French Issues

I know that I have brought this topic up a few times before but i have been following the story as it has unfolded. Today ole' Jacques said he will water down the bill that is causing such problems.

It is completely amazing to me that a country would actually have a law in place that prohibited firing an employee. I can honestly say that there is no way that I would have a company in that business environment. It completely ties the hands of the business owner to a point where they can not even control costs or efficiencies. If an employee decided to not do anything all day, that would be their choice.

To prove that people get used to nanny states, the French are protesting a law that would allow employers to fire younger employees within a probation type period. This would definitely be a positive for the business environment in France. Of course the citizens who take no responsibility for themselves don't like the idea.

Does anyone wonder why France has such high unemployment if they can't fire employees?

Immigration Protests

I posted earlier about the street protests that are occurring and my opinion of the securing of borders and immigration reform. As the protests continue, I grow a bit weary of it. I still fully believe that the U.S. needs to accept immigrants under an efficient yet legal process. I have some issues with the current situation.

• Why do illegal immigrants think they have rights in the U.S.? The Constitution of the United States protects U.S. citizens not people who broke the law to get here.
• If the Mexican immigrants are so proud of Mexico that they will burn American flags and raise Mexican flags, why don't they return to Mexico?
• Why do some Americans believe that protecting the borders is a negative thing?
• Why is reforming immigration and then solidifying the borders such a difficult topic?

The other thing that I am sick of hearing is how this is just like the civil right movement. That is a crazy notion. The people involved in this are illegally in the United States. During the civil rights movement the people were discriminated against because of their color not because they were illegal. If you would follow the proper process there would be no issue.

I am completely a supporter of reforming immigration to allow legal immigration to be more simple. My belief is that we simply must have better control over the process. I am also very concerned that the continuing protests are going to cause hard feelings which could cause some violence to occur. I just read an article about someone burning a Mexican flag after a protest. I think that people raising such a fuss may find the response to not be very positive.

Out of Touch

I was just reading an article where a group went off the deep end in San Francisco. They actually tried to bring God to San Fran. Apparently that is pushing things way to far because one of the city politicians was quoted saying: "they're loud, they're obnoxious, they're disgusting, and they should get out of San Francisco".

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that everyone has to believe but don't people still have the Freedom of Religion? If they want to get together and worship, is that still allowed in our country? Is San Fran still in our country?

If you read the article you will also get the feel that even the writer believes that people who believe in God are some kind of mystics. It is quite amazing to me that this is where we are from a country who was founded by God fearing people.

Evangelical teens rally in S.F.

Kudlow's Money Politic$: Smack the Collective French Fanny

I found this post on Larry Kudlow's blog after my rant about France's economic problems. I found the blog and the comments very interesting.

Kudlow's Money Politic$: Smack the Collective French Fanny

I am amazed

I was just reading an article about the protests that have been going on all over the United States about the immigration bill that is going through Congress. I will say that I support anyone immigrating into the United States. The U.S. was founded by immigrants. It is what makes America strong.

On the other hand I think that we do need to secure our borders and better control who is coming and going from our country. I think that it is ridiculous that people can just cross the border whenever they feel like it.

I also believe that it is against our laws for people to come to the United States without having gone through the proper process. This is why I believe the term illegal alien is a very valid term.

What amazes me is how much of an outcry there is about the U.S. cracking down on illegals. I think that in a post-9/11 world people must realize that we need better control over our internal security. This is where this comes from.

Now, having said that I agree with the current laws to crack down, I also think that we need to reform our immigration. We need to make it easier for honest hard-working people to come to this country. It shouldn't be so difficult that people have to come in illegally. I actually like Bush's idea for the worker program. The people who are coming in to the country to work to make a better life for themselves and their families should be allowed in with open arms. It is the criminals, terrorists, drug pushers, etc. that should be stopped at the border. This is why the border security needs to be increased.

We live in the country of "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." It is what made America great and it will continue to keep America strong. We just must make sure that America continues to exist for those tired, poor, huddled masses.

A Little Pompous

Did you hear that Jacques Chirac stormed out of an EU summit because English was spoken instead of French? Can you believe that?

Article: Chirac ‘shocked’ by use of English at summit

I am just curious what language is used more across Europe? Could it be an attempt at French domination of the EU? Well as long as they don't have to fight to dominate they may be able to.

Peacenik Ingrates

I can not believe the audacity that some people have! 4 "Christian" peaceniks were captured by terrorists in Iraq a month or so ago. One was killed during that time. Then the U.S. and British troops put their lives on the line to save them. They were rescued by the troops and will now return home.

After troops put their lives on the line for these people, the response says that they were "released unharmed". As if the terrorists decided that they were good people and said well bye now! Also, in the statement released by Christian Peacemaker Teams they go on to rip the troops and their mission in Iraq. AFTER THE SAME TROOPS SAVE THEIR MEMBER'S LIVES!!!

Pull them out of nasty situation and instead of a thank you they give you the finger. Very nice.

Article: http://www.pulse24.com/News/Top_Story/20060323-005/page.asp

The Catch 22 in France

I was just reading some information about the riots or "demostrations" if you like in France. They are very interesting to me from my political/economic viewpoint.

What I currently see is that unemployment in many European countries is very high due to the fact that the government has placed so much regulation in place. Why would someone want to find a job if the government will take care of them?

Also, I think that many of the problems are due to the labor unions being so strong and so demanding. From a business perspective, let's be completely honest, I want to make a profit. If that were not the case I wouldn't be in business. The union continues to push for less work out of the employees while paying them more. So the company pays more for less work. They would need to hire more employees to get the same amount of work done. But can they afford to hire more employees at the increased rate? Remember that even the evil corporations have a specific budget that they must meet or the very evil shareholders/owners don't make anything.

So what happens when the companies can't do this? They either go to a more business friendly county, outsource jobs, or go out of business. What happens to those jobs? Gone. What happens to unemployment? It skyrockets.

Now the viscious cycle has begun though. Because of the increased unemployment costs on the government, they must raise taxes. Those taxes cut into the profits of the companies and more move or go out of business.

What is interesting to me is the attitude of the French people. They truly believe that it is the government's job to provide them jobs. So they expect that more regulation will make things better. This is the beauty of the welfare state. After a while the citizens actually look to the government for the solutions to all of their problems. So the government taxes to provide services. Who will pay the taxes to provide all of those services?

Margaret Thatcher took the correct approach in the U.K. in the 1980s. Deregulate the industries and remove some of the welfare state programs. Allow the evil capitalist market to do it's job.

Companies provide jobs. Jobs provide money for the people. People buy more products. Products must be produced by more companies. The evil capitalist cycle does what politicians can't -- provide jobs and money.

Abaraxas: What The Politicians Don’t Want You To Know About The National Debt

My friend Matthew just posted an excellent article about the national debt and the politics that revolves around it.

Abaraxas: What The Politicians Don’t Want You To Know About The National Debt

It is amazing that how much the statement "Veritas vos Liberabit" plays into modern politics.

veritas vos liberabit = The Truth will set you free

Positive Job Market?

Okay, I am really confused... the media is whining about the job market. Democrats are saying that it is the worst job market since the depression. The job market sky is falling!!!

Oh wait, what is this? Best job market in 5 years?? Almost reaching full employment?? That doesn't make any sense.

Best job market in 5 years for grads

What could this possibly mean? Oh yeah, election year and the Democrats are ramping up the political rhetoric.

Anti-American Dream

I am amazed at how many people talk about the "American Dream" and then as soon as some company grows too big immediately tries to tear it down. Or... raise taxes as high as possible on the rich. So, basically it is great if you succeed as long as you stay within a certain (unspecified) set of limits.

I was just reading about a couple of states passing legislation for the sole purpose of keeping WalMart from opening their affiliate banks inside of their stores. One of the quotes by a completely unbiased party, Kathleen Murphy (CEO of Maryland Bankers Association), is: "We have seen what Wal-Mart has done to local retailers, and we just fear the same impact will happen to commercial banking in the state of Maryland". I bet if it were one of her members she wouldn't have a problem with it.

The second problem that I have with that statement is that WalMart has every right to compete in the market place. If that means that companies who can't compete go out of business we have a name for that - capitalism. Many argue that they can't compete with WalMart's prices. I agree. Very short MBA lesson ... price is not the only competition point. Let me give you a little hint as to how to compete... find something else to compete with them on. Service would be one of the areas I would shoot for.

Why should we be so jealous of large companies or rich people? I personally would love to own a large company (I guess I actually do to some extent in my 401K ... another blog) and I am striving really hard to become one of those evil rich people.

Ridiculous Airline Industry

I can not believe how the airline industry is nickel and diming people to death. Well, let me rephrase... how the old line airline industry is nickel and diming people to death. First, it was pay for snacks now pay for decent seats in COACH!!

Revenue-hungry airline adds $15 fee for premium coach seats

The article also says: "Trippler predicted other charges will be forthcoming later this year from airlines, including a $1 or $2 charge for sodas and juice."

It has turned into a ridiculous situation where the consumer is paying for poor management and poor business structure. In my opinion, in the long run the market will win out. This will probably mean very dark days ahead for these airlines (unless of course the government short circuits the market and bails them out once again).

All of this as Southwest continues to rake in profits without all of the nickel and dime B.S. Isn't it possible for the old-line carriers to see how Southwest is beating them? They are trying a business model that caters to the customer. What a revolutionary concept!

Time for Line Item Veto

For a short period of time will Bill Clinton was the U.S. President the United States had the line item veto. Not for long though. The Supreme Court found the power to be unconstitutional (Clinton v. City of New York) even though the Constitution does not even discuss the topic. In fact they said that silence was the prohibition.

Anyway, is this something that should be considered for Constinutional ammendment? In my opinion, yes. The reason that I believe this is because the founding fathers never dreamed that the legislature would use legislation the way that they do. Most bills contain some sort of "rider". Many times they have absolutely nothing to do with the original bill but the president has to decide whether to kill the entire bill in order to remove little appropriation.

The Democrats used this issue to help send George H.W. Bush back to Texas in 1991. The passed and education bill that contained tax increases as riders. He then had a choice, veto the education bill and be viewed as anti-education or sign the bill and go against his "No New Taxes" pledge. Very slick on the Democrats part.

Now, I am not saying that the line item veto should be created simply for political reasons. I think that it needs to be added so that a President can control more of the pork barrel spending that continually increases on Capitol Hill. By using the line item veto the President could remove the riders and still be able let the original bill be made law.

I think that time has come to consider this topic. Here's more information:

Save the Line Item Veto
Clinton v. City of New York

Long Term: Offshoring Benefits Economy

In a topic I find very interesting, I found this blog about offshoring to be reassuring to my point of view on this topic:

Outsourcing beneficial in the long run: OECD study

This topic really interests me for a few reasons. First, I am in the IT field which is a market that is heavily offshored. Second, during my MBA pursuit I found that I have an interest in macroeconomics. Third, I find the paranoia about this topic amusing.

Port Deal: Overruled??

It looks like the port deal may not happen. The Senate and House look to have killed the deal with threat of possible legislation and dealing with the UAE. I am still not completely sure that this should have been the firestorm it turned into but it may now be over.

UAE firm to transfer port operations to U.S. Entity

I have also heard that the U.S. Entity could be Halliburton. Would that really be a victory for the Democrats?