Not that most of the “change” types are taking any time to sit down and study many of the positions taken by any of the candidates at this time of the year (and who could blame them?), but I find this article by the WSJ’s Opinion Journal website to be interesting. Let me provide my typical cut-and-paste, and then you-all can go over to the hyperlinked webpage to read it in its entirety (HT Opinion Journal):
…Mr. Obama’s proposal would designate certain companies as “patriot employers” and favor them over other, presumably not so patriotic, businesses.
The legislation takes four pages to define “patriotic” companies as those that: “pay at least 60 percent of each employee’s health care premiums”; have a position of “neutrality in employee organizing drives”; “maintain or increase the number of full-time workers in the United States relative to the number of full-time workers outside of the United States”; pay a salary to each employee “not less than an amount equal to the federal poverty level”; and provide a pension plan.
I can post as many of the McCain positions as anybody’d care to go over, but I’m sure that’ll be done for me, as soon as a few of my lefty friends here in the LR get around to it, and to also questioning my parental lineage and whatnot (hahaha!).
Not that most of the “change” types are taking any time to sit down and study many of the positions taken by any of the candidates at this time of the year …
Just out of curiosity, why do you bother to look up this stuff. Is there some off chance that you might actually vote for someone who isn’t a Republican?
In all seriousness, how often do you vote for a non-Republican?
BK’s post is perfectly reasonable and the topic is worthy of discussion.
Frankly the idea that a viable presidential candidate can even formulate such a concept is frightening to me. So much for being a uniter, not a divider. He even wants to divide companies into good guys that get favored, presumably, and bad guys that get discriminated against. Unreal.
I don’t get all the change rhetoric. He is just a McGovern type retread from nearly 40 years ago, though he is a better speaker. The idea that he is going to unite anyone based upon his platform is humorous.
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR. my head hurts
Mr.Obama is also proposing to raise tax rates on the “affluent” and on capital gains and dividends.
I have a SMALL business and my customers are the “affluent” I dont think he understands the food chain.
If he wants to take something on start with the 35% corprate tax rate and look what Ireland did years ago
and chop it in half then you can bring some industries back or start up new.
Just out of curiosity, why do you bother to look up this stuff. Is there some off chance that you might actually vote for someone who isn’t a Republican?
In all seriousness, how often do you vote for a non-Republican?
At the state and local level, I used to quite a bit. Not for president, though, since '96 (which is an observation that I made over in another thread). Clinton disappointed me in his second term beyond all reason, for a while. Now, I just find him a sad and diminished figure.
When my official residency status was in Hawaii, I voted Ben Cayetano for reelection to the governorship in '98, over Republican Linda Lingle. And mayor of Honolulu was between 2 Democrats (Duke Bainum and Mufi Hannemann) back in '04, so I went with Mufi, and he’s been a good leader. For Congress in Hawaii, I voted Daniel Inouye consistently. He’s a bona fide war hero and an exemplar of the American dream. I may not agree with some of his policies, but I find common ground with enough of them to satisfy me. I wrote-in a candidate in the House race there, because I just can’t stomach Neil Abercrombie. He’s next to being a godless Commie in my book (hahaha!). This year, I’m doing everything I can to defeat John Conyers here in Michigan, though I think I’m just tilting at windmills. He’s just too strong in Detroit itself. And I was a big supporter of Dennis Archer as mayor of Detroit (that’s my hometown). I’d probably vote for him, were he to run for the governorship of Michigan, which he’s made noises of doing.
I’m not a mad-dog, foaming-at-the-mouth rightist…though I occasionally play one on TV, Barry! (HAHAHAHAHAHA!)
He becomes scarier and scarier every time he opens his mouth.
He’s scarier than John “100 years in Iraq, ‘Barbara Ann’, ‘I don’t know much about the economy’” McCain? Maybe it’s misguided, but would it be so wrong to attempt to develop a means of rewarding or assisting companies that, according to a particular definition, are “good corporate actors”? Now, practically speaking, the plan may not be feasible, but what, in the abstract is particularly wrong with encouraging companies to pay decent wages, keeping jobs in the States, and having no particular view on unions (although I’d eliminate that one)? Why shouldn’t we incentivize behavior that we want to encourage?
Now, again, maybe it’s impossible given to accomplish the goal without serious negative repercussions, but what’s scary about the idea?
Now, practically speaking, the plan may not be feasible, but what, in the abstract is particularly wrong with encouraging companies to pay decent wages, keeping jobs in the States, and having no particular view on unions (although I’d eliminate that one)? Why shouldn’t we incentivize behavior that we want to encourage?
Government does very little very well. It should do only that which it must, not all that it can.
I am reminded of a joke. The scariest words ever uttered: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
I’m against anything that names a program with the word “Patriot” in it. Does that mean that I don’t love my country if I can’t afford to pay 60% of my employees’ health care premiums? Or, am I against freedom if I think it is wrong to bypass the legal process for tapping phones if someone is labeled a “threat” to the government? (referencing the “Patriot Act”).
I’m getting more and more annoyed with government programs that are supposed to “help” our citizens. Both parties are guilty of it. Government is so complex at this point that it is impossible to keep up with the latest laws. Our founding fathers would roll over in their graves if they saw what a cluster f*ck this all is.
I love my country enough to be disgusted with it. So, am I a Patriot or not?
The “Patriot Employer Act,” huh? That’s pretty funny. Seems Obama learned a lesson from Bush and his “Patriot Act.” At least Obama’s proposals have a better claim to the title than Bush’s monstrosity, which is diametrically opposed to genuine American values and patriotism on so many levels.
The legislation takes four pages to define “patriotic” companies as those that: “pay at least 60 percent of each employee’s health care premiums”; have a position of “neutrality in employee organizing drives”; “maintain or increase the number of full-time workers in the United States relative to the number of full-time workers outside of the United States”; pay a salary to each employee “not less than an amount equal to the federal poverty level”; and provide a pension plan.
Personally, I don’t like the idea of employers providing health coverage in the first place. I think that’s a huge part of the problem with healthcare right now. So I’d oppose that part.
I am not sure what he means by a “position of neutrality in union organizing drives.” Does not the government currently provide a degree of protection to organizing drives? He’s proposing cutting off that protection? I must be misunderstanding that- can someone explain?
I am all for employers maintaining or increasing the number of full-time workers in the US compared to outsourced jobs. Outsourcing our economy is a disaster, an obvious, the emperor-has-no-clothes kind of disaster. Of course, that applies to the basic structure of our economy as a whole at this point.
Paying a salary to each employee at least equal to the poverty level sounds great at first glance, and would even count as patriotic in my eyes- except does that include part time jobs? What about jobs that are typically filled by teens?
What measures does he propose to use to favor these patriotic businesses? On the one hand, I’m not sure I want the federal government so directly involved in encouraging certain behavior in businesses. (If Bush made an analogous proposal, I’m pretty sure we’d hear complaints about fascism.) On the other hand, certain of these things are very much matters of national concern, and the government does already encourage and discourage particular business behaviors already.
In short, I’m ambivalent about this. I stand by to be swayed.
I am not sure what he means by a “position of neutrality in union organizing drives.” Does not the government currently provide a degree of protection to organizing drives? He’s proposing cutting off that protection? I must be misunderstanding that- can someone explain?
I can answer that. Under the current system, a union interested in representing employees of a certain employer must obtain signed cards from the employees indicating that they are interested in the union. Once the union obtains signed cards from 30% of the employees, the union files a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) requesting an election. The election is set for approximately 30 days after the date of filing of a petition. During the period, called the “election campaign period” the union and the employer are free to “campaign” for and against the union. On election day, the employees vote by secret ballot in an election run by a government official from the NLRB. The union must win a majority of the votes cast (not a majority of the employees, just a majority of the votes cast) in order to be the exclusive bargaining agent for the employees.
A “position of neutrality in union organizing drives” means that the company would not engage in any activity during the campaign period. In other words, the company would do nothing to encourage employees not to vote for the union. Note that this same restriction is not placed upon the union. Therefore, the union would be free to do anything it wanted to, to say anything it wanted to, and the promise anything it wanted to, during the campaign period and the employer is not able to respond.
Obama is currently supporting a legislative proposal (currently being debated in Congress) that basically accomplishes the same thing. The proposal states that if the union obtains signed card from over 50% of the employees, rather than filing a petition for an election, the union would automatically “win” and become the bargaining unit representative. Note that this actually DENIES the employees the ability to have an election by secret ballot. The signed cards would be done in the open and viewed by everyone. The NLRB has already recognized that many of these cards are obtained by coersion, which is why is requires a vote by secret ballot under the current system. The proposed plan encourages the very corruption the NLRB has already identified.
Obama’s plan has a similar effect. The company would not be able to provide any information to the employees explaining the effect of having a union. There would only be one side presented to the employees Interesting that he wishes to deny these hard working men and women the right to cast an informed vote by secret ballot with regard to whether they want to be represented by a union.
60% of healthcare premiums- OK, but if the cost is still sky-high, many still can’t afford the other 40%.
neutrality in organizing union drives- I thought that was law? I know they certainly can’t interfere- I used to work for a very anti-union company
maintain or increase # of workers- will the breaks (tax or otherwise) be enough to offset higher costs (labor, regulatory, environmental, etc)
salary>= fed pov level. Increase the minimum wage? Would it cause inflation?
Just my initial thoughts. I feel certain my wife will ask me about this as we watch the news tonight. Its enlightening and very thought-provoking to explain a lot of this stuff to someone not born and raised here. Change is good, we need some. I’d like to see FEASIBLE changes be put forth, and the ramifications considered. I’m not at all decided at this point, and am trying to pay close attention.
Paying a salary to each employee at least equal to the poverty level sounds great at first glance, and would even count as patriotic in my eyes- except does that include part time jobs? What about jobs that are typically filled by teens?
What the hell, I will reply to this one as well. You have identified the issues with Obama’s proposal. Define “a salary … at least equal to the poverty level.” The U.S. legislature has set the minimum wage in this country. The officials elected by the people have performed their Constitutional duties and created a federal law that mandates the minimum wage. So, how is it that the Executive Branch can attempt to set policy and proclaim that any company adhering to the federally mandated law regarding minimum wage, is “unpatriotic” if it does not exceed that legislative mandate?
In addition, you identify other issues: part time positions, summer jobs, seasonal positions, temporary positions, positions held by retirees as additional income, and, let us not forgot that there are many people in this country who hold certain jobs for the benefits, not the wages. So, a company could provide 100% health insurance coverage, have a union, have all employees in the U.S. and still be “unpatriotic” because it has the audacity to pay the amount in salary enacted by the ONLY people with the Constitutional authority to create such a requirement. Interesting.
Paying a salary to each employee at least equal to the poverty level sounds great at first glance, and would even count as patriotic in my eyes- except does that include part time jobs? What about jobs that are typically filled by teens?
I would hope that such a plan would simply require paying at a rate that equals the annualized poverty line.
The incentive was a tax break, which, according to the linked article would be financed by taxing profits made by companies (who don’t qualify) at the US rate for profits made by foreign subsidiaries.
By the way, the article also claims that outsourcing and foreign investment is actually good for the domestic job scene as it allows for the crappy jobs to get shipped elsewhere. The foreign subsidiaries produce the low end goods, such goods are shipped to the US to be placed in higher value items by US workers, which is allegedly a step up the manufacturing food chain. Thus, outsourcing allows the US to focus on value-added positions that are more desirable and higher paying, therefore everyone wins. Or something like that.
The article, in a nutshell, proposes that Obama’s plan seeks to stimulate domestic economic growth and a reformed corporate culture at the expense of an American company’s ability to compete with Japanese, Chinese, etc. companies. Such competitive disadvantage would net an overall loss for the company, and force cuts in domestic workforce as a result their inability to compete and therefore hurt the US domestic economy. Thus Obama’s proposal would have the exact opposite effect he intended.
Of course, given our current trade deficit, one wonders exactly how competitive US companies are in the current environment (cue comments about lowering corporate tax rates).
Thanks, JSA. I was misreading that- I thought he was proposing that the government maintain neutrality. I don’t think a company should have to maintain neutrality on that.
