Still more thoughts about - A New Day

Today, we turn to the opinions of Professor Richard A. Epstein of the New York University Law School, entitled:  Deregulate Labor Markets Now.

"Wide-ranging de-regulation of labor markets would produce an immediate economic jolt without costing taxpayers a dime.  Labor markets are hobbled every day by ever-more intrusive regulations and taxes, with two costly consequences.  First, they reduce the opportunities for gains from trade between employers and employees.  Quite simply, if the cost of regulatory or tax compliance exceed the joint gains from the transaction, the deal is off.  Second, these regulations add huge administrative expenses, both in the direct costs of government enforcement and in private compliance costs.  We should never spend tax dollars to reduce productive activity.

So we have to bid farewell to the egalitarian mantra that we can lift the nation up out of its doldrums by raising minimum wages to living wages, by tightening overtime regulation, by strengthening public and private unions, by extending family-leave protection, by continuing with aggressive enforcement of the anti-discrimination laws based on race, sex and age, by imposing health-care mandate on employers, and by extending un-employment benefits.  The tragic truth is that these feel good measures his hardest at the bottom end of the labor markets, especially minority teenagers desperate to gain work experience.  Employers won't hire if they think that reforms are short-term gimmicks.  Protectionist policies never work.  But long-term stable reform could and should reverse those dismal un-employment and labor-participation figures."

Oh how I wish that I had been Professor Epstein' class monitor for this examination.  Avoiding just a few of the pertinent facts was almost a crime in my day and age and it's difficult for me to imagine anyone who knows anything about the pertinent problems regarding employment to allow a passing grade for this "essay".  Yes, I know it was merely an addenda to a politically inspired effort to convince folks that whatever is not working in our society is the fault of the other party. 

First off, there will be no "wide-ranging" deregulation of our labor markets without the expressed consent of our Congress.  There may actually be a politically inspired effort to do so, but as long as our government is regulated by the efforts of the Congress and the approval of our President, we should not be intimidated by thoughts as expressed by Professor Epstein.  Don't let anyone scare you into believing otherwise.

And there will be no economic jolts in the labor marketplace as there are few - in any, organizations capable of energizing such an event, the threats of certain legislators notwithstanding.

Nor are there any egalitarian mantras" other than the wishful thinking of those who have been to the "market" and failed in the process.  We get confused by the size of many of out corporations and are tempted to believe that their policies and practices are at the root of many of our problems regarding employment, but the heart and soul of the labor force still carries the proverbial "lunch bucket" to and from their places of employment.  Alas, they do not have any real power.  Proof of this is found in the recent efforts to raise the minimum wage by picketing McDonalds and their closest competitors.

If we want to address the "problems" cited by the good Professor, all we really need to do is have the leaders of the major employers in our nation, to invite the leaders of 100 or more various groups claiming to represent the working class, to a "retreat" lasting a week or more in some exotic place, far removed from the "media" and earnestly address the issues they have agreed upon to discuss.  Then, turn the findings over to the public-at-large for their approval.

Anything less would be an insult to all who earnestly seek resolution to the real problems we are experiencing.  It might be entitled - Democracy in Action.  Who knows, there might even be some who would report having "seen" smiles on the faces of our founding fathers.

More thoughts about - a New Day

Today - after my tirade yesterday about "who is responsible for the mess we are in" I am turning to Senator Kelly Ayotte, R-New Hampshire, as I just filled out the questionnaire on her web-site and I am hoping she might respond to my response to her thoughts on the future of our nation:

"My grandfather, a decorated World War II veteran, recently passed away at age 98.  He worked two jobs, provided for six kids and he never used credit cards.  The men and women of the "greatest generation" understood that you need to live within your means.  They also worked hard to leave the country better off than they found it.

With over $17.5 trillion in debt and tens of trillions more in unfunded liabilities, our nation's credit card is maxed out.  Republicans and Democrats, with Presidential leadership, need to finally reach the much talked about, but elusive, grand fiscal agreement that "would possibly" (excuse me, Senator, for altering -the language of your claim) put America on a strong financial footing and create a pro-growth economic climate..

First, "an" agreement must address the long-term drivers of the national debt - entitlement programs. Social Security and Medicare are headed for insolvency as early as 2033 and 2026, respectively.  If we don't up-date these programs to reflect the nation's changing demographics, they won't be there for the people who need them.

Second tax-code reform (..."here we go, again" SM)  The existing code is mired in favoritism and crony capitalism that does not drive economic growth.  The code should be made simpler and fairer, with rates reduced for individuals and businesses.  Otherwise, we will continue to see American companies relocate abroad, costing jobs in the U.S.

Tax reform should also allow U.S. businesses to bring back the trillions parked overseas because of our uncompetitive corporate tax rate - so they can invest here, creating jobs, while also adding money to the Treasury for priorities like paying down the debt.

The "greatest generation" had the courage to fight for America's freedom and prosperity.  It's time for our leaders today to honor that sacrifice and secure the futures of (our) generations to come."

Excellent essay, Senator Ayotte.  Excuse me, if you would want to believe I am on my feet and applauding your thoughts.  You and I both know, they are not original.  I have stated elsewhere that my knowledge and understanding came about after decades of review.  I voted for the people I trusted to be my elected Representatives and based on the evidence you and so many others have cited, I - and millions more like me, have been betrayed by the most onerous of all "con" games.  "A little here and a little there and the first thing you know, others will believe in what we are doing."

The game that your predecessors have been playing needs to be closed down, now!

We do not need your words, Senator.   We do need your action, NOW!  You need to initiate legislation that prevents the Congress from initiating even one more action that costs us one more penny.  For anything to be passed, there MUST BE a section that defines precisely where that money is coming from and it's source must be found in previous legislation that has proven to be worthless.

Furthermore, Congress needs to provide legislation that itemizes every Federal agency that exists today, that has as its source of income, the contribution of tax payer dollars.  The Congress and the President will specify those agencies - such as the Department of Defense, that require financing for operations that are beyond the scope of available resources.  All other agencies will be challenged to operate their activities on five percent less that current appropriations and this process will continue until the Federal budget has been balanced.

No "if, ands or buts" will be allowed in determining all appropriate legislation. 

I wasn't with your Grandfather, Senator, but I do know that if his unit was actually engaged in combat with enemy forces, I have it on good authority - my fellow veterans, that every such action was committed to a "do or die" agreement that this battle will be won.  It was not be discussed in committee, nor would it be subjected to interviews with the "press" to see if the results could be do-able.  To a man, they fought and many died.

I suggest that this be the creed of all of our elected Representatives.  They will be directly involved in "righting the Ship of State" or they will resign.  Again, no "ifs, or ands or buts."

We are where we are because many of our elected Representatives were not conscious of their commitments.  They did what they were told to do by their political affiliates - or else they would not receive funding for any attempts to be re-elected.  Let's just get honest with one another.

I understand their predicament.  Unfortunately, they are the ones that have been caught in the proverbial "hen" house and like the "foxes" in my day, they should no longer remain as a threat to the owners of those facilities.

Agreed?  Let me hear a resounding - "Amen, brother"

Towards.... a New Day

Of course, you ought to know I am getting old and some might even say, senile.  But I vividly remember those days when people really cared for one another - more than just a posting on FaceBook, or Tweeting, or whatever form of "communication" seems to be popular these days.  There are times when I recall those ancient comments about the pending fall of Rome - and others, and wonder, does anyone realize, that unless we get serious about our tomorrows, the life we leave behind could become a torment to the next generation?

Enough, I don't like to complain but I really was disturbed when I forwarded a reference to our future with possibilities and realized, no one responded.  OK, they didn't understand my interest.  For the next few days, I plan on copying the quotes I forwarded and offering my response.  It might be like standing up against a wall and allowing others to shoot at me, but that's OK as well .  Let's see if we can get started on some serious debating.

The reference I forwarded came from the Hoover Daily Report (www.hoover.org) under the heading, "Ideas for Renewing American Prosperity".  First up is a voice that used to be heard with regularity in a time when our leaders were actually serious about our future, yours and my offspring.  I have been amazed about George Shultz since the days when he was heading up one of the several divisions of the Bechtel Corporation in California.  I was in recruiting at the time and had an applicant who had just returned from the Middle East where he had held responsible positions with two major engineering firms.  I had no idea who George Shultz might become, but on the day when we talked about possibilities for my candidate, he was most gracious and a careful listener as I related the items on my applicant's resume that I thought might interest Bechtel.  At that time, there was no interest, but he let me have his personal office phone number in case I had others that I thought might qualify.  Then, of course, he went on to greater opportunities.  Now, let's review what he has had to say recently

"Let's get back to governing in the way called for in our Constitution.  In the executive branch, this means the President governs through people who are confirmed by the Senate and can be called upon to testify by the House or the Senate at any time.  They are accountable people.

Right now, the White House is full of unconfirmed and unaccountable people responsible for various subjects and all too often, the cabinet officers work through them.  The right way is for the President to regard his cabinet as part of his staff.  That way, you have access to the career people - something unavailable to White House staff.  I have had the privilege of leading four units of government and, believe me, when you work with career people, they will work with you and they have lots to offer. Among other things, management will improve, something that is sorely needed today.  Of course, for the system to work, Presidential slots must be filled, so the Senate should give nominees a prompt up or down vote.

Don't you think it's about time Congress lived up to its Constitutional duties derived from the power of the purse.  Continuing resolutions are a total cop out.   The way to build a budget is to set a framework and then work from the bottom up.  Hold hearings, understand what the departments and agencies are doing, and help set priorities.  That way, the budget will be up-to-date, and such a process, which in large part is operational in character, will get everyone into more of a problem-solving mode.  So, better budgeting will also reduce knee-jerk partisanship. 

Our country's prosperity and self-confidence will improve when when we see an Executive branch that can set sensible policies and execute them: management matters.  And we will be better off f Congress does the hard work involved in executing the power of the purse."

OK, let's hear come Sherwood-speak.  As I typed those words, my mind went back to the days when we had some actual "debates" on the power of the Presidency vs. the accountability of the Congress. We used to elect a President on the basis of his popularity and a Congress by their pre-determined interest in representing the people of their State or district.  It should be obvious that it is not the people who are uppermost in the minds of our legislators, but the dictates of their political persuasions.  We have a President elected by the so-called liberal Democrats and a Congress yearning to make certain he is the last of his kind.  I used to think it. was a racial issue, but as we see more and more minorities being elected to the Congress, I have the feeling that race is no longer a factor.

Shultz makes a valid point.  The Congress should give the President a prompt "up or down" vote on his nominees.  That has not been the case, regarding many of his appointees.  This, in my opinion, is why we have the impasse.  The President recognizing his responsibilities has had few, if any, other options. I admit, I am prejudiced in favor of the President for far more reasons that just the impasse with this Congress, but my reasoning has more to do with the intransigence of the Congress.  As soon as his opponents get wind of a probable nomination, sheer politics takes over.

I would like to point out that this President inherited a deficit unheard of in our history and within the six years he has held office, we are well on our way to a full recovery and the future seems brighter than at any time in our history, but I won't.  And I expect you will respect my decision.

I am listening....