Since I'm trying to clean up and catch up with stuff before I spend my Memorial Day with my parents in Ohio, I'll get a blog entry in before I head northwest back to the Buckeye State.
Seems to me this week that just because Maryland has taken a break from legislative news, it didn't mean that government among the several states did. On Thursday, the news out of Tennessee was that four legislators were arrested in Knoxville for their involvement with an FBI sting operation. They accepted money to sponsor legislation from a phony electronics recycling operation (dubbed by the FBI "Operation Tennessee Waltz",) so Thursday they were led out of their building in handcuffs. The three Democrats and one Republican included the uncle of Congressman Harold Ford, a Tennessee Democrat who just announced a 2006 Senate bid. Nice way to start the campaign. That's going to be developed a lot further by Bill Hobbs in Tennessee, he's got an excellent blog dealing with those local issues. I'd like to pattern my blog after his to an extent.
Then today I was talking to ex-wife #1 (the one I still get along with) and she pointed me to a story in my old backyard of Toledo, Ohio. Seems the Ohio Workers Compensation fund lost millions in a rare coin investment gone sour. At this point, the WC director in Ohio has resigned and the Democrats are blaming a "culture of cronyism" in Columbus. Sad thing is, they're right, but it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Toledo and Lucas County have their share of corruption in the Democratic circles, but it's kept down by the local paper which is an extreme leftist rag. (The Blade is the link for the story above.)
The coin dealer in question is a guy named Tom Noe. I'm trying to think if I ever met him, because we did run in the same circles vis-a-vis the Lucas County GOP. His wife, Bernadette, was the chair of the LCRP for one term a couple years ago (after I had moved to adjacent Wood County.) So I know the names, anyway. Of course, both of them ran to Florida to a new home just recently...the sticky web even includes a former Republican state senator who's buying their old condo. (That deal seems to be on the up-and-up, though.)
The bad news for the GOP is twofold. Tom and Bernadette Noe contributed thousands to local, state, and national candidates and PAC's. I just linked to the federal site, right there is over $50,000 for just the last 3 cycles. Add it the state candidates with over $100,000 (searched from followthemoney.org) and the tenticles reach to almost every northwest Ohio Republican candidate.
Secondly, this comes on the heels of an already fed-up electorate. The Ohio GOP needs this like a hole in the head, and The Blade is only too happy to blast one into them. Ohio has a lame-duck GOP governor (really Bob Taft is a RINO, but the "R" is still by his name) limping along with a 34% approval rating, with 2006 being an election year. The conservatives in the state also have to be fed up with both Senators DeWine and Voinovich; DeWine for being one of the "sell-out seven", and Voinovich for slowing John Bolton's confirmation as UN ambassador. Meanwhile, the Ohio Democratic Party has to be dancing in the streets. They smell a chance to regain power since all of the major state offices from governor on down come up for election again in 2006. I fear that they may take advantage of a dissatisfied electorate.
It's amazing what happens when you leave "home" for seven months. I had no inkling about this until I talked to my ex, who lives in the Cleveland area. But looking at the Sun website doing the search for the Voinovich link, there's an AP story about the ODWC resignation, so I may have seen it before too long anyway. Lord knows I'll hear nothing but stuff about it once I get back to northwest Ohio.
So, for those of you who have started following me, I will be away until Tuesday. Being that it's summer and I'm a person who likes to be outside, blogging will be somewhat sporadic for awhile but as things heat up for 2006, I'll probably be daily. Just a heads-up. Of course, that's all relative because I like writing, so maybe I'll just open the window and sit here anyway.
Saturday, May 28, 2005
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
And yet more passion
Awwwww mannnnn...after I write nice things about Linda Chavez she has to go and write this drivel. Linda, I hate to break it to you, but when the day comes and the liberals connive the country into letting them take over again, there will be no such thing as minority rights, and they sure as hell ain't going to fool around like the GOP does.
Assuming all seven of the Democrat "moderates" are still in the Senate then, there's no way on God's green earth that they'll step outside what the party wants of them. The Dems will ramrod every one of those nominees through and if the GOP tries to stop it, the McCainiacs will nip that probability in the bud yesterday.
It's funny, I don't ever recall any pressing for "minority rights" until, gee, the last 10 years.
Oh well, it's late and I don't want to write all night, us productive Americans on the right who really make this country the great nation it still is need to get our rest.
I am adding a few links to my growing list, cool sites all.
Assuming all seven of the Democrat "moderates" are still in the Senate then, there's no way on God's green earth that they'll step outside what the party wants of them. The Dems will ramrod every one of those nominees through and if the GOP tries to stop it, the McCainiacs will nip that probability in the bud yesterday.
It's funny, I don't ever recall any pressing for "minority rights" until, gee, the last 10 years.
Oh well, it's late and I don't want to write all night, us productive Americans on the right who really make this country the great nation it still is need to get our rest.
I am adding a few links to my growing list, cool sites all.
Monday, May 23, 2005
No deal!
I don't care what the Democrats say about all this...you know as well as I do that "extraordinary circumstances" will mean any potential judge who is pro-life, and if not, certainly any judge who is a minority that Bush tries to appoint.
Reading the late story in the Baltimore Sun as I speak... Bush damn well better not "consult" with any Democrats, we know what judges they'll want - the same crappy ones who pollute the Ninth Circuit, for example.
And now I know the 7 RINOs who are in my "Hall of Shame" for this effort to destroy our majority rights:
My early prediction is that Mike DeWine just signed his political death warrant by agreeing to this. This isn't going to be forgotten by Ohio voters in 2006. Graham and Warner may have enough time to repair the damage since they're not up until 2008. The others are either from blue states or want to run for President.
I guess I hope that the D's overplay their hand. Please, President Bush, nominate somebody like Roy Moore to the appellate court! Then we can see the D's for the lying sacks of shit they are.
Reading the late story in the Baltimore Sun as I speak... Bush damn well better not "consult" with any Democrats, we know what judges they'll want - the same crappy ones who pollute the Ninth Circuit, for example.
And now I know the 7 RINOs who are in my "Hall of Shame" for this effort to destroy our majority rights:
- Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island...already knew he was a RINO.
- Susan Collins of Maine...see above.
- Mike DeWine of Ohio...I'm ashamed I went to his ice cream social in 2000. Of course, as I recall I did vote for the Libertarian that year; frankly it was because I knew he had the election in the bag. But he's really turned into a mushy moderate in term #2. I'll have to get off his mailing list.
- Lindsey Graham of South Carolina...he used to be pretty good, I think he's lost his spine in his time in DC.
- John McCain of Arizona...now that's a surprise :::as he drips with sarcasm::: . Anything to make Bush look bad and get himself some ink. The Democrats' "maverick" hero. He's really lucky he has 5 years to make Arizona voters forget this.
- Olympia Snowe of Maine...see her Northeast liberal RINO friends above.
- John Warner of Virginia...that one surprises me some, and boy does he look bad compared to his fellow Virginian George Allen. I don't think Allen would do this deal, he has some backbone still.
My early prediction is that Mike DeWine just signed his political death warrant by agreeing to this. This isn't going to be forgotten by Ohio voters in 2006. Graham and Warner may have enough time to repair the damage since they're not up until 2008. The others are either from blue states or want to run for President.
I guess I hope that the D's overplay their hand. Please, President Bush, nominate somebody like Roy Moore to the appellate court! Then we can see the D's for the lying sacks of shit they are.
Saturday, May 21, 2005
Higher stakes
Being a new Maryland resident and being encouraged to do so from my Maryland GOP e-mail update, I turned on my TV and watched the Preakness go down at Pimlico. Speaking of going down, that was some riding by Jeremy Rose aboard Afleet Alex to save the horse from falling (as well as himself.) That could have been fatal to horse or jockey. But they recovered and finished in the money, denying a Triple Crown yet again. I think the last time it was achieved was in 1978, somewhere in that era.
What perked my interest during the prerace buildup was one of the commentators making a long editorial about Maryland's not having slots yet (as opposed to several neighboring states) and it's impact on the racing industry here. She even darkly intoned that the Preakness could be moved from Pimlico eventually and the track closed if no new money comes in.
I was trying to think about this over the last few hours. As far as I can reckon, the Preakness is Maryland's sole major single sporting event. The only other thing I can think of is the McDonald's LPGA tournament held in Havre de Grace, which is considered a major on the LPGA circuit...but women's golf doesn't have a large following per se. I know we have the Terps, Orioles and Ravens, but those are multi-session seasons rather than one event. But Maryland has no NASCAR track or other single-purpose venue that hosts a particular sport.
So is this a real threat or just bluster? It does seem that horse racing as an industry has seen better days. Back in the 60's, that was about the only game in town if you were one who wanted to gamble. But with the advent of state lotteries and eventually their scratch-off tickets and twice-daily number drawings, one didn't have to wait long nor hang out with the seedy people at the track to get a gambling fix. When slots came to Delaware in the mid-90's, that was even a bigger pull for those who wanted to wager. Delaware was smart enough to tie their slot barns to the existing racetracks; thus, Harrington and Dover became prime destinations for Maryland gamblers.
I have some experience with all this, being from a state that has turned down legalizing slots twice in the 1990's. Ohio still complains that a lot of its money goes across to most of its neighboring states who all have legalized slots and/or table games. And yes, I'll raise my hand on that, I made 3-4 trips a year up to the casinos in Detroit and Windsor, Ontario. The Buckeye State actually has many of the same problems as far as failing horse racetracks go, what they don't have is a Triple Crown jewel.
I'm starting to grudgingly warm to the idea of slot machines in Maryland. I didn't vote for them either time in Ohio, but it seems to me that things are run well in Harrington. My fear is that coming into the gambling market so late will leave a shortfall in revenue from what is expected and as always the taxpayers will have their pockets picked again. Plus we'll get the sob stories from people in Baltimore who lose their homes and such and expect the government to help them out because, after all, it was their casinos' fault that these folks lost their possessions.
But, if we are to get casino gambling in Maryland, leave the Eastern Shore out. I like having to actually drive 40 miles to lose money. To be honest, last time I went I left after only about an hour because I lost my desire to throw money in the slots...actually I was about break-even at the time. So I drove 45 minutes each way to spend an hour there.
If the people of Maryland want to keep their one slice of American sporting pie, they'll go cheerfully lose their money at the Pimlico slot barn. That's fine, just don't expect me to join in.
What perked my interest during the prerace buildup was one of the commentators making a long editorial about Maryland's not having slots yet (as opposed to several neighboring states) and it's impact on the racing industry here. She even darkly intoned that the Preakness could be moved from Pimlico eventually and the track closed if no new money comes in.
I was trying to think about this over the last few hours. As far as I can reckon, the Preakness is Maryland's sole major single sporting event. The only other thing I can think of is the McDonald's LPGA tournament held in Havre de Grace, which is considered a major on the LPGA circuit...but women's golf doesn't have a large following per se. I know we have the Terps, Orioles and Ravens, but those are multi-session seasons rather than one event. But Maryland has no NASCAR track or other single-purpose venue that hosts a particular sport.
So is this a real threat or just bluster? It does seem that horse racing as an industry has seen better days. Back in the 60's, that was about the only game in town if you were one who wanted to gamble. But with the advent of state lotteries and eventually their scratch-off tickets and twice-daily number drawings, one didn't have to wait long nor hang out with the seedy people at the track to get a gambling fix. When slots came to Delaware in the mid-90's, that was even a bigger pull for those who wanted to wager. Delaware was smart enough to tie their slot barns to the existing racetracks; thus, Harrington and Dover became prime destinations for Maryland gamblers.
I have some experience with all this, being from a state that has turned down legalizing slots twice in the 1990's. Ohio still complains that a lot of its money goes across to most of its neighboring states who all have legalized slots and/or table games. And yes, I'll raise my hand on that, I made 3-4 trips a year up to the casinos in Detroit and Windsor, Ontario. The Buckeye State actually has many of the same problems as far as failing horse racetracks go, what they don't have is a Triple Crown jewel.
I'm starting to grudgingly warm to the idea of slot machines in Maryland. I didn't vote for them either time in Ohio, but it seems to me that things are run well in Harrington. My fear is that coming into the gambling market so late will leave a shortfall in revenue from what is expected and as always the taxpayers will have their pockets picked again. Plus we'll get the sob stories from people in Baltimore who lose their homes and such and expect the government to help them out because, after all, it was their casinos' fault that these folks lost their possessions.
But, if we are to get casino gambling in Maryland, leave the Eastern Shore out. I like having to actually drive 40 miles to lose money. To be honest, last time I went I left after only about an hour because I lost my desire to throw money in the slots...actually I was about break-even at the time. So I drove 45 minutes each way to spend an hour there.
If the people of Maryland want to keep their one slice of American sporting pie, they'll go cheerfully lose their money at the Pimlico slot barn. That's fine, just don't expect me to join in.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Adding the links
A quick note...I added some other Maryland-related links I looked over tonight. You'll notice "One Big Dog" to your right, along with the "Hedgehog Report" and "Righting America."
I like to know what others have to say about our Free State. Sounds like Mayor O'Malley in Baltimore has some infidelity issues? Check out these other blogs and see, I'll let them follow it for now.
I like to know what others have to say about our Free State. Sounds like Mayor O'Malley in Baltimore has some infidelity issues? Check out these other blogs and see, I'll let them follow it for now.
Big brother IS watching
After reading this story in the Baltimore Sun I'm humming to myself the song "Electric Eye", a 1982 release by the metal group Judas Priest. That wasn't too far from 1984 and neither is this.
The quote I found most amazing was that "(c)ity officials argue that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy on a public street. The cameras, they say, do not see anything more than a police officer could see." That is, if a police officer can follow a car or a person unnoticed anywhere within a 40 square block area of West Baltimore.
And it's certainly not that I'm soft on crime. If a person wants to ring his private property with surveillance cameras and have someone watch every move made on what is theirs, hey, more power to them. And I would expect such things at banks or in stores as a shoplifting deterrent. While there is possibly a use for this as a crime deterrent (it's noted in the story that studies are mixed on the effectiveness of cameras as a tool), there's also the fact that it is an invasion of my privacy to have Big Brother following me down the street. And actually, if I'm walking or driving down the street minding my own business, I DO have an expectation of privacy.
Besides, much like the cameras that catch you at red lights, these cameras are only successful after the fact. Where Baltimore officials see this as an extension of the police, this only can be useful after the fact. If they reduce police presence on the street because X number of cameras cover the area, that doesn't help the poor soul who gets his brains blown out in a street robbery. You may get a nice picture of the perp but if the people who are supposed to be watching miss out, there's a good chance the robber gets away. He could be in Virginia by the time the word gets out to the media.
I also find it interesting that Homeland Security money was used for this. We can't pay for another several thousand Border Patrol agents and actual bodies on the street, which work best for fighting crime and terrorism, but we can hand off a couple million to Baltimore to scope out mostly petty street crimes. I suppose it is the drawback of giving money to the states to see as they do fit with it, sometimes it's spent in a foolish manner.
There was some good news on the Wal-Mart front today, but it's tempered by a late announcement. As I had hoped, Governor Ehrlich vetoed the so-called Fair Share Health Care Act at a public ceremony in Princess Anne today. That community is the seat of Somerset County, one of the most rural Maryland counties and one who's expectant of hundreds of jobs from a proposed Wal-Mart distribution center. (I live just a few miles from the county, it's on the southern border of Wicomico County where I live.) But the announcement that the opening of this center has been pushed back to 2008 or 2009 put a late damper on the news. (That news actually came on the Sun website as I was writing this. In fact, they changed the headline from being about Ehrlich's veto to the distribution center delay.) While it was not expressed directly, the feeling is that Wal-Mart's going to wait and see about whether this veto is overridden.
So I have some work to do, I'll need to fire up my letter-writing talents and see what other action there is for me to take before we kick a politically incorrect company out of Maryland.
The quote I found most amazing was that "(c)ity officials argue that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy on a public street. The cameras, they say, do not see anything more than a police officer could see." That is, if a police officer can follow a car or a person unnoticed anywhere within a 40 square block area of West Baltimore.
And it's certainly not that I'm soft on crime. If a person wants to ring his private property with surveillance cameras and have someone watch every move made on what is theirs, hey, more power to them. And I would expect such things at banks or in stores as a shoplifting deterrent. While there is possibly a use for this as a crime deterrent (it's noted in the story that studies are mixed on the effectiveness of cameras as a tool), there's also the fact that it is an invasion of my privacy to have Big Brother following me down the street. And actually, if I'm walking or driving down the street minding my own business, I DO have an expectation of privacy.
Besides, much like the cameras that catch you at red lights, these cameras are only successful after the fact. Where Baltimore officials see this as an extension of the police, this only can be useful after the fact. If they reduce police presence on the street because X number of cameras cover the area, that doesn't help the poor soul who gets his brains blown out in a street robbery. You may get a nice picture of the perp but if the people who are supposed to be watching miss out, there's a good chance the robber gets away. He could be in Virginia by the time the word gets out to the media.
I also find it interesting that Homeland Security money was used for this. We can't pay for another several thousand Border Patrol agents and actual bodies on the street, which work best for fighting crime and terrorism, but we can hand off a couple million to Baltimore to scope out mostly petty street crimes. I suppose it is the drawback of giving money to the states to see as they do fit with it, sometimes it's spent in a foolish manner.
There was some good news on the Wal-Mart front today, but it's tempered by a late announcement. As I had hoped, Governor Ehrlich vetoed the so-called Fair Share Health Care Act at a public ceremony in Princess Anne today. That community is the seat of Somerset County, one of the most rural Maryland counties and one who's expectant of hundreds of jobs from a proposed Wal-Mart distribution center. (I live just a few miles from the county, it's on the southern border of Wicomico County where I live.) But the announcement that the opening of this center has been pushed back to 2008 or 2009 put a late damper on the news. (That news actually came on the Sun website as I was writing this. In fact, they changed the headline from being about Ehrlich's veto to the distribution center delay.) While it was not expressed directly, the feeling is that Wal-Mart's going to wait and see about whether this veto is overridden.
So I have some work to do, I'll need to fire up my letter-writing talents and see what other action there is for me to take before we kick a politically incorrect company out of Maryland.
Monday, May 16, 2005
Like sausage, links!
Tonight's blog will be mercifully short, I want to get to bed at a decent time!
Did finally get to peruse some of the e-mail that piles up in my box (lots of baseball this weekend, so I didn't have a lot of reading time.)
Found some good commentaries from Thomas Sowell and Linda Chavez about topics I've recently expounded upon. Nice to know I'm agreed with for the most part. I really like Dr. Sowell and it's always nice to hear from him when Walter E. Williams ("black by popular demand") guest-hosts on Rush. Linda Chavez is a good labor columnist, although I do disagree with her on the subject of guest workers.
And my favorite Ohio politician got a write-up in Sunday's Cincinnati Enquirer. There's times I wish I was back in Ohio to support Ken Blackwell, and it's not a surprise to me he has a double-digit lead in early 2006 election polls (Ohio elects a new governor, Bob Taft is term-limited out.) I think Ohioans are sick to death of Governor Taft. I just hope they realize that electing a Democrat won't help any, most likely it would preserve the status quo. I remember back in 1998 I was already in Blackwell's camp, but the GOP hierarchy back then was solidly behind Taft and got Blackwell to take his current Secretary of State post. That was upsetting - I believe in contested primaries, may the best person win.
Another intriguing story occurred last Wednesday. See, I knew the creeps were out last week - just in time for Friday the 13th, George Soros came to Baltimore. He's looking for a $20 million match (to his $10 million) from Baltimore residents and friends to keep the Baltimore branch of the Open Society Institute open. And, knowing how liberal Baltimore is and how much slobbering the left does over anyone who hates Bush, he may get it...probably with some help from unsuspecting Maryland taxpayers.
Actually I found this out reading an unrelated story about USAID and needle exchange programs in Central Asia. You probably know that Soros is a drug legalizer from way back, so that wouldn't surprise me.
It's just more insanity in government. What else is new?
Did finally get to peruse some of the e-mail that piles up in my box (lots of baseball this weekend, so I didn't have a lot of reading time.)
Found some good commentaries from Thomas Sowell and Linda Chavez about topics I've recently expounded upon. Nice to know I'm agreed with for the most part. I really like Dr. Sowell and it's always nice to hear from him when Walter E. Williams ("black by popular demand") guest-hosts on Rush. Linda Chavez is a good labor columnist, although I do disagree with her on the subject of guest workers.
And my favorite Ohio politician got a write-up in Sunday's Cincinnati Enquirer. There's times I wish I was back in Ohio to support Ken Blackwell, and it's not a surprise to me he has a double-digit lead in early 2006 election polls (Ohio elects a new governor, Bob Taft is term-limited out.) I think Ohioans are sick to death of Governor Taft. I just hope they realize that electing a Democrat won't help any, most likely it would preserve the status quo. I remember back in 1998 I was already in Blackwell's camp, but the GOP hierarchy back then was solidly behind Taft and got Blackwell to take his current Secretary of State post. That was upsetting - I believe in contested primaries, may the best person win.
Another intriguing story occurred last Wednesday. See, I knew the creeps were out last week - just in time for Friday the 13th, George Soros came to Baltimore. He's looking for a $20 million match (to his $10 million) from Baltimore residents and friends to keep the Baltimore branch of the Open Society Institute open. And, knowing how liberal Baltimore is and how much slobbering the left does over anyone who hates Bush, he may get it...probably with some help from unsuspecting Maryland taxpayers.
Actually I found this out reading an unrelated story about USAID and needle exchange programs in Central Asia. You probably know that Soros is a drug legalizer from way back, so that wouldn't surprise me.
It's just more insanity in government. What else is new?
Sunday, May 15, 2005
Another swing and a miss
In the continuing saga of the "partisan" media making up items and hoping they stick to the wall, Newsweek joins CBS News in getting a story wrong. This time, after claiming that our interrogators took pages from the Quran down at Gitmo and flushed them down a toilet, they backed off the story today.
What I find interesting is that Newsweek never seems to take the time and energy to go over to Iraq or Afghanistan and talk about all the good happening. If nothing else, the rape rooms are gone and metal shredders are being used for their appointed purposes instead of becoming killing devices as they were under Saddam. Just seems like anyone who whispers anything bad about conservatives and/or the U.S. military will have his story believed.
Speaking of the military, I saw a story about the howls of protest regarding base closings, including a statement from Wesley Clark today. Add that to the Congressmen and states lining up against the closings and it's a wonder any cut of government is even possible. I'm shocked that the liberals aren't speaking out in favor of this - after all, it is a cut in the military. When Clinton was President, wasn't that where most of the government job cuts came from? One thing I did like about the idea behind the closure was the consolidation aspect - putting separate branches of the military together at installations makes sense to me.
I especially thought it apt when I saw a picture of a protest at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard closing - wonder what those guys think of their union now? Now, I know it's going to be tough on those communities but to me it shows what happens when towns put their economic eggs in one basket. And what government can give, government can taketh away.
Little noticed in all this was a idea by President Bush to build oil refineries on closed military bases. While it's not the panacea to every large base and installation closure, think Groton or Portsmouth (both within the energy-hungry Northeast) would turn up their nose at these jobs given the choice? Yeah, they are both in blue states, I bet they would. Ship and submarine building is such clean work, we don't want those dirty oil refineries here. Better to blame Bush for hard times because he picked their base for closure.
Ever notice that Congress is now too gutless to do this base closure thing themselves? They have to pick a commission to do it, that way they all go back to their districts and can say, "hey, it wasn't my fault that the government closed Fort (fill in the blank)."
Now my question: what actually happens when these places close? Does the government keep the land? This ties in with my comments about Maryland selling off state land. I'm all for putting it back in the private sector!
One final note before I call it a night, on one of my favorite subjects. Today in the Daily Times there was a letter from my state senator, J. Lowell Stoltzfus, regarding his opposition to the "Fair Share Health Care Act" (aka the "Wal-Mart bill"). It was a well-written letter and I e-mailed him a short note of appreciation:
Dear Senator Stoltzfus:
Right on! I emphatically agree with the sentiments you shared in the letter regarding Wal-Mart. I have myself contributed to the Daily Times "Grapevine" on the subject (regarding and agreeing with their editorial in April) and also sent a letter to Governor Ehrlich imploring him to veto the "Fair Share Health Care Act" despite the likelihood of an override.
Your letter nicely ties together a lot of the pro-business arguments that fell on deaf ears among those on the left side of the aisle in Annapolis. It certainly is a reminder that government at the behest of special interests provides little to the average Free Stater.
And, something you may not know: far from being a minimum wage employer, Wal-Mart's wages are relatively decent. I was shopping in the Fruitland store today and they were advertising in-store for new cashiers, paying from $7.15 to $9.15 an hour (based on experience). So it's not just the Somerset distribution center that will pay a fairly decent wage for the work and skills required.
I shudder to think what would happen to the local and state economy if Wal-Mart suddenly decided to pull out of Maryland. Hopefully the business savvy that has led them to succeed this long (despite fierce union opposition in a lot of markets) will continue even with this possible setback.
Again, kudos for having your voice of reason heard today in the Daily Times.
Sincerely,
Michael Swartz
I honestly think that this issue will not go away quietly. With the anti-business slant of the Maryland General Assembly quite apparent now, I see this as a possible 2006 issue. We just need a strong leader on it, but sadly I'm not sure Governor Ehrlich has enough pull on it, nor is he going to get any help from the partisan media (Baltimore Sun - "Light for All, unless it makes us liberals look bad!") Tough to deal with this from such a position of weakness. In Maryland, I sometimes feel like I do when I lived in the city of Toledo - sitting in my Alamo while the overwhelming force of liberalism shoots cannon at the walls of common sense and limited government. In both cases, liberals and their union allies are manning the guns.
What I find interesting is that Newsweek never seems to take the time and energy to go over to Iraq or Afghanistan and talk about all the good happening. If nothing else, the rape rooms are gone and metal shredders are being used for their appointed purposes instead of becoming killing devices as they were under Saddam. Just seems like anyone who whispers anything bad about conservatives and/or the U.S. military will have his story believed.
Speaking of the military, I saw a story about the howls of protest regarding base closings, including a statement from Wesley Clark today. Add that to the Congressmen and states lining up against the closings and it's a wonder any cut of government is even possible. I'm shocked that the liberals aren't speaking out in favor of this - after all, it is a cut in the military. When Clinton was President, wasn't that where most of the government job cuts came from? One thing I did like about the idea behind the closure was the consolidation aspect - putting separate branches of the military together at installations makes sense to me.
I especially thought it apt when I saw a picture of a protest at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard closing - wonder what those guys think of their union now? Now, I know it's going to be tough on those communities but to me it shows what happens when towns put their economic eggs in one basket. And what government can give, government can taketh away.
Little noticed in all this was a idea by President Bush to build oil refineries on closed military bases. While it's not the panacea to every large base and installation closure, think Groton or Portsmouth (both within the energy-hungry Northeast) would turn up their nose at these jobs given the choice? Yeah, they are both in blue states, I bet they would. Ship and submarine building is such clean work, we don't want those dirty oil refineries here. Better to blame Bush for hard times because he picked their base for closure.
Ever notice that Congress is now too gutless to do this base closure thing themselves? They have to pick a commission to do it, that way they all go back to their districts and can say, "hey, it wasn't my fault that the government closed Fort (fill in the blank)."
Now my question: what actually happens when these places close? Does the government keep the land? This ties in with my comments about Maryland selling off state land. I'm all for putting it back in the private sector!
One final note before I call it a night, on one of my favorite subjects. Today in the Daily Times there was a letter from my state senator, J. Lowell Stoltzfus, regarding his opposition to the "Fair Share Health Care Act" (aka the "Wal-Mart bill"). It was a well-written letter and I e-mailed him a short note of appreciation:
Dear Senator Stoltzfus:
Right on! I emphatically agree with the sentiments you shared in the letter regarding Wal-Mart. I have myself contributed to the Daily Times "Grapevine" on the subject (regarding and agreeing with their editorial in April) and also sent a letter to Governor Ehrlich imploring him to veto the "Fair Share Health Care Act" despite the likelihood of an override.
Your letter nicely ties together a lot of the pro-business arguments that fell on deaf ears among those on the left side of the aisle in Annapolis. It certainly is a reminder that government at the behest of special interests provides little to the average Free Stater.
And, something you may not know: far from being a minimum wage employer, Wal-Mart's wages are relatively decent. I was shopping in the Fruitland store today and they were advertising in-store for new cashiers, paying from $7.15 to $9.15 an hour (based on experience). So it's not just the Somerset distribution center that will pay a fairly decent wage for the work and skills required.
I shudder to think what would happen to the local and state economy if Wal-Mart suddenly decided to pull out of Maryland. Hopefully the business savvy that has led them to succeed this long (despite fierce union opposition in a lot of markets) will continue even with this possible setback.
Again, kudos for having your voice of reason heard today in the Daily Times.
Sincerely,
Michael Swartz
I honestly think that this issue will not go away quietly. With the anti-business slant of the Maryland General Assembly quite apparent now, I see this as a possible 2006 issue. We just need a strong leader on it, but sadly I'm not sure Governor Ehrlich has enough pull on it, nor is he going to get any help from the partisan media (Baltimore Sun - "Light for All, unless it makes us liberals look bad!") Tough to deal with this from such a position of weakness. In Maryland, I sometimes feel like I do when I lived in the city of Toledo - sitting in my Alamo while the overwhelming force of liberalism shoots cannon at the walls of common sense and limited government. In both cases, liberals and their union allies are manning the guns.
Saturday, May 14, 2005
Freaky Friday
It was Friday the 13th, and all the creeps came out. Actually, this whole week has been a little wacko, especially the national security "threat" in DC. And, of course, all the D's are whining about how poorly things were done as far as evacuations and the like. But what if they had shot the plane down? Well, then they would be bemoaning the loss of innocent life - hey, was it really necessary to blow a student pilot out of the sky? This national security is too restrictive and that Bush has a hair trigger. Sounds about right from the D's.
They ran my union story in the Federalist Patriot today, and I got an "attaboy!" from the editor for catching the story. Actually, he punched it up a bit, but it was pretty close to what I wrote. So I'll let you look it up on the Federalist website and I'll write it here as I submitted it. Not quite like making laws, but the sausage grinder of the editorial process does massage what I submit most times to some extent. This one ended up actually very much as I wrote it, which means I must be getting better at this.
For the first time since his 1995 election to the post, John Sweeney, socialist president of the AFL-CIO, may face opposition to his campaign for a fourth term as head of the large umbrella union.
Citing a lack of resources for organizing because of expenses incurred in the political arena, several leaders of unions under the AFL-CIO banner including the Teamsters and the Service Employees International Union have openly encouraged a challenge to Sweeney’s election to another term. The millions of dollars of union dues spent on Democrat candidates have led to only modest success, with Bill Clinton’s 1996 reelection being the only large-scale union victory in a tide of defeat that has seen Republicans in Congress return to their 1994 levels. The 2002 and 2004 elections saw the end of a trend of Democrats eroding the GOP majority in the late 1990's.
Recently, in a move to shift more money to organization, the AFL-CIO laid off 1/4 of its Washington, D.C. headquarters staff and ceased publication of their "America at Work" magazine, which was issued 10 times a year. These and other changes were slated to add $10 million to their organizing fund, bringing it to $22.5 million a year. However, this yearly organizing figure is still dwarfed by the $35 million spent by the labor group back in 1996 to unseat House Republicans elected in the "Gingrich Revolution." The organizing number is further minimized by the more than $280 million spent on political contributions between 1989 and 2002. According to the campaign finance website opensecrets.org, 21 of the top 100 political contributors during those election cycles were the AFL-CIO and its member unions, with over 90% of those funds fattening the coffers of Democrat candidates.
It remains to be seen if this minor shift of money to organization will restore the union to its share of the workforce, down from 16 percent when Sweeney assumed the leadership of the AFL-CIO to its present 12.5%. With only the public employee sector is growing in union membership, the unions feel most threatened by moves from President Bush to privatize some areas of government.
But with the good comes the bad - they still didn't publish my Social Security letter. Bummer. I wrote this in reply to a letter to the editor in the Daily Times. I'd love to link to it but the paper has a lousy archiving system once they get past 7 days old. So bear with me on this one:
To the Editor of the Daily Times:
This regards the letter April 29th from Bill Whitmore, "Don’t let Bush sell out Social Security". I took it from a careful reading that he is an older gentleman, having lived in Chicago in the 1950's. That most likely makes him a Social Security recipient, or very close to the age for it.
As for myself, I just turned 40 and it’s apparent that feelings on Social Security private accounts are sharply divided on a generational basis. Those who "have" the benefits (backed by the AARP, which itself invests member dues in the stock market to get a good return) want the status quo, those who "have not" received them yet want revisions to a program that will be exhausted of money in the future unless some radical change is made. Some things to bear in mind: private accounts are completely voluntary, they will only cover a portion of one’s contribution with the remainder being placed with the traditional Social Security program, and a similar retirement plan is already in force for federal employees.
If I’m given a choice, I’m certainly going to have a private account, biased national polls notwithstanding. I’m familiar with the concept, as I invest through my employer in a 401.k account. I understand that it’s possible I could lose principal, but there’s no 20 year time period in the stock market’s history where it has a negative return.
Where Mr. Whitmore rails against 15 "cheating" floor traders out of the thousands on Wall Street, I have a problem with all of the 535 looters who work in the House and Senate. Those are the folks who have helped Social Security get into the trouble it’s in by spending Social Security taxes on general government instead of its intended purpose.
My take on reform is simple: let me do with my money what I want and keep it out of Washington’s hands. I’m certainly not in favor of changing Social Security for those who are getting it, their money should (and will) continue to be sent out every month. Remember, part of my Social Security contribution would continue to go into the program as it has been for the almost 20 years I’ve been working.
The Democrats have cried wolf about Republicans ending Social Security for ages. Yet the checks still show up as they have for decades and they don’t bounce. Who do you believe?
See, my usual letter. I propose a solution, I just don't complain shrilly that Bush is a liar/crook/slave to Big Oil/toadie to Dick Chaney. But I suppose I need to whine more to get ink.
Hey, I'm starting to get better at this blogging thing. I just learned about links within an entry, as you might have noticed. In the last couple days I also found out how to add links to my sidebar, and I installed a couple good ones, more than just the three my template came with. And I installed a counter to see if anyone is actually reading this besides me! If you are new and have never read through my little Eastern Shore conspiracy, please feel free to check out the archives (all 1 month of them). And welcome aboard! Glad to be of service. Hopefully I will link with other blogs both in-state and outside the Delmarva region.
And I have a public service announcement. I was reading in the Daily Times today about how Ocean City (just down the road from me) is hurting for tourists. So please, if you're someplace within a few hours' drive, come on down to the real "OC" and help us out. Hey, we managed to keep our foreign workers there, give them something to do. This way we make up for the money they send home by you tourists putting cash in our American coffers.
You know, the more I learn about this, the more I like it (as long as the links work). Keeps me on my toes, that's for sure.
They ran my union story in the Federalist Patriot today, and I got an "attaboy!" from the editor for catching the story. Actually, he punched it up a bit, but it was pretty close to what I wrote. So I'll let you look it up on the Federalist website and I'll write it here as I submitted it. Not quite like making laws, but the sausage grinder of the editorial process does massage what I submit most times to some extent. This one ended up actually very much as I wrote it, which means I must be getting better at this.
For the first time since his 1995 election to the post, John Sweeney, socialist president of the AFL-CIO, may face opposition to his campaign for a fourth term as head of the large umbrella union.
Citing a lack of resources for organizing because of expenses incurred in the political arena, several leaders of unions under the AFL-CIO banner including the Teamsters and the Service Employees International Union have openly encouraged a challenge to Sweeney’s election to another term. The millions of dollars of union dues spent on Democrat candidates have led to only modest success, with Bill Clinton’s 1996 reelection being the only large-scale union victory in a tide of defeat that has seen Republicans in Congress return to their 1994 levels. The 2002 and 2004 elections saw the end of a trend of Democrats eroding the GOP majority in the late 1990's.
Recently, in a move to shift more money to organization, the AFL-CIO laid off 1/4 of its Washington, D.C. headquarters staff and ceased publication of their "America at Work" magazine, which was issued 10 times a year. These and other changes were slated to add $10 million to their organizing fund, bringing it to $22.5 million a year. However, this yearly organizing figure is still dwarfed by the $35 million spent by the labor group back in 1996 to unseat House Republicans elected in the "Gingrich Revolution." The organizing number is further minimized by the more than $280 million spent on political contributions between 1989 and 2002. According to the campaign finance website opensecrets.org, 21 of the top 100 political contributors during those election cycles were the AFL-CIO and its member unions, with over 90% of those funds fattening the coffers of Democrat candidates.
It remains to be seen if this minor shift of money to organization will restore the union to its share of the workforce, down from 16 percent when Sweeney assumed the leadership of the AFL-CIO to its present 12.5%. With only the public employee sector is growing in union membership, the unions feel most threatened by moves from President Bush to privatize some areas of government.
But with the good comes the bad - they still didn't publish my Social Security letter. Bummer. I wrote this in reply to a letter to the editor in the Daily Times. I'd love to link to it but the paper has a lousy archiving system once they get past 7 days old. So bear with me on this one:
To the Editor of the Daily Times:
This regards the letter April 29th from Bill Whitmore, "Don’t let Bush sell out Social Security". I took it from a careful reading that he is an older gentleman, having lived in Chicago in the 1950's. That most likely makes him a Social Security recipient, or very close to the age for it.
As for myself, I just turned 40 and it’s apparent that feelings on Social Security private accounts are sharply divided on a generational basis. Those who "have" the benefits (backed by the AARP, which itself invests member dues in the stock market to get a good return) want the status quo, those who "have not" received them yet want revisions to a program that will be exhausted of money in the future unless some radical change is made. Some things to bear in mind: private accounts are completely voluntary, they will only cover a portion of one’s contribution with the remainder being placed with the traditional Social Security program, and a similar retirement plan is already in force for federal employees.
If I’m given a choice, I’m certainly going to have a private account, biased national polls notwithstanding. I’m familiar with the concept, as I invest through my employer in a 401.k account. I understand that it’s possible I could lose principal, but there’s no 20 year time period in the stock market’s history where it has a negative return.
Where Mr. Whitmore rails against 15 "cheating" floor traders out of the thousands on Wall Street, I have a problem with all of the 535 looters who work in the House and Senate. Those are the folks who have helped Social Security get into the trouble it’s in by spending Social Security taxes on general government instead of its intended purpose.
My take on reform is simple: let me do with my money what I want and keep it out of Washington’s hands. I’m certainly not in favor of changing Social Security for those who are getting it, their money should (and will) continue to be sent out every month. Remember, part of my Social Security contribution would continue to go into the program as it has been for the almost 20 years I’ve been working.
The Democrats have cried wolf about Republicans ending Social Security for ages. Yet the checks still show up as they have for decades and they don’t bounce. Who do you believe?
See, my usual letter. I propose a solution, I just don't complain shrilly that Bush is a liar/crook/slave to Big Oil/toadie to Dick Chaney. But I suppose I need to whine more to get ink.
Hey, I'm starting to get better at this blogging thing. I just learned about links within an entry, as you might have noticed. In the last couple days I also found out how to add links to my sidebar, and I installed a couple good ones, more than just the three my template came with. And I installed a counter to see if anyone is actually reading this besides me! If you are new and have never read through my little Eastern Shore conspiracy, please feel free to check out the archives (all 1 month of them). And welcome aboard! Glad to be of service. Hopefully I will link with other blogs both in-state and outside the Delmarva region.
And I have a public service announcement. I was reading in the Daily Times today about how Ocean City (just down the road from me) is hurting for tourists. So please, if you're someplace within a few hours' drive, come on down to the real "OC" and help us out. Hey, we managed to keep our foreign workers there, give them something to do. This way we make up for the money they send home by you tourists putting cash in our American coffers.
You know, the more I learn about this, the more I like it (as long as the links work). Keeps me on my toes, that's for sure.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Bush the loser
You know, I sometimes think partisan politics has reached a new low, but then we get this:
Link: http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/May-06-Fri-2005/news/reid.html
So our Senate Minority Leader thinks Bush is a loser? Tell you what, given your party's track record lately and the fact that you got your job because your predecessor lost his bid for re-election (too many votes down for the electoral fraud in Shannon County to kick in like it did in 2002), I think I'd be holding my tongue.
It's an amazing thing. I see a lot of very vocal people who think Bush has done this wrong or that wrong or the bad economy in Michigan is all his fault or he started a war for oil, but when 52% of the voters went his way in 2004 and his re-election brought the GOP Senate and House majorities upward, you kind of wish he'd keep being a "loser."
And this is not from the perspective of a Bush slappy. In 2000, I actually was a Forbes supporter until he dropped out. And I only voted for Bush in the primary to assure McCain wouldn't win. Plus I certainly do have objections to some of his policies:
Link: http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/May-06-Fri-2005/news/reid.html
So our Senate Minority Leader thinks Bush is a loser? Tell you what, given your party's track record lately and the fact that you got your job because your predecessor lost his bid for re-election (too many votes down for the electoral fraud in Shannon County to kick in like it did in 2002), I think I'd be holding my tongue.
It's an amazing thing. I see a lot of very vocal people who think Bush has done this wrong or that wrong or the bad economy in Michigan is all his fault or he started a war for oil, but when 52% of the voters went his way in 2004 and his re-election brought the GOP Senate and House majorities upward, you kind of wish he'd keep being a "loser."
And this is not from the perspective of a Bush slappy. In 2000, I actually was a Forbes supporter until he dropped out. And I only voted for Bush in the primary to assure McCain wouldn't win. Plus I certainly do have objections to some of his policies:
- He is not doing nearly enough to address the problem of illegal immigration. I do not think the idea of guest worker passes will be anything other than amnesty for those who flouted the laws to get here and do little to assimilate themselves into the culture once they arrive.
- Bush's "No Child Left Behind" is a problem; not from the usual perspective of the teachers' unions, who don't like the accountability aspect of the law, but from the Tenth Amendment perspective that schools should be governed by the individual states. All NCLB does is increase the stick of losing federal funds for the carrot of limited school choice - you can get out of a bad school, but what if there's no good schools nearby?
- He has yet to wield the veto pen for any bill, let alone a pork-laden spending bill. This means we have the largest budget ever this year, with most of it being items that would be managed much better if he would stand up to Congress and tell them "pass this bill without (fill in the blank)."
On the other hand:
- It takes a lot of courage to fight terrorism and make the hard decisions to send our troops off to a war on terror. I support both our troops and their mission.
- The tax cuts he got through a split Congress got us back from the recession that started at the end of Bill Clinton's term and was refueled by the tragedy of 9-11.
- Social Security has needed reform for awhile, and his idea of personal accounts may be the beginning of seeing Social Security finally "wither on the vine," to be replaced by a system where saving for your retirement is a choice, not a mandate.
And I shudder to think what we would be like under a Gore or Kerry presidency.
It's going to be very difficult for whoever wins the GOP nomination in 2008 to run far from the ideas Bush has enacted, because there's overwhelming support for them anywhere you find flyover country. Even here in our blue state the counties of the Eastern Shore went unanimously for Dubya.
So, far from being a loser, Bush is keeping above the fray. The biggest loser is Harry Reid, bitter at being saddled in the minority for the foreseeable future and watching as his big-government ideas are deluged by a red conservative tide sweeping the country, especially among the youth. Maybe they're "South Park" conservatives, but they're conservative nonetheless and I look forward to the best and brightest of their generation running the country. Meanwhile the true losers will bitch and complain in the few liberal bastions remaining, pining for the good old days of the Commander-in-Heat, Bill Clinton.
Sunday, May 08, 2005
All in the name of fairness
Yes, let me beat that Wal-Mart horse some more. But today our local state Delegate, a gentleman by the name of Norman Conway, had to weigh in with his thoughts on the "Fair Share Health Care Act." Here's the link to the Daily Times article:
http://www.delmarvanow.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050508/OPINION01/505080321/1014/OPINION
I really loved this line:
"All I desire is fairness for our established businesses and for the workers who will fill the jobs Wal-Mart brings."
Well then...I have a a suggestion to bring about more "fairness."
You know that the Eastern Shore abuts the state of Delaware, and the state of Delaware does not have sales tax. So, since it's not fair for our local businesses to have to compete with sellers in the First State that have the advantage of not charging sales tax (which is a 5% discount) let's eliminate the Maryland sales tax for those counties on the Eastern Shore. Oh, I know, the Maryland state government would have to take a cut in revenue, but it certainly would be more fair to our businesses!
It's all about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Instead of making Giant Foods (who, with the help of the labor unions, basically concocted this measure against its main competition) work harder to find suppliers who charge a better price or strive to make their business more cost-effective, the Democrats in the Maryland General Assembly (of which Conway is one) decided to punish the achievement of Wal-Mart, a company that makes its business on providing and selling products at the lowest possible profitable price.
I find it quite interesting that Delaware, which was a "blue" state in 2004 and re-elected a Democrat governor at the same time, is known as one of the more "business-friendly" states as far as financial institutions go. Look at any of your credit card bills and there's a good chance that they get sent to Delaware. In fact, I drive right by the Discover Bank when I drive up to the casino. It's far from an imposing building, basically a decent-sized branch bank in the small community of Greenwood. The town is probably otherwise known as a speed trap along U.S. 13. The point is - some states know which side their bread is buttered on. It could be that the Democrats in Delaware are as liberal as any others, but they seem to understand that having lots of businesses in their state creates more wealth and a larger pie to slice out of and create the nanny state they dream about.
But our Democrats in Annapolis do not seem to understand that companies want a state where they won't be punished if successful. With what they have done in this legislative session, I'm betting companies could start thinking twice about Maryland as a base of operations - especially with Delaware close by and Virginia adjacent to the DC area. And this guest editorial by Delegate Conway shows the reason why.
http://www.delmarvanow.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050508/OPINION01/505080321/1014/OPINION
I really loved this line:
"All I desire is fairness for our established businesses and for the workers who will fill the jobs Wal-Mart brings."
Well then...I have a a suggestion to bring about more "fairness."
You know that the Eastern Shore abuts the state of Delaware, and the state of Delaware does not have sales tax. So, since it's not fair for our local businesses to have to compete with sellers in the First State that have the advantage of not charging sales tax (which is a 5% discount) let's eliminate the Maryland sales tax for those counties on the Eastern Shore. Oh, I know, the Maryland state government would have to take a cut in revenue, but it certainly would be more fair to our businesses!
It's all about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Instead of making Giant Foods (who, with the help of the labor unions, basically concocted this measure against its main competition) work harder to find suppliers who charge a better price or strive to make their business more cost-effective, the Democrats in the Maryland General Assembly (of which Conway is one) decided to punish the achievement of Wal-Mart, a company that makes its business on providing and selling products at the lowest possible profitable price.
I find it quite interesting that Delaware, which was a "blue" state in 2004 and re-elected a Democrat governor at the same time, is known as one of the more "business-friendly" states as far as financial institutions go. Look at any of your credit card bills and there's a good chance that they get sent to Delaware. In fact, I drive right by the Discover Bank when I drive up to the casino. It's far from an imposing building, basically a decent-sized branch bank in the small community of Greenwood. The town is probably otherwise known as a speed trap along U.S. 13. The point is - some states know which side their bread is buttered on. It could be that the Democrats in Delaware are as liberal as any others, but they seem to understand that having lots of businesses in their state creates more wealth and a larger pie to slice out of and create the nanny state they dream about.
But our Democrats in Annapolis do not seem to understand that companies want a state where they won't be punished if successful. With what they have done in this legislative session, I'm betting companies could start thinking twice about Maryland as a base of operations - especially with Delaware close by and Virginia adjacent to the DC area. And this guest editorial by Delegate Conway shows the reason why.
Saturday, May 07, 2005
Saturday outpouring
Two blog entries in less than 12 hours. I had a lot of pent-up writing in me I guess.
You know though, I like being on the "cutting edge" as it were. This is what I wrote on April 14:
"Boy, were (the unions) ecstatic about sticking it to a successful business. Wonder how they'll feel when GM says, 'Boys, we're going to have to stop paying for all your health care because otherwise we're going out of business. You need to tell your DNC brethren in the environmental area to quit bitching about ANWR drilling, because without any new oil, we're not selling any Tahoes or Hummers. And you know as much as we do that those big SUV's are the most profitable things we have going...and they ain't going to fly out of showrooms with $3 a gallon gas. Sure, Saturns and Cobalts are nice, but we don't make a whole lot on them...not enough to pay for every doctor visit for every hangnail you have or month's supply of Viagra you want.' "
Now, George Will in the New York Post on May 1st:
"In 2003, GM's pension fund needed an infusion from the largest corporate debt offering in history. And the cost of providing health coverage for 1.1 million GM workers, retirees and dependents is estimated to be $5.6 billion this year. Their coverage is enviable — at most, small co-payments for visits to doctors and for pharmaceuticals, but no deductibles or monthly premiums.
GM says health expenditures — $1,525 per car produced; there is more health care than steel in a GM vehicle's price tag — are one of the main reasons it lost $1.1 billion in the first quarter of 2005. Ford's profits fell 38 percent, and although Ford had forecast 2005 profits of $1.4 billion to $1.7 billion, it now probably will have a year's loss of $100 million to $200 million."
Reading further:
"GM says its health-care burdens, negotiated with the United Auto Workers, put it at a $5 billion disadvantage against Toyota in the United States because Japan's government, not Japanese employers, provides almost all health care in Japan. This reasoning could produce a push by much of corporate America for the federal government to assume more health-care costs. This would be done in the name of 'leveling the playing field' to produce competitive 'fairness.' "
And there's more:
"Health care for retirees and their families — there are 2.6 of them for every active worker — is 69 percent of GM's health costs. GM says it has $19.8 billion in cash and normal mortality rates will reduce the ratio of retirees to active workers."
So basically what we have is the first American welfare state going down, all due to the cost of cradle to grave health care, paid for by the company. Now, I pay a portion of my health care costs along with the costs of my ex-spouse for another few months. At that point, I'll likely become a net gain to CareFirst or at least a break-even, depending on what the prescriptions I take cost them. With my ex on their tab, they're losing money on me (one reason why she's an ex!)
But long gone are the days when the doctor or hospital sent you a bill and health insurance was only for those crisis times like a car wreck or heart attack, to be reimbursed once you sent in claim forms. And, to be honest, I like the tradeoff of paying a little more for my health insurance because I know that I'll get generally good care from my CRNP and my prescriptions are generally readily available and they do wonders for my asthma. I rarely notice I have it, and at those times I just take a puff or two on my rescue inhaler and I'm good to go in a couple minutes once I catch my breath. Happens maybe once a month.
I see the GM woes as the federal government in 20-30 years (if that long). Now I'm probably your "average" health care consumer. I generally try to take care of myself if I have a cold but on the other hand I see a chiropractor every 2 weeks. But I've not graced the ER of the local hospital (knocking on wood) and I go to the doctor every 6 months, which is probably appropriate given my age and condition. I'm well overweight but my BP and pulse are normal, probably because I work out 3x a week along with walking a treadmill and riding a stationary bike 2x additionally. If they could bring back Redux I'd be a happy guy.
We need to remember that "health care is not a right"; well, make that government-paid health care. If they could find private insurers to take over the Medicare and Medicaid programs and sunset the government out of the health care market, I'm willing to bet that costs would drop and innovation would rise. As I get older, I really don't want socialized medicine like Canada and Great Britain have, where you wait for weeks to get vital testing. And someone needs to tell Telemundo that we as a country (and Californians as a state I'm sure) are not interested in paying for an ambulance to pick up some illegal with the flu because they won't have to pay, the government does. I heard this and that spiked my blood pressure for a few moments. Bet if it were a private insurer, that practice would be cracked down upon. (Of course, being illegals, they would avoid payment anyway...how about instead of the ambulance they send a cop car and take them to the bus station to get a one-way ticket back to Mexico! Give them a surgical mask while they're at it.)
But I love being ahead of the curve, that's gotta be why I'm so confident I'm right about things. Like I said before, to me it's black or white, only gray I have is in my goatee. And I'm not going to run to the government to have them pay for my Rogaine should I get vain enough to want it.
You know though, I like being on the "cutting edge" as it were. This is what I wrote on April 14:
"Boy, were (the unions) ecstatic about sticking it to a successful business. Wonder how they'll feel when GM says, 'Boys, we're going to have to stop paying for all your health care because otherwise we're going out of business. You need to tell your DNC brethren in the environmental area to quit bitching about ANWR drilling, because without any new oil, we're not selling any Tahoes or Hummers. And you know as much as we do that those big SUV's are the most profitable things we have going...and they ain't going to fly out of showrooms with $3 a gallon gas. Sure, Saturns and Cobalts are nice, but we don't make a whole lot on them...not enough to pay for every doctor visit for every hangnail you have or month's supply of Viagra you want.' "
Now, George Will in the New York Post on May 1st:
"In 2003, GM's pension fund needed an infusion from the largest corporate debt offering in history. And the cost of providing health coverage for 1.1 million GM workers, retirees and dependents is estimated to be $5.6 billion this year. Their coverage is enviable — at most, small co-payments for visits to doctors and for pharmaceuticals, but no deductibles or monthly premiums.
GM says health expenditures — $1,525 per car produced; there is more health care than steel in a GM vehicle's price tag — are one of the main reasons it lost $1.1 billion in the first quarter of 2005. Ford's profits fell 38 percent, and although Ford had forecast 2005 profits of $1.4 billion to $1.7 billion, it now probably will have a year's loss of $100 million to $200 million."
Reading further:
"GM says its health-care burdens, negotiated with the United Auto Workers, put it at a $5 billion disadvantage against Toyota in the United States because Japan's government, not Japanese employers, provides almost all health care in Japan. This reasoning could produce a push by much of corporate America for the federal government to assume more health-care costs. This would be done in the name of 'leveling the playing field' to produce competitive 'fairness.' "
And there's more:
"Health care for retirees and their families — there are 2.6 of them for every active worker — is 69 percent of GM's health costs. GM says it has $19.8 billion in cash and normal mortality rates will reduce the ratio of retirees to active workers."
So basically what we have is the first American welfare state going down, all due to the cost of cradle to grave health care, paid for by the company. Now, I pay a portion of my health care costs along with the costs of my ex-spouse for another few months. At that point, I'll likely become a net gain to CareFirst or at least a break-even, depending on what the prescriptions I take cost them. With my ex on their tab, they're losing money on me (one reason why she's an ex!)
But long gone are the days when the doctor or hospital sent you a bill and health insurance was only for those crisis times like a car wreck or heart attack, to be reimbursed once you sent in claim forms. And, to be honest, I like the tradeoff of paying a little more for my health insurance because I know that I'll get generally good care from my CRNP and my prescriptions are generally readily available and they do wonders for my asthma. I rarely notice I have it, and at those times I just take a puff or two on my rescue inhaler and I'm good to go in a couple minutes once I catch my breath. Happens maybe once a month.
I see the GM woes as the federal government in 20-30 years (if that long). Now I'm probably your "average" health care consumer. I generally try to take care of myself if I have a cold but on the other hand I see a chiropractor every 2 weeks. But I've not graced the ER of the local hospital (knocking on wood) and I go to the doctor every 6 months, which is probably appropriate given my age and condition. I'm well overweight but my BP and pulse are normal, probably because I work out 3x a week along with walking a treadmill and riding a stationary bike 2x additionally. If they could bring back Redux I'd be a happy guy.
We need to remember that "health care is not a right"; well, make that government-paid health care. If they could find private insurers to take over the Medicare and Medicaid programs and sunset the government out of the health care market, I'm willing to bet that costs would drop and innovation would rise. As I get older, I really don't want socialized medicine like Canada and Great Britain have, where you wait for weeks to get vital testing. And someone needs to tell Telemundo that we as a country (and Californians as a state I'm sure) are not interested in paying for an ambulance to pick up some illegal with the flu because they won't have to pay, the government does. I heard this and that spiked my blood pressure for a few moments. Bet if it were a private insurer, that practice would be cracked down upon. (Of course, being illegals, they would avoid payment anyway...how about instead of the ambulance they send a cop car and take them to the bus station to get a one-way ticket back to Mexico! Give them a surgical mask while they're at it.)
But I love being ahead of the curve, that's gotta be why I'm so confident I'm right about things. Like I said before, to me it's black or white, only gray I have is in my goatee. And I'm not going to run to the government to have them pay for my Rogaine should I get vain enough to want it.
Thug money
All right, at the risk of getting my legs broken, I'm going to write this anyway.
I just sent in a contribution to the Federalist regarding John Sweeney and the AFL-CIO. It seems that there's a crowd in the union that wants him out because he's spending all his money on politics and not enough on trying to get more union members. And as I recall from having an ex-wife in the union, it's not hard to get one. You really have to try to not get unionized in the grocery business. Basically as I recall once 50% + 1 employees are coerced into signing a union card, voila! you have a union. It's not like they sit you down and do it by secret ballot, otherwise the union might lose! And they can't have that, they need to shake you down for union dues so they can send it along to whatever lap dog the Democrats put on the ballot.
Trust me, I read the monthly UFCW propaganda they sent to my spouse, if for nothing else than to laugh and occasionally get my blood pressure up with their most egregious lies.
As part of writing this article, I got a bit curious and did some research. What I found (and I'm really not shocked by this at all) is that 21 of the top 100 campaign contributors between 1989 and 2002 were the AFL-CIO and its affilated unions. I suppose I shouldn't have counted in the Teamsters since they weren't always in the AFL-CIO during the time, but still, they were a fractional part of that $280 million. Yes, I think in the mob parlance (how appropriate for the Teamsters) that's 280,000 large. Over 90% went to the D's; what a surprise, huh?
Now, don't get me wrong. Organizing to bargain for wages and benefits isn't a bad thing. I didn't do it myself, I told people what I wanted to make and when I got an acceptable employer who wanted to pay me that sum with a good benefit package, I took the job. But that's a lot for one guy who pushes a broom to ask for, thus the idea of strength in numbers was born. Get 100 broom pushers and they could shut down a company. Great idea in the 1900's. The unions claim that they're the ones who brought you the weekend, and I'll not argue with that...although a lot of times my weekend is one day.
But it's when they cross the line and give away money that was originally meant for the running of the union and bargaining (like money for unionistas on strike) to political candidates who may or may not reflect the views of the average rank-and-file guy - that's where I object. There was a case that went all the way to the Supreme Court (Beck v. CWA) where it was decided that unions could not force workers to pay union dues for political purposes. But just try that and see how quickly the blackball takes effect.
My dad summed it up this way, "unions are for the lazy man". It seems that if one wants to excel at his craft, the union's there to discourage innovation. Say there's a worker who can assemble 200 widgets a day, when the union contract says he only has to do 100. Rather than encourage the excellent performance (which would help the company he works for profit from increased production), they tell the worker that he better stop at 100, even if he only works a half-shift, if he knows what's good for him. One of my good friends was a union worker for a summer and saw this happen.
And it's my contention that Democrats are the party of the lazy. But someday Atlas is going to shrug if the liberals continue to advance an agenda of larger and more intrusive government. It's already happening in the union movement, their rolls continue to shrink in all areas except for public employees (in other words, bureaucrats). Why do you think it's almost impossible to kill a government program?
While it's true that with recent election results that conservatives are ascending, there's still a need for vigilance against a backslide. One thing about Democrats, they stop at nothing to hold power. Ask the would-be Governor Rossi in Washington state.
Hey, now for something completely different. Heard something interesting on Rush today. He cited an columnist who was familiar with the newspaper business who noted that the drop in daily circulation was congruent with the increasing coverage of political items on the front pages. Looking at the Daily Times, while today's lead article is about the Ocean City Springfest, plastered next to it is an AP story, "Hiring picks up, hopes lift for economy." And at the bottom below the fold, "New district court judge selected." So about 1/2 the front page is devoted to at least some type of government. Not saying that these aren't important, but the AP story especially carries a touch of editorializing.
But I don't read the paper in its print version, just online. And half the time it's because I have a pending letter to the editor or Grapevine comment. Well, that and check on how the Shorebirds did the night before. But I skip most of the paper. Maybe I'm ill-informed because I don't watch the evening news here either, but I use the internet for my news. It's much easier to pick and choose sources I consider reliable that way, there's thousands to select from. No need to wait until the afternoon paper shows or 6:00 to get my news now. Competition and a free market, you gotta love it.
I just sent in a contribution to the Federalist regarding John Sweeney and the AFL-CIO. It seems that there's a crowd in the union that wants him out because he's spending all his money on politics and not enough on trying to get more union members. And as I recall from having an ex-wife in the union, it's not hard to get one. You really have to try to not get unionized in the grocery business. Basically as I recall once 50% + 1 employees are coerced into signing a union card, voila! you have a union. It's not like they sit you down and do it by secret ballot, otherwise the union might lose! And they can't have that, they need to shake you down for union dues so they can send it along to whatever lap dog the Democrats put on the ballot.
Trust me, I read the monthly UFCW propaganda they sent to my spouse, if for nothing else than to laugh and occasionally get my blood pressure up with their most egregious lies.
As part of writing this article, I got a bit curious and did some research. What I found (and I'm really not shocked by this at all) is that 21 of the top 100 campaign contributors between 1989 and 2002 were the AFL-CIO and its affilated unions. I suppose I shouldn't have counted in the Teamsters since they weren't always in the AFL-CIO during the time, but still, they were a fractional part of that $280 million. Yes, I think in the mob parlance (how appropriate for the Teamsters) that's 280,000 large. Over 90% went to the D's; what a surprise, huh?
Now, don't get me wrong. Organizing to bargain for wages and benefits isn't a bad thing. I didn't do it myself, I told people what I wanted to make and when I got an acceptable employer who wanted to pay me that sum with a good benefit package, I took the job. But that's a lot for one guy who pushes a broom to ask for, thus the idea of strength in numbers was born. Get 100 broom pushers and they could shut down a company. Great idea in the 1900's. The unions claim that they're the ones who brought you the weekend, and I'll not argue with that...although a lot of times my weekend is one day.
But it's when they cross the line and give away money that was originally meant for the running of the union and bargaining (like money for unionistas on strike) to political candidates who may or may not reflect the views of the average rank-and-file guy - that's where I object. There was a case that went all the way to the Supreme Court (Beck v. CWA) where it was decided that unions could not force workers to pay union dues for political purposes. But just try that and see how quickly the blackball takes effect.
My dad summed it up this way, "unions are for the lazy man". It seems that if one wants to excel at his craft, the union's there to discourage innovation. Say there's a worker who can assemble 200 widgets a day, when the union contract says he only has to do 100. Rather than encourage the excellent performance (which would help the company he works for profit from increased production), they tell the worker that he better stop at 100, even if he only works a half-shift, if he knows what's good for him. One of my good friends was a union worker for a summer and saw this happen.
And it's my contention that Democrats are the party of the lazy. But someday Atlas is going to shrug if the liberals continue to advance an agenda of larger and more intrusive government. It's already happening in the union movement, their rolls continue to shrink in all areas except for public employees (in other words, bureaucrats). Why do you think it's almost impossible to kill a government program?
While it's true that with recent election results that conservatives are ascending, there's still a need for vigilance against a backslide. One thing about Democrats, they stop at nothing to hold power. Ask the would-be Governor Rossi in Washington state.
Hey, now for something completely different. Heard something interesting on Rush today. He cited an columnist who was familiar with the newspaper business who noted that the drop in daily circulation was congruent with the increasing coverage of political items on the front pages. Looking at the Daily Times, while today's lead article is about the Ocean City Springfest, plastered next to it is an AP story, "Hiring picks up, hopes lift for economy." And at the bottom below the fold, "New district court judge selected." So about 1/2 the front page is devoted to at least some type of government. Not saying that these aren't important, but the AP story especially carries a touch of editorializing.
But I don't read the paper in its print version, just online. And half the time it's because I have a pending letter to the editor or Grapevine comment. Well, that and check on how the Shorebirds did the night before. But I skip most of the paper. Maybe I'm ill-informed because I don't watch the evening news here either, but I use the internet for my news. It's much easier to pick and choose sources I consider reliable that way, there's thousands to select from. No need to wait until the afternoon paper shows or 6:00 to get my news now. Competition and a free market, you gotta love it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)