Americanly Yours

I have been pretty critical of President Obama so far, and I will continue to do so for as long as he continues to push for policies which are bad for the economy and restrict economic liberty.  However, when he does something that I consider to be a good thing for this Nation, I will be one of the first to praise him.

Let me first start with the bad so that I can end with the good.

Yesterday, President Obama’s first public act was to limit the power of lobbyists in his administration.  He did this by creating a rule that prevents members of his administration from working as lobbyists and trying to influence the administration if they do leave his administration.  He also created a rule that prevents former lobbyists hired by the administration from working in their areas of expertise.

Lobbyists have been getting a very bad rap for the last decade, and while some of the criticism is needed, the truth is that lobbyists are essential to the proper functioning of American Democracy.  Lobbyists are experts in their fields who know pretty everything about their issue that can possibly be known.  They spend their careers specializing in studying one area of policy and make it their business to know everything about that subject that is possible. Now, because policy advisors in the administration cannot be experts on all fields, they often need to consult with lobbyists from all sides of an issue in order to get vital information.  An environmental lobbyists will know all of the effects of allowing a certain chemical into the water supply, and would be able to supply administration officials with needed data.  Administration officials meet with lobbyists on both sides of the issue in order to get a full perspective on the issue before crafting their policy–in the case of a new environmental regulation, administration officials will meet with a lobbyist who is lobbying on behalf of an environmental group, as well as a lobbyist who is lobbying on behalf of corporations.  As I said above, this is done because it is impossible for an administration to become an expert in all fields, so he outsources this part of his job.  Bringing in lobbyists with different opinions allows the official and the administration to be exposed to an array of differing opinions.

Mr. Obama is banning former lobbysts that he has hired from working on the same policy areas.  This does not make sense.  These people are experts in their fields and probably know more about the issues they previously represented than almost anyone else in the world.  Rather than excluding them from working in their fields, Mr. Obama should welcome these experts to put their knowledge of their areas of study into good use.  I think that this is a well intentioned rule that cause problems for the administration down the road.

Now, the good.  So far, Mr. Obama seems to be keeping his pledge for a more open and transparent government.  Yesterday, he announced that he was going to support a more loose interpretation of the Freedom of Information Act which would allow citizens to more easily obtain access to government files.  An open and transparent government is important in any highly functioning democracy, and I am glad that Mr. Obama has taken this step towards opening secret documents and records to the public.  Maybe soon we can find out about Area 51.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

I worked all day long on this blog yesterday, stopping only to watch President Obama’s inauguration, and to eat some Chicken Wings. Thank you to Chris Cassimus for helping me with all of my WordPress problems.

I thought the speech was pretty good—say what you want about President Obama, but he is a great speaker. I thought that he had some nice, positive things to say about our Nation, and I especially liked the point he made about how great it is that a man whose father would not have been allowed to eat at a local restaurant 60 years ago has now become President. The American Dream is not dead!

I did, however, have problems with some of the things that Mr. Obama said. I have copied parts of the text of his speech and placed the in italics with my criticism of them below.

“On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord. On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.”

I thought these sentences were completely inappropriate. For one, the way Mr. Obama described putting “hope over fear” makes his sound like a sore winner. I voted for Senator McCain, but I did not vote for “fear.” That was a ridiculous statement by President Obama which serves no purpose other then to reopen old wounds. I didnt vote for fear, I voted for free trade, free markets, economic freedom, experience, strength, and leadership. Obama did not need to say that.

On a side note, I have a friend (who will remain nameless here) who has an awful habit of changing his views to agree with whatever the candidate he supports says, even going so far as to copy the rhetoric of those who he supports. I have seen him do so for years and he did this quite a bit during the election. Well, he has already reminded me (in all seriousness on his part) that I “voted for candidates who preach fear.”

The final sentence of the above paragraph is troubling to me. Does Mr. Obama really believe that his election has put an end to politics? Does he think that there will be no political resistance to his lofty, overly expensive, and intrusive plans? He had better think again.

As far as false promises go, you can track these for yourself throughout Mr. Obama’s presidency. Here is a link to an Excel spreadsheet of the nearly 900 promises that Mr. Obama made during his campaign. Here is a webpage that tracks statements made by elected officials—kind of like Snopes.com for politics. They have created a user friendly table of nearly 500 of Obama’s campaign promises and his progress towards achieving them.  He is off to a great start so far.

“Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted — for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things — some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.”

The above statement is mostly true, but to me it provides another example of President Obama talking out of both sides of his mouth. He derides those who prefer leisure over work, yet he is calling for an extension of unemployment benefits so that unemployed workers can receive taxpayer money for doing nothing—probably the worst way to encourage hard work and employment. Bush already made a mistake by signing a bill extending unemployment benefits from 26 weeks to 39 weeks, but Mr. Obama wants even this to be extended. If you disagree with my assertion that this is bad policy, think about Europe’s extended unemployment benefits and their constant double digit unemployment rates. President Obama celebrates “the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things,” yet he has plans to raise taxes on those very people. Raising taxes on risk takers (entrapreneurs) will not help our society create new innovations, and will surely not lead to the creation of the 4 plus million jobs that Mr. Obama has promised to create.

“What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works.”

Again, how can Mr. Obama believe that the day of political arguments and disagreements have ended. This is just not how things work in a Democracy. Sure, President Obama will enjoy a large majority for at least 2 years, this does not mean that we have reached the end of political arguments.

Our government is too big. This is clear, as is the fact that it is not working correctly. The proper role of the government is to protect its citizens from foreign invaders, to protect its citizens from violence brought on by other citizens, and to protect the citizens from fraud and abuse through the creation of an objective and fair legal system. These are the only duties and responsibilities of government. The government should not be providing, owning banks, making cars, placing priority on any one type of scientific innovation over another, “creating jobs,” or deciding what children should learn.

“Those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account — to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day — because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.”

Did those words really come from the mouth of a man whose inauguration cost 4 times more than what was previously the most expensive inauguration in the history of this Nation and who has promised trillions of dollars in new spending and programs when the Nation is broke?  My trust will be restored when the budget is balanced.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

As of yet I have not responded to comments from readers.  I probably wont do so much in the future either, but I received a comment on my Inaugural Costs article that I felt needed a response.  Here was the comment:

“The government can’t help the fact that millions of people are about to flood the streets of DC. Obama’s election was too huge of an event for Americans to even allow a scaled back inauguration, and they will show up in DC regardless of the size of the “party”. It’s necessary to spend large amounts of money for safety reasons when dealing with a crowd that big; it’s not like they’re buying $40 million worth of booze. With so many nonresidents showing up, the crowd could easily become restless and end up costing the gov’t (not to mention the poor people caught in the subsequent panic) even more money than they’ve already spent.

Think about it: do you remember anyone jumping in their car to go see Bush sworn in? Me either, although I do know quite a few people that will be traveling well over a thousand miles this week just to catch a glimpse of history.

Anyhoo – most of the money spent on the actual festivities comes from private donors. Public funds are used mainly for unavoidable security reasons”

Let me start my refuting the 2nd to last sentence.  Most of the money spent on the festivities is NOT coming from private donors.  For one, the Federal government’s costs alone are at least $49 million.  As I said in my previous post, Virginia and Maryland’s combined costs are over $28 million.  Washington D.C.’s costs are at least another $47 million.  The total so far for D.C, Maryland, Virginia, and the Federal government is $124 million, meaning that this is the vast majority of the funds being spent.  If the total costs of the inauguration are $160 million, at least 77.5% of the money will be coming from the government.

Also, I understand that this is a historic event, but my argument was simply that Obama could have tried to tone down the celebration.  I used the example of Jimmy Carter in my article.  President Carter was inaugurated in 1977 after 16 years of failed presidencies, including a long war, corruption, criminal behavior, and an economy that makes today’s economy look great.  Yet, Mr. Carter explicitly asked supporters to tone down the celebrations.  All I was saying was that Obama could have at last asked his supporters to limit the inaugural activities.  People poured into D.C. because Mr. Obama encouraged it.  He could have refrained from encouraging it, given the current economic turmoil our nation is experiencing.  I would have.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

There has been lots of talk about an auto industry bailout. Apparently GM and Chrysler are both in imminent danger of collapse, while Ford has enough money to last through 2009, and claims that it will be profitable in 2010. Quite a few members of Congress have been floating several plans to bailout the “Big 3” US automakers, including a plan that would have the government take ownership stakes in the 3 companies (which is interesting because the combined market value of the 3 companies is less than the $25 billion that the government wants to inject into the companies) and appoint a “czar” to run them.

Sure, we could bailout these 3 large, iconic American companies. The rationale behind the bailout is that it could save a lot of American jobs. Yet, with the possible exception of Ford, I see little chance that any of the 3 companies will be able to completely turn around in the future. Instead, I see continued plant closings and lay-offs in the US along with continued losses. I think that bailing out GM, Chrysler, and Ford will just prolong the bleeding. The truth is that even if the bailout is a huge success and the companies survive, the Big 3 automakers will still close down all (or nearly all) of their American plants. The proponents of the bailout argue that the bailout is necessary to save American manufacturing jobs, but in the end, this will still result in the job losses that the proponents of the bailout are seeking to avoid. True, if the bailout works these cuts will come over the next 5-10 years, rather than all at once, but nevertheless they will still come. It seems to me that this type of bailout will end up subsidizing companies for cutting American jobs, rather than creating jobs.

For the record I oppose bailouts, but if there has to be a bailout, I have a better idea. Rather than subsidize 3 large automakers who have done nothing but cut American jobs and hemorrhage money for the past decade, we could subsidize 3 profitable automakers who in the past decade have greatly expanded their employment of American workers while earning large profits. I am talking of course about Toyota, Honda and Nissan.

You can argue that these companies are not “American” companies. This is true, these companies are headquartered in Japan, yet they do employ many American workers. Ford is headquartered in America, but I often wonder if there is anything besides that which makes it an American company. For example, I drive a Ford Fusion (which I love). My car was designed by Japanese engineers and built in Mexico with Chinese parts. I don’t really know what makes it an American car. If you buy a new Toyota Camry you will find that it was built in Kentucky. Japanese automakers also increasingly use American made auto parts in their cars. From 2000 to 2006, Japanese automakers’ purchases of American parts increased 53% to over $48 billion. And while the American Big 3 has been racing to close down its plants and produce its cars outside of the US, 63% of Japanese cars purchased in the United States in 2007 were manufactured in America.

Between 2004 and 2006, Toyota, Honda, and Nissan have created 4,715 jobs, increasing their employment of American workers by over 8% to over 63,000 workers, while Ford, Chrysler, and GM’s American workforce was cut by 23,264 jobs—cutting over 12% of their American workforce. [[Note, these figures were really hard to find, and the American Big 3 cut an additional 30,000 employees in 2007, bringing the total down to just over 129,000, however I could not find any statistics for the Japanese Big 3 for 2007.]] In that same time span, Ford, Chrysler, and GM have lost billions of dollars, while Toyota, Honda, and Nissan have made billions of dollars. Simply put, the Japanese Big 3 has produced much better results. The Big 3 Japanese companies clearly have better business models, and they have created thousands of jobs while Detroit’s Big 3 has cut thousands of jobs. Loaning the bailout money to the Japanese companies rather than to the American Big 3 will create necessary jobs which will most likely be filled by the highly skilled workers who will lose their jobs when the American Big 3 collapses.

Also, which Big 3 do you think ahs a better chance of paying back a $25 billion loan, bloody Detroit, or profitable Japan? And, if the government has to take an ownership stake in 3 automakers, I would rather it take ownership stakes in Toyota, Honda, and Nissan than GM, Ford, and Chrysler.

Besides producing technological innovations, Japan’s Big 3 is also the industry leader in producing environmentally friendly cars. The Toyota Prius and the Honda Civic Hybrid are great examples of popular hybrid vehicles which Detroit just cannot produce.

It is not just American automakers who are in “need” of a bailout. European automakers have asked their governments for a $40 billion Euro ($50 billion) bailout. Even China is now in the process of bailing out their automakers. The Japanese automakers are the only automakers in the world that are not in need of a bailout. Why fight against the inevitable? The whole world knows that Japanese car companies can make cars better and more profitable than any other group of automakers on the planet. Rather than extending the miserable lives of failing car companies, we should euthanize them and embrace the success of the Japanese Big 3. When companies can efficiently produce a great product and sell it at an inexpensive price, we all win, regardless of where the companies are headquartered.

Obviously, these companies are so well run that they don’t need a bailout. The auto industry in America is still strong; it just so happens that the strong producers of cars in America happen to be Japanese. So what? America is a Nation of immigrants. Maybe giving Honda, Toyota, and Nissan low interest loans to expand American factories could convince them to immigrate to America and move their headquarters to Detroit.

We should reward innovation and punish sluggishness. Thanks to Honda’s innovations, a Honda factory in East Liberty, Ohio can switch from manufacturing Honda Civics to making Honda CR-V’s in only 5 minutes. However, a Ford SUV factory in Michigan is switching its production from SUV’s to small cars, but because of a lack of innovation at Ford, the factory is shutting down for 13 months to retool, which is costing the company $75 million.

Bailing out Detroit will subsidize bad behavior, similar to giving a juvenile delinquent child a raise in allowance in the hopes that it will somehow change his behavior (if you think that will work, ask my parents). The government should reward good behavior, not bad behavior. Rather than raising the allowance of the bad kid, why not reward the good child? Wouldn’t this be a valuable lesson, not only to the “children” involved, but also to all the other children out there (airlines). “Bailing out” the Japanese Big 3 will lead to the creation of American jobs, increased research, and increased profits for these companies. Bailing out Detroit will only extend the pain and slow bleeding.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet