The Conservative Edge

There are a couple of words that have become more prominent in my vocabulary, and I would like to introduce them to readers of this blog. The words are statists and collectivists. Both words actually refer to the same group of people. You might otherwise know them as socialists, Marxists, and liberals. Not coincidentally, most of these people belong to the Democratic Party.

Statists and collectivists believe that the individual is only a part of a greater whole, that is, national or global society. You might view statists as people who think that the State (the Federal government) is all-powerful, capable of directing and controlling all individuals for the benefit of society. The collectivists hold a similar view; they believe that goods and wealth should be collected and redistributed, so that no individual should be more prosperous than another. In either case, the individual essentially has no rights, especially those that pertain to the attainment of wealth, and the procurement of self-defense.

John Holden, science adviser to President Obama, has been quoted as saying that America “must design a stable, low-consumption economy…redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential.” This is why the government has been most active in time of economic crisis. The Obama administration, with cooperation from the liberals, has swiftly implemented laws and regulations that will bring about the desired redistribution. For instance, there is now a cap on the earnings of doctors and corporate executives. The salary of Bank of America’s president is now zero. Furthermore, the government has also displayed its ability to fire private-sector executives, such as Rick Wagoner of GM. It is interesting, too, that GM had at least 8 separate divisions before Obama was elected; but soon, GM will be reduced to only four, as Pontiac, Hummer, Saab, and Saturn will likely be shut down.

Apparently (and unfortunately), the message that capitalism has caused our economic problems is being accepted by American society. In a Rasmussen Reports survey conducted in April 2009, only 53 percent of Americans believed that capitalism was better than socialism; another survey of adults under 30 showed that 37 percent favored capitalism, while 33 percent preferred socialism (30 percent was undecided). The federal government would no doubt like to improve on that 33 percent figure. That’s why President Obama continues to demonize the financial institutions, referring to bankers as “fat cats.” The more that capitalism and free enterprise ideals are discredited, the more likely it is that American citizens will accept a socialist, totalitarian dictatorship implemented by the statists and collectivists of the Democratic party.

It is almost unimaginable that a third of young American adults would prefer a socialist government. Even the mighty Soviet Union collapsed under its totalitarian communist/socialist regime. The American economic system of free enterprise has resulted in a high standard of living for its people that has far surpassed that of any other nation. The men who framed our system of government realized that it was individual rights, not state rights, that would ensure a free and prosperous nation. We should support the economic engine that has secured the rights we do have, secured the country against foreign powers of evil, and virtually saved the world twice in the twentieth century. Long live capitalism!

I’ve been thinking about the future of the automobile. Partly, because I recently found a stash of car magazines I had hidden away for the last 15 or 20 years. As I’ve been re-reading some of them, I have found it interesting to see how the car industry strayed from the expected path of development and refinement.

Back in the early-to-mid-eighties, we were just coming out of a period of oil shortages and high gasoline prices. This was the time that the Japanese car makers began taking market share by selling fuel-efficient cars at reasonable prices. Americans soon realized that these cars were also well-made and reliable. In addition, there were still plenty of vehicles made for the individual; sporty cars that were small, fun, and responsive. I remember well cars like the Toyota Celica and MR2; the latter was a mid-engined sports car (with only 2 seats), that was a thrill to drive and got great gas mileage to boot. Other notable cars were the Triumph TR7, the Volkswagen Rabbit GTI, the Pontiac Fiero, and Chrysler’s line of Omni/Turismo/Laser/Daytona sport coupes.

I actually owned a Fiero for a while. GM had originally designed it as a two-seat commuter car, but later added some flash to the design. I liked driving the Fiero, even though there were some compromises in the design. The general idea back then was that, for millions of people who drove themselves to work or school, a small, efficient car was required. There was no need seen for huge, hulking vehicles when the average number of people riding in a car worked out to slightly less than 2.

Where did that idea go? Look at the roads today, and you’ll still see one or two people in a car (for the most part), but that car now is a rather large SUV or even larger truck. I am sad to see that there are no more Celicas, TR7s, MR2s—vehicles that were fun, fast, and efficient. We used to drive cars that expressed our individuality, cars that were made for the delight of one or two people. Now, we are inundated with vehicles that seem to made for a crowd. The problem is, the vehicles themselves don’t stand out from the crowd anymore. They all look alike and pretty much function alike too.

Maybe it’s all part of the emasculation of American society. We don’t see the Marlboro man anymore, nor do we see many Westerns at the theaters. So maybe it follows that our vehicles are less aggressive, and more gender-neutral in appearance. Instead of reflecting rugged and/or sexy individualism, our cars now have to play nice to the friends and family.

Some might say that I’m old-fashioned or out of touch. That’s fine by me. I’d rather have an old Vette than a new Civic any day.

On Friday, June 12, I heard Larry Summers defend the government’s involvement in private companies. Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, Summers said that President Obama “did not, as he has said many times, run for president to manage banks, insurance or car companies.”

That’s understandable. If Obama had mentioned those ideas, he might not have been elected. Like Bill Clinton in 1992, Obama campaigned on fixing the economy, but, once in office, began implementing the Democrats’ real agenda.

If Obama had been completely honest, before the election, about the liberals’ real intentions, he would have told us that (among other things):

• They would impose outrageous and illogical taxes on tobacco products (supposedly to fund health insurance for children), with further tobacco regulation directed by the FDA.
• They would decimate the American auto industry, causing the additional loss of thousands more jobs. They would have the authority to fire the CEO of GM, and arrange the sale of Chrysler’s assets to a foreign car maker. They would increase the regulation of the auto industry, with the EPA to be in charge of auto emissions.
• They would permit the White House to oversee the upcoming Census, removing the Department of Commerce oversight.
• They would increase spending and our national deficit, leading to inflation and higher interest rates.
• They would refuse to expand the exploration and utilization of our energy resources, risking our national security and maintaining our dependence on foreign oil supplies.

That’s been the focus of the administration during the first few months. There doesn’t seem to be much emphasis on job creation. We were supposed to get a “quick jolt” to the economy, but I haven’t noticed it yet. Most of the new jobs the Obama administration takes credit for have come from preparation for the Census. Unemployment has spiked well beyond government estimations. And the run-up in oil prices means that the markets are anticipating increases in inflation, due to the massive amounts of new money being released by the government.

It gets worse. If the Obama administration authorizes the pending cap-and-trade legislation, we will all be spending more on energy to heat and cool our homes. That’s besides the higher gasoline prices that are sure to come, because the Democrats refuse to capitalize on American resources. The real growth we are witnessing is not in job creation, but in the size and authority of the Federal government. God help us.

Earlier this week, the Obama administration announced a plan to require new cars and trucks to become more fuel efficient and environmentally friendly. The goal is to cut auto emissions and increase mileage up to 30 percent by the year 2016. Vehicles will have to meet a fuel mileage standard of 35.5 miles per gallon.

Right now, it is estimated that consumers will pay an extra $1300 (or more) per vehicle for the cleaner cars and trucks. Before the Obama plan was hatched, carmakers were going to meet a mileage standard of 31.6 mpg by the year 2015. To meet that standard, it would cost the auto industry $47 billion. How much more will it cost them to meet the new requirements for both fuel efficiency AND emissions? Can we be sure that we won’t end up paying $2,000 or $3,000 more for cars and trucks that will meet the new regulations?

What’s really amusing (but also infuriatingly dumb) is the comment by an Obama administration official on the added costs. Here is an excerpt taken from a report on Yahoo!: “Administration officials said consumers were going to pay an extra $700, anyway, for mileage standards that had already been approved. The Obama plan adds another $600 to the price of a vehicle, a senior administration official said, bringing the total cost to $1,300 by 2016.

“That official said the cost would be recovered through savings at the pump for consumers and if gas prices follow government projections.” Notice the “so what?” attitude about consumers paying more for new vehicles; if we’re already paying extra, what’s a few hundred dollars more, right? Shouldn’t the government be finding ways to make cleaner technology cheaper, so more people could afford to buy better cars and trucks?

But the real joke is the statement that we will get the money back through fuel savings if gas prices follow government projections. There is absolutely no way that the government will be able to predict gas prices with any kind of accuracy. Nobody can predict prices for the next 6 months, let alone project out to the year 2016. Is this the government’s way of telling us that it believes gas prices will be 6 or 8 dollars a gallon by 2016? That could be the final nail in the coffin for the auto industry and personal transportation.

The only way that our government could forecast gas prices for the next 7 years is if we had our own supply of oil. With much of our oil coming from unstable countries, it is impossible to predict what will happen to the supply and the price of crude. But if our government would put more people to work securing a predictable supply of oil, we could stabilize prices by cutting our need for foreign oil. The United States and Canada have roughly 15 percent of the world’s proven reserves. We need to get more of that 15 percent to market, available for use here at home.

The Obama administration may be crowing over its new plan to squeeze the life out of the auto industry. But no one is willing to talk about the higher costs the consumer will be shelling out. Not only will new cars cost thousands more, but gas prices will skyrocket again, perhaps from additional future gas taxes. And you can be sure that mandatory emission tests will soon be required, resulting in even more fees to be compliant. It looks like the real reduction in fuel use and emission output will come from the fact that no one will be able to afford cars anymore. Maybe that’s what the liberals want after all.

Not too long ago, I wrote a post titled “The Big Picture.” In it, I tried to make it easier for people to understand that the actions taken now by the government result from ideas conceived a generation ago. I know I keep going on about events transpiring in the auto industry, the oil and energy industries, and our personal uses of tobacco and firearms. But, we need to comprehend just how serious the liberal movement is about removing the freedoms and products we now use and value as good and necessary.

In “The Big Picture” I made this statement: “The liberals have been planning their moves for a long time.” Now there are, I will admit, some short-term reactions to the various flaps and controversies that pop up in the media. For instance, it is amazing to watch Nancy Pelosi squirm about her obvious knowledge of interrogation techniques. She is Clinton-like in her ability to turn a lie into an accusation. But her crisis is only temporary, and will soon fall from the headlines. Meanwhile, the great social engineering of the 21st century marches onward, orchestrated by the liberal dictatorship. The liberals have gone from planning to enacting.

I wish there were some conservatives or Republicans who could articulate, or at least identify, this danger to our country and society. Instead of just being the guys who say “no” to Obama, the Republicans should be shouting from the rooftops about the rapid pace at which we’re headed off the cliff. Many Republicans are fond of invoking the name of Ronald Reagan, but they can’t portray America’s strength and purpose the way he could. Watching some Republicans make speeches is about as exciting as watching paint dry. They have no fire, no cause, no raison d’etre as the French would say.

Here is an example of how Ronald Reagan could identify and explain a liberal ideological threat. In 1980, when he campaigned for the presidency, Reagan spoke of the liberals’ desire to dismantle the American auto industry. He said, “It is fashionable in some Washington circles to be hostile to the automobile, especially the American automobile. After all, everything in Washington is close by, and even those without limousines or Volvos can get around in the taxpayer-funded Metro subway. But those who must get from one place to another in such locales as Texas, Kansas, or Los Angeles can’t afford the luxury of seeing cars taxed and regulated into oblivion.”

How prophetic Reagan’s words have become. He understood, way back in 1980, that the liberals desired to destroy the automobile and its use as personal transportation. Listen to his phrases: “hostile to the automobile,” and “cars taxed and regulated into oblivion.” He knew it, and identified it as a part of the liberals’ plan to reshape America, and not for the better. Twenty-nine years later, look at what is happening to the auto industry. Like I said, the liberals have been planning their moves for a long time.

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.

Winston Churchill once said that “The farther backwards you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.” He meant, of course, that history is a great teacher. Even the Old Testament philosopher said that there is nothing new under the sun; everything we see now has happened before.

And so it is with the American auto industry. With GM’s bankruptcy now likely to occur, many people may be wondering if we will ever again have a vibrant auto manufacturing industry. There are thousands of people losing their jobs, not just with GM or Chrysler, but at the smaller factories where parts are made and then sent to the big auto plants. Everyone from machine operators to engineers, from electricians to toolmakers, are seeing their jobs disappear.

And now, here comes our government to the rescue. But it almost seems that the car companies are making deals with the devil. In exchange for government loans to continue operations, the companies are essentially giving up the right to make the kinds of cars to satisfy market demands. They are also being told that the government can fire their CEOs, and tell corporate officials how much money they can make. Maybe Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank will start sketching prototype cars on the backside of bar napkins, and then send them to GM for manufacture.

Let’s look back a number of years to find a similar crisis facing a car company. In 1979 and 1980, there was much anxiety over the fate of Chrysler. Lots of experts were wondering how Chrysler could get in such sorry condition. There seemed to be some agreement that Chrysler’s problems stemmed from a combination of poor management and excessive government regulation. Lee Iaccoca came to Chrysler in 1979, and brought along some talented people from Ford, which resolved much of the management problems. But the company needed capital to stay in business long enough to revamp its product line. The federal government agreed to guarantee Chrysler up to $1.5 billion in loans.

In September, 1980, Ed Lapham wrote in Car and Driver that as part of the agreement, Chrysler had to get more than $450 million in wage and salary concessions from its employees. Chrysler then had to arrange $650 million in concessions from 400 banks; that was hard to do in times of high inflation and interest rates, especially with Chrysler’s credit rating. But the company eventually met all of the requirements for government loans. Iaccoca also worked hard to get everything in order. But his biggest challenge was holding his tongue while certain government officials inspected his company and then made public sport of it. Sound familiar?

In December, 1979, Tony Hogg said in Road and Track that “As far as government regulation is concerned, meeting a bunch of ill-conceived regulations…(is) absolutely devastating as soon as a business takes a turn for the worse…” Hogg also quoted then-Senator Carl Levin as saying “This situation was caused in part by the government…I think the government has an obligation to get Chrysler out of its problems. This is not a bail-out, but government help to solve a problem government has created.”

In 1980, a couple of months before the election, Iaccoca said “I suggested that we’ve had so much regulation in this country, how about declaring an economic crisis for 24 months and freezing all regulations in place. Everything. The air won’t get dirty. More people won’t get killed because side beams or bumpers aren’t meeting the new requirement.” Indeed, this whole realization that government was regulating the life out of American industry is what helped propel Ronald Reagan to the presidency.

But the Obama administration is set to add MORE regulation and legislation against American industry. How many millions of dollars will corporations have to spend to meet new piles of regulations, and to protect themselves against litigation? When you add these new costs to the higher taxes being imposed, it’s no wonder the American manufacturing industry is in such disarray. The auto industry revived in the 1980s because of a cooperative government (remember the repeal of the 55-mph speed limit). The auto industry will be crushed in the years ahead by an oppressive, anti-business government.

Churchill was right. History is a great teacher.

As I speak with friends and/or acquaintances, I have begun to notice a common element of our conversations. Namely, there is a grave concern that this is the time in which the government finally achieves a total elimination of personal freedom. The phrase “social engineering” keeps coming to mind. We are living under an administration that is bent on reshaping the role of government, increasing its power at the expense of the common people.

I must say that the title of this post was inspired by a column written by Brock Yates in 1984 for Car and Driver magazine. His piece was titled “Why Liberals Hate Cars.” Yates listed several ways in which previous Democratic administrations expressed their hatred of the auto industry. Lyndon Johnson gave us the 1966 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which resulted in substantially increased government regulation. In the 1970s, a Democratic-controlled Congress implemented the 55-mph speed limit, and also mandated the requirements for ignition interlocks and 5-mph bumpers. Jimmy Carter promoted the development of the air bag. Yates further stated that the Democratic Party “believes with a religious conviction that all social problems can be solved by heavily funded Washington-based bureaucracies.”

That has become a rather prophetic statement. Barack Obama has dealt more harshly with the auto companies than he has with the financial institutions which caused the current economic meltdown. Making Rick Wagoner leave GM isn’t going to fix things. Obama just wants to put a smack down on the car companies. In his column, Yates referred to a writer named R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., who commented on the liberal attitude. Tyrrell said, “It’s not that a liberal hates cars, it’s that most Americans love cars. He sees the guy next door polishing his new car, and it makes him sore. He thinks that something has to be wrong if such a simple act can produce happiness.” Tyrrell continued, “It seems as if a liberal’s central purpose is to disturb his neighbor. On the one hand, he demands total freedom in terms of pornography…but denies other people the right to smoke cigarettes or drive without their seatbelts. It’s pure egotism. They’re right, and you’re not.”

Yates also quoted an author and commentator named Ben Wattenburg. He said, “The automobile is the ultimate expression of a deregulated society. The car is the ultimate freedom machine, the great uncommon carrier. The liberals hate it because it defies control and regulation by bureaucratic elites.” Notice those words and phrases carefully. “Expression” and “freedom” are the things being assaulted by Obama and his cohorts. They hate anything that “defies control and regulation.” It’s no surprise, then, that the Democrats are using such heavy-handed tactics against the auto industry. They believe they can operate the car companies better than the executives; but on the other hand, they don’t care if the companies go under. That is egotism and arrogance at its finest.

This liberal hate is not reserved for the automakers. The liberals have gone after other industries. They are punishing tobacco companies—and the people who use tobacco—with exorbitant taxes and regulation. They want to hit oil companies with outrageous windfall profit taxes. They want to take away the option to send our children to non-public school systems. They are proposing legislation to eliminate conservative media outlets. They are plotting to eradicate any and all rights to gun ownership; that’s probably the Holy Grail of liberal control and domination.

Remember those words from Yates’ column. The Democratic Party “believes with a religious conviction that all social problems can be solved by heavily funded Washington-based bureaucracies.” Those words are coming to pass in a way never imagined before by the American people.

President Obama has made it clear that Americans should embark on a new era of community service, neighborhood assistance and charitable works. There is nothing wrong with helping your fellow man. Even the Good Book says that if we see someone in need, and have the means to help, we are obligated to do so. However, there might be a hidden message in Obama’s call to service.

The first thing to consider is that this Great Commission sounds like we should duplicate, on a community level, what the federal government wants to do on a national scale. The Democrats, and the Obama administration, want to enact their wish list of government services and subsidies. Many of these services are eventually going to enlarge the number of people who become entirely dependent on government assistance. Welfare, health services, food stamps, unemployment benefits and other subsidies are being expanded by Congress and approved by Obama. Some may feel that this is the compassionate thing for government to do, but there is always a method to the madness. The ultimate goal for the Democrats is to keep as many people as possible hooked on government, thereby securing a voting base.

The next thing to remember is that the government, in its call for service, gets us to work for free. While the feds hand out just enough money and health services for people to live on, we are compelled to make up for any other needs through our community service. In other words, we become some sort of great commune, where everyone shares everything with everyone else, and nobody gets ahead. This is the socialist idea that drives the Democratic Party, even though some of them, like John Kerry, remain filthy rich while they strangle the rest of us. There are two things that Democrats and liberals fear: constituents who are affluent, and constituents who have means of defense. When you watch the Democrats in action, you will see them direct their aggressions against personal and corporate wealth, and against our right to self defense as expressed by the Second Amendment. They truly want us poor and defenseless, because we then become easier to control.

Finally, consider that all who embark on a crusade of volunteerism become potential workers in Obama’s proposed idea of “community organization”. This will likely be unveiled after the upcoming 2010 Census. No wonder that the stimulus package contained $1 billion to be used by the Census; no wonder why Obama intends to illegally supervise the Census operation, even though Federal law states that the Commerce Department is to direct the Census. If the White House is the overseer, what would prevent Obama from making adjustments to the results, affecting the distribution of perhaps $300 million in federal funding to state and community agencies? By redefining social and economic districts, metropolitan areas could have numerous government programs handing out federal money through the hands of a new class of volunteers. The rest of us (those who still value personal freedom) would essentially be forgotten.

The message is being received. For example, here is a news item from USA Today: “United Autoworkers Local 2250, the GM plant and the United Way of Greater St. Louis organized an on-site volunteer fair on Thursday to encourage about 2,000 employees to consider volunteering during their time away from work.
Benefits representative Mike Bridgins came up with the idea when he heard President Barack Obama speak of the importance of Americans helping one another in difficult times.”

Obama learned a lot from ACORN and Chicago politics, didn’t he?

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!