The headline was frightful: Job losses in 2008 hit 2.6 million people. That’s nearly 7% of the population. As I walked back from by mailbox in the coldness of the morning, all I could think of was all those people facing an uncertain future in the middle of a brutally cold winter with utility, water, and gas companies raising rates. I wondered if there were be tax revolts. Even garbage companies were passing on the costs of doing business by making their customers pay for their gas. That’s not right. Who do I charge for my gas? My employer? I thought too of all those people who had been working part time through the holidays, who weren’t included in those numbers, but who are shortly to become part of the next quarter’s statistics. There’s just something about a human life being reduced to a mere “statistic” that seems so, well, dehumanizing. What are they going to do? I couldn’t help but reflect on the millions of jobs which were exported overseas, under the auspices of NAFTA, but always for the sake of the additional profit the company would make a the expense of someone’s livelihood and the millions of dollars some corporate executive enjoyed. And now that many have criminally mismanaged their companies, they have turned to Washington for “handouts” in the billions of dollars from the very same people who have been denied jobs, pensions, and healthcare---you and me. Napoleon once said that religion was the only thing which kept the poor from murdering the rich. Perhaps it is well that people turn to religion during times like these. Religion is indeed the “opiate of the masses”.
Words like “greed” and “audacity” really don’t quite express my disgust for these corporate execs, or for the members of Congress who gave them the money over the objections of the American People. And when asked what they were doing with money, they’ve told Congress it was none of their business. It seems that in the hurry to curry favor with their corporate masters, Congress neglected to include language which would require these “billionaire paupers” to disclose how the money was being spent. Now, we’re hearing that the retail, auto, and airline industries are wanting to be bailed out, and yet who is going to bail out the 2.6 million souls facing sudden poverty—and for many, through no or little fault of their own? Who watches over them? Which member of Congress is going to tell seniors to suck it up and put on another sweater because heating assistance is being cut? Which on of them will decide for seniors which prescription to fill and which meal to skip since many can no longer afford to both? Who among them is going to look in a child’s eyes and tell them there’s nothing to eat today or explain what a shelter is since mommy and daddy no longer have a house for them to live in?
I thought of those who still have jobs. They too are casualties of this economic disaster. How so? While they have jobs, many are faced with short term layoffs without pay; shorter hours; pay cuts; and the loss of healthcare (again, I’m reminded of the children). Then there is the added stress of simply not knowing. Will they have a job tomorrow? How about next week? And what about the added pressure of being required to do more work? Some, though not all, employers are taking advantage of the current economic conditions to load up on workers. I can envision turning on the evening news one day soon and watching a report of how someone simply “snapped” and killed their wife and family, or maybe their co-workers. There would of course be all those who would come forward and tell the camera of how “so and so” just wasn’t that kind of person or how they knew “something” was wrong. I wondered too how much more people could…would…take; when would we say “enough”? Or perhaps we did by electing Obama, but will that alone be enough?
So much is riding on Obama that he dare not fail. I didn’t vote for him for any other reason than his lack of experience. The presidency was never my idea for on-the-job training. But I am encouraged by his energy. The pressures facing him are almost unimaginable. Privately, I bet John McCain has thanked his Maker a thousand times over for not winning the election. I am encouraged by the American People, for whom I have tremendous respect. We are an amazingly resilient people. We seem to have collectively acknowledged that we’re in “deep do-do” and the only way out of this is by coming together, and we did this without Washington or the Media thank you very much. I hope too that this translates into more tolerance and compassion, especially for more vulnerable among us, namely our seniors, the handicapped, and most of all, the children.
I walked back into my house, thankful it was still “my” house…for now, and deposited the newspaper, which too has cut back on its content while not changing its price, on the kitchen table. The news I thought to myself was as numbing as the cold, but it was time for me to shuffle off to work. Still, I couldn’t help but wonder if today would be “my” day as it was for all those others who shuffled off to work for the final time. But then, perhaps not.
GOP: Future Denied?
Before reading any further, I suggest you check out the following article which recently appeared the Courier Journal:
Click here: courier-journal | Louisville Opinion | The Courier-Journal
The tiny Republican minority (approximately 10%) mentioned in this article, namely the moderates and liberals (which constitutes about 1% of the party) are systemically being purged the GOP. However, it was this very group which dominated national politics since the creation of the Grand Old Party. Its leaders have included Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Nelson Rockefeller, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and George H. Bush. Some would include Barry Goldwater, who, although was the “father of conservatism”, is considered a “moderate” by modern standards.
These leaders were responsible for some of the most progressive legislation of their generation, such as pro-labor laws, laying the foundation for the Civil Rights movement, creating national parks and protecting our wetlands, as well as creating agencies to protect workers and the environment. Yet, despite their rapidly declining numbers, many in the Republican Party are trying to blame them for the electoral recent losses. Based on numerous recent articles I’ve read from conservative and Republican websites, the move is on to move the GOP further to Right in more to create a more ideological “pure” party.
Specifically, their objective to bring together the remnants of the “Moral Majority”, the Christian Fundamentalists, Reagan Republicans, along with single issues groups such as the anti-gay and pro-life camps to create a neo-theocratic party while kicking out the so-called heretical moderates and liberals from the party. While they claim the moderates somehow “hijacked” the party, it is interesting to note that many of the party’s core, namely the libertarians, “freedom movement”, state’s rights, and Constitutionalists have long abandoned the GOP, or to put it more accurately, was pressured out of the GOP. In fact, most of the children from the illustrious gentlemen above have left the party; if not in name, at least in their support.
Life seems to move in cycles, whether it’s our physical lives or the economy. Politics is no different. Historically, we seem to swing or shift from the Left to the Right and back again roughly every 30 years. Many, if not most sociologists and political scientists are now saying we are shifting from the Right which reached its high water mark under Reagan and now we're beginning swing to the Left. Instead of embracing and encouraging a return to the fold, the GOP leadership is trying to circle it wagons, but not from the Democrats. Rather, from its core that brought it so much success over the years. Given the current swing by the voting public away from the conservative agendas of the likes of Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, or Anne Coulter, this may prove to be the undoing of the Republican Party as a major national player. In fact, I would even suggest that by the time we begin to shift back to the Right, there may well be a third party capable of the absorbing the center right, which at this point has to either gravitate to the Democratic Party; join one of the many growing third parties; or become a member of the rapidly increasing Independent movement.
Maybe this is as it should be. After all, the Republican Party came together essentially as third party from the remnants of the Whigs and several other smaller parties and interests groups such as the “Know-Nothing” movement, Free-Soil Party, and the abolitionists. Perhaps then its future should follow the same course of breakup and realignment into something which reflects the current needs of the American People.
The Radical Center
I would like to take a moment to thank Mark Satin, editor of the Radical Center (http://www.radicalmiddle.com/x_vision2009.htm) for a great run. Mark is great author and spokesperson for those of us who are “independently” minded. Mark also named Another Opinion as one of the top 25 radcial center blogs in America. After several years, Mark is hanging it up. Mark’s insights will be greatly missed.
Book Review
Of all the dangers facing us as a nation, be it the indiscriminate murderers of radical Islam, the economic meltdown, global warming, famine, global pandemics, perhaps none are such an immediate threat to us as Hugo Chavez, the president and dictator of Venezuela. Chavez has the ways and means through the national oil company, CITCO, to inflict damage on the American economy in ways Bin Laden. Kim and Ahmadinejad can only dream about. He has challenged US interests at every step, including supporting drug cartels, narcoterrorists, and acting as a conduit for our enemies, including providing a “training base” for the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah in Venezuela. At the same time, Chavez has worked hard, using his deep pockets of petrodollars to “buy friends and influence nations” while striving to assume the mantle of his childhood hero, Fidel Castro.
Nowhere better is the story of Hugo Chavez lay bare than in “The Threat Closer to Home: Hugo Chavez and the War Against America” by Douglas E. Schoen and Michael Bowen. The authors, both highly versed in international intrigue, have written a finely detailed description of Chavez’s childhood and rise to power through corruption, intimidation, and blind luck and know better than anyone what his intentions toward the West are. Like another dictator, Adolf Hitler, Hugo Chavez has never hidden his hatred for democracy, be it in the West or the US in particular. With his deep seated ambition to dominate the Western Hemisphere, Chavez uses CITCO as his weapon of choice rather than bombs. The chief difference between Chavez and his predecessors, as the authors point out, are vast oil reserves at his disposal and our near total dependence of foreign oil. If Hitler, Stalin, or Castro had a “CITCO” at their disposal, the world would be a very different place today.
If you want to know more about this powerful, but rarely reported on enemy of democracy, or if you simply have an interest in geopolitics, I urge to read “The Threat Closer to Home” by Douglas E. Schoen and Michael Bowen. It will be eye opening.
Poll Results
The last time I asked you two questions. The first was who you thought was responsible for the economic crisis. The second was did the economic crisis occur. In response to the first question, 41% of you said that Bush, Congress, Wall Street and both political parties were responsible. 25% of you thought it was mainly Bush and Republicans while 25% thought it was the Democrats. Isn’t that interesting? The rest of you thought the culprit was either Congress or none of the above.
In response to the second question, 42% of you thought the reason for the economic crisis was a lack of government oversight while 30% thought it was old fashion corporate greed. 25% of you thought it was either the failure of Capitalism or all of the above. The rest of you thought the answer lie somewhere else.
Personally, I think the answer to the first question, as to who was responsible, was “all of the above”. I think it was a combination of government and Wall Street. As for the second question, again I think this was to wide spread to be the failure of just one individual or group. Clearly this was another “all of the above”. Thanks for participating!
Showing posts with label outsourcing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label outsourcing. Show all posts
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Sunday, August 17, 2008
The Changing Face of America
English speaking whites are fast becoming a minority. So, what’s new about that? Everyone knows that the face of America is changing. Just take a look (or listen) the next time you go shopping. Whites are already a minority in several large US cities. Businesses are busy making the switch over to Spanish as part of their regular consumer vocabulary. Women in burkas seem almost common place at bus stops or at the grocery store. It seems that there are more Hindu, Buddhist, and Moslem places to worship than ever before. What’s behind this trend? Are we just that becoming more conditioned to be on the look out for these changes, or are they real?
Changes in national demographics aren’t anything new. It has been happening since the beginning of civilization. Originally, it was probably someone from one tribe marrying into another tribe. Later, it was one nation or City-state invading another. As it happens, national identities often change with it. Today’s Italians, Greeks, Iranians, Iraqis, Syrians, Egyptians, and Turks bear little resemblance to their illustrious ancestors in appearance, language or religion. So, just what is happening to America?
According to the US Census Bureau, there are some 305 million people living in America right now. That is expected to increase to 439 million by 2050. Non-Hispanic whites currently make up 75% of the population. The white population is rapidly aging (baby boomers tended to have few children of their own and thus there are fewer white children to replace them). By 2030, there will be 79 million Americans 65 years old or older.
This means that by 2042, a mere 34 years from now, whites will make up a projected 47% of the entire population. That’s a full eight years sooner than previously projected, and that’s if the present trend doesn’t increase! In 1960, whites made up 85% of the US population. The largest increase will be the largely Catholic and Spanish speaking Hispanic population, which will grow from 15% today to 30% by 2050! The population among blacks will see only a very moderate increase to between 13% and 15% if any at all (Hispanics have replaced blacks as the largest minority several years ago). Asians, who are predominately Buddhists, will increase in population from the current 5% to around 9%-10%. This will be seen more dramatically on the West Coast, especially in Oregon and Washington.
Here’s another statistic I found intriguing. In 2005, one in eight Americans was foreign born. By 2050, that number will increase to one in five. New immigrants, their children, and their grandchildren will account for a projected 85% of the increase in population between now and 2050.
Naturally, my first thought when I read this was how to restrict or somehow curtail immigration (especially illegal immigration), so you can imagine my surprise when I read the next set of new statistics released from the Center of Immigration Studies. They reported that gap between working Americans and non-working Americans (children and seniors) will continue to widen as baby boomers begin to retire and exist the stage. Currently there are 59 “dependents” for every 100 workers. By 2050, that number will increase to 72 “dependents” for every 100 workers---most of whom will be new immigrants. So, to decrease immigrant population ultimately shifts more of the taxable burden on fewer people (I admit to having chilling visions of “Logan’s Run” at this point folks).
What about multiracial changes in the population? According to the Census Bureau, between 1960 and 1990, black-white marriages increased from 1.7% to 6%. In 1993, 9% of marriages involving black men were to white women. Black women are marrying White males at a rapidly increasing rate; perhaps as high as 10% of marriages involving black women. But interracial marriages aren’t limited to blacks and whites. In Washington for example, the most common mixed race combination is between American Indian and White (47,000), followed by Asian and white (45,000) according to the 2000 Census numbers. The same Census number revealed that 2.4% of the population (that was 7 million people) regarded themselves as multiracial.
Religion too seems to be changing. As I pointed out earlier, Hispanics, who traditionally have been Catholic, is the fastest growing population. However, that appears to be changing as well. While many, if not most, have remained faithful to their religion, increasing Hispanics are turning to Protestantism, and especially to Southern Baptist which has developed a concerted effort to convert Hispanics to their brand of Christianity. To counter this trend, the Catholic Church is offering Mass and other activities in Spanish.
Apparently the Baptist strategy is working as evangelical churches account for 26.3 of the adult population out of a total of 51% of US adults identifying themselves as Protestant. Catholicism has suffered the greatest loss in membership. While one in three Americans (about 31%) were raised Catholic, only 24% remain Catholic. The biggest influx of non-Christians has been Islam, Hindu, and Buddhist. Now here’s something I found interesting as well. Which religious group tends to have the most children? Well, its Mormons and Moslems.
So, what does this all mean? Well, as I stated at the outset, we all know the complexion of America is changing. Interracial marriages and their subsequent children will increase. The average American by 2050 will likely look, behave, believe, and speak very different than the average American today. They are more likely to be of mixed racial heritage. They are more likely to speak multiple languages (especially Spanish) and at home in different cultures as their friends and business associates will be from different cultures. When it comes to religion, they are just as likely to experiment as they are to try on different jean to see which one fits the best (as an aside, the fastest growing “religion” in America is Wicca followed by individuals who regard themselves as “spiritual but non-religious” ).
This multiculturalism will have a tremendous affect on the political psyche of the nation. In some ways, there may be a backlash by demanding that English become our national language. There may be a demand for an increase in technology in order to lessen no only our dependence on other countries, but also on foreign born workers, especially those here illegally. Technology will also be necessary just to offset the ratio of working and non-working Americans.
Politically America may look very different too. If the Democrats are successful, there we will have our first mixed raced president (despite the rhetoric of a few, Obama isn’t “black”. His father was black while his mother was white). However, Americans are ever increasingly tired of both political parties. The fastest political segment of the population are Independents, The Gallup reported on August 2, 2007, that 37% of eligible voters considered themselves independent while 32% considered themselves Democrat and 29% as Republicans. Indeed, it appears that if the multi-everything trend continues, Democrats may have the best advantage given their history of co-opting minorities. However, don’t be surprised to see that as only a short term advantage since Americas as clearly looking to opt out of the current corporate controlled dual political party monopolies. Time is clearly on the side of third parties (which are growing like mushrooms) and independent candidates.
Let’s also not overlook the distribution of tax based public resources. Historically, since the advent of President Johnson’s “War on Poverty”, the bulk of public assistance has been directed toward blacks, who tended to fall at or near the poverty level. But with Hispanics now replacing black as the largest minority, much of that (diminishing) money will be directed towards them. Secondly, with the Asian population rapidly increasing, blacks may find themselves competing with Asians for any crumbs remaining. That of itself could increase racial tensions. Speaking of tax based assistance, with the huge number of rapidly aging population, combined with fewer workers, is there anyway we can avoid some form of national healthcare? Many businesses can’t attract quality employees because they can’t offer them even basic healthcare coverage, and the cost of healthcare only continues to rise. Whoever is elected president will have to quickly come to terms with this issue.
Change can fought against or embraced, but it can’t be stopped. While no nation lasts forever, the nation which can best adapt to change is the one best able to endure. That applies to America as much as did to ancient Egypt, Greece, or Rome. Those who fail to grasp this lesson will, as Trotsky famously quipped, will be consigned to the “dustbin of history”.
Some Reflections on Bob Woodruff's China White Wash
By Peter Navarro
Author of The Coming China Wars
“So near to the truth, yet so far.” That’s the feeling I came away with after watching Bob Woodruff’s recent China Inside Out documentary for ABC news. It’s regrettable that a journalist of such a high caliber as Woodruff can get so close to a story and not really see it -- while helping to perpetuate a number of dangerous myths about China.
Woodruff’s approach seemed very promising at first. He went to four different continents and countries in order to assess the global impacts of China, the countries being Angola, Brazil, Cambodia, and the United States.
The Angolan segment highlighted China’s economic development model in Africa. The myth perpetrated in this segment is that the development has actually provided a net benefit to the people of Africa.
In fact, the real truth China is practicing a very sophisticated 21st century version of imperialism in which China loans African countries billions of dollars in exchange for encumbering natural resources. These resources range from oil and natural gas to copper, cobalt, and titanium. As part of its debt encumbrance strategy, China gets to reduce its unemployment rate by using a large Chinese construction workforce to actually do the work – rather than relying so much on the native population.
In this segment, Woodruff makes repeated references to corruption. However, in a glaring omission, he fails to make explicit just how much of the billions in Chinese aid is actually siphoned off into offshore bank accounts held by the African elites. Nor does Woodruff highlight the intense poverty in the countriesChina is supposed to be “benefiting” -- other than offering a few images of slums.
That said, the absolute worst omission of the African segment is Woodruff’s failure to mention the Darfur genocide in the Sudan. Instead, the only thing we get is a passing reference to Chinese aid to the Sudan in exchange for oil. In fact,China regularly trades its veto power at the UN for African resources in exchange for shielding African despots from UN interventions.
What made Woodruff’s omission all the more galling is that Woodruff did an extensive interview with China’s United Nations Ambassador Wang Guangya. This is the same reprehensible “diplomat” who has repeatedly blocked UN action on Darfur. (Wang also has blocked action following the sham Zimbabwe election and the attempts of the West to sanction Iran for its nuclear development). The failure to confront Wang on the Darfur question was tantamount to appeasement -- or, far worse, simple ignorance.
Woodruff’s omissions were equally in evidence in his Brazil segment. The theme Woodruff drew here is that China’s increasing consumption for soybeans is leading to deforestation of the Amazon and potential environmental problems. The biggest problems with this segment were a lack of visual imagery to portray the destruction of the Amazon, and the lack of science and statistics to explain how deforestation in the Amazon is likely to affect the global environment and crop production.
In fact, most of the Amazon’s deforestation occurs during the dry season in an orchestrated slash and burn campaign that fouls the skies throughout South America. Showing that massive environmental carnage -- instead of a few big trees being felled -- would have made for a far stronger presentation. Missing, too, was any good explanation of why we should care about the Amazon. In fact, theAmazon River basin and its rainforest are absolutely critical to the global ecology because they are considered to be the "Lungs of our Planet." By recycling carbon dioxide, the rainforest in particular provides more than 20 percent of the world’s oxygen.
Already, more than 20% of the Amazon rainforest has been destroyed while the World Wildlife Fund warns that more than half of the forest will be gone by 2030. According to many scientists, this destruction of the rainforest has the potential to create severe drought conditions not just in South America but also as far north as the American and Canadian farm belts. The result may well be a global food crisis -- high irony indeed given that the destruction of the Amazon rain forest is occurring in the name of increased food production.
Turning to the third segment on Cambodia, Woodruff does a good job tagging the Chinese with at least some responsibility for the Khmer Rouge genocide of millions. Missing in this segment, however, was any insight into the real reason why China is setting up so many sweat shops in Cambodia. Too bad Woodruff didn’t get his cameras into some of these sweat shops to expose the slave labor conditions!
My other big beef with the Cambodian segment was the failure of Woodruff to mention how China is using its upstream positioning on the Mekong River to dam that river with bullying impunity. China’s dam-happy Mekong River design will eventually include 15 mega-dams. These mega-dams are likely to create economic and environmental effects that are vast and far-ranging -- and Cambodiais at the front lines of this onslaught.
To understand the problem, consider the impacts of China’s dams on one of the world’s most fascinating ecological treasures, the legendary Lake Tonle Sap in Cambodia. For much of the year, the lake is only a yard deep with a footprint of only a bit more than 1,000 square miles. During the rainy season, however, flow from the Mekong River helps deepen the lake to roughly 30 feet and increases the area of the lake more than five-fold. This turns Lake Tonle Sap into one of the best breeding grounds for fish in the world.
The obvious problem facing the Tonle Sap is that the China’s mega-dams are evening out the flow of water and thereby preventing the world’s most fertile natural fishery from realizing its full depth and breadth in the critical fish breeding season. Already, fish catches have declined dramatically. This is already having a significant negative effect on Cambodia’s fishing economy.
Woodruff clearly saved the worst for last in his discussion of the impacts of Chinaon the American economy. He leads off the segment by helping to perpetuate the myth that China’s emergence as the world’s factory floor is the result of cheap, hard-working labor. (The mouthpiece here is Evan Osnos, Beijing Bureau Chief for the Chicago Tribune -- an otherwise cogent voice.)
In fact, my research has clearly shown that cheap labor is only a small part of the China puzzle. Much of China’s advantage in world markets comes from five unfair mercantilist trade practices that include a complex web of illegal export subsidies, blatant currency manipulation, counterfeiting and piracy that lowers production costs, and lax environmental and health and safety standards that likewise lower production costs.
That China blatantly manipulates its currency seems to be totally lost on both Woodruff and the seemingly clueless Fareed Zakaria. Indeed, it is Zakaria who helps perpetuate the myth that the Chinese are more frugal savers than American consumers and that’s why China helps the U.S. with its debt by buying U.S.treasury bills.
Note to Woodruff and Zakaria: The purchase of U.S. treasury bills is an integral part of the currency manipulation process. To maintain China’s fixed peg to the dollar and keep the yuan grossly undervalued, China must recycle dollars back into the U.S. Of course, individual Chinese citizens have no say in this matter; rather they are merely press-ganged into their frugality by China’s central bank -- which wants to keep exports to the U.S. cheap and imports into China dear. (It’s no accident the U.S. trade deficit regularly hits record highs.)
The failure of Zakaria to understand this currency manipulation process (and the broader role of unfair trade practices in China’s grab of American markets) makes it perfectly understandable why Zakaria ignorantly advises that the U.S. has only two options with China: “either ride the wave or drown in it.” In fact, what theU.S. Government should be doing to prevent the loss of American jobs is cracking down on China’s unfair trade practices. Leveling the playing field would go a long way towards bringing jobs back to the U.S.
On that note, it is useful to point out perhaps the biggest myth of the documentary – one perpetuated by none other than Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York. His Honor piously insists that “the jobs that [China] is creating are low-priced jobs” and “that’s not the kind of jobs we want for our citizens.”
Note to the Mayor: While you’ve apparently been sleeping, China has moved steadily up and across the value chain into everything from autos and biopharma to commercial aircraft. It’s not just about cheap toys and sneakers anymore.
My bottom line is that I would love to see an in-depth, fair and balanced critical look at the economic, environmental, military, political, and social impacts of China on rest of the world. All that we have gotten so far from TV is a bunch of puff pieces that miss many of the major points and keep perpetuate a set of very dangerous myths.
Author Bio
Peter Navarro a business professor at the University of California-Irvine, is the author of the best- selling investment book If It's Raining in Brazil, Buy Starbucks and the path-breaking management book, The Well-Timed Strategy. Professor Navarro is a widely sought after and gifted public speaker and a regular CNBC contributor. Prior to joining CNBC, he appeared frequently on Bloomberg TV, CNN, and NPR, as well as on all three major network news shows. He has testified before Congress and the U.S.-China Commission and his work has appeared in publications ranging from Business Week, the L.A. Times, and New York Times to the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and Harvard Business Review.
www.peternavarro.com
www.comingchinawars.com
Poll Results
I asked if you thought business or labor bosses had a right to take money from your paycheck or dues and donate to candidates or political parties without your approval. 92% said no. To the other 8%, repeat after me, “I will think for myself”.
Book Review
The energy crisis is upon us and shows no signs of long term relief. Face it, $3.00 a gallon gas will only exist in stories we tell our children and grandchildren. The question of how we went from abundance to bust is complex. Often we’re just as much to blame as the oil companies and OPEC. No one explains this better than Jay Hakes, the former head of the US Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration. Mr. Hakes has written a highly readable book entitled “A Declaration of Energy Independence” which outlines not only how we got were we are but perhaps more importantly, what to do about it. If you’re looking for answers about what we can do about the energy crisis, start with this book.
.
Changes in national demographics aren’t anything new. It has been happening since the beginning of civilization. Originally, it was probably someone from one tribe marrying into another tribe. Later, it was one nation or City-state invading another. As it happens, national identities often change with it. Today’s Italians, Greeks, Iranians, Iraqis, Syrians, Egyptians, and Turks bear little resemblance to their illustrious ancestors in appearance, language or religion. So, just what is happening to America?
According to the US Census Bureau, there are some 305 million people living in America right now. That is expected to increase to 439 million by 2050. Non-Hispanic whites currently make up 75% of the population. The white population is rapidly aging (baby boomers tended to have few children of their own and thus there are fewer white children to replace them). By 2030, there will be 79 million Americans 65 years old or older.
This means that by 2042, a mere 34 years from now, whites will make up a projected 47% of the entire population. That’s a full eight years sooner than previously projected, and that’s if the present trend doesn’t increase! In 1960, whites made up 85% of the US population. The largest increase will be the largely Catholic and Spanish speaking Hispanic population, which will grow from 15% today to 30% by 2050! The population among blacks will see only a very moderate increase to between 13% and 15% if any at all (Hispanics have replaced blacks as the largest minority several years ago). Asians, who are predominately Buddhists, will increase in population from the current 5% to around 9%-10%. This will be seen more dramatically on the West Coast, especially in Oregon and Washington.
Here’s another statistic I found intriguing. In 2005, one in eight Americans was foreign born. By 2050, that number will increase to one in five. New immigrants, their children, and their grandchildren will account for a projected 85% of the increase in population between now and 2050.
Naturally, my first thought when I read this was how to restrict or somehow curtail immigration (especially illegal immigration), so you can imagine my surprise when I read the next set of new statistics released from the Center of Immigration Studies. They reported that gap between working Americans and non-working Americans (children and seniors) will continue to widen as baby boomers begin to retire and exist the stage. Currently there are 59 “dependents” for every 100 workers. By 2050, that number will increase to 72 “dependents” for every 100 workers---most of whom will be new immigrants. So, to decrease immigrant population ultimately shifts more of the taxable burden on fewer people (I admit to having chilling visions of “Logan’s Run” at this point folks).
What about multiracial changes in the population? According to the Census Bureau, between 1960 and 1990, black-white marriages increased from 1.7% to 6%. In 1993, 9% of marriages involving black men were to white women. Black women are marrying White males at a rapidly increasing rate; perhaps as high as 10% of marriages involving black women. But interracial marriages aren’t limited to blacks and whites. In Washington for example, the most common mixed race combination is between American Indian and White (47,000), followed by Asian and white (45,000) according to the 2000 Census numbers. The same Census number revealed that 2.4% of the population (that was 7 million people) regarded themselves as multiracial.
Religion too seems to be changing. As I pointed out earlier, Hispanics, who traditionally have been Catholic, is the fastest growing population. However, that appears to be changing as well. While many, if not most, have remained faithful to their religion, increasing Hispanics are turning to Protestantism, and especially to Southern Baptist which has developed a concerted effort to convert Hispanics to their brand of Christianity. To counter this trend, the Catholic Church is offering Mass and other activities in Spanish.
Apparently the Baptist strategy is working as evangelical churches account for 26.3 of the adult population out of a total of 51% of US adults identifying themselves as Protestant. Catholicism has suffered the greatest loss in membership. While one in three Americans (about 31%) were raised Catholic, only 24% remain Catholic. The biggest influx of non-Christians has been Islam, Hindu, and Buddhist. Now here’s something I found interesting as well. Which religious group tends to have the most children? Well, its Mormons and Moslems.
So, what does this all mean? Well, as I stated at the outset, we all know the complexion of America is changing. Interracial marriages and their subsequent children will increase. The average American by 2050 will likely look, behave, believe, and speak very different than the average American today. They are more likely to be of mixed racial heritage. They are more likely to speak multiple languages (especially Spanish) and at home in different cultures as their friends and business associates will be from different cultures. When it comes to religion, they are just as likely to experiment as they are to try on different jean to see which one fits the best (as an aside, the fastest growing “religion” in America is Wicca followed by individuals who regard themselves as “spiritual but non-religious” ).
This multiculturalism will have a tremendous affect on the political psyche of the nation. In some ways, there may be a backlash by demanding that English become our national language. There may be a demand for an increase in technology in order to lessen no only our dependence on other countries, but also on foreign born workers, especially those here illegally. Technology will also be necessary just to offset the ratio of working and non-working Americans.
Politically America may look very different too. If the Democrats are successful, there we will have our first mixed raced president (despite the rhetoric of a few, Obama isn’t “black”. His father was black while his mother was white). However, Americans are ever increasingly tired of both political parties. The fastest political segment of the population are Independents, The Gallup reported on August 2, 2007, that 37% of eligible voters considered themselves independent while 32% considered themselves Democrat and 29% as Republicans. Indeed, it appears that if the multi-everything trend continues, Democrats may have the best advantage given their history of co-opting minorities. However, don’t be surprised to see that as only a short term advantage since Americas as clearly looking to opt out of the current corporate controlled dual political party monopolies. Time is clearly on the side of third parties (which are growing like mushrooms) and independent candidates.
Let’s also not overlook the distribution of tax based public resources. Historically, since the advent of President Johnson’s “War on Poverty”, the bulk of public assistance has been directed toward blacks, who tended to fall at or near the poverty level. But with Hispanics now replacing black as the largest minority, much of that (diminishing) money will be directed towards them. Secondly, with the Asian population rapidly increasing, blacks may find themselves competing with Asians for any crumbs remaining. That of itself could increase racial tensions. Speaking of tax based assistance, with the huge number of rapidly aging population, combined with fewer workers, is there anyway we can avoid some form of national healthcare? Many businesses can’t attract quality employees because they can’t offer them even basic healthcare coverage, and the cost of healthcare only continues to rise. Whoever is elected president will have to quickly come to terms with this issue.
Change can fought against or embraced, but it can’t be stopped. While no nation lasts forever, the nation which can best adapt to change is the one best able to endure. That applies to America as much as did to ancient Egypt, Greece, or Rome. Those who fail to grasp this lesson will, as Trotsky famously quipped, will be consigned to the “dustbin of history”.
Some Reflections on Bob Woodruff's China White Wash
By Peter Navarro
Author of The Coming China Wars
“So near to the truth, yet so far.” That’s the feeling I came away with after watching Bob Woodruff’s recent China Inside Out documentary for ABC news. It’s regrettable that a journalist of such a high caliber as Woodruff can get so close to a story and not really see it -- while helping to perpetuate a number of dangerous myths about China.
Woodruff’s approach seemed very promising at first. He went to four different continents and countries in order to assess the global impacts of China, the countries being Angola, Brazil, Cambodia, and the United States.
The Angolan segment highlighted China’s economic development model in Africa. The myth perpetrated in this segment is that the development has actually provided a net benefit to the people of Africa.
In fact, the real truth China is practicing a very sophisticated 21st century version of imperialism in which China loans African countries billions of dollars in exchange for encumbering natural resources. These resources range from oil and natural gas to copper, cobalt, and titanium. As part of its debt encumbrance strategy, China gets to reduce its unemployment rate by using a large Chinese construction workforce to actually do the work – rather than relying so much on the native population.
In this segment, Woodruff makes repeated references to corruption. However, in a glaring omission, he fails to make explicit just how much of the billions in Chinese aid is actually siphoned off into offshore bank accounts held by the African elites. Nor does Woodruff highlight the intense poverty in the countriesChina is supposed to be “benefiting” -- other than offering a few images of slums.
That said, the absolute worst omission of the African segment is Woodruff’s failure to mention the Darfur genocide in the Sudan. Instead, the only thing we get is a passing reference to Chinese aid to the Sudan in exchange for oil. In fact,China regularly trades its veto power at the UN for African resources in exchange for shielding African despots from UN interventions.
What made Woodruff’s omission all the more galling is that Woodruff did an extensive interview with China’s United Nations Ambassador Wang Guangya. This is the same reprehensible “diplomat” who has repeatedly blocked UN action on Darfur. (Wang also has blocked action following the sham Zimbabwe election and the attempts of the West to sanction Iran for its nuclear development). The failure to confront Wang on the Darfur question was tantamount to appeasement -- or, far worse, simple ignorance.
Woodruff’s omissions were equally in evidence in his Brazil segment. The theme Woodruff drew here is that China’s increasing consumption for soybeans is leading to deforestation of the Amazon and potential environmental problems. The biggest problems with this segment were a lack of visual imagery to portray the destruction of the Amazon, and the lack of science and statistics to explain how deforestation in the Amazon is likely to affect the global environment and crop production.
In fact, most of the Amazon’s deforestation occurs during the dry season in an orchestrated slash and burn campaign that fouls the skies throughout South America. Showing that massive environmental carnage -- instead of a few big trees being felled -- would have made for a far stronger presentation. Missing, too, was any good explanation of why we should care about the Amazon. In fact, theAmazon River basin and its rainforest are absolutely critical to the global ecology because they are considered to be the "Lungs of our Planet." By recycling carbon dioxide, the rainforest in particular provides more than 20 percent of the world’s oxygen.
Already, more than 20% of the Amazon rainforest has been destroyed while the World Wildlife Fund warns that more than half of the forest will be gone by 2030. According to many scientists, this destruction of the rainforest has the potential to create severe drought conditions not just in South America but also as far north as the American and Canadian farm belts. The result may well be a global food crisis -- high irony indeed given that the destruction of the Amazon rain forest is occurring in the name of increased food production.
Turning to the third segment on Cambodia, Woodruff does a good job tagging the Chinese with at least some responsibility for the Khmer Rouge genocide of millions. Missing in this segment, however, was any insight into the real reason why China is setting up so many sweat shops in Cambodia. Too bad Woodruff didn’t get his cameras into some of these sweat shops to expose the slave labor conditions!
My other big beef with the Cambodian segment was the failure of Woodruff to mention how China is using its upstream positioning on the Mekong River to dam that river with bullying impunity. China’s dam-happy Mekong River design will eventually include 15 mega-dams. These mega-dams are likely to create economic and environmental effects that are vast and far-ranging -- and Cambodiais at the front lines of this onslaught.
To understand the problem, consider the impacts of China’s dams on one of the world’s most fascinating ecological treasures, the legendary Lake Tonle Sap in Cambodia. For much of the year, the lake is only a yard deep with a footprint of only a bit more than 1,000 square miles. During the rainy season, however, flow from the Mekong River helps deepen the lake to roughly 30 feet and increases the area of the lake more than five-fold. This turns Lake Tonle Sap into one of the best breeding grounds for fish in the world.
The obvious problem facing the Tonle Sap is that the China’s mega-dams are evening out the flow of water and thereby preventing the world’s most fertile natural fishery from realizing its full depth and breadth in the critical fish breeding season. Already, fish catches have declined dramatically. This is already having a significant negative effect on Cambodia’s fishing economy.
Woodruff clearly saved the worst for last in his discussion of the impacts of Chinaon the American economy. He leads off the segment by helping to perpetuate the myth that China’s emergence as the world’s factory floor is the result of cheap, hard-working labor. (The mouthpiece here is Evan Osnos, Beijing Bureau Chief for the Chicago Tribune -- an otherwise cogent voice.)
In fact, my research has clearly shown that cheap labor is only a small part of the China puzzle. Much of China’s advantage in world markets comes from five unfair mercantilist trade practices that include a complex web of illegal export subsidies, blatant currency manipulation, counterfeiting and piracy that lowers production costs, and lax environmental and health and safety standards that likewise lower production costs.
That China blatantly manipulates its currency seems to be totally lost on both Woodruff and the seemingly clueless Fareed Zakaria. Indeed, it is Zakaria who helps perpetuate the myth that the Chinese are more frugal savers than American consumers and that’s why China helps the U.S. with its debt by buying U.S.treasury bills.
Note to Woodruff and Zakaria: The purchase of U.S. treasury bills is an integral part of the currency manipulation process. To maintain China’s fixed peg to the dollar and keep the yuan grossly undervalued, China must recycle dollars back into the U.S. Of course, individual Chinese citizens have no say in this matter; rather they are merely press-ganged into their frugality by China’s central bank -- which wants to keep exports to the U.S. cheap and imports into China dear. (It’s no accident the U.S. trade deficit regularly hits record highs.)
The failure of Zakaria to understand this currency manipulation process (and the broader role of unfair trade practices in China’s grab of American markets) makes it perfectly understandable why Zakaria ignorantly advises that the U.S. has only two options with China: “either ride the wave or drown in it.” In fact, what theU.S. Government should be doing to prevent the loss of American jobs is cracking down on China’s unfair trade practices. Leveling the playing field would go a long way towards bringing jobs back to the U.S.
On that note, it is useful to point out perhaps the biggest myth of the documentary – one perpetuated by none other than Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York. His Honor piously insists that “the jobs that [China] is creating are low-priced jobs” and “that’s not the kind of jobs we want for our citizens.”
Note to the Mayor: While you’ve apparently been sleeping, China has moved steadily up and across the value chain into everything from autos and biopharma to commercial aircraft. It’s not just about cheap toys and sneakers anymore.
My bottom line is that I would love to see an in-depth, fair and balanced critical look at the economic, environmental, military, political, and social impacts of China on rest of the world. All that we have gotten so far from TV is a bunch of puff pieces that miss many of the major points and keep perpetuate a set of very dangerous myths.
Author Bio
Peter Navarro a business professor at the University of California-Irvine, is the author of the best- selling investment book If It's Raining in Brazil, Buy Starbucks and the path-breaking management book, The Well-Timed Strategy. Professor Navarro is a widely sought after and gifted public speaker and a regular CNBC contributor. Prior to joining CNBC, he appeared frequently on Bloomberg TV, CNN, and NPR, as well as on all three major network news shows. He has testified before Congress and the U.S.-China Commission and his work has appeared in publications ranging from Business Week, the L.A. Times, and New York Times to the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and Harvard Business Review.
www.peternavarro.com
www.comingchinawars.com
Poll Results
I asked if you thought business or labor bosses had a right to take money from your paycheck or dues and donate to candidates or political parties without your approval. 92% said no. To the other 8%, repeat after me, “I will think for myself”.
Book Review
The energy crisis is upon us and shows no signs of long term relief. Face it, $3.00 a gallon gas will only exist in stories we tell our children and grandchildren. The question of how we went from abundance to bust is complex. Often we’re just as much to blame as the oil companies and OPEC. No one explains this better than Jay Hakes, the former head of the US Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration. Mr. Hakes has written a highly readable book entitled “A Declaration of Energy Independence” which outlines not only how we got were we are but perhaps more importantly, what to do about it. If you’re looking for answers about what we can do about the energy crisis, start with this book.
.
Sunday, August 03, 2008
Unionfacts.com or Fiction?
Have you seen the Unionfacts.com commercials? If you haven’t, you’re in for a surprise. One segment of the commercial shows an “average” blue-collar cashier thanking union bosses for the “privilege” of paying union dues just to have a job. Another segment shows a factory worker thanking union bosses for giving money to candidates he doesn’t support. The next segment has a hospital employee thanking unions for working harder and getting paid less because she doesn’t have seniority. The last segment has a clerical employee thanking union bosses for harassing employees into joining a union.
The commercial invites readers to visit their webpage at Unionfacts.com, so I decided to do just that. The well designed site has some enticing pages, such as “Hijacking Elections”, “Union Profiles”, “When Voting Isn’t Private”, a “Fact” page, plus a section relating to the media and their ads. All very well written I might add. There was also a blog about Senator Orin Hatch on the Employee Free Choice Act. However, what interested me most was the “About Us” page.
Unionfacts.com is the product of the cerebral sounding Center for Union Facts, located in Washington, DC. They describe themselves a non-profit 501c (3) organization “supported by foundations, businesses, union members, and the general public”. Dedicated, they proclaim, to showing Americans about union leadership. They claim to be non-partisan and not anti-union. I suspect they must have looked at the Teamsters for A Democratic Union model (http://www.tdu.org/), which is dedicated to promote open and honest elections as well as responsible accounting of union financing (that isn’t to say that this organization isn’t without a certain amount of controversy too. Some union members accuse them of being front for anti-union groups). While the “About Us” page is informative, especially the FAQ, what was more interesting is that none of the officers were mentioned. So I decided to do a little online sleuthing.
Unionfacts.com was created by Washington business lobbyist Rick Berman of Richard Berman and Company. Mr. Berman’s claim to fame has been developing an ad campaigns against groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) on behalf of the liquor industry. He has lobbied on of behalf pro-tobacco interests groups against the Center for Disease Control, and been involved in campaigns against the American Medical Association and EarthSave International just to mention a couple (consumerdeception.com). He was a large contributor to Newt Gingrich’s GOPAC (sourcewatch.org.). He has also been a long time active member of the pro-business US Chamber of Commerce. Not exactly a stellar resume for the founder of what is portrayed as a “non-partisan” organization bent on spreading the “truth” (and I presume the “American Way”) about organized labor.
Now before I proceed any further, here’s the “disclaimer” portion of this article. I am a member of a writer’s union, which is part of both the UAW and the AFL-CIO, as well as the past state chairman of this union. I have also been a delegate to the Greater Louisville Central Labor Council. My grandfather was a member of the Order of Railroad Conductors and Brakemen (and yes, a Republican, which wasn’t as mutually exclusive in those days). My wife is a retired Teamster (Local 89), and her father (also a Republican by the way) was a member of IUE-CWA Local 761 at Louisville’s Appliance Park, owned by General Electric. I’ve been employed in “white collar” jobs my entire working career. I also teach business management and human resource management classes at the undergraduate and graduate level. I count as friends both labor and business leaders. I believe in a balanced playing field. My personal philosophy is that both groups have to work together. One can not dominate the other and expect to remain in business or employed for long.
Labor has done a lot for this country. It has given us established work hours, the 40 hour work week, health and education, benefits, vacations, child protections laws, safe working conditions, and the right to bargain just to mention a few. Business has given us more product diversity and a higher standard of living than any other nation in history. They have done this through intensive research and capital investment. It’s also true that most states have “right to work” laws, meaning that businesses are free to hire and fire you with no or little notice. But on the other hand, you’re free to accept, decline, or quit anytime you want. There are also “open” and “closed” shops, meaning that union membership isn’t available or required (“open”) or by accepting an offer, you are required to also join the union (“closed”).
Is this fair? I guess that depends on your perspective. The reason there is a union in the first place is that at one point in time, employees felt threatened (I’ve always said that the chief reason for unions was bad management). If you don’t want to join the union, don’t accept the job. But what if you want the job but not the union? At a closed shop you don’t have any choice. I’ve thought that instead of having an open or closed shop, that the company have two pay rates (after all, they already have exempted and non-exempted classifications) with corresponding benefit packages. In other words, give the perspective employee a reason to want to join the union—better pay and benefits along with job protection. Alternatively, the non-union employee would not be subject to seniority or other job restrictions.
When it comes to politics, I have to agree with the commercial---sort of. I don’t think anyone, union or not, should be required to give to political action funds. I think employees should be able to opt out of having their union dues or pay going to a particular candidate or party. Why? Because it’s my money and I’ll decide who I’ll donate it to. Unions long ago defaulted on the ability to strengthen their position by blindly supporting just one political party---the Democrats. Nowadays, unions are seen as little more than the party’s cash cows. Instead, unions should (as they did once upon a time) support the best candidates for office regardless of party. That ensures a balance on both sides of aisle and increases the likelihood of favorable legislation. Think it doesn’t work? Look at business. They back individuals in both parties and have done quite well at it thank you. When I ran for state representative against an incumbent Democrat, all of my 30 or so volunteers were either active or retired union members. They knew I could do a better job and the letter behind my name didn’t matter one hoot. Not all Democrats are blue collar working stiffs and not all Republicans are rich.
Let’s take another look at the commercials and website. Both are interesting for what they say and don’t say as I’ve already stated. But, you may be wondering, why run the commercials now? There’s no pending labor or business legislation coming up. The answer is deceptively simple. This is a presidential election year. Money that Labor would be spending on Democrats is now going to have to be diverted to defend unions against these ads. Labor put all its eggs in one basket so to speak, while business bought the whole chicken coop. So, thank you Unionfacts.com for bringing this object lesson to light.
(Americans have had enough of high gas prices. We’re tired of being the pawns of oil companies and Arab Sheiks. Well, that’s been the argument so far. But one thing is for sure. The debate over global warming and energy is just getting started. I thought you might enjoy this article by Jay Hakes. Mr. Hakes is the author of “A Declaration of Energy Independence”. You can also check out a recent interview of Jay at http://www.wwltv.com/video/news-index.html?nvid=267393 which discuses Mr. Pickens’ energy plan).
Boone Pickens’ Energy Crusade:
Prophet or Con Man?
T. Boone Pickens has broadcast his way right into the middle of a presidential election debate about United States energy policy. Americans are upset about $4 a gallon gasoline, and the iconoclastic oilman has bought a lot of air time to tell us what he thinks about the situation.
Pickens’ views have injected some fresh air into the public dialogue, and most of his ideas stand up pretty well to the scrutiny of serious energy analysis. But we must be careful not to replace one set of problems with another.
His ads and web site warn about the money sucked out of the American economy by its negative balance of trade in energy. Pickens has identified a problem as least as big as high prices at the pump. The energy trade deficit is larger than our trade imbalance with China and far more costly than the war in Iraq. Moreover, much of the money ends up in the hands of America’s enemies. Though some laissez-faire economists find this situation acceptable, it’s hard to argue that our dependence on foreign oil can be sustained at current levels over the long haul without further damage to the dollar and the general U.S. economy.
A vigorous American Petroleum Institute advertising campaign, President Bush, and presidential candidate John McCain imply we can drill our way out of our dependence on foreign oil. Pickens disagrees. Again, score one for the man living in our television screens. Offshore oil drilling is expensive and unlikely to lower oil prices or have a dramatic impact on the world oil market. We shouldn’t rule out some carefully monitored expansion of lands available for exploration and development. But opening up more offshore areas in a country that has been drilling away since 1859 won’t be a game changer in an expanding world oil market.
Pickens emphasizes renewable energy, particularly wind power, as a solution to our energy predicament. Wind supplies a significant share of energy in some European countries and is growing here. We should expand the role it plays in electric generation.
But overemphasis on wind can distract attention from solar power and biofuels (not derived from food products), which offer greater potential for further technical development.
The idea that we should use government subsidies to get wind and other renewables into the market overlooks a big problem. The amount of fuel we consume is so large that subsidies will have unacceptable budget impacts for any fuel that achieves broad usage. The key policy here is making sure the fossil fuels pay their own way for external costs related to national security and the environment.
We should also adopt a national renewable electric generation standard that mandates a greater share for these clean and domestic sources, as many states have already done. Last year, the U.S. Senate came very close to breaking a filibuster against such a standard. After what has transpired since that vote, the Congress should quickly adopt the standard next year with tougher provisions than in the 2007 version.
Pickens correctly points out that expanded use of wind and solar, while intermittent, can save significant amounts of natural gas, the most environmentally benign of our fossil fuels and largely available from domestic sources. He then advocates that natural gas resulting from this displacement be used to power America’s vehicles. This would cut the need for foreign oil, reduce pollution and has been technically doable for a long time.
But this is the fork in the road where Pickens makes the wrong turn. Until we figure out how to sequester the carbon emissions from coal-based electricity or add significantly to the number of nuclear plants, we face a critical need for natural gas to reduce the use of coal. After having ignored the problems of greenhouse gases and global warming for decades, our nation cannot add more coal plants without risking great damage to our climate. There’s not enough gas to take on bigger roles for both transportation and electricity.
Fortunately, there are other alternatives for powering our cars and trucks that will work as well or better than natural gas. First and foremost, we need to demand more efficient vehicles. The Energy Independence and Security Act passed last year mandates that the 25 miles per gallon currently required for cars and light trucks be raised to 35 mpg by the year 2020. But we should not have much trouble raising the standard by a mile and a half a year. That get’s us to 40 mpg by 2020 and 55 mpg by 2040.
Ethanol produced from corn kernels is not worth the federal subsidies currently provided. But we should be utilizing liquid fuels from other plant sources, such as corn stover (the waste materials left over), bagasse from sugar cane, wood chips, and switchgrass. Even more exciting, but perhaps further down the road, is biofuel produced from algae. We also have the option of plug-in electric hybrid vehicles, which are very attractive economically, especially if recharging takes place at night when the demand on the electric grid is low. In other words, we can take the bold action Pickens calls for and still reserve natural gas for electric generation.
The Texan who wants to end our addiction to foreign oil may not have every detail right, but we should be grateful that he’s calling for some mighty big solutions to some mighty big problems.
From 1993 to 2000, Jay Hakes headed the Energy Information Administration, the data and analytic arm of the U.S. Department of Energy. He has just published A Declaration of Energy Independence: How Freedom from Foreign Oil Can Improve National Security, Our Economy, and the Environment (John Wiley & Sons, 2008).
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470267631.html
Poll Results
I asked if you thought candidates only were “fair game” when it came to politics, or if their families were subject to the same scrutiny. Interestingly, half of you said that the whole family was subject to the same level of public review as the candidate. The rest of you said that only children under 18 should be exempt. Wow, you all are a tough crowd!
The commercial invites readers to visit their webpage at Unionfacts.com, so I decided to do just that. The well designed site has some enticing pages, such as “Hijacking Elections”, “Union Profiles”, “When Voting Isn’t Private”, a “Fact” page, plus a section relating to the media and their ads. All very well written I might add. There was also a blog about Senator Orin Hatch on the Employee Free Choice Act. However, what interested me most was the “About Us” page.
Unionfacts.com is the product of the cerebral sounding Center for Union Facts, located in Washington, DC. They describe themselves a non-profit 501c (3) organization “supported by foundations, businesses, union members, and the general public”. Dedicated, they proclaim, to showing Americans about union leadership. They claim to be non-partisan and not anti-union. I suspect they must have looked at the Teamsters for A Democratic Union model (http://www.tdu.org/), which is dedicated to promote open and honest elections as well as responsible accounting of union financing (that isn’t to say that this organization isn’t without a certain amount of controversy too. Some union members accuse them of being front for anti-union groups). While the “About Us” page is informative, especially the FAQ, what was more interesting is that none of the officers were mentioned. So I decided to do a little online sleuthing.
Unionfacts.com was created by Washington business lobbyist Rick Berman of Richard Berman and Company. Mr. Berman’s claim to fame has been developing an ad campaigns against groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) on behalf of the liquor industry. He has lobbied on of behalf pro-tobacco interests groups against the Center for Disease Control, and been involved in campaigns against the American Medical Association and EarthSave International just to mention a couple (consumerdeception.com). He was a large contributor to Newt Gingrich’s GOPAC (sourcewatch.org.). He has also been a long time active member of the pro-business US Chamber of Commerce. Not exactly a stellar resume for the founder of what is portrayed as a “non-partisan” organization bent on spreading the “truth” (and I presume the “American Way”) about organized labor.
Now before I proceed any further, here’s the “disclaimer” portion of this article. I am a member of a writer’s union, which is part of both the UAW and the AFL-CIO, as well as the past state chairman of this union. I have also been a delegate to the Greater Louisville Central Labor Council. My grandfather was a member of the Order of Railroad Conductors and Brakemen (and yes, a Republican, which wasn’t as mutually exclusive in those days). My wife is a retired Teamster (Local 89), and her father (also a Republican by the way) was a member of IUE-CWA Local 761 at Louisville’s Appliance Park, owned by General Electric. I’ve been employed in “white collar” jobs my entire working career. I also teach business management and human resource management classes at the undergraduate and graduate level. I count as friends both labor and business leaders. I believe in a balanced playing field. My personal philosophy is that both groups have to work together. One can not dominate the other and expect to remain in business or employed for long.
Labor has done a lot for this country. It has given us established work hours, the 40 hour work week, health and education, benefits, vacations, child protections laws, safe working conditions, and the right to bargain just to mention a few. Business has given us more product diversity and a higher standard of living than any other nation in history. They have done this through intensive research and capital investment. It’s also true that most states have “right to work” laws, meaning that businesses are free to hire and fire you with no or little notice. But on the other hand, you’re free to accept, decline, or quit anytime you want. There are also “open” and “closed” shops, meaning that union membership isn’t available or required (“open”) or by accepting an offer, you are required to also join the union (“closed”).
Is this fair? I guess that depends on your perspective. The reason there is a union in the first place is that at one point in time, employees felt threatened (I’ve always said that the chief reason for unions was bad management). If you don’t want to join the union, don’t accept the job. But what if you want the job but not the union? At a closed shop you don’t have any choice. I’ve thought that instead of having an open or closed shop, that the company have two pay rates (after all, they already have exempted and non-exempted classifications) with corresponding benefit packages. In other words, give the perspective employee a reason to want to join the union—better pay and benefits along with job protection. Alternatively, the non-union employee would not be subject to seniority or other job restrictions.
When it comes to politics, I have to agree with the commercial---sort of. I don’t think anyone, union or not, should be required to give to political action funds. I think employees should be able to opt out of having their union dues or pay going to a particular candidate or party. Why? Because it’s my money and I’ll decide who I’ll donate it to. Unions long ago defaulted on the ability to strengthen their position by blindly supporting just one political party---the Democrats. Nowadays, unions are seen as little more than the party’s cash cows. Instead, unions should (as they did once upon a time) support the best candidates for office regardless of party. That ensures a balance on both sides of aisle and increases the likelihood of favorable legislation. Think it doesn’t work? Look at business. They back individuals in both parties and have done quite well at it thank you. When I ran for state representative against an incumbent Democrat, all of my 30 or so volunteers were either active or retired union members. They knew I could do a better job and the letter behind my name didn’t matter one hoot. Not all Democrats are blue collar working stiffs and not all Republicans are rich.
Let’s take another look at the commercials and website. Both are interesting for what they say and don’t say as I’ve already stated. But, you may be wondering, why run the commercials now? There’s no pending labor or business legislation coming up. The answer is deceptively simple. This is a presidential election year. Money that Labor would be spending on Democrats is now going to have to be diverted to defend unions against these ads. Labor put all its eggs in one basket so to speak, while business bought the whole chicken coop. So, thank you Unionfacts.com for bringing this object lesson to light.
(Americans have had enough of high gas prices. We’re tired of being the pawns of oil companies and Arab Sheiks. Well, that’s been the argument so far. But one thing is for sure. The debate over global warming and energy is just getting started. I thought you might enjoy this article by Jay Hakes. Mr. Hakes is the author of “A Declaration of Energy Independence”. You can also check out a recent interview of Jay at http://www.wwltv.com/video/news-index.html?nvid=267393 which discuses Mr. Pickens’ energy plan).
Boone Pickens’ Energy Crusade:
Prophet or Con Man?
T. Boone Pickens has broadcast his way right into the middle of a presidential election debate about United States energy policy. Americans are upset about $4 a gallon gasoline, and the iconoclastic oilman has bought a lot of air time to tell us what he thinks about the situation.
Pickens’ views have injected some fresh air into the public dialogue, and most of his ideas stand up pretty well to the scrutiny of serious energy analysis. But we must be careful not to replace one set of problems with another.
His ads and web site warn about the money sucked out of the American economy by its negative balance of trade in energy. Pickens has identified a problem as least as big as high prices at the pump. The energy trade deficit is larger than our trade imbalance with China and far more costly than the war in Iraq. Moreover, much of the money ends up in the hands of America’s enemies. Though some laissez-faire economists find this situation acceptable, it’s hard to argue that our dependence on foreign oil can be sustained at current levels over the long haul without further damage to the dollar and the general U.S. economy.
A vigorous American Petroleum Institute advertising campaign, President Bush, and presidential candidate John McCain imply we can drill our way out of our dependence on foreign oil. Pickens disagrees. Again, score one for the man living in our television screens. Offshore oil drilling is expensive and unlikely to lower oil prices or have a dramatic impact on the world oil market. We shouldn’t rule out some carefully monitored expansion of lands available for exploration and development. But opening up more offshore areas in a country that has been drilling away since 1859 won’t be a game changer in an expanding world oil market.
Pickens emphasizes renewable energy, particularly wind power, as a solution to our energy predicament. Wind supplies a significant share of energy in some European countries and is growing here. We should expand the role it plays in electric generation.
But overemphasis on wind can distract attention from solar power and biofuels (not derived from food products), which offer greater potential for further technical development.
The idea that we should use government subsidies to get wind and other renewables into the market overlooks a big problem. The amount of fuel we consume is so large that subsidies will have unacceptable budget impacts for any fuel that achieves broad usage. The key policy here is making sure the fossil fuels pay their own way for external costs related to national security and the environment.
We should also adopt a national renewable electric generation standard that mandates a greater share for these clean and domestic sources, as many states have already done. Last year, the U.S. Senate came very close to breaking a filibuster against such a standard. After what has transpired since that vote, the Congress should quickly adopt the standard next year with tougher provisions than in the 2007 version.
Pickens correctly points out that expanded use of wind and solar, while intermittent, can save significant amounts of natural gas, the most environmentally benign of our fossil fuels and largely available from domestic sources. He then advocates that natural gas resulting from this displacement be used to power America’s vehicles. This would cut the need for foreign oil, reduce pollution and has been technically doable for a long time.
But this is the fork in the road where Pickens makes the wrong turn. Until we figure out how to sequester the carbon emissions from coal-based electricity or add significantly to the number of nuclear plants, we face a critical need for natural gas to reduce the use of coal. After having ignored the problems of greenhouse gases and global warming for decades, our nation cannot add more coal plants without risking great damage to our climate. There’s not enough gas to take on bigger roles for both transportation and electricity.
Fortunately, there are other alternatives for powering our cars and trucks that will work as well or better than natural gas. First and foremost, we need to demand more efficient vehicles. The Energy Independence and Security Act passed last year mandates that the 25 miles per gallon currently required for cars and light trucks be raised to 35 mpg by the year 2020. But we should not have much trouble raising the standard by a mile and a half a year. That get’s us to 40 mpg by 2020 and 55 mpg by 2040.
Ethanol produced from corn kernels is not worth the federal subsidies currently provided. But we should be utilizing liquid fuels from other plant sources, such as corn stover (the waste materials left over), bagasse from sugar cane, wood chips, and switchgrass. Even more exciting, but perhaps further down the road, is biofuel produced from algae. We also have the option of plug-in electric hybrid vehicles, which are very attractive economically, especially if recharging takes place at night when the demand on the electric grid is low. In other words, we can take the bold action Pickens calls for and still reserve natural gas for electric generation.
The Texan who wants to end our addiction to foreign oil may not have every detail right, but we should be grateful that he’s calling for some mighty big solutions to some mighty big problems.
From 1993 to 2000, Jay Hakes headed the Energy Information Administration, the data and analytic arm of the U.S. Department of Energy. He has just published A Declaration of Energy Independence: How Freedom from Foreign Oil Can Improve National Security, Our Economy, and the Environment (John Wiley & Sons, 2008).
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470267631.html
Poll Results
I asked if you thought candidates only were “fair game” when it came to politics, or if their families were subject to the same scrutiny. Interestingly, half of you said that the whole family was subject to the same level of public review as the candidate. The rest of you said that only children under 18 should be exempt. Wow, you all are a tough crowd!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)