Recently, Ira Rohter wrote an article in the Star-Bulletin criticizing Governor Cayetano's call for an economic summit. While I believe Mr. Rohter's criticism of the Governor's proposal was warranted, I have a hard time accepting Mr. Rohter's proposed solutions.

"Plugging the unnecessary money leaks from our isles by buying as much possible from local sources" sounds so reasonable...until one actually thinks about what it says. Why a socialist such as Rohter would be spouting old line mercantilist fallacies is a question in itself. But how does one differentiate between an "unnecessary" money leak and a necessary one? And who determines just how much buying from local sources is "as much as possible?" I certainly would resent some civil service tenured public employee telling me I had to pay 10 or 20% more for a "local" version of some product. And are companies such as Penney's, Sears and Safeway local sources?

I don't waste my time raising cows so I can slaughter them for food and tan their hide for my shoes. I let someone else do that so that I can use my time to my best advantage. So why should the people of the State of Hawaii have to ignore the advantages of concentrating on what we can do best while letting people outside the state provide us with what they can do best? The problem with our current economy is that the State has been acting along the lines Rohter wants and has limited our ability to be flexible and find the ways we can be most productive.

"Strengthening existing small business via business assistance programs and exporting more local products" is another apparently reasonable statement until closely examined. How do we provide assistance programs without taxing peoples' livelihoods? This whole issue boils down to whether or not we can trust government to successfully invest our money. I suggest that the track record (the Kohala Task Force, the Honolulu Stadium [which, aside from having been misengineered from the start, brings in more revenue from the parking lot than from the stadium!], the State's Kakaako Plan, and numerous other examples) does not bode well for such hopes.

"Encouraging new local enterprises by helping them start up and survive the first critical year" is more of the same, unless Mr. Rohter envisions a radical cut back in the amount of government intervention and regulation in small businesses.

"Enhancing citizen participation by assisting local citizens in creating community-owned economic enterprises" is out and out socialism. Anyone with a good idea can get out there and persuade people to join into co-ops. Is that food co-op that used to be in Moiliili still around? These enterprises are rare because they have inherent defects that prevent people from maximizing their own potential. Spending more taxpayer money on these losers is another waste.

Mr. Rohter has grand suggestions on how we should invest the taxpayers' money. Why is he so interested in using the coercive power of the State when he could be out there doing what millions of entrepreneurs do every day: obtain voluntary support from investors by convincing them that their project is a good idea and will provide an adequate return for the risk of the investment?

I have been a working small business owner since 1980. Since that time, I have paid my taxes and exuberant insurances. I have complied with all of the State's Rules & Regulations concerning my business. I have rented office space for 18 years and provided jobs for other individuals. I have struggled as most small business owners do with the cost of doing business in Hawaii. But we have hung in there riding out this unpredictable economic business climate. I am proud of what I do and feel that I have made a positive contribution to this state.

After 18 years of renting office space, I decided to move our business to our home. We are established at what we do. All of our business is conducted away from our office. No clients or customers come here. I hired a contractor and one month and eight thousand dollars later, moved into our beautiful garage home office. No more sending my kids to A Plus after school. Mom is home! I was feeling pretty happy about the decision I made. Saving $1500 a month in rent was a good feeling but to be able to bring my children home after school, in a state where most mothers don't see their children until 5:30, was rewarding beyond measure.

Just as we were finally settling in, an inspector from the City knocked at our garage door. We had stated on our permit that we were enclosing our garage to use as a home office and he was there to inspect our business. Our part time typist was busily typing away. He asked us if we had any employees working on our premises and we told him that we had a part time typist. The inspector told us that we could not have an employee on our premises and that if we didn't get rid of her, we would be eventually turned over to the prosecutor's office.

It is hard to find the right words to convey how I feel as I write this. I have abided by every rule, regulation, tax payment, insurance policy and license fee that this state has demanded of me. After 18 years of the grind I move my office home to be with my kids after school and I am in violation with the City and County just because I have a typist who quietly comes into my office to help me 20 hours a week. I have no other choice but to move back out. I cannot do this work alone.

A woman who lives next to me babysits for a living. She watches three kids and gets paid for it. Parents drive their children to her house and return to pick them up. There is traffic there. The children play outside and are seen and loudly heard by the surrounding neighbors. A friend of mine has a housekeeper who comes to her home three times a week to clean. That is permissible by the City. She cleans her home more hours than my typist types.

My typist is seen and heard by no one. She also happens to be on welfare and with this job, she is weaning off of government support and feels really good about it. I feel good about it too. I have the proper facilities for her. Parking, restroom. What is the problem here?

In this time of economic recession, horrendous traffic congestion and parents with child care issues, it makes sense that more and more people are moving their businesses home. I don't see what the problem is with having an employee coming into your home to work. I think it's time that the state and city start understanding the needs of the small business owner and start lending us their support.

I would be willing to apply for a permit with the city to have my home employee. I am already conditioned to pay a fee for everything in this city and state and would be willing to pay a permit fee for my application for my home employee and would agree to a review by them. Would you please join me and help in this legislation of this bill in the upcoming future?

COURT AWARDS FIRED EMPLOYEE WORKERS' COMP DISMISSAL CAUSED STRESS, MANAGER SAID (Honolulu Advertiser, August 7, 1997, page B1)

"A store manager fired from his job can collect workers' compensation for the stress he suffered from his dismissal, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled yesterday. The high court last month held for the first time that employees who suffer stress from disciplinary actions -- justified or not -- can collect compensation. Other cases by employees seeking compensation for stress from disciplinary actions are pending in the courts. "My jaw's still kinda open," said Wallace J. Courtney, 47, of Mililani, who handled the court appeal himself. "I was hoping and praying I could win but didn't think I could."

The following episode of Jonathan Gullible was inspired by the court rulings this summer in Hawaii.

As you may recall, we last left Jonathan Gullible on a remote Pacific Island after his boat was blown far off course by a terrific storm. Jonathan was about to open the door of a small store when he was pushed aside by a frail, scrawny youngster who was leading another man by a chain around his neck. The appearance of the two was comical and tragic. A ragtag bully was tugging on the chain of a proud gentleman nearly twice his size. The gentleman's hands were not tied, yet he offered no resistance. The bully kicked and taunted the gentleman, poking him in the ribs and laughing.

"Why are you pulling this man around by a chain?" Jonathan asked boldly.

The bully replied derisively, "This scum is an employer."

"Employer?" repeated Jonathan in alarm. "He hires people for work? Then why the chain?"

"That's his crime," sneered the bully. "He actually expects people to work, to follow orders, for the money he gives them."

"What's so strange about that? Isn't it his money to give as he pleases?"

The bully puffed himself up to his full height as the gentleman tried to stoop a little, cowering one step behind. "Oh that's been a crime ever since the Council of Lords passed the Anti-Stress Law. Accordingly, the employee decides the manner of work and the amount of pay. If the employer disagrees, then he is forced to pay the employee to stay home from all the stress of work."

"How can this be?" gasped Jonathan. "The employer is forced to pay a worker not to work?"

"Sure," replied the bully sternly. "An employer cannot tell workers what to do! And he dare not fire them--it would cause injurious stress. He remains obliged even if he goes out of business. Once hired, always hired! Any scum who dares to hire people is trapped for life."

"Why aren't you grateful that he hired you?"

"Oh, he hasn't hired me yet--and that has caused me a great deal of stress! The application, the interview, the worry and all--I'm taking him to the Council of Lords for a ruling. He should have to pay me for all that stress. And what if I wanted to buy his product? Now there's plenty of stress, too, don't you think?"

"Why is this man so silent?" said Jonathan, gaping at the timid hulk of the employer who stood quietly, looking guilty.

"I don't know," whispered the bully, looking over his shoulder. "Good thing, huh? If he wasn't, I don't think I could hold him." And with a sudden jerk of the chain they proceeded down the sidewalk.

What's the problem? Since state school officials from the highest levels down to the teachers' union are in a state of denial, maybe a little sad humor will be food for thought.

The evolution of a math problem, 1960 - 1990

In 1960: "A logger sells a truck-load of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of this price. What is his profit?" In 1970: (traditional math): "A logger sells a truck-load of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of this price; in other words, $80. What is his profit?"

In 1970: ("New Math"): "A logger exchanges a set L of lumber for a set M of money. The cardinality of set M is 100, and each element is worth $1. Make one hundred dots representing the elements of the set M. The set C of costs of production contains 20 fewer points than set M. Represent the set C as a subset of M, and answer the following question: What is the cardinality of the set P of profits?"

In 1980: "A logger sells a truck-load of wood for $100. His cost of production is $80, and his profit is $20. Your assignment is to underline the number 20."

In 1990: "By cutting down beautiful forest trees, a logger makes $20. What do you think of this way of making money? Topic for class participation: How did the forest birds and squirrels feel?"

Employers understand that there are three figures involved in employee wage amounts. The net wage the employee sees is the difference between the taxable gross and his or her withholdings for FICA, FWT, SWT, etc. The taxable gross is the difference between the employers gross cost and the employers payments for workers' comp, TDI, health insurance, unemployment insurance, FICA, et al.

Most employees are under the delusion that the portion of the benefits not included in their gross taxable wage is some sort of gift forcibly extracted from employers by the government. In plain fact the market determines the gross cost of labor for the various jobs done throughout the economy. The market is driven by the tastes and spending habits of consumers.

It is consumers not employers who ultimately determine the gross cost of labor for various jobs.

All employee benefits come out of the gross amount of income designated to employees by the market. None comes out of the portion of a businesses' income the market directs to management. It is a great oddity that it is the business community rather than wage earners who carry the full load of lobbying against the high cost of such things as workmens' comp. If their employees understood that such things came out of their wages the political support for them might well dwindle.

Trade unions have made a great deal of noise about all the benefits they have "won" for wage earners. The unions have merely taken the right away from wage earners to spend a larger portion of their income and directed it to insurance companies.

Unskilled low paid workers are hurt the most, since prepaid health is a flat charge regardless of income that lowers wages over a dollar per hour. They also can least afford reductions in take home pay.

How would your employees react if they could take an increase in take home pay in exchange for less medical or unemployment insurance? Too bad our government has taken that decision away from them.