Back to the Future

We plan to present a series of business training seminars in late October and early November in partnership with the Plattsburgh-North Country Chamber of Commerce and TD Bank. I was given the task to come up with four business development topics, so we had a discussion at a recent staff meeting.

We narrowed down our four topics down to:

* Writing an Effective Business Plan
* Financial Finesse
* Shout it Out Marketing
* Increasing Your Bottom Line

In our discussion, we talked about the need to focus on the basics of operating a sound business. There are certain fundamentals that can be applied to any business, at any point in time. We were all in agreement that all business owners should be able to benefit from attending this series, whether they are just starting out or have been in business for years. We believe these topics can be applied to any business, at an point in their life cycle.

I thought that coming up with a title was going to be a challenge. I explained that we want to be all inclusive, yet we want to show that this isn't just a "business basics" class. This series is geared towards those business owners who want to strive to be the best in their respective industries. Our goal is to have our attendees be the business leaders of tomorrow. Those who seize the opportunities of today and excel in making their businesses a little better each day.

One of our staff members, Andy Allison, suggested "Back to the Future." It is a very catchy title made popular by Universal Pictures movie series starring Michael J. Fox, Lea Thompson and Christopher Lloyd. Yet to me, this title succinctly captures what our series is really all about.

Sometimes in business we need to go back to the drawing board and look at what our goals are for the future. Time and time again I work with business owners who get so wrapped up dealing with the operational challenges of today that they lose focus of what they set out to achieve in their original business plans.

Business planning is not a one time exercise; it is a process that should continue into the future. If things are going as planned, it does no benefit to complain about what is wrong. Find new opportunities and set a course for your business to thrive. Establish specific goals and revisit your planning process on a regular basis to see if you are meeting the benchmarks you have set for your business.

Yet no planning process would be effective without looking at past trends. Yes, there are new opportunities for tomorrow, but past behavior tends to be a good predictor of future operations. There is a popular saying that the definition of insanity is "doing the same thing and expecting different results." Part of the planning process is to look at past trends, both in business financial performance and consumer spending habits to recognize the best opportunities to develop a more profitable future.

There also needs to be a self assessment that certain things in a business are not working as planned. Sometime your operations, pricing strategies and marketing need to change. Maybe you made an investment in inventory or plant equipment that is not generating the return on investment that was expected.

Of course, developing a more profitable future is not a passive exercise. You have to actively let your customers know about your business and it is within your realm of responsibility to develop a profitable business model for your operations. If something is not working as planned, create a new plan and actively work towards making things better.

Whether or not you plan to attend our training series, consider taking your business "Back to the Future." There are always opportunities to thrive in any economy. It just takes a good plan that recognizes the story of your past and focused vision for what you expect to see in the future.

Do No Harm

I was at a business hearing yesterday sponsored by the North Country-Plattsburgh Chamber of Commerce and Unshackle Upstate. At this hearing, business owners were able to share their perspectives on challenges their businesses have been facing over the past year. Listening were State Senator Betty Little, Assemblywoman Janet Duprey and Meg Wood, representing Assemblywoman Teresa Sayward.

It was interesting that none of the businesses complained about "the economy" or the challenges of dealing with a recession. None of them asked their State representatives for bailouts to help them through these troubling times. Instead, every speaker talked about the new fees, taxes and regulations that the State imposed over the past year that are crippling their businesses.

Included in the list is:

- Requirement to renew the Certificate of Authority to collect sales tax (that for the first time, includes a fee)
- Increase in the LLC filing fees for companies that have achieved a certain gross sales figure
- Increase in tobacco license fees
- Increase in liquor license fees
- Increase in motor vehicle fees

One of the more compelling stories related to the changing of the Empire Zone tax credits. A few businesses that made huge capital investments into their business under an Empire Zone program that provided tax credits now have to reapply for those tax credits. One company present completed the application six months ago and they still have not received their credit refunds. These amount to tens of thousands dollars of operating capital owed to them. If you are just one month late in paying NY State Sales taxes, you will be assessed penalties and interest that can exceed 20% of the tax owed, yet the State can withhold monies owed to a small business for six months without any penalties and interest?

Most of the States operating revenue comes from the income and sales taxes generated by private enterprise. Small businesses owned and operated by NY State residents provide even more of an economic impact, as they cycle more of their profits into the State economy. Not only are these fees and regulations creating a burden on businesses, they are also providing an inequitable burden on small businesses.

According to an SBA study in 2005, the average regulatory cost per employee of a firm of less than 20 employees is $7,647. The average regulatory cost for a firm of greater than 20 employees is $5,411. No doubt the amount of time small business owners have in completing new Certificates of Authority, Empire Zone re-certifications and the costs of new fees is going to a much more significant impact on small businesses than the larger businesses.

For example, the license to sell tobacco was increased from $100 to $1,000 this year for small retailers generating revenues under $1,000,000 in annual revenues (note, this is combined revenues, not just tobacco sales). Those businesses that do up to $10,000,000 in gross revenues pay $2,500. Let's do a little math.

I have a convenience store that does $500,000 in gross sales. I sell about $50,000 of cigarettes per year. My gross profit on cigarettes is about 15%, so I clear about $7,500. My cost of licensing is 13% of my gross profit.

A few blocks away is a supermarket(which happens to be owned by a company in Maine). They do $5,000,000 in gross revenues and sell $500,000 in cigarettes. They clear $75,000 on cigarette sales. Their license fees are 3% of their gross profit.

I decide it is not worth my while to sell cigarettes anymore for $1,000/year. In a perfect world, we would assume all my cigarette customers would kick this habit. The reality is that most are just going to the supermarket to buy cigarettes and that profit is going to leak to that larger, out-of-state competitor. The significant amount of that $7,500 that would have cycled into the NY State economy with my spending most of my income in NY will now go to Maine.

Most of these fee increases will most likely have an economic impact of unintended consequences to the State, but that is often the case when government increases fees and taxes. There are only so many slices of pie in a particular pan, if you keep going after a bigger slice, eventually there will be no pie left. The fact that quite a few of our pie pans are smaller in these difficult economic times compounds the problem.

Quite a few of the speakers at the hearing noted that "we are preaching to the choir," as all of the government officials were opposed to the budget that proposed all these fee increases. Needless to say, we have to get our choir to sing louder.

This is not an endorsement or critique of any particular government official. When it comes to developing a State budget that makes sense, it should not be a party line issue. We need all government officials to think of the consequences of their actions. The livelihood of some small businesses are at stake here and that is an issue that every legislature should take seriously. Certainly this small business counselor takes these issues seriously, as I am often working with the business owner that is deciding whether this new fee or paperwork requirements are the proverbial straws that will break the camel's back. There are some businesses that are struggling to survive and these fees and to many, the State isn't putting straws, but rather shoveling lead weights on their backs.

In his introduction, Garry Douglas, Executive Director of the Plattsburgh-North Country Chamber of Commerce talked about the core principle of the Hippocratic Oath, which is "Do no harm." He pointed out that if our government officials were doctors and the business owners were patients, "boy, would there be a malpractice suit."

At some point, we need our leaders to develop a proactive strategy to make it easier for more small businesses to succeed in New York State. There are ways to do no harm and facilitate a more business friendly environment; the choir just has to sing a little louder and it would help if we could get more of our government officials to join us in singing the same tune when it comes to the principles that foster business development.

Health Care Paradigm

The buzz in the world of politics is health care reform. Different proposals have been shared, proposed legislation has been presented and “town hall” meetings have shown we can’t agree on a solution. Not only can we not find a form of compromise, but we also can’t disagree with some semblance of civility.

The emotions on this issue are so powerful and our nation is so polarized when it comes to finding a solution to this health care mess. Unfortunately, no solution will come to pass until there is some common ground found among our lawmakers. Yet instead of working together to find a solution, our lawmakers are drawing lines in the sand and using rhetoric to attack the flaws of others, completely ignoring the flaws with their own proposals.

I’ve used this Albert Einstein quote before and I will keep using it: “The problems we face today cannot be solved by the minds that created them.” Aside from the dysfunctional working relationship of our lawmakers, the major problem with our current system is that health care does not lend itself to insurance. Yet no one is addressing this issue. Our nation has created a for-profit, behemoth of a health insurance industry and all of the proposals currently on the table refuse to recognize that this needs to change.

Health care is something that every individual needs in some form or another. Of course, some need health care more than others, but the basic fact is that if we want to live, we need to care for our health.

Insurance is an industry that is based on managing risk. You get insurance to protect you from an unlikely event. The way the industry stays profitable is by assessing premiums based on the amount of claims and the cost of the payout. Premiums are established by analyzing that, and of course, including some margin for administration and profits. Obviously, if too many claims are made, the cost of insurance goes up. Sometimes the cost goes up to a level where there is really no value in purchasing a policy. At this point, consumers will usually see no benefit in that insurance and just come up with a better way to manage their risk.

Think of it this way. We need to eat every day. Should we buy food insurance to ensure that there is food on the table tomorrow? Imagine what that would do to the costs of groceries if most of us decided that we need to purchase insurance to have food on the table and then filed claims to purchase our groceries every week. Then compound that by the fact that some people in this pool of grocery shoppers need to eat significantly more than others or have special diets that require very exotic and expensive foods. Before long, we are paying significantly more for our groceries than what they are worth, because we are supporting both a for-profit insurance industry and a group of people who spend more on food than we do. This is pretty much what has happened to the health care industry.

Not only are most of us paying insurance premiums on something that most of use on a regular basis, we are also faced with the dilemma that some health care users are going to have expensive health care needs, some of which for conditions that will require some level of ongoing care. These needs for health care services tend to be exponentially higher than what an average user would spend for health care. Yet these costs need to be spread in the pool of users for health insurance companies to remain profitable.

According to the 2009 Milliman Medical Index, the average family of four spends over $16,000 for direct health care services. Yet the problem with averages is that a few exponential highs can really skew an average cost. If you think about what a typical family needs in a given year, $16,000 is a pretty high figure. What would it cost for 4 checkups and maybe four typical childhood incidents in year, such as a sprained ankle or sore throat that requires a doctor visit and some prescription medication?

It is hard to quantify what is an average health care cost for a healthy family, but it would obviously not be near $16,000/year. According the Henry J. Kaiser Foundation publication, Trends in Health Care Spending:

While discussions about the costs of health care often focus on the average amount spent per person, spending on health services is actually quite skewed. About ten percent of people account for 63% of spending on health services; 21% of health spending is for only 1% of the population.

Each person who buys healthcare is paying for not only their care, but also the care of others. Using my food example, why should I pay for grocery insurance so others can have truffles and Dom Perignon when I am only eating Cheerios and milk? Well, when it comes to health care, those who get the truffles and Dom Perignon often aren’t choosing such an expensive service. I dare say that most would rather not need such levels of treatment. Should I begrudge paying for someone who needs dialysis, an organ transplant or acute cancer treatments for a chance to survive?

We all need health care; so much so, that if we have a health care need, we will seek those services without much regard to costs. Yet the health care industry consists of businesses that have competing needs. They need profit, and to maintain profitability, they need to control their expenses. This creates a dichotomy where the insured wants health care at all costs and your insurer wants to limit payment of claims at all costs. This does not lend itself to a positive consumer/service provider relationship.

In this health care debate, we are talking about all the costs, but are we really addressing the core issue? Yes, finances need to be considered in any debate that discusses the use of public funds, but how do you quantify the value of pain relief, comfort or survival? At what point do we say that a life is not worth the cost?

Unfortunately this brings us to a huge philosophical question. Should health care be an individual responsibility or societal responsibility? It's a tough question that goes beyond black and white and their are infinite shades of gray. "Socialism" is a dirty word being thrown around in this debate, but we use our taxes for national defense, why not for national health? I am not yet sold on the so called "public option," but at the same point, I find the "socialism" rhetoric to be very counterproductive towards us coming to some form of improvement on health care.

No doubt, coming up with a solution that makes sense is going to be tough. I personally do not mind paying into a pool to ensure those who are in need have access to health care, but I obviously have limits into what I can pay. I will add that I have a serious problem being mandated to pay into an industry that gains profit by avoiding the provision of services that may be in the best interests of someone’s health.

The challenges we face with health care are significant. Somehow we have to change our level of thinking to solve this problem we created. Who will take the first step?

In Memory

As you read the news today, there is no escaping the significance of this day. Like many monumental days in history, we tend to reflect and remember where we were on that particular day of infamy.

I was living in Wasilla, Alaska at the time and it was one of those days when I felt being that far away from my family and friends in NJ and Pennsylvania was particularly difficult. I was also scheduled to have my very first surgery in two days and the thought of going under general anesthesia, something that was creating huge anxiety for me the days leading up to September 11th, now seemed to be an insignificant concern.

I remember watching the television over the next few days and hearing the individual stories of some of the beautiful people whose lives prematurely ended on that day. I couldn't help but think of the pain and grief the families of the those who lost their lives. I couldn't help but to feel guilty for worrying about something so mundane on a day when others had to deal with such a major tragedy.

Over the next few days I received the phone calls from family and friends and learned how some people I had known were included among those who passed on that day. Too many people perished and we do live in a small world; it is hard to think of anyone who was not touched in some manner by this tragedy.

Like many Americans, I still feel anger that a few uncaring individuals were willing to senselessly murder so many good souls on this day. I still cringe how people throw out the term “nine eleven” as a buzz word or remember this as a day of terrorism. It was a tragic day, but there was no terror, because I will never cower to a misguided ideology that justifies senseless murder. I didn't on September 11, 2001 and I still feel no terror today. I hope most other Americans share that sentiment.

Still, today is a significant day because we should remember the beautiful people who passed away on September 11, 2001. There will be many opportunities for remembrance and below is a link to one special location that I am aware of:

Garden of Reflection

I write this blog post in memory of Vic Saracini. He was a person who I did not know very well, but Vic Saracini would visit my bagel store on occasion and share some kind conversation with us.

He was a man who I know deeply cherished his family. He happened to share a story with me about the feeling of returning to his daughters after a trip. The smile on his face as he talked about his family told me more than the words he said.

We all have different memories and emotions about this day. I only hope you take the time in your thoughts to think of the wonderful people like Vic Saracini. They will be dearly missed.

What If Government Stopped and Nobody Cared

In a previous post, I quoted P.J. O'Rourke, who once wrote, “The mystery of government is not how Washington works but how to make it stop.”

On the state level, we recently found out just how to do that here in New York. For those not familiar with NY politics, there is what is considered the holy trinity of power brokers in state government; the Governor, the Senate majority leader and the Assembly majority leader. A few weeks ago, that included Governor David Paterson, Assembly Majority Leader Sheldon Silver and Senate majority Leader Malcolm Smith.

That was until last week, when two Democratic Senators switched their allegiance to form a coalition with the Republicans to oust Malcolm Smith as Senate Majority Leader. Since this little coup has take place, the remaining Democrats refuse to work with the new leadership. As if this didn’t sound silly enough already, the secretary of the Senate actually refused to turn over the keys to the Senate chamber to the new Republican leaders.

So since June 9th, the legislative branch of NY State Government has ceased operations. The effects of this government stoppage have been monumentally insignificant. Life has continued to go on in the Empire State. It is amazing how we have managed to survive with this huge void in leadership in State government.

To give you a sampling of what New Yorkers are missing, I randomly pulled three pending bills proposed recently in the State Senate. I started with Senate Bill S05700, proposed by Senator Klein, which prohibits issuing a credit card to anyone under the age of 21 unless that person has had parental consent and has completed a course or instruction in financial responsibility and liability. I wish I could propose a bill requiring a course of instruction in financial responsibility and liability for our elected officials.

Then there is S05701, proposed by Senator Schneiderman, that “requires licensure for instructors in religion, dancing, music, painting, drawing, sculpture, poetry, dramatic art, languages, reading comprehension, mathematics, recreation and athletics.” Luckily, my past work as a disc jockey was in NJ, not NY, or I may have been arrested for instructing the guests at the Weinstein Bar Mitzvah how to do the Electric Slide without proper credentials.

Next up is S05702, proposed by Senator Johnson, which “authorizes the metropolitan transportation authority to create a regional bus authority.” After all, we can just never have enough authority.

I will stop there. While this was just a small sampling, in my more in depth search, I was hard pressed to find any bills that appeared to provide any significant action.

My belief is that in regards to small business, the stoppage of the NY State Senate is one of the best things that could have happened. Aside from giving us a break from some pretty silly proposed legislation, the recent stoppage of government is preventing our lawmakers from further raising taxes, imposing new fees or creating a greater regulatory burden. While lawmakers don't like to admit it, New York ranks 49th out of 50 states, topping only New Jersey in the taxes and fee burdens placed on businesses. Here is a link to that study by the Tax Foundation: Tax Foundation

In a previous magazine article, I quoted Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana, who once said, "It's essential to remember that government does not create jobs or wealth. At its best, it creates the conditions in which men and women of imagination and enterprise create wealth for each other. At its worst, it drives away such people and the jobs they create."

Unfortunately, since the Legislative session started last January, there were no indications that the New York government was doing anything to create better conditions for entrepreneurs in this State. In fact, in the first few months of session, the Legislature was seriously considering raising a number of taxes and fees. I was at a meeting last week and one business leader, whom I hold in high regard, said, "At least now that the State Senate is completely dysfunctional, they aren't doing any more damage."

It is hard to tell whether it will be days, weeks or months until the NY Senate fixes this leadership issue and gets back into session. Inevitably, they will return, but will business owners really care?

Over Stimulated

It has been too long since my last post and I apologize for my absence. I’ve been real busy at work and much of my time hasn’t been as productive as I would like it to be. A major reason is because of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed by Congress last February, which is often referred to as the “Stimulus Bill.”

My problem is not with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The President of the United States and the members of Congress should be given kudos for their efforts to take an active role in trying to get our economy on the right course. While no legislation is perfect, I am not going to waste one ounce of energy noting where this bill falls short of meeting the needs of small businesses. There are still plenty of positive programs that are coming out of this piece of legislation; some have already been implemented and some programs are still under development.

My challenge has been the volume of phone calls that have been coming to my office from both existing and aspiring small business owners who want to know what is in the stimulus package for them. More specifically, I have been getting a number of requests for grants that may be available to businesses from the “stimulus money.” Frankly, I am over stimulated with these requests!

I’ve actually taken the time to read the portion of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that relates to the Small Business Administration (it is just one section of a very large piece of legislation). No where in that legislation does it say that grants are being made available directly to for profit businesses. It has been a long standing policy of the US Small Business Administration not to offer grants to for profit enterprises. See this link: http://www.sba.gov/services/financialassistance/grants/index.html

Unfortunately for me, this gets lost on many existing and prospective small business owners. They still call up our office seeking their “stimulus money.” I then explain the programs of which I have been informed. When they find out that there is no free money available, some just hang up, while others give me an explanation why they are more deserving of government money than those “big investment banks that were bailed out.” While I may not disagree with them, I didn't write this legislation. Still, I try to be tactful in my responses and I can honestly say that the same courtesy has not been extended to me.

I understand that many small businesses are facing challenges in this economy. Yet I have said this before and I will say it again; no matter what the state of the economy may be, there will always be challenges for small businesses. The responsibility of dealing with those challenges falls squarely on the shoulders of the small business owner who chose to enter the world of self employment. If a business owner is not prepared to accept accountability for the risks of owning a small business, then they should not enter the field of self employment.

The rationale behind the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is to spur the economy. Business owners who wish to be candidates for some of the programs available need to put together a strong business plan showing likelihood that they can contribute to economic recovery. This simply entails showing a profitable business model. Yet most of the inquiries I am getting are from people who have yet to think through the business planning process. When I tell people that a business plan showing profitability is going to be a requirement to funding, I am often told that “I just don’t have time to do that.”

Many people forget that most of the troubles with our economy stemmed from lenders who did not do proper diligence in ensuring their customers could service their loans. Part of that is not assessing whether clients had contingency plans to pay back their debts, which is a component of any good business plan.

All of the government programs still require working with lenders and whether they received TARP (bailout) money or not, lenders are not going to approve loans without responsible underwriting practices. In other words, banks cannot afford to make more bad loans. So most lenders are paying closer attention to contingencies, or second form of repayment, should the business model not satisfy the debt paymnets. That is where our economy is faced with a slight dilemma. Banks need to make more credit available if our economy is to grow, but banks can't afford to take too much risk.

There are provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that will help loosen these credit markets and allow for more investment in small businesses. Still, there is a fine line between loosening credit and irresponsible lending. That is why any loan application that utilizes government resources needs to include a well thought out business plan making a strong case that the business is likely to generate profit, no matter what the state of the economy may be. Like it or not, our government can't take too much risk. The onus is still on the business owner to assume the lion share of risk.

As more small business owners use their creativity to find ways to be more profitable despite the challenges in the marketplace, we will quickly see a recovery. These successes will create a ripple effect on our economy. Spending will increase, more jobs will be created and our economy will become more vibrant.

There are opportunities for those who wish to be a part of the solution to the current economic challenges. All it takes is a good plan and an unending dedication towards profitability. Now is not the time for small business owners to be looking for the government for solutions, but rather to show the government that they can succeed despite any challenges. Perhaps it would help if more people thought about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act from the perspective of what they will provide in return for the government's assistance. I think of the inspiring words that John F. Kennedy spoke at his inauguration, “And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”

Tax Payer Soliloquy

Yesterday was tax day. I belong to a Rotary Club here in Plattsburgh, and one of my fellow Rotarians (who happens to be a prosecutor) made this joke during the meeting: “Remember that tax evasion is a crime; tax avoidance is a duty.”

While that statement was said in jest, it brings to point a reality of civic responsibility. We obviously need tax dollars if we are going to provide governmental services, but it is hard to sustain services if everyone is trying to avoid paying taxes. Taxpayer avoidance is not something new. The philosopher Plato wrote, “When there is an income tax, the just man will pay more and the unjust less on the same amount of income.” I concur with Plato that there is a certain civic duty in paying taxes; but I also agree with Arthur Godfrey, who once said, “I'm proud to pay taxes in the United States; the only thing is I could be just as proud for half the money.”

Part of my job as a business counselor is to help my clients get financing for their businesses. A key component of their loan application is a recent history of tax returns. The problem is that many of my clients have taken on the position that tax avoidance is their primary duty, so their businesses show little or no income. That may be well and good when it comes to tax time, but it certainly limits the prospects of getting financing based on the strength of the business.

To defend my banker friends, I need to add that if you really think about an enterprise, the tell tale sign of success is profit. So why should a bank lend money to a business that has not shown the fiscal ability to generate profit from their efforts? Yet I have had numerous bankers tell me about their loan applicants who wink at them and say, “Our tax returns don’t provide a true portrayal of our financial situation.” Let me add that making such a statement will not contribute to the chances of getting a favorable lending decision.

It’s a point to ponder. Yes, it is good to show profit to position a business for growth. Yet at what point is there so much being taken in taxes that business owners doesn’t see enough reward for their risk and hard work?

I am not taking a position either for or against tax avoidance. I was not part of any of the "Tea Parties" yesterday. Yet the discussion of taxes, civic responsibility and economic development should be revisited by our lawmakers with an understanding of what it takes to start and run a business.

With apologies to William Shakespeare, I offer this “Taxpayer Soliloquy”:

To pay or not to pay: that is the question.
Whether 'tis nobler in business to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous tax burden,
Or to take arms against a sea of taxing agencies,
And by opposing not pay them? To hide: to deduct;
No more; and by deducting to say we end
The heart-ache and the overly taxed income
That earnings, 'tis financial summation
Devoutly to be kept! To hide, to deduct;
To hide: perchance to go too far: ay, there's the rub;
For in not paying taxes what consequences may come
When we have overcooked the books and get caught,
Must give us pause: there's the IRS
That makes calamity of our accounting;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of their audit?
The tax agency is wrong, our accounting is reasonable,
The complex changes to tax code, the laws confusing,
The insolence of tax collectors and the interest and penalties!
That patient merit in trying to understand the rules,
When the business might have to pay taxes
Even without making money? Who would be so foolish,
To grunt and sweat running a business,
To give all the earnings to the IRS,
The unforgiving agency from whose wrath
No business can survive, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear paying tax bills we have
Rather than pay the vendors, at least we won't go to jail if they are unpaid?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus to run a successful business
Is sick with the thought of paying all earnings to the government,
And enterprises of great growth potential,
With regard to taxation and regulation, see no benefits for their risks and toils,
So lose the opportunity for economic development.


I will conclude this post with a little humor from Will Rogers:
"Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for."