About Me

Name:Bob Confer
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Search

Blog Roll

 

The candidates and American jobs

Posted by Bob Confer on Saturday, February 23, 2008 5:51:35 AM
 From the 25 Feb 2008 Greater Niagara Newspapers

THE CANDIDATES AND AMERICAN JOBS
By Bob Confer, www.BobConfer.net

“It’s the economy, stupid.”

That phrase, made famous by James Carville for Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign 16 years ago, still rings true to this day. It always has and always will. When it comes to selecting who will run our nation voters are more often than not predominantly concerned with the economy and its impact on their livelihoods. Other issues, as important as they may be, take on a secondary importance to the individual. In the last presidential election George W. Bush won solely based on national security, but that approach has become almost passé in the current race. Security and warfare have taken a backseat to the economy which is, depending on who you ask, in or heading into a recession. 

The Big Three candidates have been talking a blue streak about blue-collar jobs and the importance of strengthening the American economy. Their talk is all bark and no bite because past actions speak for themselves. One of the niceties of having a trio of Senators running for the presidency is that you can analyze how they’ve fared in handling issues of national concern. They have a defined track record that shows what bills that they’ve introduced and what bills they’ve voted for and against.

Unfortunately, all three of this year’s leading candidates have very poor voting records when it comes to a happy business climate. They all have pushed along legislation that has increased the three “-ations” that inhibit a strong economy by imposing burdens on employers: regulation, litigation, and taxation. As those factors rise so do the structural (non-labor) costs of doing business in America, making foreign production - and now service! - more attractive to once-American firms. Jobs leave our borders for areas - not necessarily people – that are much cheaper.

In 2003 the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) released a report indicating the non-labor cost of production in the United States was 22% higher than that of our nine largest trading partners. At the end of 2006 they released an updated analysis showing that disadvantage had grown to a whopping 32%. This has little to do with unfair trading practices (the list of partners includes Canada, Japan, Germany, the UK, and France) and everything to do with the aforementioned “-ations” levied by our own government.

This sudden and frightening growth of costs occurred under the watch of all the candidates. Their responsibility for the mess can be determined from analysis of their voting records as provided by groups that are business-friendly or interested in small government. The NAM annually issues a report that gives ratings to elected officials based on how well they voted in favor of American manufacturing. The National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) does the same for all businesses. With its “Freedom Index” the John Birch Society (JBS) focuses on small government with their annual study of how Washington votes. All three groups working independently found vast weaknesses with the candidates during the 109th and 110th Congresses.

It was a given that the Democrats and their big-government, high-cost mindset would fail miserably. The NAM rated Barack Obama at 16% in the 109th and 0% in the 110th while the NFIB had him at 12% and 0% The JBS had him at 30% and he received yet another zero. Hillary Clinton received identical ratings from the NAM and NFIB and was barely better in the eyes of the JBS at 30% and 10%.

One would think that John McCain as the Republican would have fared much better. Theoretically, he’s supposed to represent the interests of these groups because, well, his party’s values were at one time based in a pro-business and small government mindset. But, reality is something quite different: His results were pitiful at best, nowhere near the standards of the GOP of old. The NAM had him at 63% in the 109th Congress and in the 110th he did not even take the time to vote on 6 of 7 bills. The JBS had him at 60% and 43%. His saving grace was that the NFIB had him at 100% in both sessions.

As you can see, all three candidates are proven opponents of the American economy and are in part responsible for the exodus of manufacturing and service jobs from our nation. Their voting records prove that they all would make for poor presidents in the realm of economics, furthering ruining our standard of living. As the next few months unfold when a democrat drops out and the two-party debates become hot and heavy you’ll hear them say otherwise, lying to every one of us, only pretending that our jobs matter in an effort to win our votes.

 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Congress Wants Your Water

Posted by Bob Confer on Friday, February 15, 2008 6:05:41 AM
From the 18 February 2008 Greater Niagara Newspapers

CONGRESS WANTS YOUR WATER
By Bob Confer, www.BobConfer.net

The United States of America was founded on the premise of natural rights with this underlying emphasis succinctly dictated as the unalienable rights of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

During the era in which the Declaration of Independence was framed the Pursuit of Happiness applied to property rights. Our founding fathers knew that Man has the right to attain property, keep property, and engage in the use of property to make his life better, all in manners that he saw fit as long as those same rights of others were not infringed. Despite the obviousness of such rights, the framers of our nation found it necessary to clearly define these rights in the Declaration and once again in the Fifth Amendment because history had showed to them that the inalienability of property rights had been cast aside by numerous societies and despots which in turn led to one of two things: intense oppression of their people or the collapse of such societies.

Over time, our government has strayed from these basal tenets. Property has become something that our government has gained illegally and expanded its power over, controlling it at whim regardless of landowner’s rights. Historically, we saw this manifested in our nation’s Indian giver ways when it gave land back to the Native Americans only to take it away with deadly force. In recent history we’ve witnessed our government abusing the “public use” portion of the Fifth Amendment by taking the power of eminent domain to unprecedented extremes, stealing land from families for the unjust benefit of corporations or the government itself. 

Matters look to only get worse with subjugation of water rights by the federal government. There is an upcoming Congressional hearing about pending legislation known as the Clean Water Restoration Act of 2007. Bills HR2421 and S1870 are sponsored by Representative James Oberstar (D-MN) and Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), respectively, and have significant cosponsorship right down the party line. This act, were it to be passed, would amend the language of the Clean Water Act of 1972.

In its current form the Act gives jurisdiction over navigable waters only to the federal government. This is not a perfect law, but its does have considerable merit because navigable waters are necessary for the common good in trade and nourishment, and those upstream can very easily affect the life, liberty, and happiness of others downstream if they weren’t regulated in their industrial and waste outputs or kept from damming the waterway.

The new version would delete the word “navigable” and replace it with the word “all.” Therefore, no longer would federal jurisdiction apply only to lakes and rivers, but it would be extended to all bodies of water – permanent or intermittent – everywhere in the United States, be they in your backyard or on your farm. The federal definition will be extended to include, among other things, streams, wetlands, sloughs, wet meadows, and ponds.

This land grab would allow the federal government through the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers to regulate how you manage any body of water on your own private property, even though said water will never come in contact with the properties of others. They will be allowed to control what you do and how you do it and will be empowered to force you to mitigate anything they might perceive as detrimental. This will have an undeniably negative impact on millions of property owners. Those who will have to answer to someone for land and water they own will be people who manage their ponds for fishing and leisure, miners who need water to pump their mines and wells, ranchers who need watering holes for their cattle, and farmers who need to irrigate their fields.

Not only is the revised Act an affront to personal property rights, but it is also devised in strict defiance of the rights of the people as a whole. Our nation was built on a republic style of government. Rule was supposed to work from the bottom up, from local to state to national, not the other way around as we’ve become so accustomed to. The bill would only extend this ill-advised practice as it would supersede local and state laws and control. 

 
In government, wording is – just like power - everything. Slipping that one little word “all” into the Clean Water Act’s language really can make that big a difference and allow them to steal our property rights. It’s a disaster waiting to happen, one that’s in lockstep with the continued erosion of what it really means to be an American.  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Looking for real economic stimulus

Posted by Bob Confer on Saturday, February 09, 2008 8:05:52 AM

From the 11 February 2008 Greater Niagara Newspapers

 

LOOKING FOR REAL ECONOMIC STIMULUS

By Bob Confer, www.BobConfer.net

 

One of the biggest problems with our style of government is that our elected officials are in a perpetual state of campaigning. They eat, breathe and sleep “reelection”, striving to maintain a lifelong hold on their office, one that is precipitously based (at least in their eyes) in 2, 4, and 6-year increments. Because of this their terms tend to be studies in salesmanship, every piece of legislation they pass an attempt to keep the voters contented and on their side for the next election. This has created a never-ending cycle in which our government operates only in the short-term, focusing on immediate wins with absolutely no attention to long-term consequences while failing to initiate plans that would truly be best for America’s future. We’ve seen this throughout our history, from the introduction of the flawed Social Security system to today’s tragic emphasis on ethanol.

 

Another very similar mind game employed by politicians is that of cementing their reign with a short-term plan that touches-up their tarnished image in hopes that people have a better appreciation for what has been accomplished over one’s tenure.

 

A combination of all of the above is currently what’s taking place with the federal government’s anticipated economic stimulus package. While the President brings about an immediate fix (read “Band-Aid”) to our economic woes he looks good riding off into the sunset. Congress, on the other hand, sees the sunset coming but another sun rising with the rebates destined to give their dreams of continued employment a much-needed boost. Consider it buying of votes for the 2008 election (which will affect all members of the House of Representatives and 35 senators). Were they actually concerned about our future - not just theirs - and fixing the economy for the long haul they would utilize different methods than what they are planning to.

 

For starters, the rebates are anything but rebates. To call the $600 gift a rebate is a misnomer. If it were a rebate, those who don’t pay federal income taxes would be denied a piece of the pie. Yet, they aren’t. If it were a rebate, as money left the public coffers federal spending would go down to compensate for the loss of revenue. Yet, it won’t.

 

The latter creates a very dangerous situation. With mismatching cash flows the “rebates” end up being fake money created out of thin air. We already have too much of this fiat money in the system and that is one of the factors that brought our economy to the point of recession. The American dollar has lost value at a phenomenal rate and inflation has spiked because the government has issued too much of the green stuff. The “rebates” might temporarily drive the economy upwards, but after the initial boost things will only get worse with so much more money being put into play. 

 

If the government truly desired to stimulate the economy and get some permanency out of the deal, the elected officials would make some difficult if not unpopular decisions and eliminate government’s excesses. Our nation’s businesses have a difficult time competing globally because our non-labor cost structure is 32% higher than that of our nine largest trading partners. All of the contributing factors to this competitive disadvantage are founded in governance: taxation, litigation, and regulation. Chipping away at those would allow us to sell around the world and, at the same time, it would make it feasible to produce goods at home and not abroad, inciting some serious economic growth.

 

Suggesting they do so is not a pipe dream, either. The cutting of spending and taxes is a proven tool of economic stimulation. One need only look across the Atlantic to see this in effect. Those in charge of once destitute Ireland decided to eliminate poverty not through entitlements but through empowerment. They cut corporate and personal income tax rates in the early 1990’s which in turn immediately drove their economy to incredible (and sustained) heights: Ten straight years of economic growth in the 6% to 10% range.

 

The impact that our “rebates” could have will by no means come close to such economic stimulation. Spending will spike temporarily and once the $600 gifts are gone personal finances and the health of our economy will be back to square one. The United States could right this wrong and follow a path similar to Ireland’s but we won’t…it just doesn’t fit into our elected officials’ campaign plans.     

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Flipping burgers is a job, too

Posted by Bob Confer on Sunday, February 03, 2008 9:48:17 AM

From the 04 February 2008 Greater Niagara Newspapers

 

FLIPPING BURGERS IS A JOB, TOO

By Bob Confer, www.BobConfer.net  

 

“If you don’t pay attention you’ll be flipping burgers for the rest of your life!”

 

Without a doubt most every high school student of the past thirty years has overheard this threat, or something very similar, come from one of their teachers. This statement, so basic and so common, is one that can be looked at in two opposing ways and I’m leaning towards disdain of its very foundation.

 

From the standpoint of the white-collar bureaucracy of modern academia the threat is elicited to grab the attention of a bad pupil and compel him to strive for higher grades and a better life. It seems well intentioned to most folks, but I find that it reeks of classism…a form of prejudice based not on race but social standing. By identifying a job as meaningless and decrying those who choose such a career path, the person partaking in such behavior is truly guilty of disrespecting his fellow Man and his role in our society.

 

Classists fail to understand that every job, dirty or clean, menial or amusing, skilled or unskilled, has its place in our economic system and meaning to the consumer. In any organizational structure everyone contributes to what you get out of a good or service. With expectations as high as they are - you as a consumer expect, want and deserve the very best – it takes an army of people to satisfy your needs. Each and every employee has some level of valuable input to what you receive and, essentially, your quality of life. CEOs and white-collar people may get the most press by defining the overall scope of a company and making its decisions, but there are many more countless people behind the scenes making products, moving products, ringing up your bill, providing your customer service and more. It’s these people, the “burger flippers” of the world, who provide for your materialistic demands.

 

These very same “burger flippers” are providing for more than just the consumers. They are also providing for their own families’ needs. Any individual who takes a job, as “menial” or as “dead end” as the classists may believe it to be, should be respected for his efforts in punching that timeclock daily, making a living and putting a roof over his head and food in his kids’ bellies. There’s something to be said for the work ethic and love of a working mother who’s taken a factory job or clerk position to bring some extra income to her family, improving their standard of life, all while she balances the matronly duties she accepts at the homefront. You can’t teach that sort of blue-collar ethic in high school.  

 

And, that’s not the only blue-collar stuff being ignored in schools. The skills aren’t being taught, either. Back when I was a high schooler (early 90’s) - and still to this day - school administrators looked at those interested in education at BOCES (machining, car repair, nursing, etc.) like they had the plague. The administration either did its best to push them towards standard classes or used BOCES as a dumping ground for “lesser” students. Vocational education has never been given the great respect it deserves. Ironically, those students who stuck with it despite their counselors’ reservations now have better paying, more-long-term jobs than their traditionally-schooled peers.   

 

Sure, a good many of the teachers who toss around the burger flipping threat may be sincere in their ways, not classist at all, instead wanting the very best for their students. But, the reality of life is, shirts and ties and high-paying jobs are not the normal way of life. Outside of the halls of academia and the theoretical world that it believes exists out there is an economy that is founded on middle-income, hands-on jobs and the numbers show it: The median household income in Niagara County (two breadwinners) is $40,000.

 

I guess that means there are probably a lot of people out there who never lived up to the expectations of their teachers. We’re better off because of that, because those expectations are and will continue to be very unreasonable and very unfortunate. If everyone were like what they wanted us all to be, nothing would get done. Products wouldn’t be made or sold, houses would never be built or repaired, and food wouldn’t be grown and prepared. Is that what we as a society want? No.

 

Long live the burger flippers!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »