“You’re fired.”
I’m sure that most everyone has heard at least a soundbite of “the Trump” relaying his decisive television catchphrase “You’re Fired” on The Apprentice. I wonder, though how many of you have heard it from the office of the President of the United States? My bet is, that unless you are a former cabinet secretary or executive branch department head for the US Government, that you haven’t… and you shouldn’t have.
Does it strike anyone as odd that there has never been (to my admittedly limited knowledge) an instance until last week where the Chief Executive of the US Government has fired anyone in the private sector? It has always been very clearly understood that the private sector was exactly that – Private. The very thought that the President of the US could fire a private citizen from his or her position would have sent the men who signed the Constitution into fits of apoplectic rage. If that power were part of the final draft of the original document, it would have been voted down 13-0 by the states and the guy that wrote it would have been driven from town in tar and feathers. If you’ll remember, just a few years prior, they fought a war to relieve themselves up just such a menace.
Now we are come to the point where the government, by whatever method has enabled itself to exercise that kind of authority over private entities. How did this happen? Well, anyone who is paying any attention at all is beginning to see the end result of government “bailouts”. When an obviously power-hungry government is given partial ownership of anything, for any reason, it begins to exert its “say so” on every aspect of that operation based on politics. Politics itself has a funny way of serving those who employ it before and above those who are targeted by it.
Can any of you provide one instance in history where an financial decision was made better in the free market by the introduction of politics? Let me save you the time. If you think you can, you’re kidding yourself. There is a very good reason that UPS, Fedex and DHL all MAKE money while the US Postal Service LOSES money. Why, when there is a perfectly suitable and sustainable alternative available, does the government of the United States maintain a failing institution like the postal service? Well, it could be two reasons. One obviously more substantive than the other.
First, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that: “The Congress Shall have power… to establish post offices and post roads.” That is a pretty clear reason that the Post Office was started, and it certainly should have been. The question arises, however, does the congress have the power to MAINTAIN a failing government service at the expense of the taxpayers? That question leads to the other reason (and more likely the relevant reason) that the Government maintains this huge drain on the tax base… politics. The Postal Workers are members of a Union, more specifically the American Postal Workers Union. They currently advertise themselves as “The world’s largest Postal Union”. As if that was a bragging point… Congratulations. Perhaps the US Government could advertise itself as the largest collection of constitutionally uneducated buffoons. That would garner up about the same amount of respect and awe. As they have shown in past, unions have MASSIVE power in congress due to the effect that they can have on elections. The reason that the APWU is so powerful is that it is affiliated with the AFL-CIO, which is a “super union” of labor and industrial workers. Therefore, politicians feel the need to ‘scratch the back of the Post office” to keep themselves in their office.
If the Postal Service was privatized, it would most likely be downsized, streamlined and completely overhauled. It would also work on a much more demand-based system. Currently, the post office is required to deliver mail to any address in the US. I don’t know that UPS or Fedex suffers under that same requirement… and why should they? If you live in the middle of a plateau in Utah without a house or human neighbor for 100 Miles, that’s your problem, not theirs. If you need communicative services, you’re going to pay a premium. That’s just the way it is. Welcome to the free market, friend.
Getting back to the free market, any CEO worth his salt and looking to keep his job will serve the best interests of the shareholders of the company. In many instances, that also includes the people that work for that company, not just the management. When the President exercises his authority over a private entity rather than the people who have invested their money, the best interest of the shareholders is entirely negated. In effect, all of their investment has been seized by the government and re-purposed however the president and/or congress sees fit. It’s base theft, really. Now the congress and the Pres are going to say: “When they took bailout money, they gave us the right to do this.” Hmmm. That sounds like a fantastic reason to never have started this bailout garbage in the first place.
Another instance of where politics will trump market based decisions is the pending elimination of many of the most popular styles of cars made by GM. SUVs and trucks are the bread and butter of those companies because people LOVE them. They are more versatile than a mini-van and provide a better view of the road than a standard sedan. The gas milage is much better than it used to be and they are comfortable to drive. So why get rid of them? Politics. The left is totally invested in the “Global Warming” theory and any piece of machinery that is deemed “bad” by the greenies has to go, regardless of the effect on business or the desires of the population. Politics has now killed the company. Left with nothing but unpopular, small, and decidedly less versatile cars is going to cripple the car market. Kill, probably not. Americans have this uncanny ability to prosper and innovate in spite of obstacles. Who knows, we may actually see a better thing than the SUV in the future… assuming that the government doesn’t squash it first.
Politics and politicians claim to serve the greater interest, but more often they serve the interests of the greater contributors. Companies that exist to make a profit (except in cases of fraud) serve all who are connected with them. Investors make money when the company prospers, more people are hired to do the work of the company, the vendors that serve the company do more business and so forth. When politicians pierce this realm and inject politics, the benefits are reversed and stop at the doors to the capital.
The power that our government (mainly in the form of the Democrat Party) is exercising is that of a tyrant and dictator. Hugo Chavez is engaged in the same type of private-sector nationalization as we speak. He’s an avowed communist.
This should scare the hell out of every person that loves freedom, regardless of race, creed or political background. Liberty to live your life as you choose is fundamental to the survival of this nation. Without it, we will slip into the flailing abyss of powerless dependency, living at the mercy of those who make their living off of governance. The first politcial volley has been fired at the heart of our prosperity. Every good Patriot must now hold the line and return fire in the form of their voice and their vote. We, who hold the Constitution dear, are the flank of the Nation’s well-being. We cannot retreat, we cannot fall back. This cannot merely be another delaying action. If we do not hold, the entirety of the principles that founded this nation will be rolled up and tossed back in utter chaos. Recognize the danger, reconcile yourself to the task and dig in. The left is coming, and they must be repulsed at all costs.
Comments
One Comment on “You’re fired.”
-
beezer on
Thu, 2nd Apr 2009 8:23 pm
Do I agree with Obama’s firing of a CEO? Yes and no.
No for all the reasons that you gave above. Yes because when the government takes ownership in a company they are doing it with my money – your money. And that makes use shareholders. And as a shareholder, I want the best and brightest people leading the company I’m a shareholder in. And if that means that the CEO has to go, then he has to go.
So while I don’t fully agree with the government exerting their power in this way, as a shareholder, I want him gone. Same as I would if I was a private shareholder in GM.
On a side note, I think its a disgrace that the shareholders in all the banks and financial institutions managed to ruin the economy and, for the most part, kept all the same leadership. If I were a shareholder, I would have demanded that my company’s leadership be changed the moment they agreed to take the governments money.
Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!