The Unions and the Republicans have a lot in common

The Unions and the Republicans have a lot in common

It’s scary how much the Unions and the Republicans have in common. The Republicans can’t accept that this country, one way or another will be a predominately multiracial culture by 2034. They will have to come to grips with being a minority and allowing “illegal” immigrants to come into this country with only minor restrictions. They will have to understand that in the culture we are heading for Caucasians will be a minority and religion will not be allowed as an issue in electing our congress.
They will have to change the structure of the party to accommodate more progressive thinking.

The Unions were an important arm of labor’s movement during the 30’s, 40’ and 50’s in gaining better work conditions and decent pay for workers in factories and other large manufacturing organizations. Today they are a bloated bureaucracy feeding off the government ruling from days gone by that if the shop goes union the worker must have dues deducted from their salaries. Union dues that are used to support the democrat party who in turn propagate union policies. One of the biggest targets was the civil service at the Federal, state and local levels unionizing them and going after big retirement and health packages and they succeeded.

Today the unions are most afraid of the word they used in their initial efforts to form unions in the mining and automotive world, choice. They are losing the battle because states and local government are saying that the employee has a right to choose whether they pay union dues. They are also losing the battle because the retirement programs and health services that they succeeded in achieving during negotiations are not sustainable in the current economy. The unions need to learn just like the Republicans that the world is changing and they the unions need to actually offer specific services and help to their union members and comparable offers to potential union members.

Can you imagine how Republicans and Unions will feel when they read how much they have in common? The truth is that it is sad and both of these entities will have to change if they expect to survive.

2056, I Mean 2043

2056, I mean 2043

Fifteen years ago I started a book called 2056. The story in the form of a novel dealt with a University of Michigan study that indicated our country would become a majority of color by the year 2056. It covered the unique segments of the Hispanic population between Puerto Rico immigrants, Cubans, Mexicans, Central Americans and South Americans. I also covered the influx and influences of Asians, the gay community and of course the divisive elements of the black community. The story centered on a Caucasian President, his Hispanic wife and his recognition that he would not win a second term given the special interest of each of these diverse political groups. The President decides that he will convince his wife to run for his second term and in turn he would “control” her. Not so fast, he was going to control a bright and strong willed woman? She goes along with his suggestion but builds her own coalition among the diverse groups in anticipation of making her run for president as a real president.

You may or may not agree with the idea of the story line but I doubt you would disagree with the U of M study predicting 2056 as the year we become a majority of color. Well I’m here to disagree. The U.S. Census projection is now 2043 when we become a nation of majority color. The Census Bureau has designated the controlling factor in the voter base multiracial. Interestingly the Census Bureau projects the same needs in 2043 for our citizens as they do today, educating new immigrants.

I actually believe it is more than possible that the early 2030’s will become the crossover of this country to a “multiracial” voting base. Will the Caucasian community be ready to accept a totally different role in our government and the probable resulting change in laws I doubt they will be. The good news is that as the republican party is being forced to deal with mind boggling changes the Caucasians will of necessity have to deal with changes the forefathers of this country would never have considered possible.

I wish I had finish my book, 2056 because it offered some really interesting interactions between diverse peoples at the political level, but I didn’t, anyone want to try a projection of 2043?

Special Assessment

Special Assessment

If you belong to a neighborhood association or own a condo you’re probably familiar with “special assessments” for roofs, gardening, building repairs, etc. Well the government is no slouch and they have announced a special assessment for health care services.

I shouldn’t say the government announced because they didn’t but the Associated Press on Tuesday December 11 ran a story about a 25 billion dollar assessment charged to the insurance companies and businesses offering health insurance programs to employees under Obamacare. The assessment is actually a $63 per person fee to cushion the cost of covering people with pre-existing conditions under the new Obamacare health care overhaul.

This assessment is completely legal and is somewhat buried in the Affordable Care Act legislation is going to be a burden that according to most large corporations will be passed on to the workers. One employer said; we are being hit with a multi-million dollar assessment without getting anything back for it.

I should point out that the assessment goes into the HHS department and it is part of a bigger package of taxes and fees to finance Obama’s expansion of coverage to the uninsured. The projected cost of this coverage is to be $700 billion over the next ten years. However it is reasonable to assume that just like this 25 billion dollar assessment you and I can expect additional “assessments” because it is almost a certainty that like almost all federal government projects the actual costs will be wildly under estimated.

State and Local Incentive to Retain Business

Louise Story has authored a series in the New York Times lying out the folly as she sees it that tax breaks and other incentives offered by states and local communities need to be “nationalized.”
My argument against nationalization can be summarized by my example of the folly of GM management in the 70’s and 80’s that spelled the demise of this corporation, as we knew it.

Louise’s message this morning on MSNBC at least in part was that we need a national policy on tax breaks and incentives to level the playing field between states and to play in the global market. She used Texas as her example of “doing it wrong” by allowing Perry to convince business owners to move to Texas in exchange for tax breaks and other incentives. She says that while it is true that 50% of all private sector jobs created in the last ten years were created in Texas, she questions whether or not the jobs created were “good jobs” although she knows the states that lost business to Texas would happily have those same jobs back. Clearly she has a bias. This is why I find it hard to read a story that is supposed to be a “reporter” when in fact she has an agenda to nationalize local and state efforts to garner businesses to their respective states. I explained in earlier memo’s that I blamed GM for stupid contracts that gave outrageous health benefits, obscene raises and loosened quality of work requirements to a point where the product delivered was an embarrassment to GM and our country. Likewise I blame the politicians for giving tax breaks and other incentives at the local and state level to lure businesses to their area. Their motivation is selfish; they want to tell their constituents at the local and state level that they are doing something about losing jobs or gaining them from other areas. There is of course the union factor. In the early days the shoe business moved it’s manufacturing from the northeast to the south to lessen their ever-increasing manpower costs. Of course eventually the shoe manufacturing was moved overseas, The move of the shoe manufacturing off shore was the beginning of the scare to governors and eventually city councils to look at ways to keep business or get new business into their areas. The tax break seemed easy at first, just like it was easy for GM to give a “little more” on the health care plan or allow the union a “little more say over work conditions” with of course the same results, higher priced products with lower quality performance, enter the Japanese automotive manufactures.

Smart business people took advantage of the offerings from states and local communities and because the politicians wanted credit for gaining businesses or retaining businesses they didn’t sound the alarm that the original agreements in many cases weren’t be honored by the companies that took advantage of the breaks. Now the one thing I know that won’t work to solve the problems that have arisen from tax breaks and incentives is a “national program.” We can’t “level the playing field” in anticipation of efforts in the global market. Democrats won’t say it but they like libertarians and conservatives have seen the performance of Federal programs and it isn’t pretty. A national program means a Federally managed program and it won’t work. Federal management will add to the civil services head count and eventually increased costs to the taxpayers.