Inauguration tomorrow

Tomorrow at noon we get a new president.  You guys gonna watch? Any thoughts?    Historically, inaugurations tend to be dull, long speech about how the nation is doing and where we are going to go under X president.  Only a few are remember, like JFK’s and Lincon’s second inaugration.

 

Re: UAW and the Salon Article

Let me explain myself a little further. Russ, I know you read the Salon piece, which states that the Senators who blocked the bill work in right to work states.  Right to work states, in my mind, put unions in at a disadvantage. I will admit, however, the wiki entry makes a case for right to work laws.

Taking aside the debate of the right to work laws, let us delve deeper into why I said the Republicans are trying to break the union.  The Republicans have been silent on limits on executive pay in the loans they gave out to banks nor have they been helpful in stopping President Bush in weakening the bailout law to limit pay if you take the government loan.  So, first off, they are not treating management and workers the same.  In fact, they are asking the workers to do something they haven’t asked the CEOs to do.  Surprise!  CEOs were not called in on the negotiation for the auto industry.

Secondly, their $70 per hour for worker mantra is just false.  A New York Times Op-ed says not only is the $73/hour figure bunk but the savings are negliable on the price of a car.  On top of that, the UAW has already agreed to wage cuts and other concessions in the past to remain competitive internationally.  The UAW negotiates in good faith because a collapse of the auto industry would not be good for them either.  The Republicans ask the UAW take a wage cut so laugable, the bill would have to fail and the Republicans could have someone to blame for that failure.  The only conclusion I can draw is that the Republicans want to destroy the UAW because they are anti-union.

 

re: unions and that whole auto bailout thing

Am I reading the same Salon piece you did Anthony? When I read the article you linked to in your post I came away from it with what seems to be a very different impression.

While to some extent there are quotes to the effect of “this is the opening volley in the battle to come with the unions”, it seemed to me that the people they identified were not acting totally crazy in saying no to the bailout. Shelby’s quote, “Unless Chrysler, Ford and General Motors become lean and innovative and competitive in the marketplace, this is only delaying their funeral. I want them to survive, but they have to make that decision. They can strip down. They can become competitive,” seemed kind of sensible to me, does that make me crazy?

I certainly don’t understand any of the political strategy angles that you’ve mentioned but how does all this politicking mesh with the fact that a guy representing a place full of foreign car companies is probably not going to vote to bailout the Detroit 3? That to me isn’t the Republicans being hell bent on destroying unions, so much as about what you might expect.

As for them being hell bent on destruction, I’m curious to hear the answer to the converse question, why are you hell bent on preserving and/or empowering them further? Assume that I have forgotten everything they taught us in Doherty’s 9th grade US History class. The only motive that is immediately obvious to me is political, in that I understand the UAW to have been a great supporter of the Dems lately.

Basically, having not been following the news nearly enough, the only things I know come from having just read those articles that you linked, as well as these four posts on the Becker-Posner blog. Those guys are kind of notorious free-marketeers though so I assume that I’m getting a bit of a one-sided perspective from them. Please, do fill me in.

 

The Auto Bailout and Unions

If you get a chance read this Salon.com article.  The article talks about the Senators who blocked the auto bailout from going through. The reason the bill failed was because Republicans want the union to take a pay cut.  While this may seem reasonable to some people, one should remember, no one (Republican or Democrat) made any provision for bankers to take pay cuts when that money was given away.

From a strategy standpoint, I am not sure what the Republicans are going for here.  They will not look good coming out of this and in fact will look like they are against your average working citizen.  Why?  Because they haven’t asked CEO’s to take the same sort of pay cut.  They had a chance to create some good will going forward into 2009 but it looks like they just want to play defense until the 2012 election.  This attitude will not serve them well.  Especially because the American people are right on the middle of this issue.  If the auto industry goes down, the Democrats will blame the Republicans for being obstructionist.

What I also don’t get is why the Republicans are so hellbent on destroying unions in the United States?  I mean it is pretty clear that the Republicans who blocked this are in anti-union states.  I am sure the UAW would negotiate in good faith but the Republicans want to make the union out to be the enemy.  They do not want to focus on the fact that the auto industry is using outdated business models and making inferior quality cars.  While we have heard that the CEO’s of the big three will change their plans and become all new and shiny, they haven’t been pressed all that hard by Congress.  All in all I think the Republicans went for an easy target and it will backfire on them.

 

Let’s talk taxes

Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston is looking to tax non-profit institutions like hospitals and schools as a potential income source for the city.  At the same time the Speaker of the House in Massachusetts Sal DiMasi is looking to cut local aid to balance the budget.  First, I think Menino is doing the right thing, looking at the schools in Boston.  Many of these institutions have millions of dollars in land assets and seem to be endlessly expanding into the city.  While they are providing a great service to the city they are also not paying their fair share.  I am not saying the taxes need to be crippling but they need to pay something.  And let’s face it, these programs have become for profit institutions.

Taking aside certain non-profits, I want to talk about the second article a little more.  Cities and towns in Massachusetts have had to raise property taxes to make up for a lack of state funds lately.  Taking aside the usual left leaning platitudes, our country is not comfortable paying taxes even when the benefits to the nation are clear.  Mitt Romney, while governor, tried to lower taxes to 5 percent and was somewhat successful but also added more corporate taxes and ended certain tax loopholes.  This year in Massachusetts there was a ballot question to end the income tax that was shot down by the people of this state in a convincing fashion, a similar provision in 2002 was closer but still did not pass.  I think this lowering of the income tax rate  lead to the problem that DiMasi and Governor Deval Patrick are facing.

Barack Obama was harped on for saying he would raise the tax rate on the richest 1 percent of the people from 36 percent to 39 percent.  People cried that it would destroy the economy, that businesses would leave in droves, and that it would pay for wasteful government projects.  Yet, these things happened ANYWAYS with a lower tax rate.  The economy is in a bad spot, businesses have been outsourcing to India since Bush took office, and there are billions of dollars unaccounted for in Iraq by government contractors.

But what drives people to think that higher taxes are a bad thing?  Taxes, in my mind, are need in a society that looks out for one another.  Taxes pay for schools, roads, military, hospitals, research,and all sorts of things that keep our nation strong.  No one would suggest that we have a crippiling tax rate.  Do I wish there was no waste in government?  Yes of course but it is bound to happen but starving the beast or privatizing everything will not solve our problems.  However, this country really needs to take a look at its attitude toward paying taxes and using taxes.