Harley-Davidson warned employees in April that it will move its Wisconsin manufacturing operations elsewhere if it cannot cut millions of dollars at the factories that build the bikes known as "Milwaukee Iron."
Company spokesman Bob Klein said Harley wants to remain faithful, but its production schedule needs to be more closely aligned with seasonal demand, a change that would require approval from labor unions.
Negotiations with the unions began in late July. The president of Harley's largest union did not return multiple messages seeking comment.
Harley, which is the lone remaining Milwaukee based major employer not only employs 1,630, but is a major tourist attraction (Milwaukee Bureau of Tourism estimates last year over 100,000 tourists visited the city for the specific purpose of visiting the plant and the museum). The city that was a major brewery center lost that distinction with the departures of Schlitz in the 1980s and Miller in 2008.
In other words, Milwaukee is just another example of dying cities located in labor friendly states. It is no surprise that the Tax Foundation ranks Wisconsin one of the 10 least business friendly states where businesses like Harley are fleeing from.
A year ago, urban scholar Joel Kotkin pointed out some of the policies that has resulted in traditionally blue states losing businesses as well as population in many cases. Is it any wonder that federal government's policies have done nothing to ease the unemployment situation when you consider that over 90% of the administration officials come from these same failing blue states (and the rest are mainly progressives from red states), or that this is the administration with the least recent private sector experience in its ranks?
To progressives, Harley leaving Wisconsin or Toyota leaving Freemont, CA does not matter at all. It does not matter that traditionally blue states of the rust belt and the northeast resemble fiscal wrecks. Nor does the fact that the most comprehensive study done of rich versus poor states clearly shows that disparity between 10 year average growth rates, income growth, population migration, employment growth, and unemployment rates is striking (with red states making up the top ten performers while the bottom ten are all blue states as seen on the table presented in the executive summary section).
No, none of these matter. Just like evidence of progressive policy failures - from experiences of the great depression, welfare states of Europe, or twenty years of government involvement in Japan - are all swept under the rug.
As far as the left is concerned, the moment Harley departs for greener pastures, it will be erased from their collective memories. Thus is the phenomena called progressive blindness.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
A Great Democrat Proposal
So that my progressive friends do not accuse me of opposing anything Democrat, here is an example of a proposal I have supported for several years.
Six congressional Democrats from New York are pushing a tax cut for people who live in high-income areas. The idea is to index everyone's income tax brackets to the cost of living, giving a big tax break to everyone who lives in the nation's most expensive areas.
Group calls itself the Tax Equity Caucus. Rep. Israel said the new caucus would focus on language similar to a bill by introduced by Rep. Nadler last year (HR 1943) that would require regional cost-of-living adjustments for tax rates.
Now, that is a great idea that would bring some equity and good sense in to our convoluted tax code.
Six congressional Democrats from New York are pushing a tax cut for people who live in high-income areas. The idea is to index everyone's income tax brackets to the cost of living, giving a big tax break to everyone who lives in the nation's most expensive areas.
Group calls itself the Tax Equity Caucus. Rep. Israel said the new caucus would focus on language similar to a bill by introduced by Rep. Nadler last year (HR 1943) that would require regional cost-of-living adjustments for tax rates.
Now, that is a great idea that would bring some equity and good sense in to our convoluted tax code.
Steve Wynn: "I'll Take China Over America"
The greatest of Las Vegas casino developers speaks out on America of today and why he is moving part of his operations to Macao - for the very same reasons likes of National Federation of Independent Business and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have been screaming out at the top of their lungs, and the estimated $2 trillion businesses are sitting on instead of investing: Decleration of war by the Obama Administration on any business that is not a crony.
This is a nightmare scenario, especially for small to mid-sized businesses; there is no telling what else the government will do in the way of creating an anti-business environment. Every single piece of legislation (passed and proposed) such as healthcare reform, financial reform, card check, cap and trade, and disclose act among others have done little more than undermine the real job creators of the country.
Also it is the same reason why, going forward, we will never see 4% unemployment rate in this country again unless the legislative damage done is reversed and crony capitalism abandoned in favor of free market capitalism. We are living in a haven for crony capitalists, old school politicians, and progressive dreamers in academia and elsewhere.
I say more power to likes of Wynn. Why anyone at all would bet on America, considering the trajectory it is on, is beyond me.
This is a nightmare scenario, especially for small to mid-sized businesses; there is no telling what else the government will do in the way of creating an anti-business environment. Every single piece of legislation (passed and proposed) such as healthcare reform, financial reform, card check, cap and trade, and disclose act among others have done little more than undermine the real job creators of the country.
Also it is the same reason why, going forward, we will never see 4% unemployment rate in this country again unless the legislative damage done is reversed and crony capitalism abandoned in favor of free market capitalism. We are living in a haven for crony capitalists, old school politicians, and progressive dreamers in academia and elsewhere.
I say more power to likes of Wynn. Why anyone at all would bet on America, considering the trajectory it is on, is beyond me.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
First Of Many Voter Repudiations Of Obama Policies To Come
Although several states have filed court challenges and passed measures rejecting the unconstitutional mandates imposed by the new healthcare reform bill, known affectionately as Obamacare, Missouri became the first to repudiate it in a referendum.
Judging by the 3:1 margin Missouri voters rejected Obamacare (which is slightly more than the two thirds indicated nationally by polling data), bloodbath for congressional Democrats is thankfully only 92 days away.
Judging by the 3:1 margin Missouri voters rejected Obamacare (which is slightly more than the two thirds indicated nationally by polling data), bloodbath for congressional Democrats is thankfully only 92 days away.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Obama: "Do Not Demagogue Immigration"
President Barack Obama warned U.S. leaders not to use the divisive issue of illegal immigration as a way to gain power and name recognition in an interview with CBS television released on Saturday.
This from the man who told Senator Kyl "if we secure the border first, then you will have no reason for passing immigration reform". I guess it is okay to demagogue the issue as long as it gains his party potentially 10+ million votes.
This from the man who told Senator Kyl "if we secure the border first, then you will have no reason for passing immigration reform". I guess it is okay to demagogue the issue as long as it gains his party potentially 10+ million votes.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Do They Really Want To Be American Citizens?
Protesters turned out in Phoenix, Arizona to protest Arizona's new immigration law.
Note the huge Cuban/Che flag alongside the Mexican flag. No U.S. flag anywhere to be seen!
Stand strong Arizona.
Your opponents are not liberal Americans, with a different point of view - they are socialist revolutionaries who want to destroy your country's ability to maintain national integrity.
(And that goes for not only the protesters but the unions that bussed them in and the Obama administration)
Note the huge Cuban/Che flag alongside the Mexican flag. No U.S. flag anywhere to be seen!
Stand strong Arizona.
Your opponents are not liberal Americans, with a different point of view - they are socialist revolutionaries who want to destroy your country's ability to maintain national integrity.
(And that goes for not only the protesters but the unions that bussed them in and the Obama administration)
Another Day, Another Federal Assault on Liberty
By David Limbaugh
Yesterday's federal court decision to enjoin enforcement of the Arizona immigration law is the latest example of a virtually unchecked renegade federal government waging war against the states and against the liberties of its citizens.
We've seen that Obama will exercise any power he can get away with, from strong-arming secured creditors and favoring unions as he gobbled up automakers to making a mockery of due process with his Oval Office shakedown of BP. But he might have reached a new low with his assaults on the sovereignty of the people of Arizona.
Indeed, Judge Susan Bolton's disgraceful decision to grant an injunction against Arizona's new immigration law is, in the words of Mark Levin, "abominable," but let's not forget that this case wouldn't have been before Judge Bolton if Obama's Justice Department hadn't initiated it.
And let's not pretend that Obama's motives are anything other than political, the law and the rule of law be damned. He told Sen. Jon Kyl in a private meeting that he was unwilling to secure our borders because it would decrease his chances to pass "comprehensive immigration reform."
So when Arizona attempted to exercise a little self-help and work on securing its own border by passing a law carefully crafted to mirror the federal immigration law and encourage its enforcement, the all-powerful Obama feds came down on it like a furious king against his disobedient subjects.
In a saner world, freedom lovers could have rested easy, knowing that an impartial, Constitution-respecting judge would summarily reject the administration's unlawful scheme to thwart Arizona's sovereignty by superimposing its own nonenforcement policy.
But in her decision, Clinton appointee Bolton demonstrated how dangerous judicial activism can be to our individual liberties and democratic processes. It's one thing for a court to invalidate a law because it doesn't pass constitutional muster; it's quite another for it to misstate the facts, the legislation and the Constitution to reach a preordained decision.
Just consider three outrages of this decision highlighted by other commentators, any of which, individually, makes a mockery of justice. Andy McCarthy properly observes that Judge Bolton stretched the federal pre-emption doctrine to absurd limits. Under Bolton's specious reasoning, state law must be struck down not only if it is inconsistent with federal law, which the Arizona law is not, but also if it somehow contradicts federal law enforcement practices. Because the Obama feds refused, as a matter of policy, to enforce their own law against illegal immigration, the state could not be allowed to pass a law promoting enforcement. Note that nothing in the actual Constitution or case law justifies such an extrapolation of pre-emption doctrine. But such trifles don't impede an administration and court determined to keep the immigration floodgates open at any cost.
Mark Levin notes that Judge Bolton correctly enunciated the rigorous legal standard required for a plaintiff to succeed in a "facial challenge" to a law's constitutionality but then proceeded to ignore the rules she had just affirmed. She acknowledged that for the federal government to have prevailed, it would have had to show the law could never be applied in a constitutional fashion. That is, "a facial challenge must fail where a statute has a 'plainly legitimate sweep.'" But she ignored that limitation on her authority, just as she violated another principle she paid lip service to in her opinion: that the court was not to speculate about hypothetical cases.
Heather Mac Donald exposes Judge Bolton's acquiescence to the Obama administration's "carefully cultivated fiction" that the administration's primary motive with the lawsuit was to prevent the application of the law to legal aliens. The judge ignored uncontroverted testimony and legal briefs from Arizona officials stating that only people who were reasonably suspected to be illegally in the country would be required to prove their legal status. So to protect legal aliens from a law that doesn't apply to them, she refuses to apply the law to illegals.
Cynical observers of the political scene lazily dismiss each unfolding Obama outrage as merely Washington politics as usual. But with this administration, we're witnessing power grabs that are different in kind rather than degree.
Our liberties depend on our preserving the integrity of the Constitution and the mechanisms it established to deter tyranny. To the extent we dismantle those safeguards, we imperil our freedoms.
When the political class is filled with those who are ideologically committed to certain political ends irrespective of the legality of the means used to achieve them, our system of checks and balances breaks down, which is one reason John Adams warned, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
November's elections cannot come fast enough.
Yesterday's federal court decision to enjoin enforcement of the Arizona immigration law is the latest example of a virtually unchecked renegade federal government waging war against the states and against the liberties of its citizens.
We've seen that Obama will exercise any power he can get away with, from strong-arming secured creditors and favoring unions as he gobbled up automakers to making a mockery of due process with his Oval Office shakedown of BP. But he might have reached a new low with his assaults on the sovereignty of the people of Arizona.
Indeed, Judge Susan Bolton's disgraceful decision to grant an injunction against Arizona's new immigration law is, in the words of Mark Levin, "abominable," but let's not forget that this case wouldn't have been before Judge Bolton if Obama's Justice Department hadn't initiated it.
And let's not pretend that Obama's motives are anything other than political, the law and the rule of law be damned. He told Sen. Jon Kyl in a private meeting that he was unwilling to secure our borders because it would decrease his chances to pass "comprehensive immigration reform."
So when Arizona attempted to exercise a little self-help and work on securing its own border by passing a law carefully crafted to mirror the federal immigration law and encourage its enforcement, the all-powerful Obama feds came down on it like a furious king against his disobedient subjects.
In a saner world, freedom lovers could have rested easy, knowing that an impartial, Constitution-respecting judge would summarily reject the administration's unlawful scheme to thwart Arizona's sovereignty by superimposing its own nonenforcement policy.
But in her decision, Clinton appointee Bolton demonstrated how dangerous judicial activism can be to our individual liberties and democratic processes. It's one thing for a court to invalidate a law because it doesn't pass constitutional muster; it's quite another for it to misstate the facts, the legislation and the Constitution to reach a preordained decision.
Just consider three outrages of this decision highlighted by other commentators, any of which, individually, makes a mockery of justice. Andy McCarthy properly observes that Judge Bolton stretched the federal pre-emption doctrine to absurd limits. Under Bolton's specious reasoning, state law must be struck down not only if it is inconsistent with federal law, which the Arizona law is not, but also if it somehow contradicts federal law enforcement practices. Because the Obama feds refused, as a matter of policy, to enforce their own law against illegal immigration, the state could not be allowed to pass a law promoting enforcement. Note that nothing in the actual Constitution or case law justifies such an extrapolation of pre-emption doctrine. But such trifles don't impede an administration and court determined to keep the immigration floodgates open at any cost.
Mark Levin notes that Judge Bolton correctly enunciated the rigorous legal standard required for a plaintiff to succeed in a "facial challenge" to a law's constitutionality but then proceeded to ignore the rules she had just affirmed. She acknowledged that for the federal government to have prevailed, it would have had to show the law could never be applied in a constitutional fashion. That is, "a facial challenge must fail where a statute has a 'plainly legitimate sweep.'" But she ignored that limitation on her authority, just as she violated another principle she paid lip service to in her opinion: that the court was not to speculate about hypothetical cases.
Heather Mac Donald exposes Judge Bolton's acquiescence to the Obama administration's "carefully cultivated fiction" that the administration's primary motive with the lawsuit was to prevent the application of the law to legal aliens. The judge ignored uncontroverted testimony and legal briefs from Arizona officials stating that only people who were reasonably suspected to be illegally in the country would be required to prove their legal status. So to protect legal aliens from a law that doesn't apply to them, she refuses to apply the law to illegals.
Cynical observers of the political scene lazily dismiss each unfolding Obama outrage as merely Washington politics as usual. But with this administration, we're witnessing power grabs that are different in kind rather than degree.
Our liberties depend on our preserving the integrity of the Constitution and the mechanisms it established to deter tyranny. To the extent we dismantle those safeguards, we imperil our freedoms.
When the political class is filled with those who are ideologically committed to certain political ends irrespective of the legality of the means used to achieve them, our system of checks and balances breaks down, which is one reason John Adams warned, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
November's elections cannot come fast enough.
A Fine Example Of A Liberal Judge
Judge Bolton, whose decision to strike significant portions of the Arizona Illegal Immigration bill is drawing ire from many, is typical of what one might have expected from a deconstructionist judge.
Her ruling makes absolutely no sense to even non attorneys like me. We have just witnessed dyslexic liberal logic at its finest. Judge Bolton has in effect decided that actual enforcement of federal laws somehow interferes with the federal government's prerogative to ignore federal law. Wow, in one word!
Is this a nation of laws anymore?
Her ruling makes absolutely no sense to even non attorneys like me. We have just witnessed dyslexic liberal logic at its finest. Judge Bolton has in effect decided that actual enforcement of federal laws somehow interferes with the federal government's prerogative to ignore federal law. Wow, in one word!
Is this a nation of laws anymore?
Progressive Friends:
Do not forget to sign the President’s birthday card. While at it, you will be asked to contribute generously so that "progress" can keep coming. Michelle appreciates your allegiance, not to mention Barack's universe sized ego.
Here is a slightly different take:
Jim Lindgren, a professor at Northwestern Law School, got it right when he observed, "Asking millions of Americans to sign a birthday card for the President suggests a tone-deafness about the cult of personality. If we lived in a dictatorship, getting millions of subjects to celebrate the Dear Leader's birthday would be routine, but in a free republic this appeal to get millions of citizens to celebrate a current president's birthday strikes a discordant note to my ear."
Here is a slightly different take:
Jim Lindgren, a professor at Northwestern Law School, got it right when he observed, "Asking millions of Americans to sign a birthday card for the President suggests a tone-deafness about the cult of personality. If we lived in a dictatorship, getting millions of subjects to celebrate the Dear Leader's birthday would be routine, but in a free republic this appeal to get millions of citizens to celebrate a current president's birthday strikes a discordant note to my ear."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)