The temporary worker, called the “marginal worker,” is often first in the door due to corporate and government reluctance to justify and create new permanent jobs. They’re also first out the door when business conditions deteriorate or some written or un-written standard of performance is not being met.

Government job creation numbers and unemployment statistics would both be far different if the definition of a “job” were more narrowly defined to better differentiate between temporary and permanent employees. Rest assured, with an increase in the minimum wage, permanent employees by the tens of thousands will decrease and temporary workers will increase. (What is it, exactly, that Congress is trying to accomplish?)

The exponential rise in non-union temporary workers in the last decade is a clear sign that employers have adapted accounting principles to human resource departments. Corporations and public entities have shifted their labor costs from being a fixed cost to a variable cost. Rather than bring someone ‘on board’ and pay them a salary, plus traditional or negotiated benefits, companies keep as many non-union workers as possible in temp/flex positions whose workload and work schedules can be adjusted with the vagaries in demand.

With American companies lacking international competitive pricing power (the ability to lower prices significantly and still remain profitable), and input (labor) prices rising rapidly due to government and union regulatory interference with the free market, what can a company do to protect ever decreasing profit margins - short of moving overseas? Very little.

Unfortunately, there is no basis to believe any relief from Federal, State and local regulation, taxation and litigation will be forthcoming anytime soon, given liberal opposition to tax cuts and the collectivist tenor in both Congress and the main stream media. The lumpen who read the print media do not understand how ever increasing taxes and redistribution will render them little more than a servant to the State.

There appears to be only one answer for business and municipalities. The easiest way to boost corporate profitability (or to find more money to spend without increasing taxes, in the case of a municipality) is to lower the most burdensome fixed cost, i.e., labor, and particularly the costs of labor benefits.

It is especially important to recognize that the definition of ‘economic necessity’ has changed dramatically in recent decades to include new personal consumption necessities, real and perceived, such as state-mandated taxes and fees, all forms of insurance, transportation needs, communications ability, health care and education. The historical concept of ‘disposable income’ ignores these new financial requirements in our rapidly evolving society and fails to account for these increasing “fixed costs” to the average citizen and family.

As more and more essential family expenses are added to the real or perceived list of necessities, disposable income diminishes, and with it – consumption expenditures. Americans, faced with this economic nightmare, compensate first with two working parents, then multiple jobs, and now families are confronted with the reality that jobs are becoming more difficult to obtain. In the meantime, Congress, living extravagantly on the backs of taxpayers, is either clueless or without conscience. You would think they would call a cab.

Given the rush of money both into the stock and precious metals markets, and rising equity and real estate prices over the last several years, how could the standard of living decrease? The household sector has actually become the biggest buyer of stocks, buying 400-500 billion dollars of equities, despite the fact that real incomes were, and still are, falling. The answer is not complicated. Much of the money actually used to purchase equities and real estate did not come from increased corporate earnings and growing employee payrolls. It came instead from all forms of consumer debt. Even increasing taxes taken in at all levels of government under the guise of economic prosperity are not being funded by business profitability, but by consumption expenditures fueled by consumer debt.

Lower interest rates, engineered by the Federal Reserve, encouraged most consumers to re-mortgage their homes, many multiple times, taking cash out, which became “found income” as opposed to earned income. Predictably, mortgage debt rose as did all other forms of consumer debt.

Where did all the money go? It became an undisciplined and obscene "spending spree."

In most cases, the average household is still running a cash flow deficit, i.e., spending more on consumer goods (e.g., beer) and capital items (e.g., cars) by funding purchases at the margin with new debt, rather than making consumption purchases and paying taxes with household earnings from cash flow (wages) or savings. The "average" American household debt, including vehicles, personal loans and credit cards, and excluding mortgages, is more than $25 thousand dollars. The cash shortfall in funding these consumption levels has been close to 150 billion dollars each year for at least through 2006. At some point the debt must be repaid. When that day comes, the consumption of some (many) goods and services is going to have to be deferred.

If real wages of Americans have really gone down over the last ten years, why has the cost of labor to corporations gone up so dramatically? The answer can be found in the footprints of several culprits, most of which are traceable back to an endless list of ill-advised decisions of Congress, plus state and local governments, all of whom are treading ever deeper into socialist quicksand with regulation, taxation and redistribution of everything of monetary value in society, i.e., housing, transportation, medicine, education, employment, income, and food. Karl Marx would be proud.

Health insurance premiums have risen at double-digit rates, predictably spurred on by government subsidy of healthcare, with no end in sight. The same can be said for education. Other personnel costs (workers compensation, overtime, turnover, training, litigation, union negotiated benefits, and retirement) have also been rising at double-digit rates. This is potentially bad news for every American. Even though employees progressively receive less disposable income as employer personnel costs are shifted to the employee, employers are still under tremendous pressure to cut Human Resource benefits and costs even further or simply get rid of permanent employees.

If you accept as an economic fact that increasing the Minimum Wage reduces entry-level employment opportunities, why does any American think that increasing human resource benefits doesn’t similarly reduce mid-level employment? The more the "benefits" costs go up in America, the availability of mid-level jobs becomes fewer, and the less competitive America becomes with India and China and other emerging nations. Just as millions of people immigrated to America because conditions were not conducive to economic survival in their native lands, it is imperative now to understand that jobs are leaving America for a reason.

And here we have another little wrinkle in the fabric of today’s culture. Corporate managers and governments, both city and state, no longer have the luxury of loyalty – neither to their shareholders nor to their workers/employees. The leadership pays itself extravagantly (as does Congress) but treats employees (Americans) as inventory. The idea seems to be to cut costs on everything but themselves, to hire the cheapest employees, often illegal immigrants, just in time, in order to meet short-term objectives.

Nobody holds anything in business inventory anymore. There are no excess products on the shelves, no excess money in the bank, and particularly no excess employees on the payroll. Inventory is an expense item and employees in America have become inventory.

Sources of further cost reduction are already becoming harder to recognize! Eventually, business and government managers will run out of costs to cut, including employee benefits. Then what?

Don’t gloss over the question, “Then what?” The North American Union?

Red State Patriot

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

The only explanation most people express is one of racism. If it was no big deal to have to stand, then why did the caucasian man demand to be seated? His action asserted a societal convention of racial superiority prevalent in the old South nearly a century after the end of a civil war, a convention that said no black person had ‘any right’ that a white man was bound by law or courtesy to respect, even in inconsequential things such as standing or sitting on a bus.

Most would argue that the man who was demanding Rosa Parks’ seat in the so-called colored-section of the bus, and the bus company that acceding to it, proved that the doctrine of "separate but equal" (that had existed before being outlawed by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954) was a lie. The demand for separation in itself created an entitlement of one race over another that violated basic notions of fundamental fairness and fundamental rights, as equal opportunity policies today shamefully do (with your acquiescence) in reverse. Do you understand the point?

Setting aside the emotional notions of race, what was the fundamental right, by staying seated in the face of a threat of arrest and jail, that Rosa Parks was asserting? As she told National Public Radio in a 1992 interview, "I did not want to be mistreated; I did not want to be deprived of a seat that I had paid for."

“I did not want to be deprived of a seat that I had paid for."

In short, Rosa Parks was asserting a fundamental property right. Rosa had purchased her ticket, and paid for it by the fruits of her own labor. She had boarded the bus first. She even sat in the section designated for her. Since she had purchased that seat and the bus company had sold it to her, nobody had a right to take her seat away from her. Rosa Parks' simple act of defiance was as profound a declaration of property rights and of freedom - as any in American history.

In her auto biography, "My Story," Rosa Parks wrote:

"People always say that I didn't give up my seat because I was tired, but that isn't true. I was not tired physically, or no more tired than I usually was at the end of a working day. I was not old, although some people have an image of me as being old then. I was forty-two. No, the only tired I was, was tired of giving in."

As far back as the Magna Carte in the 13th Century, it was established that "[n]o freeman shall be taken, imprisoned, disseised [i.e. dispossessed of property] ... except by the lawful judgment of his peers and by the law of land."

Rosa Parks’ rejection of the bus system's attempt to dispossess her of her seat was in line with what John Locke in his Social Contract theory would argue was the right to object by any individual denied his basic property rights, which governments are originated to defend, not offend.

Or, as Adam Smith in Lectures on Jurisprudence, declared:

"The first and chief design of every system of government is to maintain justice: to prevent the members of society from encroaching on one another's property, or seizing what is not their own (including earned wealth). The design here is to give each one the secure and peaceable possession of his own property."

Our most basic founding documents state, "all men are created equal, endowed by their creators with certain inalienable rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." What happiness can be pursued if government can simply take away anything that by "right" is supposed to be yours and yours alone? Maybe the government is telling you that what you think is your property is not yours, but belongs to the government.

Who will be the Rosa Parks of Eminent Domain property rights? Who will refuse to give up their seat on the bus that they have paid for and are entitled to keep, free from interference or seizure by the state, local municipality or corporate pirates? When that day comes, the whole nation will be in the bleachers cheering for the private property owner.

Who will be the Rosa Parks of gun ownership and refuse confiscation or registration of their privately owned and constitutionally safeguarded guns and ammunition?

Who will be the Rosa Parks of freedom of speech, the first to refuse political correctness? Don Imus had the opportunity but failed to rise to the occasion.

For that matter, who will be the next Rosa Parks? Are you willing to defend your property rights?

While you're thinking about it, keep in mind that everything is 'property rights,' at least in a free society with "liberty and justice for all." Conversely, whatever property it may be, if the State taxes it, the State owns it and rents to you the privilage of possession, transfer and/or personal use. If the State can take "your" property from you by any artifice for failure to pay taxes, then you never owned it.

The Bill of Rights comprises the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Those amendments were adopted between 1789 and 1791, and while many scholars attribute their intention to limiting the power of the federal government, the fact is that they were intended to protect your private property rights. They were added in response to criticisms of the Constitution by the state ratification conventions and by prominent individuals such as Thomas Jefferson (who was not a delegate to the Constitutional Convention). These critics argued that without further restraints, a strong central government would eventually become tyrannical. The amendments were proposed by Congress as part of a block of twelve in September 1789. By December 1791 a sufficient number of states had ratified ten of the twelve proposals, and the Bill of (property) Rights became part of the Constitution.

An "Amendment" is a change to the U.S. Constitution as it was originally written and ratified. The Constitution provides for several mechanisms for change, none of which include a judicial fiat, congressional legislation, or executive disdain for the rule of law.

A general interpretation of inapplicability to the states remained until 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, which stated, in part, that:

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ” The Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to extend most, but not all, parts of the Bill of Rights to the states. Nevertheless, the balance of state and federal power has remained a battle in the Supreme Court.

The amendments that became your Bill of Rights in 1789 were:

First (property right) Amendment: addresses the rights of freedom of religion (prohibiting the Congress' establishment of any religion over another religion through Law and protecting the right to free exercise of religion), freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, and freedom of petition.

Second (property right) Amendment: declares "a well regulated militia" as "necessary to the security of a free State", and as explanation for prohibiting infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Third (property right) Amendment: prohibits the government from using private homes as quarters for soldiers without the consent of the owners.

Fourth (property right) Amendment: guards against searches, arrests, and seizures of property without a specific warrant or a "probable cause" to believe a crime has been committed. Some rights to privacy (another property right) have been inferred from this amendment and others by the Supreme Court.

Fifth (property right) Amendment: forbids trial for a major crime except after indictment by a grand jury; prohibits double jeopardy (repeated trials), except in certain very limited circumstances; forbids punishment without due process of law; and provides that an accused person may not be compelled to testify against himself (this is also known as "Taking the fifth" or "Pleading the fifth"). This is regarded as the "rights of the accused" amendment. It also prohibits government from taking private property without "just compensation," the basis of eminent domain in the United States.

Sixth (property right) Amendment: guarantees a speedy public trial for criminal offenses. It requires trial by a jury (of peers), guarantees the right to legal counsel for the accused, and guarantees that the accused may require witnesses to attend the trial and testify in the presence of the accused. It also guarantees the accused a right to know the charges against him. The Sixth Amendment has several court cases associated with it, including Powell v. Alabama, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, Gideon v. Wainwright, and Crawford v. Washington. In 1966, the Supreme Court ruled that the fifth amendment prohibition on forced self incrimination and the sixth amendment clause on right to counsel were to be made known to all persons placed under arrest, and these clauses have become known as the Miranda rights.

Seventh (property right) Amendment: assures trial by jury in civil cases involving anything valued at more than 20 United States dollars at the time, which is currently worth $300, when accounting for inflation.

Eighth (property right) Amendment: forbids excessive bail or fines, and cruel and unusual punishment.

Ninth (property right) Amendment: declares that the listing of individual rights in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is not meant to be comprehensive; and that the other rights not specifically mentioned are retained elsewhere by the people.

Tenth (property right) Amendment: provides that powers that the Constitution does not delegate to the United States and does not prohibit the states from exercising, are "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Your life is your property, as is every other form of your "property;" even your job is a form of property. Property rights are guaranteed to you by the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments). If you think the State, or your state, has extended their control to some aspect of your life in contravention of the Bill of Rights, then the State has diminished or seized (taken from you) some aspect your private property.

What specifically do you think you still own as private property that the State has not already seized (evidenced by the imposition of taxes) or regulated in some fashion? Do you even have freedom of speech?

Red State Patriot

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

Is the Earth warming? Yes, it has been warming since the last mini-Ice Age ended in the 1800s. Since then the Earth has warmed a fraction of a degree Fahrenheit or Centigrade. Big deal.

Mr. Hoggan, however, was worried. In a speech called, "You can spin Mother Nature," he told attendees that a survey he undertook revealed that, "More than eighty percent of people believe environmental PR pros mislead the public for a living." Most of the 1,097 respondents said, "They thought PR people were helping clients misrepresent their performance."

He said, "There are climate quibblers in the energy industry. And the auto industry is confused—actively campaigning against climate change regulation even while spending billions on advertising concentrated on its largest, most profitable and most environmentally damaging models."

No, Mr. Hoggan, neither the energy industry, the auto manufacturers, nor their consumers and the general public are "confused" about climate change, nor are they stupid.

About the same time he was giving his speech, the Associated Press reported that, "More people than ever are driving alone to work as the nation’s commuters balk at carpools and mass transit. Regardless of fuel prices, housing and work patterns make it hard for suburban commuters to change their gas-guzzling ways." Oh, boo-hoo. Typical of such articles, the consumer is to blame along with the awful energy and auto companies.

This is why the environmental groups and their PR representatives continue to spend millions to influence legislators to regulate, regulate, and regulate every single aspect of our lives. Based on bogus environmental claims, the intent is to deny people the right to make market-based decisions. (Ed.: That really is what this thing called “global warming” is all about.)

The result is policies that drive up the cost of basic commodities that include food, energy, and housing. Policies based on "global warming" or "climate change" have no real basis in science. They are based on the hatred of free enterprise and, indeed, the hatred of humanity that is endemic to environmentalism.
Who are some of the "climate quibblers" that are casting doubt on green claims? After a slow start when any legitimate climatologist or meteorologist who disputed the claims was attacked, they have been joined by an impressive and growing list of world leaders.
Recently Vaclav Klaus, the President of the Czech Republic, wrote, "We are living in strange times. One exceptionally warm winter is enough, irrespective of the fact that in the course of the 20th century the global temperature increased only by 0.6 degrees Centigrade, for the environmentalists and their followers to suggest radical measures to do something about the weather, and do it right now."

In April, Yuri Izrael, a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, was interviewed by the Ria Novosti news agency. The Vice Chairman of the International Panel on Climate Change broke with its much-vaunted "consensus" over global warming. "I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate." He is the head of the Institute of Global Climate and Ecology in Russia.

(Ed.: Science is not about "consensus." It is about provable facts. Everything else is a hypothesis.)

Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who early and often debunked and rebuked the theory of global warming, has been at a disadvantage with the general public because, not surprisingly, he cites some rather complex scientific data. As early as 1988 he began to speak out and that should give you an idea of how long this hoax has been perpetrated.

"The current evidence does not warrant any drastic actions that cannot be justified independently of climate concerns," says Dr. Lindzen.

As is often noted, the same environmental groups, during the 1970s, were aggressively pushing the notion of a new Ice Age. Ironically, they were closer to the truth. The Earth is currently at the end of an 11,500 year interglacial cycle and many of the climate anomalies such as a June snowfall in Denver may well signal the advent of another Ice Age.

What we can do is insure that American politicians like Sen. Harry Reid, Senator Barbara Boxer, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, John McCain, and others do not force some truly horrible legislation through Congress based on the global warming or climate change lie.

There is no climate change crisis and, if there was, like all climate phenomenon, there is absolutely nothing Americans, Canadians, and the rest of humanity could do.

What we do not need to do is turn essential food crops like corn into ethanol. We do not need to insist that auto manufacturers squeeze a fraction of additional energy out of a finite gallon of gasoline. In an economy based on the need for electricity, we must resist efforts to thwart the building of more coal-fired and nuclear facilities to facilitate growth. We should not deter the exploration and extraction of vitally needed, known energy resources off the shores of the North American continent.

Mr. Hoggan ended his speech by tossing out the standard calumnies about those who cite real science. "The mainstream media are presenting a controversy that doesn’t appear in science—usually without mentioning when skeptical experts were unqualified or were associated with energy industry lobbying firms or Exxon-funded think tanks."

What Big Oil is really trying to do is to insure you will have gasoline when you drive up to the pump or a choice of oil or natural gas to heat your home this winter.

If Mr. Hoggan’s survey is correct—and I think it is—the public is skeptical of PR professionals who tell them the Earth is dramatically warming or just about to.

So, whom do you trust? Jim Hoggan? Speaker Pelosi? Governor Schwartzenegger? Al Gore? Do you really believe that "Live Earth" concerts have anything to do with science? I recommend you trust your own common sense.

Hat tip: Len S. in Prescott, Arizona

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

Sen. John McCain voted YES
Sen. Jon Kyl voted YES

Even in the face of massive and unprecedented nationwide public opposition to amnesty legislation, both Senator John McCain and Senator Jon Kyl from Arizona defied their constituency, defied common sense, defied the rule of law, defied their birthright and voted for cloture, i.e., voted as advocates of illegal aliens instead of advocates of United States citizens. It is fortunate for Arizona voters that there are still people like AZ Represenative Russell K. Pearce, and a few others.

Other extremely important issues remain to be resolved. For example, S.1639 contained carefully crafted language that received very little attention, language that would have fast-tracked the North American Union. It is conceivable that S.1639 was all about the North American Union from the beginning, and less about illegal alien amnesty, except that one feature conveniently facilitated the other. Arguably, S.1639 was intended to begin the eventual dissolution of the sovereign borders of the United States of America. S.1639 would have made illegal alien migration literally unenforceable, both at our nation's land borders and on our shorelines. Our nation’s heartland could easily have become a 3-ring criminal and terrorist circus act had S.1639 become law.

Since people are most often motivated solely by self-interest, what possible enticement could have been so overwhelming that these two men, Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl, would consciously choose to abandon their fellow citizens and their United States citizenship with such a vote?

As an aside, have you noticed how quiet the print and visual media has suddenly become about enforcing existing immigration laws? They're hoping you will forget about that nagging, not-so-little detail in your exuberation of having defeated S.1639.

It seems urgent that Americans make a concerted attempt to drive that "enforcement" nail home – right now - hard – and with finality. The issue of migrating illegal aliens is far from over simply because a "legislative atrocity" was defeated. The bigger issue remains, i.e., a Congress that seeks to "rule" rather than "serve." It will not be over (the fat lady will not sing again) until the Rule of Law is restored throughout the United States of America.

Red State Patriot

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

Arizona Supreme Court Justice Ruth McGregor instituted special hearings nearly three months ago after learning Maricopa County Superior Court employees were instructed not to inquire as to the citizenship of suspects.

In April, Superior Court Judge Barbara Rodriguez Mundell said the court decided against inquiring about defendants’ legal status so it could “remain a neutral and impartial tribunal.” The court opined only the Department of Homeland Security has the authority to determine someone’s immigration status.

In other words, an illegal alien cannot even be taken at his or her word that he or she is here illegally.

And, since Proposition 103 went into effect, making English the official language of Arizona, Mundell continues to hold Spanish DUI court entirely in Spanish, without providing any English accommodations for those who wish to listen in who do not speak Spanish.

I called the Arizona Department of Economic Security today. I still had to press one to continue in English. Instructions immediately thereafter were in Spanish, telling those who wished to continue in Spanish, to “marque dos” (press two).

I then called Arizona’s Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS). The initial message on how to proceed with the call is in Spanish, telling the caller to press one to proceed in Spanish. Then the message reverts back to English, where it continued with, “If you know your party’s extension …”

AHCCCS’s Web site also has an “Español” option to click that explains all the programs under AHCCCS in Spanish, with a direct line to a person who can answer any questions about the program in Spanish.

The AHCCCS application is also available in Spanish.

However, when calling the Arizona Department of Revenue, an agency where taxes are primarily collected instead of being redistributed (emphasis added), the automated recording is entirely in English.

The Arizona State Lottery’s Web site has an “En Español” option, while the Arizona Department of Transportation Motor Vehicle Division continues to post its 73-page driver license instruction manual in Spanish, although it’s with a disclaimer that the translation is from the original English text, it is unofficial and non-binding on the state or any political subdivision of the state.

Meanwhile, the county attorney’s office has also been working with the legislature to ensure full enforcement of Proposition 100. The House approved a measure that would make probable cause the burden of proof in Simpson hearings, held to determine if the defendant is in the country illegally.

Because accused persons would still be protected by the higher burden of proof required to prove the elements of the crime charged whenever bail is denied, the probable cause standard to prove illegal entry would not deprive anyone of his constitutional right.

Although 94 percent of illegal aliens were granted bail, it is unknown how many of them, if any, were able to post bond and be released.

Red State Patriot: The message from the Superior Court to the AZ State Legislature and all United States citizens is clear: "What rule of law? Not only are we the law, we are above the law."

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

Response from Tom Dworzanski: SB 1265 was signed into law today, July 2nd. It established "probable cause" as the standard for setting bail. I didn't think she would sign it into law but Nappy did. If she did not, it would have gone onto the ballot for the next election where it would have been overwhelmingly approved by the voters.

Original article: http://www.sonorannews.com/headline5.html

« Close It