Why the GOP Really Hates Unions

[KittenKoder]

Sealy ... mainstream media is biased toward sensationalism ... whatever they can to get viewer/readers/etc.. In Seattle they tend to do a lot of pro-liberal stories, because there are a lot more here than conservatives. In Utah they have a lot of pro-conservative stories. The bias is localized based on what will get them the ratings they need to stay in business. Online the demographics are harder to plan for, Fox fixed that by only showing links to other local station sites, unless they utilize the IP addresses of those who visit. What you do is find out where they got the information from, most often though you will find that the information they gave you was incomplete. There is always more to the story than any media or "blog" will offer.

 

[KittenKoder]

An example, the coal miners. Coal mines have always been the most dangerous places to work, even with our improved safety gear it's impossible to protect the miners. The business practices aside, most people are more comfortable with placing people not from their own country in danger instead of their own fellow citizens, this subconscious behavior is not always easy to see because they will justify it themselves through other "facts", such as cost cutting. So even those who do this will often not realize they are. In the past this was blatant, they hired immigrants almost exclusively for mining. However it is a fact that many who rant about how bad their business practices are will neglect, because it makes them look better (still not perfect, just better) to make their case seem more extreme.

 

[sealybobo]

Sealy ... mainstream media is biased toward sensationalism ... whatever they can to get viewer/readers/etc.. In Seattle they tend to do a lot of pro-liberal stories, because there are a lot more here than conservatives. In Utah they have a lot of pro-conservative stories. The bias is localized based on what will get them the ratings they need to stay in business. Online the demographics are harder to plan for, Fox fixed that by only showing links to other local station sites, unless they utilize the IP addresses of those who visit. What you do is find out where they got the information from, most often though you will find that the information they gave you was incomplete. There is always more to the story than any media or "blog" will offer.

The 1980s saw massive funding of right-wing think tanks that have engaged in blitzkrieg campaigns to overwhelm the mainstream media with conservative viewpoints. The man whose followers claim he's Jesus Christ's reincarnation, Reverend Moon, started the Washington Times newspaper in 1982, and although it has lost money ever since, it has succeeded in pushing political discourse in Washington to the far right, presumably helping the good Reverend's other military/industrial investments and lent legitimacy to his religion. Republican operative and former Rush Limbaugh TV Show producer Roger Ailes, with access to Rupert Murdoch's billions, founded the Fox News Network to openly push the Republican agenda into America's living rooms.

But the goal wasn't just to provide an alternative media - it was to influence all media.

This aspect of the conservative strategy was outlined by former Republican Party chairman Rich Bond, who told the Washington Post (8/20/92) that their main goal was to convince Americans and, most important, journalists themselves - the referees of public discourse in America - that they should become hypersensitive to any story, writer, or source that may carry Democratic bias and thus only present the Republican side of the story. "If you watch any great coach," Bond explained, "what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack next time."

The plan started several years before Bond spilled the beans to the Post. And its most powerful component has been "conservative" talk radio.

The Reagan/Bush administration ended the FCC's Fairness Doctrine in 1986, and the next year saw Rush Limbaugh appear in over 50 major markets across America - with no sponsors. The myth believed by his listeners is that Americans just so loved Rush and his philosophy that those stations that altruistically carried his show quickly found sponsors. The liberal myth is that the way to replicate Limbaugh's success is to re-invent a radio network like ABC or Premiere but that carries liberals, and stations in major markets will flock to pick up the programming.

But making something like the Rush phenomenon happen isn't about networks or stations or even about philosophy: It's about quality programming, a good business strategy, and lots of cash. Particularly the cash.

Christian broadcasters have known this equation for decades. Many radio stations will sell "block time" - entire hours - for a bit less than they'd normally get if they had just sold all the ads on an existing show. The purchaser gets not only all the commercial minutes, but the entire hour to do whatever they want with. Christian broadcasters use that hour to evangelize and beg for money, and if they get more cash from their donors than the hour cost, they keep their show on the air on that station and grow to the next.

One step down are light sponsorships - where advertisers (often Bible publishers) buy one or a few "seed" ads on a local station, so as soon as the program starts on the station, management knows its downside is limited.

Talk radio has a similar past - and present.

Well-funded syndicates get together and buy block time, put a conservative host on the air, and then find sponsors to pay for it. If the income from the sponsors exceeds the cost of buying the block time, they make a healthy profit. If not, the message still gets spread, Republicans get elected, and the interests of the investors are furthered.

Less well financed shows find political candidates or sympathetic companies to advertise locally to encourage stations to pick up a show. (It's no coincidence that Limbaugh's show debuted just as the '88 election cycle was beginning.)

While none of Limbaugh's original business partners has ever gone public with the details of what it cost to first get him on the air, it is public knowledge that syndicators of some of the biggest names in conservative talk radio today are still, 15 years after Limbaugh's national debut, buying block airtime in the tightest major markets and working to bring in local sponsors in other markets.

The result of conservatives buying their way into our airwaves has been a conservative transformation in average Americans' political viewpoints. Soccer Moms and NASCAR Dads tune in to coast-to-coast, dawn-to-midnight conservative talk radio, and many have come to believe the right's slogans and myths.

Thus, traditional American values of community and compassion have been replaced with the conservative notions that greed is good and corporations can better administer a democracy than a freely elected government. A vast national right-wing echo chamber across the AM dial has propelled conservative Republican candidates into office, led us into two wars in two years, and succeeded in burying the high crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush administration while continuing to blame all things bad on Bill Clinton.

It's even created its own mythos about who will turn on a radio. They promote the idea - and some even believe it - that only conservatives are interested in listening to talk radio. It has nothing to do, they say, with the fact that nobody on the left has yet spent the money necessary to buy or sponsor market share in major cities for liberal hosts.

As an example of how extreme things have gotten, on October 3rd, I participated on a panel of nationally syndicated radio talk show hosts, sponsored by the industry publication Talker's Magazine, at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, DC. Talkers' publisher Michael Harrison introduced me to the crowd as the "lone liberal on the panel," and when Laura Ingram and I began debating, at least a dozen others in the room angrily yelled at me whenever I made a point.

It wasn't a conspiracy, but a simple fact of the past conservative investment in the broadcast industry that there were no other self-identified liberals in national syndication on the panel. Stations in small and medium-sized towns across the country have picked up liberal talk shows on a no-cash barter (free) basis, but no liberal shows have yet found the kind of investors willing to buy into a major market on the possibility of profits a year down the road (it takes about a year to solidify an audience base).

Further evidence of the economic past of talk radio is found in the Talkers Magazine's "Talk Radio Research Project," just released at the National Association of Broadcasters conference. The magazine's study shows that three times as many listeners identify themselves as Republicans or Libertarians, compared to the meager 12 percent who call themselves Democrats. Fox News Channel was the top primary news source among all talk radio listeners.

Conservatives have their spokespeople on the air in every nook and cranny of America, while liberals are much harder to find. Potential Democratic AM radio listeners, disgusted with the rants on the right, have tuned into music stations while they wait for somebody to realize they represent a vast, untapped market. So only conservatives are listening, although that doesn't mean for a moment only conservatives would listen to talk radio.

In the meantime, the conservative juggernaut feeding the media rolls on with increasing momentum.

After the Talkers' panel, I was given a tour of the Heritage Foundation, which has provided me with some excellent conservative thinkers to debate on my "liberal" radio program. I was shown the wall with pictures of Scaife and Coors, another wall engraved floor-to-ceiling with the names of conservative donors, the two radio studios, and what seemed like miles of dark wood, hushed carpets, leather-upholstered chairs, and subtly elegant meeting rooms. Demand from network news shows for conservative video clips has even reached such a point that Heritage is building out a TV set and studio.

Which brings us back to the answer to the debate question posed to Dick Gephardt about why Americans are drifting to the right.

It took several years and many millions for both conservative talk radio and Fox News to build enough of an audience to be self-sustaining and then profitable. Conservative investments in these media have now both yielded profits and also pushed American public opinion to the right with dizzying speed.

After all, the core of the conservative agenda is to transfer control of our government and our commons to big corporations; reduce taxes on the rich while squeezing the middle class; and strip labor of its power to organize while enhancing organized corporate power by supporting trade associations, Chambers of Commerce, political alliances, and monopolistic mergers. These are the mantras of conservative talk radio and Fox.

Trillions are at stake in this transformation of America from its founding ideal of government of, by, and for We, The People, into a neo-feudal state ruled by corporate-CEOs-turned-politicians and operated on the ancient but corrupt principle of crony capitalism and rule-by-the-rich.

To reverse our nation's slide toward single-party rule and the death of democracy will require nothing less than aggressive media efforts by those who still believe in the egalitarian, democratic ideals first articulated by our nation's Founders. Fortunately, we're now seeing the early stirrings of that: With the pivotal 2004 elections so close, the timing couldn't be better.

The United Auto Workers union has put money and resources into the i.e. America Radio Network, which syndicates liberal talk radio from coast to coast. Several other unions and Democratic candidates are waking up to the power of advertising on a philosophically aligned show, and supporting liberal talk programming on a local basis.

Following on i.e.'s successes, AnShell media, according to industry rumors, is on the verge of achieving funding goals to roll out America's second liberal radio network in January. Al Gore and Joel Hyatt are talking about a cable TV network to take on Fox News.

The Center For American Progress - a liberal version of Heritage - is already providing great information and research to reporters and commentators, and kicking off a national conference October 27/28. Billionaire George Soros is helping fund a political action group dedicated to revitalizing democracy.

And smaller, independent businesspeople are getting into the act. Socially conscious companies like The Organic Wine Company are sponsoring liberal talk radio shows. Two independent ventures have set up shop this fall to nationally syndicate the Randi Rhodes show and a new radio program by Marianne Williamson. Stations from coast to coast have now picked up liberal talk shows, and they're discovering large and active listenerships, often even beating the conservative competition.

Progressive business people and labor unions are learning from the success of conservative media that with a good business plan and a little patience it's possible to both advance your side's social/political goals and to reach customers and potential members. Working together with progressive talent, liberal activists, and progressive, democracy-oriented companies and unions, America's "new liberal media" just may succeed in the battle to wrest American back from the clutching fingers of the extremist conservatives who've held sway these past two decades.

We've watched them destroy our economy three times in the past forty years (the Nixon inflation, Reagan/Bush recession, and the new Bush debt crisis), drive our foreign policy into a series of questionable wars, and openly attack both our environment and our civil liberties. Like cold water on a sleeping face, conservative excesses are finally awakening Americans to the recollection that our nation's values have been fundamentally progressive since our Founding, that Al Gore got a half-million more votes than George W. Bush in the last presidential election, and that progressives/liberals are just as enthusiastic about rooting for their "team" as are conservatives. The larger half of America is finally finding its voice.

 

[cbi0090]

Right out of high school I worked on a bridge construction project over the Wabash River and witnessed two union workers get killed on two separate occasions within the same year. I've been in Florida for 30 years (non-union) and thankfully have not witnessed another fatality the entire time? What does it prove? Nothing. Much like your post.

Anyone with an ounce of self-determination about them does not like unions. It's not just the GOP.
Unions just aren't needed any more. Back when the government had no oversite ability they were needed because there were those who did take advantage of workers. The coal mine wars are a very specific example. But governmental regulation has evolved over the years that they just aren't needed.
They don't provide or assure benefits, training, etc. that they say they do for the workers anymore. They don't even represent the workers anymore, they are political power brokers with little oversite or transparency.
I watched a farmer's barn burn down one summer because he and his sons built it on his property over the protests of the carpenter's union. The man needed a barn but he couldn't afford to hire union carpenters, so he and his sons built it themselves. They waited till he was finished and burnt it down, then wouldn't let the unionized firemen put it out.
The fight is not between big corporations and unions, as they like to portray. Big corporations manage one way or another. The fight is between small business and unions. Small business employs far more people than big corporations do in this country. They are the backbone and the people who start, own and run them take far more risks than most can imagine. They do it to do something better, something different, something entirely new, because they see opportunity. People will not take risks without substantial opportunity setting on the other end.
Unions smother those who would otherwise take risks. They want control, so they stand between progress with absolutes, judged by people who have rarely worked or taken a risk once in their useless lives. I grew up in a union town and I know it, I saw it, I lived it, and ran away from it as quickly as I could.

Do you know that under Bush, coal miner owners were put in charge of regulating their own coal mines? And when they were found to not be following the rules, the fines were rediculously low.

AND, keep in mind the coal mines that collapsed last year were not union coal mines.

Those god damn regulations, costing the poor coal mine owners their precious profits. So a few miners die. What's the big deal, right?

Safetly costs too much!!!

 

[sealybobo]

Right out of high school I worked on a bridge construction project over the Wabash River and witnessed two union workers get killed on two separate occasions within the same year. I've been in Florida for 30 years (non-union) and thankfully have not witnessed another fatality the entire time? What does it prove? Nothing. Much like your post.

Anyone with an ounce of self-determination about them does not like unions. It's not just the GOP.
Unions just aren't needed any more. Back when the government had no oversite ability they were needed because there were those who did take advantage of workers. The coal mine wars are a very specific example. But governmental regulation has evolved over the years that they just aren't needed.
They don't provide or assure benefits, training, etc. that they say they do for the workers anymore. They don't even represent the workers anymore, they are political power brokers with little oversite or transparency.
I watched a farmer's barn burn down one summer because he and his sons built it on his property over the protests of the carpenter's union. The man needed a barn but he couldn't afford to hire union carpenters, so he and his sons built it themselves. They waited till he was finished and burnt it down, then wouldn't let the unionized firemen put it out.
The fight is not between big corporations and unions, as they like to portray. Big corporations manage one way or another. The fight is between small business and unions. Small business employs far more people than big corporations do in this country. They are the backbone and the people who start, own and run them take far more risks than most can imagine. They do it to do something better, something different, something entirely new, because they see opportunity. People will not take risks without substantial opportunity setting on the other end.
Unions smother those who would otherwise take risks. They want control, so they stand between progress with absolutes, judged by people who have rarely worked or taken a risk once in their useless lives. I grew up in a union town and I know it, I saw it, I lived it, and ran away from it as quickly as I could.

Do you know that under Bush, coal miner owners were put in charge of regulating their own coal mines? And when they were found to not be following the rules, the fines were rediculously low.

AND, keep in mind the coal mines that collapsed last year were not union coal mines.

Those god damn regulations, costing the poor coal mine owners their precious profits. So a few miners die. What's the big deal, right?

Safetly costs too much!!!

Let me get this straight. In the 90's, Coal mine owners had regulations in place to protect mine workers. Bush and Tom Delay hate all regulations that cost corporations money, so they deregulated everything.

They also rewrote the bankrupsy laws making it easier for corporations to go out of business, and get rid of all the pensions they promised, and stick the government to pick up the tab, which usually isn't as good as what the company promised. They would just sell their companies back and forth out of bankruptsy and keep their fortunes.

You people don't realize you were raped the last 8 years. That's ok. You are still in shock.

And they put coal mine owners in charge of handing out fines on each other when they don't keep their mines safe. And their fines are so small it is worth breaking the laws and paying the fines, rather than do the right thing.

But so not only did they break the coal miners union, and bring in illegal aliens to work the mines, they also didn't keep them safe, and a lot more people died in coal mines the last 8 years than before, because of deregulations.

But because they made more money from doing it this way, that's ok with you? Or you don't see the problem here? Or, do you not believe my story?

 

[Sinatra]

The Unions of today hurt American business - this has been the case for at least the past 30 years.

They have also crippled public education as well.

 

[sealybobo]

The Unions of today hurt American business - this has been the case for at least the past 30 years.

They have also crippled public education as well.

Corporate America and the Republicans have been trying to kill the unions for 30 years. All it took was a Republican government to make that dream a reality.

And notice they didn't stop there.

You guys don't just think "unions" are hurting American business, you think American workers in general are too expensive. Admit it. Admit you are only attacking the unions because they are the easiest to attack first. But you won't stop with them. You don't think any of us are worth what we make.

Funny the same people who think unions are hurting business but you don't bat an eye at CEO's that get a $20 million dollar bonus even when their company tanks.

Amazing $70 hr is too much to you but $20 million is "free market capitalism" at its finest.

I guarantee you are closer to $70 hr than you will ever be to making $1 million a year, let alone $20 mill.

But keep arguing for massa. You be a good house slave.

 

[cbi0090]

Right out of high school I worked on a bridge construction project over the Wabash River and witnessed two union workers get killed on two separate occasions within the same year. I've been in Florida for 30 years (non-union) and thankfully have not witnessed another fatality the entire time? What does it prove? Nothing. Much like your post.

Do you know that under Bush, coal miner owners were put in charge of regulating their own coal mines? And when they were found to not be following the rules, the fines were rediculously low.

AND, keep in mind the coal mines that collapsed last year were not union coal mines.

Those god damn regulations, costing the poor coal mine owners their precious profits. So a few miners die. What's the big deal, right?

Safetly costs too much!!!

Let me get this straight. In the 90's, Coal mine owners had regulations in place to protect mine workers. Bush and Tom Delay hate all regulations that cost corporations money, so they deregulated everything.

They also rewrote the bankrupsy laws making it easier for corporations to go out of business, and get rid of all the pensions they promised, and stick the government to pick up the tab, which usually isn't as good as what the company promised. They would just sell their companies back and forth out of bankruptsy and keep their fortunes.

You people don't realize you were raped the last 8 years. That's ok. You are still in shock.

And they put coal mine owners in charge of handing out fines on each other when they don't keep their mines safe. And their fines are so small it is worth breaking the laws and paying the fines, rather than do the right thing.

But so not only did they break the coal miners union, and bring in illegal aliens to work the mines, they also didn't keep them safe, and a lot more people died in coal mines the last 8 years than before, because of deregulations.

But because they made more money from doing it this way, that's ok with you? Or you don't see the problem here? Or, do you not believe my story?

Business owners in general don't like people, like the government or anyone else for that matter, coming in and telling them what to do. It's human nature, none of us like it. It's particularly problematic when those who are trying to tell you what to do don't have a clue about what they are saying or doing. If you've ever worked with a government regulator of any kind you'll know just exactly what I'm saying. They generally operate strictly from a CYA perspective although the whole time they'll tell you they are working "for the people". It's B.S.!!
Consequently, they do cost a company a lot of money and the companies want to get rid of them. It would help if these people weren't so incompetent, but they are. It's terrible, and I can give you countless examples, but they're government workers! They have no idea what it means to go out and create value or jobs.
Now, I don't know how many safety audits you've gone through but no one passes one unscathed. There is always something and it's usually minor but can always be argued to be major if a lawyer gets their hands on it, so the minor fines were probably just for minot things.
Now as for all the money the coal mines make. Who owns the coal mines? Is it some big fat cat or a some golf club house full of big wigs? No, it's the retirement pension funds for your teachers, police officers, firemen, etc. or your mutual fund. And why do you think they want to make more money? Maybe to meet their obligations to their shareholders, maybe for research and development so they can continue.
It's so easy and simplistic to sit back and point fingers like if someone's making money its a bad thing. It's not, it's what makes the world turn.

 

[sealybobo]

Right out of high school I worked on a bridge construction project over the Wabash River and witnessed two union workers get killed on two separate occasions within the same year. I've been in Florida for 30 years (non-union) and thankfully have not witnessed another fatality the entire time? What does it prove? Nothing. Much like your post.

Let me get this straight. In the 90's, Coal mine owners had regulations in place to protect mine workers. Bush and Tom Delay hate all regulations that cost corporations money, so they deregulated everything.

They also rewrote the bankrupsy laws making it easier for corporations to go out of business, and get rid of all the pensions they promised, and stick the government to pick up the tab, which usually isn't as good as what the company promised. They would just sell their companies back and forth out of bankruptsy and keep their fortunes.

You people don't realize you were raped the last 8 years. That's ok. You are still in shock.

And they put coal mine owners in charge of handing out fines on each other when they don't keep their mines safe. And their fines are so small it is worth breaking the laws and paying the fines, rather than do the right thing.

But so not only did they break the coal miners union, and bring in illegal aliens to work the mines, they also didn't keep them safe, and a lot more people died in coal mines the last 8 years than before, because of deregulations.

But because they made more money from doing it this way, that's ok with you? Or you don't see the problem here? Or, do you not believe my story?

Business owners in general don't like people, like the government or anyone else for that matter, coming in and telling them what to do. It's human nature, none of us like it. It's particularly problematic when those who are trying to tell you what to do don't have a clue about what they are saying or doing. If you've ever worked with a government regulator of any kind you'll know just exactly what I'm saying. They generally operate strictly from a CYA perspective although the whole time they'll tell you they are working "for the people". It's B.S.!!
Consequently, they do cost a company a lot of money and the companies want to get rid of them. It would help if these people weren't so incompetent, but they are. It's terrible, and I can give you countless examples, but they're government workers! They have no idea what it means to go out and create value or jobs.
Now, I don't know how many safety audits you've gone through but no one passes one unscathed. There is always something and it's usually minor but can always be argued to be major if a lawyer gets their hands on it, so the minor fines were probably just for minot things.
Now as for all the money the coal mines make. Who owns the coal mines? Is it some big fat cat or a some golf club house full of big wigs? No, it's the retirement pension funds for your teachers, police officers, firemen, etc. or your mutual fund. And why do you think they want to make more money? Maybe to meet their obligations to their shareholders, maybe for research and development so they can continue.
It's so easy and simplistic to sit back and point fingers like if someone's making money its a bad thing. It's not, it's what makes the world turn.

At the end of the day, it boils down to this. Do you want to go with a few too many regulations (democrats) or a few too few (republicans)

As a liberal, I choose to err on the side of caution.

But I am glad to get your honest feedback on where the company is coming from.

PS. I have no doubt that government officials the last 8 years were morons. Bush appointed them all.

If you are old enough to be referring to Clinton regulators, I have no reason to doubt you when you say they were morons.

But that doesn't means we don't need regulations. Just better regulators.

 

[KittenKoder]

Here is the biggest reason why regulations hurt the poor and middle class. It raises the costs to start up a company by requiring licenses which cost a fortune and a lot of time (during which no profits are gained) for inspections before even starting. This has actually allowed fewer companies to start up, and making it impossible for the poor and middle Americans to start up companies at all (even if you are capable of getting the licenses you still have to grease a few palms to get it moving). Even then, with even a bit of corruption it is possible for a wealthier owner to force you out of business or even stop you from getting started just to eliminate the competition. So, those who want more regulations also need to realize that because of these regulations there are more monopolies (which is something these same people always whine about). For instance, Microsoft has recently been accused of being a monopoly ... well ... if it was easier to start up a company this would not be the case at all, so the same people complaining are to blame for them becoming one of the last few remaining software companies.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Let me get this straight. In the 90's, Coal mine owners had regulations in place to protect mine workers. Bush and Tom Delay hate all regulations that cost corporations money, so they deregulated everything.

They also rewrote the bankrupsy laws making it easier for corporations to go out of business, and get rid of all the pensions they promised, and stick the government to pick up the tab, which usually isn't as good as what the company promised. They would just sell their companies back and forth out of bankruptsy and keep their fortunes.

You people don't realize you were raped the last 8 years. That's ok. You are still in shock.

And they put coal mine owners in charge of handing out fines on each other when they don't keep their mines safe. And their fines are so small it is worth breaking the laws and paying the fines, rather than do the right thing.

But so not only did they break the coal miners union, and bring in illegal aliens to work the mines, they also didn't keep them safe, and a lot more people died in coal mines the last 8 years than before, because of deregulations.

But because they made more money from doing it this way, that's ok with you? Or you don't see the problem here? Or, do you not believe my story?

Business owners in general don't like people, like the government or anyone else for that matter, coming in and telling them what to do. It's human nature, none of us like it. It's particularly problematic when those who are trying to tell you what to do don't have a clue about what they are saying or doing. If you've ever worked with a government regulator of any kind you'll know just exactly what I'm saying. They generally operate strictly from a CYA perspective although the whole time they'll tell you they are working "for the people". It's B.S.!!
Consequently, they do cost a company a lot of money and the companies want to get rid of them. It would help if these people weren't so incompetent, but they are. It's terrible, and I can give you countless examples, but they're government workers! They have no idea what it means to go out and create value or jobs.
Now, I don't know how many safety audits you've gone through but no one passes one unscathed. There is always something and it's usually minor but can always be argued to be major if a lawyer gets their hands on it, so the minor fines were probably just for minot things.
Now as for all the money the coal mines make. Who owns the coal mines? Is it some big fat cat or a some golf club house full of big wigs? No, it's the retirement pension funds for your teachers, police officers, firemen, etc. or your mutual fund. And why do you think they want to make more money? Maybe to meet their obligations to their shareholders, maybe for research and development so they can continue.
It's so easy and simplistic to sit back and point fingers like if someone's making money its a bad thing. It's not, it's what makes the world turn.

At the end of the day, it boils down to this. Do you want to go with a few too many regulations (democrats) or a few too few (republicans)

As a liberal, I choose to err on the side of caution.

But I am glad to get your honest feedback on where the company is coming from.

PS. I have no doubt that government officials the last 8 years were morons. Bush appointed them all.

If you are old enough to be referring to Clinton regulators, I have no reason to doubt you when you say they were morons.

But that doesn't means we don't need regulations. Just better regulators.

Sealy the bureaucracy is not appointed. It continues from one administration to the next. I can assure you the same people are here now that were here when Clinton was here and when Bush was here. What cbi says is true. You see it when you are trying to hire people. It's like we have two economies here, the government economy and the private sector economy. You don't hire workers from one to the other. People in the private sector only go to a government job to "retire in place". You can pretty much just hang out and not do too much and pull a pay check. You do need to do plenty of CYA though. There are always wars going on office politics because nobody is actually working.

You do realize your "caution" could strangle the goose that laid the golden egg right? Once it's dead there will not be any bringing it back.