IN OBAMA'S WORLD, MERIT IS A PUNISHABLE OFFENSE

In Obama's dictionary, “merit” is a pejorative word. In Obama's world, it is a punishable offense, and he means to deal harshly with those miscreants who take personal responsibility to heart. Look at the consequences of the changes he proposes. In each case, the person, political faction, industry, or supporter is helped at the expense of those who have taken the straight and narrow.

POLITICAL APPOINTEES: One would assume that his vetted nominees would be beyond reproach, experts in their fields, and statesmen with deep backgrounds of proven and successful public service. Count the number of appointees with tax problems (labeled oversights), including our Secretary of the Treasury , Tim Geithner, whose job is to fix what ails the U.S. Economy. He can't even figure out his own taxes, but we are supposed to feel confident in his expertise—and the way he scoots the laws the rest of us follow.

Kathleen Sebelius, in charge of Health and Human Resources, also had tax problems caused by plumping up her deductions. She served as Kansas' governor, a state in such dire financial straits she contemplated issuing IOUs to state employees. She received contributions from Dr. Tiller, the man accused of making a fortune by doing late term abortions and breaking Kansas law by performing these on out-of-state women. Her job in the Obama administration is to shepherd his health reforms through the legislative process. Can we trust her to do that fairly and knowledgeably? I think not. She didn't even show expertise in Kansas, and we're not in Kansas anymore.
Obama's selections reiterate the problem many of us had with his acquaintances prior to being elected—Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers, to name just two. He does not choose his acquaintances by merit. He surrounds himself with people who stretch or break the law and then use their power or influence to avert the consequences. Dangerous stuff for our country, particularly as he rides the waves of popularity.

THE CAR INDUSTRY: This week reports announce that with Obama's control of the auto industry, the cost of a new car will rise approximately $1,700. Not to worry, says the president, you'll make it back in a few years of ownership. No one is against fuel efficient car, but how did it come to pass that the auto industry will build cars his way or not at all? Once again, merit and success are seen as evil, and the power and money go to the supporters and the greedy. Our rights as consumers to choose for ourselves is limited; he will tell us what is right for us.

Originally there was a cry for GM and Chrysler to avoid bankruptcy. Bailout money was supposed to allow time for them to make profitable cars. At the same time, foreign non-unionized companies like Toyota and Nissan were vilified, and when Toyota's sales fell, cheers practically rose from the printed page of the New York Times.

Again the question of merit arises. Treat your employees fairly, build a quality product, adhere to good business practices, and you will be successful and profitable. Avoid unionization and you are evil. The truth is that union demands have made it impossible for American car manufacturers to make a profit. They lose on every car they sell; so the more they sell, the deeper in red ink they drown. Any thinking person knew that when the bailouts began. But building a business based on sound judgement and practice isn't necessary in Obama's world. Loyalty and support are the vital elements; show them and you will profit. You will also know how to vote in the next election. Isn't that part of the plan? Look what happened.

When the smoke choking Washington DC cleared, Chrysler was in bankruptcy. The company might be acquired by Fiat—a foreign car manufacture. The unions (who Obama owed for their loyal and loud support during the election) will also own a share. Investors in the company would be paid very little on the dollar, and those who refuse to accept the deal were labeled un-American.. More bailout money poured from our pockets into Chrysler's coffers. Two things are certain; the unions did not chip in much to save their jobs, but now they own the company. Two more things are certain; Chrysler still is unable to turn a profit, and come next election, the flood of votes will continue to flow Obama's way.. He not only saved union jobs; he also saved union benefits. Here's my question: how will negotiations go when auto contracts expire? Will the union “owner” negotiate with union “workers”?

President Obama now holds a club over the car companies. The unions will support his every dream in order to keep the money flowing. The president can tell them what to build, how to build it, how to fuel it, etc., and there is no alternative to compliance. We see this already in his green car movement and the announcements about higher costs.

GM was ordered to close dealerships to avoid bankruptcy. In my neck of the woods, several dealerships have been ordered to close. At least three of them term themselves “profitable.” Cannot one consider operating a successful money making business a sign of business acumen and merit? Merit and profit don't work here, as noted by the continual failure to turn a profit by both Chrysler and GM.

What happens to the economy surrounding a closed dealership. With the closure is the loss of dealership jobs. Restaurants, coffee shops, local service businesses, gas stations, etc. lose business. That leads to more joblessness. Our president obviously is not a good chess player; he can't think of the consequences past his next move.

Additionally, eight billion dollars of TARP money has been funneled into GMAC, the lending arm of GM. It will be the principal lender of both GM cars and Chrysler cars. Consumer choice will dissipate as the government makes the business rules. As the government takes over the banks and car companies, we will be squeezed into changing the very character of American business. There has already been a question of political interference is choosing dealership.

One final question: With our money pouring in to prop up GM and Chrysler, how do other car companies compete? What happens to Ford, for instance?

CREDIT: No one denies that there are some positive changes in the laws impacting credit card companies,. The amount of consumer debt is staggering. Only 32% of consumers carry no credit card debt. People choose to live beyond their means, and eventually they get into trouble. Sears, for instance, profits more from its credit card business than from its retail business. Usurious interest rates don't help. These changes which might aid people not responsible enough to handle their money or credit wisely and people who live far beyond their means will also punish consumers who are responsible about their purchases and are rewarded by the credit card issuers. Merit is punished; irresponsibility is rewarded.

Credit card issuers project reinstituting annual fees and doing away with grace periods; interest accrues as soon as you sign the credit card receipt. Forget perks like rewards programs. You did the right thing—Obama will take you down!

Whoa....I've got to stop although there are so many more examples I can give. Write your congressmen and voice your concern. They may be listening a little better these days; there are elections in 2010.

Obama politics commentary politicians economy appointees GM Chrysler bailout bankruptcy Geithner Sebelius Tiller abortion Kansas Wright Ayers TARP credit