We’ve written many articles on our various Silkin Management Group blog sites about the economy, the Administration’s economic stimulus program and how that affects small businesses. As all of Silkin Management Group’s clients are small businesses, we like to keep an eye on this activity.

Silkin Management Group is located in Portland, Oregon. $3.9 billion is to come to Oregon from the federal government over three years as part of the economic stimulus program. So far, $2.8 billion has arrived in the state. In checking where this money went, I found the following highlights:

• $780 million went to unemployment payments
• $169 million went to construction projects such as highways, bridges, etc.
• $159 million went to food stamps
• $54.2 million went to pay prison staff
• $20.7 million went to pay for low income child care
• $11.7 million went to low income weatherization assistance

Other than the $169 million for construction project and maybe the weatherization assistance, I don’t see any of this money going to increase productivity in the economy. To me, it has gone to keep people working or having some money while not working.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not against helping out those who have gotten bashed and battered in this severe recession. But let’s call a spade a spade – most of the above does not stimulate the economy, it merely helps many people from drowning further. To me, economic stimulus should increase productivity and I’d like to see more of that, not only in Oregon, but throughout the country.

Jack Hennessy
Silkin Management Group Consultant

If you would like more information about Silkin Management Group and the management consulting and training services we offer, visit our website at www.silkinmanagementgroup.com.

Today, as part of my frequent review and reading of articles that will affect my clients at Silkin Management Group, I concentrated on what the latest was on the battle for passing the health care legislation that is being so fervently pushed by our President. In doing so I ran across this article in the New York Times: Millions Spent to Sway Democrats on Health Care.

The article points out that on one side we have a coalition of groups opposing the legislation, led by the United States Chamber of Commerce, putting up millions and millions of dollars ($11 million just this month) to sway the “on the fence” Democrats to vote against the bill, and on the other side we have the pharmaceutical companies and labor unions contributing equal amounts in the attempt to sway these same people to vote for the legislation. I don’t know about you, but whenever I see the “Big Pharma” people actively supporting something like this, I know that there is something big, in terms of big, big dollars, in it for them.

And, to put the icing on the cake, the article points out that, “The White House has signaled to lawmakers that assistance for midterm elections — for example, presidential visits and fund-raisers — will be prioritized for those who support the bill.” Hey, it’s the old “vote for my bill and I’ll help you get re-elected” ploy.

I’m sorry if I’m being unduly cynical but I can’t help but be that way when I see that a big part of the future of this country’s health care is being determined by who advertises the best and who can twist enough arms and promise the yellow brick road to re-election. It doesn’t give me a lot of faith in the system. But what else is new?

I’ll keep advising my clients at Silkin Management Group to manage their businesses in a manner completely different than how our legislators handle the fiscal state of the country. In other words, don’t spend more than you make, don’t go into deep debt and produce honest, worthwhile products for your customers and make them happy.

Gary Crawshaw
Silkin Management Group Consultant

For more information about Silkin Management Group, please visit our website at www.silkinmanagementgroup.com. You can access our Ask A Consultant feature there or email us at info@silkinmanagementgroup.com

The Latest in the Health Care Reform Bill

Over the last few months, those of us at Silkin Management Group who have been contributing articles for our blog sites have been watching the progress of the various health care legislation proposals that have travelled through the House of Representatives and Senate.  You can easily find earlier writings on this subject on the various Silkin Management Group blog sites.

As most everyone knows by now, the Senate passed its first major voting hurdle on December 20 by confirming the needed 60 votes to pass their version of the legislation. What I found especially fascinating, but not at all surprising, was the numerous “pay offs” made to various Senators to get their vote.  These “payoffs” benefited specific states and constituencies while leaving out the majority of the rest of the people of the country.   In my mind, this is politics as usual: if you need votes to pass a piece of legislation, give the elected official special perquisites that will make him look good with his constituents and assure him of re-election. Democracy in action.

Gosh, I thought the health care legislation was to help everyone in the country. That’s what we were told. Where did I go wrong?  OK, enough snide comments on the obvious politics as usual. It doesn’t seem to matter which party is in control, they both end up doing the same thing.

I read n article in the New York Times that got me thinking about this.  You can link to that article here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/health/policy/21healthcare.html?th&emc=th

Here are just a few of the special benefits given out:

• Money for people exposed to asbestos from a vermiculite mine in Libby, Montana which secured the vote of Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana (who happens to be the chairman of the Finance Committee.
• Additional Medicaid money for the state of Nebraska in order to secure the vote of Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson.
• $100 million to an unnamed “health care facility” affiliated with an academic health center at a public research university in a state where there is only one public medical and dental school.  Who is this for?

There are several others you can read about in the NY Times article.

As small business owners, Silkin Management Group clients must learn to live on their own production, management expertise and capabilities.  Our programs are designed to help them do so as we all know that we aren’t getting the government handouts.

For more information about Silkin Management Group contact us at: info@silkinmanagementgroup.com or call 800-695-0257.  You can also visit our website: www.silkinmanagementgroup.com

Jack Hennessy

Consultant, Silkin Management Group

As the President of Silkin Management Group I have written many blogs, along with our Silkin consultants, about a variety of topics including practice management tips as well as issues concerning current events such as the health care legislation. Because I like to write timely blogs I keep an eye and ear out on current events.

Yesterday, while driving, I was listening to the news on NPR and didn’t believe my ears concerning a statement made by President Obama. Note: I am a registered independent and have no leaning toward any political party. If anything I am liberal on social issues and conservative fiscally – a viewpoint that doesn’t safely belong with either party. Thus my amazement/bewilderment with what I heard has nothing to do with any political leaning. When I heard this statement I was so stunned that I yelled “you’ve got to be kidding!” so loudly I was very happy nobody was in the car with me.

Here’s the statement I heard. The President proudly said that there was about $700 billion in TARP money (the money that our government so kindly came up with to bail out banks, car companies and other needy corporate conglomerates) that it looked like these corporations didn’t need. So, he said, instead of lending it to the corporations, it could be used for other things including reducing the deficit. That’s right, reducing the deficit. Realize that this money itself came from the government borrowing money from the Fed and/or through issuing bonds bought mostly by China.

That struck me as a ridiculous statement and the kind of economic “slight of hand” that is the standard economic policy of this country. As an analogy it’s like borrowing money from one bank to pay for a house, then deciding you weren’t going to buy the house and instead using the borrowed funds to pay off another loan and now saying you are reducing your indebtedness when you still owe the same amount of money!

I hope he handles his personal finances better than this.

Larry Silver
President, Silkin Management Group

For more information about Silkin Management Group, Silkin’s management programs or any questions about practice management contact us at: info@silkinmanagementgroup.com or visit our website at: www.silkinmanagementgroup.com

Visit our other blogs:
practicemanagementblog.com
silkinmanagementgroup.blogspot.com
blog.silkinmanagementgroup.com