We've Become a Nation of Takers, Not Makers

04/01/11

By STEPHEN MOORE

More Americans work for the government than work in construction, farming, fishing, forestry, manufacturing, mining and utilities combined. We have moved decisively from a nation of makers to a nation of takers.

SOCIALISM COMING AT US HOT AND HEAVY!

SOCIALISM COMING AT US HOT AND HEAVY!

02/25/10

By Charles Hakes

President Barack Obama -- A clear and present danger to taxpayers, the economy and the American system of free enterprise.

Here’s a summary and commentary.

New York Times:

Plan to Seek Use of U.S. Contracts as a Wage Lever

By STEVEN GREENHOUSE

Published: February 25, 2010

Obama Aims to Use Federal Contracts as a Way to Lift Wages - NYTimes.com

SUMMARY:

From the NYTimes:

"The Obama administration is planning to use the government’s enormous buying power to prod private companies to improve wages and benefits for millions of workers, according to White House officials and several interest groups briefed on the plan."

"By altering how it awards $500 billion in contracts each year, the government would disqualify more companies with labor, environmental or other violations and give an edge to companies that offer better levels of pay, health coverage, pensions and other benefits, the officials said."

COMMENTARY:

How big is this::

This is big because nearly one in four workers is employed by companies with federal contracts. That means they are paid with our money.

Normal bidding process

The normal government bidding process is supposed to be to choose suppliers who provide the best value for the lowest cost. This gives taxpayers the most for our money.

Proposed inverted bidding process

The Obama government proposes to invert this bidding process and award contracts to companies with higher labor expenses from higher wages and benefits. Therefore, taxpayers pay more for what we get.

Fiscal irresponsibility

The fiscal irresponsibility of making Americans pay more for what they receive can hardly be overlooked when the American people are faced with trillions in government deficits.

To those who might argue that the companies should pay these costs out of profits, I say that if you drive profits down enough no one will want to invest in the company. There are plenty of alternative investment opportunities available. Without equity companies will lay off workers and go out of business.

Union favoritism and reciprocation

Companies with higher wages and benefits are most likely to be closed-shop union companies. The inverted bidding process will guarantee union employment and benefits with taxpayer dollars. This favoritism will not be lost on the unions, who will respond by giving Obama and liberal politicians their enthusiastic political support in donations and votes.

Obama controls

Who will decide which companies are eligible to bid for government work on the basis of “fair wages and benefits?” The Obama administration will. Look for another expensive group of government bureaucrats to study companies and draw up the eligibility list. Will these bureaucrats have capitalistic beliefs? Not on your life.

The unmentioned criterion for a winning bid

Suppose two companies competing for a contract are about equal in wages and benefits. Who gets the nod? Bet on the company that most strongly supports the democratic party.

Share the wealth

The social effect of inverted bidding is redistribution of wealth – galloping socialism. The wealthier pay more in taxes and via inverted bidding these dollars will be redistributed. During his campaign Obama said we should share the wealth. That’s the intent of the inverted bidding plan, and its intent is but thinly veiled.

Support for big business

Obama claims to support small business as the “driving engine of the economy.” Inverted bidding will favor big companies, which are more likely to be presently unionized. A small company will be out of the running for government contracts unless it competes with a big company on the basis of what it pays its workers. Unions drive up wages and benefits and have contributed to the damage and demise of the domestic auto industry and newspaper industry, to name two.

Big, bad, Bush again (and Cheney, too)

The Obama administration has complained that some large contracts during the Bush administration were placed without bidding. This is an obvious reference to Halliburton’s role during the Iraq war. Because they don’t have the slightest inkling about business, the Obama-ites overlook the reason for this choice: The need was immediate, Halliburton could immediately meet the need, and there were few or no other companies that could have done that.

Inverted bidding is worse than no bidding at all.

Summary:

Under the guise of driving the economy, and expanding and improving conditions for the middle class, the American people will get cheated, the democrats will increase their power, and America will have taken another giant step toward socialism.

Socialistic solutions are the only kind that the Obama people understand.

Government doesn't have to own companies to force socialism upon us. All they need to do is control them.

Chuck

Federal Employees at the Trough

By Paul B. Matthews

December 16, 2009

Simply analyzing the growth in total paid compensation fails to capture the true explosion in benefits paid to federal workers.

Union Results??

06/24/09

Neal Boortz

I got on a rant about unions again after reading about these government school teachers in New York. You know the ones sitting in these "rubber rooms" doing crossword puzzles and playing grab-ass? Yeah, those are the ones. What a joke. But you continue to turn your children over to the government to be educated.

Anyway, that got me thinking about how hideous unions are for this country, and I was reminded of a recent study by the Heritage Foundation. Take a look at some of the highlights below. It's wonderful stuff.

• Studies typically find that unionized companies earn profits between 10 percent and 15 percent lower than those of comparable non-union firms.
  
• Some unions win higher wages for their members, though many do not. But with these higher wages, unions bring less investment, fewer jobs, higher prices, and smaller 401(k) plans for everyone else.
  
• Final union contracts typically give workers group identities instead of treating them as individuals. Unions do not have the resources to monitor each worker's performance and tailor the contract accordingly. Even if they could, they would not want to do so. Unions want employees to view the union--not their individual achievements--as the source of their economic gains.
  
• Consequently, union contracts compress wages: They suppress the wages of more productive workers and raise the wages of the less competent. Unions redistribute wealth between workers.
  
• A better summary of the economic research is that unions do not increase workers' wages by nearly as much as they claim and that, at a number of companies, they do not raise wages at all.
  
• In essence, unions "tax" investments that corporations make, redistributing part of the return from these investments to their members. This makes undertaking a new investment less worthwhile. Companies respond to the union tax in the same way they respond to government taxes on investment--by investing less.
  
• Research shows that unions directly cause firms to reduce their investments. In fact, investment drops sharply after unions organize a company. One study found that unionizing reduces capital investment by 30 percent--the same effect as a 33 percentage point increase in the corporate tax rate
  
• The balance of economic research shows that unions do not just happen to organize firms with more layoffs and less job growth: They cause job losses. Most studies find that jobs drop at newly organized companies, with employment falling between 5 percent and 10 percent.
• 
  

This is one of the greatest responses to the requests for bailout money I have seen thus far

This is one of the greatest responses to the requests for bailout money I have seen thus far. As a supplier for the Big 3, this man received a letter from the President of GM North America requesting support for the bailout program. His response is classic and has to make you proud of a local guy who tells it like it is.

"Dear Employees & Suppliers,"

"Congress and the current Administration will soon determine whether to provide immediate support to the domestic auto industry to help it through one of the most difficult economic times in our nation's history. Your elected officials must hear from all of us now on why this support is critical to our continuing the progress we began prior to the global financial crisis...

As an employee or supplier, you have a lot at stake and continue to be one of our most effective and passionate voices. I know GM can count on you to have your voice heard. Thank you for your urgent action and ongoing support."

"Troy Clarke, President General Motors North America"

Response from: Gregory Knox,

Pres. Knox Machinary Company,

Franklin, Ohio.

Gentlemen:

In response to your request to contact legislators and ask for a bailout for the Big Three automakers please consider the following, and please pass my thoughts on to Troy Clark, President of General Motors North America.

Politicians and Management of the Big 3 are both infected with the same entitlement mentality that has spread like cancerous germs in UAW halls for the last countless decades, and whose plague is now sweeping this nation, awaiting our new "messiah", Pres. Obama, to wave his magic wand and make all our problems go away, while at the same time allowing our once great nation to keep "living the dream"… Believe me folks, The dream is over!

This dream where we can ignore the consumer for years while management myopically focuses on its personal rewards packages at the same time that our factories have been filled with the worlds most overpaid, arrogant, ignorant and laziest entitlement minded "laborers" without paying the price for these atrocities… this dream where you still think the masses will line up to buy our products for ever and ever.

Don't even think about telling me I'm wrong. Don't accuse me of not knowing of what I speak. I have called on Ford, GM, Chrysler, TRW, Delphi, Kelsey Hayes, American Axle and countle ss other automotive OEM's throughout the Midwest during the past 30 years and what I've seen over those years in these union shops can on ly be described as disgusting.

Troy Clarke, President of General Motors North America, states: "There is widespread sentiment throughout this country, and our government, and especially via the news media, that the current crisis is completely the result of bad management which it certainly is not."

You're right Mr. Clarke, it's not JUST management… how about the electricians who walk around the plants like lords in feudal times, making people wait on them for countless hours while they drag ass… so they can come in on the weekend and make double and triple time… for a job they easily could have done within their normal 40 hour work week. How about the line workers who threaten newbies with all kinds of scare tactics… for putting out too many parts on a shift… and for being too productive. (We certainly must not expose those lazy bums who have been getting overpaid for decades fo r their horrific underproduction, must we?!?

Do you folks really not know about this stuff?!? How about this great sentiment abridged from Mr. Clarke's sad plea: "over the last few years… we have closed the quality and efficiency gaps with our competitors.." What the hell has Detroit been doing for the last 40 years?!?

Did we really JUST wake up to the gaps in quality and efficiency between us and them? The K car vs. the Accord? The Pinto vs. the Civic?!? Do I need to go on? What a joke! We are living through the inevitable outcome of the actions of theUnited States auto industry for decades. It's time to pay for your sins, Detroit.

I attended an economic summit last week where brilliant economist, Alan Beaulieu, from the Institute of Trend Research, surprised the crowd when he said he would not have given the banks a penny of "bailout money". "Yes, he said, this would cause short term problems," but despite what people like politicians and corporate magnates would have us believe, the sun would in fact rise the next day… and the following very important thing would happen…where there had been greedy and sloppy banks, new efficient ones would pop up… that is how a free market system works… it does work… if we would only let it work…"

But for some nondescript reason we are now deciding that the rest of the world is right and that capitalism doesn't work - that we need the government to step in and "save us"… Save us my ass, Hell - we're nationalizing… and unfortunately too many of our once fine nation's citizens don't even have a clue that this is what is really happening… But, they sure can tell you the stats on their favorite sports teams… yeah - THAT'S really important, isn't it…

Does it ever occur to ANYONE that the "competition" has been producing vehicles, EXTREMELY PROFITABLY, for decades in this country?... How can that be??? Let's see… Fuel efficient… Listening to customers… Investing in the proper tooling and automation for the long haul…

Not being too complacent or arrogant to listen to Dr. W. Edwards Deming four decades ago when he taught that by adopting appropriate principles of management, organizations could increase quality and simultaneously reduce costs. Ever increased productivity through quality and intelligent planning… Treating vendors like strategic partners, rather than like "the enemy"… Efficient front and back offices… Non union environment… Again, I could go on and on, but I really wouldn't be telling anyone anything they really don't already know down deep in their hearts.

I have six children, so I am not unfamiliar with the concept of wanting someone to bail you out of a mess that you have gotten yourself into - my children do this on a weekly, if not daily basis, as I did when I was their age. I do for them what my parents did for me (one of their greatest gifts, by the way) - I make them stand on their own two feet and accept the consequences of their actions and work through it. Radical concept, huh… Am I there for them in the wings? Of course - but only until such time as they need to be fully on their own as adults.

I don't want to oversimplify a complex situation, but there certainly are unmistakable parallels here between the proper role of parenting and government. Detroit and the United States need to pay for their sins. Bad news people - it's coming whether we like it or not. The newly elected Messiah really doesn't have a magic wand big enough to "make it all go away." I laughed as I heard Obama "reeling it back in" almost immediately after the final vote count was tallied…"we really might not do it in a year…or in four…" Where the Hell was that kind of talk when he was RUNNING for office.

Stop trying to put off the inevitable folks … That house in Florida really isn't worth $750,000… People who jump across a border really don't deserve free health care benefits…That job driving that forklift for the Big 3 really isn't worth $85,000 a year… We really shouldn't allow Wal-Mart to stock their shelves with products acquired from a country that unfairly manipulates their currency and has the most atrocious human rights infractions on the face of the globe…

That couple whose combined income is less than $50,000 really shouldn't be living in that $485,000 home…Let the market correct itself folks - it will. Yes it will be painful, but it's gonna' be painful either way, and the bright side of my proposal is that on the other side of it all, is a nation that appreciates what it has…and doesn't live beyond its means…and gets back to basics…and redevelops the patriotic work ethic that made it the greatest nation in the history of the world…and probably turns back to God.

Sorry - don't cut my head off, I'm just the messenger sharing with you the "bad news". I hope you take it to heart.

Gregory J. Knox,

President Knox Machinery, Inc.

An Open Letter to President Obama - # 5

An Open Letter to President Obama - # 5

Good Morning Mr. President,

In one of your campaign speeches about a year ago you said:

"Just words? - Don't Tell Me Words Don't Matter!"

With that in mind can we discuss the meanings of a few words or phrases?

A contract is "a written (or spoken) agreement, especially one concerning employment, sales, or tenancy, that is intended to be enforceable by law."

A Bill of Attainder is a legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial. (Confession time... I had to look it up.)

The Constitution of the United States (you remember that from your days teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago), Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."

Per U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965), "The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature." (I had to look this up too because I am not a constitutional scholar, but you are.)

Mr. President, if contracts are subject to change, after the fact, then they in fact, have NO meaning in the present. As Charles Krauthammer said, "there is such a thing as law. The way to break a contract legally is Chapter 11. Short of that, a contract is a contract. The AIG bonuses were agreed to before the government takeover and are perfectly legal. Is the rule now that when public anger is kindled, Congress summarily cancels contracts? Even worse are the clever schemes now being cooked up in Congress to retrieve the money by means of some retroactive confiscatory tax."

I find it hard to believe congress (your congress) this week has passed a bill to RETROACTIVELY tax the bonuses of certain A.I.G. employees. I will not and perhaps cannot, defend the appropriateness of these bonuses but if they were legal contracts, no-one, including you and/or congress has a right to tax, modify or void those contracts. To do so will destroy our legal system. Not just in this situation but for all future contracts. Who would want to work for or do business with any company or organization whose contracts and agreements were subject to retroactive taxation or negotiation? Please don't tell me words don't matter.

In early March the "Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009", was approved in the House (your house). This too is a contract modification program. If Congress wants to deal with the rising number of foreclosures, it should not create a new problem by converting the mortgage crisis into a bankruptcy crisis. Doing so will open the door to a host of unintended consequences that will further freeze credit markets, raise interest rates for new home buyers, and spread the mortgage contagion to other types of consumer credit. Congress needs to reject this plan and look for better solutions. Are we beginning to go down an irreversible slippery slope?

You do not need any help from me. But I have a few suggestions, if you insist on this course of taxing, changing or voiding contracts after the fact.

If Chrysler and General Motors take billions of bailout cash, should not congress (your congress) pass a law to cut the salaries and benefits of union workers retroactively because their leadership had negotiated sweetheart deals earlier?After all, the plan calls for limiting executive compensation as a condition of taking the bailout money. It seems to me if you want to have government oversight on executive pay you will soon want oversight on the pay for the rest of working America. After all, there are many more of us. Or at least there were before your congress and your administration started to fix things.

Would it not make sense to renegotiate the labor contracts that caused at least part of the automotive companies current financial woes? Or perhaps we could just impose a tax on the excess portion of their compensation over and above, say, the national average. More reasonable and competitive labor prices would surely help these companies pay us back. I am sure the U.A.W. (United Auto Workers) would find that fair and reasonable. These line workers make very little compared with the A.I.G. executives, but the principle does not change. Does it?

Fair warning to retired America... the speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi, has seriously discussed legislation to place an additional tax on retirement (401k and pension) income. Obviously, working hard and saving for your future is a bad thing and as such it must be taxed.

Your new budget and stimulus package nearly doubles our spending on education. Throwing more money at our education system will solve nothing without clear goals and objectives. How about renegotiating the N.E.A. (National Education Association) teacher contracts? We could institute a bonus plan for, say, 50% of their total compensation based on student achievement levels. That is, unless we do not wish to hold teachers accountable for results. We already spend more on education than almost any country in the world but consistently turn out substandard students particularly in math and science. The teachers clearly have not lived up to their contractual obligations. At least with this proposal the baby sitters will earn less than the teachers.

Since nearly every state is going to take billions from your stimulus package they too should renegotiate their government employee union contracts downward to be more competitive with the non-union workforce. Or, at least, we should retroactively tax their health care and pension benefits that all of us will now be subsidizing. Isn't that exactly what we are going to do to the AIG executives?

Do you see where I am going with this logic? Voiding or rewriting legal contracts has many unintended consequences, none of which can turn out well for the country. We are still and must remain a nation of laws. If you or your congress feel a wrong has been done, craft a law to correct it for the future.

I am sure you have noticed that I keep saying you or your congress or your administration. The actions or proposed actions discussed above have all been advanced without input or compromise from the loyal opposition. All have been purely partisan efforts. I know "you won," and I know this is how politics works. I also know you must, as of January 20, 2009, take full and total responsibility for the havoc you and your congress are wreaking on the American people both now and in the future.

Your congress wrote the legislation unilaterally and rushed it through to passage without reading or reviewing it per your previous promise. Please don't tell me words don't matter. Then, without reading and reviewing it, you signed it into law. You must have agreed to all the provisions in the bill or you would not or should not have signed it. Now it comes to light that your administration actually did know about the A.I.G. bonuses IN ADVANCE and now feign outrage that these greedy executives dare take the bonuses you, in fact, authorized in the legislation. Mr. President, it is your own stimulus package which included a measure to protect "any bonus payment required to be paid pursuant to a written employment contract executed on or before February 11, 2009." It would be nice if you and your congress would cool down the rhetoric and take responsibility for this blunder.

Mr. President, on the subject of the your just proposed budget. The budget deficit will hit nearly two trillion dollars this year. It is projected to produce over nine trillion dollars in deficits in the next ten years. That is more than four times those of the previous administration. Remember how you railed about those deficits during the presidential campaign? Please don't tell me words don't matter. That is four times more WITHOUT a war to fund. Two trillion, ten trillion... it just takes my breath away.

Sir, if deficit spending stimulated an economy, the last seven years should have done the trick. If regulation fixed things, the 80,000 or so pages of regulations already on the books (30 times more than the middle of the New Deal) should have worked. If increased government spending, especially on education and health care helped, we should be in great shape by now. Spending trillions is not the answer... cutting spending across the board is the answer. We do it at home when things are tight and we should expect no less from our government.

I don't say this lightly, but, if you continue down this road, which I am sure you will, I too hope you fail. Please don't tell me words don't matter.

Respectfully,

Steve Mishket

stevemishket@comcast.net

03/23/09