Big Government

Rethinking Unions

by

As they currently stand, Unions are dangerous dinosaurs. But that doesn’t mean that worker interests have no need for structures that serve their interest. If we’re serious about believing in liberty, we need to address how to create viable, sustainable, superior worker organizations. They might just end up keeping the “union” label if the brand isn’t irredeemably sullied by its present users.

So what characteristics would this new type of organization have?

Sustainably low cost
Concentrate on proactively improving worker situations
Unabashedly pro-capitalist
Interventionist in secondary education, aligning student production better with worker needs.

Anybody have some other features?

So This Is How Democracy Dies

by

[youtube GNAHjsAnTd4 How Liberty Dies]

How is this for a headline?

“Key Democrats call for Ending Democracy”

Some people subscribe to the idea that politicians are stupid. They shoot from the hip until reined in by their consultants during election season. There is probably a great deal of truth to that. On the other hand, the use of the “trial balloon” is a well-tested technique for gauging public reaction to an idea.

With that in mind, I submit today’s WSJ’s “Notable and Quotable” into evidence to let the jury decide.

“Most Americans complain that government is unresponsive to their wishes. But not everyone feels that way. In the space of two days, two prominent Democrats have called for less responsive government that ignores public input.
 
One of them, former White House Budget Director Peter Orszag, penned a piece this week in the New Republic arguing, as the title says, “Why we need less democracy.” Orszag wrote that “the country’s political polarization was growing worse—harming Washington’s ability to do the basic, necessary work of governing.” His solution? “[W]e need to minimize the harm from legislative inertia by relying more on automatic policies and depoliticized commissions for certain policy decisions. In other words, radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic.” . . .
 
[S]imilar comments by Gov. Bev Perdue, D-N.C., are far more troubling. “I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover,” Perdue told a Rotary Club gathering in suburban Raleigh this week. “I really hope that someone can agree with me on that.”

Gaffe or Trial Balloon?

Read more

Boomers vs X’ers

by

This is along the same lines as Dan’s post below about generation differences. My friend John from Colorado put it together and it pithily sums everything up.

Cross posted at LITGM

I Learn Something New Every Day

by

I say “I learn something new every day” all the time. Because I do.

With skyrocketing fuel costs, I have begun to do research on more fuel efficient ways to deliver product to my customers. I live in a rural area, so we are forced to reach out and get the business. I work about a sixty mile radius.

I came upon the Ford Transit Connect. This is an interesting vehicle because of the relatively low initial cost and the 27 mpg on the highway. I did a bit of cocktail napkin math and this vehicle would pay for itself in fuel savings alone in about two years when comparing it against some of my gas guzzling diesel trucks.

While doing research on this vehicle, I discovered what the Chicken Tax was. I read about it on wiki.

To circumvent the 25% tariff on imported light trucks, Ford imports all Transit Connects as passenger vehicles with rear windows, rear seats and rear seatbelts.[9] The vehicles are exported from Turkey on cargo ships owned by Wallenius Wilhelmsen Logistics, arrive in Baltimore, and are converted into commercial vehicles at WWL Vehicle Services Americas Inc. facility: rear windows are replaced with metal panels and rear seats removed (except on wagons).[9] The removed parts are then recycled.[9] The process exploits a loophole in the customs definition of a commercial vehicle. As cargo does not need seats with seat belts or rear windows, presence of those items exempts the vehicle from commercial vehicle status. The conversion process costs Ford hundreds of dollars per van, but saves thousands over having to pay the chicken tax.[9] Partly because of this, only the long-wheelbase, high roof configuration is exported to North America. In most places, the high-roof Transit Connect, like most Ford Econoline vans, is unable to access multi-story parking because of its height (6′-6″).

I understand what was written, but was baffled as to why on earth a tariff on light trucks would be called a Chicken Tax.

I got curious, so I ran the wiki on the Chicken Tax.

The Chicken tax was a 25% tariff on potato starch, dextrin, brandy, and light trucks imposed in 1963 by the United States under President Lyndon B. Johnson as a response to tariffs placed by France and West Germany on importation of U.S. chicken.[1] The period from 19611964[2] of tensions and negotiations surrounding the issue, which took place at the height of Cold War politics, was known as the “Chicken War”.[3]
 
Eventually, the tariffs on potato starch, dextrin, and brandy were lifted,[4] but over the next 48 years the light truck tax ossified, remaining in place to protect U.S. domestic automakers from foreign light truck production (e.g., from Japan and Thailand).[5] Though concern remains about its repeal,[6][7] a 2003 Cato Institute study called the tariff “a policy in search of a rationale.”[4]
 
As an unintended consequence, several importers of light trucks have circumvented the tariff via loopholes—including Ford (ostensibly a company the tax was designed to protect), which currently imports the Transit Connect light trucks as “passenger vehicles” to the U.S. from Turkey and immediately shreds portions of their interiors in a warehouse outside Baltimore.[1]

I guess there is no real point of this post, other than to point out that yesterday’s thing that I learned was an interesting one. I now know what the Chicken War is, and also know what the Chicken Tax is.

Putting Alternative Energy and Government Workers First… Before Medical Care for the Poor

by

California faces intense budget challenges. The budget gap is approximately $10 billion, and instead of “fixing” them, their budget has optimistic assumptions such as extra revenue due to an improving economy and many other sleight-of-hand items. The California executive and legislative branches are all solidly in the hands of Democrats, who control the agenda but must at least negotiate with the Republicans on the topic of tax increases (because a super-majority is needed to raise taxes).

I wrote here about how the State of California has a super-aggressive (and expensive) plan to move to “alternative energy” even though the cost / unit is much higher than traditional forms of energy, especially when transmission is taken into account.

In contrast with other states where the government is attempting to make their union workforce pay more for insurance and pensions, the completely captured Democratic officials don’t even attempt to reduce compensation, benefits or pensions.

Thus how does California intend to balance their budget, when they 1) won’t reduce government union worker pay or benefits 2) won’t back off their alternative energy zealotry?
By reducing medical care to the poorest citizens in their state. This article in today’s Chicago Tribune is titled “Health Law Model State Eyes Drastic Surgery” describes the situation in California’s medicare system which covers 6 million children and poorer residents.

California spends less per beneficiary than any state. It is now seeking waivers from the federal government to impose copays of $5 for office visits and prescriptions, $50 for emergency room visits and $100 for hospital stays.. (they) would drop reimbursement for a standard physician visit to less than $12.

It actually is a bit worse than that. The co-pays would have to be collected by the doctors, and if they can’t collect the money, then their reimbursement will fall further.

And what would the likely impact be of these cuts? Per the article:

Many doctors have already closed their doors to Medicaid patients. Other providers are following suit.

It is telling that the Democratic-controlled executive and legislative branches have decided that protecting the salaries and benefits of their union workers has a higher priority than providing basic medical care for the poorest residents in their state. They also believe that an incremental (and insignificant) move towards alternative power, which costs billions, rises above the needs of the poor for medicine.

This is analogous to the teachers’ unions that put their needs and benefits ahead of the children, who suffer through some of the worst schools in the country here in Chicago.

I can only imagine the smug outpouring of punditry that would occur if the Republicans abandoned a core principle to the same degree that the Democrats in California are abandoning the poor in this instance. Like this article in the Chicago Tribune and LA Times, the fact that the Democrats are abandoning the poor and instead focusing on their own direct needs isn’t even mentioned, since it apparently isn’t a fact that they believe their readers need to know. The situation is presented as a sad part of the budget sideshow rather than as a calculating prioritization decision made on the part of California’s Democrats, which it actually is.

Cross posted at LITGM