So how will Obama’s appointment of Ron Bloom affect American business?
In a recent [i]Washington Post article, Obama is said to have named Ron Bloom as his senior counselor for manufacturing policy. That article which is quit timely in respect to the recent uptick in polls showing a less than favorable approval rating for how this administration has handled the recession reveals several important facts about Mr. Bloom.First is says that Bloom, "was previously the influential figure in the national labor movement before joining the administration's auto task force earlier this year." Translation: Bloom was previously a Big Union Executive. The fact is Mr. Bloom, [ii]“was previously the special assistant to the President of the United Steel Workers based out of Pittsburgh since 1996. Before that he worked as an Investment Banker.”The second thing has to do with wages. And while it is not tied directly to the first by the writer of the article, it is to this reader (me) directly connected to the first fact. The second point I refer to is this, [iii]“Obama said Bloom's "extensive experience with both business and labor" would help in "creating the good-paying manufacturing jobs of the future."
Now think about that for a moment, his (Mr. Blooms) previous experience as a big union executive will help us in creating, “good paying” “manufacturing jobs” in the future. Now I don’t want to belittle the creation of any job, but what’s the long term job future of a union worker. To spend all of his life supporting the salaries of fat cat union executives and voting for the Washington bureaucrats that pass the laws that benefit the unions.
So what are the similarities between a union worker and a cotton picker from the 1700s? Let’s see, union workers work tirelessly driven by task masters called union supervisors. Union workers do this day in and day out without question.
Why do they do this? They do it for life benefits provided for them by the union who basically owns them for the time they are union employees. You don’t believe that, just step out of line and see the lashing you will get. They will strip you down and leave you on unemployment. They use their position as employer negotiator as leverage to keep the masses in check. In the event of an uprising they quickly remind their workers of the alternative of not “belonging” to the union. Then they go on strike to demand from the employer who is to great measure handcuffed to the union at this point more benefits. At first glance working for the union may seem the way to go for a guy looking for work. Only one thing, it do not really lend itself to the American dream. There is not a lot of upward mobility in that model. It’s all who you know! The idea that you can reach the top is not part of the equation in this manufacturing model. You are not allowed to dream big in this model. The idea here is to just punch your time clock and be thankful that you are working. Still for many in our nation this kind of punch in punch out work would be welcome relief in a economy of joblessness.
However, personally I hold greater aspiration for a common laborer than to be sentenced to a 9 to 5 job the rest of their lives. That to me is not the American dream nor is it true freedom. True freedom and the thing that built this nation into one of the greatest nations on earth is outlined in the Declaration of Independence as the right to, “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness.” It is the entrepreneurial spirit embodied in those words that made this nation one of the most productive, and affluent nations on earth for the past two centuries. Yet at the forefront of Obamanomics is not the pursuit of those ideals but the undermining of those ideals. The truth is all liberal progressives have managed to do with their policies is keep the poor beholden to them for the government entitlement programs they enjoy. And that is all they want to do!
Therein is the true lie. On the one hand the liberal promise progress and new opportunities for the poor and disenfranchised. But they have never truly delivered on those promises. All they have done is kept the poor “POOR,” and the disenfranchised dependent upon them.
Why? Because true reform, the kind that teaches a person how to fish instead of merely dolling out fish fragments would relieve the poor of their dependence upon the liberal progressive bureaucrats in Washington. Their goal is not to liberate but to castrate, to remove every notion that we can get ahead without government help. And the sad thing is people are buying this stuff. People are voting for it over and over again, they buy into the deceptions of smooth talking politicians who promise the moon and deliver nothing. And if by chance they do deliver it is merely for appearance sake. Rarely if ever have they done anything that truly changes the lives of the poor. It is merely to garner the next round of votes for an upcoming election.
I realize liberals love to site Medicaid and Medicare as liberal programs. But did those programs help the poor or merely provide fragments from the master’s table. Think about the last time you heard of a person on food stamps making anything of their selves. Never! The only way you make something of yourself is take the risk, abandon the program, and do something new. The program should only be a bridge not a lifestyle. And while manufacturing work is a legitimate, noble rewarding life style not to be shunned. It should not be looked at as the end to beat all, especially if that job includes my subservience to a bureaucratically controlled union. However that is exactly what the Obama administration wants.
Which is why appointing Ron Bloom as the Manufacturing Czar makes perfect sense to the liberal progressive elites in Washington. He is their stoolie, their ace in the whole. With his help we can destroy all competition and expand the reach of the union which we basically control with our votes. When we control the unions we control the workers.
Think this is far fetched do you? Then explain why would Obama appoint a ex union executive to sit on one of his Czars seat when a much simpler solution is right in front of them. Read the remainder of this article at my blog entitled, "American Financial Meltdown Looms Large."
[i] http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/09/06/obama_names_manufacturing_advi.html?wprss=44
[ii] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Bloom
[iii] http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/09/06/obama_names_manufacturing_advi.html?wprss=44
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
American Financial Meltdown Looms Large!
At present any action on Obama's part that doesn't actually create job could send this economy over the edge.
I know from personal experience what the policies of this president will produce. As a farmer for 12 years I watched as the pressures for higher wages and increase in government restriction forced famers to automate where ever possible.
Take just the grape industry for an example. Throughout the 60s and 70s, most of what needed to be done on the farm was accomplished by hand labor. Then in the 80s and 90s we saw many changes in labor laws and government environmental requirements placed on farmers. Wages increased dramatically and so did regulations regarding insecticide use and other overhead costs to farmers. In order to keep up with these government mandates and wage increases farmers had one of two choices. Increase the price they receive for their crops or cut the cost of production.
Since the price of goods was set by the markets they knew the first thing to do was seek ways to cut overhead through automation. Thus slowly over the past twenty years farmers have been forced by labor shortages, wages increases and increased government regulations to go automated. As a result workers hours were replaced by machines. Now 6-8 men can do what 200 men used to do.
Now what makes us think that the introduction of more unions into the manufacturing sector will not translate into the same scenario? The truth is Obama’s business inexperience and liberal progressive advisors are steering this nation down a road to financial ruin and colapse. If the result of higher wages and increased government requirements caused the loss of jobs in the farming community, it will surely create the same dynamic in the financial sector.
Changes in wages or regulations inevitable force manufacturers to evaluate their ability to provide goods and services within the framework of those changes! Then in an effort to ensure profitability manufactures go automated in order to reduce costs. This in turn results in less jobs for those seeking employment.
The union higher ups and government bureaucrats controlling the strings are never hurt in this game of wage increases and greater government regulations. It’s the business CEO who get blamed for their heartless approach to corporate profits. Labeled as greedy, they have to automate and reduce jobs to create profits.
Listen people we have to stop seeing corporate profits as a bad thing. When corporations make profits Americans get jobs. “Where profits flow Jobs Grow” Instead of chocking business that are profitable through higher taxation government should be giving tax incentives to businesses that can turn corporate profits into long term job creation. But this is a conservative work model. That is why liberals fight against it. Have you ever wondered why liberals dislike such a common sense model as this? I mean really what is behind their dislike of conservatives work models.
This is my opinion and you don’t have to believe it, but if you think on it a while it makes more and more sense the longer you consider what I am about to reveal to you.
The real reason liberals don’t adopt conservative plans to fix the economy is that they don’t want to loss control.
Now when you are done calling me names and hating me for that last statement consider the following.
What have liberals gained by painting themselves as the upholders of human rights?
They had gained the trust and allegiance of the poor, the elderly, and minorities. What is their angle in this, to garner votes for upcoming elections of course!
But what about substance, have they really ever helped the poor. That depends on what you define as helped. If you mean meeting their basic needs yes. If you mean providing a way out of poverty, not so much! We have more poor people today than ever before. This is not a result of republican policies though. This is squarely a result of liberal progressives thinking they know best. If you don’t believe me answer the following question. When and how has poverty in the US measurably decreased as a direct result of any liberal policy?
No rather you can trace every increase in advantage to capitalism. No one is bettered by a system that feeds on itself. You can’t have a entitlements without a source of income to sustain it. Therefore every entitlement program is indebted to capitalism is some way. If corporation don’t profit then money stream is cut off to entitlement programs of every kind. When people work and corporation succeed money flows to entitlement programs both publically and corporately.
Now I realize that comes off as a far right perspective but is it true? I mean really isn’t that where this is all heading. Isn’t this really all about the government being in control of the whole manufacturing sector? What about the non-union manufacturers who are just as vested in our GDP? These also contribute to the jobs market and they are the counter balance to the complete unionization of this nation.
You say no, you say that the business sector would be unaffected by the implementation of a manufacturing Czar. And it doesn’t matter that he has known ties to big unions. It doesn’t matter that he sees workers as merely laborers designed to keep the machine going forward. Where is the American Dream in that?
Isn’t this just another example of how President Obama is steering this country away from a capitalistic economic model to a more socialistic model? The verdict is still out on whether President Obama actually knows what he is doing or whether he is just flying by the seat of his pants, and hoping everything works out in the end. It seems that this administration has no clear cut strategy on how to actually help our flailing economy. In an effort to seem proactive and on top of things they have passed several bills, a $800 Billion Stimulus package and the $410 Billion dollar Omnibus Bill.
But with his job approval rating falling and the ground swell of negative vibes coming out of all camps, one might wonder if just holding off on appointments might be a good idea at this time. Which begs the question, why? Why Ron Bloom? Why now?
I know from personal experience what the policies of this president will produce. As a farmer for 12 years I watched as the pressures for higher wages and increase in government restriction forced famers to automate where ever possible.
Take just the grape industry for an example. Throughout the 60s and 70s, most of what needed to be done on the farm was accomplished by hand labor. Then in the 80s and 90s we saw many changes in labor laws and government environmental requirements placed on farmers. Wages increased dramatically and so did regulations regarding insecticide use and other overhead costs to farmers. In order to keep up with these government mandates and wage increases farmers had one of two choices. Increase the price they receive for their crops or cut the cost of production.
Since the price of goods was set by the markets they knew the first thing to do was seek ways to cut overhead through automation. Thus slowly over the past twenty years farmers have been forced by labor shortages, wages increases and increased government regulations to go automated. As a result workers hours were replaced by machines. Now 6-8 men can do what 200 men used to do.
Now what makes us think that the introduction of more unions into the manufacturing sector will not translate into the same scenario? The truth is Obama’s business inexperience and liberal progressive advisors are steering this nation down a road to financial ruin and colapse. If the result of higher wages and increased government requirements caused the loss of jobs in the farming community, it will surely create the same dynamic in the financial sector.
Changes in wages or regulations inevitable force manufacturers to evaluate their ability to provide goods and services within the framework of those changes! Then in an effort to ensure profitability manufactures go automated in order to reduce costs. This in turn results in less jobs for those seeking employment.
The union higher ups and government bureaucrats controlling the strings are never hurt in this game of wage increases and greater government regulations. It’s the business CEO who get blamed for their heartless approach to corporate profits. Labeled as greedy, they have to automate and reduce jobs to create profits.
Listen people we have to stop seeing corporate profits as a bad thing. When corporations make profits Americans get jobs. “Where profits flow Jobs Grow” Instead of chocking business that are profitable through higher taxation government should be giving tax incentives to businesses that can turn corporate profits into long term job creation. But this is a conservative work model. That is why liberals fight against it. Have you ever wondered why liberals dislike such a common sense model as this? I mean really what is behind their dislike of conservatives work models.
This is my opinion and you don’t have to believe it, but if you think on it a while it makes more and more sense the longer you consider what I am about to reveal to you.
The real reason liberals don’t adopt conservative plans to fix the economy is that they don’t want to loss control.
Now when you are done calling me names and hating me for that last statement consider the following.
What have liberals gained by painting themselves as the upholders of human rights?
They had gained the trust and allegiance of the poor, the elderly, and minorities. What is their angle in this, to garner votes for upcoming elections of course!
But what about substance, have they really ever helped the poor. That depends on what you define as helped. If you mean meeting their basic needs yes. If you mean providing a way out of poverty, not so much! We have more poor people today than ever before. This is not a result of republican policies though. This is squarely a result of liberal progressives thinking they know best. If you don’t believe me answer the following question. When and how has poverty in the US measurably decreased as a direct result of any liberal policy?
No rather you can trace every increase in advantage to capitalism. No one is bettered by a system that feeds on itself. You can’t have a entitlements without a source of income to sustain it. Therefore every entitlement program is indebted to capitalism is some way. If corporation don’t profit then money stream is cut off to entitlement programs of every kind. When people work and corporation succeed money flows to entitlement programs both publically and corporately.
Now I realize that comes off as a far right perspective but is it true? I mean really isn’t that where this is all heading. Isn’t this really all about the government being in control of the whole manufacturing sector? What about the non-union manufacturers who are just as vested in our GDP? These also contribute to the jobs market and they are the counter balance to the complete unionization of this nation.
You say no, you say that the business sector would be unaffected by the implementation of a manufacturing Czar. And it doesn’t matter that he has known ties to big unions. It doesn’t matter that he sees workers as merely laborers designed to keep the machine going forward. Where is the American Dream in that?
Isn’t this just another example of how President Obama is steering this country away from a capitalistic economic model to a more socialistic model? The verdict is still out on whether President Obama actually knows what he is doing or whether he is just flying by the seat of his pants, and hoping everything works out in the end. It seems that this administration has no clear cut strategy on how to actually help our flailing economy. In an effort to seem proactive and on top of things they have passed several bills, a $800 Billion Stimulus package and the $410 Billion dollar Omnibus Bill.
But with his job approval rating falling and the ground swell of negative vibes coming out of all camps, one might wonder if just holding off on appointments might be a good idea at this time. Which begs the question, why? Why Ron Bloom? Why now?
Friday, August 28, 2009
Housing Still In Crisis!
Remember Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the out cry over the whole sub prime mortgage debacle. It always kinda bothered me that we never got a straight answer on who was to blame for that. I mean they did blame the banks and speculators but were they really the problem. I mean if the answer now is we need greater oversight and regulation in the housing sector, doesn't that kinda point the finger back at congress.
Who is in charge of regulating? The congress! Who is in charge of oversight? The government! So why then did government officials get a pass on this one. Why is it that no major media outlets have kept the spotlight on this and investigative reporters have not done extensive expose on this. No heads have rolled and government officials have been publicly scrutinized for this.
But be very careful writing a bonus check to a corporate executive these days because you might find yourself in court. We can deal with keeping secrets another time.
This is not the time for secrecy. This is the time for exposure of the facts so in an effort to be forth right with the facts I posted the following video for your viewing pleasure. See if this doesn't not shed some light on who is to blame for our current financial situation. One quick apologize here to any liberal progressives that might watch this. Sorry it wasn't Bush!
Who is in charge of regulating? The congress! Who is in charge of oversight? The government! So why then did government officials get a pass on this one. Why is it that no major media outlets have kept the spotlight on this and investigative reporters have not done extensive expose on this. No heads have rolled and government officials have been publicly scrutinized for this.
But be very careful writing a bonus check to a corporate executive these days because you might find yourself in court. We can deal with keeping secrets another time.
This is not the time for secrecy. This is the time for exposure of the facts so in an effort to be forth right with the facts I posted the following video for your viewing pleasure. See if this doesn't not shed some light on who is to blame for our current financial situation. One quick apologize here to any liberal progressives that might watch this. Sorry it wasn't Bush!
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Why Obama’s FedEx Comparison Doesn’t Make Sense!
While stumping for his public run health care system last weekend Obama addressed the notion that private insurers would not be able to compete against the government run system. President Obama did this by equating Private Run Health Insurers -vs- The Government Run Option to the U.S. Mail Service -vs- UPS and Fed Ex. This is now the third time I have heard him make this assement. However this comparison fails in several ways.
First it fails: because it bases the success of his so called side by side competition on the across the board comparison of a system that by his own admission is currently failing to succeed in side by side competition. Which is by its very nature an oxymoron.
Secondly it fails: because he is not saying he plans to fail, no he is saying everyones a winner, except the insurance companies. They are the bad guys. The greedy "illigitimate sons" who need to be brought down. Therefore he is implying that there would be a different outcome than that being seen in the current system. However, He does this without defining how he actually plans to achieve that goal; the revelation of which would be too transparent a venture for the secrecy by which this current administration likes to operate.
Lastly it fails: because by likening the Government Health Care Option to the U.S. Mail Service you are actually conceding to the fact that if ObamaCare is not able to compete with private insurers it will like the U.S. Mail Service use whatever means it needs to stay in the game. In the case of the U.S. Mail Service the Fed. has raised the price of postage steadily to stay in business. In the case of ObamaCare private insurers would most likely outperform the government system in a fair and competitive market. This is due mostly to the bureaucratic waste and abuses inherent in all government run programs. So that like the U.S. Mail the government would have to find ways to keep the failing system afloat, which would probably lead to one or all of the following, a loss in benefits, censored rationing, and or an increase in taxes to keep the government run option in the game.
The only way to avoid this would be to create an unfair playing field which favors the government program over the private insurers. However creating such a system would render the promise of a one stop insurance marketplace with multiple options for consumers a disingenuous political ploy to pass a single payer system dispite the will of the people.
First it fails: because it bases the success of his so called side by side competition on the across the board comparison of a system that by his own admission is currently failing to succeed in side by side competition. Which is by its very nature an oxymoron.
Secondly it fails: because he is not saying he plans to fail, no he is saying everyones a winner, except the insurance companies. They are the bad guys. The greedy "illigitimate sons" who need to be brought down. Therefore he is implying that there would be a different outcome than that being seen in the current system. However, He does this without defining how he actually plans to achieve that goal; the revelation of which would be too transparent a venture for the secrecy by which this current administration likes to operate.
Lastly it fails: because by likening the Government Health Care Option to the U.S. Mail Service you are actually conceding to the fact that if ObamaCare is not able to compete with private insurers it will like the U.S. Mail Service use whatever means it needs to stay in the game. In the case of the U.S. Mail Service the Fed. has raised the price of postage steadily to stay in business. In the case of ObamaCare private insurers would most likely outperform the government system in a fair and competitive market. This is due mostly to the bureaucratic waste and abuses inherent in all government run programs. So that like the U.S. Mail the government would have to find ways to keep the failing system afloat, which would probably lead to one or all of the following, a loss in benefits, censored rationing, and or an increase in taxes to keep the government run option in the game.
The only way to avoid this would be to create an unfair playing field which favors the government program over the private insurers. However creating such a system would render the promise of a one stop insurance marketplace with multiple options for consumers a disingenuous political ploy to pass a single payer system dispite the will of the people.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Enforcement of Immigration Laws: It’s the right thing to do!
I have not agreed with much this President has done, but when I do agree I am not afraid to say so. I herald Obama’s stepping back away from his former stance and stepping up enforcement of current immigration laws. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/30/obama-loses-immigration-allies/?source=newsletter_must-read-stories-today_headlines&page=2..
He is not saying he is opposes to immigrants or immigration. He is simply reinforcing that we are a nation of laws. Furthermore he is saying that we should work within the framework of the laws we have, until the law are adopted that better address the immigration issue.
Can changes be made that all Americans can agree on? I have no doubt that we can come to a consensus as reasonable people on what should be done. But whatever gets done should benefit the entire nation not just a single segment of our nation.
The need for border security goes far beyond just being of Hispanic decent. Border security is just what the words imply, “Border Security.” The possibility of foreign agency smuggling in a WMD is a greater threat to the collective good in this country than the sympathetic worries surrounding the immigrant worker population. We need to get beyond personal disapproval and consider the bigger picture.
We will always have immigrants and we will always welcome the Mexican people into our country. This issue is not about limiting access to those seeking employment in the states. There is a legal method by which Mexican workers can come to this country and work. Obama and Ms. Napolitano are simply advocating the legal process over the illegal crossing of the border. A stand that would be equally adhered to if the roles were reversed and it was American working who were seeking employment in Mexico.
I am sure going forward that legal immigration will be made easier and that any of those seeking employment will be able to do so in a way that neither jeopardizes our security as a nation, nor hinders them from the opportunities afforded by crossing the border for work.
He is not saying he is opposes to immigrants or immigration. He is simply reinforcing that we are a nation of laws. Furthermore he is saying that we should work within the framework of the laws we have, until the law are adopted that better address the immigration issue.
Can changes be made that all Americans can agree on? I have no doubt that we can come to a consensus as reasonable people on what should be done. But whatever gets done should benefit the entire nation not just a single segment of our nation.
The need for border security goes far beyond just being of Hispanic decent. Border security is just what the words imply, “Border Security.” The possibility of foreign agency smuggling in a WMD is a greater threat to the collective good in this country than the sympathetic worries surrounding the immigrant worker population. We need to get beyond personal disapproval and consider the bigger picture.
We will always have immigrants and we will always welcome the Mexican people into our country. This issue is not about limiting access to those seeking employment in the states. There is a legal method by which Mexican workers can come to this country and work. Obama and Ms. Napolitano are simply advocating the legal process over the illegal crossing of the border. A stand that would be equally adhered to if the roles were reversed and it was American working who were seeking employment in Mexico.
I am sure going forward that legal immigration will be made easier and that any of those seeking employment will be able to do so in a way that neither jeopardizes our security as a nation, nor hinders them from the opportunities afforded by crossing the border for work.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Sotomayor Confirmation Emminent!
Will Sotomayor nomination be over shadowed by Health Care Reform? Only time will tell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)