Everyone Has A Heart

December 14, 2012

This Saturday….




December 15th



Will be our 27th year….



For the Haddon Holiday Heart Run.





We have been thru












Biting Cold….



Unexpected warmth….




Yet each year



The diehard runners



Keep coming back




When we setup this race



27 years ago



That was our intention





If you are a runner



There are a slew of races



You may choose from





Beginning in April



Right on thru Thanksgiving





Christmas is where we saw our opportunity




Let’s have a Holiday Heart Run



Right before Christmas





You will only find



The truly diehard runners participating






Depending on the weather



We have had anywhere from



250 up to 400+ runners



Each year






Santa always shows up





His little elf……



Bernie Parent



Has been our



Honorary Chairman



For the last 10 years





This year we have…….



A special surprise



At the finish line.




You will have to be there to find out





I’m not tellin…..





Over the last 26 years



Our Haddon Holiday Heart Run



Has raised well over






For the American Heart Association






Here’s a few facts you may not be aware of….





Did You Know That…..




“More than 2,200 Americans die


Of cardiovascular diseases each day





That’s one person every 39 seconds.





On average, someone in the United States





Has a stroke every 40 seconds





And a stroke-related death occurs



About every four minutes.”





Those are shocking numbers





Thru the Haddon Holiday Heart Run



We look to raise awareness




All dollars benefit



The American Heart Association’s



Research and Education Programs





Since 1949, the American Heart Association



Has spent more than $3.4 billion…..



Second only to the federal government….



On research to increase our knowledge




About cardiovascular diseases and stroke.





Would you like to join us Saturday?




I have included a link below



To sign up for the run



Register online:





If you are not able to participate



Maybe you would like to make a donation




The link also includes a tab



For you






You may donate from $10 up to $100




There is even a spot available



To write in your own amount







Everyone has a Heart





Your donation will help us




As we work to find a cure





Every Day is a Gift

10 Ways to Help VOIP Quality

December 10, 2012

The past three or four years have seen hosted VoIP application come of age. It is estimated that sometime in 2013 VoIP will outpace tradition voice services in call volume.

Choosing a VoIP provider requires a few considerations. Most important should be the quality of the service provider. You want to begin by looking at the service provider you choose today: do they know voice? Do they know data? How much experience do they have in delivering VoIP? Like choosing any vendor, if they don’t ask questions about your network be wary.

Here are the top ten problems to avoid to make your experience a better one.


Call quality can suffer if your network isn’t configured correctly; particularly if you’re routing both data and voice over the same internal network. The solution is to use a VLAN capable switch that is properly configured. In addition many of these VLAN capable switches also have POE (power over Ethernet) built in so each individual phones does not need to be plugged into an electrical outlet.


In a network, latency equals delay. The delay is how much time it takes for a packet of data to get from one designated point to another. It can also be the gap of time between when a call participant speaks and the time the other party hears. There are several types of latency that can affect voice quality. A high- quality VoIP router and prioritizing VoIP traffic over your network can address some latency. Many VOIP providers will also include and manage that equipment for optimum service. HBS highly recommends this practice.


Sometimes equipment just goes bad. If your business uses its internet connection for both voice (VOIP) and data, you’ll need a router that prioritizes VoIP traffic. Without a VoIP-priority router, downloading a large file while you’re on a call can make call quality spotty. cory communications recommends this equipment be provided and managed by your VOIP provider..


Jitter is the variations in the delay of packets that are received by the user. Packets are sent in a continuous stream, spaced evenly apart. Problems like network congestion, improper queuing, varied packet delays, or configuration errors, can make this steady stream choppy.

You can compensate for the jitter with a router or Edge devices that receive a Real-Time


Your facility has a demarcation point where the public switched telephone network connects to on-premises wiring. Your demarcation point can usually be identified as a network interface box installed by the telephone network. Legacy telephone systems used a cabling that was called CAT 3. Most of today’s cabling uses CAT 5 or higher. Both computer networks and VOIP telephones operate using CAT 5. Using the correct equipment allows you to share one connection for each user. Proper wiring insures the best quality of service.


Having a local area network which contains hubs could lead to bad call quality. It’s best if each phone has a straight home run connection to your 100 Base-T VLAN capable POE ( Power over Ethernet ) switch. If your facility has multiple Ethernet switches for sharing single wiring drops, call quality will suffer. These scenarios should be discussed as part of the discovery process when looking into Hosted VOIP. Hutchinson Business Solutions can help your organization access these potential hazards.


Your internet service provider may be optimized for web surfing rather than VoIP phone service. The transportation of voice packets requires particular internet protocols that your internet service may not provide. For businesses that have up to 10 phones in use at any given time, cable high speed internet generally offer “business class” service that is configured for VoIP traffic. Please note the only true way to get guaranteed quality of service with a guarantee in writing from the service provider is to purchase your new Hosted VOIP service from a provider that can provide end to end connectivity using T-1 or higher.


We’ve all had the notorious phone-echo. Believe it or not this is common. The guilty party is usually on the end of the person who does not hear the echo. In addition low-quality handsets can be the cause. The easy fix may be as easy as turning down your hand set volume.


Crackling is usually a wiring or hardware with either the handset or headset or the device’s cord. If this occurs see if it’s affecting all of the phones or just one. If it’s just one try the cord first. Your phone may simply not be connected properly. If not, there are more serious wiring issues at hand.


If a call participant experiences periods of silence or voices that sound “robotic,” the cause is generally packet loss. This is usually caused by insufficient internet bandwidth. You need around 100kbps in both directions to prevent packet loss and ensure good VoIP calls. Ensure that your internet connection has adequate bandwidth for your business’s calls and level of network usage. HBS highly recommends that, when you operate above 10 phones, a T-1 connection to the carrier will go a long way to insure Quality of Service.


For more information about Hosted VOIP or any other telecommunications and cloud services please contact us at           george@hbsadvantage.com

Visit us on the web www.hutchinsonbusinesssolutions.com

One Step….Two Step

December 5, 2012

Does everyone know how to do….




The one step….. two step?




Tim Geithner presented the….





Reach for the sky


Fiscal cliff solution




That landed like a lead balloon




It was the same offer from 2011




I guess it took them a long time



To come up with that?




The Republicans huddled and….



Went to their files



And pulled out their proposal










That is what I call progress





It has been 1 month since




The presidential election….





And these are my sins….





We are still back in 2011.





I have been reading a lot about this topic



Since Finance is my bag





Nobody wants to pay more taxes….





But the Government cannot



Continue to spend




33% more than they take in.






Raising the taxes from 35% to 39% for



The 2% highest earners




Is mostly symbolic



That does not mean they will actually




Be paying higher taxes





Without touching the deductions and loopholes



They will still be paying







In order to increase revenue




You can’t just increase the rates



You have to close loopholes





That would bring in more revenue





Taxing the highest earning 2%



Will not solve the deficit issue



It only scratches at the surface






We are going to have to stick our heads



Into unchartered waters





When social security was started



The retirement age was 65 years old





The average life expectancy was


69 years old




The program was set up with the intention




That it had to provide benefits


On average for about 4 years




The average life expectancy today



Is 84 years old





That means that…..



Social Security is now expected



To cover



On average




A span of 19 years





Not…….4 years





Can you see why there



May be a problem



With this program





We all pay into it….





But as the boomers age





The support base diminishes






Where can we possibly look to



Save money in the budget






Let’s take a quick look at defense spending








That was the last time we saw…


The defense budget under



$100 billion dollars





By the year 2000



The defense budget grew to




$372 billion dollars





That took 26 years





In a mere 12 years





2000 – 2012




The Defense Budget



Has more than doubled




And comes in at




$816 billion dollars





I think we can possibly find




Some savings there?






There has been a lot of talk about



Health Care




Currently the US spends



About 18% of GDP



On Healthcare




Other comparable nations spend


On average about 12%




A recent study by



Harvard Business Review states





“The proper goal for any health care delivery system



Is to improve the value delivered to patients.




Value in health care is measured




In terms of the patient outcomes



Achieved per dollar expended.




It is not the number of different services provided



Or the volume of services delivered that matters



But the value.




More care and more expensive care



Is not necessarily better care.”





Studies show that savings in Health Care cost



Can range from $700 billion to $1 Trillion dollars




Just by increasing the



Efficiencies of service.





These are just a couple examples




Every program should be reviewed






I believe there will be



A lot of finger pointing



While the Government works



Towards a solution





But it is in the best interest



Of all concerned



That a compromise



Is made






True saving can be found



In all programs



Without effecting




The integrity of any program





America is here for the long term




We just have to make smart decisions




To make sure we remain the




Beacon of light




That all other countries look



To emulate

As reported in The Hill 12/03/12 bt=y Russell Berman
House Republican leaders on Monday made a counteroffer to President Obama in the “fiscal cliff” negotiations, proposing to cut $2.2 trillion with a combination of spending cuts, entitlement reforms and $800 billion in new tax revenue.

The leaders delivered the offer to the White House on Monday with a three-page letter signed by Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and four other senior House Republicans, including Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the party’s just-defeated vice presidential nominee.

The White House rejected the offer as insufficient in a statement released about two hours after Boehner made the offer public. White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer in a statement said the GOP proposal was unbalanced on the key issue of taxes on wealthier households, and that it also lacked detail.

Republican officials said the offer was based on a proposal outlined by Erskine Bowles, who served as chief of staff to former President Clinton, in testimony last year before the congressional “supercommittee” on deficit reduction. That offer is distinct from the widely cited Simpson-Bowles deficit plan released two years ago.


The GOP offer is a response to Obama’s opening bid, which called for $1.6 trillion in tax increases and reducing the power of Congress to block an increase in the debt ceiling.

“What we are putting forward is a credible plan that deserves serious consideration by the White House,” Boehner told reporters in a brief appearance at the Capitol. He said he hoped the administration would respond in a timely manner.

He characterized it as a response to what he called the “la-la land” offer that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner presented to congressional leaders last week.

The Speaker last spoke to Obama on Wednesday and indicated he did not plan to personally present his offer to the president. “I think the letter’s appropriate,” he said.

Boehner is scheduled to attend the White House holiday party on Monday evening. Asked if he might speak to Obama there, the Speaker smiled and replied: “I might run into him.”

The Republican counteroffer does not include an increase in the debt ceiling, but a GOP aide said the party remained open to negotiating additional borrowing authority for the Treasury before the end of the year. The nation is expected to reach its borrowing limit by mid-February at the latest.

Republican officials said their offer amounted to $4.6 trillion in deficit reduction when compared directly to the White House offer, which they emphasized was more than what the White House had put on the table.

In its own deficit plan, the White House counts legislation that has already been enacted, savings from future interest on the debt and savings from the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Republicans do not count those as new savings, so their offer amounts to $2.2 trillion in future deficit reduction.

The $800 billion in new tax revenue matches what Boehner offered Obama during their 2011 negotiations for a grand bargain. Republicans are keeping to their opposition to tax rate increases, and aides said Monday they believe that $800 billion can be raised from the wealthy through other means, which their offer does not specify.

Senior Republican aides argued that their offer represented a “fair middle ground” because, unlike the White House, they did not use their budget proposal as their opening bid. The House budget contains no revenue increases and included far-reaching changes to Medicare and Medicaid that Democrats consider non-starters.

“We’re not doing that today, because we don’t have time,” one top GOP aide said, speaking during a background briefing on the condition of anonymity.

Republicans have complained that the White House waited three weeks to present its offer to avoid the fiscal cliff at year’s end, which they panned as “not serious.”

In addition to the $800 billion in revenue, the Republicans are proposing $600 billion in health savings, $300 billion in savings from other mandatory spending and $300 billion in further cuts to discretionary spending.

The GOP is also proposing to raise $200 billion through changes to the way inflation is calculated for the purpose of determining benefits and tax policy across a range of programs, including $200 billion. The offer is consistent with a framework that leaders in both parties have agreed to: averting the looming tax hikes and spending cuts with a “down payment” of deficit reduction while settling on targets for tax and entitlement reform in 2013.

The Republican proposal does not specify what would be immediately enacted as a down payment, and aides said it could replace the $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts that are set to begin taking effect next year, although it does not explicitly eliminate them.

While the offer only specifies targets for entitlement reform, aides said they would likely include means testing of Medicare and raising the age of eligibility, which they noted have been at the center of deficit reduction talks for years.

“It’s not as if we have had no conversations over the past few years,” an aide said.

Pfeiffer faulted the GOP for raising rates on the wealthy and sticking the middle class with the bill.

“Their plan includes nothing new and provides no details on which deductions they would eliminate, which loopholes they will close or which Medicare savings they would achieve,” Pfeiffer said.” While the President is willing to compromise to get a significant, balanced deal and believes that compromise is readily available to Congress, he is not willing to compromise on the principles of fairness and balance that include asking the wealthiest to pay higher rates.”

The House counteroffer drew immediate praise from Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), who issued a statement calling it a “good-faith effort to find common ground.”

“While the president hasn’t moved an inch away from his efforts to please his radical left-wing base, the Speaker has consistently shown a good-faith effort to find common ground and a realistic approach to solving the very real economic problems facing our country,” McConnell said. “If the president is serious about joining us in an effort to reduce the deficit and protect the economy, he’ll get off the campaign trail, drop the left-wing talking points, and instruct his staff to negotiate a solution in good faith based on actual written proposals. In short, he’ll begin doing what leaders do: Lead.”

The letter, sent by the full House leadership, along with Ryan, indicates Boehner has the full support of key players in his conference.

“This is by no means an adequate long-term solution, as resolving our long-term fiscal crisis will require fundamental entitlement reform,” the leaders wrote in their letter to Obama. “Indeed, the Bowles plan is exactly the kind of imperfect, but fair middle ground that allows us to avert the fiscal cliff without hurting our economy and destroying jobs. We believe it warrants immediate consideration.

“If you are agreeable to this framework,” they continue, “we are ready and eager to begin discussions about how to structure these reforms so that the American people can be confident that these targets will be reached.”

—This story was posted at 3 p.m. and last updated at 5:01 p.m.


Here is the full text of the GOP letter to Obama:

December 3, 2012 The President The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

After a status quo election in which both you and the Republican majority in the House were re-elected, the American people rightly expect both parties to come together on a fair middle ground and address the nation’s most pressing challenges.

To that end, shortly after the election, we presented you with a balanced framework for averting the fiscal cliff by coupling spending cuts and reforms with new tax revenue.  We then welcomed Secretary Geithner to the Capitol on November 29 with every expectation that he would lay out a similarly reasonable path.

Regrettably, the proposal he outlined on behalf of your Administration contains very little in the way of common ground.   The proposal calls for $1.6 trillion in new tax revenue, twice the amount you supported during the campaign.  The proposal also includes four times as much tax revenue as spending cuts, in stark contrast to the “balanced approach” on which you campaigned.  While administration officials are claiming that this proposal contains 2.5 dollars of spending cuts for each dollar in new revenue, counting as part of this ratio previously enacted savings – as if these were new spending reductions – only confuses the public debate.  What’s worse, the modest spending cuts in this offer are cancelled out by the additional ‘stimulus’ measures the Administration is requesting.  And, this proposal would remove any and all limits on federal borrowing.

We cannot in good conscience agree to this approach, which is neither balanced nor realistic.  If we were to take your Administration’s proposal at face value, then we would counter with the House-passed Budget Resolution.  It assumes an overhaul of our tax code with revenue remaining at historically normal levels and proposes structural reforms to preserve and protect the Nation’s entitlement programs, ensuring they are sustainable for the long-term rather than continuing to grow out of control.  Some of its key reforms include:

The House-passed Budget Resolution assumes enactment of structural Medicare reform that offers future beneficiaries guaranteed coverage options, including a traditional fee-for-service Medicare plan.  This proposal is based on recent bipartisan efforts and would provide greater support for the poor and the sick and less support for the wealthy.  We achieve these reforms in Medicare without affecting current seniors or those nearing retirement.  This would slow the projected explosive spending growth in this program and eventually maintain Medicare spending as a share of the economy at 4.75 percent, thus saving the program for future generations.

The House-passed Budget Resolution reforms Medicaid and provides states with greater flexibility to better deliver health security to beneficiaries, saving the federal government nearly $800 billion over 10 years.

Separate from savings in our proposal for the 2010 health care law, the House-passed Budget Resolution envisions hundreds of billions in savings in other mandatory spending, including reforms to Federal employee compensation and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. These reforms are, in our view, absolutely essential to addressing the true drivers of our debt, and we will continue to support and advance them.  At the same time, mindful of the status quo election and past exchanges on these questions, we recognize it would be counterproductive to publicly or privately propose entitlement reforms that you and the leaders of your party appear unwilling to support in the near-term.

With the fiscal cliff nearing, our priority remains finding a reasonable solution that can pass both the House and the Senate, and be signed into law in the next couple of weeks.  The best way to do this is by learning from and building on the bipartisan discussions that have occurred during this Congress, including the Biden Group, the Joint Select Committee, and our negotiations leading up to the Budget Control Act.

For instance, on November 1 of last year, Erskine Bowles, the co-chair of your debt commission, presented the Joint Select Committee with a middle ground approach that garnered praise from many fiscal watchdogs and nonpartisan experts.  He recommended that both parties agree to a balanced package that includes significant spending cuts as well as $800 billion in new revenue.

Notably, the new revenue in the Bowles plan would not be achieved through higher tax rates, which we continue to oppose and will not agree to in order to protect small businesses and our economy.  Instead, new revenue would be generated through pro-growth tax reform that closes special-interest loopholes and deductions while lowering rates.  On the spending side, the Bowles recommendation would cut more than $900 billion in mandatory spending and another $300 billion in discretionary spending.  These cuts would be over and above the spending reductions enacted in the Budget Control Act.

This is by no means an adequate long-term solution, as resolving our long-term fiscal crisis will require fundamental entitlement reform.  Indeed, the Bowles plan is exactly the kind of imperfect, but fair middle ground that allows us to avert the fiscal cliff without hurting our economy and destroying jobs.  We believe it warrants immediate consideration.

If you are agreeable to this framework, we are ready and eager to begin discussions about how to structure these reforms so that the American people can be confident that these targets will be reached.

Again, the American people expect their leaders to find fair middle ground to address the nation’s most pressing challenges.  To achieve that outcome, we respectfully request that you respond to this letter in a timely fashion and hope that you will refrain from any further action that would undermine good-faith efforts to reach a reasonable and equitable agreement in this critical matter.


John Boehner, Speaker Eric Cantor, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Majority Whip Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Republican Conference Chairman Dave Camp, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means Paul Ryan, Committee on the Budget Fred Upton, Committee on Energy & Commerce