opa-opines.net

How hard is it to appoint a replacement for a US Senator? Governor Paterson of New York seems to think it is a very difficult task. When Senator Hillary Clinton accepted the job as Secretary of State, her seat became vacant and Caroline Kennedy told the Governor of New York that she would like the post. Simple, right? Either appoint her or not. Maybe ask for a resume and a background check then talk to a few people who know her, and decide. Otherwise a fairly simple process, right? Not for Governor Paterson.

There were several vacancies due to staffing the new administration. Two were simple: both the Governor of Colorado and the Governor of Maryland simply appointed a replacement without any fanfare. Illinois, of course, had some controversy when the sitting governor tried sell the appointment. But even Blagojevich, after being clobbered politically, simply appointed a replacement. The action of appointing a replacement for a midterm senatorial vacancy occurs frequently. I can not remember any situation similar to what happened in New York.

It is very unusual to ask someone to campaign for an appointment to a senate vacancy. Most of us would not be prepared to do so. We would not have our positions developed for the full range of current issues that a person would encounter in the Senate. Most sitting Senators would ask for time to develop policy positions before confronting the media. For some reason, Governor Paterson decided that Caroline Kennedy needed to tour the state and “campaign”. No one else who expressed interest in the job was asked by the governor to submit to the torture of having hostile press interviews. Why this treatment of Caroline Kennedy. Is it because she is famous, the daughter of a former president and niece of both Robert and Teddy Kennedy? Was the governor hoping for some political gain?

Other than being a member of a famous family, an attorney, and an active citizen in philanthropic work, I do not know if Caroline is the best person to replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate. I do know, however, that no one should be treated with such disrespect. Governor Paterson, shame on you.

This nation is in a mess as we have several crises. Both political parties and most citizens agree that these are emergency times. What I fail to understand is why anyone – especially those in positions of power or responsibility – would stand in the way.

Rush Limbough said recently that he hopes Obama fails as President. Good as Rush may be, I think he is off base. In my many years in the active military I served 6 Presidents. I didn’t agree with some of their programs. Often, I admit, I would have preferred a different President, but I followed our leader.

We have a tradition in the USA. We fight one another during each election but once the votes are counted and a winner declared, the losing party or group follows the winning candidate. Sure we continue to point out mistakes and criticize decisions, but once a decision is made we submit (even unwillingly). This code has become the American way, the only exception I can find is the succession of the South during the Civil War.

So, Rush, you often accuse other people of not being patriotic, what about you. Disagree with the President all you want, but to wish that he fails is to wish that American fails – don’t you get that? If you have better ideas, just mention them and sell them. Tell us how you know that your way works. Many of your principled concepts were used during the past eight years. Please explain exactly what went wrong because it escapes most conservatives. Seldom have I been more disappointed in a person that calls himself a conservative. Ronald Reagan would be angry for your lack of patriotism.

In the early 60′s, a college friend introduced me to “Conscience of a Conservative” by Goldwater. My friend explained that if government does not interfere it allows business to function efficiently. Business grows and profits and the result is good for everyone. Sounded like a great idea.

Conservative economic leaders believe in the axioms of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. The concepts of less regulation and lower taxes have indeed allowed business to flourish through the 1980s and 90s.  These axioms assume, however, that corporate leaders can be trusted to make decisions that are for the common good. The great American machine wants to allow everyone in the society to flourish.

Have the last several decades proved conservative economists wrong? When Enron failed and appeared corrupt, was that an exception? When AIG needed government bailout, did that deny the validity of the conservative concept? When financial wizards invented the CDS (Credit Default Swaps), were they using the rules of Goldwater?  When mortgage companies devised tricky loan documents for vulnerable “sub prime” customers, were they using the guides of Reagan?

How can we trust business again? The current economic crisis is resilient because of fear – people with money are reluctant to loan because they fear borrower default. What can be done to allow us to trust again? How do we fix the trust problem?  Some conservative genius must answer this question.

The economic problems of our country are complex, but I will focus upon only one – reducing labor costs. To be more competitive and to make more profit for their stockholders, businesses work to lower labor costs. Corporations do not like labor unions because they work to get workers more salary and benefits. Business does not like minimum wage because it increases the expense of labor. Companies do not like social welfare programs because they increase taxes.

Corporations out-source labor to lower costs. Some companies hire illegal aliens or aliens on work visas to lower labor costs. If a business faces a decrease in growth, they lay-off workers.

A number of economists that I consulted say that we have a consumer driven economy. Indeed some say that consumer spending accounts for two thirds of our economy . Many claim that for years, our prosperity and growth has been fueled by spending. Seems that America is the world’s largest market.

Well, since we have an economy that is driven by consumer spending, if we keep wages low and unemployment high who will purchase the products and hire the services that companies offer? Where is the logic?

Today rich investors no longer have confidence that profits will result from their investments. These rich folks brighten when they hear that a company is shedding jobs to statistically improve profit margins. Do they somehow believe that consumers in other countries will purchase the products? Hey, everyone else is bringing their wares to America to sell. Where is the logic? Does the chance of making money turn off logic?

We need a new mind set in the business world. A new principle could be: any action that increases the purchasing power of the “working” class is good for business. Accordingly, reducing worker wages and downsizing jobs hurts our market. If we produce a good quality product, the buyers will come.*  We need only to examine Toyota and Honda versus General Motors and Chrysler to establish that point. Our customers include our workers. Our very best consumers are our own people.

Can our business leaders see the “handwriting of the wall? What do you think?

* I will deal with imports in a different commentary.