Monday, March 9, 2015

Ashley Furniture, Selma, Alabama And Free Enterprise or Political “Assistance?”

The CEO of Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. thought “I knew I couldn’t compete,” as described in a front page article in the Wall Street Journal (“U. S. Furniture Survivor Tries to go Global,” Friday, March 6, 2015). Products from South Korea and Taiwan were cheaper and of better quality than those made by his company. Immediately he went to his Congressman desperately seeking help.  Republican Steve Gunderson, his representative from western Wisconsin, said, “You need to prepare to compete.” Further, he told Ron Wanek, also founder in 1970 of the privately-held family firm, not to expect any government help. Ashley, then with thirty-five employees, was and still is located in Arcadia, Wisconsin, with a population of 3,000; 45 years later, it is now the largest manufacturer and retailer of furniture in the U. S. with nearly $4 billion in revenues.

“In Selma, Struggle and Hope” (page A3 of the same paper) the 50th anniversary of “Bloody Sunday,” the violent civil-rights clash that helped usher in the 1965 Voting Rights Act” is lauded. With a population just over 20,000, Selma is one of the poorest cities in America and 80% black. Its black state senator, Hank Sanders is quoted as saying, “Selma has been left out of the very progress that it helped create.” President Obama will go to Selma to celebrate its past (and doubtless, ignore its bleak future). The Journal article features Jerria Martin, Selma resident and civic leader, who is executive director of Selma’s 21st Century Youth Leadership. According to its website, “The mission of the 21st Century Youth Leadership Movement is to inspire, assist, organize, and develop young people of all ages to be skilled community focused leaders, resiliently and creatively empowering themselves and their communities.” Among other goals it is focused on training young people to create a community garden; beautiful perhaps but nothing to help the financial future of Selma’s youth. Ms. Martin earned a master’s degree from Princeton Theological Seminary and wanted to use the skills she learned there for “transformative change.” State Senator Hank Sanders, a Democrat,  received degrees from Talladega College and Harvard Law School. Wikipedia writes:  “Hank has helped found or build many [non-profit, at least partially government-funded] organizations.” His wife, Faya Rose Toure, also a lawyer and an activist, wants the anniversary to reconnect youth with the past civil rights struggle, and the “long hand of slavery and segregation that is still affecting consciousness today.”

And there you have it.  On one hand, free enterprise thrives in a tiny Wisconsin town; Ashley employs 13,000 private sector workers in the United States. On the other hand is upwards of 50 years of public sector “assistance” and White House encouragement in a poverty-stricken, majority-black, Alabama city. For his part, the President of the United States has encouraged more community activism and government dependency instead of growth in the private sector. President Obama, through his takeover of the student-lending process, has enabled college students (both graduates and dropouts) to borrow over one trillion dollars from the U. S. taxpayer (funneled by the U. S. Department of Education). If these debtors, around 50,000 Americans, go to work in non-profit organizations or government entities, their loans can be forgiven in ten years. If they go to work for for-profit companies it will take twice as long for the government to forgive the loans. Since they can restrict their payments to ten percent of their wages, it pays them to work in low-pay non-profits.

These two articles present a sad commentary of the stark contrast of the two municipalities. Are there lessons to be learned? Does government “help” encourage more Selmas and the maintenance of poverty I wonder? Then I wonder, is this kind of government for the benefit of the United States of America?  Or for the Democratic Party? Further, what if Selma had been told it couldn’t compete, and that there was no government assistance available?  Would the leaders have stepped up and started for-profit companies and thrived? The CEO of Ashley was told he’d get no assistance. He had a free choice. Perhaps give up, sell out or think of how to compete. No doubt luck had something to do with the difference. Mr. Wanek “has long been inspired by the hardy stock of rural Minnesota and Wisconsin.” But are the workers in Selma not hardy stock? Do they work less hard? Wanek was a leader, being president of the graduating class of 36 in his hick town high school, but “didn’t stand out.” Clearly there are leaders in Selma, but perhaps the Democrats in power don’t trust the private sector enough to steer these  leaders toward the profit-seeking, prosperity-building private sector.

There are vital lessons to be learned in analyzing the two entities, if anyone cares.  But, then, there must be action if such lessons learned are to be fruitful.

Wednesday, March 4, 2015


From the New York Times, Sunday, March 1, 2015: Historysource by Michael Beschloss

Discussing the bond between Lyndon Baines Johnson and Harry S. Truman...

"In the mid-1960s, Truman was by no means the popular cult figure -- embodying plain speaking, decisiveness, honesty, common sense and a modest lifestyle -- that he became after his death."



Tuesday, March 3, 2015


Democrat-labeled "distressed homeowners" who borrow and can't make mortgage payments are about to get some more forgiveness courtesy of his feel-sorry-for Mel Watt, head of his Federal Housing Finance Agency. Arbitrary NEW RULES force extension of loan terms, forgiving principal or -- this is critical -- stopping sales of foreclosed property to investors.  Investors are a despised class to the Obama administration since they compete with the federal government's giveaways of tax payer monies to get Democrats elected. In this case investors who might take the property away from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lessen taxpayer risk can't.  Only obviously-Democrat advocacy housing activists get in first. Or people who will live in the houses (and vote for Democrats.) The far-left Center for American Progress lobbied for it, as did the New Jersey Community Capital non-profit which buys foreclosures.

CRONY "CAPITALISM" is not capitalism.

President Obama's arbitrary, illegal action to grant to ILLEGAL ALIENS Social Security cards and numbers, among other goodies, will give them UNEARNED INCOME SUBSIDIES immediately without them ever working. YOU will be paying for their Democrat Party windfalls.  For whom will these newly-fat cats vote in the next and every subsequent election?  DEMOCRATS. Using your money.

And I thought bribery was illegal.  No matter nothing is illegal for the President of the Democrats.


Republicans: Kiss Choice

The Messrs. Reinhold Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, and Karl Christian Rove, Republican political consultant, can sure raise the money, but they can’t turn a phrase. In the Wall Street Journal’s “How Senate Republicans Can Close the Sale,” by Karl Rove, Opinion, October 2, 2014, he discussed 11 Republican principles that Priebus presented in a speech at George Washington University. They included, "we should leave the next generation opportunity, not debt" and “our country should value the traditions of family, life, religious liberty and hard work;” 23 words all together. Remember K. I. S. S.? It is an acronym for “Keep it Simple, Stupid,” which is a principle that systems work more effectively if they are kept simple and understandable. For example, “choice” is one word while Priebus’s and Rove’s philosophy is 23. That one simple word – choice – encompasses Republican principles better than any other.  Yet it is virtually owned by the Democratic Party which puzzlingly offers actually only one “choice” and that only to women. It is time that Republicans seize that word – choice – and present it to the nation as the embodiment of their philosophy. Republicans want to offer many choices to everyone, Democrats want to control.  That is the dividing line between left and right.

Why can’t all Americans choose the schools their kids go to? Why can’t we choose to keep our long-time family doctor? Why can’t we choose not to join a union? Why can’t we choose to have an adjustable-rate mortgage, if it fits our budget? Why can’t we choose the crib we want, a crib won’t hurt our baby, only our neglect will. Why can’t I choose to take a drug that might save my life? Why can’t I choose whom to hire and whom to fire in my business? Why can’t I choose not to wear a helmet when I ride my motorcycle?  (This is a 55-year old gripe of mine!) I think I can make  better choices for me than some political appointee sitting in Washington, D.C. can.
Myriad governmental institutions limit the choices of the American public. They include the Federal Trade Commission, its Division of Advertising Practices and Fair Information Practice Principles, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission among countless other U. S. government agencies, commissions, divisions and so on. They substitute their choices for ours.
Obviously, there are circumstances when the knowledge of elite experts in a field is needed for something dangerous that I can’t begin to understand. But is using the word “natural” to sell corn flakes something really so dangerous it needs an expert to stop me from choosing whether to believe it or not? Really?
Why will the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) prohibit me from being able to be one of 75,000 students to choose Corinthian Colleges, Inc. to get an education, or its 15,000 employees from choosing to work there if the government forces it out of business but doesn’t protect me from choosing or working for Harvard or the University of Washington? The CFPB says Corinthian deceived, bullied, misled and was predatory to students.  But what if I am a bartender with a B. A. from Yale and owe $100,000 in student loans, that’s OK?
Why can’t I choose to buy Bucky Balls, those magic magnetic magnetized balls? Because the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned them in its first stop-sale order in 11 years. Kids might eat them. What about pennies, nickels or quarters?
Sure, I might get hurt or cheated but it will be my choice; anyway, I think we’re smart enough to know. After all, practically all the information ever known to humanity is available to anyone on a little cell phone. But it seems politicians primarily of the Democratic persuasion don’t think we’re smart enough so they invent governmental institutions and pass laws to protect us from ourselves. Or do they?  Over a million U. S. government employees belong to unions, which contribute vastly more to the Democratic Party than to any other. So for whose benefit really is it to have thousands of union members make decisions for me?
Politicians can say anything true or false, benign or dangerous, and it is protected. The Supreme Court decisions on the First Amendment make core political speech more important than other forms of individual expression. I’d argue that political lying can be severely dangerous to individuals and the country.
The question is, should We the People be able choose for ourselves or should a few politicians, unelected political appointees and union members choose for us?  Who is more capable of looking out and deciding for us, we ourselves or politicians? Republicans, advocates of free enterprise, believe we ourselves generally are capable to choose for ourselves while Democrats, advocates of a large, powerful government, believe that generally their elite political appointees or hires are capable and they should make our choices for us.
Mr. Priebus and Mr. Rove, which do you think more powerful? "[W]e should leave the next generation opportunity, not debt" and “our country should value the traditions of family, life, religious liberty and hard work;” 23 words, or “Republicans offer Choice” one word?” Choosing or obeying?

“We the People” is democracy, free enterprise, and choice.  That is the Republican Principle.

Monday, March 2, 2015



From the New York Times, Sunday, March 1, 2015, page 2: "Our problem is that we have too many good jobs."

A quote from Leonard M. Siegel, an environmental activist who was recently elected to the City Council of Mountain View, California. "Silicon Valley"  He just hates the taxes Google pays...or maybe he loves the cash but hates the 1%ers who bring it.  It causes housing prices to skyrocket and traffic gridlock.  I don't know what Siegel does for a living (possibly works for a government-funded non-profit environmental activist lobby group, but I don't know.)  Sounds like the Idiot Savant socialist in Seattle's City Council.