The Conservative Edge

Have you ever been thinking about an issue that is important to you, and then see that issue expounded in a magazine or newspaper? Maybe you feel that nobody else could ever have the same viewpoint on a particular subject. But when you see an article that expresses your own point of view, it feels good, doesn’t it?

I’m having that good feeling this weekend. If you have read any of my previous posts (feel free to check the archives) concerning American energy production, then you know that we’re giving up on crude oil way too soon. I know that runs contrary to liberal thought. Those liberals evidently think that we should solve the foreign oil problem by just getting rid of cars altogether. And with the government now practically running GM, and with Chrysler in bankruptcy, we can see that the automobile is doomed. This administration is set to dismantle the car industry and the freedom of personal transportation.

Until that happens, we will continue to rely on the auto as our primary mode of transportation. Which means, of course, that we will need plentiful supplies of gasoline at reasonable cost. (No ethanol, please; that’s a terrible waste of corn that could be otherwise used to feed hungry people.) Crude oil must remain a vital part of our energy policy. Not only do we use it to make gasoline, but crude oil is also used in the manufacture of paint, plastics, rubber, and hundreds of other products we take for granted.

My regard for crude oil was reflected in the special Monday, May 4 edition of the Investor’s Business Daily. Within the editorial pages, Robert J. Samuelson writes “Wind and solar (power) mainly produce electricity. Most of our oil goes for transportation; almost none—about 1.5%—generates electricity. Expanding wind and solar won’t displace much oil; someday, electric cars may change this. For now, reducing oil imports requires using less or producing more.”

That’s been my position, and it makes me feel good to see similar thoughts expressed in a pro-American newspaper like the IBD. I’ve listened to Obama and the other liberals talk about job creation, but they are castrating American industry, especially oil companies and car makers. If we developed more resources here at home, think of the jobs that would immediately be created. There would be a demand for geologists, engineers, truck drivers, and refinery workers. This demand might be enough to give the economy the “jolt” that Obama promised.

We will never be able to wean ourselves off foreign oil by building more solar panels or wind turbines. Samuelson notes that in 2007, wind and solar generated less than 1% of U.S. electricity. Increasing that ten times will still have those industries contributing only 10% of our electricity needs. And that still would do nothing to reduce our consumption of oil.

Even though some resources, like oil shale, would take time to develop, that’s no reason to avoid getting started now. Remember, it’s also going to take a lot of time to establish that tenfold increase in solar and wind output. There is still the electric car that needs refinement, and fuel-cell technology that should be explored. Until these and other advancements become practical and affordable, we shouldn’t let crude oil fall out of favor. Two dollars for a gallon of gas is still a pretty good deal.

I watched quite a bit of the congressional interrogation of the Big 3 auto makers’ CEOs this evening (November 18). One thing that became clear was that the senators making up the questioning panel actually raised some very good points. I was also a bit surprised that the mostly Democratic panel was able to be clear, firm, and succinct in its questioning.

The final point made by Senator Dodd was perhaps more personally directed to the CEOs, instead of the companies. His point was this: the overwhelming issue that American taxpayers have with this bailout is the fear that the money will wind up in the pockets of CEOs and executives who are already making outrageously high salaries. Senator Dodd reminded Bob Nardelli about the severance package of $200 million he received from Home Depot, which many people have neither forgotten, nor forgiven.

This reminds me of a company I recently worked for. In June of this year (2008), Delphi Corporation closed the plant where I was employed as a tool-and-die-maker. Delphi is a major parts supplier to GM; our factory made brake parts and assemblies, and a few other chassis details. The workers were part of the United Auto Workers union.

In 2007, we voted for a contract that we hoped would keep the plant open until 2011. The contract called for drastic wage cuts for most of the workers. People earning anywhere from 20 to about 26-28 dollars an hour took a cut down to the 14 to 18 dollar an hour range. Some benefits were reduced as well. Some cash payments were to be included to help offset the cuts, but the fact remains that wages were lowered quite drastically, and accepted by the union workers.

However, we also found out that Delphi executives were to share over $300 million in bonus money at (or sometime near) the end of the 2007 fiscal year. For mismanaging a company into bankruptcy? It seems insane that this much money would be available for these people. And, we also wondered why and how the company could even be IN bankruptcy if it was generating that kind of cash. We all felt that we were being asked to sacrifice, so the top dogs could keep their money and lifestyles.

Remember the American Axle strike a few months ago? American Axle, a manufacturer of axles and driveshaft assemblies was also a parts supplier to GM. Some time after the workers went on strike, it was revealed that the CEO of American Axle earned $10 million a year. Yet, he and his company wanted labor to take up to 50 percent wage cuts. Is that really fair?

Many people have a negative view of the UAW and other unions, placing the blame for the demise of the auto makers almost completely on the unions. My own experience leads me to feel somewhat differently. The unions were no doubt emboldened at the exorbitant CEO and executive compensation. After all, if there was so much money available for the big guys, why shouldn’t the workers have a slice of the pie? But, labor is always blamed for companies’ failures. Labor can’t always be held responsible—there is a lot of ineptness and shortsightedness at the top of many companies in America.

And remember, there are lots of individuals and organizations who specialize in squeezing every last dime out of a company before shutting it down, and then moving on to the next victim. I should know; I’ve been through 2 plant closures in the last 3-1/2 years. I’ve seen a lot of people who were crushed by the losses of jobs that were held for 5, 10, even 20 years. I am one of those who has to put his life back together. Through no fault of my own, I am out of a job because somebody decided I wasn’t needed any more. It’s a pretty helpless feeling!