WEEK OF NOVEMBER 23, 2008

Better Late Than Never

Better late than never, as the old saying goes. Yesterday, November 22, 2008 was designated “Victory in Iraq Day” by some of my fellow conservative bloggers. Its purpose was to “… honor the sacrifice, dedication and sheer determination of American, coalition, and Iraqi troops who

have brought freedom to the nation and people of Iraq.” 

Because of other commitments and distractions, The Drum and Cannon learned of it too late to join in the celebration. So we are belatedly celebrating it here today, with all due pomp and circumstance befitting the occasion. 

To our way of thinking, the best way to honor the day is to acknowledge what is undoubtedly the single most important reason why we can celebrate it, outside of the bravery, sacrifice, and hard work of our troops who served – and that reason is the bravery, sacrifice, hard work, and tenacity of our Commander-in-Chief. To President George W. Bush, I say, “Thank You”. I hope that some day our entire nation will recognize the truth about this war, and will rise up as one and together say, “Thank You, Mr. President.” 

To far too many Americans, the words of President John F. Kennedy have been forgotten; "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."  For a few short months after September 11, 2001, when the perceived luxury of peace had been interrupted, those words were remembered. As the years went by, the words once again vanished into the fog of forgetfulness, for that same luxury had lulled us back to sleep. The war was far away on the peripheries of our consciousness, and, for most Americans, it became an unpleasant distraction that they preferred to do away with, regardless of the cost of doing so. Fortunately, there were also many who did not forget, and together they attained this day. We can only hope, as we savor this day, that those with misguided agendas do not make it all in vain.

RETURN TO ARCHIVES LIST                                                     RETURN TO HOME PAGE

No Bailout for the Big Three 

I first became familiar with Jeff Schreiber’s America’s Right website a few weeks before the election, when he was posting daily articles on the status of Phil Berg’s lawsuit before the District Court in Pennsylvania regarding Barack Obama’s birth record. He has become a routine stop in my daily trip around the blogosphere inasmuch as his website is the premier source of updated information regarding the eligibility question. Jeff’s ability to write is exceeded only by his knowledge and persistence. With his schedule as a legal writer, law student, husband, and father, I cannot understand where he finds time to host a website as well.  

Today Jeff has an interesting lead-in article today entitled Mitt Romney's Recipe to Automaker Recovery and Success, which ran just ahead of a reprint of Romney’s November 18th opinion piece in the NY Times entitled Let Detroit Go Bankrupt. In his article, Jeff describes his initial coolness toward Mitt Romney as a presidential candidate, but as the primary campaign progressed, he warmed up to him to the point where Romney became his choice over McCain for the Republican nomination. My own campaign journey was significantly different. For those of you who have been hanging around The Drum and Cannon for a while, you might remember that I was strongly for Romney, and was part of the 62% of Republicans who supported Romney in the Colorado primary election. By the time the National Convention rolled around and McCain had already won the nomination, my feelings were that Romney would be a better president, but because of America’s anti-conservative mood, McCain would probably be the better candidate to run against Obama. Jeff builds a solid case in his article, however, that Romney probably would have run a more effective campaign against Obama than did McCain. I still do not think that America was ready to hear and listen to the conservative message this election year, so even if Romney had been the Republican nominee, I believe that Obama still would have been the winner. 

There is one thing that is becoming clear, however, since the election. Much was made of Obama’s call for “change”, and throughout the campaign Republicans repeatedly asked what was meant by “change”, but never received an answer. It is now becoming evident, with the daily announcements of Obama’s appointments, that it meant nothing; it was a gimmick. As they say in the advertising world, it was a “come-on”. Much to the chagrin of many of Obama’s supporters, they will not be getting that free gas and those mortgage-free homes after all. They probably will not even receive their “middle-class tax cuts”, a.k.a. government handouts, for quite a while, anyway. Nor is he likely to be bringing the troops home from Iraq the week after next. Welcome to the world of pie-in-the-sky campaign promises, peasants! 

But I digress. The Romney article sided with many in Washington, who are mainly from the Republican side of the aisle, and oppose the bailout that is being asked for. Their position is that it may not be a bad thing for the auto manufacturers to go bankrupt. In his article, Romney is not opining as a politician, but rather on a savvy businessman who is well acquainted with the automobile business. He writes:

It often seems like individuals and groups alike only learn during periods of difficult stress, and even then do not always do so.  

It is generally agreed that one of the major problems that all three companies face is their inability to remain competitive price-wise with companies like Toyota and Honda, and much of that is attributed to their exorbitant labor costs. It has been determined that the high wages and benefits that the United Auto Workers Union have won for GM, Ford, and Chrysler employees results in an additional $2,000 per car as compared to the competition. Romney addresses this problem:

This is not the first time that organized labor has bullied its way out of jobs. Think steel industry.

You would think they would learn. 

There is a problem here, however. It is one that Mitt Romney does not address, and I wish he had. When large companies start making reduction in pensions and other benefits, they look first at existing retirees rather than at those still working. This is not unexpected, since retirees cannot go on strike. But for many of those who worked in a company for thirty years or more and carefully planned on their own investments to help supplement the pensions and health care benefits that were promised to them, an unexpected reduction in either or both of those benefits can be devastating. For most of the retirees, there is little if anything that they can do about it, since their age or their health, or both, prevents them from going back to work. It too often seems that, in our American culture, this is unimportant since old people do not count for much anyway. If children should be seen but not heard, in America the elderly should be neither seen nor heard. 

The likely scenario for retirees if these companies go bankrupt would be as follows. First, the company’s pension plans would be transferred to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC), which would continue paying the retirees’ pension benefits up to a maximum of $54,000 per year, with no cost of living increases in the future. Secondly, the retirees would in all likelihood lose whatever health care benefits the companies were providing, and would either have to subsist solely on Medicare and/or attempt to find individual health care insurance at greatly increased cost and reduced benefits. Third, if their supplemental retirement income consisted of company stocks, those stocks would be worthless. It is not a pretty picture, but one that is becoming all too common in America. 

Instead of focusing on the pensions and benefits of those who either have retired or are about to, the focus should be on those who are much newer to the work force. These people still have time to make alternate plans for their retirement, if they wish to do so. Unfortunately, far too few young people wish to do so in our society. Some companies have already eliminated pension plans for workers who are not yet vested, which would be an appropriate step here. Of course, the UAW would not take this lying down. At a minimum, they should bring it in line with those being offered by the other auto manufacturers, if they have them. The same applies to hourly wages and health benefits as well.  

The blame here does not belong solely to the union, by any stretch of the imagination. According to Hugh Hewitt on today’s show, the Big Three CEO’s traveled to Washington to plead their case before Congress in their private jets, a move that definitely did not impress the legislators. As Romney’s article states, a total management shake-up is required, with most of them being replaced and those who remain take a huge salary cut. Not said, but implied, is a sharp reduction in management perks as well. 

As long as America continues to not only condone, but to reward incompetency and poor judgment, the type of economic difficulties that we are experiencing now will continue. America must find a way to restore its trust and confidence in our corporate and business leaders if we are to once again have a stable and flourishing economy. To accomplish that, we need leaders who can demonstrate that they are worth that trust and confidence. Right now there are three who cannot do that.
___________________________

Related Articles: 

A Cure For The Bailout Blues
By PHILIP MELLA
November 17, 2008 at ClearCommentary.com 

Although there are many sound financial reasons to resist calls to rescue our car manufacturers, the more profound reason is the growing concern of a Leviathan government that is legitimizing its expansive influence in clearly unhealthy ways. 
__________________________

COMMENTS

Steve says:

The situation with the auto makers bailout is an excellent example of where America seems to be going.  We are bleeding out our self-reliance and independence through an incessant bout with tit-sucking syndrome.  Our only goal in America, with dwindling exceptions, is to use our efforts to protest, complain, whine, yell, scream, etc. for “free stuff”.  This illusion is a disease as sure as drug addiction and the plague of the Middle Ages.  Unfortunately, the cure is just as elusive (maybe more so) than the cure to other diseases simply because nobody is willing to face the obvious: It is up to individual people to be responsible for themselves, help worthy fellow humans, and live within the good comportment standards of communities.

RETURN TO ARCHIVES LIST                                                     RETURN TO HOME PAGE

A Brave New World

In keeping with my goal of presenting a more light-hearted approach in my commentary this week, it may seem like I am minimizing the importance of some of the issues that appear here. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rather, I have found in over four years of posting political commentary, the term “light-hearted” can be synonymous with “satirical”. If there is one thing that gets under the skin of humorless liberals more than any other, it is political satire. Just ask my namesake, Scott Ott, over at ScrappleFace.  Many liberals do not like to be the target of well-directed humor, because it affects their emotional well-being. It is as painful to them as being criticized by the French or any other “sophisticated” Europeans, whose intellectual and political approval is so vitally important to them. To others, it might be perceived as an insidious form of racism.  

In this morning’s Denver Post, there was an Associated Press Article reporting that the Iraqi Cabinet had given overwhelming approval to the Status of Forces Agreement that had been hammered out in the negotiating process with the United States for almost a year. The article went on to say that because of Shi’a and Kurd support for the pact. it is expected to sail through the Iraqi Parliament. Despite give and take on both sides, the agreement’s main points call for U.S. forces to be withdrawn from Iraqi cities by June of next year, and the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. It was almost like reading that the election results of November 4th had been reversed because of a mysterious computer error.  

As I kept reading the article, a note near the bottom stated that included in the agreement was a provision that either side could abrogate the agreement with a one year advanced notice. It was then I realized that our new president and his Democratic friends in Congress would still have the ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, because a successful conclusion to the war would clearly demonstrate how vacuous their foreign policy campaign arguments were. Such an ending would be a feather in the cap for the Bush Administration, but in their own private assessment, a failure for the Democrats. It will be interesting to see how they spin it. In all likelihood, they would refer to it as vindication for their call to abandon the war and allow the Iraqis to solve their own problems. Unfortunately, many Americans, from New Orleans to New York City and back to San Francisco, will believe them. 

The following appraisal of the existing situation is part of an overall report generated by retired General Barry McCaffrey (U.S. Army) after a recent visit to Iraq and interviews with many military and political leaders there, both American and Iraqi. Previously, Gen. McCaffrey had been at odds with the Bush Administration over the War in Iraq. 

In assessing the current situation, the General writes:

He goes on to issue the following warning:

For the first time in two weeks, maybe longer, conservatives have a reason to gloat. For our sake, and for the sake of the Iraqis, we hope that our liberal friends do not begrudge us this moment in the sun. 

To read Gen. McCaffrey’s entire report, click HERE.
____________________________ 

Until he won the election, Barack Obama made sure that he never let reality get in the way of his campaign promises. There have been several reports since the election that his transition team is now looking for ways in which he can back off from those promises, at least temporarily. Although most political pundits have rightfully compared the 2008 election most closely to Ronald Reagan’s defeat of Jimmy Carter in 1980, there are also similarities in the election’s aftermath to the 1964 election in which Lyndon Johnson defeated Barry Goldwater. In that election, which took place as the War in Vietnam was heating up, Goldwater was portrayed by the Democrats and the media as a bloodthirsty warmonger for wanting to take a stronger stand against Communism, both in Vietnam and throughout the world. During the campaign, LBJ had called for a very limited involvement in Southeast Asia (for any Democrat readers or Oakland Raider fans, that is where Vietnam is located) and détente with the Soviet Union. 

Soon after the election, however, President Johnson began building up our forces in Vietnam and taking a harder line against Soviet expansionism. At the time, many Republicans were saying that as long as LBJ kept doing what Goldwater had called for during the campaign, he was not doing all that bad of a job. Unfortunately, Johnson eventually allowed a former automobile executive, Robert McNamara, to micro-manage the Vietnam War instead of leaving it up to his generals, and we all know the results of that mistake. In the same vein, if Barack Obama adopts a more moderate approach to governing than he promised during the campaign, he may have some disappointed supporters, especially on the Far Left and among minorities, but the damage he will do to America will be far less. 

On the domestic front, some Obama supporters are going to be disappointed to learn that they will have to continue buying their own gas and making their mortgage payments. Apparently, they were confused by the phrases “spread the wealth” and “redistribution of wealth”, mistakenly thinking that the terms meant that the bank would start paying them to live in their houses. This is not at all surprising, since they all were products of our public education system and unwitting victims of the American media. For a clear illustration of this phenomenon, see John Ziegler’s website How Obama Got Elected. 

Meanwhile, it seems like everyone is trying frantically to get on board the gravy train, a.k.a. the “Bailout Special”. Originally, it was known as the “Bailout Limited”, but as time goes on, its limits are being increasingly tested as more and more corporate examples of poor judgment, greed, and sloppy management are looking for ways out of their economic troubles. Sympathetic politicians are willing to reward intentional or unintentional incompetence, using the excuse that it will prevent hardships for innocent victims; “victims” such as the 350,000 members of the United Auto Workers Union, whose wage and benefit demands over the years have resulted in America’s Big Three auto manufacturers losing their ability to compete with foreign-owned companies, even those with factories in the United States. It is only a matter of time before some Democratic legislator drafts a bill requiring that Toyota, Honda, and other companies that build cars in America offer the same benefits to their workers as their counterparts at GM, Ford, and Chrysler have. But then, why would we ever let the free market and the economy stand in the way of “social justice”? Such thoughts are a thing of the past, and this is a Brave New World in which we live.
___________________ 

Related Articles: 

Iraq 'Fails' Upward
Iraq's security deal with U.S. shows gains amid
Editorial
November 18, 2008 at Wall Street Journal Online

Mr. Obama, Give That Man a Medal
Stephen Hadley offered the option of victory in Iraq.
Editorial
November 18, 2008 at Wall Street Journal Online
__________________

RETURN TO ARCHIVES LIST                                                     RETURN TO HOME PAGE

This Week’s Change of Pace

With the campaigns over and most of the post-election analyses written, it is time to lighten up for a while. With the approaching holiday season, Americans have to learn again how to smile. (For all of you Democrats, a smirk is not the same as a smile.) To aid this effort, this week’s edition of The Drum and Cannon will provide more levity, at least until the mid-week news requires a return to the heat of battle. 

When you have three sons and three stepsons, all of them grown and well past voting age, the rules of chance tell you that at least one of them will go bad. You can imagine my chagrin when I discovered that two of them voted for Barack Obama, despite my valiant efforts in raising them with sound values. For one of them in the real estate business in California, it came as no surprise. The other, however, who lives here in Colorado, was a bit of a shocker. Of course, I cannot be sure that he abandoned our family values, since in the past he has enjoyed goading me before the elections by uttering some very liberal political thoughts, but then ending up following in the path of light and truth. This year, I am not so sure. 

Several times since the election, my Californian prodigal stepson has called and asked if I was doing all right. I guess he expects me to be undergoing severe depression because of the election results. Either that, or he enjoys gloating. Just to be on the safe side, my response to his most recent call was that I was not worried or depressed at all, because I am sure that before December 15 when the Electoral College meets, the Supreme Court will require Obama to produce proof that he was born in Hawaii, and that he will be unable to do so. He will, therefore, be declared ineligible to serve as President. Joe Biden will then be sworn in, and he will select either Howard Dean or William Ayers as his V.P. With that, my stepson would realize that either I have retained my sense of humor or I am teetering on the brink of senility. I try to keep them guessing. 

In a little more serious vein, I will not be joining many of my fellow conservatives in wishing the new President-elect well or good luck because, in my opinion, that means that he would have to be successful in implementing the programs that he called for in his campaign. So instead, I will wish him and his family happiness, good health, and hope that they enjoy the Washington cherry blossoms in April. 

In his election speech, President-elect Barack Obama proclaimed, “And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn: I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your president, too.” 

Mr. Obama, I accept you as my president, despite doing all that I legally could to prevent it. Although I do not trust your election speech any more than I trusted your campaign rhetoric, here is my response. In order to gain my help instead of my continued opposition here at The Drum and Cannon, you will have to do the following: 

1.) Reverse your position on the War in Iraq, and verbally ensure that our troops in that country will remain there until total victory is achieved and Iraq becomes a stable democracy, or until a successful resolution of the issues surrounding the Status Of Forces Agreement dictates otherwise; 

2.) Give credit that is due to our military leadership for their success in Iraq, and provide for them all that is necessary to accomplish the same results in Afghanistan; 

3.) Issue a policy statement that the United States will unequivocally continue its support for the nation of Israel, while simultaneously pursuing a fair and just solution to the Palestinian problem that includes a Palestinian state and Israel sharing a border in peace; 

4.) Reaffirm America’s opposition to the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran, either with or without the agreement and support of our European allies, Russia, and China; 

5.) Issue a statement reflecting that an attack on Israel, whether by Iran or any other country, will be considered to be an attack and act of war against the United States; 

6.) Postpone your plans to make serious reductions in military spending and weapons development until the threat from Islamic Jihad is entirely eliminated everywhere in the world and no other source of threat replaces it; 

7.) Renounce any and all plans to sacrifice even the slightest amount of American sovereignty to the United Nations. 

They once wrote a popular song about this kind of secret wish — To Dream the Impossible Dream. And while I continue to disagree with your positions on the economy, energy policy, global warming, government spending, tax policy, and several other issues, I firmly believe that national security and foreign policy issues take precedence, and that is where I will focus my attention. I truly hope that you will do the same. 

As a demonstration of my good intentions, I will just add the following comments. 

There is much discussion going on in the media right now about the choices that you will be making for your cabinet. There is strong opinion that Hillary Clinton will become your Secretary of State. That is not a bad choice, but you may be asking for more trouble than you bargained for, given her proclivity for independent thinking and all of the traveling that she would have to do. I am not sure that she would be willing to leave her husband home alone for extended periods. On the other hand, she is probably a better choice than John Kerry is, since French went out as the international diplomatic language well over a century ago. 

For Secretary of Defense, the choice might be even more difficult. Either Cindy Sheehan or Michael Moore would gladly serve in this position, and both would gladly carry out your original campaign promises relative to our armed forces if you decide to go that way. Whichever candidate you select, the other could be named to head up the Department of Veterans Affairs, since both candidates are so highly regarded by past and present members of the Armed Forces. Senator John Kerry should also be considered for the latter position, and for the same reasons. 

For Secretary of Homeland Security, who else is there beside William Ayers? His extensive past experience would serve you well. Apparently you are not well acquainted with Mr. Ayers since he was only your neighbor, but I am sure that some of your other friends in Illinois would issue a strong recommendation. 

For Secretary of the Treasury, I assume that you have considered George Soros. The major advantage here is that it would no longer be necessary for the U.S. Mint to print money to fund your bailouts. Instead, Mr. Soros would only have to open his checkbook. This would also be consistent with your plan to redistribute the wealth in America. 

The position of Secretary of Energy would be a natural for environmental expert extraordinaire and Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore. As a part of your ongoing effort to maintain transparent communications with America’s citizens, he could provide new documentary movies explaining how everybody else could be reducing their energy consumption. With the help of the Department of Commerce, your administration could bring America to a standstill and end the threat of global warming in the Western hemisphere while saving the lives of thousands of polar bears and snail darters. 

The Department of Housing and Urban Development may present a more difficult challenge for you, since ACORN is such a diversified organization. In this case, your wisest course may be to have a “secretary by committee”, made up of the leaders of the various ACORN branches. With this novel approach, the GAO would find it much more difficult to determine who is spending what, and how money flows through the Department. It would also help simplify the budgeting process. 

Although she was just recently elected to the Office of ACLU President, Susan Herman would be your logical choice for Attorney General. Her vast experience in Constitutional Law and how to creatively re-interpret it is a bonus, plus her knowledge of how to use the legal system to silence opponents through intimidation might serve to reduce the current partisan infighting that has become so common in our country. 

Given more time, I could probably offer more recommendations. Instead, I will leave the remaining appointments up to your own good judgment. I am sure that somewhere within these 57 United States you should be able to find qualified candidates.

_________________________________

The author of this imaginary “notice to all employees” is unknown but is a keen observer of the near future in the business world.