Obama's Top Secret Motivation for a Federal Take-over of Health Care

Why is Obama so intent on getting universal health coverage in place as soon as possible? Is it just his socialist heart driving him to do what he thinks is the right thing to do for people?

Not on your life!

There is a hidden motive that has NOT been revealed in anything I’ve seen written about this administration’s hard-driving campaign for so-called “health care reform.”

What is that hidden motive?

The labor unions! In particular, there are the UAW (United Auto Workers) and USW (United Steel Workers) unions that have been clamoring for government-funded universal health coverage for nearly three decades. Then, do not forget how the federal government’s shared ownership of the GM and Chrysler with the unions’ trust funds plays into all of this.

Back in 1981, health insurance for union employees and retirees was costing U.S. automakers more than $400 per automobile. A few short years ago, that number had skyrocketed to nearly $3,000 per vehicle. Is it any wonder that Representative John Dingell (D-MI), Michigan's (and Congress's) longest-serving Member of Congress has been a champion of universal health care for more than 50 years -- that' right, since 1957. And, yes, it's the same Michigan that is home to Ford, Chrysler and General Motors. Is there a connection? Of course there is a connection!

Just imagine what happens if government-sponsored universal health insurance is made available. Suddenly the manufacture of automobiles at GM and Chrysler becomes about $3,000 per vehicle more profitable. Suddenly the unions have another $3,000 per vehicle to bargain for — again!

Make no mistake about it: Just like the “Card Check” legislation, universal government-funded health coverage is JUST ONE MORE PAY-BACK to BIG LABOR for the part the unions played in getting Mr. Obama into office in the first place.

STOP THE PAY-BACK! Contact your Congressmen and Senators and tell them that we cannot afford another multi-trillion-dollar political payback laid on the backs of the American taxpayer (the roughly 40% of us who actually pay taxes).

A Thread from a Linked-In Discussion

James:

2009 and a New President

Hello All,

How do you think the new year and new administration will effect either the industry you are in or your company indirect or directly?

Personally, I am in the banking industry, I am unsure what all this means for the banking industry.

Me:

DECLINES in personal liberties, national security, free enterprise, free markets, the benefits of capitalism and the value of the U.S. dollar.

INCREASES in taxes, federal regulations, socialist policies, fascist polices and risks to U.S. interests abroad.

James:

I am interested in hearing where this has all been stated. Is this a generalization or factual based statements on the new president. Also, I do see that the opposite of what your stating has not work over the past 8 years, so are you proposing what needs to happen?

Me:

Well, the previous administration inherited a recession, was afflicted by the economic outfall of 9/11/2001, and still managed to bring us 24 (or was it 26?) consecutive quarters of sustained growth with almost no inflation.

The new administration intends to takeover 15% of the U.S. economy via a federal health care program, which will INCREASE taxes; INCREASE federal regulation of the health care industry; REDUCE our individual liberty to choose our own path to health care; REDUCE the free market and free enterprise incentives to health care excellence in the U.S.; and emulate the socialist policies of other nations that have government-run health care. (That's just one example.)

Furthermore, the current economic stimulus package -- falsely so-called -- is nothing more than a virtual fire hose of money thrown at special interests and public works, and accompanied by "tax incentives" -- most of which are nothing more than the redistribution of wealth, since they are giving the so-called incentives mostly to those who DO NOT pay federal income taxes at all.

If the federal government intends to CONFISCATE THE MONIES of the wealth-producing populace through its foolish tax policies, at least DO NOT also insult our intelligence by telling us that the politicians are now going to HELP US by returning to us some small portion of what they have taken!

Yes, my statements are based on FACT -- historical facts. NOWHERE IN HISTORY has an economy been "stimulated" by confiscatory tax policies. NOWHERE IN HISTORY has socialism or fascism been demonstrated to improve the economy of any nation. Socialism, as instituted under the Soviet regime, managed to make the world's largest wheat EXPORTER (Russia) into the world's largest wheat IMPORTER (U.S.S.R.) in a matter of a few short years. (Were it NOT for the grace and supply of the U.S. government and the productivity of American agriculture, the Soviet government could not have survived for the 70 years that it did without major wars of aggression to seize new lands that it could pilfer and destroy.)

Show me any nation on earth where BIG GOVERNMENT has led to MORE personal liberty? Despite what President Obama said in his inaugural address, the SIZE OF GOVERNMENT DOES MATTER. The fact that a larger government, by its nature, results in or feeds upon more regulation is de facto evidence that BIG GOVERNMENT leads to a reduction in personal liberties.

Are we all looking forward to the day when the government's intervention in the auto industry gives us the grand selection of automobiles that was available to the typical citizen of the Soviet Union, and we, like the Soviet citizen, must "apply for" a vehicle and wait a year or two to take delivery of it?

Are we all looking forward to the day when the government's meddling in markets and confiscatory tax policies remove all incentives to excellence amongst our manufacturers? Then, perhaps, one day we will be just like the U.S.S.R. where the most common cause for house fires was -- of all things -- exploding television sets!

Are we all looking forward to the day when the government's ill-conceived "green" policies drive the price of gasoline to $5.00 a gallon or higher? Meanwhile, our food prices skyrocket because we've made our machines competitors for our food supply through government subsidized ethanol programs.

I wish -- even HOPE -- that I am wrong in my assessment. Meanwhile, I have grave concerns that I am not.

Management "plunder" on the Shareholders' behalf

"Paper entrepreneurialism is both cause and consequence of America's faltering economy. Paper profits are the only ones easily available to professional managers who sit atop organizations designed for a form of production that is no longer appropriate to America's place in the world economy. At the same time, the relentless drive for paper profits has diverted attention and resources away from the difficult job of transforming the productive base. It has retarded the transition that must occur, and has made change more difficult in the future. Paper entrepreneurialism thus has a self-perpetuating quality that, if left unchecked, will drive the nation to further decline."

-- Robert B. Reich, "The next American frontier," Atlantic, March 1983, pp. 43-57.

It's been 25 years! Haven't we learned anything.

An Open Letter to U.S. Leaders

22 December 2008


President George W. Bush,
Honorable Senators, and
Honorable Representatives:

W. Edwards Deming, writing in Out of the Crisis (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), p. 98, a book written when U.S. automaker Chrysler sought federal loan guarantees more than 25 years ago, says:

“As William E. Hoglund, manager of the Pontiac Motor Division, put it to me [Deming] one day, ‘Blue Cross is our second largest supplier.’ The direct cost of medical care is $400 per automobile (‘Sick call,’ Forbes, 24 October 1983, p. 116). Six months later he told me that Blue Cross had overtaken steel. This is not all. Additional medical costs are embedded in the steel that goes into an automobile. There are also direct costs of health and care, as from beneficial days (payment of wages and salaries to people under treatment for injury on the job); also for counseling of people depressed from low rating on annual performance, plus counsel and treatment of employees whose performance is impaired by alcohol or drugs.”

I should think that the U.S. automakers have had more than sufficient time to get their house in order. It is clear that short-term thinking – the desire to earn quarterly bonuses – has overtaken any constancy of purpose on the part of executive management to keep the U.S. automakers viable (let alone successful).

The assets owned by U.S. automakers will NOT evaporate overnight if they must declare bankruptcy. Other firms with fresh new ideas will soon take advantage of the void in the marketplace and will leverage the labor and assets that become available to establish successful and profitable new manufacturers.

It is NOT the responsibility of the U.S. taxpayer to underwrite the long-term failure of private sector managers (or the failures of union managers to properly assess their own organization’s long-term viability). Please, NO MORE BAILOUTS to “save us” from the BAD ECONOMICS of Democrats and their cronies in the unions and elsewhere. Let the Democrat economics FAIL so that we can move onward, upward and away from more socialist means and methods.

I just sent this message to Congressional leaders

I oppose using TARP funds to provide emergency loans to the auto industry. As famous business professor and author Peter Drucker has said, "It is inevitable that some businesses will fail." The U.S. automakers have had their day in the sun and their management has proven themselves to be totally inept at seeing the long-term consequences of producing short-term gains based on foolish decisions.

The automakers' assets will not evaporate if they are allowed to go bankrupt. Someone will take possession of those assets and re-employ many of the people, but they will do so with a fresh, new vision about how to succeed in TODAY's economy, not the economy of the 50's nor the dream-world in which Ford, Chrysler and GM management have been living.

-- Richard D. Cushing

Bailout Parade Panic and the Benefits of Bankruptcy

Let's not allow Congress and members of the bailout parade panic us into allowing them to do things, as was done in the 1930s, that would convert a mild economic downturn into a true calamity. Right now the Big Three auto companies, and their unions, are asking Congress for a $25 billion bailout to avoid bankruptcy. Let's think about that a bit.

What happens when a company goes bankrupt? One thing that does not happen is their productive assets go poof and disappear into thin air. In other words, if GM goes bankrupt, the assembly lines, robots, buildings and other tools don't evaporate. What bankruptcy means is the title to those assets change. People who think they can manage those assets better purchase them.

Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, where the control of its business operations are subject to the oversight and jurisdiction of the court, gives companies a chance to reorganize. The court can permit complete or partial relief from the company's debts and its labor union contracts.

A large part of the problem is the Big Three's cozy relationship with the United Auto Workers union (UAW). GM has a $73 hourly wage cost including benefits and overtime. Toyota has five major assembly plants in the U.S. Its hourly wage cost plus benefits is $48. It doesn't take rocket science to figure out which company will be at a competitive disadvantage. Then there's the "jobs bank" feature of the UAW contract where workers who are laid off workers get 95 percent of their base pay and all their benefits. Right now there's a two-year limit but in the past workers could stay in the "jobs bank" forever unless they turned down two job offers within 50 miles of their factory. At one time job bank membership exceeded 7,000 "workers." GM, Ford and Chrysler face other problems that range from poor corporate management and marketing, not to mention costly government regulations.

Two vital marketplace signals are the profits that come with success and the losses that come with failure. When these two signals are not allowed to freely function, markets operate less efficiently. To be successful a business must take in enough revenue not only to cover wages, rents and interest but profits as well. In order to accomplish that feat executives must not only satisfy customers but they must do it in a manner that efficiently utilizes all of their resources. If they fail to cover costs, it means that resources are not being used efficiently and/or consumers don't value the good being produced relative to some other alternative. When a firm routinely fails to turn a profit, there are bankruptcy pressures. The firm's resources, workers, building and capital become available to someone else who might put them to better use. When government steps in with a bailout, it enables executives to continue mismanaging resources.

How much congressional involvement do we want with the Big Three auto companies? I'd say none. Congressmen and federal bureaucrats, including those at the Federal Reserve Board, don't know anymore about the automobile business than they know about the banking and financial businesses that they've turned into a mess. Just look at the idiotic focus of congressmen when the three auto company chief executives appeared before them. They questioned whether the executives should have driven to Congress rather than flown in on corporate jets. They focused on executive pay, which is a tiny fraction of costs compared to $73 hourly compensation to 250,000 autoworkers. The belief that Congress poses the major threat to our liberty and well-being is why the founders gave them limited enumerated powers. To our detriment, today's Americans have given them unlimited powers.

-- by Walter E. Williams

Found at: Capitalism Magazine (online)

Born in Philadelphia in 1936, Walter E. Williams holds a bachelor's degree in economics from California State University (1965) and a master's degree (1967) and doctorate (1972) in economics from the University of California at Los Angeles.

Chicago Sit-In, et al

The other day my wife showed me a blurb for a $250 short-course on "Constitutional Law" with the thought that I might be interested in taking it. I told her that I'd probably only be willing to pay for such a course if I were thinking about running for Congress in the next couple of years.

I later recanted because it is all too obvious that understanding the Constitution is not a prerequisite for serving in Congress. In fact, it appears that blatant disregard for Constitutional principles is becoming the key factor in getting elected and re-elected to federal Constitutional offices.

In the event our Congressmen and Senators have forgotten, we already have a federal program in place for dealing with the situation in Chicago (the sit-in by displaced workers in a failed company) and for the U.S. automakers. That program is called the "Bankruptcy Courts."

We don't need to have Congress and President-elect Obama using these situations as an excuse to drive forward with their Socialist agenda.

Call, write, or otherwise trouble your Senators and Representatives to let them know we do not want to become another failed attempt at Socialism. The free market and free enterprise work when given a chance.

Auto industry ailing???

Apparently it's not the "auto industry" that's ailing.

See this article in the Detroit Free Press.

It's bad management by the auto companies and wrong-headed thinking on the part of the U.S. trade unions that caused the disease afflicting U.S. auto manufacturers.

American Automakers Bailout?

Click on this link to read an article that clearly articulates the situation and solution of the U.S. automakers.

Thank you.

An Excuse to Do Anything or Everything

Rahm Emanuel, Barak Obama's new Chief of Staff declare, “You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid.”

Throughout history, those who wished to take despotic actions that the citizens would otherwise reject have moved rapidly to take those actions in times of crises. Almost any crisis will do as an excuse for those bent on moving government in directions counter to the long-term interests of the people. In recent history we have seen Hitler was one such opportunist, leveraging Germany's post-World War I economic failures as grounds for taking drastic Socialist actions.

Rarely, however, are despots so candid as President-elect Obama's emerging administration. Rahm Emanuel (quoted above) enunciates this crisis-based opportunism precisely.

The present Democrat-controlled Congress, brazenly encouraged by its recent victories at the polls and the most radically left-wing President-elect in the history of our nation, is poised to take just such actions. Using the current economic crisis as its excuse, the left-wing radicals presently sitting at the helm of our national legislature are prepared to take control -- one way or the other -- of the U.S. automakers in order to "remake" them according to their leftist and eco-Nazi agenda.

Under the euphemistic term "retooling," the Democrat leftists intend to force Ford, Chrysler, and GM to produce cars for "the green economy." As in the former Soviet Union, the only cars that will be available from U.S. factories will be those that meet approved "government designs." You can be sure that if these leftists have their way, protectionist measures will be put in place to assure that foreign auto manufactures will be priced out of the market, as well.

Next on their list of "crisis" measures will be steps to assure that gasoline prices are pushed higher again. And, of course, a grasp at another huge portion of the U.S. private economy -- the "nationalization" of healthcare.

Please take action now to stand against these kinds of actions by the current (and future) Congress and the Obama administration. Write and call your Senators and Representatives.

(c)2008 Richard D. Cushing

Are U.S. Automakers and Congress Telling the Truth About Jobs?

“The auto industry supports one of every 10 jobs in the United States,” Michigan Governor Jennifer M. Granholm has said multiple times in her pleas for a bailout of the Detroit Three.

Is it true?

Click here for the real story!