Recently in Economy Category

Not bloody likely. The Democrats who have blocked oil exploration, nuclear energy, and every other method of powering the country have clung to their flawed theories through thick and thin (mostly thin, as we're seeing wholesale damage to the economy as a result). Indeed, it's hard to find any type of energy they do support. Even wind power, popular with the local Joe-bag-'o-socialism class here in Delaware, meets heavy resistance from Democrat elitists at the federal level. One has to wonder what life for Americans would look like if Democrats in Washington took their distaste for all things energy to its logical conclusion and banned all energy sources they didn't like - something like this?

While Congress has been the real villain in the energy mess we find ourselves in, the executive branch could make an impact if the right approach were taken with Congress. Unfortunately, we have little to look forward to regardless of who wins in November. Obama would raise gas prices through increased taxation, and offers no hope at all that prices would decline through increased supply.

The nation wouldn't fare any better under McCain. McCain's "cap & trade" plan would be no less of a disaster than any similar plan advanced by the left, and he opposes increasing oil supplies. His only saving grace - indeed, his only dramatic difference from the Democrats - is his opposition to increased taxing of the American people through corporate surrogates (aka the oil companies).

An argument could be made that we may fare worse under McCain, as his legendary stubbornness would keep his administration stuck on stupid while the citizens suffer under an ever-worsening economy. Obama, on the other hand, is a political opportunist who might relent on some of his harmful agenda in response to negative polling. In other words, a weasel might be less harmful than someone guided by principle. That's a painful point to have to make, and shows just how bad things have been allowed to get in our political system.

*sigh*.

As I said above, though, Congress is the primary cause of the problem. This also means that they're in a position to correct it as well, if the pressure is high enough. It may not be possible, but there's nothing to be gained by not trying. Calls and letters to Congress are a start. In the same spirit, petitions and lobbying also make your opinions heard. If you're looking for a petition, start with Newt (H/T Don Surber):

While there are many important issues this election season, there are none that affect all Americans as much as this one. Regardless of political stripe, everyone should be joining in the effort to convince our government to stop obstructing energy independence and increased prosperity.

Everyone complains about the rising costs here in the US, which are rising due to decades of liberal energy policies preventing supply from keeping up with demand. But at least we don't yet have runaway inflation like Zimbabwe:

HARARE, Zimbabwe - Weary Zimbabweans are facing a new wave of price increases that will put many basic goods even further out of their reach: A loaf of bread now costs what 12 new cars did a decade ago.

Independent finance houses said in an assessment Tuesday that annual inflation rose this month to 1,063,572 percent based on prices of a basket of basic foodstuffs. Economic analysts say unless the rate of inflation is slowed, annual inflation will likely reach about 5 million percent by October.

As stores opened for business Wednesday, a small pack of locally produced coffee beans cost just short of 1 billion Zimbabwe dollars. A decade ago, that sum would have bought 60 new cars.

As bad as things are here, at least our oil-driven problems can be fixed over time - all it requires is for Republicans to stop acting like Democrats when it comes to oil policy (listening, Sen McCain?) and for Democrats to start thinking about what's best for Americans instead of bowing and scraping to environmental extremists who oppose anything resembling common sense.

I'll admit it - I like Starbucks. Not many of us righties do, mostly due to the reputation they have as a gathering place for liberals. I don't care. I like the coffee. That Starbucks is a lefty cultural phenomenon means little to me when I'm in the mood for an overly-roasted caffeine fix.

They used to have a really rich chocolate drink that TB really liked, but when they removed it from the menu she soured on Starbucks. So now I only go when I travel.

I almost always tip when I go - yes, the coffee is expensive, but that's hardly the fault of the baristas - they don't set the price. So naturally I was drawn to this headline yesterday:

Starbucks ordered to pay back tips

Could it be that the tip jars are emptied into Starbuck's coffers and the poor baristas are denied? No, it's even worse - the shift supervisor who slings venti drips and dry pastries right next to the lesser-paid baristas has been benefiting from the tip jar as well:

SAN DIEGO - A Superior Court judge on Thursday ordered Starbucks Corp. to pay its California baristas more than $100 million in back tips and interest that the coffee chain paid to shift supervisors.

San Diego Superior Court Judge Patricia Cowett also issued an injunction that prevents Starbucks' shift supervisors from sharing in future tips, saying state law prohibits managers and supervisors from sharing in employee gratuities.

I might have a little sympathy if the supervisors sat in the back office browsing the web while the baristas slaved over a hot espresso machine, and maybe in some places they do. But the stores I usually frequent have a small staff. From the outside looking in, supervisors appear to be baristas with additional duties. If someone out there who works as Starbucks has a different perspective, please feel free to chime in. I'm by no means unpersuadable.

But we all tend to draw on personal experience when possible, so here's where I come from. While I was still active duty in the USAF, I had a string of second jobs. One was pizza delivery - a job where the employee expects that much of their income will be derived from tips. On nights when we were shorthanded on drivers (or just plain swamped), the shift supervisor (and sometimes the manager) would fire up their Corollas and deliver as well. I don't recall any of the regular drivers whining about lost tips or asking for a share, and I never heard the boss offering to forgo tips.

Now, I know that it might be a little different than having a communal tip jar, but isn't the underlying principle the same? The customer at Starbucks expects the folks serving the coffee to share the tips, if the supervisor is serving alongside the baristas, why should he/she be excluded from the spoils? Isn't it possible that some of the tips were intended to reward service provided by the supervisor?

"...state law prohibits managers and supervisors from sharing in employee gratuities." This one has me curious as well - if, during a rush, a supervisor waits tables in a restaurant, does he have to refuse tips (or give them away to the "employees")? Or does this only apply when there's a tip jar? I can understand the intent to prevent supervisors from skimming tips they didn't earn, but can't there be some circumstances where the supervisor is entitled to tips he/she has directly earned?

I expect that the real harm done to Starbucks won't be the $100 million award. It will be from the supervisors who will now warm a chair in the back room instead of helping out at the counter. Service will suffer, and the baristas may have fewer tips as a result.

Added thoughts: What are baristas paid, anyway? Do they get 8-9 bucks an hour, or a sub-minimum "waitress wage"? Are their hours held back to a small number in order to avoid the baggage of full-time employees? And all the same questions about the supervisors as well. Would the answers change my view? Maybe - although the argument for supervisors to be less involved at the counter still gets stonger as sympathy for the baristas' claim to tips increases.

Welcome InstaPundit readers! And thanks again, Glenn. Are shift supervisors entitled to tips or just greedy? Feel free to join the conversation!

Clarification: The story specifies shift supervisors, not managers. If anyone stops by who knows otherwise, please chime in. But I assume that a shift supervisor is as I've observed - someone who's job description includes barista plus some additional duties, like locking up and putting away the money, etc. And what do you think of this kind of thing outside of California, where there may not be laws as specific? Are communal tips an entitlement for the lowest paid workers regardless of who provides the tippable service? Should a company be able to set rules regarding tips? Join in!

A whopping 6%. I blame Bush.

I spent much of my Friday morning in Toys R Us, where the checkout line wrapped around the store twice. Several things on my list were sold out, and I arrived at 6:15 AM (They opened at 5). Although I found the rest of my list fairly quickly, I didn't make it out until past 9:30.

In contrast, the K-Mart I visited next was nearly devoid of shoppers, and the shelves were full. Stores that show small gains and even a decline from last year should engage in a little introspection. I don't shop at Wal-Mart or K-Mart for upscale items, I go there for bargains. Back to the basics, guys.

Naturally I'm talking about oil, folks. Something that's cheaper and easier to get everywhere else on the planet - and as a result, domestic production is a rusting shadow of it's former self.

The good news is the Dems' regognition that given the lack of a mandate for their reign in Congress, there's a limited amount of punishment they can mete out:

Hot-button issues such as a tax on the oil industry's windfall profits or sharp increases in automobile fuel economy probably will not gain much ground given the narrow Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.

The bad news is that energy independence has a different meaning to the left than it should. Indeed, their plan is to discourage it:

Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in an outline of priorities over the first 100 hours of the next Congress in January, promises to begin a move toward greater energy independence "by rolling back the multibillion dollar subsidies for Big Oil."

The subsidies in question are intended to encourage domestic production, something that has become excessively cumbersome and costly due to decades of liberal regulation and roadblocking:

Topping the list for repeal are:

_Tax breaks for refinery expansion and for geological studies to help oil exploration.

_A measure passed two years ago primarily to promote domestic manufacturing. It allows oil companies to take a tax credit if they chose to drill in this country instead of going abroad.

Of course, these are going to be easy targets for the Democrats, as the oil companies are none too popular with folks on the right or left after posting record profits in recent quarters. I accept that I'm in the minority on this issue.

But a little common sense should be applied here. Shouldn't any legislation pitched as promoting "energy independence" make domestic harvesting and refining of oil cheaper and easier? Seems to me this will have the exact opposite effect.

Keep an eye on the horizon, though, as there are darker views on the oil companies that if acted upon, will serve to punish the poor and middle class even further:

Last spring, Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., said if the country is to reduce its addiction to oil and high energy prices it needs a "crash program" to develop more alternative energy sources, dramatically increase conservation and examine "whether or not we should break up the big oil companies."

Next year, Schumer assumes the No. 3 leadership position among Senate Democrats and will be one of the party's top strategists.

I'm tempted to quote Milton, who wrote several good passages about the petty behaviour the left's proposals demonstrate. Instead, I'm going to butcher a quote from Jean Baudrillard - originally in reference to Halloween, it easily and accurately adapts to our new Congressional majority:

There is nothing funny about the left. This sarcastic festival reflects, rather, an infernal demand for revenge by children on the adult world.

Anyone who really believed that the left would behave better that the right regarding pork and spending discipline need look no further than Nancy Pelosi over the next two years to see if that faith was deserved:

"There's a long tradition where not only can you bring back your average pork as a member of Congress, but speaker pork gives you a lot of money, a lot of influence over the purse," said Julian E. Zelizer, a congressional historian at Boston University.

Pelosi, a Democrat, will be the first Californian to hold the post, and congressional watchdogs say they'll be observing her new spending clout with great interest.

There are "a lot of peeping chicks everywhere," said Tim Ransdell, executive director of the California Institute for Federal Policy Research in Washington, D.C. "And implicitly the House speaker has a nice war chest to start with."

Aides to Pelosi don't dispute that the state will benefit from a changing of the guard at the Capitol. "From the speaker's chair to committee chairs, Californians in Congress will have additional clout to help the home state," said Pelosi spokeswoman Jennifer Crider.

While it's possible that Rep. Pelosi has indeed repaired and will become the champion of responsible budgeting, Pelosi's own aides hint at the misplaced faith of the electorate. And the history of the California Representative suggests the type of pattern that politicians rarely abandon.

As a reminder, Pelosi verbally pandered on earmark reform but was too too busy picking out drapes to study for the test. And the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste gives her a lifetime score of 13.

And with President Bush's reluctance to use his veto power... well, all I gotta say is get ready for the spending spree.

Via AP/Yahoo:

TULSA, Okla. - Some gas station owners in Oklahoma are dropping the Venezuelan state-owned Citgo brand, saying sales have dropped significantly since the Venezuelan president criticized President Bush in a speech last month.

Just to refresh your memory, Chavez called Bush "the devil". In other news, Chavez may very well be on the way out. Publius Pundit has the details. He's apparently far behind in the polls, in spite of the smiles and window-dressing at his campaign appearances.

Hopefully Chavez will soon be able to retire from evil dictatoring and settle down with a like-minded woman:

That's assuming, of course, that most of Venezuela doesn't move to Miami.

If you heard of a company:

- A large U.S. company.
- A company whose suppliers were almost all overseas.
- A company whose profit has increased at high levels for years.
- A company who, upon learning that of of it's third world supplier nations was attempting to increase wages for its impoverished workers, actively worked to block them in order to keep costs low.

What would you think? If you're on the left, you're might be thinking I'm talking about Wal-Mart. But you'd be wrong:

Starbucks, the giant US coffee chain, has used its muscle to block an attempt by Ethiopia's farmers to copyright their most famous coffee bean types, denying them potential earnings of up to £47m a year, said Oxfam.

The development agency said the Ethiopian government last year filed copyright applications to trademark its most famous coffee names - Sidamo, Harar and Yirgacheffe. Securing the rights to these names would enable the impoverished African country to control their use in the market and allow farmers to receive a greater share of the retail price.

The move would have increased its annual export earnings from coffee by 25%.

But Oxfam said Starbucks, which enjoyed a 22% rise in annual global turnover to £7.8bn in the year to October, has acted to block Ethiopia's application to the US patent and trademark office.

Starbucks claims they pay an average of $1.28 / lb for coffee worldwide, but in Ethiopia, it's as low as 60 cents. No wonder they feature an Ethiopian blend on the Starbucks website.

Hmmm. I wonder if a price increase would affect its sustainability?

Considering their target demographic here in the US, you'd think Starbucks would be more sensitive. On the other hand, considering where the money goes, do ya think the left will even notice? Next time you enter a Starbucks, if you happen to pass a couple of forty-something women with unshaved legs and "Impeach Bush" bumper stickers on the lids of their laptops discussing the evils of Wal-Mart, smile and nod as you pass.

An article about donut juggernaut Dunkin' Donuts and their expansion plans.

Kinda reminds me of the fast food wars in the 70's and 80's. For what it's worth, I don't have a preference for either Krispy Kreme or Dunkin' Donuts (we have both in my area). I'd be happy if Winchell's would expand to Delaware instead, I always thought they were better.

Alas, they seem to be determined to remain on the west coast only.

That's how the Dow closed today. I'm sure in spite of the record high market, historically low unemployment, reduced deficit, and scores of other positive indicators someone on the left is out there right now trying to figure out how to distort and twist this into a negative.

Last week, Working Families for Wal-Mart put up a new website, Paidcritics.com, the mission of which appears to be providing background and research about the money politics, and personalities behind the anti-Wal-Mart movement.

Natch, the union folks respond by putting up a rebuttal website, A Bunch of Greedy Right Wing Liars Who Work for Wal-Mart. It's mostly drivel, actually. A few insulting profiles of folks on the right, and a link to vote for your favorite make up the bulk of the site. But the veneer of caring about workers is being stripped away as the UFCW steers the rhetoric away from union vs. business toward left vs. right:

Wal-Mart’s new attack website, paidcritics.com, is an unprecedented and dangerous decision by a $300 billion dollar corporation. In fact, this may be the first time in history that a corporation has set up, directly funded, and openly managed a website whose sole purpose is to attack Democrats, and the passionate and handsome staff of our campaign, let alone all of the Americans who want Wal-Mart to become a better employer.

So in response we have launched our very own site, www.ABunchOfGreedyRightWingLiarsWhoWorkForWalMart.com which will provide a more detailed account of Wal-Mart’s right-wing conspiracy including ties to the most extreme element of the Republican Party, Tom Delay, George W. Bush, Karl Rove and John Ashcroft, a biographic summary of the key right-wing operatives involved in the Wal-Mart war room, and an accounting of Wal-Mart’s extensive political contributions to Republicans. To be honest, there is so much good stuff there that it's enough for 2 or 3 more websites (just kidding).

Indeed, at the tope of every page of abunchofgreedyrightwingliarswhoworkforwalmart are pictures of George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Tom Delay - as far as I know none of them work for Wal-Mart. I wonder how their rank and file would view such open political attacks on politicians being paid for by their dues? Is this really the union's charter?

Oh, and "handsome"? Are they trolling for dates as an aside to their right bashing?

As nasty as the union thugs and their supporters are, you'd think they could take as much as they dish out. Not these weenies, though. The cornerstone of the site is a missive about how PaidCritics.com "hurt our feelings". Honest. There are lots of cards people play to redirect away from a losing argument - but seriously, folks, the "feelings" card? My four-year-old stopped using that one last year.

Nowhere on their site could I find examples of lies told on PaidCritics.com. As for greed, PaidCritics.com points out some union greed and abunchofgreedyrightwingliarswhoworkforwalmart.com doesn't dispute any it.

I hope this is the last gasp we're seeing. Certainly the union members would appreciate their dues being spent on something that actually benefits its members for a change.

Oops - forgot to add the disclaimer:

I don't work for Wal-Mart or any of its affiliates, partners, associates, neighbors, casual acquaintances, suppliers, or vendors. I don't belong to a union - but I did have an account at a credit union once. I normally don't shop at Wal-Mart, either. I did, however, get a nice email from Edelman - which I didn't act on until I saw this somewhat slanted AP story. So there.

Via Reuters/Yahoo:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Dell Inc. (Nasdaq:DELL - news) on Thursday said it planned to sharply cut the number of mail-in rebates on products and services, moving to simplify its pricing structure.

The broad decrease in promotions to U.S. consumers and small businesses, which will be implemented over the next 12 to 18 months, come as revenue growth from Dell's personal computer business has declined in recent quarters.

Dell said the "net price" that customers pay for PCs will remain the same.

If I read this correctly, that means they're going to lower prices instead of offering rebates.

Good. As far as I'm concerned, rebates are ruining the computer industry. It's never made sense to me to pay $1000 for a PC and have to wait 6 weeks to get the $100 rebate. If it was their intent to sell the damned thing for $900, let me get it at that price to start with.

Let's hope it starts a trend. Makers of networking products, please take note.

Via AP/Yahoo, in an article that tries to blunt the message as best as possible:

WASHINGTON - The federal deficit appears on track to register less than $300 billion for the budget year ending Sept. 30, as surging tax revenues continue to signal significant improvement over White House estimates released in February — though only modest gains over last year.

Modest, eh? Later in the article:

Indeed, tax collections are surging at a 13 percent growth rate, reflecting particularly strong growth in taxes paid on corporate profits and income taxes paid by wealthier people and small businessmen who pay taxes quarterly instead of having them withheld by employers.

Since when is 13 percent "modest"? For those of you in the "we can't afford tax cuts" club, please stop lying about the effect of tax cuts. Spending is the problem.

Via AP/Yahoo:

WASHINGTON - U.S. employers added a disappointing 121,000 jobs last month, wary of bulking up payrolls with the economy slowing and energy prices rising. Wages rose sharply, fanning inflation worries.

We're still at near-historic lows in unemployment, and for months the complaint was that wages weren't keeping up. Now wages are increasing, and that's suddenly a bad thing?

Well, it looks like NJ's casinos are back in business.

I guess that's a bad thing here in Delaware, since the casinos here enjoyed increased business while the competition was down.

On the other hand, we have Biden shilling for 7-11 and Dunkin' Donuts to make up for it....

Earlier this month, I posted about how the arguments by the left simply don't hold water when applied to the debate about estate taxes. The repeal effort on the table at the time failed in the Senate, but the issue is back. Thursday the House passed a partial repeal - upping the exemption from its current 2 million to 5 for individuals and 10 million for couples. While this "lite" version is a mistake in that it still embraces inequality in the tax code, it's a step in the right direction and should make later efforts to repeal the death tax easier.

In my previous post, I discussed why the arguments of the left on this issue are based on deception. I saw a couple more examples raised earlier this week that further serve to illustrate my point. First, an unsigned editorial in the Washington Post gives the usual dishonest tripe so popular with many on the left:

LIKE THE GHOUL in the horror movie that refuses to die, estate tax repeal has returned from the grave to stalk the halls of Congress. Just two weeks after abolitionists failed in the Senate, they have regrouped behind a new bill that would achieve most of what they want -- not quite the elimination of the tax but its "reform" into insignificance. Like full repeal, this reform would expand the budget deficit and exacerbate inequality.

The deficit canard is the cornerstone of robotic liberal groupthink whenever government and money are discussed lately. In this case (as in most), it's being used dishonestly. The deficit does not exist because of tax cuts - the simple and irrefutable fact is that revenues have increased dramatically for the government in spite of (or more accurately, because of) the previous cuts. The deficit is a product of one thing and one thing only - irresponsible spending habits in Congress. Until this fact is recognized and addressed universally by both left and right alike, no serious deficit reduction is possible.

"Exacerbate inequality" - this one is rooted entirely in raw emotion and couldn't be more dishonest since it really doesn't have anything to do with fairness unless you're viewing it through the eyes of a six year old. "Timmy has a newer bicycle than me. It's not fair!" should not be the type of argument that mature people employ. Only a mortally flawed sense of fairness rooted in envy and greed view a progressive tax code as fair.

But what is fair? I have a friend that believes that if government costs 3 trillion to run, each of the 300 million people in the US should chip in ten grand, since all citizens benefit equally from the government's core responsibilities (common defense, domestic tranquility, etc). While it's hard not to appreciate the brutal simplicity of his argument, it's a model that doesn't take into account that a large portion of our population doesn't generate income, i.e., the very young and the very old being the largest groups to use as examples. So in recognition of this, we tax based on income. In such a system, fairness is also a simple concept if you can set aside greed and envy:

If I make 10 times more than you, I should pay 10 times the taxes.
If I make 100 times more than you, I should pay 100 times the taxes.

Seem fair? Not to the left, where childishness reigns. Add a "liberal" dose of covetousness, and "fair" suddenly becomes a grotesque caricature where an impaired syllogism views the following as just:

- You make 10 times more than I do, so you should pay 20 times more taxes.
- You make 100 times more than I do, so you should pay 400 times more taxes.

And it's just comical when applied to estate taxes:

- Your estate is worth 100 times more than mine, so I should pay no taxes, and you should pay 46%.

The truth is that fairness has nothing to do with the liberal views on taxation. Period. The Post article gives us a hint of why(emphasis mine):

The nation faces the expensive retirement of the baby boomers. It is grappling with rising inequality. Its prized social mobility may ultimately be threatened if the richest members of society are allowed to pass unlimited riches to their children.

I don't recall which part of the tax code addressed "social mobility". Can anyone help with a reference? This green-eyed phenomenon is even more plainly illustrated in a post I came across in FireDogLake yesterday. The author, Ian Welsh, should be lauded for his honesty in showing the true basis of the liberal view of taxes (I've included the bulk of the post so that context won't be an issue, only leaving out the graphs about income inequality and estate tax distribution. Please follow the link to see the graphs. Emphasis added.):

To summarize:

The top 1% pays 94.8% of all estate taxes.
The top 1/2 a percent pays 86.5% of all estate taxes
The top .1% pays 51.3% of all estate taxes

Most people will never be effected by the Estate Tax. Ever. But you will be effected if it’s repealed.

Here he shows clearly that the estate tax is unfair. Either 1% is being unfairly targeted, or 99% is skating out of their responsibilities. It's a point he misses altogether, though.

The general estimate of the cost of repeal is a trillion dollars a decade. A hundred billion a year. The government is already bleeding money, in both deficit and substantial debt. Any tax repeal - whether estate, or capital gains, or corporate taxes, wille eventually have to be made up (yes, the creditors will eventually want their money back.) Estate tax repeal will be paid for at some point, by the middle class. And by your children.

TANSTAAFL - There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. If you want a tax cut now, you pay for it later - with interest. If the rich want a tax cut now, the middle class will pay for it later, with interest.

This, as I pointed out before, is demonstrably false. Revenues have increased dramatically due to prior tax cuts, the problem is runaway spending. Fix that problem, and the middle class and children will be fine. By the way, 100 billion dollars a year, if correct (Not saying it isn't, but there are competing estimates of the effect of estate tax repeal) taken away from government control (where it would be badly mismanaged) and left in the private sector could create/sustain 3.2 million $15/hour jobs. Think the government would use the money even a fraction as well?

But I want to say something more about the estate tax.

There is no fairer tax. If it were up to me, it wouldn’t just be reinstated to it’s full 1999 level, it’d be increased to tax even more from the richest DEAD PEOPLE.

That’s right - dead people. By all means, let’s call it the death tax.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t expect to take it with me. I don’t think my money goes with me wherever it is I go when my heart stops beating. I don’t think I need money after I’m dead.

This has a morbid "They're dead! Quick, take the watches and wallets! No, leave the Timex - but get the Rolex from that guy over there!" quality to it that should offend anyone's sense of morals. If you think this isn't a popular view among the left, read the comments - Mr. Welsh gets lots of praise for his canonization of this grave-robbing mindset.

And I don’t think my heirs need more than a few million dollar head start over everyone else. Sure, if I ever have kids, I’d want to give them a head start, but I don’t deceive myself that they did anything to, like, deserve it, other than with the "lucky sperm contest".

Now we get to the heart of his argument. Jealousy. Greed. Envy. We should tax estates because the heirs don't deserve their inheritance. What I can't figure out: Why they don't display this level of contempt for the Kennedys?

Taxation is a zero sum game. You can take the money from dead people - who don’t need it or you can take it from living people who do need it.

Except heirs are living people, aren't they?

You can tax it from the kids of the rich, who did nothing to deserve it and who can probably make it on a few million from Daddy and Mummy; or you can tax it from people who actually earned it by the sweat of their own brow.

Moving from envy to hatred... They don't deserve it because Ian wasn't born lucky. Does arrogance trump aristocracy?

Oh, and those stories about people losing their family farms to the estate tax? Myth - no one has ever been able to find even one.

I'll agree with that one. Farms are indeed protected as far as I know. Now, about the medium-sized privately owned businesses...

The estate tax, the death tax, is about letting people have more money when they’re alive, and only taxing it when they’re dead.

And that, to me, makes it better than every other tax in existence.

Except you'd have more money if the government didn't tax the dead. Like it or don't, even Paris Hilton will use her money for your benefit. How? She'll spend it. She'll invest it. Every dollar that stays in the private sector helps improve the economy for all of us, increasing the chances that you or I will be able to induct our children into the "lucky sperm club". And the purpose of any tax should be to fund the government - not perform social engineering.

So forget estate tax repeal - let’s turn it around and increase the estate tax. Because dead people don’t need money, and living people do, and no matter how much rich people love their kids they didn’t do anything for the money, and a head start of a few million is enough for anyone.

But we're talking about fairness. And a twisted sense of fairness borne of contempt and envy isn't fair by any rational standards. A tax policy based on some masterbatory Robin Hood-ish fantasy is neither fair nor workable.

But government needs to be funded, right? So let's talk fair. Right and wrong do not change because of scale. If Paris Hilton doesn't deserve her inheritance because she didn't earn it, then equally do my children not deserve their comparatively meager one. An inheritance, if you believe it's unearned therefore undeserved, remains so whether it's 20 grand or 20 million.

So the fair answer is once again very simple. If you want to tax estates, then tax them all equally. No exceptions and the same rate for all, or my preference - tax none. Anything in between is counter to the principles upon which our republic was founded.

I say repeal the death tax. Then get to work bringing fairness and transparency to the rest of the tax code. That means eliminating regressive taxes that unfairly target the poor (like corporate taxes), and making every earned dollar look the same to each and every American.

The senate chose lower job growth, decreased investment, and off-shoring of wealth today.

Constituents of Sen. George Voinovich and Sen. Lincoln Chafee especially should take note. The bill wouldn't have advanced anyway had they sided with the Republicans (cloture failed 57-41, 3 votes short), but folks should be aware that they sided with the politics of envy and class warfare.

I'm very disappointed.

Now that the gay marriage ban amendment has been relegated to the dust-bin of past pandering, the Senate has scheduled a vote tomorrow on a far more important issue - estate taxes.

This one has been labeled as pandering by some on the left as well, but has ramifications that belie such a guileful dismissal. Indeed, the results of this debate say much about who we are and what kind of nation we wish to be.

I do really dislike having to levy generalities on an entire group of people (in this case, the left), but in this instance I find it difficult to believe that they really buy their own line on this issue. For example, the left says that repealing estate taxes will have disatrous effects on the budget. From a United for a Fair Economy press release today:

"At a time of rising deficits and big due bills like the war in Iraq, we cannot afford either the cost of repeal-a trillion dollars over the first ten years-or the aristocracy of wealth that repeal would leave us," said Chuck Collins, senior fellow at United for a Fair Economy.

From another United for a Fair Economy press release:

Estate tax repeal would mean adding another $1 trillion to the national debt over the next 20 years.

This is from an op-ed by Peter Rothberg in The Nation:

This change in the tax code would benefit less than half of one percent of American citizens but would harm many more by creating a one trillion dollar hole in future federal reserves.

The elephant in the room that each and every person on the left knows (but will not publicly ackowledge) is that revenues have soared in the wake of the Bush tax cuts. The singular reason for continuing deficits is the lack of fiscal discipline in Congress. Sadly, this is currently across the board, and the subject is only raised as a political weapon, long on hot air and short on action. Regardless, the notion of higher deficits as a result of estate tax repeal is a provably fraudulent one. If you're one of the few who really do buy into it, please drop me a line via email with your contact information as I'd like to discuss selling you a bridge (I have a picture post card if you wish to see it).

The other reasons the left gives for "preserving" (like it's a good thing - we also preserve old buildings and pickles) the estate tax center around "fairness". And everyone values fairness, right? That's why I picked United for a Fair Economy for quotes above - the word "fair" is in their name. So lets talk about fairness.

Nearly every argument made in favor of the estate tax mentions that >99% don't pay it. But fairness is treating all Amercans equally. In other words, under current tax code, we're being unfair to either 1% or 99% of the population. To remedy this inequality, we should either expand the estate tax to the 99% who have been getting away with not paying it, or repeal the estate tax all together. No other solution save those two would be fair.

I also love the this claim, also nearly universal:

Over the last decade, 18 of the wealthiest families in the country have spent more than $200 million lobbying to repeal the estate tax, according to lobby disclosure reports analyzed by two groups that favor retaining the estate tax, United for a Fair Economy and Ralph Nader's organization, Public Citizen. The wealthy families include the Mars candy family; the Gallo wine family; the Wegman supermarket family; the Dorrance family, which controls Campbell soup; and the Waltons, who control Wal-Mart.

Here's a variation from Barack Obama:

"Let's call this trillion-dollar giveaway what it is. This is the Paris Hilton tax break," said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

Lobbying is nothing new. But when farmers lobby for more subsidies, no one villifies the farmers. Here's some reality for you - the folks most likely to benefit from a particular cause are likely to be the ones who lobby for it. Just because some rich folks are lobbying for estate tax reform doesn't automatically make tax reform a bad thing. Unless, of course, you're one of those folks who think anything having to do with Wal-Mart is automatically evil. But for everyone else, doing the right thing is still right even if people you don't like support it as well.

I'd really like to know what the "punish the rich" crowd thinks the rich does with all that money.

Just in case some of you are curious what I think they do with it, I'll tell you:

1. They spend it, creating/sustaining employment and growing wealth for others (like you and me).
2. They invest it, fueling the economy that creates jobs and grows wealth for others (like you and me).
3. They hide some of it from the tax man.

This is not overly simplistic, either. Short of stuffing their mattresses, the weathy's cash is always being put to some use.

Changing the estate tax affects all three behaviours. High taxes mean less money for 1 and 2 (very bad for you and me), and more money for number 3 (also bad for you and me, because they aren't spending or investing much of what they hide). Low (or no) taxes mean more money for nos. 1 and 2 (very good for you and me), and less reason to hide money from the tax man (which means even more money for 1 and 2, which is very, very good for you and me).

So once the usual arguments against fixing the inequalities of estate taxes don't work, what's left?

Via AP/Yahoo:

NEW YORK - Stocks dropped for the second straight session Tuesday, with the Dow Jones industrial average falling to its worst close since March 9. Global markets also sold off as inflation fears worsened.

The Dow lost more than 110 points in midday trading before narrowing its loss later in the session. The index dropped nearly 200 points Monday after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke spooked Wall Street by saying that the central bank will remain vigilant in fighting inflation.

Investors have been hoping the Fed would stop increasing short-term interest rates after 16 hikes; the nation's benchmark rate now stands at 5 percent. However, Bernanke's comments in recent weeks have repeatedly shaken investors and sent stocks tumbling.

"Bernanke came in with this reputation as a great communicator," said John Caldwell, chief investment strategist for McDonald Financial Group, part of Cleveland-based KeyCorp. "Most of us would choose to go back to the general confusion (former Fed Chairman Alan) Greenspan created."

Listen, Ben. I and lots of other folks I know would eventually like to retire. Is it possible for for you to be vigilant and at the same time keep your ^@#&%*! mouth shut? Hmmm?

You really gotta feel sorry for the poor station owner that this happened to:

HAMMOND, Ind. - When a pump at a gas station malfunctioned, opportunistic motorists were able to buy gas for 29 cents per gallon.

A Marathon station sold a gallon of fuel for less than the price of a first-class stamp for about 90 minutes Friday before the mistake was detected and and the price corrected to $2.79.

While still answering questions from customers about why the price had suddenly gone up, clerk Nida Tayyab said more than 50 people had crowded the store, likely thinking the mishap was a price promotion, and received the bargain. Normally, the station serves about 10 people per hour.

"I was really confused," she said. "It was so messed up. I can't explain here how it was."

I think the left missed an opportunity, though. The headline from the LA Times or the NYT could have been:

"Gas prices jump $2.50 in one day, motorists mob gas station"

And it would have been, too, if the gas station was in Baghdad...

Ecuador has joined it's neighbors in the "resource re-nationalization" trend.

What's worrisome about Ecuador's move is that it simply gave Oxy the boot, without engaging in further negotiations to reach a settlement. In Bolivia and Venezuela, officials remain open to negotiating new terms with foreign oil companies. In Ecuador's case, President Alfredo Palacios, who took office just a year ago after his predecessor was ousted in the country's latest bout of political instability, was being threatened by some members of congress with possible treason charges if he allowed Oxy to stay.

In my mind, this is a disturbing trend that should be more prominent in the news. And it demonstrates that the middle east isn't the only factor in energy availability and price. The third wolrd's influence on the US is derived from our dependence on their natural resources. And that's why Congress should doubly ashamed of itself for letting aesthetics determine national energy policy.

I occasionally drive over to New Jersey - one of the quaint oddities to be found there is that the state doesn't allow self-service at gas pumps. Since I'm old enough to remember when it was that way in many more places, it brings back a few memories for me. I'm sure younger visitors probably find it just odd.

Evidently the folks in the garden state like it that way:

In New Jersey, motorists who need to fill 'er up haven't pumped their own gas in 57 years. But in the face of soaring gas prices, Gov. Jon Corzine came up with a novel plan last month to try to ease the pain: allow self-service at some stations along the New Jersey Turnpike and see if prices dip. He believed prices could drop 5 to 7 cents a gallon.

Corzine retreated after about 1,400 e-mails and calls poured in from a mostly outraged public. Concern about other state issues paled in comparison. A proposal to raise the sales tax by one cent, for example, received about 200 responses from the public, says Brendan Gilfillan, a spokesman for the governor.

Only in Jersey...

Via AP/Yahoo:

LA PAZ, Bolivia - President Evo Morales ordered soldiers to occupy Bolivia's natural gas fields Monday and threatened to evict foreign companies unless they give Bolivia control over the entire chain of production.

Morales sent soldiers and engineers with Bolivia's state-owned oil company to installations and fields tapped by foreign companies — including Britain's BG Group PLC and BP PLC, Brazil's Petroleo Brasileiro SA, Spanish-Argentine Repsol YPF SA, France's Total SA and U.S.-based Exxon Mobil Corp. The companies have six months to agree to new contracts or leave Bolivia, he said.

Vice President Alvaro Garcia Linera said troops were sent to 56 locations around the country.

Soldiers took over major gas fields and refineries and, in the eastern city of Santa Cruz where much of the industry is based, occupied some oil company offices, said Tuffi Are, news editor at the El Deber newspaper, one of Bolivia's largest. He said about 100 soldiers were guarding the Petrobras refinery just outside the city.

Morales, a leftist allied with Cuba's Fidel Castro and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez in seeking to blunt U.S. influence in the region, had pledged to exert greater state control over the industry since winning election in December, becoming Bolivia's first Indian president.

"The time has come, the awaited day, a historic day in which Bolivia retakes absolute control of our natural resources," Morales said in a speech from the San Alberto field in southern Bolivia operated by Petrobras in association with Repsol and Total SA.

"The looting by the foreign companies has ended," Morales declared.

I think we can consider this one gone. Taking over the gas fields comes just one day after signing a major trade agreement with Castro and Chavez.

It also looks like our government will have to start paying more attention to matters in this hemisphere.

John at Powerline asks: "Wasn't There a Time When Republicans Knew Something About Economics?"

The post looks at the "Gas Price Relief and Rebate Act of 2006", and John opines, "it's not pretty".

I think John has overstated the quality of this bill somewhat - it's a train wreck of pandernomics.

$100 tax rebate? Check.
Endless investigations into gouging (whatever that is)? Check.
Contradictory tax incentive juggling? Check.
Tax incentives to build facilities that environmentalists will never allow? Check.

Did we really elect these numbskulls? This plan is just plain dumb on several levels. The only thing that makes sense (ANWR drilling) is also the most likely item to get left out of the final version.

Not that this is original, but here is the plan for gas price relief that I'll support:

1. Allow the oil industry to drill and build refining capacity.
2. Cut both state and federal taxes on gasoline.

It's funny that the biggest argument against replacing income tax with a national sales tax has always been that consumption taxes are regressive, hitting the poor much harder than the middle or upper classes. Yet there seems to be no such noble motive in play when it comes to energy. This isn't like tobacco or alcohol - gas is a necessity. There is gas price gouging - the shame is, the FTC won't see it because congress will tell them to look at the oil industry instead of the government. How can the oil industry's measly 9 cents per gallon profit be "price gouging" when state and federal government get a combined average of 60 cents?

I can't improve on John's closing sentiment:

Look at it this way: if the oil companies agreed among themselves not to drill for oil in new locations like ANWR, and not to build new refineries, so as to limit the supply of oil and thereby drive prices higher, it would be illegal; indeed, it would be the greatest price-fixing conspiracy in American history. But it isn't the oil companies that have conspired to limit supply and thereby drive prices higher. It is our government that has foreseeably, if not intentionally, achieved this ignoble end.

Via AP/Yahoo:

WASHINGTON - With gasoline hitting $3 per gallon, scientists have just found the most energy-efficient engines in the universe — black holes, those whirling super-dense centers of galaxies that suck in nearly everything.

It's nice that science makes these discoveries, but what do black holes have to do with gas prices?

Not a day goes by when I don't learn something new. Today is no exception, and I've decided to share the wealth. First, a quiz:

If you introduce 400+ new jobs into an impoverished urban blight zone with high crime rates and high unemployment, what would the result be?

A. Increased poverty, increased crime, increased urban blight.
B. Decreased poverty, lower crime, and a chance for community prosperity.

Now if you answered "B", you'd be wrong. At least according to the union uber-economists at WakeUpWalMart.com (a wholly owned subsidiary of United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, CLC). In response to this announcement from Wal Mart about plans to build 50 stores in "neighborhoods with high crime or unemployment rates, on sites that are environmentally contaminated, or in vacant buildings or malls in need of revitalization", this is what the famously anti-business union had to say:

"Of course, new Wal-Mart stores would violently exacerbate existing problems of crime, poverty, environmental contamination, and urban blight in these areas."

So by their reasoning, we can help these areas by closing businesses and creating even more unemployment. Then these urban blight zones would become leftist utopias, right? Isn't socialism wonderful?

BTW, the average hourly wage at Wal-Mart is $10.67. For you utopian Democrat supporters, that would mean $11481.60 a year more than minimum wage. In contrast to Teddy and Howie's plan, that adds up to not just one year of groceries, but a car to drive them home in. Not just over 9 months of rent, but enough income to qualify for a small mortgage. Not just a year and a half of heat and electricity, but new appliances to run with that electricity. Not just full tuition for a community college degree, but a couple of years at a decent land grant college.

With Teddy and Howie's plan, you get enough to put a new skirt and steps on the double-wide and maybe a new bowling ball. It's no wonder that "a voice for working America" has to brag on 7 out 300 employees at a Canadian store as a victory. Folks here in the States can't take the pay cut that UFCW supports.

It's not just backing the wrong horse. UFCW wants to be in back of the wrong horse as well.

Full disclosure: I received an email from Wal-Mart's PR firm about an hour after I had read the AP story linked above. Email or no, I still would have posted. I don't work for Wal-Mart, don't shop there, and don't have any family or friends that work there. I get paid nothing for pointing out the anti-business nature of UFCW's (and the left's) ridiculous war against Wal-Mart.

This is good news:

MEXICO CITY (AP) - Mexico has made a deep-water oil discovery in the Gulf of Mexico that could be larger than the country's giant Cantarell offshore field, President Vicente Fox said on Monday.

The oil find is under 950 meters (3,117 feet) of water and a further 4,000 meters (13,120 feet) underground, Fox said in an interview with Dow Jones Newswires.

This is good news because every drop of oil found in a stable region offsets oil from unstable ones. Also, Mexico lacks the resources to exploit deep water oil, so there's opportunity for U.S. companies to get some work out of this.

Of course, we still have a refinery shortage problem to fix...

And it goes without saying that we'd be finding oil too if there weren't so many people getting in the way.

Via Instapundit, there's this jewel on Marquette Warrior about a NYT reporter looking into connections between bloggers and Wal-Mart:

We got an e-mail from Barbaro this past Thursday evening, saying he is working on a story and that several of the postings on the Marquette Warrior are relevant to it.

At least two other bloggers on the Wal-Mart mailing list have been similarly contacted.

Barbaro has apparently noticed that similar stories concerning Wal-Mart have appeared roughly simultaneously in recent months. In some cases, bloggers on the list simply cut and pasted information in the e-mails into their blog posts.

I may as well 'fess up - I'm part of this great conspiratorial network as well. Marshall Manson contacted me after I posted a view of the players in a scuffle at a Wal-Mart in North Lauderdale between union protesters and store personnel. Here's the email I received:

LB:

I hope you’re well. I just wanted to drop you a line and introduce myself. I’m a blogger myself (I contribute to Confirm Them and Human Events’ Right Angle among others), but for my day job - I do online public affairs for Wal-Mart, working with Mike Krempasky who runs Redstate.org.

Just wanted you to know that your post (http://dontgointothelight.com/2005/12/union_vs_walmart_a_scuffle_dur_1.php) on the anti-Wal-Mart groups incursion into Wal-Mart's Lauderdale store is making the rounds here and at heaquarters in Bentonville.

It’s always a challenge when opponents organize to attack corporations. The companies always seems to have one arm tied behind their backs when they try to respond, so it’s nice to see folks like you defending them when it’s the right thing to do .

If you're interested, I'd like to drop you the occasional update with some newsworthy info about the company. Let me know.

Sincerely,

Marshall

Marshall Manson

Edelman

Prior to this, I had already posted several stories about the left's war against Wal-Mart, so there was no sword taken up based on Marshall's offer. Since then, I've received occasional emails, many of them were mostly links to editorials and news articles - some I had already found on my own (I know how to use Google and Yahoo).

Not that I'm saying there was no value in Marshall's emails - he's saved me hours of searching, and provided me with several story ideas (some not even related to Wal-Mart). And I've passed up most of what Marshall has sent. Indeed, it's been a two-way street, as I sent him a link to my post about Hillary Clinton's involvement with Wal-Mart:

http://dontgointothelight.com/2006/02/more_walmart_fun.php

Marshall,

In case you missed this. I thought it was pretty funny.

Regards,

LB

And his reply?

That's awesome. Thanks for sending. I'm LMAO. The whole team will see this one.

M

I didn't credit Marshall in any of my posts because the opinions given were my own. That my opinions dove-tailed with others doesn't make them any less my opinion. I had specifically asked Marshall for groundrules to follow in using whatever he sent, and he provided me with none. Since I've seen several news articles parroting WakeUpWalMart's talking points without crediting the source, I believe I've conformed to the norm in posting on these topics. Indeed, John at Marquette Warrior notes:

In fact, journalists are always dependent on various sources to supply leads and information. Barbaro's article on Scott's communications with his employees was based on material leaked by Wal-Mart Watch, an anti-Wal Mart group backed by unions and leftist foundations.

I think it would be delicious to learn whether Barbaro simply "discovered" the blogging connection with Marshall as he claims, or was led to it by the same folks who had already been sourcing his stories. Of course, it was out there to find - even though Marquette Warrior and I didn't credit Marshall, others did:

"It took a while, but Lee Scott came out swinging. And of all the newspapers, the Washington Post published his piece. It's not one of my regular reads, but our friend Marshall Manson (who does PR for Wal-Mart) alerted me:"

Incidentally, I didn't post on the same story - one of many that I passed up. I would have preferred that Wal-Mart had taken a different track after the Wal-Mart bill was passed - capitulating simply encourages bad behaviour in other states.

But back to sourcing from PR folks - should I have credited Marshall for leads I received? Possibly. Although it would have been more in the form of a hat tip, as I didn't engage in the wholesale cutting and pasting of Marshall's material - instead, I used the leads to news articles to assist in researching for posts that were about my opinion. But I think Glenn Reynolds has a point in his post on the subject:

I talked to a reporter about blogs and PR -- I won't spoil the story, but the gist is that some PR people have been sending stuff to bloggers, and some bloggers have apparently reprinted some of it without attribution.

I think that's bad, but as I stressed in our interview, it's not as if this supports a "bloggers lack the standards of mainstream journalism" conclusion.

I think I'll start giving hat tips in the future for this kind of thing just to be complete. And I hope that Marshall doesn't stop sending his emails as a result of all this. I've enjoyed corresponding with him, and his leads have proven to be useful on occasion. It would be tragic if Barbaro's efforts (and by proxy those that feed him with material) silenced him.

Update: A clarification, actually. I was not contacted by any reporters regarding Marshall's emails. Apologies for any misunderstandings.

And it's still doing just fine, thank you:

Dow Jumps Past 11,000; Nasdaq Also Rises

It's going to be hard for the Democrats to continue to spin the economy as a disaster. People will eventually notice.

I almost missed this last night - a sign of continued growth in the economy:

Wal-Mart to Open About 1,500 New Stores

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. plans to open more than 1,500 stores in the United States in the coming years, on top of nearly 3,200 it already operates, the world's largest retailer said Tuesday.

I assume that most of those, along with the thousands of new jobs they'll create, will reside outside of Maryland - right, union puppets? Here's another bit of trivia about economic growth outside of the Old Line State:

Wal-Mart opened 69 new stores and Sam's Clubs in January, a company record for one month, it announced last week.

With that kind of growth, one has to wonder where UFCW and it's WakeUpWalMart appendage will find enough bodies to populate the anti-growth, anti-business picket lines. Hmmm... I wonder where a union can get minimum wage, no-benefit, stand-in-the-sun-all-day-with-only-2-minute-breaks workers to take the load off union staff so they can help workers achieve better wages, better benefits, and safer working conditions? Hmmm?

Maybe they could ask the carpenter's union for advice.

Update (3:28 PM): Maybe there's a chance that a few of those job-creating, economy-boosting new stores might eventually find their way into Maryland after all.

Well, we're used to seeing the left use Wal-Mart as a club. But using it as a club on each other....

"For those not in the know, Clinton served on Wal-Mart’s board for six years prior to her husband’s run for the presidency. She recently received $5,000 from Wal-Mart. I’ve raised the Wal-Mart relationship repeatedly in my current race against Clinton and it causes deep unease among voters. I believe it speaks to the incumbent’s close ties to abusive corporate power: her large corporate financial contributions, her support for so-called “free trade” (which is simply trade to benefit corporations) and her unwillingness to confront corporate power that denies every American, among other things, universal health insurance.

"So, I had to chuckle when I read that Clinton, having never said a bad word about the company in the past, recently said that Wal-Mart should pay more for its workers’ health benefits. And, to boot, she returned the $5,000 she had received from the company. But, when asked what she did about the company’s benefits for workers when she served on the board, she replied, “Well, you know, I, that was a long time ago ... have to remember…”

"You can’t have it both ways. You can’t promote an image of being an intelligent woman who has a pile of facts at her fingertips but, at the same time, you suffer a sudden bout of amnesia when asked to answer for your record. And it would be an inconvenient record to defend."

Chuckle, hell. I'm laughing.

This story from last week stayed under the radar:

Are unions crossing line with homeless pickets?

WASHINGTON -- You've heard the panhandler's common refrain, "Will work for food."

How about: "Will picket for food?"

In Washington, Baltimore, Atlanta and elsewhere in the country, union organizers are scouring shelters and recruiting homeless people to staff their picket lines, paying just above minimum wage and failing to provide health benefits.

The national carpenters' union, which broke from the AFL-CIO four years ago in a bitter dispute over organizing strategies and other issues, is hiring homeless people to stage noisy protests at nonunion construction sites.

If this sounds familiar, it is - check this from last September. The union defends their sweatshop mentality by saying it's for the greater good:

"We're giving jobs to people who didn't have jobs, people who in some cases couldn't secure work," said George Eisner, head of the union's mid-Atlantic regional council in Baltimore.

How civic minded of them. Isn't that the same argument they reject from the entry level employers like fast food and discount department stores? And by the way, why can't they man their own picket lines?

The carpenters who belong to his union, Eisner explained, are gainfully employed. With homes and offices being built or renovated and real estate booming in many urban areas, he said, the union carpenters are too busy to join the picket lines.

"Work is good, and our members are working," Eisner said. "This is just the best thing for us to do at this point."

"Gainfully" employed. Please don't bother us - we're too busy. Get some o' dem bums, ok? Here's the AFL-CIO weighing in:

AFL-CIO President John Sweeney said he saw nothing wrong with unions hiring homeless people as pickets.

Of course you don't.

"The fact that the people demonstrating were not members of the union doesn't make much difference," Sweeney said. "What matters is that the carpenters working on the building had no health care and no pension."

Never mind anyone else. We're tunnelvisioned and that's all that matters.

When it was noted that the homeless pickets also had no benefits, Sweeney responded: "Our hope is that those workers -- that all workers -- would have health benefits, but that is a bigger issue."

There you have it - it's different when it's someone else. You'd think that carpenters, of an ancient and noble profession with at least one notable figure in it's history, would be more - well, Christian.

Sweeney expressed the hope that the homeless protesters "may work themselves into a full-time job where they would get benefits."

I'm sure they're endearing themselves to future employers as we speak - "Can I have a job? I know how to strike!" And if the low wages and lack of benefits weren't enough, the union won't even give them enough hours to get off the streets into an apartment:

A demonstrator in Washington, Nicey Howards, said the temporary protesters earn $8 an hour -- just a dollar above the legal minimum wage in Washington -- with no benefits. While she felt the job wasn't ideal, Howards was glad she could earn a little money while looking for something better.

Each week, Howards said, she works 20 hours, the maximum time allowed by the carpenters' union, bringing home $160.

This last line sums up the generosity of these sweatshop employers quite nicely:

The union organizers allow the hired protesters to take two-minute breaks, Howards said, but dock their pay for the time off.

Yup - unions sure are looking out for the little guy - as long as they're not too little.

Fact is, there really isn't anything wrong with what they're doing. It's legal, and I'd rather have the homeless employed rather than standing in soup lines. But when you make your living trying to force others into doing what you won't do yourself, what does that say about you?

If you belong to UFCW and have been patting yourself on the back for successfully getting your Democrat handpuppets to pass the Wal-Mart bill in Maryland, you probably haven't yet had time to take stock of your numerous accomplishments for the working poor in Maryland.

Steve H. Hanke and Stephen J.K. Walters have conveniently put together a terrific accounting for you in today's Opinion Journal. Since Wal-Mart will not build the distribution center in Somerset county (the poorest county in the state), this is what you have spared its hapless residents from being a victim of:

• The center's 800 employees would have created an additional 282 jobs among "upstream" suppliers and "downstream" retailers and service establishments; all told, the center would have boosted county employment by 14% and private-sector employment by 20%.

• Total annual employee compensation in Somerset would have risen by $46.5 million, or 19%.

• Annual output (or "gross county product") would have risen by $128.3 million, or 19%.

• State and local tax receipts would have increased by $19.2 million annually; this would include $8.5 million in property taxes, $5.6 million in sales taxes, and $1.4 million in personal income taxes.

These folks are lucky to have you looking out for them, eh? But don't start the high-fives yet. There was also a planned center in Garrett County as well that's not going to be built as a direct result of your efforts. So double up on the champaign, folks - you've earned it.

Oh, and by the way - sorry you didn't have the same success on behalf of Indiana workers. Maybe you'll have better luck in Colorado...

Via AP/Yahoo:

DEARBORN, Mich. - Ford Motor Co., the nation's second-largest automaker, said Monday that it will cut 25,000 to 30,000 jobs and idle 14 facilities by 2012 as part of a restructuring designed to reverse a $1.6 billion loss last year in its North American operations.

The cuts represent 20 percent to 25 percent of Ford's North American work force of 122,000 people. Ford has approximately 87,000 hourly workers and 35,000 salaried workers in the region.

Bad news for the auto industry - especially with bad news coming from GM recently. Ford detailed the underlying reasons for the cuts:

The No. 2 U.S. automaker after General Motors Corp. has been hurt by falling sales of its profitable sport utility vehicles, growing health care and materials costs and labor contracts that have limited its ability to close plants and cut jobs. The United Auto Workers union will have to agree to some of the changes Ford wants to make.

In other words, high gas prices have hurt the SUV market, and the union has increased Ford's overhead and hampered it's ability to be competitive. Of course, the union is sensitive to Ford's situation and stands ready to assist:

"The impacted hourly and salaried workers find themselves facing uncertain futures because of senior management’s failure to halt Ford’s sliding market share."

Er - I said, the union stands ready to assist:

"Certainly, today’s announcement will only make the 2007 negotiations all the more difficult and all the more important."

EXCUSE ME - I SAID, READY TO ASSIST?

"The UAW-represented workers affected by today’s action are covered by the job security program and all other provisions and protections of the UAW-Ford National Agreement. Our union will rigorously enforce those programs."

Well. I just can't understand why anyone would outsource, can you?

Maybe UAW should consult with the UFCW - a few greased liberal palms, maybe an aggressive PR campaign, and who knows? Maybe some laws could be passed that would keep Ford in business and employed at current levels until the end of time - whether they ever sell another car or not.

Here's the list of states that the unions are lobbying to enact legislation similar to the "Fair Share" bill recently passed in Maryland:

Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin

The first push was to be in Wisconsin, but the measure was killed by the state assembly:

Assembly Bill 860 would have required companies with more than 10,000 employees in Wisconsin to pay 80-percent of its workers' health care costs. If not, then the company has to reimburse the state when those workers hop on to the state-funded Badger Care program.

Sound familiar? Unlike Maryland, the Governor supports AB 860:

A highlight from Tuesday night's State of the State speech was Governor Jim Doyle's wish that retailer Wal-Mart take employee health care off the shoulders of taxpayers. "Badger Care is intended to help working families, not multi-billion dollar corproations," he said.

I guess he's so blinded by hate for eeeevil business that he forgot that those multi-billion dollar corporations hire working families, eh?

Doyle's office said more than 1,200 Wal-Mart employees are on the state's taxpayer funded Badger Care program, costing the state $2.7 million a year.

But they're not working families, right, Doyle?

If you live in one of the above states, keep an eye out. And if you're looking for a job, the twenty states not listed are soon to have a boom.

A. Would you believe that your union was collecting dues and spending the funds to improve life for all Americans?

WASHINGTON, Jan. 19 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The health care system is in crisis and now, a major supermarket chain has joined the movement to help create a solution. Kroger, the nation's largest grocer, announced plans today to mobilize its employees and customers to participate in community meetings and online surveys sponsored by the Citizens' Health Care Working Group. Joe Hansen, International President of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) is one of the fourteen members of the Working Group and has been reaching out to employers such as Kroger to enlist their involvement in this national dialogue. Kroger is the first to respond.

"Reaching out" - I feel so warm and fuzzy. Hard to resist, isn't it? C'mon, lets all have a group hug right now! And look, there's the Kroger bunch, who volunteered to help save the world even though the selfless do-gooders at UFCW didn't ask! Such noble folks, one and all. Hey, there's a puppy! Can we pet it? Who knows the words to "kumbaya"?

B. Or would you believe that your union is spending your hard-earned money to strengthen it's grip on what it already has, and increase it's membership any way it can?

More than 200,000 of the UFCW's 1.4 million members are hourly Kroger employees.

I choose B.

The incredible rise in property values has made lots of money for homeowners - at least those who have sold their homes. For those that just want to stay where they are, it's had the opposite effect. As values rise, so do taxes. It's been reported primarily as a problem for places like San Fransisco, where prices are stratopheric. But it's a problem in other places too:

PHILADELPHIA, PA - Mayor John F. Street and City Solicitor Romulo L. Diaz hosted a City Hall press conference today to unveil details of the City’s new Financial Hardship Guidelines and Conditional Forgiveness Policy, which will assist a significant percentage of delinquent Philadelphia real estate taxpayers in meeting their financial obligations.

“Homeownership is the American dream and Philadelphia has one of the highest rates of homeownership among major cities in the country,” Mayor Street said. “It is our goal in this Administration to create as many homeownership opportunities as possible. Although everyone has a responsibility to meet their obligations to pay their taxes, no hardworking family that makes a reasonable effort to comply with the law should lose their home because of delinquent real estate taxes. It was out of this sense of fairness and compassion that we created the Conditional Tax Forgiveness Program.”

In many communities in the greater Philly region, housing values have more than doubled in the last five years, and along with it comes a corresponding increase in taxes. While it may seem like local governments are winning the lottery, many can't keep No city or state, whether run by conservatives or liberals, wants to be in the forclosure business.

While I applaud Philadelphia for caring, I also wonder why they don't just lower property taxes to a level reflecting a reasonable amount of annual growth (is 4% OK?) from, say, five or six years ago, and avoid having to offer forgiveness in the first place? And no, I wouldn't buffer rate changes in a down market, either. Taxes should be like roller coasters - rise slowly, but fall fast and steep.

By the way, that was a rhetorical question. I already know the answer, same as you.

Via AP/Yahoo:

ANNAPOLIS, Md. - Wal-Mart Stores Inc., faced with a new Maryland law designed to pressure the retail chain into spending more money on health insurance for its employees, is considering a challenge to the groundbreaking legislation.

Sarah Clark, a Wal-Mart spokesman, said Friday the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Maryland Chamber of Commerce had questioned the validity of the law.

"I'm sure that is something our attorneys are looking into as we decide our course of action," she said.

I don't think Wal-Mart really has a choice here. If they delay, UFCW and AFL-CIO's push to have lefty puppets enact similar legislation in 30+ other states will continue, causing considerable expense and undeserved bad publicity for the retailer. Fighting this one successfully would would be a win-win for everyone - 30+states would save the expense and controversy, Wal-Mart would be able to continue to create jobs in Maryland (which they need), and the unions would be able to use the millions (fleeced from members, none of whom work at Wal-Mart) it would have squandered on something more constructive and beneficial to its rank and file.

On second thought, the unions, in their self-inflicted blindness to the realities of the twenty-first century, will probably be unwilling to change the formula that has caused them steadily diminished membership and prominence over the last three decades. I guess we'll have to settle for two out of three.

[Scroll down for update...]

Via InstaPundit:

PORKBUSTERS UPDATE: Here's a joint statement by a number of bloggers on the House leadership election:

We are bloggers with boatloads of opinions, and none of us come close to agreeing with any other one of us all of the time. But we do agree on this: The new leadership in the House of Representatives needs to be thoroughly and transparently free of the taint of the Jack Abramoff scandals, and beyond that, of undue influence of K Street.

We are not naive about lobbying, and we know it can and has in fact advanced crucial issues and has often served to inform rather than simply influence Members.

But we are certain that the public is disgusted with excess and with privilege. We hope the Hastert-Dreier effort leads to sweeping reforms including the end of subsidized travel and other obvious influence operations. Just as importantly, we call for major changes to increase openness, transparency and accountability in Congressional operations and in the appropriations process.

As for the Republican leadership elections, we hope to see more candidates who will support these goals, and we therefore welcome the entry of Congressman John Shadegg to the race for Majority Leader. We hope every Congressman who is committed to ethical and transparent conduct supports a reform agenda and a reform candidate. And we hope all would-be members of the leadership make themselves available to new media to answer questions now and on a regular basis in the future.

Signed,

N.Z. Bear, The Truth Laid Bear

Hugh Hewitt, HughHewitt.com

Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit.com

Kevin Aylward, Wizbang!

La Shawn Barber, La Shawn Barber's Corner

Lorie Byrd, Polipundit

Jeff Goldstein, Protein Wisdom

John Hawkins, Right Wing News

John Hinderaker, Power Line

Jon Henke / McQ / Dale Franks, QandO

James Joyner, Outside The Beltway

Mike Krempasky, Redstate.org

Michelle Malkin, MichelleMalkin.com

Ed Morrissey, Captain's Quarters

Scott Ott, Scrappleface

John Donovan / Bill Tuttle, Castle Argghhh!!!

The fiscal irresponsibility of our current congress really irks me, so naturally I signed up as soon as I heard. You can go and sign up here.

One thing I noticed that I hope gets corrected - NZ Bear appears to be soliciting cosigners to this statement, but not a single one of the 160+ signers in the comments have been elevated to the list of supporters in the article. It kinda makes it look like the statement is a vehicle to get attention for a select few bloggers and anyone else who may feel strongly about the PorkBusters cause is relegated to a background cheerleading post for those who are the real supporters - i.e., the names that don't show up in the comments. Don't misunderstand - I don't care about getting a mention in the article, as it's not about getting links for me. But maybe a few of the commenters won't see it the way I do and be terribly disappointed.

However, maybe NZ doesn't want to add any signers-on. If that's the case, fine, but he needs to clarify the the statement

"If you would like to be known as also supporting this statement, please include a comment below, or Trackback to this post on your blog."

to something sounding a little less inclusive.

Either way, I still support the cause, and will continue to in the future.

Update (22 Jan 06 1:18 PM EST): James Joyner of Outside The Beltway points out in a comment that I misread the intent of NZ Bear's statement:

LB,

I'm not sure how one would interpret "If you would like to be known as also supporting this statement" as "If you would like me to edit this statement to include your name."

Those who fought in the War for Independence thereby signaled their support for the Declaration of Independence. They were not, however, asked to sign the document post hoc.

Upon taking a second look, I realize he's right. My humble apologies for the error - I misread this one - badly, I'm afraid. Thank you to James for setting me straight.

As predicted, the so-called "fair share" health care bill passed yesterday:

ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) -- Maryland has become the first state in the nation to require Wal-Mart to spend more on employee health care or pay the difference into the state's Medicaid fund. Similar laws may be coming elsewhere.

Maryland is racking up some extraordinary firsts. Here are some others:

This is going to have a chilling effect on business in the Old Line State - while the ink is drying on this bill, the socialist lobbyists are trying to figure out how to extend this to smaller businesses, and also how to add more state mandated benefits. Maybe mandatory company-paid daycare? The sky's the limit when socking it to eeevil business.

Of course, this will ultimately hurt consumers - the poor shop at Wal-Mart in droves, and they're going to love the new higher prices imposed to help pay for this new government mandate. At least until Wal-Mart loses market share to smaller companies unsaddled with the requirements of the "fair share" bill, who can now compete with the retail giant due to the unfair advantage Maryland has gifted them. Then Wal-Mart will simply cut jobs and facilities until it hurts less. UFCW should have greased Mike Miller and Michael Busch for a job security bill first.

It's even going to hurt the UFCW - if the state can force these kinds of requirements on employers, who needs unions?

And last, this will not help lower the cost of health care for anyone. Indeed, since the medical insurers know what Wal-Mart's required by law to spend, there's no incentive to negotiate when setting rates.

Just about any way you look at it, Maryland has now become one of the most business-unfriendly states in the union. And the liberals in the Maryland's General Assembly did it solely to pander to the unions and other socialist special interests.

Happy New Year, Maryland. Texas beckons.

SB 790 should be coming up for a vote to override Gov. Ehrlich's veto today. You'll recall that this is the bill that singles out Wal-Mart to pay additional taxes for not forcing enough of it's employees to fess up 11 bucks a month for health insurance. And they're following their previous pattern of misleading press releases:

On the CNBC "Street Signs" program this afternoon, Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich danced around the issue of his financial relationship with Wal-Mart Stores. Ehrlich is now fighting to stop a legislative override of his veto of the "Fair Share Health Care Fund Act" that would require Wal-Mart to pay a minimum amount for employee health care benefits as do other large employers in Maryland.

Despite the Governor's evasion of the facts, the public deserves to know that Wal-Mart hosted a fundraising reception on behalf of the Governor on December 15, 2004, just months before he vetoed the health care bill. The invitation makes it very clear that Wal-Mart is the sponsor of the $1,000 per person event and that the Governor is the beneficiary since it states, "Make Checks Payable to Bob Ehrlich for Maryland Committee." A copy of the invitation is below and available on http://www.ufcw.org.

The 825,000 Marylanders who lack health insurance deserve to know the true financial relationship between the Governor and Wal-Mart Stores as he fights against the legislation that will provide fair health care for all the state's citizens, even those who work for Wal-Mart.

The "invitation" mentioned can be read here. Please note the date of the event - December 15, 2004. UFCW er, WakeUpWalMart would have you believe that the event was a secret back-door payback for a veto that wasn't to occur until "just months" later. Actually, the event was covered by local media, and far from secret. The deserving public already knew. And it was planned over six months before the veto. This is very old news, folks. For UFCW to regurgitate this old story as new is simply dishonest.

Wakeupwalmart would also have you believe that this is about 825,000 underinsured Marylanders. It's not. Wal-Mart only employs around 15,000 in Maryland, and many of those are already insured. The only thing wakeupwalmart cares about is growing the ranks of the UFCW - which has proven to be difficult in this age of shrinking unions.

I'll be checking periodically to see about the vote, and you'll be able to see it here soon after I hear of the results. In the meantime, there are a couple of interesting views on the issue in the editorial pages today. The first is from the Washington Post:

"Maryland's legislature passed the bill last year, but Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) vetoed it. Lawmakers, urged on by big unions, appear on the verge of overriding the veto despite furious lobbying by Wal-Mart. The legislators, joined by Giant Food (Wal-Mart's unionized competitor), insist disingenuously that they are not singling out the big-box retailer but are merely setting a standard. Yet hundreds of smaller companies in Maryland that fail to meet the 8 percent spending threshold for health care are untouched by the legislation; in total their uninsured employees may be a greater drain on the state's health system than Wal-Mart's. The bill's backers say that Wal-Mart, because it is so large, bears a special obligation to set a good example. But since when do states have the right to penalize firms simply because they are big and successful?"

Read the whole thing. The point about Food Giant shouldn't be missed - I wonder how many fund-raisers Wal-Marts competitors organized last year?

The other, by Len Nichols shows up in the Baltimore Sun:

Now Wal-Mart, because it is so efficient, can afford to pay more for health care. But suppose we made it pay more - then what? Prices would rise and wages would fall. This would hurt Wal-Mart consumers and workers, most of whom are low-income, the very group we are all trying to help.

Please note that Len appears to be no friend of Wal-Mart, but still thinks this is bad legislation.

I agree, and hope it doesn't pass.

Since the campaigns to damage (or destroy) Wal-Mart have shaped up (at least to me) to be part of the wider left-right political debate, I thought I'd take note of some recent news items:

While wakeupwalmart.com and the other union organizations aren't likely to be successful in unionizing (and thus destroying) Wal-Mart, they are getting a little success through the back door. Apparently as many as 30 states are considering legislation to force Wal-Mart to devote 8-11% of its payroll to health insurance. This follows an attempt at similar legislation in Maryland that was vetoed by Gov. Ehrlich last May.

The problem with the Maryland bill was not just the intrusion into business. The bill, sponsored by Democrats and heavily supported by unions and Wal-Mart's competitors, was targeted directly at Wal-Mart. The threshold was set at 10,000 employees, and only 3 or 4 businesses in the state are large enough. Wal-Mart was the only one not saddled with company-crippling union-mandated health plans and thus would have been the only one to be subject to the tax. Supporters promise to resurrect this ill-concieved plan this year. Although their chances for overriding the veto are good, I expect this bill will be successfully challenged in court based on its discriminatory nature, and potential conflict with existing federal labor law. Should that occur, the other 30 or so states will likely abandon their similar bills.

Remember the Zogby poll sponsored by WakeUpWalMart that said 56% of Americans thought Wal-Mart was "bad for America"? Turns out that that John Zogby may have had a conflict of interest issue - he was accepting money for testimony against Wal-Mart in civil suits (here's an analysis of the Zogby poll by Mark Blumenthal at Mystery Pollster). A more recent poll (Jan. 4) appears to effectively disspell the Zogby poll as hopelessly skewed (more details here).

The poll, sponsored by Working Families for Wal-Mart, also exposes an interesting fact. The vast majority of union members shop at Wal-Mart - 32% shop regularly, 64% shop occasionally, for a whopping 96%. Amazing how union members act counter to their leadership time and time again. Maybe if union leadership paid attention to their members instead of their political interests....

Last week, it appears that Wal-Mart was a victim of their own website. Someone did a search on a Planet of the Apes video, and the site recommended a Martin Luther King video as a "similar item". Naturally, the anti-Wal-Mart troops rallied around this as proof that Wal-Mart is a racist institution. Wal-Mart says the mistake was just over-zealous marketing, as the MLK film was cross-referenced to disparate items in order to spur sales.

Incidentally, if you search "similar items" to "Wal-mart - The High Cost of Low Price" (paperback) at Amazon.com, you get a list that includes a children's book called "Missing Pieces (Red Rock Mysteries)" by Jerry B. Jenkins & Chris Fabry (Screen Shot Here) . Here's part of the description:

Someone is playing mailbox baseball in the town where Bryce and Ashley Timberline live. All clues point to their stepsister’s boyfriend, Randy, and Bryce is determined to prove it. Will Randy find out before they can discover the truth?

Also in the same list is a breathless conspiracy book about 9-11 (The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions by David Ray Griffen) that claims the Bush administration was actively involved in the planning and execution of the 9-11 attacks.

Is Amazon making a statement about the maturity and intelligence of the anti-Wal-Mart crowd?

To round out this round-up, there's a press release from Institute for America's Future (a far-left group) that claims Wal-Mart "sucked more than $20 billion out of local economies across America this holiday season". The basis for their analysis are figures from Institute for Local Self Reliance (ILSR). Among ILSR's claims to fame is an apparently famous study of a McDonalds:

ILSR also tracked the dollar flows of a neighborhood franchise--MacDonald's--in study that remains a classic. We found that of the $750,000 spent there almost two-thirds left not only the neighborhood but the metropolitan area. Contrary to conventional wisdom, we insisted that every time a fast food restaurant opened the number of jobs in the local economy actually declined.

I patiently await their study of the disproportionately high income McDonald's brings in to Oak Brook, Illinois, or a similar study of the effect of Target or Best Buy (both based in ILSR's backyard of Minneapolis). Or how about a historical analysis of the effects of the Sears Catalog in small towns during the 1950's?

Update: The link for Institute for America's Future is good, aparently their website is having problems.

The anti-Wal-Mart croud has had a mostly free ride in the press - along with a lot of help from liberal activists and politicians. Almost every time Wal-Mart is mentioned in the news, they are painted as the anti-christ of the corporate world. And Wal-Mart is hampered in their ability to respond, since it's a public relations issue for them - as a rule, businesses are understandably reluctant to take an aggressive stand on issues involving labor unions.

So it interested me when I saw this press release:

Community Leaders Form 'Working Families for Wal-Mart'

A diverse group of community leaders today formed the steering committee of Working Families for Wal-Mart -- an organization dedicated to talking about Wal-Mart's positive contributions and making sure working families benefit from the consumer savings and job opportunities that the company offers in communities all across America.

Their website is pretty new and has little more than bios of the steering committee and this mission statement:

Working Families for Wal-Mart is committed to fostering open and honest dialogue with elected officials, opinion makers and community leaders that conveys the positive contributions of Wal-Mart to working families.

We believe that Wal-Mart provides value to its customers, to its associates and to the communities it serves.

They give a phone number as well. Being the curious type, I called to ask about 40 or 50 questions, but got voice mail instead. Bummer.

It will be interesting to see how this new bunch fits into the debate. If they are effective, it will certainly tax the resources of the union. Considering that there are still no unionized stores after all the expense and effort thus far, this can't be good news for wakeupwalmart and their leftist supporters.

On the other hand, anything that keeps this guy busy and off the roads is probably a good thing.

Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan pens a very good piece on the importation of drugs from Canada.

She's written on this topic before, and is still right on the mark about why it won't work.

Please read.

Via Ap/Yahoo:

Inflation Moderates As Gas Prices Dip

WASHINGTON - Inflation pressures bombarding consumers moderated significantly last month as energy prices retreated after hitting record highs in September.

Shhh - don't tell anyone... The prices came down on their own. In spite of government, not because of it. If the Dems had their way, we'd be taxing the dickens out of the oil companies to punish them for their "eeeevil" profits, and the price of a gallon of gas would be going up instead.

Say thanks to the next conservative you meet.