Write your Congressmen

Sunday, May 31, 2009

Why I Like the GM Deal

The deal struck by GM and Chrysler with the UAW and the US government is breathtaking in its poorness. It assures the company's failure by installing leaders who know nothing about either big business or the auto industry. With the exception of the probable survival of Ford, this brings to close a chapter in American history that made it a great industrial nation. Further, that industrialization is what saved the world a couple of times over, most notably its power during World War II. Rather than expressing gratitude, the crisis in the industry has been used to further the leftist motives of the Obama administration and the UAW.

This is all bad. But why do I like it?

I'm a "Support the USA" kind of guy. I'm far from a unionite, but I like to buy local; I like to support businesses that put my money back into my community. Foreign automakers don't necessarily do that, taking the profits elsewhere. So why do I like the deal?

I like it because I hate the deal so much, and what's behind it. There's a reason why these two - the Obama government and the UAW - are at the helm in this. Politics. They're both far left, and want to move American industry into a socialized system by which everyone is paid for doing as little as possible and no one is accountable. They see an opportunity to control an entire industry to suit them, rather than let the people, through market forces, do it. And damned if they haven't pulled it off. Almost. So if I dislike the new owners so much, why do I like the deal?

The Obama government and especially the unions are parasites which will destroy whatever they touch. The Unions want to suck industry of everything to give to their membership, which demands high pay for unskilled labor. The government wants to use the crisis as a means to move a social agenda to the hilt: to change the US economic system as far left as it possibly can. If I buy anything from GM or Chrysler, I support that. So I won't buy from them. I won't be considering anything GM sells. If I did, I'm filling the coffers of the UAW with my cash, and I'm supporting the political left's move toward socialism. I just won't do that. But I still haven't said why i like the deal.

Freedom. There's freedom in this for patriotic consumers: I'm now free to buy any car I like, from anywhere in the world. I like to buy things that are politically neutral, which now disqualifies GM and Chrysler. You might say I'm screwing myself by not supporting what the government does, by not contributing to the profits that will pay back the loans made over the last few months. Maybe that's the price Obama supporters have to pay to get it through their heads that government has no place in a free market. Because if government is involved to this extent, that market is far from "free."

So, the goose that laid the golden egg had her run; now she's on the table ready for carving. But somehow, I just can't bring myself to eat; she was a good old girl.

It's funny how messy it becomes when business gets polluted with politics.


GM Clears UAW Hurdle as Deadline Looms - WSJ.com:
"GM, which is surviving on federal loans, is racing to restructure under a June 1 deadline set by the Obama administration. The agreement with the UAW was a key element of plan, which would give the U.S. government as much as a 72.5% stake in the auto maker.

UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said the pact, which has the union making concessions but also gaining a stake in GM, was passed with 74% support. The agreement covers about 54,000 workers -- roughly a third of whom are likely to lose their jobs -- and hundreds of thousands of retirees and family members.

The deal gives the union's independent trust fund for retiree health care a 17.5% stake in the new GM and warrants for another 2.5% stake."

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Sotomayor's remark termed 'poor' word choice

Sotomayor's remark termed 'poor' word choice - Washington Times:
"'Her word choice in 2001 was poor,' spokesman Robert Gibbs said, seeking to settle what has become an early stumbling point for President Obama's nominee as she prepares for her Senate confirmation battle.

'I think she would change that word,' Mr. Gibbs said, adding that he based his comment on 'discussions with people that have talked to her.'"

Well, let's see. First, Word choice is a major thing for all lawyers, but especially for judges who make rulings in important cases. This is especially important for a US Supreme Court justice, whose words could be used to affect legal precedent for generations.

Bottom line, Gibbs has no idea what's in Sotomayer's head, so he has no idea whether she would change her expression or not. But I wonder if her altered word choice would be, "White men suck. Hispanics, females in particular, should rule the world."

I believe she sad exactly what she meant. However, if we are to parse every syllable from a judge in order to tease out their exact meaning (that's what they do to the Constitution, after all), then maybe she meant whatever fantasy any of us want to hear.

Taking her comment at face value, the truth of the matter is that Hispanic females DID rule the world at one point. Every elementary school student learns that Queen Isabella, of Spain, was largely responsible for financing the discovery of the new world, that being America. Then Spain had an inquisition, killed off all its best thinkers, and quickly went to pot. From Wikipedia:
As a key character in completing the Reconquista, establishing the Spanish Inquisition, sponsoring Christopher Columbus' voyages that led to the discovery of America, laying the foundations of modern Spain and the Spanish Empire, she is considered one of the most important sovereigns in world history.
Later, Spain mismanaged its empire (which included most of central and south America, and a large part of North America including Florida), and lost it either through bad deals or allowing it to be taken from them.

So, let's ask Sotomeyer to renew her interest in history before she implies white guys suck and Hispanic chicks are "better."

Friday, May 29, 2009

They Had it Coming

The UAW is bemoaning the "sacrifices" it had to make to more or less keep GM afloat - assuming it stays alive at all. They should have thought of such deals a decade ago; the oppressive contracts they forced on the automakers are mostly, the reason why GM and Chrysler are in bankruptcy. Frankly, I think what the UAW did to the entire US auto industry is tantamount to extortion and embezzlement.

The weird icing on this goofy cake is that the UAW is ending up a large shareholder in GM. It boggles the mind. Collapse an industry, reap a reward, handed to you by your bought-and-paid-for politicians. I think we need a movie with Jimmy Stewart in it about this one.

Anyway, I saw this in an article on the situation:

Autoworkers swallow a bitter pill - May. 29, 2009:
"Today, an entry-level autoworker in a 'non-core' position will make $14 an hour, compared to the $28-an-hour 'base rate' others make, according to a summary of Chrysler's contract agreement."

Hmm, OK, let's compare that with some other positions.Take nursing for example.

To become a nurse, one has to be college-educated, have nursing training, pass a board certification and then be licensed. In many states they must maintain their education through continuing education courses, or they lose their license and their job. Then they have the professional responsibility of taking care of people whose lives often depend on it.

What do they make? Depends on where you go, but $14 - $20 an hour is about it for a new nurse. That compares to what the entry-level floor sweeper makes at GM. Anyone in the union hired by GM will, on the first day, make twice what a beginning nurse makes, even after all her hard work and education.

Ain't right, is it?

But that's not all. The "concessions" the UAW says it made sheds light on how good they actually had it; for example:

UAW members agree to GM concessions | detnews.com | The Detroit News:
"Key concessions in the GM-UAW pact mirror those given to Chrysler. Among them:

• A new incentive offer is on the table to further winnow the GM work force at plants other than the Davison Road, Flint East and Needmore Road facilities. UAW workers can get $20,000 in cash to retire and a $25,000 vehicle voucher. Workers with more than 20 years can get $115,000 in cash and $25,000 vehicle voucher to quit early.

• Tuition assistance for UAW workers is suspended for at least a year for all current and retired employees.

• Dental and vision coverage and some prescription drugs for hourly retirees are eliminated, including erectile dysfunction medication. Low-income retirees who previously had no co-pay must now make an $11 monthly co-pay.

• GM UAW employees will no longer be paid for unused vacation. Breaks will be shortened and overtime rules tightened.
If these are concessions, what the hell was it before? And what did they retain?

These guys are just pissing their pants over losing everything, which is why the UAW membership agreed to give up anything. Believe me, it wasn't for the good of the company. Although, a strong argument can be made that the stronger the company, the more protected the job. But the UAW was never known for its brains, just its brawn. Thieves. They could teach the robber-barons a thing or two.

Still, a 20-year worker can get a $115,000 payout and a new car if he retires early. Where can anyone get anything like that?

So, not much sympathy here for the union boys, who killed the goose that laid all those golden eggs. But I think they're going to need the Viagra that they now have to pay for themselves.


Additional Sources:
http://www.allied-physicians.com/salary-surveys/nursing/
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Registered_Nurse_(RN)/Hourly_Rate

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Obama to Nominate Sotomayor to Supreme Court

Sonia Sotomayor is Obama's pick to join the Supreme Court. It comes as no surprise that his pick is socio-political, rather than one based on even-handed legal thinking. For example, I would think this ruling would disqualify her:
"As an appellate judge, she sided with the city of New Haven, Conn., in a discrimination case brought by white firefighters after the city threw out results of a promotion exam because two few minorities scored high enough. Ironically, that case is now before the Supreme Court."
It should disqualify her because it is legislation from the courts; only the legislature, through lawmaking, should make these decisions. Power should remain with the people, not an untouchable few, such as the Supreme Court.

In 1996, Antonin Scalia said this about the matter:
"The whole purpose of the Constitution is to prevent a future society from doing what it wants to do," he said. "To change, to evolve, you don't need a constitution, all you need is a legislature and a ballot box."
Sotomayor takes affirmative action to a new level. According to her ruling, what you were born supersedes any individual performance - or the rights of your fellow citizen. If you find yourself born into a political majority, through no fault of your own, you can never do better based on your personal effort if it does not fit with what the small judiciary believes is "best" for society. You may be discriminated against, legally, by Sotomayor's ilk.

If you are Hispanic and laud this ruling, note that this is a slippery slope; Hispanics already outnumber blacks, and therefore you can expect to be discriminated against yourselves, in favor of blacks, if this legal mentality takes hold.

Ironically, she is something of a self-made woman; her parents were Puerto Rican immigrants, her father died while she was young, and she did not grow up in wealth. One would think that given her personal efforts, she would support an even-handed policy guaranteeing that every individual can prosper from their own efforts, rather than prosper from their skin color.

Nice choice for the US's highest court.

Sources:

Obama to Nominate Sotomayor to Supreme Court Tuesday - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com:

Liberals Sketch Out Dreams and Limits for Supreme Court

Saturday, May 23, 2009

Medical News: Baucus: Health Reform Will Not Cover All Americans

Medical News: Baucus: Health Reform Will Not Cover All Americans
"President Barack Obama campaigned on a promise to insure all Americans, but in recent weeks, Baucus has downplayed the president's promise and said insuring everyone would be unlikely."

Friday, May 22, 2009

Being Clear about Slavery and the Parties in favor of it

In 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Act became law. This created the territories of Kansas and Nebraska, but allowed them to determine by popular sentiment of those area's settlers if they were to have slaves or not. The bill was crafted by a very prominent Democrat, Stephen Douglas, and was supported by the democratically-controlled congress.

The Republican Party was formed in opposition to the inclusion of slavery in the act. Republicans felt that slavery should be abolished at least in all new territories joining the Union, if not in its entirety for the whole of the union. Republicans believed that an economic system based on slavery was not only immoral, but also unable to compete with the modern industrial system emerging in the North.

This explains why the South has been historically Democratic - as far back as the Missouri Compromise, the Democratic party had been in support of slave holders and slavery as a viable economic system. Apparently, despite the Civil War and Reconstruction, the South's sentiments toward the Democratic party never changed. This is likely due to Lincoln's being a Republican, and the South atributing their loss of the war, their pride, and their previous way of life directly to the Republicans. Therefore, the Republican party never took hold there.

So the next time someone holds the Republicans up as anti-black, anti-minority, anti-liberal, show them this:

Kansas-Nebraska Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edward R. Murrow

When the politicians complain that TV turns the proceedings into a circus, it should be made clear that the circus was already there, and that TV has merely demonstrated that not all the performers are well trained.
- Edward R. Murrow

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

The Narcissism Continues..

President Barack Obama Misreads Car and Driver - Car News | Automotive News Blog at CARandDRIVER.com - Car News Resource:
"So imagine our surprise when, at the annual White House Correspondents’ Association dinner Saturday night, President Barack Obama announced—before we did—thatCar and Driver named him Auto Executive of the Year. Our surprise was doubled by the fact that, well, we didn’t. We’ve never given such an award. A little explanation is perhaps in order."

Italian parliament criminalizes illegal immigration - USATODAY.com

Who'd have thought Italian law would be ahead of us? Wait, I forgot - American politicians are involved on our side.

Italian parliament criminalizes illegal immigration - USATODAY.com:
"ROME (AP) — Italy's lower chamber of parliament has passed a hotly debated measure making it a crime to enter or stay in Italy illegally as Premier Silvio Berlusconi's conservative forces continue cracking down on illegal migration.

In a bid to ensure swift passage, Berlusconi's allies put the legislation to a confidence vote, which they easily won 316-258. Confidence votes force lawmakers to close ranks since defeat would force the government's resignation.

The legislation must now be approved by the senate. It would make it a crime to enter or stay in Italy illegally, punishable by a fine of $6,840-$13,670, although no prison penalty would be imposed. In addition, the legislation imposes a prison term of up to three years for anyone who rents an apartment to an illegal immigrant."

Monday, May 11, 2009

The Flaw in Halthcare Reform

There is a basic flaw in almost all arguments regarding the delivery of health care in the US. Nearly every proposal involves insuring the "uninsured."

But is the goal to have people insured, or to receive healthcare?

By any application of logic, the problem with rising healthcare costs is the insurance itself. For example, health insurance is a separate monetary-based industry riding on the back of healthcare, adding additional costs. And it's a profitable venture - have a look at the annual profits of all the healthcare insurers. You won't see them asking for a bailout.

If politicians really want to do something about heath costs, then start doing something to increase efficiency in the delivery of healthcare to all Americans - which means removing unnecessary costs. That means insurance.

Obama says healthcare overhaul could save trillions | Reuters:
"Revamping the healthcare system and expanding coverage for an estimated 46 million uninsured Americans is one of Obama's top domestic priorities. He is pushing his allies in the Democratic-led Congress to pass an overhaul of the $2.5 trillion healthcare industry by the end of the year.

There is broad agreement within the industry and among lawmakers that the health system needs to be improved but big differences of opinion exist on how to go about it.

A centerpiece of Obama's health proposal would be a new government health insurance plan that would compete with private insurers. The administration says the public plan would help cut costs by introducing competition and cover the uninsured."

Sunday, May 10, 2009

The Class of '09 Curse - WSJ.com

The Class of '09 Curse - WSJ.com:
"The damage can linger up to 15 years, says Lisa Kahn, a Yale School of Management economist. She used the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, a government data base, to track wages of white men who graduated before, during and after the deep 1980s recession.

Ms. Kahn found that for each percentage-point increase in the unemployment rate, those with the misfortune to graduate during the recession earned 7% to 8% less in their first year out than comparable workers who graduated in better times. The effect persisted over many years, with recession-era grads earning 4% to 5% less by their 12th year out of college, and 2% less by their 18th year out."

Friday, May 8, 2009

Frank Dane

"Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything.
- Frank Dane"

Sunday, May 3, 2009

Obama: Wall Street Will Play Less Dominant Role - ABC News

He sure sounds like he's wanting to control the "free market." We all know that, in a free market as is capitalism, the market decides pretty much everything, including how much can be bilked during a CEO contract negotiation. Obama wants to look good politically by saying, "we'll limit those golden parachutes," but he really can't control them. It's not within the power of the government to do so. And if it were, we've got some revolutioning to do.

Just one more step in Obama's march toward government control of everything. Socialism, communism, or fascism? There are features of all of it in Obama's policies. The one thing that's not there is anything relating to a free market. So you decide.

What kills me is that the political lefties from the 60s, whose ideas spawned Obama, demonstrated violently against government control. The hippies, yippies and various other leftist groups from the 1960s believed in free everything, trying to escape any type of governmental control. Many (including Obama's secret advisers, William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn) actively performed violent terrorist bombings against, among others, the civilian police, in an attempt to prompt a revolution related to ending the VietNam war. Somehow, the irony of using extreme violence on uninvolved people to stop violence out of their control was lost on these groups. Ultimately, the left of the 1960's reversed themselves politically, adopting the desire to control everything through the government and education.

Conservatives moved a little to the left, but pretty much were always in favor of "reasonable" control. The hallmark of the right was the always the US Constitution, which tries to protect the freedom of the individual. Words to recall are "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness."

The left remained oppositional to conservatives, today still referred to as the "right," but Republicans, conservatives and the so-called right want far less government, more resembling many features of the 60's left than today's political left. Today's political left has much more in common with Chinese and (failed) Russian communism, and even many facets of Hitler's National Socialist Worker's Party, than anything we've known in America.

Astounding, really.

Obama: Wall Street Will Play Less Dominant Role - ABC News:
"Wall Street is not going to play as dominant a role in the economy as regulations reduce 'some of the massive leveraging and the massive risk-taking that had become so common,' President Barack Obama says.

The changes in the role of Wall Street and the huge profits that came from that risk-taking could mean other adjustments as well, Obama said in an interview in this week's New York Times Magazine."