Factoids That You Can Use

While the nation's spotlight has been focused on Arizona, the influx of illegal immigration is quietly swamping state resources in Texas. According to a report by the Center for Immigration Studies, there are an estimated 1.7 million undocumented aliens residing in the Lone Star state. By their estimates, illegal immigrants make up eight to nine percent of the Texas workforce. The cost to state government is a reported $4.7 billion, which includes expenses for education, medical care and incarceration. Those figures were compiled by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). The organization calculated that it costs each Texas taxpaying household $725 per year to foot the bill. The breakdown of costs shows spending for educating the children of illegal immigrants costs the state $4 billion; the tab for medical care is $520 million; and, incarceration for lawbreakers works out to $150 million annually. Even those staggering figures are on the low side. The $4.7 billion does not include costs for local jail detention, increased law enforcement and judicial expenses, welfare benefits and special English instruction in schools. Likewise, it does not take into account the monetary cost of crime on law-abiding citizens. It's no wonder that states that border Mexico are calling on the federal government to step up enforcement to stem the tide of illegal immigrants flooding into the United States. Unless something changes, the soaring costs of illegal immigration will force more states to do like Arizona and tackle the issue head on, rather than penning their hopes on federal government solutions.

iPad's Future: A contrarian view

At first blush, it may appear sheer lunacy to question the future of the iPad, Apple's wildly successful entry into the tablet computer market. In its latest update, the Cupertino, California-based maker announced it had sold three million units of the touchscreen device. That would suggest a bright future for the iPad as sales graphs resemble the proverbial hockey-stick.

However, here's a note of caution for Apple investors. The iPad rocketed off the launch pad on April 3, selling 300,000 units by the first weekend. Sales hit one million units less than one month into the introduction of the new product. Since then, reports continue to show steady gains, but nothing like the super-heated introductory phase.

Is the market getting Apple fatigue? Has the iPad fad run its course? Has the growth been driven by early-adopters instead of broad mass market appeal? Are sales about to reach a peak? And what about tablet computer introductions promised by Dell, Hewlett Packard and Lenovo? Only Dell has tiptoed into the category with a new product announcement earlier this month. If this is such a hot category, why are there so few imitators?

Those questions are likely causing heartburn for a few Wall Street analysts. This observer sees trouble ahead for the iPad, unless Apple ramps up unique applications for the device. Right now, most of the apps that run on the iPad are spiffed up versions available on the iPhone. As Apple demonstrated with its iPhone, it's all about the apps. Any manufacturer can produce a smartphone. What makes the iPhone unique is the applications that turn the device into a powerful personal assistant. The same applies to tablet computers.

A larger issue is defining the iPad for consumers and businesses. That may sound simplistic, but to what product category does this device belong? It does not have the processing power of a laptop. For example, it lacks media creation capabilities that computers have.

Furthermore, it cannot do things, like take pictures or handle voice calls, that smartphones can do. It has some appeal to gamers, but when compared with Xbox for example, it comes up short on gaming experience. While it has been hailed as a reader, it costs nearly twice as much as competitors' models, including Amazon's Kindle. And Apple's selection of e-books pales in comparison with Amazon's robust library.

To be fair, the Ipad is a useful device for reading, watching and browsing. It has a cool, high-definition touchscreen, but not much else to distinguish it from the competition. That's why it seems more of a complement for a personal computer, but does not replace a netbook, laptop or desktop. Its an orphan product looking for a niche to fill.

Apple CEO Steve Jobs didn't help matters when he introduced the new hand-held product as a tablet computer. Given the dismal history of tablet computers, that was not the most flattering market niche for Apple's slick new device. Jobs had an opportunity to define a whole new market in his introduction but blew it. And that name? High gag factor. It sounds like a feminine hygiene product.

Long term, Apple needs to find a market niche for the iPad. For starters, Apple should stop referring to the device as a tablet computer. That's like calling a $250,000 Porsche an automobile. The iPad is a souped-up, high-tech, eye-candy network explorer that excels at visual media.

(Personal Note: Yes, I purchased an iPad and use it mostly to access email and browse the net when I travel. It replaced my clunky, six-year-old laptop. But I don't need the processing power most heavy computer users expect and require.)

Apple should focus its marketing and application efforts in some basic categories to solidify its long-term prospects. Here are a few ideas:

1. HOSPITALS: Patient charts litter hospital wards. It's time to end the paper trail and hang iPads off patient beds. With the right software, doctors and nurses could enter patient data and transfer it instantly to the attending physician. That would allow doctors to check on patients without physically visiting hospitals so often. It would also streamline the way hospitals track drug treatments, medical observations and patient data. Medical record-keeping would be revolutionized. Even the lightest laptops are too bulky for the task.

2. RESEARCH: Research abounds in the country: from political polls to consumer mall research. Most research is done over the phone or with pen (or pencils) and paper. Why not fill out the survey on an iPad and then download the information to a server? The data could be tallied and available faster. In addition, clients could assess the data in real time, aiding the decision-making process. Another application is door-to-door surveys, such as the U.S. Census. Results could be released in months, instead of years.

3. STATE AGENCIES: State governments chew up paper like a first grader on Rendlin. Take one example: the Department of Motor Vehicles. Think of the time and money savings if agencies could use iPads to administer tests, collect information and record data. It would take some of the pain out of the citizen experience with government agencies and increase job satisfaction for state workers.

4. RESTAURANTS: Eateries with diverse menus and large dinning rooms could serve more people faster if waiters used iPads to take orders. The information would be inputted once and sent over a wireless network to a screen in the kitchen. Waiters could spend more time with customers, meeting their needs, and less time darting back and forth between tables and the kitchen.

5. DOCTORS OFFICE: A visit to the doctor's office--even your regular family physician--usually involves filling out countless forms. The paper documents are stored in files that clog up space in cramped quarters. Wouldn't it be a better solution to let patients complete the forms on an iPad and then push "send"? We vote that way today, so why does this seem like such a foreign concept to the medical profession?

Those are just a few of the uses for an iPad that come readily to mind. There are many more out there. The iPad is easily portable, can be operated with one hand and has the screen size (readability) and graphic definition to make it a superior device for inputting information, reading charts, graphs or MRI scans.

iPads could become ubiquitous in many settings because the cost is reasonable ($499 to $829), certainly cheaper than a high-end, awkward laptop that requires (most) users to be in a sitting position to pound the keyboard.

The future is there for the taking. But Apple must re-trench to take advantage of the opportunities. Tablet computers have a terrible track record. Apple thumbed its nose at market history and decided in its arrogance to show the world that its iconic logo could sell tablet computers where others have failed.

I know. I know. It's tough to argue with Apple's track record for success. But even a great company can make a bone-headed miscalculation. The corporate graveyard is littered with examples of once dynamic firms whose visions were clouded by cool technology while ignoring market realities.

It will be worth watching what Apple does next, especially if iPad sales begin to stall. Betting against Apple is always risky. The prediction here is that Jobs will swallow his pride and reposition the iPad. If he doesn't, there may be rough seas ahead for the much ballyhooed device that was predicted to save the tablet computer category from extinction.

Mosque Flap: Muslins Trump Christians

As the furor escalates over the so-called ground zero mosque, the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church's request to rebuild its cathedral only blocks away has languished. The church's petition has been tangled in bureaucratic red tape, while New York's political elitists have rushed to approve the construction of a 13-story Muslim community center two blocks from the epicenter of the September 11th attacks.

St. Nicholas Church was buried under tons of rubble after it was crushed by the fall of the Twin Towers in 2001. Within a month of the attacks in New York City, Archbishop Demetrios pledged that the four-story church would rise again on the same spot it had occupied since 1922. The church filed a request with the New York Port Authority, the agency overseeing the reconstruction.

That was nearly nine years ago. The Port Authority has yet to rule on the church petition, despite the endorsement from then Gov. George E. Pataki. Issues have arisen over the size of the church complex and the amount of funding the Port Authority will contribute to the construction of the new building.

The seventy families who worshipped at the Greek Orthodox church now congregate at a cathedral in downtown Brooklyn. Church members have waited patiently for the rebuilding of their small cathedral in downtown Manhattan. A spokesman for the congregation says members are becoming "restless" over the stalled project.

When Mayor Bloomberg was appraised of the church's dilemma this week, he feigned surprise. He admitted the reconstruction had been "a bone of contention between the church and the Port Authority." The mayor, who did not hesitate to leap into the fray when an uproar ensued over the mosque, took a hands off approach, saying he did not want to "interfere" with the Port Authority's deliberations over the church's rebuilding project.

It appears, at least in New York City, it is easier for Muslims to construct a new community center with a mosque than it is for Christians to rebuild a church destroyed by the worst attack on American soil. The mayor's hypocrisy over the issue only underscores the rush to political correctness by city officials eager to use religious freedom and tolerance as an excuse to favor one group over another.

Even the Lecturer-in-Chief, Barack Obama, got into the act. At a Ramadan dinner in the White House State Dining Room, the President opined that Muslims had the right "to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan." He wagged his finger and admonished his fellow countrymen, "This is America and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."

The tone-deaf President was off the mark even wider than usual. No one on the other side of this issue has claimed Muslims, Christians or any other religion does not have the right to build a place of worship. The President just wants people to believe that is the issue. He knows better, but chooses to scold Christians about their lack of understanding of the U.S. Constitution.

Apparently, he is suffering from an awful memory lapse. Radical members of Islam piloted the planes into the Twin Towers, praising Allah all the way to their deaths. Would any Muslim nation--say Iran or Saudi Arabia--allow a Christian church to be built within sight of its holiest shrines? Of course not. Then why is it so unreasonable for Americans to suggest it is inappropriate to build a mosque near ground zero?

Most citizens just want the Muslims to show a little tolerance for our values. Ground Zero is a sacred piece of our shared experience as Americans. Out of respect, Muslims should heed calls from concerned voices that are suggesting the community center be built at another location. By the way, there are nearly 30 mosques in New York City alone. No one could argue that Muslims don't have a place to worship in Manhattan.

Muslims championing the community center have refused to bow to these reasonable requests. With the mayor of New York City and the President in their corner, why should they budge? However, the Muslims and the politicians have misjudged the depth of American outrage at their decision to move forward with the project at the current site. Surveys show 60 to 70 percent of Americans prefer the mosque to be built somewhere else in Manhattan.

Perhaps, supporters have been blinded by a recent endorsement for the project. None other than Mahmoud al-Zahar, the leader of the notorious Hamas terrorist group, announced his support for the building of the place of worship. There is no word on whether Bloomberg or Obama would endorse Hamas building a recruiting center in Manhattan.

Meanwhile St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church remains out in the cold. Church leaders continue to press forward while the Port Authority dawdles. It would be nice if Bloomberg and Obama could summon up what little courage they have to make sure the Greek Orthodox congregation obtains the same speedy approvals as Muslims did to build a house of worship in lower Manhattan.

Then again why should they change their tune? Bloomberg and Obama have already chosen sides in this debate. Based on their words and actions, Muslims' interests trump Christians in the building of worship houses.

Foreclosure Aid: Another Government Boondoggle

The Obama Administration's efforts to solve the housing foreclosure problem by throwing billions of dollars at it has been exposed as an unqualified flop. However, it took Wall Street analysts to force the government to admit the $50 billion Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) has failed to achieve its objectives.

In reviewing statistics released by the Treasury Department, some smart money folks noticed the numbers were out of whack with rising foreclosure rates. They asked Treasury to audit its numbers. Treasury passed the buck to Fannie Mae. The statistics were revised, which is government speak for, "We were caught red-handed with bogus data."

The new data released by Treasury raised eyebrows from Wall Street to Main Street. Here are just a few nuggets from the "revised" statistics about the HAMP program, which began in March, 2009:

1. More than 40 percent or about 1.3 million borrowers who started in the program have dropped out. Less than 30 percent have received permanent new terms on their loans.

2. Dropout rates among borrowers are increasing. About 91,000 borrowers dropped out in June, nearly twice the pace of those getting a permanent modification in their mortgage terms.

3. Borrowers with modified mortgages are defaulting on their liens at nearly twice the rate as it was originally reported by Treasury. For example, those borrowers who had their permanent modifications at least nine months defaulted at six times the rate the original numbers showed.

4. For loans permanently modified for at least nine months, 19.6 of those loans are now at least two months behind on their payments. On loans modified for at least half a year, 10.1 percent of homeowners are 60 days or more behind on payments.

These numbers come as no surprise. The government is bailing out people who should have never bought a home in the first place because they did not qualify. Does anyone expect that in today's lousy economy these same people will somehow find the new terms easier to meet?

Even these dismal figures are suspect. Consider that Realty/Trac, an independent research and tracking firm, says that lenders repossessed 92,858 homes in July, the second-highest monthly total ever recorded. Bank repossessions rose six percent from a year ago, when the housing market was in worse shape than today.

An objective review of the situation should convince Washington bureaucrats to quit throwing more money at the problem. That's what is wrong with rational thinking in today's environment dominated by an out-of-control Democrat-led spending spree that is creating a staggering mountain of debt.

The Obama Administration announced this week it would add another $3 billion in foreclosure aid to bailout homeowners. This is throwing good money after bad and expecting a different outcome.

But that's not the most insidious aspect of this new effort. Instead of spreading the money to homeowners across the country, the government in its wisdom decided to spend $2 billion in only 17 states and the District of Columbia. Those states, with two exceptions, are states that voted Democratic in the past election. Coincidence? Not in this administration.

Here's a prediction: when this newest effort fails, as it surely will, the Obama Administration will dump billions of additional dollars into already bankrupt Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to permanently bailout irresponsible home borrowers. They will be given some sort of mortgage "amnesty" to allow them to live "free" in their homes just in time for the November mid-term elections.

Remember where you heard it first.