Cuts. Are they really that drastic?
|
 |
| Posted on: Mar. 01 2013,10:12 am by grassman |
NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
As Washington braces for automatic spending cuts, small businesses in the military town of Colorado Springs say they have been losing government business for months.
The general uncertainty facing federal agencies has trickled down to the companies that rely on federal contracts.
"Small businesses are telling us that their government contracts are either frozen, not being renewed or canceled in anticipation of budget cuts," said Kelly Manning, state director of the Colorado Small Business Development Center network.
Colorado Springs is dominated by military installations. These include Fort Carson -- the third-largest army base in the country -- Peterson Air Force Base and the United States Air Force Academy.
About half of the area's nearly 20,000 small businesses are subcontractors, contractors or vendors that work on military and other federal and state contracts.
Shelley Pearson's company, American Wiping Rags, is one of them. Her small business makes disposable cotton rags. Peterson has been her customer for the last six years.
"They use our rags in airplanes and hangars," she said. Business to Peterson and other government orders account for about 20% of her business.
She typically supplies 400 pounds of rags, two or three times a year, to the Air Force base.
But she hasn't got a new order from Peterson in more than five months. "I spoke with their purchasing agent a month ago about an order. I usually get the order in three weeks after a call," she said.
Pearson, whose company has three employees and makes about $90,000 a year in sales, said she can't wait much longer before her business starts hurting. So she's thinking about looking for new private sector customers.
Another area small business, Navsys Corporation, is also on pins and needles. The firm makes GPS systems and other navigation and communication systems for military and commercial use.
About 60% of Navsys' business comes from Department of Defense contracts, said Alison Brown, founder and CEO of Navsys. The company logs $3 million in annual sales and has 25 employees.
"We normally get a few small government contracts every year. These contracts are our bread and butter. Since last year, we're just not being awarded contracts," said Brown.
By May, Navsys should finish work on any ongoing contracts. "After that it will really hurt us if we don't get new government work," she said.
Like Pearson, Brown is trying to mitigate the risk by diversifying the business to commercial clients.
Andrew Merritt, chief defense industry officer with the Colorado Springs Regional Business Alliance, said businesses are adjusting in other ways, too. "In some cases, they've had to let people go, he said.
But lack of new contracts isn't the only threat facing local businesses, he said. Civilian workers who get furloughed because of budget cuts will have less money to spend.
"Furloughed individuals will see a pay cut. They may decide to delay buying a car, a house. They might not go to the movies or restaurants as much. This will also hurt our businesses," he said.
Anyone who relys on one particular customer, is not a good business owner. If you put all of your eggs in one basket, it may get lost. I think we are being fed a whole bunch of hyperbole.
(27) comments |
[ View Post | Print Article | Read more news... ]
|
|
What do you think of guns?
A question asked by David Larson |
 |
| Posted on: Feb. 27 2013,9:18 pm by Grinning_Dragon |
Taken from HERE
David Larson posits the following:
QUOTE I would enjoy hearing from gun owners and non-gun owners alike: What does the “well-regulated” part of the Second Amendment mean to you?
And, what should our country do to honor it?
David Larson
Albert Lea
Well David,
It would seem you, like many other misinformed Americans clue in on this part of the 2nd Amendment and gather that this means the regulation of arms.
This type of thinking is incorrect. First we must understand that the first part of the 2nd Amendment "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is DEPENDENT upon the main clause of the Amendment "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Without the PEOPLE being able to keep and bear arms, there is NO militia.
Now on to your main question "regulated"
When referring to regulated in this context, it is NOT the regulation of arms, but the regulation of the militia in the sense of the militia being well trained and well versed in the usage of arms.
Lets look to Federalist #29:
QUOTE "But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
Here Hamilton is making the case that the States should create their militia. To which further in this case, continues; "if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens." He is stating that IF a (Federal/National) "standing army" should be required the threat posed by that standing army to the liberties of the citizens (a concept that was obviously then, and should still be today, apparent to anyone reading FP.29) would best be held in check by (State) "the Militia".
We can also look at Federalist #28 also from Hamilton
Hamilton clearly states there exists a right of self-defense against a tyrannical government, and it includes the people with their own arms and adds:
QUOTE [T]he people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!
As you can see the militia is to be the ultimate check against a state or national govt. This is one of the main reasons the founding fathers thought it necessary and proper to include the 2nd Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms to the people instead of only active militia members.
We can also look further in Federalist # 46 in which Madison puts forth:
QUOTE Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
Madison is making the case that when the people are able obtain weapons and having this right enumerated and protected is enhanced by having a militia that is properly organized.
It is quite obvious David that you are lacking in the understanding of the framing and construct of the 2nd Amendment. I have only presented a very light cliff notes per se on the topic at hand. I suggest instead of parroting mindless uneducated assumptions of what is or has been put forth from the many talking heads on TV, radio who are just as clueless or are more interested in peddling emotional B.S.
(11) comments |
[ View Post | Print Article | Read more news... ]
|
|
|
