It’s Wednesday, November 21st, 2012….and here’s The Gouge!

First up on the last edition before Thanksgiving, Thomas Sowell details how Liberals make a habit of….

Killing The Goose 

 

Killing the goose that lays the golden egg is one of those old fairy tales for children which has a heavy message that a lot of adults should listen to. The labor unions which have driven the makers of Twinkies into bankruptcy, potentially destroying 18,500 jobs, could have learned a lot from that old children’s fairy tale.

Many people think of labor unions as organizations to benefit workers, and think of employers who are opposed to unions as just people who don’t want to pay their employees more money. But some employers have made it a point to pay their employees more than the union wages, just to keep them from joining a union.

Why would they do that, if it is just a question of not wanting to pay union wages? The Twinkies bankruptcy is a classic example of costs created by labor unions that are not confined to paychecks.

The work rules imposed in union contracts required the company that makes Twinkies, which also makes Wonder Bread, to deliver these two products to stores in separate trucks. Moreover, truck drivers were not allowed to load either of these products into their trucks. And the people who did load Twinkies into trucks were not allowed to load Wonder Bread, and vice versa.

All of this was obviously intended to create more jobs for the unions’ members. But the needless additional costs that these make-work rules created ended up driving the company into bankruptcy, which can cost 18,500 jobs. (Which, by the way, isn’t necessarily due to the intransigence of the bakers, but rather that the bakers saw falling on their swords for the Teamsters and their ridiculous work rules benefited only the Teamsters.) The union is killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

Not only are there reasons for employers to pay their workers enough to keep them from joining unions, there are reasons why workers in the private sector have increasingly voted against joining unions. They have seen unions driving jobs away to non-union competitors at home or driving them overseas, whether with costly work rules or in other ways.

The old-time legendary labor leader John L. Lewis called so many strikes in the coal mines that many people switched to using oil instead, because they couldn’t depend on coal deliveries. A professor of labor economics at the University of Chicago called John L. Lewis “the world’s greatest oil salesman.”

There is no question that Lewis’ United Mine Workers Union raised the pay and other benefits for coal miners. But the higher costs of producing coal not only led many consumers to switch to oil, these costs also led coal companies to substitute machinery for labor, reducing the number of miners.

By the 1960s, many coal-mining towns were almost ghost towns. But few people connected the dots back to the glory years of John L. Lewis. The United Mine Workers Union did not kill the goose that laid the golden eggs, but it created a situation where fewer of those golden eggs reached the miners.

It was much the same story in the automobile industry and the steel industry, where large pensions and costly work rules drove up the prices of finished products and drove down the number of jobs. There is a reason why there was a major decline in the proportion of private sector employees who joined unions. It was not just the number of union workers who ended up losing their jobs. Other workers saw the handwriting on the wall and refused to join unions.

There is also a reason why labor unions are flourishing among people who work for government. No matter how much these public sector unions drive up costs, government agencies do not go out of business. They simply go back to the taxpayers for more money. (Not to the taxpayers; to the politicians….who, depending on their campaign contributions for reelection are only too happy to oblige!)

Consumers in the private sector have the option of buying products and services from competing, non-union companies– from Toyota instead of General Motors, for example, even though most Toyotas sold in America are made in America. Consumers of other products can buy things made in non-union factories overseas.

But government agencies are monopolies. You cannot get your Social Security checks from anywhere except the Social Security Administration or your driver’s license from anywhere but the DMV.

Is it surprising that government employees have seen their pay go up, even during the downturn, and their pensions rise to levels undreamed of in the private sector? None of this will kill the goose that lays the golden egg, so long as there are both current taxpayers and future taxpayers to pay off debts passed on to them.

….As well as politicians willing to twist the facts and misrepresent reality so taxpayers are willing….or ignorant enough….to do it.

Speaking of politicians willing to sell out their country for personal political gain, as this forward from G. Trevor and CNET.com relates, the self-described champions of civil liberties and individual rights are once again dedicated to destroying both:

Senate bill rewrite lets feds read your e-mail without warrants

Proposed law scheduled for a vote next week originally increased Americans’ e-mail privacy. Then law enforcement complained. Now it increases government access to e-mail and other digital files.

 

A Senate proposal touted as protecting Americans’ e-mail privacy has been quietly rewritten, giving government agencies more surveillance power than they possess under current law. CNET has learned that Patrick Leahy, the influential Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, has dramatically reshaped his legislation in response to law enforcement concerns. A vote on his bill, which now authorizes warrantless access to Americans’ e-mail, is scheduled for next week.

Leahy’s rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies — including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission — to access Americans’ e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge.

It’s an abrupt departure from Leahy’s earlier approach, which required police to obtain a search warrant backed by probable cause before they could read the contents of e-mail or other communications. The Vermont Democrat boasted last year that his bill “provides enhanced privacy protections for American consumers by… requiring that the government obtain a search warrant.”

Leahy had planned a vote on an earlier version of his bill, designed to update a pair of 1980s-vintage surveillance laws, in late September. But after law enforcement groups including the National District Attorneys’ Association and the National Sheriffs’ Association organizations objected to the legislation and asked him to “reconsider acting” on it, Leahy pushed back the vote and reworked the bill as a package of amendments to be offered next Thursday.

One person participating in Capitol Hill meetings on this topic told CNET that Justice Department officials have expressed their displeasure about Leahy’s original bill. The department is on record as opposing any such requirement: James Baker, the associate deputy attorney general, has publicly warned that requiring a warrant to obtain stored e-mail could have an “adverse impact” on criminal investigations.

Marc Rotenberg, head of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said that in light of the revelations about how former CIA director David Petraeus’ e-mail was perused by the FBI, “even the Department of Justice should concede that there’s a need for more judicial oversight,” not less.

An aide to the Senate Judiciary committee told CNET that because discussions with interested parties are ongoing, it would be premature to comment on the legislation. (You know….we have to pass the legislation to learn what’s in it!)

Markham Erickson, a lawyer in Washington, D.C. who has followed the topic closely and said he was speaking for himself and not his corporate clients, expressed concerns about the alphabet soup of federal agencies that would be granted more power:

❝There is no good legal reason why federal regulatory agencies such as the NLRB, OSHA, SEC or FTC need to access customer information service providers with a mere subpoena. If those agencies feel they do not have the tools to do their jobs adequately, they should work with the appropriate authorizing committees to explore solutions. The Senate Judiciary committee is really not in a position to adequately make those determinations.❞

The list of agencies that would receive civil subpoena authority for the contents of electronic communications also includes the Federal Reserve, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Maritime Commission, the Postal Regulatory Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Mine Enforcement Safety and Health Review Commission.

Leahy’s modified bill retains some pro-privacy components, such as requiring police to secure a warrant in many cases. But the dramatic shift, especially the regulatory agency loophole and exemption for emergency account access, likely means it will be near-impossible for tech companies to support in its new form.

They want you to listen to what they say, not what they do!  This is simply further proof, as if any were needed, why you can’t spell “Liberal” without an L-I-E….or L-I-A-R for that matter!

Meanwhile, back at the ranch with The Gang That Still Can’t Shoot Straight, Charles Murray, writing at the AEI website, offers a cautionary tale why….

The GOP shouldn’t count on tapping latent Latino conservatism

 

In the flood of instant analysis of the GOP’s ethnic plight following the election, it has been argued that the GOP should be able get a lot higher percentage of the Latino vote. Latinos would be natural converts to a more welcoming Republican Party, because they have strong families, a great work ethic, are more religious than most Americans, and are conservative on social issues such as abortion and gay marriage.

Shall we look at the numbers?

I’ll start with the General Social Survey (GSS), the most widely used database for monitoring social trends. All the results that follow are based on the biennial GSS surveys conducted from 2000 to 2010:

Latinos aren’t married more than everyone else. Among Latinos ages 30–49, 52 percent are married. Everyone else: 54 percent.

Latinos aren’t more religious than everyone else. Among Latinos, 29 percent attend worship services regularly (nearly once a week or more). Everyone else: 31 percent. Among Latinos, 18 percent not only attend regularly but also say they have a strong affiliation with their religion. Everyone else: 24 percent.

Latinos aren’t more opposed to gay marriage than everyone else. Among Latinos, 44 percent disagree or strongly disagree with the statement that “homosexuals should have the right do marry.” Everyone else: 50 percent.

Latinos are a little more opposed to abortion than everyone else, but not by a landslide. Among Latinos, 12 percent are opposed to abortion under all circumstances. Everyone else: 9 percent.  Among Latinos, 21 percent are opposed to all abortion unless the mother’s health is seriously endangered. Everyone else: 14 percent.

Latinos aren’t more conservative than everyone else. Among Latinos, 14 percent describe themselves as “conservative” or “extremely conservative.” Everyone else: 20 percent.

What about the Latino work ethic? For indicators on that, I turn from the GSS to the Current Population Survey (CPS). I restrict the results to the surveys from 2000–2008, before the financial meltdown—that is, we’re looking at work behavior in years in the normal range of unemployment:

Latino men are only fractionally more likely to be in the labor force than everyone else, and those with jobs work slightly fewer hours. Among Latino men ages 30–49, 92 percent were in the labor force. All other men ages 30–49:  91 percent. Among men ages 30–49 who had jobs, Latinos worked an average of 42 hours in the preceding week. All other men ages 30–49: 44 hours.

Latino women are substantially less likely to be in the labor force than everyone else.  Among Latino women ages 30–49, 68 percent were in the labor force. All other women ages 30–49:  78 percent. Among those with jobs, hours-worked in the preceding week were virtually identical: 37.3 for Latino women, 37.5 for everyone else.

I can understand why people think Latinos are natural conservatives. Just about every Latino with whom I come in contact is hard-working and competent. I don’t get into discussions with them about their families and religion, but they sure look like go-getting, family-values Americans to me. But note the caveat: “with whom I come in contact.” There’s a huge selection artifact embedded in that caveat—I always come in contact with Latinos because they are on a work crew that’s doing something at my house or office, or at my neighbors’ houses. That’s the way that almost all Anglos in the political chattering class come in contact with Latinos. Of course they look like model Americans.

The data I used for the numbers above come from the most trustworthy, carefully conducted surveys available. They paint a portrait that gives no reason to think that Republicans have an untapped pool of social conservatives to help them win elections.

Which certainly doesn’t mean Dims have a lock on Hispanic votes.  Unlike most native-born Blacks, the majority of American Hispanics haven’t been fully emasculated by the Left’s utopian Entitlement Society….yet!  But that particular tipping point is coming….and that right soon.

Next up, Michael Rubin, also writing at the AEI, describes….

The general’s great betrayal 

 

Gen. David Petraeus is a war hero and a very intelligent man. Given his history, the maelstrom surrounding him must seem bizarre to those outside the United States who may see Petraeus’ downfall as the worst manifestation of America’s puritanism.

There is more to the story than meets the eye, however. Within military circles, adultery represents not only betrayal of the wife, but also of the team.  The conduct and activities of officers’ wives impacts careers. While a general concentrates on deployments abroad, his wife focuses on the families of those who serve under him. If she shirks her duty, his career suffers. Simply put, Petraeus could never have risen to the top had it not been for Holly Petraeus’ hard work. His adultery betrayed a teammate, not only a wife.

Now the shoe fits!

Most plaudits surrounding Petraeus revolve around his work in Iraq. Here too the story is complicated. In 2003-2004, Petraeus served as commander of the 101st Airborne Division, based in Mosul. Rather than fight insurgents, he sought to co-opt them, placing senior Baathists in sensitive positions and reaching out to Islamists. He achieved calm, but only so long as he kept the money flowing. As soon as he departed and the money dried up, the men he empowered turned on U.S. forces. While aides acknowledged their mistake, Petraeus survived the fallout by blaming his successors. This caused grumbling in the military, but Petraeus had cultivated the press, and emerged untarnished.

During the insurgency which followed, Syria became Al Qaeda’s highway, with Bashar al-Assad’s blessing. While the White House sought to isolate Assad, Petraeus lobbied to travel to Damascus. He believed that he alone was capable of persuading Assad; he did not recognize what a prize his visit would be for the Syrian leader weathering isolation. Such action shows ego seldom seen outside political circles.

Perhaps Petraeus redeemed himself with the Iraq surge, but here again ego and disrespect for his team reigned supreme. Petraeus was not alone in crafting or implementing his strategy. The reason his name—more than Ray Odierno or Peter Chiarelli—is known to the public is because Petraeus spent as much time cultivating journalists as fighting enemies.

Benghazi was different. The terror attack was tragic, but the scandal was the cover-up. Petraeus apparently testified that White House proxies edited his talking points. No longer is he the Teflon general, however. Had he resigned then to protest politicization of intelligence, he could have done so with honor. That for a time he allowed himself to become a tool for corrupt politicians is perhaps the worst indictment he could face.

Bottom line?

In a related item, NewMediaJournal.us reports how the….

White House Deleted Terror References in CIA Talking Points on Benghazi

 

Senior Republican members of Congress confirmed Sunday that the Obama administration changed CIA guidance to senior officials that had identified the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi as an al Qaeda attack. “The intelligence community had it right, and they had it right early,” said chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI). The CIA “talking points” on Benghazi initially identified the attackers as al Qaeda or al Qaeda-linked terrorists but senior administration officials removed the reference, Rogers said on NBC’s Meet the Press.

Meanwhile, White House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes told reporters traveling with the president on Saturday that the White House made only minor changes in the first comments by a White House official on the Benghazi security scandal. “We were provided with points by the intelligence community that represented their assessment,” Rhodes said on Air Force One en route to Asia. “The only edit made by the White House was the factual edit about how to refer to the facility.”

Rhodes insisted that the word “consulate” was changed to “diplomatic facility” to reflect the fact that the compound was not involved in traditional consular activities. “Other than that, we were guided by the points that were provided by the intelligence community,” he said. “So I can’t speak to any other edits that may have been made.”

Rogers said the talking points were reviewed by a “deputies committee” of senior officials that is “populated by appointees from the administration. That’s where the narrative changed.”….One intelligence official said the reason for the omission of the information on al Qaeda was that the intelligence contradicted President Barack Obama’s statement at the Democratic National Convention weeks earlier that al Qaeda was “on the path to defeat.”

But rather than following this, or any other story even potentially damaging to the Anointed One, the MSM has already predetermined there’s….

On the Lighter Side….

Then there’s this little bit of art imitating life for anyone who’s ever sent their computer out for repairs:

N’est-ce pas?!?

Finally, we’ll call it a day with the latest atrocity committed by the “Religion of Peace”:

Hamas kills six suspected of aiding Israel, drags body through streets

 

Need we ask when was the last time Israelis shot Islamic spies, let alone dragged their bodies behind motorcycles through the streets of Tel Aviv?  Or, perhaps more to the point, can you say….

James Byrd?!?

Magoo