A Little Test For The Big Three
Nov 18, 2008 Political
The Big Three American automobile makers are in dire straights and they are begging for a taxpayer provided bailout to cover their inept business practices. There is no way that taxpayers should be paying to bailout businesses that are not well run and that will never be profitable as long as executives make huge salaries (have to keep those private jets flying) and union thugs extort more from a well that has long run dry.
The news today indicated that the bailout would not take place because of Republican resistance. NOW the Republicans get conservative…
Anyway, the Republicans are on the right side of this issue but that won’t last very long. In a few short months the Democrats will have a president and a majority in the Congress. They will essentially be able to pass what they want because a few spineless Republicans will join them. Barack Obama favors a bailout of the automakers because he is beholden to the unions and that is probably one of the biggest in the country.
It does not matter that these companies make inferior products, they pay inflated salaries for jobs that require little education or skill and they have benefits packages that unions have negotiated through the stratosphere. The fact is, the executives want their big salaries, the strong back weak minded union members want their union jobs and the unions want payback for supporting Democrats. Therefore, the Democrats will kill to get the Big Three some of your money.
Oh, the test. If the companies want us to believe that they provide such a great product then we need to conduct a little test. Someone should go to the parking lots of each of the Big Three and count how many foreign (or non Big Three) cars are on the lot. I am willing to bet that a large number of those vehicles will not be made by the company for whom the driver works.
If the people who make the cars do not trust the company (or their own craftsmanship) enough to buy its products, why should we trust the company or the workers enough to bail them out?
Government does not belong in private business. If we end up bailing these companies out we will only be rewarding them for their failures (and encouraging unions to continue their extortion). We will also only be delaying the inevitable because it is unlikely that a taxpayers bailing them out of the mess they created will suddenly cause them to do things differently.
It will be more of the same but this time it will be with our money…
Related:
My Way
Tags: bailout, big three, extortion, failure, thugs, unions, us automakers
Why Politicians Jump To Help Investment Companies
Sep 20, 2008 Political
I don’t like the idea of taxpayer money going to bail out companies that made bad decisions any more than I like the idea of bailing out people who bought homes they could not afford. If you take bad decisions then you should have to live with the consequences. I understand why they have to bail out companies but I don’t like it. I can only hope that the companies are forced to pay the money back.
Why are politicians so gung ho to bail out the companies? They are guilty of causing the problem, (both parties share in the guilt) and now they are running to show they are on top of things when they should have been on top in 2003 when George Bush wanted to have tighter control or in 2005 when John McCain warned about increased taxpayer risk.
The major reason they are trying to get things on track is that it affects their pocketbooks. I don’t mean the donations that they were getting from the companies, which might or might not stop; I am talking about the stock they own in the failing companies.
The market storm that brought down Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., American International Group Inc. and other pillars of U.S. finance may have also blown holes in the portfolios of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senator John Kerry and more than 50 other members of Congress.
Pelosi, in her most recent financial disclosure form, reported that her husband owned between $250,000 and $500,000 of stock in AIG, which ceded majority control to the U.S. government this week in exchange for $85 billion of loans.
Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, disclosed that his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, had more than $2 million of AIG stock at the end of 2007, when shares were worth $58.30. AIG has fallen 85 percent this week to close yesterday at $2.69. The lawmakers’ aides didn’t respond to calls seeking comment.
Altogether, 56 senators and representatives had stakes in AIG, Lehman, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bear Stearns Cos. or IndyMac Bancorp Inc. — some of the biggest casualties of the market bloodbath — according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The most recent annual disclosure filings list investments as of Dec. 31, 2007, and reveal the size of holdings only within a range of values. Lawmakers may have sold shares since then. Bloomberg
When it affects their wallets they are pretty eager to react. The fact they have these holdings might be the reason they waited so long (and why Democrats opposed tighter control). When they were raking in the money they were not interested. Now that their stocks are dropping faster than Bill Clinton’s pants, they want to act.
Vote them all out. They are pointing fingers at each other but they are all guilty. Let’s show them that we are not holding one person or group responsible, we are holding them all responsible. Vote them out. These politicians are talking about bad CEOs and how they should be fired or lose their salaries for their mismanagement. I agree and to take it one step further, let’s hold Congress responsible for its mismanagement and get rid of them. They demonstrated that they don’t get it until it affects them so let’s make sure it affects them by removing them from office.
Tags: ceos, corruption, failure, stock market
Airlines to Charge for Passenger Weight?
Jun 3, 2008 Political
The airlines are considering charging passengers based upon their weight. Likening people to freight, the airlines believe they should weigh people and charge them according to that weight. It is bad enough that the airlines already treat people poorly but to treat them like freight is beyond the pale.
I thought that airlines charged for seats based upon how many there are left and how close it is to flight time. Since fuel prices have increased then they should add a fuel surcharge to each ticket. The idea of charging people based upon their weight is ridiculous because each passenger, regardless of weight, receives the same benefit from the flight. The seats have the same amount of room and each person gets the same free items (drinks and snacks). If a larger person has to pay more then he should get a bigger seat. Why pay more for the same size seat?
The airlines are charging for every thing imaginable and they are still miserable with regard to performance. Don’t get me wrong, I think it is great that they take off and land without crashing quite a few times a day but they are not the most customer friendly business around and they have a horrible on time record.
Having said all that, why don’t they just take all the books out of the seat pockets and stop serving drinks and snacks? That would remove a lot of weight and people would not have to pay more because they weigh more.
Maybe passengers need to pick a few days and refuse to fly. That would be so devastating to the airlines they might rethink their business model, a model that pays CEOs MILLIONS of dollars for running businesses into the ground. How can they justify charging people based on their weight with those kinds of salaries?
The airlines had better stop playing games and decide on a business model that includes sensible ways of making money without screwing people who provide them with cash.
Who do they think they are, Congress?
Source:
Bloomberg
Tags: airlines, charges, failure, passenger weight
Jimmy Carter Does the Unthinkable; Again
May 27, 2008 Opinion, Political
It is no secret that Jimmy Carter, America’s worst president, has a distaste for Israel and that he spends his time on unsanctioned missions of appeasement with terrorists. His actions go directly against the goals of the current administration and he harms not only our goals but his meddling is a direct threat to Israel. Carter recently stated that the US needed to negotiate [Doug Ross] with Iran and that Iran had rational leaders. Carter also suggested that the US should give Iran nuclear material to use for its peaceful purposes. Carter lamented that the Bush administration has not done what every other administration has done and that is to engage in dialog with countries with whom we differ.
Carter has now done the unthinkable and certainly something that no other administration has done. He has divulged one of Israel’s secrets. Carter told the world that Israel has nuclear weapons and then told everyone that the country has 150 of them. Carter disclosed a secret that has been held closely by other presidents as well as the Israeli government. It has long been speculated that Israel had nuclear weapons but the country would never confirm or deny that and they certainly never stated how many they might have.
Carter is an absolute disgrace and he has harmed an ally in his quest to destroy Israel and boost the terror supporting countries and entities of the Middle East. How far will this has been go to achieve his appeasement of harmful nations? Will he divulge US secrets as well? Will this idiot tell the world what we have and possibly where it is? Al-Qaeda must be listening intently for its next mission brief.
Jimmy Carter thinks we should negotiate with Iran and its fanatical leadership, one of whom was involved in the taking of American hostages on Carter’s watch. Jimmy Carter allowed Iran to take invade our embassy and take its people hostage. He tried to negotiate with Iran over this issue and I have one question for him; How did that work out for us? We all know that Iran thumbed its nose at us and kept our people for more than a year. They released the hostages when Ronald Reagan took office. Perhaps Iran knew that Reagan would not pussyfoot around with drawn out negotiations. They were afraid the new President would retaliate with military force.
Carter is way past useful to this country and only maintains his status as useful idiot to those who wish to do us and Israel harm. The US needs to keep an eye on this guy and keep him from disclosing any more secrets. If he violated any law we need to prosecute him.
Most presidents get out of office and work on their libraries compiling their successes and leaving a legacy. Some help the country with humanitarian missions or as advisers. Carter has nothing good to look at and his legacy is poor at best. If he had a successful presidency he would be busy working on his own stuff but since he failed to get anything right when he had the chance he is trying to fix it now. No one is asking him for his help and yet he keeps jumping in.
The only problem is, he keeps using the same methods that led to his failed presidency. Continually doing the same thing and expecting a different result is one definition of insanity.
Tags: classified, failure, jimmy carter, meddler, treason
Congress Should be Paid for Performance
Jan 13, 2008 Political
Some parts of the Federal Government have gone to a new pay system called the National Security Personnel System (NSPS) and it is supposed to be a pay for performance program where performers are paid more and non performers are laid less or even dismissed from service. From what I have read it is nothing more than a revised old boy system where those who have connections get great ratings and those who are not so well connected get an average rating. Despite being called pay for performance, my sources tell me it is only as good as the ability of the supervisor to understand what his employees do and how their actions equate to performance. Regardless, Congress allowed NSPS to take place and I think pay for performance is a good idea as long as they don’t change the rules a million times or lie about how it works, which seems to be the way government programs take place.
Congress should be on the same kind of system. The Congress just received a $4,100 cost of living pay raise that raises the average salary to over $169,000. When one considers the dismal performance of Congress it is not hard to see why they not only do not deserve the increase in pay but they should be giving money back. The last Congress had only 180 items signed into law and most were real important items like naming buildings such as post offices. If they ever rename the Capitol they can use the name Dewey, Cheatum and Howell building of corruption and inactivity.
Congress was good at adding earmarks and loading bills with pork. They added nearly 10,000 earmarks to the omnibus spending bill to steer our money toward pet projects in their home states. They have no idea of what fiscal responsibility is and they have no concept of being prudent with our money. Couple this with the fact that they work about 100 days a year and it is not hard to see that they are grossly overpaid for what they do. They take off for weeks at a time around every holiday and they take the entire month of August off. They have extended time off during elections and there are quite a number of members who have missed nearly a year of work because they have been on the campaign trail. We are paying them a salary to campaign.
Pay for performance is a good idea. Congress has this sneaky little method of receiving increases in pay. If they do not vote to stop the increase it is automatic. Then they can say they never voted to increase their pay. I think we should tie Congressional pay to performance. My first performance indicator is the budget. Congress receives absolutely no pay increase until the budget is balanced without raising taxes at all. In any year the budget is not balanced (and that means passed on time) they would not receive a raise. They would also not receive the raise until the end of the year so we could assess their performance. If you pay these schmucks up front you will never get good work out of them.
Next year needs to be the year where we get rid of all incumbents. In primaries people need to vote for the other person to represent the party so that incumbents are knocked out early. Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland should be a casualty of the primary but if he makes it through I and hundreds of my associates will be voting for the Democrat who runs against him. Why? Because he, like all others there, has become irresponsible. We need to rid ourselves of all of them.
I think we need to start over with fresh faces and fresh ideas. Until we can make that happen we should limit their pay and ensure they are not rewarded for the dismal performance we have seen.
Sources:
Townhall 1
Townhall 2
Tags: Congress, do nothing congress, failure, pay raise