Warning: This blog is political in nature.

If you are sensitive to political commentary,
please go back to my main Random Thoughts blog.

If you like political discussion, you may also like my Political Positions blog.
Showing posts with label unions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label unions. Show all posts

Thursday, February 4, 2010

Government Projects ≠ Created/Saved Jobs

Please, our politicians, please realize that government public works projects do not create or save jobs.
  • First, most companies that do public works projects aren't in trouble anyway.
This is simply because the government is already their main source of work, and the government hasn't cut back in those projects when the rest of the economy cut back.
  • Second, these projects don't add jobs, or at least not in any notable numbers.
These projects just keep the current employees a little busier. The companies can't just hire people from other "construction" industries (which are in trouble) without completely retraining them - a framing carpenter doesn't know how to lay asphalt, and a residential housing engineer doesn't have expertise in bridge design.
  • Third -- and as the President has paid lip-service to -- most jobs are created by small businesses.
Government projects primarily go to large businesses. In fact, President Barack Obama has tried to put in legislation that requires most work of large projects go to unionized companies.

Why? The President has said -- over and over -- that he never makes a move without consulting the unions. He also -- and illegally, I might add -- gave the majority ownership of GM to the unions, rather than to the collateralized loan holders, those who were given -- in writing -- ownership of the company or property, in exchange for the risk of the loan. You know, like your home loan? How would your bank like it if you filed for bankruptcy and the court gave your divorced ex-wife title to your house free and clear, and only gave the bank 2 cents on the dollar? That's not only unfair to them, it's illegal. But President Obama did just that, or more specifically, he directed his appointee "car czar" to do that. Sorry -- off-topic rant.

If the government bought lots of goods from small businesses - pens, desks, computers, stuff like that, the business would get a boost from that, and might hire some people, at least temporarily.

If the government would reduce taxes on owners of small businesses, you know, the demonized "wealthy" who make $250k or more, since all sole proprietorship and partnership business revenue goes on the owners' personal tax returns, they might be able to hire more people.

If the government would declare that no new fees, taxes, or regulations of any sort would be placed on small businesses, they might have enough confidence to hire some people.

Oh, and concerning capital gains taxes: Small businesses don't have "capital," stocks or bonds, to have any capital gains taxes. All "gains" show up as regular income for the owner. Besides, capital gains taxes have been 0% for years. But those rates are expiring, and some people (like President Barack Obama) think they can get some political steam by essentially just not raising them back to where they were, for a small group that wouldn't be affected by it anyway.

Friday, January 15, 2010

Promised Transparency? Clear as Concrete...

President Obama promised that all healthcare discussions would be televised live on C-SPAN.

The Congress did not do that, but the President could not control whether or not they would comply with his own promise.

This week, President Obama had healthcare meetings at the White House. This was his opportunity to fulfill his promise. Did he? Were all discussions carried on C-SPAN?

Not only were the meetings NOT televised, but no reporters -- at all -- were even allowed in the room.

But we know one thing that came out of the meeting. The unions were promised that they will be exempted from the taxes on "high-value" health insurance that everyone else will have to pay.

Sunday, January 10, 2010

Old jobs, new jobs

85,000 people lost their jobs last month. I associate with them, as I have been without a job for 13 of the last 14 months.

But good news! President Obama has announced that he is going to direct the government to spend even more money to create 17,000 jobs with green energy!

So, 85,000 jobs were lost due to Obama's lousy economy, and we're supposed to get excited about 17,000 jobs he supposedly created?

Nevermind that this is done with our own money. Yes, that includes me -- my unemployment benefits are taxed as income.

Nevermind that these jobs are related to one of Obama's pet themes. Imagine the response if Bush had "created" jobs by sending more people to Iraq, and that if anyone wanted one of these jobs, all he/she had to do was enlist in the military.

Nevermind that the idea behind green jobs is global warming, an exposed hoax that keeps getting promoted while we've got historic low temperatures and record snowfalls, not to mention record low levels of pollution in this country.

Nevermind that these are union jobs, closely affiliated with Obama's friends at SEIU.

Nevermind that these aren't high-paying jobs, well, wouldn't be if the unions weren't involved.

Nevermind that historically every job in "green energy" has resulted in 2 1/2 jobs lost elsewhere.

Thanks, Mr. President. I'll just sit here trying to find a job (I've been told that my industry in this area has 100 applicants for every posted job) while I watch my taxes go up even more.

Monday, August 24, 2009

"Stimulus" Exposed, This Week on Fox News

This week on Fox News (each night at 5PM EDT), Glenn Beck is going to expose the people and motives behind the "Stimulus" package.

He has given some information already on his radio show.

Rep. John Conyers said that he didn't need to read the bill, and mocked those who said he needed to, not because the bill isn't important, but because he trusts those who wrote it. This is a key in the Progressive movement - you don't need to actually do your job (that is, read the bill and make sure it is good for your constituents); just trust those who work with you in your movement.

So, who wrote the bill? Glenn gave some info on some of the people, but it's a long list. It includes heads / key figures in the big unions (United Steelworkers, SEIU), extreme environmental groups, Zero Population Growth, and members of the Revolutionary Communists. Not just "regular" Communists, but "Revolutionary" Communists.

Watch Glenn Beck at 5PM on Fox News for all the details. He is not speculating on this; he has all the documentation. (5PM EDT - adjust the time for your situation of you're not in Eastern Time.)

Thursday, July 2, 2009

McCain doesn't get it

For some reason, McCain (or his staff) still believes that Sarah Palin was the reason he lost the election. He doesn't get it.

Sarah is the only reason he did as well as he did. I know people that if it weren't for Sarah, they wouldn't have voted at all. The option was "Socialist vs Socialist Lite". Americans don't want our car companies run by the government. Americans don't want the banks run by the government. And Americans don't want healthcare run by the government. President Obama has effected some of these and is pushing for it all. But McCain was also pushing in this direction.

McCain just went to DC to meet with Obama. Why? McCain is upset with the unions. Why? Because he wants them to ease up on hiring restrictions against ILLEGAL ALIENS!

Even now, while Americans need jobs, McCain wants to give MORE of them away to ILLEGALS!

No, "no person is illegal". But many people are in the US illegally. That doesn't make their existence illegal. But it does make their presence in this country illegal. And it makes them criminals.

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

GM Bankruptcy, review

I just saw in my post from April 30 that I thought GM's bankruptcy would get the government out of their management at last.

WRONG!

The US government now owns 60% of General Motors. (Or Government Motors, whatever.) And Canada gets 12.5%. The UAW (United Auto Workers union) gets 17.5%.

And the bondholders, the people who were originally guaranteed by bankruptcy law to get at least their principal back, those who didn't take risk, those who needed stable investments, like school, fire department and police department pension funds, will get the remaining 10%, mere pennies on the dollar.

Stockholders get zip. Preferred stockholders (retirees living on a fixed income from dividends) get zip. Common stockholders (holding them as they split and increase value over time) get zip.

Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Chrysler bankruptcy

The company Cerberus owned 81% of the company, was owed $500M, and owned the Chrysler Building. They lose everything in the bankruptcy. They get repaid zero. They even lose the building.

The company Daimler that used to own Chrysler is owed another $1.5B. They get repaid zero.
Banks are owed $6.9B. They get $2B, 29 cents on the dollar.

The US government has put in $4.3B from the TARP bailout. They are also owed $300M in fees. This was supposed to be a great investment Chrysler would repay with interest. What do we get on our investment? Zero. No, worse than zero. We will give them another $3.2B in the restructuring and another $4.7B later.

The United Auto Workers has $10.6B in Chrysler debt. Remember from my last note that this is unsecured debt; they are only supposed to get what's left over after the secured debt is FULLY repaid. So, what do they get? A note for $4.6B (at 9% interest!), or 43 cents on the dollar, more than anybody else. Plus - and a big plus - they get 55% of the equity of the company. They went from not actually owning anything, and being last in line for repayment, to owning 55% of the company. Oh, and they also get $600M in "legacy costs", for stuff like pension and healthcare benefits, from Daimler.

Guess what? The "Car Czar", Steve Rattner, was Finance Chair for the Democratic National Committee. And guess what else? The UAW gives 99% of their political contributions to the DNC. Makes things clearer, doesn't it?

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

Unions vs The Law

For some reason, the Obama administration seems to really like the unions. Two situations that seem to show this:

The "Employee Free Choice Act", also known as "Card Check".
This act, which Obama sponsored last year in the Senate, will eliminate the secret ballot for unionizing a business. Whether a business will be unionized used to be determined by secret ballot. The "Employee Free Choice Act" will remove this, instead requiring employees to sign a card while being observed by a union official.

In the past, the pressure step, signing while being watched, was only a petition of intent; it only allowed the organization to proceed with the secret ballot. With the "Employee Free Choice Act", unions can return to early 1900's tactics of pressuring a person to vote for the union or else suffer some kind of punishment.


The Chrysler bankruptcy.
Bankruptcy law requires that secured lenders, those who have some kind of collateral with the company, like a home loan that has the house for collateral, or a car loan which has the house for collateral, get their money before those who have unsecured debt, those who lent the money just on the credit of the company, like a credit card.

In this case, the main secured debt is corporate bonds. The biggest investors in bonds are the fund companies; these in turn wind up with our retirement accounts and such. The main unsecured debt is common stock. The major unsecured investor is the union. According to the law, the bond holders should get all their money before the stock holders get anything.

Well, Obama doesn't like that idea. He, and those who work for him, call the investment funds things like "greedy", "speculators", and "refusing to sacrifice like everyone else". Instead, he wants the unions to get all their money, and the bond holders to settle for 35% of theirs. Excuse me, but it's not just "greed" or "speculation". It's called "the law".

Thursday, April 30, 2009

Auto industry bankruptcy

Well, Bush said that the "US auto industry" was too big to fail. (Never mind that Honda, Toyota, Volkswagen, BMW, and others make their stuff here, and frequently with more US-made parts than the "US" manufacturers...) We, meaning the taxpayers, have put billions into them.

Well, now Chrysler is failing anyway. YAY! We've been putting "good money after bad" for far too long, and I don't want the government running businesses anyway. And Fiat will get a good deal, because the tax payers and debtors (mostly small businesses) are covering the rest.

Now we just need to push GM over, so they go bankrupt too and get the government out of their management. And the unions too, while they're at it. Unions can be useful, but they've gotten to just be huge, political, and expensive bureaucracies of their own.