Thursday, June 18, 2009

"President Of The Union Barack Obama" OR "Union President Barack Obama"?

"President Of The Union Barack Obama" OR "Union President Barack Obama"?

As I thought about the situation this nation is in presently yesterday I could not help but to see the parallel between the policies that have been popularly supported by those who follow Barack Obama and the ones driven by various union rank and file members over the past few decades.

Just imagine the president of the UAW lets say 30 years ago. The union was strong and held the Big 3 Auto Makers over the barrel. They threatened to shut down production if the companies did not give them the compensation, benefits and retirement programs that they demanded at the time.

When the companies caved and agreed to pay the unionized workers off as represent by the union president THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNION WAS SEEN AS "THE MAN". I am sure that he was at the height of popularity with these members who finally got what they had longed for.

Anyone reading my other blogs would know that I have made the distinction between successfully receiving some favorable policies via the legislative process or a favorable contract at a given interval in time - all to your liking VERSUS having these elements of compensation prove to be ENDURING and SUSTAINABLE over time.

The state of California as well as General Motors and Chrysler shows clearly that what might be favorable to the collective interest in the short run may not be sustainable over time.

In fact the very "rate of compensation" that the masses demanded on the incline of the growth and power of their union as they fought the entity that they perceived was "screwing them" and that which they REFUSED TO GIVE UP once the source of their resources while still in a sound state but in need of a bit of relief via the concessions asked of the union IS what ultimately THEY LOST once the source of their resources COLLAPSED!!!

In summary - the UNION of the rank and file had an opportunity to MODERATE their stance during the last interval. Instead they REFUSED. They kept driving for MORE. They cheered as their union leadership was able to score contract victories. In California and other places the array of PROGRESSIVE legislators were said to be in tune with the "needs of the people", fighting against selfish conservatives who sought to continue the misaligned distribution of wealth and resources.

TODAY they have LOST ALL THAT THEY HAVE BUILT UP!! Many are jobless. The health care benefits that were associated with the job have been lost. The pension fund? With the company's bankruptcy - this is in doubt. The federal government will likely have to take the fund over. (Factual insert - with GM - a few years ago they sold at least a portion of their pension obligations to the union itself)


So much of what President Barack Obama is doing closely parallels the "success" of these union presidents that I have referred to.

At a time when any economist worth his degree will indicate that America's present debt burden is unsustainable - Obama and the Federal Democrats are piling more debt obligations upon the central government. The first thing out of the mouths of the Obama Defenders/ Bush haters is "Where were YOU when Bush was spending". This is easily taken apart. The Iraq War is a 10 year $1,000 billion expense. The "Tax Cuts for the Rich" - If we assume that tax cuts ONLY are represented as "revenue losses" then this was a $1,600 trillion revenue loss over 10 years. We are now up to $2.6 trillion of the $5 trillion "Bush Deficit". The bulk of the remaining deficit was from SOCIAL SECURITY and MEDICARE!!! These are the spending items that you favor.

The key difference however, is that the Iraq War and the Tax Cuts are TEMPORARY SPENDING. Barack Obama's health care spending, SCHIP spending and other entitlement spending items while scheduled in the same 10 year increments are in effect PERMANENT SPENDING. Whereas Iraq War spending (which the Democratic controlled congress not only recently PASSED the initial $85 billion grew to $92 billion and now stands at $105 [IIRC]) will stop once the troops pull out...........the social entitlement spending will be renewed in perpetuity.

Renewed - that is - UNTIL THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM proves to be unsustainable.

We already know that:
  • Social Security will be out of its positive balance in 2035 (I predict that this will drop to 2027 as the economic anchor that we have drags along)
  • Medicare will be insolvent somewhere around 2020
  • We already have a national debt that is around $11,000 billion
I personally don't believe that people understand what the news about Social Security means. Once we hit that point - the store of money for social security will be exhausted. (Note - it is ALREADY exhausted as the government took the money that you sent in from your paychecks, put an IOU into a filing cabinet and then SPENT IT ALREADY. ) Once 2035 hits the payouts on Social Security will exceed the fund's reserves. Thus the federal government will be forced to use MORE "current accounts" - money from the active budget", to cover Social Security benefits for those who have earned their benefits.

So sit back and think for a second. We are loading up the central government with a record number of budget liabilities. Now we are being told that the PROMISES that we have made via Social Security and Medicare will also come due (We set up a "Christmas Club" account, took money out and now "Christmas" is coming and we need to come up with the money that we took out of the tin can).

Does this sound like a financial scenario that you would base your health and well being upon?

Barack Obama, like the Union President's before is seemingly bent on "sticking it to 'em". In his desire to work for the PEOPLE he is actually working against the long term interests of these same people. Just as the UAW president of about 30 years ago is long gone off of the stage, so too will Barack Obama once the bewitching hour comes.

Indeed Obama might have his face carved into Mt Rushmore by that time as the adoring fans of his enact the new WPA arts program of his into action. Over the long term, however, I think people will "blame" Obama about as much as they "blame" FDR once we learned the news that the Ponzi scheme will come to a painful crash in 2035. This means that THEY WON'T BLAME EITHER OF THEM.

Over time Social Security and Medicare have been molested by various politicians. They saw a pot of money in Washington DC stashed away for future use and they saw PRESENT problems that needed to be fixed. Not surprising - they raided the account.

At a time that we need MODERATION - certain operatives are using Obama as their vehicle to accomplish what they had their minds set upon for decades. Just like the Detroit or Cleveland based union - they are unable to see that what brought them cheers at the contract signing is likely going to bring them heartache years later once it becomes clear that their usurpation of resources from the water source is the main cause of the drought conditions.

Obama is not the one who will finally have to TELL THE PEOPLE THE HARSH NEWS THAT THEY NEED TO HEAR. There will be some future president/ Union leader down the line who will have to break the news to the rank and file.

If we know full well about the GREED of the corporate capitalist that has brought the system down - what of the same sentiments among the rank and file that has the same effecte?

No comments: