I have seen the future. And I know who is winning the Republican nomination in ’08. Let me break it to you gently. You are going to have to brush up on your Italian. You are going to have to learn to spell G-I-U-L-I-A-N-I. Everyone calls him Rudy. Get used to it. He is going to be the GOP nominee in ’08. You can bank on it. Remember. You heard it here first. And you can print it in six inch headlines. Here’s why.
While the Democrat candidates continue to run against George Bush (umm…he’s not running in ’08…hint hint); GOP candidates are making real distinctions among themselves. Tonight I saw Rudy appear on the Late Show with David Letterman. What struck me immediately was how warmly he was received by the New York audience. Ok…it could have been stacked. They swooned, when he vocalized certain basic principals of patriotism which are taboo to the left: (i.e. not giving your enemies a timetable for withdrawal from the arena of battle or deferring our foreign policy to the U.N.). Rudy is adept at selling these and other fundamental principals of American survival. And his feet-on-the-street presence in NYC on 9-11 gives him a patriotic credibility that no candidate, Republican or Democrat, can even approach.
Prior to 9-11, the basic litmus test for conservatism was the stance of a given candidate on the abortion issue. Viewed objectively by conservatives, when candidates were of equal stance on other issues, their stated stance on abortion could clearly discern one from another.
But 9-11 changed all of that. This election season, abortion rights advocates will be cheering the events of 9-11. Why? Because there is no leader of a centralized conservative movement. But mostly, because for conservatives; 9-11 subjugated the right-to-life to national security. This is the central theme. There is no right-to-life if we’re all dead. In a masterful stroke of short-sightedness, the politicization of the war on terror by the left, forced the pro-life agenda into the sub-floor, as a plank of the Republican Party. Pause now for the pro-abortion folks to cry foul. Aw. The truth hurts.
9-11 was a setback for those of us in the mainstream, who were longing for a conservative renaissance a’la Ronald Regan. Bush’s domestic policy (i.e. No Child Left Behind, McCain-Feingold, the TSA, Homeland Security, and the Prescription Drug Plan), proved he was not the standard bearer for a conservative revolution.
For the life of me I can’t understand why liberals are so upset with Bush. He’s helped to eliminate the first amendment during campaigns, given two new entitlements, a whole new cabinet of government and 80% of what Libs would have worked for if Gore or Kerry had won. Hell, rank-and-file Dems even got to keep their money from the Bush tax-cuts. (I had to get this story filed before I could determine how many of them gave their refunds back to the IRS. Call me lazy.)
The ’06 elections didn’t prove that America wanted Democrat leadership. It proved that Republican leadership was not conservative enough to earn the trust of the red states. Bush’s low approval rating (which is higher than Congress’) bears that out. Liberal’s hate George Bush, just because. Conservatives love him…but give him low marks because he’s just not conservative enough. The ’06 elections were a case of negative coat-tails. Voters figured it has to get worse before it gets better.
All of this brings me back ‘round to Rudy. He’s pro-choice. That would normally be a death-sentence for a Republican candidate. But the fact is that the middle-of-the-road voter doesn’t care about abortion. That same voter does care about national security. And there’s no candidate on the left that can win a head-to-head referendum on national security against Rudy. Say what you want about George Bush. But he has protected that position loyally for the future use of the party nominee. The Clinton’s and the Obama’s can talk a game. But the right owns national security (and the economy), hands down.
Because Rudy is positioned most favorably as the candidate on either side, with his finger on the pulse of The War on Terror, look for him to be the nominee of the Republican Party in ’08. His running mate will be chosen to pull the ticket to the right. Look for Hunter of California, or more likely Huckabee of Arkansas.
The left is to be congratulated. They have succeeded in changing the platform of the Republican Party. They have inadvertently relegated the abortion issue off its fulcrum-status. But in the process, by politicizing the security of the nation, they have moved themselves…farther and more irrelevantly to the left, while diminishing divisions among Republicans.
Conservatives search for a new standard bearer the way the NBA is looking for the next Michael Jordan. Though he is eagerly anticipated, there is currently no hero capable of returning the GOP to its Reagan-era status. Rudy Giuliani’s message of remaining on offense in the national security arena, and a conservative fiscal economy, resonates across party lines. He will draw votes from the left-center in a manner reminiscent of Reagan. Coming oddly and uniquely from the left-of-center of the Republican Party, Rudy Giuliani will win the Presidential election in ’08. With coat-tails he will draw significant gains in Congress. Supreme Court nominations hang in the balance. The conservative renaissance will patiently wait. And the Libs know it.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Monday, May 7, 2007
CHIP (Child Health Insurance Program) vs. The State of Texas: A Challenge to Faith Based Organizations
And Jesus said, (Pick Two):
a. "If a man asks for your coat; give him your cloak as well."
b. "If a man ask for your coat; refuse him. But form a committee within your institution (church, synagogue, mosque, or private charity), to lobby the government, and to tax your countrymen unequally, so that you may collectively buy a coat for every man."
c. "Go and sell your possessions; and give the money to the poor."
d. "Go and persuade the government to seize the property of your countrymen, and distribute it to the poor."
I do not believe it is the job of the government to provide certain services. Healthcare and insurance are among those certain services. It is incumbent upon faith based organizations and private institutions to step in where democratic government, by definition, should not.
This is, of course, contrary to the stated mission of Texas IMPACT (www.texasimpact.com). Texas IMPACT and the UMW (United Methodist Women) recently produced an event dinner focusing on the welfare of Texas' children (25% without healthcare insurance according to some estimates). The statistics related, point to the lack of healthcare INSURANCE for Texas' children, but say nothing about children going without HEALTHCARE. There's a big difference which those studies fail to report. Many people don't want insurance. Some people can afford insurance, but choose not to buy it. It's a free country, and that's their choice. If there is a need; it is for healthcare, not insurance. Adding a bureaucratic layer of insurance to people who aren't paying for it in the first place, simply drives up the cost of the very healthcare they seek.
In my work, I travel the back streets of Dallas County, and go into the homes of crime victims. I'm talking about slums (still they are palaces compared to what I've seen in India and Guatemala). I see crime. I see garbage. I see drug abuse and the resulting malaise. And I see a lot of children. What I do not see, are throngs of sick emaciated children. They simply aren't there.
So if the children of Texas are generally ok, then who is this money for? Forgive my cynicism, but you (proponents of CHIP) are taking food off my table, so I have a right to question you. Why the focus on insurance instead of healthcare? Is it for someone in a government bureaucracy, some insurance company, a clinic, a hospital, or an activist group? Far be it from me to suggest that all proponents of CHIP have an ulterior motive. In fact I believe that most are sincere. However, absent the aforementioned throngs of emaciated, diseased children; I cannot see past the suspicion that someone
somewhere must be missing the money or the notoriety that they used to get from this program. And there, right there, if you dig deep enough, you will find the actual engine behind this program. And there you will find a politician, a bureaucrat, a lawyer, a doctor, or a businessman, hiding behind the word "Children" in order to line his or her
pockets, or put a feather in the cap of his or her political career. Please follow me along a path that will truly benefit children; not just in word but in deed TRUELY benefit children in the long run.
The issue of healthcare for children in Texas is bound at the hip with the immigration crisis. What would be the statistics for insured children if you left out illegal immigrants? I'm not implying that illegal immigrants are any less valuable as human beings than people who are here legally. Nor am I cold to the legitimate needs of children who have "fallen through the cracks" of the State welfare system. I do question the legitimacy of some children's citizenship, whose illegal immigrant parents conveniently timed their child's birth to occur on U.S. soil, solely for the purpose of sponging off the government. What's to stop people from rushing across the border for their share of the healthcare/insurance some Texans are so willing for all of us to subsidize? (The answer is: nothing.) It is no secret that county hospitals and health clinics are overwhelmed with illegal immigrants. Subsidizing healthcare and insurance drives up the cost for us all.
And IF we were to continue along with socialized healthcare/insurance (That's what CHIP is); what message are we sending to these children? Miram Bujanda asks, 'Do you know any undeserving 4 year old?'. That truly sickens me. Yes Mam, I do. No child I know deserves healthcare, much less heath insurance, from an underperforming, inefficient, bureaucrat-hamstrung, top-heavy, government program. I wouldn't wish that kind "care" on anyone. Ms. Bujanda would have us raising children to believe that they are entitled to healthcare from cradle to grave. This mentality combined with the immigration problem, invites hundreds of thousands of blandly-inane, low-wage-earning people to come into this country and vote the rest of us into a tax increase for their own perceived, short-term benefit. It's happening now. Observation: since children have no legal status apart from their parents; guess who are the true beneficiaries of CHIP? Who is minding whatever fiscal benefit they realize from the CHIP program? How do we know they aren't buying six packs and lottery tickets with the surplus created within their own domicile, now that they are no longer responsible for their child's own healthcare/insurance? That leads me to the subject of the murmurings of a State Income Tax.
One reason that Texas is the 8th largest economy in the world (according to Ms. Bujanda, Manager of Public Policy and Advocacy for Methodist Healthcare Ministries in San Antonio) is that Texas is a business friendly state. Businesses in Texas can offer lower wages here, because it costs less to live here. Enact a state income tax, expand government give-aways, restrict business and free trade, and watch the economy plummet. That's a promise. (I always marvel at how capriciously liberals wave their tax wand. Do they not realize that hurting everyone to help a few, has disastrous consequences for all? These consequences often compound the very problem they seek to solve.)
Governor Perry made a bold move not to include CHIP in the budget. (I would like to see more government programs eliminated.) For Carol Keeton-Strayhorn to imply that Gov. Perry balanced the budget on the backs of children, or that this was the only budget cut, is intellectually dishonest. The Governor obviously takes his commitment to balance the budget very seriously. For that he is to be applauded not ridiculed. More politicians should consider giving fiscal responsibility a try. And whether or not there's money for CHIP is irrelevant. There can't be much, or there wouldn't be any talk of a tax increase. Funding our education system is a "whole 'nuther kettle of fish", on which I'll share opinions another time.
Somehow, somewhere along the line, we Americans have lost sight of what government is about. And it applies as well, to The Great State of Texas. Government is here to serve the COMMON good. Government is here to protect us from attack and invasion, to uphold and enforce peace, provide a forum in court for dispute, and to build and maintain infrastructure. Economically, democracy implies that we are only entitled to what we earn. It is socialism that implies the forced redistribution of wealth. That's, what CHIP calls for; and many other government programs like it, such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. We've seen the end result of socialism in the former U.S.S.R., and in the oppressive government of Communist China. Few people would point to the communistic experiment of Socialist Cuba as a shining example of how government should work. Here’s a new idea. It’s just over 200 years old: Let's give free enterprise a fair shot.
In our country's haste to force more and more government into more and more aspects of our lives, there is an equal if not greater effort to force the church out. And we as Christians are complicit in that process. We have allowed it to happen. We have voted for politicians who promote anti-religious "interpretations" of the constitution, and the appointment of judges who will further that cause. We have slowly allowed ourselves to sink into the comfort of "letting the government do it." So that by now we have intellectually deflected our own responsibility for our fellow man upon the government. We should all ask ourselves, "when was the last time I put bread in the hands of the hungry? When was the last time I handed a coat to someone who needed one? And when was the last time I treated someone to a trip to the doctor or dentist?"
The United Methodist Church (and all Churches, Synagogs, and Mosques) and the UMW should be working to DIRECTLY provide aide to less fortunate people; not trying to get the government to do it for them. Helping people is my job; it's the churches' job; it's the private sector's job, not the government's job. Individuals, private charities and institutions like Global Hands of Healing and Habitat for Humanity, are FAR more efficient than government agencies. Therefore, as stewards of the charity ear-marked money that God puts in our own pockets, it is as equally, morally incumbent upon us to keep it OUT of the hands of the government, as it is to put it IN to the hands of the needy.
So, if the Methodist Church and the UMW are going to sully themselves by wandering into politics, (and it is my belief that they should not); they should take a good hard look at the motivations of the people and organizations they endorse; and how the influence they wield is bandied about. They should lobby for the enforcement of immigration laws, and a phased-out repeal of the minimum wage so that Texans can be free to work for the same wages as illegal immigrants. They should lobby for expanding the roles of faith-based programs, and private charities, and a decrease in government funded social programs.
When processes of socialism are invited into democracy; decisions are forced which diminish and erode democracy. Socialism comes at the expense of freedom. And that freedom, bought and paid with the lives of others, is not ours to sell.
a. "If a man asks for your coat; give him your cloak as well."
b. "If a man ask for your coat; refuse him. But form a committee within your institution (church, synagogue, mosque, or private charity), to lobby the government, and to tax your countrymen unequally, so that you may collectively buy a coat for every man."
c. "Go and sell your possessions; and give the money to the poor."
d. "Go and persuade the government to seize the property of your countrymen, and distribute it to the poor."
I do not believe it is the job of the government to provide certain services. Healthcare and insurance are among those certain services. It is incumbent upon faith based organizations and private institutions to step in where democratic government, by definition, should not.
This is, of course, contrary to the stated mission of Texas IMPACT (www.texasimpact.com). Texas IMPACT and the UMW (United Methodist Women) recently produced an event dinner focusing on the welfare of Texas' children (25% without healthcare insurance according to some estimates). The statistics related, point to the lack of healthcare INSURANCE for Texas' children, but say nothing about children going without HEALTHCARE. There's a big difference which those studies fail to report. Many people don't want insurance. Some people can afford insurance, but choose not to buy it. It's a free country, and that's their choice. If there is a need; it is for healthcare, not insurance. Adding a bureaucratic layer of insurance to people who aren't paying for it in the first place, simply drives up the cost of the very healthcare they seek.
In my work, I travel the back streets of Dallas County, and go into the homes of crime victims. I'm talking about slums (still they are palaces compared to what I've seen in India and Guatemala). I see crime. I see garbage. I see drug abuse and the resulting malaise. And I see a lot of children. What I do not see, are throngs of sick emaciated children. They simply aren't there.
So if the children of Texas are generally ok, then who is this money for? Forgive my cynicism, but you (proponents of CHIP) are taking food off my table, so I have a right to question you. Why the focus on insurance instead of healthcare? Is it for someone in a government bureaucracy, some insurance company, a clinic, a hospital, or an activist group? Far be it from me to suggest that all proponents of CHIP have an ulterior motive. In fact I believe that most are sincere. However, absent the aforementioned throngs of emaciated, diseased children; I cannot see past the suspicion that someone
somewhere must be missing the money or the notoriety that they used to get from this program. And there, right there, if you dig deep enough, you will find the actual engine behind this program. And there you will find a politician, a bureaucrat, a lawyer, a doctor, or a businessman, hiding behind the word "Children" in order to line his or her
pockets, or put a feather in the cap of his or her political career. Please follow me along a path that will truly benefit children; not just in word but in deed TRUELY benefit children in the long run.
The issue of healthcare for children in Texas is bound at the hip with the immigration crisis. What would be the statistics for insured children if you left out illegal immigrants? I'm not implying that illegal immigrants are any less valuable as human beings than people who are here legally. Nor am I cold to the legitimate needs of children who have "fallen through the cracks" of the State welfare system. I do question the legitimacy of some children's citizenship, whose illegal immigrant parents conveniently timed their child's birth to occur on U.S. soil, solely for the purpose of sponging off the government. What's to stop people from rushing across the border for their share of the healthcare/insurance some Texans are so willing for all of us to subsidize? (The answer is: nothing.) It is no secret that county hospitals and health clinics are overwhelmed with illegal immigrants. Subsidizing healthcare and insurance drives up the cost for us all.
And IF we were to continue along with socialized healthcare/insurance (That's what CHIP is); what message are we sending to these children? Miram Bujanda asks, 'Do you know any undeserving 4 year old?'. That truly sickens me. Yes Mam, I do. No child I know deserves healthcare, much less heath insurance, from an underperforming, inefficient, bureaucrat-hamstrung, top-heavy, government program. I wouldn't wish that kind "care" on anyone. Ms. Bujanda would have us raising children to believe that they are entitled to healthcare from cradle to grave. This mentality combined with the immigration problem, invites hundreds of thousands of blandly-inane, low-wage-earning people to come into this country and vote the rest of us into a tax increase for their own perceived, short-term benefit. It's happening now. Observation: since children have no legal status apart from their parents; guess who are the true beneficiaries of CHIP? Who is minding whatever fiscal benefit they realize from the CHIP program? How do we know they aren't buying six packs and lottery tickets with the surplus created within their own domicile, now that they are no longer responsible for their child's own healthcare/insurance? That leads me to the subject of the murmurings of a State Income Tax.
One reason that Texas is the 8th largest economy in the world (according to Ms. Bujanda, Manager of Public Policy and Advocacy for Methodist Healthcare Ministries in San Antonio) is that Texas is a business friendly state. Businesses in Texas can offer lower wages here, because it costs less to live here. Enact a state income tax, expand government give-aways, restrict business and free trade, and watch the economy plummet. That's a promise. (I always marvel at how capriciously liberals wave their tax wand. Do they not realize that hurting everyone to help a few, has disastrous consequences for all? These consequences often compound the very problem they seek to solve.)
Governor Perry made a bold move not to include CHIP in the budget. (I would like to see more government programs eliminated.) For Carol Keeton-Strayhorn to imply that Gov. Perry balanced the budget on the backs of children, or that this was the only budget cut, is intellectually dishonest. The Governor obviously takes his commitment to balance the budget very seriously. For that he is to be applauded not ridiculed. More politicians should consider giving fiscal responsibility a try. And whether or not there's money for CHIP is irrelevant. There can't be much, or there wouldn't be any talk of a tax increase. Funding our education system is a "whole 'nuther kettle of fish", on which I'll share opinions another time.
Somehow, somewhere along the line, we Americans have lost sight of what government is about. And it applies as well, to The Great State of Texas. Government is here to serve the COMMON good. Government is here to protect us from attack and invasion, to uphold and enforce peace, provide a forum in court for dispute, and to build and maintain infrastructure. Economically, democracy implies that we are only entitled to what we earn. It is socialism that implies the forced redistribution of wealth. That's, what CHIP calls for; and many other government programs like it, such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. We've seen the end result of socialism in the former U.S.S.R., and in the oppressive government of Communist China. Few people would point to the communistic experiment of Socialist Cuba as a shining example of how government should work. Here’s a new idea. It’s just over 200 years old: Let's give free enterprise a fair shot.
In our country's haste to force more and more government into more and more aspects of our lives, there is an equal if not greater effort to force the church out. And we as Christians are complicit in that process. We have allowed it to happen. We have voted for politicians who promote anti-religious "interpretations" of the constitution, and the appointment of judges who will further that cause. We have slowly allowed ourselves to sink into the comfort of "letting the government do it." So that by now we have intellectually deflected our own responsibility for our fellow man upon the government. We should all ask ourselves, "when was the last time I put bread in the hands of the hungry? When was the last time I handed a coat to someone who needed one? And when was the last time I treated someone to a trip to the doctor or dentist?"
The United Methodist Church (and all Churches, Synagogs, and Mosques) and the UMW should be working to DIRECTLY provide aide to less fortunate people; not trying to get the government to do it for them. Helping people is my job; it's the churches' job; it's the private sector's job, not the government's job. Individuals, private charities and institutions like Global Hands of Healing and Habitat for Humanity, are FAR more efficient than government agencies. Therefore, as stewards of the charity ear-marked money that God puts in our own pockets, it is as equally, morally incumbent upon us to keep it OUT of the hands of the government, as it is to put it IN to the hands of the needy.
So, if the Methodist Church and the UMW are going to sully themselves by wandering into politics, (and it is my belief that they should not); they should take a good hard look at the motivations of the people and organizations they endorse; and how the influence they wield is bandied about. They should lobby for the enforcement of immigration laws, and a phased-out repeal of the minimum wage so that Texans can be free to work for the same wages as illegal immigrants. They should lobby for expanding the roles of faith-based programs, and private charities, and a decrease in government funded social programs.
When processes of socialism are invited into democracy; decisions are forced which diminish and erode democracy. Socialism comes at the expense of freedom. And that freedom, bought and paid with the lives of others, is not ours to sell.
Consumer Reports: Misguided Misdeeds
In the spring of 2006 Consumer Reports engaged in unbridled braggadocio, and strained every sinew in their activist editorial arms to pat themselves on the back over their efforts to “Win Rights” for consumers. Specifically, they were bristling over their success in securing a free credit report for every man woman and child in America. My letter to the editor at CR appears below. I don’t know if they published it. I cancelled my subscription.
Dear CR,
You Won Rights? Oh really? Sounds like, thanks to you, we "won" higher costs. Nothing is "free". Don't you read your own magazine? When you lobby to "win" "free" reports for us; please stop to think that the vast majority of us do not want or need our "free" reports. Your lobbying has raised the cost of doing business for the health and credit reporting companies...which in turn is passed on to ALL consumers -- not just those who actually want or need the information that they work hard to collect. Thanks a heap!
The same applies to the electronics recycling service that you are trying to force upon electronics manufacturers. Not only are you raising costs for the manufactures of such items, you are raising the costs of purchasing those same items. Each individual is responsible for the correct and legal disposal of his or her unwanted items, no matter what toxic or non-toxic elements they may contain. By trying to divert that responsibility, you are effectively undermining any REAL economic incentive that any entrepreneur might have in reclaiming those resources. Thus, in the long run, you are actually working to prevent responsible disposal and recycling of electronics. My home town provides for environmentally safe disposal of toxic materials. Even if they didn't, it would only cost me $100 to safely and legally, dispose of as many paint cans, unused chemicals, and burnt-out electronics as I can haul to the appropriate disposal area. You are lobbying for government programs and bureaucracies that we don't need. Please stop.
The government need not be involved in either of these issues. You do a fine job of telling us which items are a better value for the dollar than others. Please stick to your core competency. The rest will take care of itself, but only if the free market is allowed to do so. I wonder if CR would approve if I got the government to force them to release to me, whatever consumer product information they collect that I deem necessary. Or if I got the government to micro-manage the disposal of their magazine when I'm done with it. I wonder who would be able to afford the $50 per issue cover price. Back off CR!
Mike (a subscriber)
Bedford, TX
Dear CR,
You Won Rights? Oh really? Sounds like, thanks to you, we "won" higher costs. Nothing is "free". Don't you read your own magazine? When you lobby to "win" "free" reports for us; please stop to think that the vast majority of us do not want or need our "free" reports. Your lobbying has raised the cost of doing business for the health and credit reporting companies...which in turn is passed on to ALL consumers -- not just those who actually want or need the information that they work hard to collect. Thanks a heap!
The same applies to the electronics recycling service that you are trying to force upon electronics manufacturers. Not only are you raising costs for the manufactures of such items, you are raising the costs of purchasing those same items. Each individual is responsible for the correct and legal disposal of his or her unwanted items, no matter what toxic or non-toxic elements they may contain. By trying to divert that responsibility, you are effectively undermining any REAL economic incentive that any entrepreneur might have in reclaiming those resources. Thus, in the long run, you are actually working to prevent responsible disposal and recycling of electronics. My home town provides for environmentally safe disposal of toxic materials. Even if they didn't, it would only cost me $100 to safely and legally, dispose of as many paint cans, unused chemicals, and burnt-out electronics as I can haul to the appropriate disposal area. You are lobbying for government programs and bureaucracies that we don't need. Please stop.
The government need not be involved in either of these issues. You do a fine job of telling us which items are a better value for the dollar than others. Please stick to your core competency. The rest will take care of itself, but only if the free market is allowed to do so. I wonder if CR would approve if I got the government to force them to release to me, whatever consumer product information they collect that I deem necessary. Or if I got the government to micro-manage the disposal of their magazine when I'm done with it. I wonder who would be able to afford the $50 per issue cover price. Back off CR!
Mike (a subscriber)
Bedford, TX
OUTSOURCING
I’m tired of hearing complaints about outsourcing. Chances are, if you’re one of the ones complaining, you’re one of the ones who caused the problem. In my mind the average complainer about outsourcing is a tenured, union factory worker. They stand the most to lose. Considering their behavior for most of my lifetime, I have a hard time feeling sorry for them.
During a business trip to a GM factory in Linden, NJ in the mid-nineties, I became privy to some UAW wage information. It wasn’t uncommon for a middle-aged union member with no college degree, to make well over one hundred thousand dollars per year assembling automobiles. One hundred thousand dollars! While I was there, I witnessed “working” UAW employees sleeping in cars, reading newspapers, and generally standing around a lot. I left feeling surprised that cars weren’t even more expensive than they actually are.
Now to be fair, I wouldn’t want to make a career out of assembling automobiles, even at those wages. The monotony would overtake my lust for the cash somewhere after the third week. So I’m glad someonelse is willing to do that job. I really am! But couldn’t that job be done just as well by 19 year old college students, working part-time?
Installing the same dash board or bumper on the same vehicle, day after day, just isn’t rocket science. So do we really need that $100k/year UAW employee? It seems to me that the job would be a better fit for a less expensive, temporary, unskilled worker. McDonald’s and Subway have built legendary businesses with the help of such folk.
And also, to be fair, the cost of living there in New Jersey, just across the river from N.Y. City, is a lot higher than it is here in Dallas. So to some degree the UAW has some plausible deniability when it comes to the wages they demand. Hey, you gotta’ be able to pay the rent, right? I mean really, it’s GM’s own stupid fault for puttin’ the factory there in the first place. Yeah. That’s it.
A union employee taking a 20 minute break every two hours spends an hour per day on break. Do the math. Over a 20 year career that same employee will spend 1.735 YEARS on break! If I were a UAW employee with 12 or 20 years under my belt, I’d be hoping and praying that GM never wakes up and realizes how good I’ve got it. But when they do wake up and decide to close that factory in Linden and build a new one in San Antonio, they are naturally going to count the cost. And while they’re counting, why wouldn’t they cast a wandering eye a little farther south? Just across the border, in Mexico.
Thanks for Reading,
Mike
During a business trip to a GM factory in Linden, NJ in the mid-nineties, I became privy to some UAW wage information. It wasn’t uncommon for a middle-aged union member with no college degree, to make well over one hundred thousand dollars per year assembling automobiles. One hundred thousand dollars! While I was there, I witnessed “working” UAW employees sleeping in cars, reading newspapers, and generally standing around a lot. I left feeling surprised that cars weren’t even more expensive than they actually are.
Now to be fair, I wouldn’t want to make a career out of assembling automobiles, even at those wages. The monotony would overtake my lust for the cash somewhere after the third week. So I’m glad someonelse is willing to do that job. I really am! But couldn’t that job be done just as well by 19 year old college students, working part-time?
Installing the same dash board or bumper on the same vehicle, day after day, just isn’t rocket science. So do we really need that $100k/year UAW employee? It seems to me that the job would be a better fit for a less expensive, temporary, unskilled worker. McDonald’s and Subway have built legendary businesses with the help of such folk.
And also, to be fair, the cost of living there in New Jersey, just across the river from N.Y. City, is a lot higher than it is here in Dallas. So to some degree the UAW has some plausible deniability when it comes to the wages they demand. Hey, you gotta’ be able to pay the rent, right? I mean really, it’s GM’s own stupid fault for puttin’ the factory there in the first place. Yeah. That’s it.
A union employee taking a 20 minute break every two hours spends an hour per day on break. Do the math. Over a 20 year career that same employee will spend 1.735 YEARS on break! If I were a UAW employee with 12 or 20 years under my belt, I’d be hoping and praying that GM never wakes up and realizes how good I’ve got it. But when they do wake up and decide to close that factory in Linden and build a new one in San Antonio, they are naturally going to count the cost. And while they’re counting, why wouldn’t they cast a wandering eye a little farther south? Just across the border, in Mexico.
Thanks for Reading,
Mike
Boycotting Exxon/Mobile
Every so often, someone circulates an email campaign to organize a boycott of Exxon/Mobile. The instinct to use the free market forces of supply and demand to modify gas prices is laudable. It is much to be preferred over artificial stimuli such as government intervention, which already is being alluded to by left leaning policy makers. I marvel at their proposal to fight high gasoline prices with a gas tax!?! (Huh? What?) I cannot personally verify whether or not the author of this boycott plan is actually a mathematician. I can, however, deduce that he is hardly an economist. Let's get serious for a second.
Whether you think gas prices are high or low, they are what they are, for the most part because of free market forces. An important element of those forces is competition. Just as Exxon/Mobile represents a sizeable portion of the oil supply chain, it also provides a correspondingly large chunk of competition in the market place, not to mention a correspondingly large slice of the retail delivery process, (i.e. your corner gas stations.) There are a given number of retail outlets for gasoline in the U.S. That number is arrived at in response to market forces. The neat thing about Capitalism is that there are generally no more, and no fewer gas stations in business, than actually needed. If there were too many, they'd close for lack of business; too few and someone would open another one.
If the author of this boycott plan were actually successful in exerting social pressure sufficient to create the corresponding massive shift in retail purchasing, the remaining non-Exxon/Mobile retail outlets would be overwhelmed with business. Faced with long gas lines at these remaining outlets, stores would be forced to stay open longer to meet the increased demand, or raise prices to dilute it. If sustained social pressure were successful, Exxon/Mobile would go out of business. The remaining retail outlets, the Texacos and Chevrons of the world, would increase their market share. With a sizeable portion of their competition eliminated, the door would then be open to raise prices.
Exxon/Mobile operates tankers and pipelines that deliver crude to their refineries that process it. That is to say, they are an important part of the energy infrastructure. Over the last decade, governmental regulation under the guise of environmentalism, has done much to prevent the addition of newer, more efficient, modern refining facilities. Currently, most refining facilities of all petroleum companies are operating at or near maximum capacity. The demand for energy in America is high. And currently, the price is relatively high. So refineries have economic incentive to produce as much as possible. In the author’s dreamland-world where Exxon/Mobile’s refineries are idle due to the boycott, where do you suppose the non-Exxon/Mobile petroleum companies would get the additional inventories they need to keep pace with the displaced demand? If I have to tell you....well...I don't. Do I?
The author of this boycott plan makes several erroneous assumptions.
1.First and foremost is that he presumes current price levels to be a problem in need of solution (presumably by the government). While these prices may be a problem for him, they are not a problem for the market place, otherwise people wouldn't be buying gasoline. Truly, the question is not 'why are gas prices as high as they are?' The question is 'why are gas prices (especially in the U.S.) as low as they are?' The answer probably has something to do with free enterprise. (Check the equivalent price per gallon in any European market if you think our prices are high.)
2.The author assumes that all of the petroleum companies in the world are colluding in order to control oil prices. This is untrue. If someone were able to sell gas cheaper, Wal-Mart would find out about it, pressure the supplier, and corner the market. It's just that simple. (Besides, colluding to control oil prices is OPEC's job.)
3.The author assumes that Exxon/Mobile is an unimportant link in the chain of supply and demand, competition, and other free market forces. (Whoops!)
I doubt whether the author of this boycott plan really believes this crazy scheme will or would work. Maybe he just suffers from 'good 'ol days' syndrome. More likely, he's another one of the endless list of anti-corporate whack-o's who likes to take pot shots at big companies. Or it could be that the coke machine down at the Exxon/Mobile stiffed him once, and he's just lookin' for revenge.
Drive Friendly,
Mike
Whether you think gas prices are high or low, they are what they are, for the most part because of free market forces. An important element of those forces is competition. Just as Exxon/Mobile represents a sizeable portion of the oil supply chain, it also provides a correspondingly large chunk of competition in the market place, not to mention a correspondingly large slice of the retail delivery process, (i.e. your corner gas stations.) There are a given number of retail outlets for gasoline in the U.S. That number is arrived at in response to market forces. The neat thing about Capitalism is that there are generally no more, and no fewer gas stations in business, than actually needed. If there were too many, they'd close for lack of business; too few and someone would open another one.
If the author of this boycott plan were actually successful in exerting social pressure sufficient to create the corresponding massive shift in retail purchasing, the remaining non-Exxon/Mobile retail outlets would be overwhelmed with business. Faced with long gas lines at these remaining outlets, stores would be forced to stay open longer to meet the increased demand, or raise prices to dilute it. If sustained social pressure were successful, Exxon/Mobile would go out of business. The remaining retail outlets, the Texacos and Chevrons of the world, would increase their market share. With a sizeable portion of their competition eliminated, the door would then be open to raise prices.
Exxon/Mobile operates tankers and pipelines that deliver crude to their refineries that process it. That is to say, they are an important part of the energy infrastructure. Over the last decade, governmental regulation under the guise of environmentalism, has done much to prevent the addition of newer, more efficient, modern refining facilities. Currently, most refining facilities of all petroleum companies are operating at or near maximum capacity. The demand for energy in America is high. And currently, the price is relatively high. So refineries have economic incentive to produce as much as possible. In the author’s dreamland-world where Exxon/Mobile’s refineries are idle due to the boycott, where do you suppose the non-Exxon/Mobile petroleum companies would get the additional inventories they need to keep pace with the displaced demand? If I have to tell you....well...I don't. Do I?
The author of this boycott plan makes several erroneous assumptions.
1.First and foremost is that he presumes current price levels to be a problem in need of solution (presumably by the government). While these prices may be a problem for him, they are not a problem for the market place, otherwise people wouldn't be buying gasoline. Truly, the question is not 'why are gas prices as high as they are?' The question is 'why are gas prices (especially in the U.S.) as low as they are?' The answer probably has something to do with free enterprise. (Check the equivalent price per gallon in any European market if you think our prices are high.)
2.The author assumes that all of the petroleum companies in the world are colluding in order to control oil prices. This is untrue. If someone were able to sell gas cheaper, Wal-Mart would find out about it, pressure the supplier, and corner the market. It's just that simple. (Besides, colluding to control oil prices is OPEC's job.)
3.The author assumes that Exxon/Mobile is an unimportant link in the chain of supply and demand, competition, and other free market forces. (Whoops!)
I doubt whether the author of this boycott plan really believes this crazy scheme will or would work. Maybe he just suffers from 'good 'ol days' syndrome. More likely, he's another one of the endless list of anti-corporate whack-o's who likes to take pot shots at big companies. Or it could be that the coke machine down at the Exxon/Mobile stiffed him once, and he's just lookin' for revenge.
Drive Friendly,
Mike
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)