Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Can We Sue Congress Then?

Introduced by Rep. Sessions from Texas, this is their 'in' to sue the President. Cos, you know, we've got nothing else going on in this country that needs their attention. But my question is:
If they can sue the President and his administration for not doing their job, can We the People sue Congress for continually not doing theirs? Especially when they're not doing things, specifically to not support the President?
After all, they've made it perfectly clear that their personal agendas are more important than serving the people who put them in their offices.

Man, we need term limits. Two terms per public office. That's it.

Just daydreaming again.

Friday, July 25, 2014


The last day to register to vote for the 2014 Primary election is Monday, July 28th at midnight!

You can go to  
to register online
 Together, we can move Arizona Forward!

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

The Devestating Consequences of Reductions at Ft Huachuca, AZ

To Whom It May Concern:

I've recently read about the Army's plans to reduce forces on Fort Huachuca, and I wanted to let you know that as a veteran and Department of the Army civilian, the cuts at the levels suggested to occur by 2020 would be devastating, not only to the families with members employed on the installation here in the southeastern corner of Arizona, but to the civilian community of Sierra Vista and the surrounding area and honestly, to Cochise County.

Fort Huachuca is one of the largest employers in this part of our state. To significantly reduce our numbers leaves a lot of good, hardworking American families in limbo. And for most of us, there is no civilian equivalency that we could transfer our skills to in this community. We would be forced to move out of a wonderful small town. And with us, we'd take the stability and security of the businesses that reside here, which would cause a large economic upset.

I understand wanting to make our force smaller. I understand wanting to save money in the face of a citizenry wanting to downsize our military budget, but surely, we could use less overly expensive planes. Or APCs. Or here's a thought, less war involvement that puts our shrinking military forces in constant rotation overseas, when oversight is clearly not done for services that support them when they get back.

When you detract from the workforce that supports this installation and our fighting men and women, you make it poignantly clear that you are not interested in the people who make this system work.

Our little corner of Arizona will be a ghost town within two years of such reductions. Do not balance your budgetary needs on the back of veterans and their families.

Find another way.

Connie L. Roberts-Huth

 This was in response to the following email: 

Fellow Fort Huachuca workers,

The Army is considering force reductions in many locations (including Fort Huachuca) as part of the "2020 force structure realignment". 'Alternative 1' of this realignment causes the loss of 46.89% of Fort Huachuca’s Soldiers and DACs (page 4-294 of attachment); however the overall determination indicates 'No Significant Impact'. It seems to me that a loss of nearly 47% of Fort Huachuca's government work force is a SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. If you agree, it's time to do something about it.

We have an opportunity (until August 25, 2014) to provide comment via email (below address) on the impact of this plan. Please forward this to others in our community. Many other Forts are part of this plan; our voice must be louder than the other communities. Please consider how these reductions would affect you, your family and the entire community.

The numbers from the attachment:
Ft. Huachuca's current workforce:
5,841 = Soldiers & DACs
17,739 = Total Soldiers, DACs, Contractors, etc...

Alternative 1 results:
2,739 - LOST jobs (Soldiers & DACs)
3,102 = Soldiers & DACs
??? = Total Soldiers, DACs, Contractors, etc...


Send your input to:

This article discusses our input:

The complete assessment document is located at this site:

Friday, July 11, 2014

What Works: Investing in Employees

The biggest argument of the anti-increase of minimum wage is that doing so means prices go up or the number of active laborers is cut. After all, the money has to come from somewhere, and corporations aren't interested in hurting their bottom line.

However, the truth is simpler: Happy employees sell.

I wanted to tell you about several companies that have taken a chance.

IKEA: Via this article from NPR.org:

"By taking better care of our coworkers," says Rob Olson, the acting president of Ikea U.S., "they will take better care of our customers, who will take better care of Ikea. We see it as a win-win-win opportunity."

So what about profits? Olson said profits may fall in the short term, but in the long term the higher wage will lead to better, happier employees, which will lead to higher sales growth.

Basically the company is betting that the pay raise will pay for itself.
COSTCO: This company starts their employees off with an $11.50 wage.

So what makes Costco so successful? Arguably the biggest difference is how the retailer treats its workers. Walk into any Costco and look at the name tags. Chances are you will read the phrases “since 2002,” “since 1999” and “since 1995.” Costco workers get paid very well compared to their counterparts at chains including Walmart. In fact, employees working on the floor can make a salary that reaches the mid-$40,000 range; not bad for someone who starts working for the company out of high school. And while the vast majority of Costco’s employees are not unionized (most of those are legacy employees from Price Club that the Teamsters represent), over 80 percent have competitively priced health insurance plans. The outcome includes more productive workers, lower turnover and for what it’s worth, relatively high job satisfaction.

IN-AND-OUT BURGER: This company pays a starting wage of $10.50 an hour to its employees.

Labor Secretary Thomas Perez makes a good point. If In-N-Out Burger can do it–remain profitable and still provide what has arguably been deemed a superior product–why can’t McDonald’s? Say’s Perez, “I find it a remarkable notion that McDonald’s can’t afford to pay an increase in the minimum wage but In-N-Out Burger can.”
ZAPPOS:  This company pays up to $12/hr to its call center employees, instead of shipping those jobs to other countries where they could pay less. This results in less turnover in employees, which only benefits the company.

These companies have learned the simple lesson that wage increases can be partially offset by lowering employee attrition, leading to a happier, more productive and more knowledgeable work force.
And this is just four.

So I don't want to hear how it can't be done. Invest in your employees, and you'll see it as profitable. 

Wednesday, July 2, 2014

Maybe I Should Run for Governor...

Arizona needs a big change from the current status quo. And the status is far from quo.


These are the current contenders:

Courtesy of Ballotpedia

Thoughts on SCOTUS Decisions: The Frustration of the 'Freedom of Religion' Caveat

As a non-Christian, it continues to be evident that Christianity is the only religion that matters in our 50 fifty states, and that Christianity alone trumps every other religion when it comes to legislation.

Talk about frustrating.

And yes, I know that the ruling is for abortifacients. Too bad folks can't seem to agree what is an actual abortion-causing drug, like RU-4, versus pills like Plan B and Ella, which prevent ovulation (with the addendum that if the already fertilized egg has already implanted, these drugs do nothing).

The problem is that in the path of outrage that their rights are being squashed, they seem to be overlooking our rights. Which brings me to the question:

Why does your religion trump mine?

Heck, how does your brand of Christianity trump the others? Cos the vast majority of Christians are okay with birth control and believe that other people's abortions aren't any of their business. We're not asking you to get an abortion. We're not even asking you to use contraceptives. We just really don't think it's any of your business what your employees are doing.

Oh, I get it. Abortion is wrong to you. You feel you shouldn't have a hand in making that decision possible.

But how much longer do we have to talk about how that decision is between the woman and her doctor? Wait, you're a Christian. The decision is between the woman, her husband, her doctor and God. Not ye who should not be judging others.

Better? Let's move forward.

The other part of this decision that frustrates me is the response from the right.

Man, you guys sure got us liberals. We must be crying in our skinny jeans and into our designer lattes. After all, we can't be happy that our abortion-on-demand access has been thwarted. Cos you know, at the end of the day, we liberals just want abortions for everyone! Free those vaginas! Whores should be less whore-y anyway, right?


A better response would've been:

"I'm glad that the Supreme Court decided in favor of protecting religious freedom, but I see your concerns, and I will stand with you to ensure that this isn't a precedent for future issues. I will stand against any future legislation that would allow businesses to not allow the LGBT community on their premises. I will stand against anything in the future that would require employees to agree to share their medical records with their company's HR to ensure they aren't using that hard earned corporate funding (their paycheck) for activities contrary to corporate religious beliefs. Because while I fervently support a corporation's religious beliefs, I understand that it's our responsibility as citizens to prevent them from overreaching."

Oh, I know I'm dreaming. The idea that maybe, just maybe, you could help try and unite this country instead of being more divisive is such a silly concept. After all, you're right. We're clearly wrong.

Silly, stupid liberal me.

(Am I pissed off? Hell yes.)

And my final thought:

No corporation gives insurance for free, so those Hobby Lobby employees are still paying in to that system. Why can't they have the option to have the contraception be paid out of their part of the insurance?  Why can't the employees opt in to what will clearly be more affordable birth control options through their existing insurance company? Then it wouldn't be a corporate offering, or corporate funding, but an acceptable alternative for employees who need it.

But that would be common sense. And we're woefully lacking that in this country. 

Saturday, June 21, 2014

Happy Summer Solstice!

You don't have to be pagan to appreciate the first day of summer! 

Have a wonderfully blessed day!!