Yesterday I explained that I wanted to lay out what I thought were important priorities for the Presidency 2012-2016. This will be the planks of my platform should I decide to stick with the idea of the run (it will have to be a write-in campaign).
In preparation, I looked back at what I said in 2008. I think the same issues apply, so I'm going to steal heavily from my ideas back then. One difference I notice between 2008 and 2012 is the lack of focus on change. In 2008, almost every candidate was talking change (both the D's and the R's). Well, change happened, we went from a Republican in the White House to a Democrat. Some might say too much changed, some might say too little. But change happened.
My focus will be pretty much the same as last time, with some change thrown in for good measure. Here are the areas I see that need to be addressed for the next four years. This post won't tell you my opinion on any one topic, but instead will list topics I intend to cover later. They will be somewhat in priority order, but that's subject to change (there's that word) later on.
In my platform, I intend to address these topics:
1. National Defense - Iraq is over. Afghanistan will be soon. The current budget outlook for defense means major cuts. We're relying less on boots-on-the-ground and more on drones-in-the-air and special ops. Where do we go from here?
2) Foreign affars - Russia, Pakistan, Iran, India, Europe, Africa, South America, China (including trade) and Mexico (including immigration) - My only update to this list is to add the Middle East (Egypt, Libya, Israel, Syria, etc) and North/South Korea
3) Isolationism vs. becoming entangled in the affairs of other nations - it seems one candidate wants us to pull back and focus on US alone, I'll look at my ideas four years ago and update them.
4) National economy - Jobs, training, mortgages, housing, taxes and spending. I know you think this should be higher. When I look at the economy, I'll explain why it's ranked #4.
5) Healthcare, education and abortion, global warming, carbon credits (hopefully, I'll explain why I grouped these)
6) Points of light - This is an old George H Bush idea. I mentioned it yesterday in a phone conversation with a friend and think it needs to be addressed.
What did I leave out? What do you, the voter and my readers, want me to address?
Showing posts with label jobs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jobs. Show all posts
Thursday, January 05, 2012
Monday, December 12, 2011
My response to Occupy Wall Street
Last week I published a summary of my interpretation of Occupy Wall Street. The movement has sprung up in many cities and appears to be similar in all of these. This is my response to those movements.
First, let me say that I get it. There's a lot of frustration out there. People are out of jobs and worse yet, they feel their future has been stolen by financiers who haven't been and won't be punished for their incompetence. People like Patrick Meighan have been arrested (read his story here) and jailed over non-violent protests. I know that there have been some criminal acts committed by some of the Occupiers, but that doesn't change the message these people are trying to bring (it doesn't excuse it, but that's a different story).
I also agree with parts of the message of the Occupy movement, the financiers should be punished. The banks should have been allowed to fail and the people creating the mess should certainly not be in charge of the business that I involuntarily bailed out. And like them, I'm not convinced that the system can work itself out - I'm just that cynical.
But I also know that we live in the United States of America, a country with a system of laws and that we have to obey those laws. Even if politicians and bankers committed fraud and theft, that doesn't give me the right to break laws. If someone refused to leave when instructed by police, they deserve to be arrested. When Mr. Meighan (same story as above) was arrested, he complained in his blog that in most situations of this type, "the police just give you a ticket and let you go. It costs you a couple hundred dollars." One thing that is different in his case is that he would have gladly taken the ticket and ripped it up and never left the park he occupied. Police have an obligation to enforce the law (which he acknowledges in his blog) and in that case that meant physically removing the Occupiers and cleaning out the park.
I also know that it's possible to move up in the world. I grew up in a not-too-priviledged environment. I won't go into the details, but my college was paid on a combination of scholarships and grants (until I lost the grant because I made too much in a below-minimum wage job). I have worked at one job or another (and sometimes two at the same time) since 1973. My father taught me that there is always a job available for someone who was willing to work. This past weekend, I heard that Scheider National Trucking needs to hire 41,000 and Pizza Hut needs to hire 28,000. These may not be jobs that people want or may not pay as much as their last job, but they are jobs. And they pay at least minimum wage.
I decided sometime back to adopt the slogan "Think Globally, Act Locally." What that means to me is to elect the kind of representatives who push an agenda of personal responsibility. I believe this is the only way (if there's a way) to fix our national problem. By encouraging people to work, even at low-paying jobs, to pay off debts and to support the family, politicians begin encouraging a way out. As for acting locally, charity begins at home, helping the people in your community. I can't help Mr. Meighan in LA, but I can help the single lady in our church who sells real estate and hasn't sold any in a while. I can help the people who will come to me in February through April to file their tax returns (without charging them) so they can get the refunds and credits that are available under current law. I can help the couple whose husband is in a wheel chair and unable to work.
So while I understand the Occupy movement, I can't say I agree with it. I believe that instead of protesting, the occupiers would be better of returning to work and starting their own personal recovery. That's my thoughts, what are yours?
First, let me say that I get it. There's a lot of frustration out there. People are out of jobs and worse yet, they feel their future has been stolen by financiers who haven't been and won't be punished for their incompetence. People like Patrick Meighan have been arrested (read his story here) and jailed over non-violent protests. I know that there have been some criminal acts committed by some of the Occupiers, but that doesn't change the message these people are trying to bring (it doesn't excuse it, but that's a different story).
I also agree with parts of the message of the Occupy movement, the financiers should be punished. The banks should have been allowed to fail and the people creating the mess should certainly not be in charge of the business that I involuntarily bailed out. And like them, I'm not convinced that the system can work itself out - I'm just that cynical.
But I also know that we live in the United States of America, a country with a system of laws and that we have to obey those laws. Even if politicians and bankers committed fraud and theft, that doesn't give me the right to break laws. If someone refused to leave when instructed by police, they deserve to be arrested. When Mr. Meighan (same story as above) was arrested, he complained in his blog that in most situations of this type, "the police just give you a ticket and let you go. It costs you a couple hundred dollars." One thing that is different in his case is that he would have gladly taken the ticket and ripped it up and never left the park he occupied. Police have an obligation to enforce the law (which he acknowledges in his blog) and in that case that meant physically removing the Occupiers and cleaning out the park.
I also know that it's possible to move up in the world. I grew up in a not-too-priviledged environment. I won't go into the details, but my college was paid on a combination of scholarships and grants (until I lost the grant because I made too much in a below-minimum wage job). I have worked at one job or another (and sometimes two at the same time) since 1973. My father taught me that there is always a job available for someone who was willing to work. This past weekend, I heard that Scheider National Trucking needs to hire 41,000 and Pizza Hut needs to hire 28,000. These may not be jobs that people want or may not pay as much as their last job, but they are jobs. And they pay at least minimum wage.
I decided sometime back to adopt the slogan "Think Globally, Act Locally." What that means to me is to elect the kind of representatives who push an agenda of personal responsibility. I believe this is the only way (if there's a way) to fix our national problem. By encouraging people to work, even at low-paying jobs, to pay off debts and to support the family, politicians begin encouraging a way out. As for acting locally, charity begins at home, helping the people in your community. I can't help Mr. Meighan in LA, but I can help the single lady in our church who sells real estate and hasn't sold any in a while. I can help the people who will come to me in February through April to file their tax returns (without charging them) so they can get the refunds and credits that are available under current law. I can help the couple whose husband is in a wheel chair and unable to work.
So while I understand the Occupy movement, I can't say I agree with it. I believe that instead of protesting, the occupiers would be better of returning to work and starting their own personal recovery. That's my thoughts, what are yours?
Tuesday, October 04, 2011
The President's job speech - Reaction Part 2
This is a continuation of my previous post on the President's job speech. Part 1 is found here.
We are told that the President's bill (which was not released until days after the speech) will give companies an extra tax credit if they hire veterans. While this is a good idea, I'm not sure this will provide a lot of jobs and I don't think it belongs in a jobs bill. Was it added here so that the President could say that anyone who opposes this bill opposes veterans? I shouldn't be so cynical.
The bill offers "companies... a $4,000 tax credit if they hire anyone who has spent more than six months looking for a job." This is like the HIRE act I mentioned in Part 1 of my review, but it brings up an important point: why not limit unemployment benefits to six months as well? This way, you motivate both the employer and the employee.
The President promises us that the "typical working family will get a $1,500 tax cut next year." This is on top of the $2,000 we have already gotten. Anyone know where this comes from? It comes from Social Security payments we all make through payroll deduction. Someone should point out that this actually helps to remove the illusion that Social Security is anything but a tax.
President Obama promises that "the American Jobs Act will not add to the deficit." MSNBC (not exactly an anti-Obama source) in their fact-check of the President's speech explains this by saying "it will only be paid for if a committee he can't control does his bidding." To mis-quote President Truman, "the buck stops there" not with the current president.
Finally, about half-way through his speech, the President admits "this approach is basically the one I've been advocating for months." Nothing new. But pass this bill. Right away.
The speech goes on (my printed copy continues for five more pages), but as he said, there's not much new. The programs outlined are programs the President has been pushing for months or extensions of existing programs created and pushed with the last stimulus package. They didn't work then, and they won't work now. Congress should kill this bill. Right away.
We are told that the President's bill (which was not released until days after the speech) will give companies an extra tax credit if they hire veterans. While this is a good idea, I'm not sure this will provide a lot of jobs and I don't think it belongs in a jobs bill. Was it added here so that the President could say that anyone who opposes this bill opposes veterans? I shouldn't be so cynical.
The bill offers "companies... a $4,000 tax credit if they hire anyone who has spent more than six months looking for a job." This is like the HIRE act I mentioned in Part 1 of my review, but it brings up an important point: why not limit unemployment benefits to six months as well? This way, you motivate both the employer and the employee.
The President promises us that the "typical working family will get a $1,500 tax cut next year." This is on top of the $2,000 we have already gotten. Anyone know where this comes from? It comes from Social Security payments we all make through payroll deduction. Someone should point out that this actually helps to remove the illusion that Social Security is anything but a tax.
President Obama promises that "the American Jobs Act will not add to the deficit." MSNBC (not exactly an anti-Obama source) in their fact-check of the President's speech explains this by saying "it will only be paid for if a committee he can't control does his bidding." To mis-quote President Truman, "the buck stops there" not with the current president.
Finally, about half-way through his speech, the President admits "this approach is basically the one I've been advocating for months." Nothing new. But pass this bill. Right away.
The speech goes on (my printed copy continues for five more pages), but as he said, there's not much new. The programs outlined are programs the President has been pushing for months or extensions of existing programs created and pushed with the last stimulus package. They didn't work then, and they won't work now. Congress should kill this bill. Right away.
Friday, September 30, 2011
The President's job speech - Reaction Part 1
Ok, I'm a little slow in posting my comments to the jobs speech. The President spoke three weeks ago, and I've just gotten around to starting my comments. My apologies if you were waiting. But I promise to complete this fairly quickly. The speech was long, I printed it and it took 10 pages. My response will be long too,
I commented right after the jobs speech that I was glad the President spoke. I should have also said I was impressed with his speech. I was amazed the first time I heard him speak at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. I knew then, that he was going places. He's a good speaker and has good speech writers.
When I read the President's speech (found here), my first impression was that he gets it. He understands. He used words like "an urgent time" and said that we "face an economic crisis." These are strong, but accurate words. He understands that "millions of Americans... don't care about politics," they just want the problem solved. And he understands that the problem is unemployment. If we fix this problem, we fix the economy (and most likely the deficit).
But I begin to have problems when he began to talk about a "compact." He accurately depicted "an America where hard work and responsibility paid off" and where "if you did the right thing, you could make it." But I'm not sure that's a compact. And then he followed by saying that "Washington has not always put [the people's] interests first." While I'm certain that part is true, I'm not sure what, if anything, Washington's role should be in the compact between people and their employers.
After this aside, the President returned to the track that I agree with. He says that "our recovery will be driven not by Washington, but by our businesses and our workers." These kinds of statements give me hope that he may actually see the right way to run this country. But then he began to give details on his plan - The American Jobs Act. He repeatedly tells Congress that they "should pass [this bill] right away." Only there was no bill. For four days. After he had delayed his speech for several days. But right away, they should pass it.
Once President Obama began talking about parts of the to-be-delivered bill, I noticed a familiar refrain. First, he talks about cutting taxes for small businesses that hire new workers. This is similar to the HIRE Act of 2010 that I discussed here. This didn't stimulate hiring then, is there any reason to believe it will work now?
Next the President talks about putting "people to work rebuilding... decaying roads and bridges." Can someone say "shovel ready?" While I do believe transportation costs affect the economy more than any single factor, I don't think that just because "construction companies... [are] waiting to get to work" we should throw good money after bad. This didn't work in the previous stimulus, it won't work now. We may need to rebuild our infrastructure, but let's not call it a jobs program.
President Obama tells us that the American Jobs Act will "repair or modernize at least 35,000 schools." While I agree our schools need help (see here and here for two recent posts on schools), the best help would be for Washington to step away and let the states manage them.
The speech goes on with a promise to "rehabilitate homes and businesses in communities hardest hit by foreclosures." Wasn't this tried before? Didn't we pass a Mortgage Reform Act to reduce foreclosures? And how's that working out?
(more notes on the speech to come. Please feel free to comment now or wait).
I commented right after the jobs speech that I was glad the President spoke. I should have also said I was impressed with his speech. I was amazed the first time I heard him speak at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. I knew then, that he was going places. He's a good speaker and has good speech writers.
When I read the President's speech (found here), my first impression was that he gets it. He understands. He used words like "an urgent time" and said that we "face an economic crisis." These are strong, but accurate words. He understands that "millions of Americans... don't care about politics," they just want the problem solved. And he understands that the problem is unemployment. If we fix this problem, we fix the economy (and most likely the deficit).
But I begin to have problems when he began to talk about a "compact." He accurately depicted "an America where hard work and responsibility paid off" and where "if you did the right thing, you could make it." But I'm not sure that's a compact. And then he followed by saying that "Washington has not always put [the people's] interests first." While I'm certain that part is true, I'm not sure what, if anything, Washington's role should be in the compact between people and their employers.
After this aside, the President returned to the track that I agree with. He says that "our recovery will be driven not by Washington, but by our businesses and our workers." These kinds of statements give me hope that he may actually see the right way to run this country. But then he began to give details on his plan - The American Jobs Act. He repeatedly tells Congress that they "should pass [this bill] right away." Only there was no bill. For four days. After he had delayed his speech for several days. But right away, they should pass it.
Once President Obama began talking about parts of the to-be-delivered bill, I noticed a familiar refrain. First, he talks about cutting taxes for small businesses that hire new workers. This is similar to the HIRE Act of 2010 that I discussed here. This didn't stimulate hiring then, is there any reason to believe it will work now?
Next the President talks about putting "people to work rebuilding... decaying roads and bridges." Can someone say "shovel ready?" While I do believe transportation costs affect the economy more than any single factor, I don't think that just because "construction companies... [are] waiting to get to work" we should throw good money after bad. This didn't work in the previous stimulus, it won't work now. We may need to rebuild our infrastructure, but let's not call it a jobs program.
President Obama tells us that the American Jobs Act will "repair or modernize at least 35,000 schools." While I agree our schools need help (see here and here for two recent posts on schools), the best help would be for Washington to step away and let the states manage them.
The speech goes on with a promise to "rehabilitate homes and businesses in communities hardest hit by foreclosures." Wasn't this tried before? Didn't we pass a Mortgage Reform Act to reduce foreclosures? And how's that working out?
(more notes on the speech to come. Please feel free to comment now or wait).
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Is it time to rethink my economic ideas?
I'm not sure rethink is the right word, but I do believe I may change some of my ideas. I'm a supply-sider and always have been. Watching Micheal Moore's documentary on capitalism had no effect on me, I've been a capitalist since before 1973 (my first year with a W2).
But I recently did some research on the HIRE act of 2010 (Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act - details here). Most of the people I've talked to didn't know anything about this law, signed by President Obama a litle over a year ago. There were attempts to extend the act into 2011, but those failed.
Basically, the law gave a break to small businesses who hired an employee who had been unemployed for at least 60 days. Employers would not have to pay the 6.2% Social Security tax for those employees for the remainder of the year and would be eligible for an additional $100 tax credit if the employee stayed a year. One small businessman I talked to (who had never heard of the act) explained that if you hired two or three employees that way, you might be able to hire another worker.
Had I heard about this law early last year, I would have agreed that it was good. (Yes, I would have agreed that an Obama plan was good). I've heard of plans like this before and always thought they were good. It gets unemployed people back to work. That's good. They pay taxes. That's good. All good.
But I never heard about the act then. And neither did my small-business friend. And apparently, neither did a lot of other people. Was it a lack of publicity? Or a lack of enthusiasm? I suspect the latter. And I'm beginning to believe that acts like this have little or no impact on the economy. Unemployment went up most (all?) of last year, this act should have reduced unemployment.
So my question is, what CAN we do to increase employment?
But I recently did some research on the HIRE act of 2010 (Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act - details here). Most of the people I've talked to didn't know anything about this law, signed by President Obama a litle over a year ago. There were attempts to extend the act into 2011, but those failed.
Basically, the law gave a break to small businesses who hired an employee who had been unemployed for at least 60 days. Employers would not have to pay the 6.2% Social Security tax for those employees for the remainder of the year and would be eligible for an additional $100 tax credit if the employee stayed a year. One small businessman I talked to (who had never heard of the act) explained that if you hired two or three employees that way, you might be able to hire another worker.
Had I heard about this law early last year, I would have agreed that it was good. (Yes, I would have agreed that an Obama plan was good). I've heard of plans like this before and always thought they were good. It gets unemployed people back to work. That's good. They pay taxes. That's good. All good.
But I never heard about the act then. And neither did my small-business friend. And apparently, neither did a lot of other people. Was it a lack of publicity? Or a lack of enthusiasm? I suspect the latter. And I'm beginning to believe that acts like this have little or no impact on the economy. Unemployment went up most (all?) of last year, this act should have reduced unemployment.
So my question is, what CAN we do to increase employment?
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Seinfeld gets people fired
This story from the DesMoines Register shows how a joke from a Seinfeld episode went a little too far and got a man fired. Seems a group from the Brain Injury Association of Iowa attended an outdoor event where there were a lot of blooming plants. After one person sneezed, a lady in the group explained that in her house instead of say "Gesundheit" or "God bless you", she and her husband say "You are so good looking" - which was the basis for a Seinfeld episode. As the event went on, several people got into the game.
After the event, John Preston continued to email the lady telling her she was good looking. Apparently, he liked the episode of Seinfeld too. But this unnerved the lady, who complained to her bosses and they told Preston. A few weeks later, he met the lady in the hall and talked with her and "massaged her shoulders." She complained again and this time he was fired.
This wasn't the first time Seinfeld got people fired, another Iowa case in 2004 resulted in Ronald Knight of the Fareway grocery store being fired after he repeated some comments from a different episode. And in 1992, Miller Brewing company fired an executive for telling his secretary about an episode and showing her a word in a dictionary (the referenced article contains both stories).
What lessons can we learn from this? 1) Just because you saw something on TV doesn't mean you can repeat it in the office. 2) You can carry a joke too far and 3) massaging a co-workers shoulders in the workplace is NEVER acceptable.
In this case, some blame should also fall on the female. Apparently, she started the gag at the outdoor event. If it was unacceptable for Preston, it was unacceptable for her also. She needs to learn some discernment in sharing stories from her home life.
After the event, John Preston continued to email the lady telling her she was good looking. Apparently, he liked the episode of Seinfeld too. But this unnerved the lady, who complained to her bosses and they told Preston. A few weeks later, he met the lady in the hall and talked with her and "massaged her shoulders." She complained again and this time he was fired.
This wasn't the first time Seinfeld got people fired, another Iowa case in 2004 resulted in Ronald Knight of the Fareway grocery store being fired after he repeated some comments from a different episode. And in 1992, Miller Brewing company fired an executive for telling his secretary about an episode and showing her a word in a dictionary (the referenced article contains both stories).
What lessons can we learn from this? 1) Just because you saw something on TV doesn't mean you can repeat it in the office. 2) You can carry a joke too far and 3) massaging a co-workers shoulders in the workplace is NEVER acceptable.
In this case, some blame should also fall on the female. Apparently, she started the gag at the outdoor event. If it was unacceptable for Preston, it was unacceptable for her also. She needs to learn some discernment in sharing stories from her home life.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Oliver North Day
Today I spent a good part of the day cleaning out files. I changed jobs back on February 1 (actually 2nd since 1st was a weekend) and I needed to get rid of a lot of junk. Anything with a customer name on it had to be shredded (not that anyone really cares) and anything labeled "confidential" saw the same fate, even if it was years old.
I saw some documents from as far back as 2003, there were probably some older. Maps from airports to hotels that I've forgotten about and some others that I wish I could forget.
At the end of the day, I had four large bags of shredded paper. Fawn Hall came home from her day of teaching and tutoring and we had dinner.
Oliver North's got nothing on me...
I saw some documents from as far back as 2003, there were probably some older. Maps from airports to hotels that I've forgotten about and some others that I wish I could forget.
At the end of the day, I had four large bags of shredded paper. Fawn Hall came home from her day of teaching and tutoring and we had dinner.
Oliver North's got nothing on me...
Monday, December 15, 2008
Recession proof jobs
I think I've figured out a job that is recession proof. It's not glamorous, but it appears that this company has hired more people than they need to server their customers, and shows no signs of layoffs. The company? McDonald's.
Now, first, you have to understand their vision. Yahoo reports that "McDonald's vision is to be the world's best quick service restaurant experience. Being the best means providing outstanding quality, service, cleanliness and value, so that we make every customer in every restaurant smile." (highlighting is mine)
A couple of weeks ago, my wife and I stopped at this McDonald's in Duncan, SC. This was in the middle of a lot of other activities (see here for a description). We stood at the counter and watched nearly half a dozen workers mulling around on the other side without caring the fact that we wanted to actually buy something. After waiting for several seconds, we decided that they obviously didn't want our business, so we left.
Then last Friday, I stopped in this McDonald's in Chapin SC on my way home from Columbia. I had skipped lunch and was tired and hungry. I only wanted a drink and something small. Why I went in, I'm not sure, but I waited a couple minutes while three workers discussed looking through the cash drawer for an Obama quarter (apparently, one of them believed that the new Hawaii quarter had President Elect Obama's face on it, something I seriously doubt).
And finally, this morning, I stopped at this McDonald's for a cup of coffee. The lady was quick and not impolite (but not great either) as she took my order and asked if I wanted cream and sugar, then asked how many. When she handed me my coffee, I asked where the cream and sugar was and she said it was in the coffee. Yep, she had mixed it in for me.
Now, I'm not sure that mixing the coffee for me qualifies as quality or value, but I typically like to mix it myself. But it strikes me that McDonald's is the kind of place to get a job that's recession proof. Apparently, it doesn't matter how bad the services is, you'll keep your job and stay in business.
No one ever expects a gourmet dinner at McDonald's, but they do expect the company to live up to it's vision of "quick" (not fast) food. And I expect reasonable service. Apparently, it really doesn't matter.
P.S. Not sure the links will work to the map sites, if you're interested in exact locations, let me know.
Now, first, you have to understand their vision. Yahoo reports that "McDonald's vision is to be the world's best quick service restaurant experience. Being the best means providing outstanding quality, service, cleanliness and value, so that we make every customer in every restaurant smile." (highlighting is mine)
A couple of weeks ago, my wife and I stopped at this McDonald's in Duncan, SC. This was in the middle of a lot of other activities (see here for a description). We stood at the counter and watched nearly half a dozen workers mulling around on the other side without caring the fact that we wanted to actually buy something. After waiting for several seconds, we decided that they obviously didn't want our business, so we left.
Then last Friday, I stopped in this McDonald's in Chapin SC on my way home from Columbia. I had skipped lunch and was tired and hungry. I only wanted a drink and something small. Why I went in, I'm not sure, but I waited a couple minutes while three workers discussed looking through the cash drawer for an Obama quarter (apparently, one of them believed that the new Hawaii quarter had President Elect Obama's face on it, something I seriously doubt).
And finally, this morning, I stopped at this McDonald's for a cup of coffee. The lady was quick and not impolite (but not great either) as she took my order and asked if I wanted cream and sugar, then asked how many. When she handed me my coffee, I asked where the cream and sugar was and she said it was in the coffee. Yep, she had mixed it in for me.
Now, I'm not sure that mixing the coffee for me qualifies as quality or value, but I typically like to mix it myself. But it strikes me that McDonald's is the kind of place to get a job that's recession proof. Apparently, it doesn't matter how bad the services is, you'll keep your job and stay in business.
No one ever expects a gourmet dinner at McDonald's, but they do expect the company to live up to it's vision of "quick" (not fast) food. And I expect reasonable service. Apparently, it really doesn't matter.
P.S. Not sure the links will work to the map sites, if you're interested in exact locations, let me know.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Immigration
Unless you missed it, Greenville, SC made national news last week. Federal immigration officials raided a poultry processing plant. The result was that 330 workers were arrested who are "believed to be in the country illegally." This was at House of Raeford's Columbia Farms plant.
Back in January when I was establishing my political platform for the presidency (I've since withdrawn from the race), I was asked about my opinions on immigration. I responded at the time in this post.
I'd like to take credit for influencing the raid (and maybe rejoin the presidential race?). Seems the ICE officials followed a lot of my ideas. First, they followed my advice by enforcing the laws as they exist today.
An important note is that it was not only the illegal immigrants who were arrested, The Greenville News reported that 12 other employees were arrested/indicted on charges of immigration fraud. Someone at Columbia Farms had to know that this was going on, I'm glad to know they have been arrested also. How deep was the fraud? Well, the HR manager has been charged with "20 felony counts on charges of encouraging supervisors to falsify employment documents."
It should also be noted that ICE agents reviewed 825 I-9 forms "that verify a worker's immigration status -- and of those, 94 percent were found to be falsified" (see here).
So what's next? Well, about 1/4 of those arrested have been released (and will be monitored) to allow them to care for dependent children. And the belief is that "the majority of illegal workers will be administratively processed and deported."
We need to realize that the individuals involved are humans. One commenter noted that "families are going to be broken apart," to the folks at CNN. Also, some of the children, by fact that they were born here, are US Citizens. You may not like this, but it's the law. That's not an excuse to avoid deportation, but it is an indictment on the way we should treat these people: with respect.
I heard a report (unconfirmed) that the day after the raid, there was a line outside House of Raeford's for applications. After all, everyone knew that there were now 330 job openings. Seems the jobs aren't the ones that America won't take. Over a year ago, I commented on that idea (see here). I won't be putting a chicken breast on a machine at the plant any time soon, but I did have a job similar to this in high school. I decided it was something I didn't want to do for the rest of my life and went to college.
So here's my summary: Suspected illegal immigrants have been arrested. A judge will decide if they are illegal (should make Dan Kowalksi, "an Austin, Texas-based lawyer specializing in immigration law" happy). If they are illegal, they will be deported. Families may be affected and we as citizens need to step up to taking care of those who remain. Oh, and there are now some job openings in Greenville, SC
Back in January when I was establishing my political platform for the presidency (I've since withdrawn from the race), I was asked about my opinions on immigration. I responded at the time in this post.
I'd like to take credit for influencing the raid (and maybe rejoin the presidential race?). Seems the ICE officials followed a lot of my ideas. First, they followed my advice by enforcing the laws as they exist today.
An important note is that it was not only the illegal immigrants who were arrested, The Greenville News reported that 12 other employees were arrested/indicted on charges of immigration fraud. Someone at Columbia Farms had to know that this was going on, I'm glad to know they have been arrested also. How deep was the fraud? Well, the HR manager has been charged with "20 felony counts on charges of encouraging supervisors to falsify employment documents."
It should also be noted that ICE agents reviewed 825 I-9 forms "that verify a worker's immigration status -- and of those, 94 percent were found to be falsified" (see here).
So what's next? Well, about 1/4 of those arrested have been released (and will be monitored) to allow them to care for dependent children. And the belief is that "the majority of illegal workers will be administratively processed and deported."
We need to realize that the individuals involved are humans. One commenter noted that "families are going to be broken apart," to the folks at CNN. Also, some of the children, by fact that they were born here, are US Citizens. You may not like this, but it's the law. That's not an excuse to avoid deportation, but it is an indictment on the way we should treat these people: with respect.
I heard a report (unconfirmed) that the day after the raid, there was a line outside House of Raeford's for applications. After all, everyone knew that there were now 330 job openings. Seems the jobs aren't the ones that America won't take. Over a year ago, I commented on that idea (see here). I won't be putting a chicken breast on a machine at the plant any time soon, but I did have a job similar to this in high school. I decided it was something I didn't want to do for the rest of my life and went to college.
So here's my summary: Suspected illegal immigrants have been arrested. A judge will decide if they are illegal (should make Dan Kowalksi, "an Austin, Texas-based lawyer specializing in immigration law" happy). If they are illegal, they will be deported. Families may be affected and we as citizens need to step up to taking care of those who remain. Oh, and there are now some job openings in Greenville, SC
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Equal pay
I'm reading a book called "While America Aged" with a subtitle of "How Pension Debts Ruined General Motors, Stopped the NYC Subways, Bankrupted San Diego, and Loom as the Next Financial Crisis." (long subtitle).
Ok, it's a little biased. But can you guess who is GM's #1 supplier? To which other company does GM pay the most? You might be thinking a steel (or aluminum) company. You might be thinking an auto parts company. Maybe the company that makes interior carpeting. Windshields and glass companies. If you guess any of those, you'd be wrong.
GM pays Blue Cross Blue Shield more than any of those companies. And they're competing with Toyota which doesn't have the same cost structure. There's more to it than that, I've got more reading to do. And after seven LONG chapters describing the problems in PAINFUL detail, there will be a conclusion, 20 pages titled "The Way Out."
But something struck me very strange today while reading, waiting on a plane to take off (1 hour on the runway is no fun). In New York City, sanitation workers went on strike because their pension plan wasn't as rich as police officers' plan. After all, the reasoned, they were uniformed employees too.
Now I believe everyone should earn a livable wage. And yes, sanitation workers are part of everyone. But if supply & demand applies to products, why can't it apply to workers too? How many people can be a police officer? It takes a good bit of training and some amount of education (at least high school, in some areas a college degree). How many people can be a sanitation worker? In a city near me, they let prisoners do it (which bothers me, but that's another issue). Training is minimal, education less. No degree required. Seems that the supply of sanitation workers should be high, and the price (wages, etc) should be low.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't aspire to be a sanitation worker. I've seen what they do and frankly, I don't want to do it. I'd rather pay someone else to do it instead. But if the sanitation worker's salary ever tops mine, I would seriously consider switching careers.
More from the book as I move along in it..
Ok, it's a little biased. But can you guess who is GM's #1 supplier? To which other company does GM pay the most? You might be thinking a steel (or aluminum) company. You might be thinking an auto parts company. Maybe the company that makes interior carpeting. Windshields and glass companies. If you guess any of those, you'd be wrong.
GM pays Blue Cross Blue Shield more than any of those companies. And they're competing with Toyota which doesn't have the same cost structure. There's more to it than that, I've got more reading to do. And after seven LONG chapters describing the problems in PAINFUL detail, there will be a conclusion, 20 pages titled "The Way Out."
But something struck me very strange today while reading, waiting on a plane to take off (1 hour on the runway is no fun). In New York City, sanitation workers went on strike because their pension plan wasn't as rich as police officers' plan. After all, the reasoned, they were uniformed employees too.
Now I believe everyone should earn a livable wage. And yes, sanitation workers are part of everyone. But if supply & demand applies to products, why can't it apply to workers too? How many people can be a police officer? It takes a good bit of training and some amount of education (at least high school, in some areas a college degree). How many people can be a sanitation worker? In a city near me, they let prisoners do it (which bothers me, but that's another issue). Training is minimal, education less. No degree required. Seems that the supply of sanitation workers should be high, and the price (wages, etc) should be low.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't aspire to be a sanitation worker. I've seen what they do and frankly, I don't want to do it. I'd rather pay someone else to do it instead. But if the sanitation worker's salary ever tops mine, I would seriously consider switching careers.
More from the book as I move along in it..
Thursday, May 01, 2008
The report of my death was an exaggeration.
Mark Twain said that. There are variations on the quote, but they all say the same thing: "I'm still alive!!!'
I work with mainframe computers. For a long time, people have said the mainframe is dead. In 1994, Client Server Today magazine said "The mainframe is dead. It's time to give it a decent burial and move on."
In 1991, Stewart Alsop said "I predict that the last mainframe will be unplugged on March 15, 1996."
But a google search of "mainframe" will show that the mainframe is alive and well today and if you search "mainframe jobs", you'll get lots of hits with places to go look for employment. And if you look for "mainframe university", you'll see colleges are teaching about the mainframe too.
So who cares about the mainframe? Well, it seems to me that the same story applies to lots of things, and I just wanted to remind one of my readers in particular and hope she uses the analogy.
I work with mainframe computers. For a long time, people have said the mainframe is dead. In 1994, Client Server Today magazine said "The mainframe is dead. It's time to give it a decent burial and move on."
In 1991, Stewart Alsop said "I predict that the last mainframe will be unplugged on March 15, 1996."
But a google search of "mainframe" will show that the mainframe is alive and well today and if you search "mainframe jobs", you'll get lots of hits with places to go look for employment. And if you look for "mainframe university", you'll see colleges are teaching about the mainframe too.
So who cares about the mainframe? Well, it seems to me that the same story applies to lots of things, and I just wanted to remind one of my readers in particular and hope she uses the analogy.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Obama's Speech on Racism - part 3
This is probably my last post on this speech. The first post basically summarized the speech. The second post commented on the first part of the speech (on racism). This part will focus on the last part of the speech, where Obama transitions.
It's important to note that I think Obama is highly intelligent and I noticed him at the Democratic Convention in 2004. He's a man with a future, but I am suprised that he as risen to this level this fast.
Obama's speech talked in great detail on Racism. But the actual speech was titled "A More Perfect Union". Many in the press thought this would be his speech to defend Rev. Wright or to distance himself. He did talk about Rev. Wright and to some small degree both defended him and distanced himself. But I believe that this all set the stage for what Obama sees as the way to form "A More Perfect Union."
Roughly 4500 words into his speech, Obama transitions. He says "we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division..." Then he points out "if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction." I agree. Racism and Rev. Wright are a distraction. Focusing on these issues (and others like them) take the focus off the real problems in our nation. Obama (and I) has a better idea "we can come together and say, 'Not this time.'"
So what does Obama think we should focus on? Here's where my opinion and the Senator's diverge. Obama lists 1) "crumbling schools that are stealing the future of (all) children" first. Then he talks about 2) health care, 3) the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life (and offshoring) and 4) "how to bring (soliders) home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged."
Here's my differences: 1) Schools should not be federally run. Nothing in the constitution says that every one has a right to education. Leave the schools up to the states and local authorities. Get the federal government out.
2) Health care is an issue, but more of an economic issue. I've talked about my view on healthcare in another blog post (see it here)
3) Job protection (shuttered mills) and offshoring - Obama doesn't say what he will do here. I haven't studied enough of his platform to figure it out. I see the economy as a second tier issue, my comments are here.
4) Obama says the war in Iraq should not have been waged and we should bring the soldiers home. I disagree on both parts. We (including the UN) told Iraq and the world NUMEROUS times that they should comply with certain resolutions and they did not. We looked like the bully who drew a line in the sand, but backed down when the other guy crossed it. Hussein was a ruthles dictator who ground people up in meat grinders. He wiped out most of the Kurds and let his own people die will he lined his pockets. We watched as other countries skirted the economic blockades and profited at our expense. My only complaint is that we waited too long. Actions should have been taken sooner.
As for withdrawing the troops, if we do that now, Iraq will crumble. We have a moral obligation to protect the people and to help rebuild. We did this in Japan and Germany after WWII. It will not be over soon. There have been problems in the way this has been handled, but we shouldn't penalize the Iraqi people because of our cowardice.
5) Nowhere in Obama's speech does he talk about National Security. I believe this should be the #1 issue in 2008 and beyond. He ignores terrorism and in other speeches says we should sit down with known terrorist leaders.
While Obama only spent about 400 words on what it takes to form "A More Perfect Union", I believe this represents his ideas. While he wants to move the focus off of racism, he wants to move to the wrong items. And the way he focuses on those items is wrong.
It's important to note that I think Obama is highly intelligent and I noticed him at the Democratic Convention in 2004. He's a man with a future, but I am suprised that he as risen to this level this fast.
Obama's speech talked in great detail on Racism. But the actual speech was titled "A More Perfect Union". Many in the press thought this would be his speech to defend Rev. Wright or to distance himself. He did talk about Rev. Wright and to some small degree both defended him and distanced himself. But I believe that this all set the stage for what Obama sees as the way to form "A More Perfect Union."
Roughly 4500 words into his speech, Obama transitions. He says "we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division..." Then he points out "if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction." I agree. Racism and Rev. Wright are a distraction. Focusing on these issues (and others like them) take the focus off the real problems in our nation. Obama (and I) has a better idea "we can come together and say, 'Not this time.'"
So what does Obama think we should focus on? Here's where my opinion and the Senator's diverge. Obama lists 1) "crumbling schools that are stealing the future of (all) children" first. Then he talks about 2) health care, 3) the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life (and offshoring) and 4) "how to bring (soliders) home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged."
Here's my differences: 1) Schools should not be federally run. Nothing in the constitution says that every one has a right to education. Leave the schools up to the states and local authorities. Get the federal government out.
2) Health care is an issue, but more of an economic issue. I've talked about my view on healthcare in another blog post (see it here)
3) Job protection (shuttered mills) and offshoring - Obama doesn't say what he will do here. I haven't studied enough of his platform to figure it out. I see the economy as a second tier issue, my comments are here.
4) Obama says the war in Iraq should not have been waged and we should bring the soldiers home. I disagree on both parts. We (including the UN) told Iraq and the world NUMEROUS times that they should comply with certain resolutions and they did not. We looked like the bully who drew a line in the sand, but backed down when the other guy crossed it. Hussein was a ruthles dictator who ground people up in meat grinders. He wiped out most of the Kurds and let his own people die will he lined his pockets. We watched as other countries skirted the economic blockades and profited at our expense. My only complaint is that we waited too long. Actions should have been taken sooner.
As for withdrawing the troops, if we do that now, Iraq will crumble. We have a moral obligation to protect the people and to help rebuild. We did this in Japan and Germany after WWII. It will not be over soon. There have been problems in the way this has been handled, but we shouldn't penalize the Iraqi people because of our cowardice.
5) Nowhere in Obama's speech does he talk about National Security. I believe this should be the #1 issue in 2008 and beyond. He ignores terrorism and in other speeches says we should sit down with known terrorist leaders.
While Obama only spent about 400 words on what it takes to form "A More Perfect Union", I believe this represents his ideas. While he wants to move the focus off of racism, he wants to move to the wrong items. And the way he focuses on those items is wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)