.alabamapolicyinstitute.org) by Wednesday, Jan. 8. For more information, please contact Kristin Landers at (205) 870-9900.

”’The Alabama Policy Institute is an independent, non-profit research and education organization.”’

Birmingham – The Alabama Policy Institute released a new independent research study titled, Dollars and “Sense”: How Outsourcing Can Save Money for Alabama’s Schools. Dollars and “Sense” examines the issues surrounding the outsourcing of three key support services in Alabama’s public schools: student transportation, food services, and maintenance. “Alabama’s struggles with proration have left no school district untouched,” said Dr. John Hill, director of research and author of this study. “To help direct more resources to the classroom, some school districts have turned to the private sector for services such as transportation, facilities maintenance, and cafeteria operations.” Among its findings, this report shows: Of the more than $4.04 billion projected for Alabama’s education budget for FY 2001-2002, $807.8 million was spent on non-education services. On average, schools districts in Alabama that fully outsourced their groundskeeping saved a minimum of 25 percent on their overall costs. If every school district in the state saved only half that amount, $2.7 million in savings could be realized. An across-the-board savings of just six percent for student transportation resulting from outsourcing would allow an additional $10.8 million to be redirected to the classroom. Forty percent of the nation’s school districts outsource their transportation and 21 percent outsource food services. A copy of Dollars and “Sense” will be available on the API Web site (https://www.alabamapolicyinstitute.org) by Wednesday, Jan. 8. For more information, please contact Kristin Landers at (205) 870-9900. ”The Alabama Policy Institute is an independent, non-profit research and education organization.”