Who cares about tomorrow?

Because it has worked so well lately, the GOP is advocating even more tax cuts, despite the ever growing debt of money we owe to others. So far, President Obama is having none of that. I wonder if that is because, as a fairly young man, he realizes it will be his generation (tail end of the Baby Boomers and Generation X) are going to be left to pay the bills left by the last 2 generations. If we and our children are going to be stuck with the bills, we should at least invest in making sure that the tools that will enable us to earn the money to pay these bills are available. However, some want more tax cuts so Americans can run to the mall and get the economy moving again.

I have to admit, I can see why the idea of tax cuts to juice the economy is popular, at least for the short term. After all, we are a consumer nation. We like to buy our way to prosperity, or at least put it on our credit card. And, as we've already seen, unless we can entice citizens of othernations to act like us and spend instead of save, no one will be able to buy the world out of a recession but us, so to heck with the future. Tweet. Time out! As someone fairly young (40) I'm a bit interested in what happens to this country's future as I hope to live in it for many more decades.

What has happened to this country that we are so afraid to sacrifice for a few years to right our economy for the long term? Enough of robbing from the future to buy more garbage we don't need today. We've already spent too many years not properly investing in our future. It's time to get back to work and stop squandering our legacy and the newest iPod or couch.

We've been exporting more money than goods for decades. There is already trillions in debt that needs to be paid. Social Security, Medicare will be broke before long. Our roads, rails and schools stink. Our competitors, such as India and China see the future and keep investing in science and math. We won't because it may interfere with that tax break that we need to buy an even bigger flat screen TV. Sooner or later those high paying, dominating jobs will go elsewhere because we had avacation to go on in lieu of increasing our brainpower. When that day comes we really will be at the mercy of the rest of the world.

Silicon Valley, where the world's leading industrial research labs are, know we are in trouble for scaling back our investments in the sciences and are worried about it. Technology has been delivering most of the innovation and profits for our economy for years, yet we refuse to invest in it because that would cause taxes to rise. It is not hard to see the coming storm andforesee a time where the US won't be the dominate player in the highly lucrative tech field that has given us robust jobs and superior weapons. But sure, lets cut taxes now so we can continue the party that should've ended years ago. I hear Nero has a fiddle and some matches for sale.

Politics as usual in NJ

Recently, a town's representative on the Regional High School District Board of Education resigned "saying the politics of some members and a too-powerful team of administrators were getting in the way of good decision-making."

Why is anyone surprised? Granted, we're only hearing one side of the argument, but this seems to be another example of how things stay the same. Those who want to do right find they can not. Those who want to do something unpopular that will adversely affect those in power, or their friends, find themselves personally and professionally attacked (as seen on various message boards on the net). Money and energy is wasted if filing lawsuits or attacking members of governing bodies (I'm expanding beyond the school board here) instead of actually doing the work that is supposed to be done.

The biggest stories in this area lately, so it seems, has been the use of the term doctor incorrectly by the school superintendent and a lawsuit by another town, that has seemingly gone on forever, against their former attorney that is costing God knows what in lawyer fees. Anyone who opens their mouth against whoever is in power is viciously attacked and then delegated to some corner. That is if they are not somehow sued by politicians annoyed that the citizens criticize their actions. This results in many of us deciding not to participate as we don't want to put ourselves or our families through all the crud that is politics as usual in this area, making us all poorer. How many of us have seriosuly thought I could do something to change things but for I don't have the stomach to play the dirty full contact politics that would cause Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to blush.

Pay for what you get

I saw a letter to the editor in my local newspaper whining about the injustices of those without children being forced to pay taxes to subsidize the education of those goldbricking, layabout slug a beds working parents who dare to populate his town with freeloading children. He makes a good point. Why should he pay for school now that his children are done with it (assuming he had children in the first place). I'm willing to entertain his idea and pay more taxes for my children (only one of whom is in public school at the moment). But, before I do, I want the answers to the following questions (and before someone complains, I'm just using children and senior citizens in the next paragraph as handy examples).

Why should I pay taxes to fund my county's senior citizen center as they don't provide a service I can partake of (the senior center, not the seniors themselves)? Why should I subsidize their bus transportation through either taxes or higher fares for me? Speaking of taxes, I think my property taxes can be lowered if the government eliminated any tax breaks senior citizens get for their property for the simple benefit of not dying. Perhaps my utility bills can be lowered if the utilities took away any breaks it gives to the seniors or the poor. Going further, I'd like to see my social security and Medicare taxes to stop supporting those older freeloaders since I don't use those and, as a 40 year old looking at those funds, realize they won't be there, at least as is, by time I'm a senior citizen. Food stamps, welfare, unemployment -- I want all my tax money back from that too (especially as I'll need that to pay for school and increased taxes if my tax credit iseliminated as the writer suggests). If some don't want to pay taxes to subsidize education, why should I subsidize their pet needs? I'll tell you why.

I pay those taxes because I live in a society, not a private island. We all live in this society where we live by certain implied agreements to maintain a social order. We live in a society that has remained free and incredibly wealthy in part due to those investments our tax dollars have made to educate our young, keep our seniors in their homes and care for them as they age, while not burdening individual families with costs that could force them to decide between Grandma's medicine or heat for their child's bedroom (my mother is in a nursing home now and those bills would've bankrupted me and my siblings by now), a society that takes care of its poor (I'm not here to debate welfare cheats) or those temporarily down on their luck. We've agreed, by living in this nation, to give up our national rights, where it's pretty much every man for himself (read Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau for more information) and agreed to live under a social contract because we realize it is ultimately in our best interests to do so. If the price I pay is higher taxes, so be it. The investment is much less to each of us personally and the rewards are much greater to us as a nation as a whole.

You can argue that paying for education and senior services in New Jersey through property taxes and not income taxes, or at least a fairer ratio so a senior who is house rich but income poor can pay an affordable rate, is unfair. But to suggest, as the writer of the original letter did, that the property tax should be adjusted based on the number of children a family sends, or doesn't send to school is wrong. Sometimes our self interests are outweighed by the greater good. Stop being cheap and looking out only for yourself or feel free to move to a society that will support selfish people (I believe some 3rd world country where the rich lock themselves in enclaves while the uneducated poor scrounge for crumbs would suffice).

Money for nothing and tax cuts ain't happening

NJ's Governor has finally realized the state is broke and wants to slash the state's budget by a few billion. Yay. He wants to do this, in part, by freezing the salaries of state workers or even ... gasp .... laying them off. Do the state workers getting their salaries frozen or, possibly being laid off, include political appointees who don't really provide anything not already being done by the people actually doing the work? Cause that I approve. If he's going to noose a few guys at the motor vehicle office, meaning I spend a day instead of just an hour or so conducting my business, then I might have a problem.

Personally, I'd like to see the Governor attack the bureaucracy. If you don't personally serve the public, or can someway prove you directly supervise or work with those who do, you should expect to be forced to justify your position. Can't do it, expect to look for a new job or take additional responsibilities. As to salary freezes and benefit reductions: my company will still have raises, but the percentage will be dropped to about 2%. Benefits aren't being reduced per se, but we'll have to pay more.

By the way, if we ever get the finances in order, we really need to invest in automating our back offices. How much head count is needed to answer questions or provide directions to the public that could easily be provided automatically via the internet? For example, I needed to call an office for some information on how to do something and, more importantly, fill out some forms. Why did I call? Because the information wasn't available on the internet. Instead, I spoke to a real live person, which was nice in this day of automated service, who gave me the information I needed. When I hung up, I realized that the information could have been provided on the internet. That made me wonder: how much of our human resources expenses could be reduced by simply investing in a better computer system?

Of course, financial problems aren't limited to NJ. There is a chance that interest on the national debt will eat up most of the federal budget by 2010; not some time in the future -- this year. This is what happens when you pay the minimum on your credit card balance. Let's face it, the economic "boom" of the 00s was from maxing out the country's credit cards. Worse, we don't really have anything concrete to show for it. I could understand it if we had plowed the money back into our nation's infrastructure, as an investment into our economy that would pay for itself in the coming decades, but that would've been duller than the fun we had.

Workers of the world -- grovel for your crumbs!

The GOP's war on the blue collar worker continues. Hedge funds just got a $200 billion bailout, just to ensure no ones ascot gets in a twist. UAW workers? Grovel for your scraps. .... I said grovel!!!

Look, I don't have much sympathy for the UAW as they pretty much joined with auto management in the opposition to fuel economy standards, safety standards, environmental requirements -- all things that are coming back to bite the auto industry. The workers will have to take some of the hits - that's the downfall of working in an industry that has failed to move on with the times. It's just the government taking blood from the little guy while letting the rich get away fairly scott free, allowing them to earn whatever they can, is what bothers me.

I'm so disgusted by the hypocrisy of the GOP. They've barely said boo about bonuses much more than $65k to the guys in the financial industry who got us in this mess. But now, all of a sudden, according to the GOP, $65k a year is too much for the average American? Wasn't this the party of Joe 6 Pack a month ago?

The banking industry, who pretty much got us into this mess, gets a blank check and retention bonuses for their employees, while the workers of one of our last major manufacturer industries, are forced to settle for a lower standard of living. Again, I'm not holding the UAW blameless in the domestic auto industry's mess; they've done plenty kill work rule decisions or design of products that would hurt the their own interests over the years even though it would have left their companies in a much more competitive position. I just feel that they shouldn't be held to a different standard.

I believe that all parties need to accept changing economic conditions in the auto industry, but, if the government is going to force the blue collar workers to accept terms such as lower wages, I question why they have not done the same for the workers, who still have jobs, in the financial industry too. Not only do we not hold them to the same standard, we using our taxes going to pay them "retention" bonuses. Hey, if they want to leave in this economy, let them go. There are plenty of others who would be willing to fill their shoes and, after what has gone on lately, could probably do a better job.

If we're going to force UAW workers to take a pay cut, then I suggest every single employee in the financial sector (well, maybe not the janitors) take a similar pay cut. Fair's fair and they're the ones who really hurt the country. The same demands as are being imposed on the blue-collar workers of the automotive industry should be placed on the white-collar workers of the financial industry.

GOP to Joe 6-Pack: Drop Dead

The election is over so it is now safe for the GOP to cater to their Wall St friends and tell blue collar workers to stick it. I can't be the only one disgusted that, after giving a blank check to the people who got us into our financial mess, the GOP wants to stick it to one of the nations's last remaining manufacturing sectors so they can use the opportunity union bust and to further push the working man (or woman) further down the economic food chain.The irony is that Wall Street's insistence on quarterly profits, many times at the cost of long term investment, helped push the automakers into this dilemma.

I'm not saying the UAW shouldn't have to negotiate and accept lower pay and benefits, it's a global economy and domestic workers need t deal with the fact that their competition comes from other countries and lower wages. I'm also not saying that the Big 3 domesticautomakers shouldn't pay a price for making cars people want as opposed to making people want the cars they will build before customers know they want it (would have been handy to have a few more fuelefficient cars around when fuel prices rose -- something that has been foreseeable for years). There has been no inclination of management in the auto industry to produce vehicles that get even better fuel economy without the government mandating that they do so, because that would affect Wall Street's profits.

Still with all that, it's the hypocrisy from the GOP, supposed friend of the average guy, that gets me. Aside from fiscal conservatives, who seem to be running from the party, their base is the blue collar worker. Granted, many of them are in the south, where unions were never as popular as in the north, but if I'm a blue collar worker down there I'm wondering if the GOP is going to stab me in the back as soon as my interests and theirs go different ways. They are purposely destroying the middle class in the United States. This isn't some accident, or blunder... it's by design.

Like them or hate them, we all benefit from the presence of labor unions -- unless you're one of the ones working 6 days a week, 14 hours a day, for minimum wage and no benefits in an environmentally hazardous factory where children are running around assisting you. The labor unions rose to counter act excesses by management in a capitalist system. Labor organizations exist to look out for the interests of the workers, while management looks out for the interests of the owners--and somewhere in the middle the two meet, and figure out what is acceptable. In an ideal world, there would be no need for labor to organize. If management andpoliticians oppose the concept of labor organizations, then giving labor no reason to exist, such as paying workers a fair wage with adequate benefits, would be in order. Again, this is hard to do when other societies, whom we compete with, refuse to do the same.

If the government really wanted to help the Big 3, they would take their healthcare costs off of the carmakers' plates and offer universal healthcare. I'd have more respect if the GOP came out and said we're doomed if we keep handing out money like it was candy. We can't keep paying for bailouts, the war on terror, social security, medical care etc without eventually devaluing our currency and/or defaulting on the national debt -- something is going to give. But they didn't. Instead, the GOP continues to exploit every anti labor opportunity, even though their policies to weaken labor have also eroded the middle class and weakened the economy.

In a nutshell: If it's the GOP's rich, banker friends in trouble, they get a blank check. If it's Joe 6-pack, they get an unemployment check. Folks at the top get richer, snatching up corporate assets at bargain prices, while the average worker foots the bill.The economic disaster that the GOP has been engineering won't affect the super rich, and it won't affect the super poor; it is simply designed to bleed out all of the wealth in between. It is bad enough when it is done to us by our competitors, it is horrible when we do it to ourselves.

Zoom, zoom ... [crash]

Like much of the country, I have been paying attention to the fate of the domestic automakers as they desperately try to avoid death. The latest potential federal bailout was thrown for a loop when the UAW refused to accept government demands that employees immediately accept lower raises and benefits to make them competitive.Going by past history, I can understand why they are loathe to give into their employers.But they may have to bite the bullet and give in. However, it takes two to tangle and theautomakers themselves need to show some good faith.

Both my father and grandfather spent their entire lives working in unions and I saw the good they can do. I've also seen what can happen when they get too bloated and forget their purpose. The UAW negotiated great contracts for their members when times were good. Unfortunately those same benefits are now a humongous chain around their necks and the unions may need to agree to concessions and accept similar pay and benefits to what non-unionized autoworkers get in other parts of the US.

Foreign manufacturers, with plants in parts of the US have discovered that it is easy for employers to get rid of unions: just treat the employees as if they were unionized, offering them decent wages and benefits. And this is not limited to manufacturing. 7 years ago, Wegmans supermarket opened a store in my NJ neighborhood. Unlike the other chains in the area, Wegmans is not unionized. Yet, they were flooded with applications as they offered wages and benefits comparable to the unionized markets. The union had protesters outside the store's parking lot urging a boycott for almost a year. The protesters are gone now and the store is still there, bigger, cleaner than it's competitors with competitive pricing (some things are cheaper, some things aren't).

Many of the store's initial employees were kids from the other supermarkets. If working in those stores was like the unionized store I worked in when I was in high school and college, I can understand why. In my store, a management vs. employee attitude was always felt, even when it was detrimental to business and affected customers(fault of both sides -- why should an employee do something extra when they'll receive no benefit and just be sh-t upon by management later). Employees were always in a bad mood. Threats of a write-up were always present, along with contacting the union rep anytime somebody got pissed. Deadwood played the union rules perfectly. I don't sense that inWegmans. Wegmans itself is commonly recognized as one of the top 50 employers in the nation. More importantly, they seem to treat employees fairly so employees don't feel the need to unionize.

That said, love them or hate them, unions have and still do play an important role in our nation's economy. Many employers are not asbenevolent as Wegmans . Others, who pay union like wages simply to keep the unions out, would probably lower wages and benefits if the unions weren't there to keep them on their toes. It is irresponsible of lawmakers, with a hate of unions, to let the Big 3 fail, yet that is what some seem to advocate.

I and my wife have owned foreign cars for a decade. Unlike the domestic cars our parents owned, which always seemed to be in the shop, our cars have usually just gone in for basic maintenance (my 9 year old foreign car finally had a non-routine maintenance issue last month). I spend my money on quality, which has been foreign autos, even if made in the US, for a long time.

That still doesn't mean I want to see the Detroit automakers fail. Domestic car companies and their suppliers are an important piece of the US economy. At a time when the economy is in trouble and buying American may mean buying a Honda mostly built in Tennessee over buying a Ford mostly built in Mexico, it is foolish of lawmakers to make an example of the automakers past mistakes as a reason not to help keep them running for the short term just so they can kick unions when they are down. How many more hits can the economy take before we all discover that divided we stand, united we fall.