How the bankruptcy of the Big Three will save manufacturing in the U.S.

The Problem
The main problem is the cost structure of the Big Three automakers is 30% higher than their competitors, and that is what is making them uncompetitive in the auto industry.(1)

Over the past 30 years, as Toyota and Honda and other foreign manufacturers began to gain market share in the U.S., the Big Three automakers had a choice between: fiscal discipline or buying union votes - and after decades of buying the support of the UAW - the Big Three find themselves stuck in the incredible mess that they created.

Labor Costs
The U.S. manufacturers pay significantly higher labor costs, approx $25-30 more per hour, than Toyota, Honda and Nissan ($48 in labor costs per hour). (2)

GM's per hour labor cost is $73.26. Of this figure, $39.68 is in the form of wages, while $33.58 is in the form of benefits and government-mandated programs.(3)(4)

Ford ($70.51) & Chrysler ($75.86) are in the same boat as GM.(5)

Legacy Retirement & Health Care Costs
In addition to exorbitant per hour labor costs, the Big Three automakers are saddled with an $100 billion in legacy and health care costs for 400,000 retirees (former workers who are no longer producing cars).(6)

Job Bank
On top of immense labor costs and retiree legacy costs, when the Big Three automakers layoff workers - these UAW workers are placed in a "job bank" and the companies are forced to pay 95% of their salary for 2 years if they cannot find a position at another facility for them (or the worker declines the position offered).

Last year alone, the Big Three spent a half-billion dollars to fund idle workers in the job bank. Both GM & Ford had over 1,400 workers in the job bank in 2007, while Chrysler had half that amount.(7)(8)

Work Rules & Labor Contracts
Last but certainly not least, are inflexible job rules and an enormous labor contract that dictates what the companies "are and are not allowed to do" within an inch of their corporate lives.

How will the bankruptcy of the Big Three will save manufacturing in the U.S.?

Bankruptcy Keeps the Company's Doors Open - Not Closed
Too many people hear the word "bankruptcy" and think of closed doors. But in reality, the purpose of bankruptcy is to restructure operations in an attempt to keep the doors open.

If the Big Three were to go into bankruptcy proceedings, as a price for bankruptcy protection, the bankruptcy court would require that the Big Three automakers restructure their labor contracts with the UAW to make them more competitive as compared to foreign competition.

Pattern Bargaining
Collective bargaining in an industry usually follows one of two paths:

* Small to Large - The small fish settle first, and each larger unit receive a "cost + plus differential" contract. For example, in education, a small rural school district would settle first with the union and this would be the "minimum level" for all the rest of the contracts. The larger school districts would come to the table and the union would seek a settlement that is proportionally larger due to its' larger size school district.

* Large to Small - The large fish settles first, and each smaller unit receives a "cost - minus differential" contract. Converse to the prior example, in this case the largest school district would settle first for the "maximum" amount, and subsequent settlements with smaller school districts would be proportionally smaller than that received by the largest school district.

In the auto industry, the pattern for collective bargaining has always been the UAW settles with the Big Three automakers first, and then the suppliers, and then finally ancillary organizations.

So the Big Three-UAW labor contracts set the "maximum" level of pay and benefits in the auto industry. No parts supplier could expect to be paid more than the going rate for those working in the Big Three.

The Big Three-UAW labor contracts established the wage structure for the entire U.S. manufacturing sector
The key is: the Big Three-UAW labor contracts not only established the "maximum" level of pay and benefits for the auto industry - but given the strength of the auto industry - it also set the wage structure for the entire manufacturing sector in the U.S.

So the "maximum" level of labor costs set by the Big Three - would impact far more than just their suppliers and support organizations; it would also set the "max" wages/benefit rates for workers in any manufacturing environment in the U.S.

Therefore, the wage structure of ordinary machinists, steelworkers, electricians, etc in the manufacturing sector were a function of the wage rates established in the UAW's contracts with the Big Three.

Bankruptcy of the Big Three will save manufacturing in the U.S.
Manufacturing is a primary driver of the health of the U.S. economy.

But due to an uncompetitive wage structure, the U.S. has seen the loss of over 3 million manufacturing jobs to foreign locales.9

Since the labor contracts of the Big Three automakers established the wage structure of the manufacturing sector of the U.S., and this wage structure is now uncompetitive and resulting in the off-shoring of millions of manufacturing jobs - it is imperative for the survival and future of the manufacturing sector, a primary driver of the U.S. economy - that the Big Three automaker go through bankruptcy to restructure their uncompetitive labor contracts, in the hopes of setting a new competitive wage structure for manufacturing in the U.S.

Who Really Is The Selfish One?

A news story in the final days of the 2008 Presidential election, Obama called those who had the audacity to criticize his "spread the wealth" comment as "selfish."

I find Obama's comment to be absolutely ironic.

* Does he not know that America's capitalist economic system is based upon "enlightened self-interest?"

Enlightened self-interest is the gasoline that the U.S. economy runs on - without it the market would cease to exist.

With views like this, it is scary to think Obama will soon have control over the levers of intervention in the economy.

* Does he not know that Americans work awfully hard for their money, it is there's and they are free to use it as they see fit.

So President-Elect Obama the real selfishness, is the selfishness of you and fellow Democrats who expect Americans to constantly pay more and more in federal taxes to fund a ever-increasing big government.

Now Obama wants to "wait" to give taxpayers the tax cut he promised them on the campaign trail.

Sounds like more selfishness to me.

The Hidden 3rd Option

Here is the break-down of the Madison debate over the hotel tax.

The City of Madison has a 9% hotel tax that is expected to bring in about $8.77 million in revenue this year.

Economic Development, Small Businesses, Monona Terrace & the Greater Madison Convention and Visitors Bureau
20% of the hotel tax (about $1.76 million) is earmarked for "destination marketing" or marketing conducted by the designed Greater Madison Convention and Visitors Bureau to attract visitors to Madison.

$5.1 million is set aside for supporting the operation of the Monona Terrace Convention Center.

Another $690,000 is put in a "rainy day" reserve.

In an effort to generate more visitors and business for Madison, small businesses in Madison, the Monona Terrace and the Greater Madison Convention and Visitors Bureau want the percentage earmarked for destination marketing to be increased to 35%.

Mayor Dave & City of Madison
A little less than another 20% goes to the city of Madison (about $1.2 million) to offset operating expenses in the city's budget.

But Madison's Mayor Dave Cieslewicz has a bunch of "big idea liberal projects" burning a hole in his pocket - so he wants to increase the percentage of the hotel tax earmarked for the city by $500,000 to $1 million a year.

The Hidden 3rd Option
I want to throw out a hidden 3rd option - Increase tourism in Madison by reducing the hotel tax, which will reduce the cost for visitors, which will allow more people to visit Madison and give them more discretionary money to spend while in town.

I find it ironic that "big government liberal Mayor Dave" is pushing his proposal under the guise of "property tax relief" yet he isn't cutting a check to Madison property tax payers.

Rather instead, the hotel tax money is being used to pay for the cost of Mayor Dave's big government ideas.

Visitors to Madison worked hard to earn their money, instead of using the hotel tax to fund Mayor Dave's big government ideas, let visitors keep more of their money and I bet you'll see most of them will spend it locally as they walk through the stores on State Street.

Oh Kathleen when will you see the light?

The Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk continues to spend millions of dollars a year to buy up swampland and old farm fields (under the guise of reducing urban sprawl).

While Dane County Sheriff Dave Mahoney struggles in a nationwide manhunt for a dangerous and deadly killer due to limited financial resources.

In the next election, let's put it to a vote - put the decision in the hands of Dane County voters.

What would you use those millions of dollars annually in tax dollars for?

Option A.) Buying more swampland.

Option B.) Protecting innocent citizens from dangerous and deadly individuals.

I think the answer is clear.

Capital Times' Swiftboating of Paul Ryan

Wisconsin has one of its' own in the running for the minority leader of the U.S. House of Representatives.

But instead of being proud, the communist-manifesto Capital Times newspaper has decided to swiftboat Paul Ryan's bid for the position.

Marx's newspaper criticizes him for his free-trade policies, calling them "backward and destructive economic approaches espoused by the Wall Street Journal and most of his (Republican) caucus colleagues."

The paper went on to mock him for having a plan to keep companies for outsourcing jobs overseas.

Apparently, the Capital Times hasn't figured out that the best recipe for outsourcing jobs abroad - are the policies the paper has been promoting for the past century: high taxes, excessive government regulation and intervention in the economy.

Paul Ryan has a plan to reform corporate tax rates and provide incentives for companies to keep jobs domestically - so I fail to see what the Capital Times has a problem with? Keeping companies and jobs in America? Most likely they just can't admit that their policies push companies to outsource jobs abroad.

Katy Bar the Door

Pro-Life values are under severe attack at both the national and state level.

National
At the national level, last week, voters elected "the most radical pro-abortion politician ever to serve in the United States Senate or to run for president."

Last year, Obama told Planned Parenthood that on his first day in office as the President he intends to sign the Freedom of Choice Act which would throw out all state laws on parental notification and any other limitations of abortion on demand.

This week, news reports surfaced that Obama plans to sign executive orders that would:

* Overturn the Bush ban on federal funding for groups that perform abortions abroad (aka the Mexico City policy).

* Overturn the Bush ban on new federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

* Overturn the Bush ban on federal funding of abortions and abortion counseling domestically.

Wisconsin
In Wisconsin, Democrats are now in control of the Governor's office and both houses of the legislature.

Of course, at the top of the Democrats list is a repeal WI's abortion law.

Funny, I don't remember the Democrats talking about repealing WI's abortion law when they were on the campaign trail looking to get re-elected.

Why didn't they you ask? Because WI Democrats realize that if they did - they wouldn't get re-elected.

So Democrats talk about bread-and-butter issues on the campaign trail in the hopes of getting elected - but once in office, they push through their liberal, pro-abortion social agenda.

How to get away with 3 murders in WI

In 1985, a guy walks into a Church in Onalaska (near La Crosse) and shoots the priest and two others because he doesn't like that females were allowed to do the Scripture readings.

He is found innocent by reason of mental illness, spends some time in the Mendota Mental Health Institute in Madison and wants to be released into the public.

Now the District 4 Court of Appeals has ordered his release - which will occur - if the case isn't appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

So to summarize for those at home:
* We have a person who intentionally killed 3 innocent victims,
* He was found innocent of the charges in a WI court of law,
* He has never spent a day in prison for his crimes
* He now wants to be released into society again - because the state can't prove he's a threat to society.

Let us count the ways the criminal justice system has let WI citizens down in this situation:

1.) The original prosecutor wasn't able to get the 3 murder convictions to stick.

2.) The jury bought the insanity defense and pronounced him innocent of the charges.

3.) When asking for his release, state lawyers failed to prove that he would present a danger to the public.

Yeah, he killed 3 people - but he's no danger to the public.

4.) The District 4 Court of Appeals has ordered his release.

Now that the district courts find him mentally capable, he should stand trial for the intentional murder of 3 people.

Is it too much to ask that the judicial system keep this thrice deadly criminal away from endangering the public yet again?

If he is released, decides not to take his medication again and kills again - does he get off again by reason of mental insanity again?

How many innocent WI citizens have to die before this person is put away for life?

It is time for the judicial system to place the interests of the law-abiding WI citizens far above those who would intentionally kill 3 innocent victims.

Well at least he's honest

U.S. Democratic Representative Barney Frank (Massachusetts) recently told CNBC that there are "a lot of very rich people out there that we can tax to recover the money" to pay for Obama's expensive campaign promises during the economic recession.

Ahhhhh, the true Democratic game-plan is revealed (prior to the election) - not surprisingly, it entails increasing your taxes to pay for their campaign promises to interest groups.

Democrats know that if they were honest and said up-front they plan to raise your taxes - they would never get elected.

So therefore, today, many Democrats masquerade as "fiscal conservatives" in order to get (re-)elected. But in reality, they are nothing more than wolves in sheep's clothing.

So while I vehemently disagree with Rep Frank's plan to raise taxes - I give him credit and points for at least being honest and up-front about his tax raising intentions.

By being honest and up-front, taxpayers can make an informed decision as to what tax plan they find best for American, and which candidate they plan to vote for.

Do As I Say, Not As I Do

Obama recently remarked that America has a "fundamental belief" that "I am my brother's keeper."

Yet, Obama's tax returns from 2000 - 2007 find that he only gave 1% to charity between 2000-2004. When he was gearing up for a Presidential run, he raised the amount they gave to charity to 5% in 2005 and 6% in 2006.

Also, while they live in an expensive home, he makes a comfortable living (at the taxpayers expense) and his wife makes a nice $300K salary as a VP a Chicago hospital - he has relatives living in slums both in the U.S. and abroad.

So Obama isn't willing to give his own money to be his brother's keeper.

But he is more than willing to use your money to be his brother's keeper.

The Key to the 2008 Presidential Election

The key to the 2008 Presidential Election...

Is the reference group mindset of the voters.

A reference group is a set of individuals that a person identifies with or aspires to.

To whom the voters mentally refer to - is influenced by the imagery, metaphors and languages used by the political campaigns.

For example, in the Joe the Plumber analogy, who do voters picture themselves as? Who do voters identify with?

Do voters see themselves as Joe the Plumber working hard every day to hopefully earn enough some day to take over the business?

Or do voters picture themselves on the other end spectrum, as those needing government handouts (redistribution of your wealth) to survive.

President Bush's "Ownership Society" was a hallmark of his 2004 re-election campaign, and was wisely configured to take advantage of voters' reference group mindset.

In an Ownership Society, voters were encouraged to think "If my neighbor owned a house, I too wanted to own my own house." Voters were encourage to think of "the Joneses" down the street, at work or in their social circle - and how the re-election of President Bush would increase their chance at keeping up with the standard of living they aspired to.

But voter reference groups can also backfire, as President Bush learned when it came to Social Security reform.

The reference group of voters wasn't a large portable retirement fund that could be left to heirs, but rather voters pictured themselves in the mental position of losing all their retirement money in the stock market.

Therefore, the key to winning the 2008 Presidential election - is the campaign that can best utilize the imagery, metaphors and language of voters' reference group to attract their vote (and their support for key platform issues).

The Right Metaphor

Ever since Obama made his "spread the wealth around" comment to Joe the Plumber, many emails have been circulating around the internet - all attempting to find the right metaphor for describing Obama's plan to redistribute your wealth.

Most email attempts at finding the right metaphor use children to symbolize taxpaying citizens, and parents to symbolize the Obama government-mandated redistribution of your wealth.

One example has a child collect Halloween candy - and then at the end of the night, the parent takes away half and gives it to neighbor kid that didn't go trick-or-treating. But this metaphor doesn't cut it in my book - for the parents are merely redistributing the charity that the child received - the child didn't earn the candy.

A real metaphor would be - the child:
* Gets up early each day for a week
* Works with Dad to construct out of wood and paint a lemonade stand
* Works errands around the house to earn enough allowance to be able to buy a couple canisters of lemonade
* Runs to the store with the allowance to purchase the lemonade canisters
* Brings home the lemonade, mixes it up, and adds ice cubes
* Brings the lemonade along with a set of drinking glasses outside
* Sets up the lemonade stand for business
* After looking at the competition, decides on a profitable price point
* Sits outside all day long a hot summer day
* Makes lemonade sales pitches to passing pedestrians and cars

Now under the Obama plan to "spread your wealth around:"
* The profit from the kids' lemonade stand endeavor
* Would be taken by Obama and ("spread") given to the lazy kid next door who slept in and played video games all week.

Yet with a straight face, Obama will tell the enterprising kid that "he isn't punishing his success" and that "spreading the wealth around is good for everybody."

And with that, the entrepreneurial child has learned a valuable lesson about how the Democrats and government politicians feel entitled to steal his/her business profits.

How's that for the right metaphor?

Analyzing "Spread the Wealth Around"

At an Ohio campaign stop, Joe the Plumber asked Obama why he is raising taxes on hard-working Americans like himself.

Obama told Joe the Plumber that he wants to "spread the wealth around."

Obama's use of the phrase "spread the wealth around" is enlightening when analyzed.

Obviously, the phrase is socialist in nature, and offensive to all liberty-minded individuals such as conservatives and libertarians.

But let's look at the phrase at an even deeper level.

"The Wealth" - There is no "the wealth."

All wealth is earned by someone.

There is only my wealth, or your wealth, or someone else's wealth.

So by using the term "the wealth" obfuscates who rightfully earned and deserves the wealth in the first place.

Therefore, Obama is saying "Spread your wealth around."

"Spread" - "To spread" is a verb. A verb expresses action.

To whom is "the subject" that the verb asserts the action of?

In this case "the subject" is Obama.

Therefore, he is saying "Obama will spread your wealth around."

"Around" - Who decides who receives your wealth?

Answer - Obama will decide who receives your wealth.

So your hard-earned wealth will be taken from you - and Obama will decide who will receive your wealth.

You have no control over who Obama decides to give your wealth to, nor will the recipients know that it came from you.

Funny how Obama and the Democrats can't understand how offensive and repulsive the concept of "them deciding how to spread your wealth" is to liberty-minded people.

How many people have to die?

A Fitchburg man was arrested Waukesha County for his 11th drunk driving charge.

He was convicted of drunk driving: once in 1987, twice in 1991, four times in 1992, once in 1995, once in 1997 and once in 2000.

After his 10th drunk driving conviction in 2000 - he was sent to prison for 3 years and a year of probation.

How many people have to die before he is taken off the road for good?

The justice system needs to get serious about the threat this man poses to society!

He could face over 12 years in prison if convicted of his 11th drunk driving charge.

Why not protect the good, law-abiding taxpayers and put this guy away for the max - and get him off the road for good?

He's had a 2nd chance, a 3rd chance, a 4th chance, a 5th chance...and even an 11th chance.

It's time to protect society from this dangerous menace.

The Question That No One Can Answer

If a state can't afford to provide government-funded health care for just its' children...

What makes Obama and the Democrats think that a federal version of government-funded health care for all citizens will be affordable?

The answer is - government-funded health care isn't affordable.

If a state can't afford it - surely the feds can't afford it.

Every state that has enacted state-funded health care for children, seniors or the poor are facing huge shortfalls, sometimes numbering in the tens of millions of dollars.

These underfunded state health care plans are looking to the federal government to bail them out.

The question becomes when Obama and the Democrats attempt a federal version of these state government-funded health care - who will bail them out?

The answer - unfortunately, you and I, Mr. & Mrs. Taxpayer.

Stand up and say "NO!" to government-funded health care!

The Value of a Life

Unbelievable!

A 45-year-old woman, who drove while high on marijuana - hit and killed a bicyclist.

* The bicyclist smashed into her windshield and bumper.
* She failed to stop and deliver aid to the person she ran over.
* She left the scene of the crime.
* She failed to contact police or emergency officials.
* Her husband waited two hours before contacting police to tell them "she may have run over something."

Her punishment - several years in prison? Nope.

Four years probation. No time in prison. Absolutely ridiculous!

The lame excuse provided by negligent Assistant District Attorney Karie Cattanach was that "to be able to prosecute that beyond a reasonable doubt would have been difficult."

I guess the Assistant DA didn't possess the legal skills to prove that: the bicyclist was killed by the driver, the bicyclist smashed into the windshield, the driver's positive drug test, the perpetrator leaving the scene, failure to render aid or call police.

So feel free to drive around impaired killing people and leaving them to die - the worst you'll receive is probation - because apparently our DAs are so inept they can't prove a simple case of impaired hit, kill and run.

Spare Not The Rod

Let me get this straight...

Facts of the Case:
* A respected Poynette pastor gave his 12-year-old son two swats on the butt with a paddle as a punishment for lying.
* The father cried during the paddling.
* The 12-year-old was warned that he could be paddled for bad behavior.
* The father gave the son a chance to tell the truth, but he admits to continuing to lie.
* The son understands why he was disciplined.
* The son has learned a lesson from the experience.
* The hospital doctor did not think the son was abused.
* The boy did not think he was abused.
* The boy says he loves his father.
* The boy feels safe at home.
* When taken to the hospital by social services, the boy was in no pain, had no swelling, and only faint bruises on his butt.
* Yet the father has been brought up on felony child abuse charges and is facing up to 3 years in prison and $10,000 in fines being ...how absolutely ridiculous!

Why haven't the religious right, social conservatives and libertarians in WI come to this fathers defense? Where is the public outcry and media attention?

And people wonder we have of generation of narcissistic & ego-centric kids and teenagers that are undisciplined, disrespectful of authority, and all too often engaging in dangerous and illegal behavior.

It is my view that the only charges that should be brought in this case is for an out-of-control District Attorney Jane Kohlwey who should be brought up on "abuse of power" and "frivolous and unnecessary lawsuits" charges.

A History Lesson Is In Order

When Barack Obama says that his tax plan doesn't raise taxes for families making $250,000 or less a year (Obama wants to repeal Bush tax cuts for families earning over $250,000 a year)...

Conservatives and libertarians need to cite history as an example to refute this erroneous claim.

As George Santayana once remarked, "Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it."

Many taxes in the U.S. - initially started out only applying to the wealthy. This allows greedy politicians to get their grubby feet in the door.

But once inside, the unquenchable thirst that politicians have for more and more of your money - leads to a slippery slope where soon the bar gets lower and lower (and applies to more and more taxpayers).

History is repeating itself yet again:

1. Income Tax - Re-proposed in 1894, Sixteenth Amendment ratified on February 12, 1913. Initially, only one-half of 1 percent of taxpayers paid any income taxes (ironically applied only to those making about $250,000 in today's dollars). To ensure passage of the constitutional amendment, Democrats waged an extensive public relations campaign contending that it would only apply to the rich.
2. Alternative Minimum Tax - Proposed in 1969, implemented in 1970. Was intended to ensure that highest of high-income families paid taxes (and did not avoid paying taxes).
   
3. Death Tax -Implemented in 1916. Was implemented to make sure the wealthy were paying for the cost of military protection and because of concerns about "concentrations of wealth."
   

As Joe the Plumber adeptly noted, there's nothing stopping an Obama administration from deciding that $150,000 is "pretty rich too" and lowering the bar to raise the taxes on yet more hard-working Americans.

Every time Obama & Biden claim that most American families won't see their taxes raised - conservatives and libertarians need to cite the history of taxes in the U.S. - for it is only a matter of time before the tax applies to you too.

As the Pastor Martin Niemoller "First they came..." poem demonstrates (with a simple search and replace)...

First they came for (those making $250,000),
- but I was not (making $250,000) so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the (those making $200,000 & $150,000),
- but I was neither, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for (those making $100,000),
- but I was not (making $100,000) so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.

As an immensely respected and extremely wise man once remarked, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."