Tag Archives: Business

A Philosophy That Doesn’t Really Fit America

Posted on by

Today’s Washington Times posted a story and a video of a recent campaign speech by President Obama.

The statement:

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back.  They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.  You didn’t get there on your own.  I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.  Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.  (Applause.)

 If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.  Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.  There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own.  I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service.  That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires. 

Let’s look at that statement for a minute. Many successful people did get there on their own. In a classroom taught by a great teacher, there are no guarantees that any student is going to be successful. If a great teacher could make everyone in her class successful, we would have a lot more successful people. This unbelievable American system was not created collectively–it was created by individuals. Yes, we do things together, but we do things together as individuals–each contributing their own particular talent. Most of us have gotten over our envy of the rich–we understand that most wealthy people worked very hard to gain their wealth. The mindset in this speech is one of collectivism–not of free enterprise. This whole speech does not belong in an American Presidential campaign. It is an insult to the founding fathers of America.  

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Ponzi Scheme Works As Long As There Are New People Getting In

Posted on by

Today’s Wall Street Journal posted an article about the 1,400 union-run retirement plans that are poorly run and underfunded.

The article reports:

…Multi-employer plans in the U.S. are underfunded by some $369 billion. An estimated $43 billion of that off-balance-sheet liability belongs to the 44 S&P 500 companies that are exposed to multi-employer plans. The other 88% of the $369 billion is borne by small, mid-cap or private firms that may be even less prepared to cover the obligations. The report says Safeway’s $6.9 billion in liabilities amount to 76% of the company’s market cap, for example.

The article points out that CEO’s and union chiefs have ignored the problem, preferring to invest in current wages and benefits rather than funding pensions. If these unfunded pensions are dumped into the Pension Guaranty Fund, the people expecting the pensions will receive a maximum of $12,800 a year–the maximum payout of the fund.

In June 2010 I posted an article (rightwinggranny.com) about the coming crisis in union retirement plans. When you consider the amount of money the unions spend on political causes, you would think they might have some they could invest to make sure their workers actually receive the benefits promised them. Right now, union pensions are a ponzi scheme (just like Social Security). That will not change until union members realize what is going on and force a change.

Just for the record, the website Open Secrets is reporting that labor PACS have contributed $28,047,761 to political campaigns this year (figures as of April 30, 2012). Of those contributions, 88% went to Democrats and 12% to Republicans.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Evolution Of A Story

Posted on by

Yesterday The Blaze posted an example of how a story can be changed after it is posted on the Internet so it does not hurt the Obama Administration. The story in question was posted at CNN Money.

The original story stated:

“As Kermit knows, it’s not easy being green,” the story began. “There were only 3.1 million green jobs in the U.S. in 2010.”

Later, after the revisions, the story stated:

“Kermit has more company lately.

“There were 3.1 million green jobs in the U. S. in 2010, or about 2.4% of the nation’s employment.”

The information has not changed–the slant has.

The Blaze concludes:

“The Bureau of Labor Statistics just released its first tally of jobs associated with producing green goods and services,” the story says (take these numbers with a grain of salt; the administration uses an extraordinarily loose definition for the term “green job“).

“The utilities industry — which includes nuclear and hydroelectric power generation — has the highest share of green jobs, at nearly 12 percent, while the construction industry comes in second at 6.8 percent. Some 5.3 percent of federal government jobs are green,” it adds.

In fact, as reported yesterday on The Blaze, the federal government has invested billions of taxpayer dollars in agency-related “green” energy initiatives.

Which brings us back to the original point: for the amount of money that has been poured into “green” energy, 2.4 percent of the nation’s workforce hardly seems like a fair return on investment.

The whole thing makes me want to see a real definition of a ‘green job.’

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Does This Bother Anyone Else ?

Posted on by

Today’s Boston Herald reported that a bankruptcy judge has approved nearly $370,000 in bonuses for certain employees of Solyndra LLC.

The article reports:

Solyndra, based in Fremont, Calif., wanted to award bonuses of up to $500,000 to as many as 21 employees but scaled back its request after discussions with its official creditors committee.

Gee, that makes me feel so much better.

The article further reports:

Solyndra, which has failed to find a buyer to operate the company as a going concern, says it needs to retain key employees with the expertise needed for an orderly liquidation of its remaining assets.

For that kind of money I would volunteer to handle the liquidation! As I reported on January 23 (rightwinggranny.com), the liquidation is not being handled well:

At Solyndra’s sprawling complex in Fremont, workers in white jumpsuits were unwrapping brand new glass tubes used in solar panels last week. They are the latest, most cutting-edge solar technology, and they are being thrown into dumpsters.

This is taxpayer money, and as a taxpayer–I object!

Enhanced by Zemanta

Are Oil Companies Really The Greedy Ones ?

Posted on by

Below is a chart from the American Petroleum Institute showing gasoline taxes acoss the country.

Oil companies produce a product. They employ people in the production of that product. What oil product does the government produce? It would be interesting to compare what the oil companies make on a gallon of gasoline versus what the government makes on a gallon of gas.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Dangers Of Telling The Truth

Posted on by

On Wednesday the Atlanta Business Chronicle reported that the Secret Service had paid a visit to Bill Looman, the owner of U. S. Cranes, LLC.

The article reports:

A Waco, Ga., businessman has stirred up a load of controversy due to signs he posted on his company’s trucks that say: “New Company Policy: We are not hiring until Obama is gone,” reports Atlanta Business Chronicle broadcast partner WXIA-TV.

When Mr. Looman was asked why he was not hiring, he stated, “Can’t afford it.” Someone reported him as a threat to national security, and the secret service paid him a visit. The signs have been on his trucks for six months, but the pictures of them he posted on the internet went viral this week. Unfortunately, he represents the realities of doing business in America under the Obama administration.

According the Mr. Looman, the visit from the Secret Service seemed to end on a positive note. Mr. Looman is a former Marine who served ten years in the corps, and I am sure the Secret Service realized very quickly that his honesty was not a threat to national security.

Mr. Looman stated that he does not plan to take the signs down.

Enhanced by Zemanta

If You Really Want Companies To Hire New Employees Don’t Put Obstacles In Their Way !

Posted on by

Yesterday Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article noting that the jobs bill proposed by President Obama has a provision that would make it illegal for businesses to discriminate against the already-unemployed while making hiring decisions. No wonder lawyers love this President!

The article reports:

The proposed language is found in a section of the bill titled “Prohibition of Discrimination in Employment on the Basis of an Individual’s Status as Unemployed.” That section would also make it illegal for employers to request that employment agencies take into account a person’s unemployed status.

It would also allow aggrieved job-seekers to seek damages if they have been discriminated against. This provision in particular prompted Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) to argue that Obama’s proposal is aimed at creating a new, special class of people who can sue companies.

“So if you’re unemployed, and you go to apply for a job and you’re not hired for that job, see a lawyer,” Gohmert said on the House floor. “You might be able to file a claim because you got discriminated against because you’re unemployed.”

If you can’t make a living by becoming employed, you may be able to make a living by suing anyone who doesn’t hire you when you apply for a job.

The article concludes:

All this provision does is give those who don’t get the position a big invitation to file a lawsuit, especially against the deep-pocketed companies we’re hoping to convince to hire people now.  That will certainly benefit the lawyers who take these cases in order to get a piece of the shakedown money they can get out of these companies, but all that does is heighten the risk of hiring for businesses enormously.  If a company has a position that attracts 20 applicants, they have to consider the possibility that the new hire will cost them compensation for one employee and settlements for 19 non-employees, unless the business goes out of their way to hire the person who has been unemployed the very longest and therefore doesn’t have the same market value for their labor or for the company.

If you want to see the economy grow, we need to cut regulations, not add more. This is another headache for any company that is considering hiring a new employee. This regulation hinders job creation–it does not encourage it. The biggest thing we can do to grow the economy is cut