THE DEMOCRAT DEBATE FOLLIES

BRYCE ON POLITICS

- The candidates stumble out of the gate.

Click for AUDIO VERSION.

To use this segment in a Radio broadcast or Podcast, send TIM a request.

As I mentioned recently, the early caucus debates are reminiscent of the Triple Crown in Horse Racing; the Kentucky Derby has the biggest field, but it narrows down in the Preakness and Belmont Stakes. This is true in the current round of Democrat debates featuring 20 candidates, with others not appearing due to failed eligibility. All of the prime candidates were there in Miami which was split into two nights (June 26th and 27th) and hosted by NBC. A lot of it followed script, but there were some entertaining moments as well, including tweets from the president who was watching from far away in Osaka, Japan for the G20 conference.

As expected, there was the customary bashing of the president and the GOP, followed by trashing the record of the front-runner, former VP Joe Biden, who appeared to be somewhat stumped by the attacks. His biggest antagonist was Sen. Kamala Harris who challenged his civil rights record. This worked well for Ms. Harris, and bad for VP Biden who ended his defense by simply saying, "my time's up, I'm sorry."

It seemed rather obvious the NBC moderators gave preferential treatment (airtime) to certain candidates while ignoring others. Among the favorites were Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Cory Booker, Sec. Julian Castro, Sen. Kamala Harris, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. Everyone else will likely not make it to the Preakness, including former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, Rep. Tim Ryan, and Mayor Bill Deblasio.

Overall NBC did a good job of running the debate, but they seemed to lose control in the second night in terms of regulating the time limit of candidate responses. There was also a strange technical snafu on the first evening causing NBC to cut away to commercial prematurely. This prompted the president to tweet, "@NBCNews and @MSNBC should be ashamed of themselves for having such a horrible technical breakdown in the middle of the debate. Truly unprofessional and only worthy of a FAKE NEWS Organization, which they are!"

Some interesting quotes came out of the debates that either revealed the true character of the candidate or were just plain weird; for example:

New York Mayor Bill Deblasio claimed, "There's plenty of money in this world. There's plenty of money in this country, it's just in the wrong hands. We Democrats have to fix that."

He also said, "Yes, we are supposed to be for 70% tax rate on the wealthy; yes, we're supposed to be for free college, free public college, for our young people. We are supposed to break up big corporations when they're not serving our democracy. This Democratic Party has to be strong and bold and progressive."

Rep. Eric Swalwell tried to make a humorous comparison, "We can't be a forward-looking party if we look to the past for our leadership (a dig at VP Biden). I'm a congressman, but also a father of a 2-year-old and an infant. When I'm not changing diapers, I'm changing Washington. Most of the time, the diapers smell better." Unfortunately, this didn't play well in Poughkeepsie. Sayonara Rep. Swalwell.

During the first evening, there was an unexpected contest over who was the most proficient in the Spanish language between former Rep. Beto O'Rourke, Sen. Corey Booker, and Sec. Julian Castro. It sounded like they were auditioning to become the next Ambassador to Mexico. Isn't English our official language?

Overall, the debate focused on such topics as illegal immigration, the economy (which they contend only serves the rich), universal healthcare, and the rights of women and LGBT. During the debate, it became obvious the Democrats have become the party of "giveaways." They believe in open borders, the rights of illegal immigrants over lawful citizens, no fiscal or legal restraints, and they will not be satisfied until there has been a redistribution of the wealth; in other words, a socialist utopia. As I keep insisting, this is NOT the party of our father's generation. It has taken a sharp turn to the Left. Never before have the differences been so glaringly obvious.

As to nominating someone to honestly compete against President Trump, I didn't see anyone who could duel with him, the differences are so pronounced. Even NPR observed, "None of the candidates really made the case as to why they are best equipped to take the fight to Trump."

As for President Trump, he watched from afar and tweeted his observations:

Following Day 1, he simply said, "BORING!"

And following Day 2, "All Democrats just raised their hands for giving millions of illegal aliens unlimited healthcare. How about taking care of American Citizens first!? That’s the end of that race!"

President Trump is correct with this last observation. The Democrats have painted themselves into a far-left corner. The American people will either buy into their concept of open borders, unrestrained fiscal responsibility, and the rights of illegals over citizens, or they won't. I'm betting they will not.

Next up, the Preakness will be held July 30th and 31st in Detroit and hosted by CNN. The candidates better bring some new material or they will be digging themselves a deeper hole.

Keep the Faith!

P.S. - Don't forget my new book, "Tim's Senior Moments" now available in Printed and eBook form.

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is a writer and the Managing Director of M&JB Investment Company (M&JB) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 40 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb1557@gmail.com

For Tim's columns, see:   timbryce.com

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Copyright © 2019 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

Listen to Tim on WZIG-FM (104.1) in Palm Harbor,FL; Or tune-in to Tim's channel on YouTube. Click for TIM'S LIBRARY OF AUDIO CLIPS.

WHY ARE NONPROFITS FAILING?

BRYCE ON MANAGEMENT

- Because we are not dedicated "for the good of the order."

Click for AUDIO VERSION.

To use this segment in a Radio broadcast or Podcast, send TIM a request.

Shortly after I wrote a recent article regarding the problems my home owners association was experiencing, I received several notes regarding the problems in other nonprofit groups in my area. This includes fraternal, political, religious, club sports and other home owner groups. I know many of them as I have actively participated in them over the years, but today they all seem to be struggling to keep their heads above water. It appears most, if not all, are in a self-destruct mode, which caused me to wonder why.

Let's put our cards on the table; the biggest problem with most nonprofits is they are run by nice people, who mean well, but haven't a clue as to what they are doing. Many of these offices come with a fancy title, but offer little in terms of insight for performing the work. Very few provide training in how to run a nonprofit effectively. There are some state courses describing pertinent rules and regulations to be observed, but none to my knowledge in terms of how to actually lead and manage. Consequently, nonprofits flounder due to ineffective leadership, causing meetings to become chaotic, financial reports to be prepared with errors, and the attitude of the general membership suffers, causing a decline, all because it is well known management is incompetent. Even worse, stories of embezzlement and gross negligence have become common.

People who serve on the Board of Directors for nonprofits should only do so "for the good of the order," meaning it has more to do with the overall group and less about the individual. In the early days of our country, the Congress consisted of representatives from farms and other businesses who took turns serving, and at the end of their term, were anxious to return home and tend to their farm or business. There was no thought of lifetime service as there is today. They came, they performed the nation's business "for the good of the order," and returned home. This simply is not so anymore.

Today we have people who serve only to fuel their ego or career. There are those who take on a position to give themselves visibility to promote their products and/or services. Of course, the membership has no interest in this, yet the individual persists in his/her agenda. Then there are others who look to add a feather in their cap which will look good on a resume. In Freemasonry, we call this "chasing aprons," meaning they are actively pursuing fancy Masonic aprons and titles. Most of these people never accomplished much in life and thrive on the adulation associated with such recognition. I have always been of the opinion that such people should be given their apron, then get them out of the way so they do not impede progress.

Such conduct results in what today is called an "Ineptocracy," an incompetent ruling government where the least capable are elected to positions of authority. Quite often, this is done not because the person has exhibited any special talent, but rather there is nobody willing to serve or, perhaps worse, "it's his/her turn" to preside. Not surprising, people quite often rise above their level of competency (aka, "The Peter Principle"). This does a disservice to both the organization and the person as well. When a person has risen above their level of competency, it will become obvious to others and will likely affect morale.

Working "for the good of the order," means you believe in the virtues of the group, that it serves a useful purpose, and that you possess something to help the group, be it a specific talent or you are willing to work in any capacity. This is an important point. If you are unwilling to get your hands dirty, you should not be serving on a Board of Directors. It is like the old saying, "talk is cheap." The effort of ALL members of the board are required in order to be successful. It is one thing to offer advice, quite another to see it through to completion.

There is one other cause for failure, that people believe management is not "cool." Translation: a person lacks the discipline, organization, and structure to effectively lead people and hold them accountable. This normally results in either one person doing all the work so others are not burdened, but more likely, everything falls through the cracks and chaos ensues.

Whoever leads a nonprofit, must set the proper tone from the beginning, including the "5-W's and H," meaning "Who" is assigned to "What" work, "When" and "Where" it must be performed and "Why." As to "How," there may be standard protocols, tools and techniques to be followed, but it may be time to upgrade them. This should be followed by a prioritized list of objectives for the nonprofit to pursue in the operating year.

This brings up an important point, I am a strong proponent of "Managing from the Bottom-Up," meaning assign responsibility, train accordingly, and get out of their way. Unless there are specific time constraints requiring urgency, it is not necessary to micromanage everything. Most nonprofits are volunteer organizations, and as such, people typically want to go about their jobs without Attila the Hun breathing down their necks.

"Managing from the bottom-up" also includes the formation and empowerment of committees to perform specific functions, such as reviewing finances, planning social affairs, membership and programming, property maintenance, or special projects. By building legitimate committees, you are cultivating people to succeed to the Board over time. This is why they must be allowed to speak and think for themselves.

As I have said repetitively over the years, running a nonprofit organization doesn't require rocket science. Actually, in most cases, it is quite simple. You need simple and responsible management; someone who knows the governing docs, Robert's Rules of Order, and knows how to write an agenda and use a gavel. It is not necessary for the leader to have all the answers, but how to formulate the answers with the rest of the board.

One last responsibility the leader must master is to "do yourself out of a job." Your tenure is typically brief, such as a year or two. Before you leave though, it is essential you have taught the Board to carry on without you. This is actually an on-going process beginning on the first day of your tenure. Take plenty of notes, perhaps a log of your activities, but also create or update checklists, job descriptions, governing docs (e.g., bylaws), and technical "how to" procedures.

The chaos within nonprofit groups these days has gotten worse because the leaders have either forgotten the basics of management or were never trained to begin with, or maybe worse, they're in it for the wrong reasons, such as accolades. It is like they have come down with a bad case of "The Stupids." All of this is so unnecessary. We must always remember, we are there to serve for "the good of the order," and no other reason.

Maybe I should give a class "for the good of the order." Let me know if you are interested.

Keep the Faith!

P.S. - Don't forget my new book, "Tim's Senior Moments" now available in Printed and eBook form.

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is a writer and the Managing Director of M&JB Investment Company (M&JB) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 40 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb1557@gmail.com

For Tim's columns, see:   timbryce.com

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Copyright © 2019 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

Listen to Tim on WZIG-FM (104.1) in Palm Harbor,FL; Or tune-in to Tim's channel on YouTube. Click for TIM'S LIBRARY OF AUDIO CLIPS.

THE POLITICS OF CHILDREN'S GAMES

BRYCE ON LIFE

- Why are we banning certain games?

Click for AUDIO VERSION.

To use this segment in a Radio broadcast or Podcast, send TIM a request.

During my elementary grade school years in Connecticut, my neighborhood friends and I would play all kinds of outdoor games. Living in a wooded setting, we loved to run, hide, and tag each other. Kids have been playing such games for centuries. I'm not talking about a card game, board game, or even a computer game, just simple human interaction which we found exhilarating. Interestingly, I never knew these were all designed to be political in nature, but now we are hearing such games are affecting young egos and, consequently, are being banned in schools.

We did a lot of things outdoors, regardless of the season, but we were very keen on summer and autumn as we could run through the forests, play in a river, stay up late, and explore our world. I'm not sure children today play such games as they are probably perceived as archaic. I liked it because it gave us a chance to get some exercise, and use your imagination for competitive purposes.

Here are the games I remember:

TAG - was one of the easiest games to play. Someone is appointed "it," who must then touch another person who becomes "it." You, of course, tried to avoid becoming "it." Remarkably, I have heard stories of adults playing this game today in the corporate world. I also remember watching my son playing it with his friends as well. The version I played included a "home base," usually consisting of a tree, where a contestant could rest and be free of becoming "it." The only problem here though, the "it" person stood near you to assure you didn't get away. You had to time your escape carefully to elude being tagged.

According to "experts," the game of tag promotes a predatory experience, thereby causing school districts in Alabama, California, South Carolina, and Washington to ban the game. Not surprising, some people today view the game as promoting sexual harassment and bullying. I never thought of the game this way, it was just a great way to learn to sprint, dodge around objects and, if captured, learn to defend "home base." I never saw it as a game of intimidation, nor did my friends or my son's generation. If you didn't want to play, nobody forced you, but if you elected to play, you better be fast on your feet and know how to use your head.

HIDE AND SEEK - another old favorite, particularly being in a wooded setting which afforded some great places to hide. Here, the "it" person would have to close his eyes and count to ten (or higher), after which he would declare, "Ready or not, here I come!" and try to locate everyone who was concealed. Here, the "it" person didn't wander too far from "home base" as the other contestants would race to the base and yell, "Home free" (meaning safe from capture). If the "it" person discovered a concealed contestant, the race was on for home base where the "it" person declared "Tap, tap, tap, I see Joe, 1, 2, 3." Joe would then become the next "it" person.

I'm sure Hide and Seek is another game frowned on by some people as they see this it as another way to mentally scar children. If anything, the game taught the "it" person to be more cunning and protect home base. We used to play this for hours, and at night.

RED ROVER - originated in England and migrated around the world. The contestants are split into two teams. Each team holds hands and forms a line. The two teams, East and West, take turns calling for someone from the other team to try and break their human chain, "Red Rove, Red Rover, can Billie come over?" If they cannot break the chain, they join the other side. If the person breaks through, he takes two players back to his team. This goes on until one person is left on a team.

Some would say this somehow promotes discrimination, which, of course, is not so. It is a strategy game to build up your line, promote teamwork, and to find "the weakest link."

RED LIGHT/GREEN LIGHT - was a favorite of mine. The "it" person would be separated from the rest of the contestants by approximately fifty feet. The objective was for the others to cross the distance as fast as possible to tag the "it" person. However, they had to observe the commands of the "it" person who would hide his face and yell, "Green Light" (meaning to go), and "Red Light" (meaning to stop). If the person yells "Red Light" and turns his head and finds someone moving, the offender must return to the starting line. Again, this was a game of strategy as you had to out-think the "it" person's cadence.

This is somewhat like tag in that you had to act and think fast. Critics claim it is not fair as the fastest person typically wins. Not true. Quite often, the fast person would be spotted moving and caused to return to the starting line. The winner would be the person who would avoid the line of sight of the "it" person and steadily advance.

COPS AND ROBBERS - was another variation of tag, except this version was played as a team. The cops were "it" and had to find the robbers who would hide out and try to sneak back to home base to spring one of their fellow robbers.

In this age of political incorrectness, I suspect kids want to be "robbers" as opposed to "cops," just the antithesis of my day.

SCAVENGER HUNT - was a rare game of seeking clues around the neighborhood until we discovered the end. If parents wanted to occupy our time at considerable length, they would have an adult design a hunt that would run us around the neighborhood, and even to our nearby school. Frankly, it was diabolical, but we had a ball chasing our tails around town.

Scavenger Hunts are still common today, particularly by the homeless in San Francisco and Los Angeles.

We also did such things as collecting lightning bugs (fireflies) in jars. Back in the 1950's there was an infestation of Japanese beetles on the eastern seaboard. I can vividly remember using similar jars to catch the beetles before they ate everything in site. I'm sure someone will say this is cruel treatment for such insects. The lightning bugs we would eventually let go, but we killed the Japanese beetles as they were obnoxious little critters.

And finally, we spent considerable time spinning tops and yo-yos. I still have my top from grade school and know how to tie the string to spin it. I'm sure, those imbued in political correctness would say we were creating a hazard on sidewalks, or worse, we would strangle the blood flow to the finger, thereby causing amputation. Get real.

Again, if you didn't want to play these games, nobody was holding a gun to your head to do so. If you didn't want to play, you didn't play, but if you did, you knew the rules and used your head.

I deeply resent these games being politicized and banned by public schools. Liberals typically object to these games as they feel they are unfair and, as such, accuse them of being abusive. On the other hand, conservatives understand and accepts the rules of the game and participates accordingly.

As far as I am concerned, let kids be kids. Let's not inhibit their playtime as this is important for developing their socialization skills. Then again, maybe this is what the opposition is trying to control. By the way, in my neighborhood, boys and girls played these games together with no thought of one sex being superior to the other, but I'm sure someone will say it is harmful to equal rights.

One last thing. No, this is not about everyone needing to win a trophy or ribbon for playing such games. It was a simple matter of going out and having some fun.

Keep the Faith!

P.S. - Don't forget my new book, "Tim's Senior Moments" now available in Printed and eBook form.

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is a writer and the Managing Director of M&JB Investment Company (M&JB) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 40 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb1557@gmail.com

For Tim's columns, see:   timbryce.com

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Copyright © 2019 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

Listen to Tim on WZIG-FM (104.1) in Palm Harbor,FL; Or tune-in to Tim's channel on YouTube. Click for TIM'S LIBRARY OF AUDIO CLIPS.

GETTING READY FOR ROUND 1 WITH THE DEMOCRATS

BRYCE ON POLITICS

- What to expect in next week's debates.

Click for AUDIO VERSION.

To use this segment in a Radio broadcast or Podcast, send TIM a request.

Well, it is finally show time, the first round of debates for Democrats seeking to become the party's presidential candidate. As of now there are 23 officially declared as candidates, with possibly two more waiting in the wings. This is bigger than the 17 Republican candidates who ran in 2016.

In a way, this race among the Democrats reminds me of the Triple Crown in horse-racing. The first race, the Kentucky Derby, historically supports a full field, crowded at the gate. This is greatly reduced over the remaining races, the Preakness and Belmont Stakes. I suspect we'll see the same in the Democrat debates.

NBC will host the first debate at Miami's Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts, next Wednesday and Thursday, June 26th and 27th, accompanied by their sister networks MSNBC and Telemundo. This makes sense as NBC has long been the media outlet for the party for quite some time. It will be hosted by five NBC personalities: Lester Holt, Savannah Guthrie, Chuck Todd, Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, and José Díaz-Balart of Telemundo.

No more than ten candidates will appear each night. In simple terms, in order to qualify, candidates must either have received more than 65K donations, or a minimum of 1% in a qualified national poll. There will likely be twenty candidates qualified for the first round of debates.

So, what can viewers expect? There will, of course, be the ceremonial bashing of President Trump and the Republicans. They will be accused to mishandling everything from the economy, to immigration, to trade, defense, etc. It will be interesting to see how the moderators address the subject of presidential impeachment which will inevitably come up when the Mueller investigation is mentioned. All of this is to be expected.

Beyond this, the most interesting part of the debate will be how the other candidates will try to take down the front-runner, former VP Joe Biden. This will likely be led by Rep. Beto O'Rourke, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Kamala Harris, Sen. Corey Booker, and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, all of whom need to take Mr. Biden down in order to further their candidacy. Sen. Bernie Sanders won't be bashful either, but he will likely leave the main attacks to the others and extol the virtues of his socialist agenda.

Look for Mr. Biden to take a lot of heat for reversing his position on the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal funds to subsidize abortions except for special circumstances (e.g., rape, incest, life threatening). Mr. Biden originally supported the amendment back when he was a U.S. Senator, but recently reversed himself to gain political favor from abortion advocates. Look for this issue to ignite an ugly squabble between the candidates, leading to other issues where the candidates differ.

As I have reported, the Democrats have turned decisively to the left. This is most certainly, NOT your father's party. As such, they desperately do not want to hang on to the past, and why they no longer want Joe Biden. At 76 years of age, the former vice president will be portrayed as past his prime and essentially no different than Hillary Clinton, which the left has long deserted following her defeat in 2016. The far left of the party wants something new and refreshing, which certainly is not Mr. Biden. It may also not be Sen. Bernie Sanders, who will turn 78 in the Fall.

So, in terms of Round 1 of the debates, Yes, we will hear the usual bashing of the Republicans and the President, but the real story will be how the party turns on one of their own. They may preach unity during the debate, but watch them swarm against the front-runner.

Keep the Faith!

P.S. - Don't forget my new book, "Tim's Senior Moments" now available in Printed and eBook form.

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is a writer and the Managing Director of M&JB Investment Company (M&JB) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 40 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb1557@gmail.com

For Tim's columns, see:   timbryce.com

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Copyright © 2019 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

Listen to Tim on WZIG-FM (104.1) in Palm Harbor,FL; Or tune-in to Tim's channel on YouTube. Click for TIM'S LIBRARY OF AUDIO CLIPS.

TRUMP IS OFF AND RUNNING, FOR THE 2ND TIME

BRYCE ON POLITICS

- He hits the ground running at a mega-campaign event.

Click for AUDIO VERSION.

To use this segment in a Radio broadcast or Podcast, send TIM a request.

President Trump's re-election campaign kicked off this past Tuesday at the Amway Center in Orlando. This was well attended with over 20,000 people inside and thousands outside watching the rally on large screens (120K tickets were issued). The size will undoubtedly dwarf the upcoming Democrat debate at Miami's Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts, allowing no more than 2,400 people in-doors. The massiveness of the Trump rallies perplexes the news media and the Democrats. They do not understand the overwhelming support he receives. Plain and simple, they just don't get it. Then again, maybe they do, but just don't know how to respond.

Florida was a smart selection to start the campaign as it represents an important swing state with 29 Electoral College votes. President Trump won Florida in 2016 and it remains a red state with a Republican Governor, Attorney General, the Legislature, and both U.S. Senators. Yet, urban areas like downtown Tallahassee, Orlando, Tampa, and Miami remain in the hands of the Democrats, so the president is leaving nothing to chance.

From the beginning, the rally took on a festive atmosphere with "45 FEST," (45 - a reference to the 45th president) prior to the doors opening, and hosted by Lara Trump (wife of Eric Trump, the president's son). This pumped up the crowd and added to the expectations. Having done this for four years now, the Trump campaign is now a past master at drawing huge crowds.

There were, of course, a comparatively small number of protesters, as has become customary at Trump Rallies. This time, they brought in the Baby Trump Balloon as has been used at other anti-Trump protests. More importantly, on this day, the Orlando Sentinel wrote a column not endorsing the president, even though no Democrat has yet to be selected. This OpEd is just another salvo in the on-going war between the President and the news media.

There were several members of the press in attendance, which the president shot barbs at during the rally. Interestingly, the only two networks covering the event were Fox News and CNN, but not MSNBC. It wasn't on C-SPAN either.

Inside the Amway Center, Vice President Mike Pence warmed up the crowd, and First Lady Melania Trump introduced the president who was welcomed with thunderous applause.

President Trump began with a description of his accomplishments, particularly the economy, whereby he claimed six million jobs had been created during his term of office, the country was experiencing the lowest level of unemployment in 51 years, and 160 million Americans were now working. He also touted his tax cuts and trade deals.

The president noted he had appointed 145 judges which will influence jurisprudence for years to come. He also noted his fight to "Drain the Swamp," claiming "We're under siege" by Democrats and the media.

Mr. Trump also noted America is now the number one producer of energy in the world.

In the middle of his talk, the president took a moment to recognize Sarah Huckabee-Sanders, his outgoing White House press secretary and possible GOP candidate for Governor of Arkansas. Mrs. Sanders received thunderous applause from the crowd present, recognizing her work for Mr. Trump.

The theme for the president's campaign will be "Keep America Great," replacing "Make America Great." I am confident we will see a new array of hats, apparel and flags sporting the slogan shortly.

Late into the talk, the president officially declared his candidacy for re-election.

He then gave a description of his platform for his second term, most of which is a continuation of his existing policies. This included immigration reform, continue to rebuild the economy, a strong military, and development of the new Space Force. Echoing a line from his State of the Union speech delivered earlier this year, he repeated, "We will never be a socialist country."

ANALYSIS

More than anything, what I picked up from the president's speech is that he is assuming former Vice President Joe Biden will be the candidate for the Democrats, and in a preemptive strike, is tying Mr. Biden to former President Barack Obama's failed policies while in office. He doesn't want the country to forget the failures of the preceding administration. In other words, President Trump is ready to take on the former Vice President.

Just as in 2016, the president will be fighting not only the Democrats, but a news media bent on his ouster, not to mention treacherous RINOs within his own party, in other words, the Washington establishment, aka, "The Swamp."

The Democrats claim they are already ahead in the race for president. Interestingly, they have presented no platform to counter the president, other than socialism and Trump bashing.

It is disturbing to read polls claiming the president is losing to just about every Democrat in the race. This is reminiscent of the same polls in 2016 predicting Mrs. Clinton would win by double digits. These "fake" polls are no longer credible and suggest corruption. Further, such polls only galvanize the president's supporters and encourages them to vote as they did before.

It appears President Trump has a well oiled campaign machine ready to go. His political rallies have been refined and fine-tuned. They are now greater in turnout and enthusiasm than any Rock n' Roll concert. Being quite the showman, he will now take this rally on the road for all to see.

It is rather obvious the president is eager for a political fight. God help any Democrat who gets in his cross-hairs as he will eat them for lunch. Unlike 2016, the president is unencumbered by 15 other GOP rivals and can concentrate only on the Democrats.

Mr. Trump is now off to Japan for the G-20 meeting next week. By doing so, he will likely distract the media from the Democrat debates. It is my understanding he will be live tweeting during the debates from Osaka (particularly the one featuring former VP Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders). His tweets may very well make bigger headlines than anything the candidates say at the debate. I do not believe they realize they are now playing President Trump's game, not their own.

Next up in the President's campaign:

July 4th - He is scheduled to give a speech in Washington for Independence Day and has authorized an Air Force One flyover the Washington Mall. It should be very well attended.

July 13th - Johnson County GOP 2020 Kick-Off in Texas; it will be interesting to see if as many supporters attend as those in Orlando. I'll bet it will be "yuge!"

Keep the Faith!

P.S. - Don't forget my new book, "Tim's Senior Moments" now available in Printed and eBook form.

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is a writer and the Managing Director of M&JB Investment Company (M&JB) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 40 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb1557@gmail.com

For Tim's columns, see:   timbryce.com

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Copyright © 2019 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

Listen to Tim on WZIG-FM (104.1) in Palm Harbor,FL; Or tune-in to Tim's channel on YouTube. Click for TIM'S LIBRARY OF AUDIO CLIPS.

365 TIMES A YEAR?

BRYCE ON LIFE

- Is this the right approach for maintaining relationships?

Click for AUDIO VERSION.

To use this segment in a Radio broadcast or Podcast, send TIM a request.

A few years ago, I read about a married couple in Tampa who agreed to engage in sex every day for a year. It seems they were trying to improve their relationship and commitment to each other, and even their church condoned it. I chuckled and turned the page, but I recently heard of other couples trying to do the same thing and posted their rationale on the Internet. One was even posted in "Good Housekeeping." Hmm...

Evidently, the concept here is to encourage romance and commitment among couples, particularly as we advance in years and we're past the kid stage. It seems some women have self-esteem issues after child birth and are concerned with they're attractiveness to their spouse. I suspect men are no different, but beer guts suggest otherwise.

According to the National Opinion Research Center, on the average, couples engage in sex about 62 times per year, a little over once a week. When you're young, you have no problem exceeding this number. However, as children come and middle-age sets in, we start to miss the mark, probably because we're exhausted and need to re-charge our batteries. It's not that we do not love our spouses, we do, but hard work and advancing age tends to burn us out and we are no longer on top of our game so to speak.

62 times a year is not a bad number to shoot for, but 365? Perhaps some knotty pine is required to reach such a lofty number. In the studies I read, there are testimonies indicating regular sex makes people happier, less angry, and less stressed. As Helen Fisher, PhD, a research professor at Rutgers University points out, "It's good for your health and good for your relationship. It's good for respiration, muscles, and bladder control. It's a fine antidepressant, and it can renew your energy." I believe Milk of Magnessia can do the same thing.

Nonetheless, studies indicate a regular diet of sex leads to more romance, and stronger relationships.

During my research on this, time and again I read where sex was treated more like a job as opposed to a true romantic encounter. Some commented they were simply going through the motions, and some were quickies. In other words, several were not genuine passionate affairs, yet it was claimed this enforced romance and commitment.

I have trouble with this analogy to work. On the job, I see a lot of people who don't know where they are going, don't know what they're doing, and afterwards didn't know where they had been, regardless of how many times they performed the same task. I wonder if this is the same approach they use in the bedroom? Then there are the problems of boredom, tardiness, absenteeism, poor performance and defects in workmanship. I'm sure there is little sexual craftsmanship going on if it is a regularly scheduled activity.

As much as I marvel at the concept of assembly lines in manufacturing, I do not see the romance in it. Here, I would rather build something unique as opposed to mass production. I guess what I'm suggesting is that sex should be more spontaneous as opposed to scheduled. The 365 day approach is an interesting concept, but I tend to see the repetition as dulling the experience.

It is true, relationships are something you have to work at, but not to the point it becomes mechanical (and meaningless). As to the physical demands of 365 at my age, I think I would be a dead man.

Keep the Faith!

P.S. - Don't forget my new book, "Tim's Senior Moments" now available in Printed and eBook form.

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is a writer and the Managing Director of M&JB Investment Company (M&JB) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 40 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb1557@gmail.com

For Tim's columns, see:   timbryce.com

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Copyright © 2019 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

Listen to Tim on WZIG-FM (104.1) in Palm Harbor,FL; Or tune-in to Tim's channel on YouTube. Click for TIM'S LIBRARY OF AUDIO CLIPS.

A HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION TONG WAR

BRYCE ON NONPROFITS

- and a lesson for others.

Click for AUDIO VERSION.

To use this segment in a Radio broadcast or Podcast, send TIM a request.

My Home Owners Association (HOA) is currently involved in a dispute between the Board of Directors and the residents. It has become so nasty, it is starting to resemble a Tong War. Interestingly, this is not the first time this has happened. About 25 years ago the association built a substantial brick wall at the front of the neighborhood, but the Board refused to account for the money spent. This turned into an ugly donnybrook and caused a changeover in the board, and feelings were hurt. This is what caused me to get involved and help cleanup the association and restore confidence. Many years have passed since then and many new neighbors have moved in, none with a sense of what happened before, but it appears history is repeating itself.

Our HOA is relatively small, with 163 properties. Shortly after my reign, the board contracted with a management company to implement the administrative detail of the association. This is quite common these days as board members have become reluctant to do hands-on work, regardless of how simple it is. During my day, I built a data base for the group and was able to churn out customized letters, dues notices, and much more. I was fortunate to have a treasurer who was an accountant who used some basic PC financial software. Even though this was hardly rocket science, this was all dropped after the board changed and turned the administrative detail over to the management company.

As time passed, our HOA became overly dependent on the management company. Residents complained of the callous behavior of the company. It got to the point where it appeared the HOA worked for the management company as opposed to the other way around. A flash point occurred earlier this year when our new treasurer asked for a series of financial reports from the management company, none of which were forthcoming. This raised a red flag and caused the treasurer to resign from the Board and write a letter to residents explaining his reasons for his departure.

To me, this was deja vu all over again, as the cover-up of financials is what caused the friction 25 years earlier. Instead of publicly answering the former treasurer's accusations, the president consulted the association's attorneys which produced some fine gobbledygook to hide behind, thus arousing suspicions in the neighborhood. Had the president answered the treasurer properly, the issue would have been closed, but instead it escalated, fearing something was being hidden from the residents. So much so, the association called for a full audit of its financial activities by an independent firm, a very expensive proposition I might add. This vote to call for an audit essentially meant the board had lost the trust of the association.

As I mentioned, managing a nonprofit organization as small as this is not exactly rocket science. I have written about this in the past, "Managing a Nonprofit Organization." In such groups, the board has a fiduciary responsibility to its membership. As such, finances, minutes, and governing docs must be transparent. In both instances, 25 years ago and today, this is the cause for the uproar.

As the board hides behind its lawyers, the association realizes they cannot fight city hall and the only thing to do is to fire the board at the end of the year, and start over again with new members (and hopefully without the management company). I am somewhat philosophical about this, as I have a sense of history with this association. It's good to clear the air every so often. Like any organization, a lot of crud creeps into a nonprofit over time, and without strong management, it will continue to grow unabated (see Parkinson's Law).

I have served on many board of directors over the years, for a variety of groups. I would have to say though that participating on a HOA board is the most thankless job around. It is essential to keep things simple, transparent, be well organized, and act professionally. In other words, learn Robert's Rules of Order, print an agenda, get a gavel and give it to someone who knows how to use it. This will go a long way to simplifying work, communicating with your membership, and maintaining their trust. It is rather sad to see neighbors viscerally attack each other and hurt feelings in the process. This type of pettiness and drama is what discourages residents from participating in such associations. Further, this has an adverse effect on the spirit of the neighborhood and is actually detrimental to house values. After all, who wants to move into a neighborhood where everyone is at each other's throats?

Hopefully, we can begin the mending process once the board has been voted out of office. The only positive effect of all this, is that people are beginning to ask to participate on the board. I've been asked, "Tim, why don't you get involved again?" The answer is rather simple, after I cleaned it up last time, finally getting us to operate in the black for the first time, I stepped off the board, whereby new members changed it and turned everything over to the management company. I cleaned up one gigantic mess years ago, and they screwed it up. I certainly am not going to go through such madness a second time. What's the old expression, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice..."?

Keep the Faith!

P.S. - Don't forget my new book, "Tim's Senior Moments" now available in Printed and eBook form.

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is a writer and the Managing Director of M&JB Investment Company (M&JB) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 40 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb1557@gmail.com

For Tim's columns, see:   timbryce.com

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Copyright © 2019 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

Listen to Tim on WZIG-FM (104.1) in Palm Harbor,FL; Or tune-in to Tim's channel on YouTube. Click for TIM'S LIBRARY OF AUDIO CLIPS.

THE POLITICAL WAR OF THE ENTERTAINMENT MEDIA

BRYCE ON POLITICS

- Was Truman Capote correct?

Click for AUDIO VERSION.

To use this segment in a Radio broadcast or Podcast, send TIM a request.

The liberals in Hollywood are panicking over the anti-abortion bills as put forth by states such as Missouri, Alabama, Louisiana, and Georgia, which will inevitably lead to a challenge of Roe vs. Wade. So much so, they are resorting to blackmail politics, telling these states, particularly Georgia, they will not film in their states if the law is implemented starting in the new year. Both Netflix and Disney have indicated they will pull out if the bill is implemented. Disney is no longer the simple film studio and amusement park we grew up with. Now it is a conglomerate consisting of Star Wars, Marvel, and Pixar movies, and amusement parks, hotels and ocean cruises around the world.

Disney CEO Bob Iger said, "I think many people who work for us will not want to work there, and we will have to heed their wishes in that regard. Right now we are watching it very carefully.” He want on to say, "I don’t see how it’s practical for us to continue to shoot there."

I wonder what Walt Disney would have to say about this if he were alive today, probably nothing as he was "old-school" in Hollywood, and knew such discussion would lead to lost revenues at the box office and viewership on television. Like many other studios, Disney thrived on "wholesome" entertainment and avoided controversy like the plague. Not so anymore as the language has become rougher and the situations more risque. We saw this at entertainment giant MGM who also pushed a "wholesome" agenda. Motion picture stars used to understand this, which explains why most of them kept their politics to themselves throughout the first half of the 20th century. Stars like Henry Fonda and John Wayne were political opposites, yet they found a way to work together on film. They knew that politics in entertainment was just bad business for everyone. Period.

This all changed in the second half of the 20th century, particularly in the 1960's as the country dealt with the Viet Nam war and civil rights. Entertainers came out of the closet in terms of expressing their political beliefs, a practice which has accelerated in this century. Understand this, I don't have a problem with someone holding an opposing opinion, but when it turns to extortion, it is time to take the kid gloves off. This was all caused by the growing militancy of the far-left among the Democrats. As I mentioned recently, the party is rapidly turning to the left and alienating moderates.

Hollywood's liberal agenda has turned a lot of people off as evidenced of declining viewership at award ceremonies. People are simply tired of the political rhetoric at these events. If the Hollywood establishment is prepared to pull the plug on doing business in states such as Georgia, they should also be prepared to have the public back away from their partisan entertainment. After all, what is good for the goose, should be good for the gander, right? As for me, the entertainment industry, particularly Hollywood, lost me a long time ago when it became apparent they were only interested in comic-book stories implemented by computers. God forbid, someone in Hollywood should learn to write an intelligent script with an inventive plot and interesting dialog. Their recent actions in the southern states only confirms my suspicions that they do not maintain a fair and balanced approach for the general public.

It has also confirmed to me the liberal entertainers are not the smartest bulbs in the pack. Actress Alyssa Milano recently called Jon Voight a "has been" actor. As we all know, Voight has an impressively long list of movie and television accomplishments to his credit, including an Academy Award for Best Actor and four Golden Glob Awards. Milano has done well with such organizations as the Young Artist Awards, Kids' Choice Awards, and Teen Choice Awards, which are hardly the caliber of what Voight has earned. No, Ms. Milano's criticism of Mr. Voight was triggered by his conservative leanings which are polar opposite of hers. Interestingly, when he was much younger, Mr. Voight also followed a liberal agenda, but over the years switched over to conservatism. I wonder if this same fate awaits Ms. Milano.

Years ago in an interview, author Truman Capote made the observation that actors and entertainers weren’t especially intelligent. He recounted his relationship with actors Sir Lawrence Olivier and Sir John Gielgud, two excellent and well recognized actors of his generation. According to Capote, both were nice guys, but he hardly considered them intellectual heavyweights. Both could memorize a script, but lacked problem-solving skills. I suspect a lot of entertainers today fall into this category as well. This includes actor Robert De Niro who has tried to provoke President Trump with foul mouthed oratory. There is no doubt Mr. De Niro is a fine actor, but an intellectual? Hardly, as he dropped out of high school at age 16 to pursue acting. As Capote suggests, actors can memorize lines and act, but they are not necessarily the brightest.

The reason why the Hollywood types are so boisterous, they are well aware their personalities can sell products, such as in television commercials for automobiles, trucks, beer, wine, soft drinks, travel, snack foods, pet foods, you name it. Politics is just an extension of all this. They may be able to handle a well scripted TV commercial, but don't expect any eloquent discourse defending their position.

Plain and simple, Capote was correct.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is a writer and the Managing Director of M&JB Investment Company (M&JB) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 40 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb1557@gmail.com

For Tim's columns, see:   timbryce.com

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Copyright © 2019 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

Listen to Tim on WZIG-FM (104.1) in Palm Harbor,FL; Or tune-in to Tim's channel on YouTube. Click for TIM'S LIBRARY OF AUDIO CLIPS.

RUNNING THE LIFE MARATHON

BRYCE ON LIFE

- It is something we must all run.

Click for AUDIO VERSION.

To use this segment in a Radio broadcast or Podcast, send TIM a request.

As we pass through life there are several milestones we observe, such as our sixteenth birthday when we normally get a driver's license, or our 21st birthday when we become "legal." I didn't think too much of it when I turned thirty, nor did I pay much attention to forty; frankly, I didn't know what all the hubbub was about. However, when I turned fifty I suddenly went, "Whoops!" I guess it was the greeting from AARP that got my attention and let me know that time was quickly passing.

I've found that once you enter your fifties you become more reflective on where you've been and where you're going. When you think about it, you have an internal clock telling you there are several appointments you have to make during your life, assuming you live a full life; to illustrate:

1. Time to get married - time to grow up, clean up your act, and get a job.

2. Time to have kids - time to start thinking about insurance, including life, medical, and auto.

3. Time to buy or build a house - which, coincidentally, also represents the official point where we start to go into debt.

4. Time to advance your career - after all, someone has to pay all those bills.

5. Time to send the kids off to college, the military, or wherever - it is at this point when you develop a false sense of independence. Even as the kids move away, they still depend on you for guidance, advice, a few bucks, and anything around the house that isn't nailed down.

6. Time to get the kids married off - time to get a bank loan, particularly if you are the father of the bride.

7. Time to retire - which is also when you make plans for your demise. For example, you no longer celebrate Labor Day at the beach, but rather tour cemeteries picking out grave sights.

8. Time to play with the grand kids and watch them grow up - This is also the time when you celebrate your wedding anniversaries and take trips you couldn't afford earlier.

9. Time to checkout.

Interestingly, when you go to High School reunions, you compare notes with your classmates as to where they stand on this time line. I guess misery loves company after all.

Actually, I resent the time line we impose on ourselves and don't recall this as being part of the job description. It's kind of like saying, "All right, come on, do this, do that, move along, and don't forget to do this as well, move along." It kind of reminds me of an assembly line where we are nothing but products moving from one work station to the next. It strikes me that we spend so much time running the marathon, we never take time to truly enjoy the scenery. But alas, the marathon is something we all must inevitably run.

My father-in-law had a simpler way of expressing our passage through life. It was his contention that we have 30 years to learn, 30 years to earn, and 30 years to burn (the money that is). I can't help but believe he was on to something.

By the way, turning sixty is another wake-up call. Interestingly, you find the physical pains of life intensify, you are no longer care about being politically correct, and you certainly do not impress easily anymore as you've seen too much.

Keep the Faith!

P.S. - Don't forget my new book, "Tim's Senior Moments" now available in Printed and eBook form.

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is a writer and the Managing Director of M&JB Investment Company (M&JB) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 40 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb1557@gmail.com

For Tim's columns, see:   timbryce.com

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Copyright © 2019 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

Listen to Tim on WZIG-FM (104.1) in Palm Harbor,FL; Or tune-in to Tim's channel on YouTube. Click for TIM'S LIBRARY OF AUDIO CLIPS.

IS IMPEACHMENT TRULY NECESSARY?

BRYCE ON POLITICS

- A comparison between Presidents Nixon, Clinton, and Trump.

Click for AUDIO VERSION.

To use this segment in a Radio broadcast or Podcast, send TIM a request.

The Democrats and main stream media are currently consumed with impeaching President Trump, particularly as we approach the 2020 elections. Frankly, they are fooling nobody but themselves regarding their agenda. Even if the Democrats in the House passes charges of impeachment, they will inevitably fail in the Senate which is under Republican control.

Only two U.S. presidents in our history were impeached: Our 17th president, Andrew Johnson, in 1867, and Bill Clinton in 1998-1999. Let's be clear, impeachment means charged with misconduct only. A trial is then conducted by the Senate to determine guilt or innocence. In the cases of Johnson and Clinton, both were found not-guilty by the Senate. President Richard Nixon resigned as opposed to having the country suffer through impeachment proceedings. Of the presidents, let us compare and contrast Presidents Nixon, Clinton, and Trump, as they are the most recent presidents to undergo this treatment.

INTRO

Richard Nixon - 37th president, Republican, served in office 1969-1974

Bill Clinton - 42nd president, Democrat, served in office 1993-2001

Donald Trump - 45th president, Republican, serving in office 2017-present

Mr. Nixon was the first and only president to resign from office before his term was over. He was succeeded by VP Gerald Ford, also a Republican.

POLITICAL CLIMATE

President Nixon worked with the 93rd Congress where both chambers were controlled by the Democrats.

President Clinton faced the 106th Congress where both chambers were controlled by the Republicans.

President Trump faces the 116th United States Congress which is split, with the Democrats controlling the House of Representatives, and the Senate controlled by the Republicans.

Mr. Nixon was elected as a "law and order" president to bring stability from the chaos of the 1960's and promising to end the Viet Nam war. Although not a favorite among liberals, he easily won over Hubert Humphrey who served as LBJ's Vice President.

Mr. Clinton was elected because of the perception he was more youthful and full of ideas than incumbent President George H.W. Bush, who presided over a faltering economy.

Mr. Trump was elected as an alternative to career politicians and to correct the liberal policies of President Obama. Democrats were shocked that Trump won as they believed Hillary Clinton would easily win. Their shock turned into hysteria and a resistance movement to obstruct every decision he made.

RELATIONS WITH THE PRESS

Perhaps the only president to earn such hatred from the press, other than Mr. Trump, was Richard Nixon, going back to when he was Vice President in the 1950's (see Checkers speech of 1952) and helping to defeat him in the 1960 presidential election, losing to JFK. In 1962, he ran for governor of California, losing to Pat Brown. In his concession speech, he made the following statement which indicated his displeasure with the press, stating, "You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference." He obviously returned to public life with his presidential victory in 1968.

President Clinton had a warm relation with the press during his two runs for president. They portrayed him as young and vibrant, and Republican candidates George H.W. Bush and Sen. Bob Dole were portrayed as old and stodgy.

President Trump has had a feud with the press ever since his first presidential campaign. He coined the term "Fake News" to describe the spin of the press.

In all three situations, the press played an important role in impeachment. There is no doubt they have a demonstrative record supporting Democrats over Republicans.

CHARGES

President Nixon was accused of covering-up the break-in at the DNC Headquarters at the Watergate Complex. There was no evidence to indicate he had any role in initiating the break-in, just the cover-up. The House spent considerable time sifting through evidence as presented by the FBI and the media, particularly The Washington Post. The president eventually resigned as opposed to facing the embarrassment of impeachment.

As for President Clinton, the House relied on the findings of an extensive investigation by independent Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr, which included 11 charges, mostly lying under oath and obstruction of justice.

In terms of Mr. Trump, the country awaited a two year investigation by Independent Counsel Robert Mueller whereby no charges were presented. This did not satisfy the Democrats in the House who continue to investigate alleged improprieties by the president.

PUBLIC SUPPORT

President Nixon's public support can be described as shaky at best. It eroded as evidence continued to pile up, particularly disclosure of the White House tapes which contained damning evidence as to Mr. Nixon's involvement in the cover-up.

In terms of President Clinton, everyone seemed to know he was guilty, including the Democrats, but they didn't believe the punishment fit the crime. Although he remained popular among members of his party, he also became a political liability, which explains why his endorsement is no longer sought.

As to President Trump, his support among Republicans and many independents appears to be on solid ground, much to the chagrin of the Democrats.

SUMMARY

If we have learned anything about impeachments over the years, it is they are always political, and always divisive. It used to be impeachment was considered a last resort to take, but it is rapidly turning into a common political tool, which is disturbing and hints at the desperation of the party pressing the issue. If the Democrats think such a move is going to unify the country, they are sadly mistaken. Impeaching President Trump is a risky political maneuver as it will only energize his base, particularly since the Mueller investigation produced no sign of wrong-doing. This is substantially different than Nixon and Clinton. Consequently, the American people will see President Trump's impeachment as the charade that it is.

From the perspective of the Republicans, an impeachment of the president will be the best thing that could happen as the American populace will strongly re-elect the president and drive the Democrats out of office in the House. This will damage the Democrats for years to come.

The Democrats insist we have a "constitutional crisis" at hand. I agree, but not for the same reasons. I perceive them as undermining the Constitution by wanting to eliminate the Electoral College, changing the composition of the Supreme Court, and changing our fundamental rights and freedoms, such as speech and to bear arms.

So, why are the Democrats doing this? They know Mr. Trump has strong support from the populace thanks in large part to his economic policies. As such, they hope to distract voters by simply besmirching his character.

One last thing to consider, under Presidents Nixon and Clinton, the Congress kept on working and produced considerable legislation. Unfortunately, this is not true today. Because of their preoccupation with trying to stop President Trump, the Congress has come to a standstill. In all likelihood, the 116th Congress will go down in history as one of the most incompetent sessions, doing nothing for the American people they are supposed to serve.

Just remember, in our nearly 250 years of existence, no sitting U.S. president has ever been removed from office through impeachment. In the cases of Presidents Johnson and Clinton, they both returned to work after being found not guilty, and completed their term in office.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is a writer and the Managing Director of M&JB Investment Company (M&JB) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 40 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb1557@gmail.com

For Tim's columns, see:   timbryce.com

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Copyright © 2019 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

Listen to Tim on WZIG-FM (104.1) in Palm Harbor,FL; Or tune-in to Tim's channel on YouTube. Click for TIM'S LIBRARY OF AUDIO CLIPS.

HOW ABOUT SOME LOYALTY REWARDS?

BRYCE ON BUSINESS

- What freebies do we get for being a long-time member? ZIP.

Click for AUDIO VERSION.

To use this segment in a Radio broadcast or Podcast, send TIM a request.

On a recent visit to my gym, the manager had erected an inflatable air-dancer puppet by the front door along with a sign encouraging membership. Under the program, they waived the initial sign-up fee, as well as the first month's membership fee. Added to this was two free sessions with a trainer and a t-shirt. Okay, fine, I get it, they want new members. What about those of us who have loyally paid their bills but didn't receive any freebies? I paid all of the initial fees and have been a regular-paying member for three years now. What have I received? Zip.

I have seen this same phenomenon over the years, particularly with magazines. We used to regularly subscribe to a multitude of magazines, including news and sports. For many years we paid the full rate and received no "freebies." Then, in the 1990's, as printed magazines started to succumb to the Internet, they offered a myriad of gifts, such as clocks, radios, cameras, special edition publications, etc. Again, what did the long-term subscriber receive? Zip.

Credit cards typically allow you to earn points for such things as travel and gifts, but there is still no loyalty incentive. Not long ago, I had a minor problem I reported to one of my credit card companies. The agent I talked with on the phone pulled up my records on his computer and said, "Oh, Mr. Bryce, I see you've been a member of ours for over thirty years now; Wow!" His reaction led me to believe I had been a member longer than the agent had been alive.

I had called the company to make a simple correction to a payment I had made (something incredibly minor). The agent said he would have to have it reviewed with management before he could update the correct entry (even though he recognized I had been correct). When he said it would take a month or two to correct, I told them if they wanted to keep me for another thirty years, he better make the change in the next thirty seconds or I will cancel my membership. Instead of trying to correct the problem right then and there, he said there was nothing he could do. In other words, he called my bluff. Regrettably, I wasn't bluffing and cancelled forthwith.

I was amazed they were willing to let a long-term customer go, but this is not the only time I have seen this occur. I have had to do similar actions with banks, trash collectors, phone companies, and cable companies (which I think are perhaps the worst). I have changed cable operators at least a dozen times over the years, going to a cable operator who was offering new members lower rates. I guess they count on the older customers to just grin and bear it. I do not.

Like I said, I understand the need for a "come-on" to engage new customers, but what is the benefit of remaining a loyal customer over a number of years? Zip. This is why it is becoming more common for people to quit a service, only to return to it later to get the new cheaper rates, and any "freebies" along the way. To me, this sounds like a "make work" scenario and is certainly not smart from a customer service and sales perspective.

There should be some sort of benefit for customer loyalty, maybe something simple at first, and something more pronounced later. As a company, imagine the cash flow from a loyal clientele, but people do not think long-term anymore, just "quick and dirty" (or is it "agile"?). I know this mindset disturbs managers and executives who hate to lose market share. Let me give you an example...

A few years ago, I had a manager from a cable company come to my neighborhood. He knocked on my door to ask why I had quit his company. I told him I recently saw an increase on my bill, and another cable company offering comparable service at a less-expensive rate. I talked with one of his company's agents and asked if they could match the lower price. Of course, the agent said "No," but perhaps worse, there was no concern for the possible loss of business. The manager shook his head in disbelief. "If I met the price right now, would you switch back to us?" he asked.

I told him, No, for two reasons; first, the installation of the new service had recently been completed and I was in no mood to change it again, and; second, I was offended by the disregard the company showed for their loyal customers. He thanked me for my time, but went away frustrated with his own company.

Interestingly, the same phenomenon happened with the new cable provider; rates increased progressively until I decided to go to a new cable provider. Again, the agent did nothing to retain my business.

If companies started to implement a true loyalty program based on length of service, fewer customers would drop service, meaning less maintenance costs, and improved profit-margin.

Then again, I am still a creature of the 20th century.

Keep the Faith!

P.S. - Don't forget my new book, "Tim's Senior Moments" now available in Printed and eBook form.

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is a writer and the Managing Director of M&JB Investment Company (M&JB) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 40 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb1557@gmail.com

For Tim's columns, see:   timbryce.com

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Copyright © 2019 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

Listen to Tim on WZIG-FM (104.1) in Palm Harbor,FL; Or tune-in to Tim's channel on YouTube. Click for TIM'S LIBRARY OF AUDIO CLIPS.