I agree with President Obama...

...about this Nike thing:

As Obama Visits Portland, Trade Deal Divides Liberal Community

As President Barack Obama visited Nike's headquarters in Portland — a city known for lush greenery, constant drizzle and liberal politics — the left-leaning enclave has become ground zero Friday for the debate over the administration's push for a sweeping, multinational trade deal.

The president acknowledged that he's faced hurdles in his quest to garner support for an ambitious trade accord between the United States and 11 South American and Pacific Rim nations, known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. He told workers at the Nike campus that the people opposing this "typically they're my friends and coming from my own party. On this one, they're like, whooping on me."

Obama insisted the trade push is not political for him, since he's run his last election. He said the trade accord is the right thing to do for working families.

"The only reason I do something is because I think it's good for the economy," Obama said.

Still, in Portland, with its normally laid back vibe, the debate over the trade issue is splitting residents into two camps.

On the one side are companies like Nike, one of the city's largest employers. The company employs 8,500 people in Oregon and 26,000 nationwide. Nike says its economic impact on the state of Oregon is $2.5 billion.

And the company promises to add 10,000 jobs and an additional 40,000 indirect and supply chain service jobs if the trade deal is approved.

"We believe agreements that encourage free and fair trade allow Nike to do what we do best: innovate, expand our businesses and drive economic growth," said Mark Parker, Nike's president and CEO.

On the other side are labor unions that argue that the trade accord would repress worker wages and encourage companies — like Nike — to outsource jobs.

Those differences were on display Friday morning as Nike workers, most wearing Nike shoes, lined up to cheer the president. Meanwhile, about a hundred protesters crowded outside and chanted their outrage.

"Nike represents everything about corporate America that stinks," said Andrew Crosby, as he carried a protest sign.

The pact has even split Oregon's senators, both Democrats.

Sen. Ron Wyden is helping lead the charge to pass "fast-track" authority which would grant Obama and future presidents the right to ask for an up-or-down vote in Congress on trade agreements. Obama and supporters say the president needs this authority to better negotiate with other nations.

Opponents worry that such large trade deals deserve vetting by Congress. Sen. Jeff Merkley has said he is "dubious" about the impact of such broad trade accords. [...]

Wyden is a reasonable Democrat. Merkley is a Moron. Oregon desperately needs the jobs and revenue. The unions here are too powerful, and dragging our state down. I have to agree with president Obama on this one.

     

Over-powerful Unions are for the birds

Report: Non-union utility crews turned away from NJ
Not exactly helpful to the suffering victims with no electricity and heat, as nighttime temperatures turn freezing.

The above picture has nothing to do with the article. But I had noticed, that in several of the photos of the flooding caused by Sandy, there were Swans. This one was my favorite. The title of this blog post, an excuse to use it. A bit of natural beauty among a lot of tragedy.
     

South Africa's mine owners and miners.

Cry the beloved country no more

When I first went to South Africa as a callow correspondent in the last year of white rule, veteran colleagues said that of the reams of agonised apartheid literature there were just two books I needed to read: Alan Paton’s Cry, The Beloved Country and Rian Malan’s My Traitor’s Heart. For the first time in many years I have found myself thinking of both books as the stark images from South Africa’s Lonmin mine massacre have played on television screens around the world.

My 1993 reading list spoke more to the preoccupations of western editors than to the travails of the Rainbow Nation. The first encapsulates the dilemmas and uncertainties of the white liberal. The second is a no-holds-barred, to be read with several glasses of brandy and coke, evisceration of Afrikaner angst and the country’s tortured racial politics. But both books have searing passages that remind the reader how the tortured narrative of South Africa over the past 140 years is woven around the saga of the excavation of some of the more lucrative – and inaccessible – mining seams in the world: first diamond, then gold and now increasingly platinum. The resilience of apartheid was founded on the gold mined each year from the Witwatersrand. It was also, as Paton and Malan show in very different ways, based on the labour of hundreds of thousands of migrant workers. The former addresses the nightmarish world of these young men separated from their families, living in fetid single-sex hostels. The latter recounts the murder of two policemen by striking miners whipped up by witch doctors and the frustrations of years.

If they read this far, old friends in the ANC will be clicking their teeth. One of the lazier syndromes in the international media of recent years has been the way that every political, social or economic drama of the post-apartheid era, from the rise of the firebrand Julius Malema to the fluctuations of the rand, has been presented abroad as an existential crisis. So, the sort of conflict of interest that in, say, India or Brazil is seen as irksome but not disastrous, is in the South African context routinely depicted as a step on the road to Zimbabwe. How many reports in the British press of gruesome murders in Johannesburg have had “Cry the beloved country” in the headline? [...]

It gives some good suggestions for dealing with/resolving the conflict, much as it might be done had it occurred anywhere else. But will they?
     

Public Employee Unions need to Get Real

Government Workers and the New Reality

Too bad the showdown with public employee unions has come to this, however long in the making. One can be pro-union and still feel a growing resentment at these workers' ability to set their own dream retirement benefits as the private sector's were being amputated. Not that they are to blame. They got what they could -- it's the American way -- though they overplayed their hand by resisting honest efforts to reform government, schools above all.

The public workers respond that rather than race to the bottom, others should rise to their level. But the difference between them and others is that they got to fire their employers at the ballot box. Their payoff came in the form of future goodies that wouldn't hit the taxpayers until the politicians were long gone. Hence, retirements at age 50 and gold-plated health coverage for life.

"Do you know how much of our retirement plan we are funding ourselves?" an aggrieved teachers union official asked. To which I replied, "No, I don't know, but I happen to be funding 100 percent of mine."

Public employees are fighting to keep their old-fashioned defined-benefit plans, which have all but disappeared in the private sector. Such plans promise to pay a set amount to each qualified retiree. If the investments can't keep up with the promises, the employer must make up the difference -- in the case of government workers, the taxpayer. [...]

The Gravy Train is over. Taxpayers like me who have to provide for my own healthcare and retirement plans will not tolerate having to provide for cushy union pensions as well, promised to the unions decades ago by some now forgotten politicians, who conveniently passed the debt on to future generations. MY consent was not given for it, and it's my tax dollars they are wanting to take.

Rosen: Unions are "busting" taxpayers

[...] I agree with President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who said "the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service."

The Battle of Wisconsin has focused public attention on a fiscal reality. Whatever the necessity and value of public-sector jobs, federal, state and local governments simply can't sustain their current costs. Irrational unionists and media liberals have preposterously compared duly-elected Gov. Scott Walker and Republican legislators in Wisconsin to anti-democratic dictators. In fact, it's just the opposite. This is democracy at work. Wisconsin voters in 2010 ousted Democrats and gave majority control of their legislature and the governor's office to the GOP. Walker campaigned on exactly the measures he's now taking in regard to balancing the budget, reining in excessive compensation for public employees and restricting their collective bargaining privileges, as is done in 24 other states.

In response, 10,000 angry unionists have laid siege to the state capitol, shaking their fists, shouting epithets and waving signs. So what? That was to be expected. They're defending their rice bowl and their self interest. Meanwhile, millions of non-union Wisconsinites who work in the private sector and whose taxes support the angry unionists haven't descended upon the capitol. Those who voted for Walker and other Republicans are getting what they were promised. In our system of government, free elections trump demonstrations. [...]

The unions aren't being destroyed. They ARE getting a reality check. One that, IMO, is long overdue. They need to learn to deal with reality, like the rest of us.
     

End Union Thuggery and Mob Rule

I've said previously that Government Employee Unions are Ruining Us. And even the "Progressive" president Franklin Delano Roosevelt believed that government Unions needed restrictions, because of the potential for corruption. Public sector unions in particular become corrupt and destructive when they use their funding to buy political power, and turn the taxpayers into hostages. They need to be limited, before they destroy the foundations we are all standing on:

Capitol Chaos: Could Union Bill Be Passed Separately Tuesday?

MADISON - Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald says his chamber of the Wisconsin legislature will convene to pass non-spending bills and act on appointments on Tuesday even if minority Democrats remain out of state in an effort to block a vote on Governor Scott Walker's budget repair bill.

Could one of those bills be the union aspect of the budget bill, in a separate vote on Tuesday?

Democratic state Sen. Jon Erpenbach told The Associated Press on Monday that Republicans could attempt to attach the part of the proposal taking away collective bargaining rights to an unrelated bill and pass it Tuesday. [...]

YES! I hope it goes through. It won't destroy the unions, just put them in their place. If the Union leaders had any sense, they would stop trying to destroy the taxpayers who make their jobs possible.

I've heard that a recall effort is being mounted for the missing Democrats who are "hiding", shirking their jobs. I hope the recall succeeds. They need to be made an example of what happens to cowards who shirk the jobs they were elected to do.


Also see:

Apocalypse Now: Wisconsin vs. Big Labor; Plus: More out-of-state union recruiting & another teacher speaks up for Walker; police order for AWOL Dems; America agrees: End public union monopoly

Teachers teaching kids it's okay to lie

Rank-and-file teachers speak truth to prog power
     

Best option to avoid a massive federal bailout

Sounds good to me:


Give States a Way to Go Bankrupt

[...] In the decades since the constitutionality of municipal bankruptcy was affirmed by the Supreme Court, the most serious obstacle in practice has been the rule that only insolvent municipalities can file for bankruptcy. Because a struggling city theoretically can raise taxes or slash programs, it often isn’t clear if even the most bedraggled city needs to be in bankruptcy. In 1991, a court concluded that Bridgeport, Connecticut—which wasn’t anyone’s idea of a healthy city—had not demonstrated that it was insolvent, and rejected Bridgeport’s bankruptcy filing. To avoid this risk, without making bankruptcy too easy for states, Congress would do well to consider a somewhat softer entrance requirement if it enacts bankruptcy-for-states legislation. Current corporate bankruptcy does not require a showing of insolvency, and the new financial reforms allow regulators to take over large banks that are “in default or in danger of default.” Although these reforms are in other ways deeply flawed, the “in default or danger of default” standard would work well for states.

Given that a new bankruptcy chapter for states would clearly be constitutional, and the entrance hurdles could easily be adjusted, the ultimate question is whether its benefits would be great enough to justify the innovation. They would, although a bankruptcy chapter for states would not be nearly so smooth as an ordinary corporate reorganization. When a business files for bankruptcy, the threat to liquidate the company’s assets—that is, to simply sell everything in pieces and shut the business down—has the same effect on creditors that Samuel Johnson attributed to the hangman’s noose: It concentrates the mind wonderfully. Because creditors are likely to be worse off if the company is simply liquidated, they tend to be more flexible, and more willing to renegotiate what they are owed.

One can imagine something like a liquidation sale for cities and even states. Indeed, in the early 1990s, professors Michael McConnell and Randal Picker proposed that Congress amend the existing municipal bankruptcy chapter to allow just that. They argued that many of a city’s commercial, nongovernmental properties could be sold in a municipal bankruptcy, and the proceeds simply distributed to creditors. (They also suggested that municipal boundaries could be dissolved, with a bankrupt city being absorbed by the surrounding county.) Although California has taken small steps in this direction on its own—it recently contracted to sell the San Francisco Civic Center and other public buildings to a Texas investment company for $2.33 billion—it seems unlikely that Congress would give bankruptcy judges the power to compel sales in bankruptcy. Nor could it do so with respect to any property that serves a public purpose. Liquidation simply isn’t a realistic option for a city or state. (The same limitation applies to nation-states like Ireland and Greece, whose financial travails have reinvigorated debate about whether there should be a bankruptcy-like international framework for countries.)

With liquidation off the table, the effectiveness of state bankruptcy would depend a great deal on the state’s willingness to play hardball with its creditors. The principal candidates for restructuring in states like California or Illinois are the state’s bonds and its contracts with public employees. Ideally, bondholders would vote to approve a restructuring. But if they dug in their heels and resisted proposals to restructure their debt, a bankruptcy chapter for states should allow (as municipal bankruptcy already does) for a proposal to be “crammed down” over their objections under certain circumstances. This eliminates the hold-out problem—the refusal of a minority of bondholders to agree to the terms of a restructuring—that can foil efforts to restructure outside of bankruptcy.

The bankruptcy law should give debtor states even more power to rewrite union contracts, if the court approves. Interestingly, it is easier to renegotiate a burdensome union contract in municipal bankruptcy than in a corporate bankruptcy. Vallejo has used this power in its bankruptcy case, which was filed in 2008. It is possible that a state could even renegotiate existing pension benefits in bankruptcy, although this is much less clear and less likely than the power to renegotiate an ongoing contract.

Whether states like California or Illinois would fully take advantage of such powers is of course open to question. During his recent campaign, Governor-elect Jerry Brown promised to take a hard look at California’s out-of-control pension costs. But it is difficult to imagine Brown taking a tough stance with the unions. Even in his reincarnation as a sensible politician who has left his Governor Moonbeam days behind, Brown depends heavily on labor support. He doesn’t seem likely to bring the gravy train to an end, or even to slow it down much.

But as Voltaire warned, we mustn’t make the perfect the enemy of the good. The risk that politicians won’t make as much use of their bankruptcy options as they should does not mean that bankruptcy is a bad idea. For all its limitations, it would give a resolute state a new, more effective tool for paring down the state’s debts. And many a governor might find alluring the possibility of shifting blame for a new frugality onto a bankruptcy court that “made him do it” rather than take direct responsibility for tough choices.

This brings us back to the issue of federal bailouts. When taxpayer-funded bailouts are inserted into the equation, the case for a new bankruptcy chapter becomes overwhelming. And it’s a case for Congress to move now on the creation of a state bankruptcy law.

With the presidential election just two years away, the pressure to bail out California, Illinois, and perhaps other states is about to become irresistible. As we learned in 2008 and 2009, it is impossible to stop a bailout once the government decides to go this route. [...]

I think we NEED a state bankruptcy law. I don't see another viable alternative. Bailouts just increase debt without solving the problem.

It was hard to chose excerpts, it's worth reading the whole article. There are many examples given that back up what is being said.


Also see:

Government Employee Unions are Ruining Us
     

They used to call it "Fascism"

But now, it's somehow OK? Because Democrats are doing it?

The New American Corporate State
A troika of big government, big business and big labor is attempting to run the country to its own advantage.

Opponents of President Barack Obama and the Nancy Pelosi Congress will often accuse them of being "socialist." I find that this term is unhelpful, as many folks use direct government takeover of industrial enterprises as the litmus test for socialism, and thus will reject this hypothesis about the president. It is more useful to think of this administration as pursuing a European-style corporate state, a form of political economy that allows the state to exert strong control in the economy while maintaining a nominal façade of private ownership.

While the intellectual origins of the corporate state go back much further, the first serious attempt to implement such a system was in 1920s Italy by Benito Mussolini. Under that system, state-sponsored industry cartels programmed every aspect of economic life, from wages and working conditions to prices, production levels and product specifications. Nearly every commercial action required a government license, which would be denied to those who showed insufficient loyalty to the state and its goals.

[...]

In their current form, European corporate states tend to be more informal than their predecessors, drawing on mutually supporting networks of labor, industry and government leaders without the explicit structure of Mussolini's cartels or Roosevelt's code authorities. These networks are driven by an implicit deal by each of the three groups to protect their mutual interests and to recognize specific obligations.

In this three-way arrangement, unionized workers in key industries get high wages, guaranteed employment, rich pension systems and government protection from competition from younger and foreign workers. In return, they promise labor peace (barring the occasional strike to demonstrate their power) and tremendous election-day muscle.

Favored businesses (and by these we are talking about the top 20 to 30 largest banks and corporations in a particular country) get protection from competition, both upstart domestic entrepreneurs as well as any foreign rivals. In return, they provide monetary and political support for politicians' pet projects--from recycling to windmills--with the understanding that politicians will give them legislative back doors to recover the costs of these programs from customers or taxpayers.

In return for granting this largess to selected corporations and unions, government officials get to remain in power. Typically this arrangement appeals to parties on both the left and the right, such that the nominal ruling party may change but the core group in power remain the same.

The losers in all of this are ... everyone else. In effect this corporate system is just another age-old, historically time-worn effort to cement the power of a small group of elites. Entrepreneurship and innovation are often impossible, as incumbent businesses can call on tremendous state powers to stifle competitive threats. The unemployment rates of the young and unskilled can be astronomical, even in rich nations like Germany and France, as older unionized workers have worked to calcify labor markets to their own advantage. In the end, consumers and taxpayers pay for the whole system in the form of reduced growth and economic output, higher prices, higher taxes and less mobility for those not already in power. [...]

I see the same thing happening here. The article goes on to show the how and why of it.

It's not as direct or oppressive as Hitler's or Mussolini's type of fascism, though it does embody many of the same elements. Some would argue that the European Model is more flexible, and therefore more benevolent. Ironic then, that even the Europeans are now are cutting taxes, and urging the US to do the same. But their pleas are falling on deaf ears, as the Democrats seem hell-bent on moving us to the European Model. Or perhaps even something much worse.



   

Another perfect example of how unionized government employees are dragging us all down

They just keep wanting more and more, as if taxpayers have bottomless pockets, even in a bad economy. Not to mention the lies. From Neal Boortz:



GOVERNMENT SCHOOL TEACHER GETS SCHOOLED

I love it! And not just any government school teacher .. a unionized government school teacher in New Jersey. Who did she get schooled by? The Governor, Chris Christie. Here's what happened. Governor Christie spoke to a small crowd in a church gymnasium the other day. (No .. .so far as we know the ACLU didn't raise a stink about a representative of government speaking in a building owned by a church.) The subject was budget cuts, property tax caps and other painful necessities that need to be done in order to get New Jersey's fiscal matters back in order.

Then it came time for questions. Unionized government employees don't like budget caps. Unionized government employees don't like caps on property taxes. Sooooo ... up to the mic steps union government school teacher Rita O'Neill-Wilson ... you know how I feel about women with hyphenated names ... make up your mind lady, either you're married or not! Anywaaaay .... Rita stands up and does not ask a question, she proceeds to complain about how much she is making (thanks to the taxpayers) and how she is entitled to more money. She tells the governor that if she were paid $3 an hour for the 30 children in her class, she would be earning $83,000 a year. She says she doesn't earn anywhere near that much (we will get to that claim in a second). Governor Christie interrupts her to remind her that she is earning a lot more if you include the cost of her benefits, which are generous considering her membership in a teachers union. Then Rita O'NeillhyphenWilson says that she has a master's degree and that she isn't being compensated for her education or her experience. Governor Christie's response? "Well, you know then that you don't have to do it." I love it! Christie for President! Remind this unionized government hack that NOBODY is forcing her to be a teacher and that she is perfectly free to sever the government ties and head out there to find another job that will pay her more. As if that response wasn't good enough, Christie slams one final nail in the coffin by reminding Rita O'Neill-Wilson that he would not be in this position of having to impose cuts in education if Rita's precious teachers union had agreed to a one-year salary freeze and a 1.5% increase in employee benefit contributions. Christie addresses Rita: "Your union said that is the greatest assault on public education in the history of the state ... That's why the union has no credibility, stupid statements like that."

If Rita is black this would make Governor Christie a racist. I'm assuming she's a woman, so he most certainly is a sexist.

Now - what about Rita hyphen-hyphen's income? Rita O'Neill-Wilson claims that a $83,000 salary is nowhere near what she earns. Too bad she works for the government and her salary is public record. Turns out that Rita O'Neill-Wilson earns a salary of $86,389 a year. On top of that, health benefits for family coverage in New Jersey can cost up to $22,000 a year. Add that to the cost of employing this woman, and Rita O'Neill-Wilson is costing the taxpayers well over $100,000 a year. On top of that, New Jersey ranks fourth in the entire nation in teacher pay. The average New Jersey teacher earns $63,154 a year, which is $13,000 higher than the per capita income in the state of New Jersey, which is $50,313. The median pay for New Jersey teachers with a master's degree is $66,212, which means that Rita O'Neill-Wilson is earning well above the average based on her education. Apparently that isn't good enough for the New Jersey teachers unions. Maybe they are just jealous of other unionized government workers. Police officers in New Jersey are the highest paid in the country, which an average base salary of $75,400 a year. The average firefighter earns $69,620 a year.

I know that there are many wunnerful government teachers out there. Rita isn't on that list.

We keep hearing about Wall Street Greed. What about Union Greed?
     

Which one do you believe?

Here is an advertisement from GM, spinning their BS:




Here is a version where someone dubbed it over with a new soundtrack, which explains what REALLY happened:



H.T. to Maynard at TammyBruce.com.

I'll bet by Monday, the 2nd video is going to get yanked off of Youtube.


Also see:

Ford: The way to run an Automobile Company

Let the Automakers Fail - and be Reborn

     

Why Greece is in trouble. And a warning for us.

From Neal Boortz:
BECOMING GREECE

Some of you may think that I am being dramatic when I say that images of Greece may soon become a reality in America, if we continue down our current path. Yeah ... that's me. Mr. Drama. There are two main issues that led to the downfall of Greece. First, the government took on too much debt, which means the Greek government spends too much money. While our own government debt is alarming - and growing at record rates with The Community Organizer in charge. We're in a financial crisis right now - not as bad as Greece, but bad enough - but it wasn't caused so much by government debt as it was by government ineptness. It was private debt that sent us into a tailspin. Specifically, trillions of dollars owed on real estate loans by people who didn't have and never had much of a chance of paying those loans off. Our government debt problem can still be solved - but not with this man in the White House and these big-spenders controlling the congress.

What is going to be a lot harder to solve is the second issue that led to Greece's downfall: an entitlement culture. Greece is a country that has managed to convince its people that they need the government in order to survive. Not only do they need the government but they are ENTITLED to certain things, and like any good entitlement culture, that list of "things" only grows and grows. Suddenly, the people of Greece believe that they are owed a comfortable life by their government, even if they are not willing to work for it.

In Greece the average government worker retires at 58 years-of-age with 80% of their final basic salary. The Greek government can't even tell you how many government employees there are. Some estimate that figure to be one out of three Greek workers. Unions run the show and the government marches to the demands of union leaders. In this regard Greek government officials are much like our own. Unlike the private sector, when government officials are met with unreasonable union demands for wages and job security they don't have to crunch the numbers to see if the demands can be met with any degree of fiscal responsibility. After all .. they can just raise taxes. You start weighing the effect of unions working against your reelection to the mindless voters remembering a tax increase a year later when they go to the polls and ... well, it's not hard to figure out.

Over the years, Greek salaries and pensions have risen 30% above Greek productivity ... in other words, they were getting paid more than they were worth. Not only that, but they felt ENTITLED to this payment and only sought to gain more and more while doing less and less. We are talking about a culture where being a hairdresser is considered a "hazardous job" ... a hazardous job that makes you eligible to retire with a full pension (funded by the government) at the age of 50. But it's not just hairdressers, there are 580 other job categories that have managed to convince the government that there job is so hazardous that they are worthy of an early retirement - 50 for women and 55 for men. Radio and TV presenters - I guess that would include yours truly - can take early retirement because they are thought to be at risk from bacteria on their microphones. Musicians who play wind instruments .. they can retire at age 50 because they have to deal with gastric reflux from all the puffing and blowing.

No, I am not making this stuff up. This is what happens when you have a country that believes they are owed everything and a government that is willing to give it to them because that gives them (the politicians) more power. In the meantime, paying for this mentality mattered not ... until now.

Are we now watching the final chapter in Greece? The EU and the IMF are ready to bail out Greece with over $150 billion dollars, but there are strings. Wages are going to have to be cut. Government employees are going to lose jobs ... and, as you can see if you peel your eyes away from Inside Edition this evening ... the Greeks don't like it. They're rioting. They're attacking their own police officers. They're destroying property. Greece is virtually paralyzed by violence .. people reacting to the reality that their cushy ride might be coming to an end. You're seeing what happens when a parasite is separated from the host ... when the protected and coddled face the prospect of having to develop a bit of self-reliance.

Could this happen in America? Can someone please tell me why it could not?

The situation in Greece has become unsustainable. Government unions are the biggest culprit.

Unions thrive only when they have a healthy host to feed off of. But too often they see their host as an enemy to be destroyed. If they succeed in weakening or destroying their host, they also weaken and destroy themselves.

Some Unions in the private sector understand this, and work with their capitalist host to ensure the company remains profitable; the relationship is more symbiotic than parasitic. Ford Motor Company comes to mind. They are unionized, but didn't need a bail-out like GM. Ford and the Union maintained a balance, so they could both survive and prosper.

Such enlightened self-interest is not practiced by government unions, which tend to see their host as having unlimited deep pockets. When permitted to grow unchecked, the Greece Crisis is the inevitable result.

As the unionized portion of our own government continues to grow rapidly under the current administration, we would be wise to learn from the mistakes of Greece, so as not to repeat them.


Also see: Beware of Greeks bearing Red Flags

     

Interactive unemployment map, by county

The Decline: The Geography of a Recession

Follow the link. It's a time-lapse map of the USA by county, from Jan 2007 to Sept 2009. The dark colors represent growing unemployment. It's like watching the lights go out in America.

Here in Oregon, unemployment rises in the private sector, while Government jobs thrive and even increase:

It's no coincidence. Government jobs are union jobs, and their policies are often antagonistic to the private sector; job killers.
     

Jobs created by the Stimulus? What jobs?

Featherbedding stimulus job numbers

[...] Featherbedding occurs when paychecks are issued for nonexistent employees and the money goes directly into union coffers. Thousands of the jobs Obama officials say were saved or created by the stimulus program are no more real than those invisible positions invented by unions to bulk up their treasuries. We know this to be the case because as Obama’s chief economist, Christina Romer, admitted several weeks ago, “It’s very hard to say exactly because you don’t know what the baseline is, right, because you don’t know what the economy would have done without [the economic stimulus program].”

Even if we take at face value the White House claim that it created or saved all these jobs with approximately $150 billion of the economic stimulus money, a little simple math shows the taxpayers aren’t getting any bargains here: $150 billion divided by 650,000 jobs equals $230,000 per job saved or created. Instead of taking all that time required to write the 1,588-page stimulus bill, Congress could have passed a one-pager saying the first 650,000 jobless persons to report for work at the White House will receive a voucher worth $230,000 redeemable at the university, community college or trade school of their choice. That would have been enough for a degree plus a hefty down payment on a mortgage.

Actually, taxpayers would be better off with such a deal, too, compared with the reality of the Obama stimulus program. [...]

Read the whole thing, it gets worse. Is this even America anymore?

     

Coming Soon: No More Saturday Mail Delivery

That is, if the Post Office has it's way. It's the first I've heard of it, but it seems it's been in the works for a while. Some say it's not only likely, but inevitable:

Commentary: Say goodbye to Saturday mail?

[...] The postmaster general of the United States, John E. Potter, has gone to Congress and officially asked for permission to do away with Saturday mail.

His reasoning is hard to argue with. In the e-mail age, usage of the U.S. Postal Service is plummeting. Just about everyone claims to love the look and feel of a handwritten letter, the giddy anticipation of seeing the mail carrier strolling up the sidewalk and wondering what he has inside his bag for you, the orderly, set-your-watch-by-it routine of mail delivery to your home every day of the week except Sunday.

We all say we love it, but we don't use it, at least not enough to offset the prodigious costs. The Postal Service says it will lose approximately $7 billion this fiscal year. Americans have mailed 20 billion fewer items this year than they did last year. Over the past 20 years, some 200,000 mail-collection boxes have been removed from U.S. streets because not enough people were dropping their letters into them. The Government Accountability Office has officially declared the Postal Service to be a high-risk agency.

What to do about this?

One thing, according to Postmaster General Potter, is to stop delivering mail on Saturdays. He has told Congress that this will save more than $3 billion every year.

If and when it happens -- and it's beginning to seem inevitable -- the texture of the nation's life will be altered, probably forever.

[...]

Once -- in 1957 -- there was an attempt to do away with it. The postmaster general at the time, a fellow by the name of Arthur E. Summerfield, decided, in the name of budgetary prudence, to end Saturday mail deliveries nationwide.

It lasted for exactly one Saturday. On April 13, 1957, the mail did not come to America's homes. There was such public anger and outrage over this that President Dwight D. Eisenhower promptly signed a bill to provide more funding to the post office, and by the next Saturday, the country's mailboxes were being filled again.

Would the elimination of Saturday delivery be met with the same public outcry now? Would President Obama, like President Eisenhower half a century ago, be forced to bring back the Saturday mail? [...]

The USPS is losing 7 Billion per year? And they want to save money now by cutting back on service? I've got a better idea, that would save even more money and not cut back service. Privatize the Post Office.

The article mentions that prior to 1950, the USPS used to do multiple deliveries per day, as many a 9 times a day in places like NYC. Back then, when it was an essential service that was heavily utilized and relied on, there may have been some justification for running it as a government agency. But times have changed, and we should at least examine the option of privatizing the Post Office.

UPS and Fedex manage to operate efficiently, and at a profit. USPS doesn't, because it's subsidized and full of unionized gold-brickers, clocking in until they can retire on their fat pensions; they don't have to be efficient or even make a profit, because they get paid regardless, with our tax dollars.

It's time to cut them loose, but I wouldn't hold my breath with this administration. Government expansion and control are the order of the day. Just imagine what they would do if they ran our health care too?


Related Links:

Privatize This

Is It Time to Privatize the Postal Service?
     

Ford Motor Company is profitable - in Brazil

It's one of the most advanced and efficient car manufacturing plants in the world, and they aren't begging for a bailout. It's worth noting the reasons why. Here is a 3 minute 33 second video of Ford's plant in Brazil:



They would like to build such efficient manufacturing plants here in the USA, but they can't, because of the stifling unions that won't allow changes in the manufacturing process. So American jobs continue to go overseas, and Americans won't buy cars with bloated prices due to extra costs created by union demands. So we need to bail-out the unionized auto-makers, so taxpayers can subsidize the unions and the cars they make that aren't selling?


Related Link:

South of the equator, Ford and GM prosper