A few weeks ago Chrysler declared bankruptcy.  Under normal circumstances the bankruptcy law of this nation would have been upheld and the assets of Chrysler would have been sold off and all proceeds would have been allocated to the bond holders (debt holders) until their principal investment was completely repaid.  After the bond holders’ secured claims (secured by the assets of the company) were repaid, the remaining proceeds from the sale of Chrysler’s assets would trickle down to the unsecured claims and eventually to the equity holders.

Everyone entered into their contracts with this vision of a bankruptcy in mind.  This is how bankruptcy has been handled in this nation for decades.  Every bond holder, union, and equity holder was expected to understand that in the case of liquidation (bankruptcy) secured lenders (bond holders) are paid in full first.  However, when the Chrysler bankruptcy came down the line President Obama and other members of his Administration decided that this was simply not good enough.  They decided that the Bankruptcy Code in the United States was not valid and that contract law was not valid.

After Chrysler declared bankruptcy the Obama Administration set into motion its own vision of how the restructuring and liquidation would work.  Instead of Chrysler’s assets being sold off and having the proceeds go directly to the secured lenders, the Obama Administration decided it had a place in the bankruptcy courts and forced the secured lenders to take a dramatic discount on their debt and rescinded their right to liquidate Chrysler’s assets in order to be repaid.  Instead, the Obama Administration decided that the United Auto Workers Union, an unsecured lender and therefore second in line to the secured lenders in the case of bankruptcy, would receive a 55% stake in all of Chrysler’s assets as well as a $4.5 billion note from the Chrysler company that would emerge from this mess.  Moreover, the Administration granted an 8% ownership stake to the unsecured United States and a 2% stake to Canada.  The remaining 35% stake in the assets would be sold to Fiat, an Italian automobile manufacturer (ironic since the entire goal, according to the Obama Administration, is to help American industry).

The only legitimate part this disarray is that the company’s assets would be sold to Fiat.  In a normal bankruptcy proceeding there is a strong chance that all of the assets would be sold to one company, or group of companies, and normal business operations would continue.  Not wanting to risk this, and — more importantly — not wanting to upset the unions, the Obama Administration broke the law of the United States and has shown clearly that the Executive Branch has adopted complete, autonomous control.  That was, however, until Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stepped in yesterday and put a hold on the deal.  This injunction will allow the Supreme Court time to decide if it will hear an Appeal from Indiana Pension companies regarding the restructuring of Chrysler.

My politics and my idea of justice are not always perfectly aligned with Justice Ginsburg, but in this case she is a holy saint.  Always wanting to help out the common man, Justice Ginsburg has realized that the ones that are truly hurt in this are the people that hold Chrysler debt in their retirement funds and other investment vehicles.  Those people include teachers, firemen, policemen and many other middle-class, hard-working individuals.  In this whole mess designed to coddle the United Autoworkers Union (UAW), many people in a far worse financial situation than auto-workers are being told that the money they have lent Chrysler is no good and that the Obama Administration will decide how much of a discount they will take on their debt.  All the while the Obama Administration bows down and kisses the feet of the UAW offering them a majority stake and a huge note.

The course of action taken by the Executive Branch regarding the Chrysler bankruptcy should not go unnoticed.  The laws of the United States – the very laws that have kept our nation’s order for decades – have been disregarded and, instead, a few people have again determined that they are above the law and are more able to decide what is best for each of us than we are able to decide ourselves.  Justice Ginsburg has stepped in to at least temporarily delay this Administration’s attempt to be rid of contract law and bankruptcy law and I applaud her for it.

Sources: The Wall Street Journal 06/09/2009

Just when you thought the arrogance of Congressmen couldn’t get any worse, Alan Grayson (D-FL) is going to introduce a bill to require that employers with more than 100 employees give their employees 1 week of paid vacation time.

According to Erika Lovely of Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22794.html), Rep. Grayson had this revelation that the government should mandate vacation pay while he, himself, was on vacation at Disney World. I understand that he thinks this would be stimulative. His line of thinking probably went like this: “Look at this sea of people. You know how we could really stimulate the economy – especially here in Florida – we should just pay all these people for the time they’re spending here.” OK, it probably didn’t go quite like that, but I just can’t resist poking fun at someone who is arrogant enough to think he should tell all companies how to run their businesses.

The argument actually is something more like this: Rep. Grayson reportedly claims that people would be more productive if they had more time off. Apparently, companies are too stupid to figure this out for themselves, and need the likes of Rep. Grayson to force them to make their employees more productive. Now, I’m going to grant Rep. Grayson credit where credit is due: He started IDT Corp. and has been a successful businessman in the private sector. So, at least he’s actually held a job that didn’t involve telling other people how to live their lives. However, that doesn’t make his bill any less arrogant.

Why does the government need to tell companies to offer vacation pay? If Rep. Grayson, or anyone else, truly believes that companies offering paid vacation time have more productive employees, here’s a few ideas: 1) start a company and offer paid vacation; 2) start a fund and invest in only companies that offer broad-based paid vacation plans to employees; 3) invest privately in public companies that offer broad-based paid vacation plans to employees; 4) give what is known as “angel money” to start-up companies offering paid vacation; 5) start a private equity fund investing in start-up companies offering paid vacation.

If paid vacation really makes employees more productive, then the market has ways to ensure that paid vacation finds its way into more companies. After all, if paid vacation really makes employees more productive, then companies with paid vacation will sweep the floor with companies that don’t offer paid vacation, and those companies will have to adapt in order to compete and stay in business.

Rep. Grayson would do far more good taking his profits from starting IDT (with annual revenue in excess of $2 billion) and investing in companies offering paid vacation, or using his influence in the numerous companies in which he has significant ownership to force them to offer paid vacation. That way, if he’s right, he’ll make even more money, but, if he’s wrong, he’ll lose his own money instead of forcing all investors to try his experiment with their money.

That’s the American way to do things: go out into the world and kick everyone else’s butt by being better, and change the world when your competitors try to imitate you. Did the government have to tell car companies to use a production line? No! Henry Ford went out into the world and just obliterated his competitors by making cars available to more people using a production line. Henry Ford made cars faster and cheaper, and he built a company that traditional car makers of the day simply couldn’t keep up with – Ford dominated the car market by making cheap cars. His competitors (and soon companies in other industries) copied his mass production process using an assembly line – something that is, today, used around the world. This is how Americans change the world: not through legislation.

Unlike Chrysler and General Motors, Ford Motor Company did not accept billions of dollars in bailout money from the Federal Government.  As a result, Ford has maintained a far better perception in the market than its domestic competitors.  People seem more willing to purchase a vehicle from a company that did not take the consumer’s hard-earned tax dollars than they are to essentially pay twice for a vehicle from Chrysler or GM.  Furthermore, by not accepting Federal aid, Ford has shown the market that the vehicles it produces are viable and worth their sticker price.  Most importantly, Ford has shown a commitment to the people of this nation and shown that it will not bow down and essentially steal out of the pockets of American citizens.  Concern for the welfare of customers and the nation always bodes well for a company.

Despite all the good that has come from Ford being a responsible corporation and not accepting bailout money, the fact that the United States Government has bailed out and essentially nationalized Chrysler and GM has put Ford into a precarious position.  In the past Ford only had to worry about competing with private companies with private balance sheets (I use private here to denote that governments have no involvement).  However, now that Chrysler and GM are owned by the United States, Ford has to compete with the financial abilities of a nation that can print money at its own leisure.  This is a problem for Ford because their financing arm, Ford Credit, will have a tough time competing with the United States Treasury.  As such, Chrysler and GM will be able to offer financing for their vehicles at ridiculously low rates that will be subsidized by the American people.  Ford, on the other hand, will have to raise money in the markets and will be unable to compete with the rates offered by the United States because Ford cannot print money.  Naturally, Ford has seen this as a serious disadvantage and has been forced to plead with the Federal Government to play by the rules and not create a government monopoly.

This is a perfect example of how monopolies are formed and how monopolies are only possible with government intervention.  Prior to the bailouts of Chrysler and GM nobody worried about a monopoly in the automobile manufacturing industry.  There was plenty of competition both domestically and from abroad.  However, the new Executive and Legislative representatives are going down a path that will likely lead to monopoly.  They have not been shy about supporting domestic automobile manufacturers and an increase on tariffs on imported vehicles seems likely if Chrysler and GM continue to falter.  Furthermore, now that they own pieces of both companies and are responsible for employing hundreds of thousands of people they will likely go to long measures to ensure each company’s survival.  This will likely include benefiting the companies through means which only the government can manage.  Ford has seen the stark reality that a monopoly is looming that would wreak havoc on the automobile industries and the American people should be aware of it as well.

We can hope that history records today as the start of the tax revolt of 2009 with the Vote Heard Around the World in San Francisco County.

For those of you who are unaware, today, May 19, 2009, the state of California held a special election with a bunch of propositions to increase fees and taxes in order to cover the state’s massive deficit, caused by out-of-control spending on behalf of the state government – Republicans and Democrats are all to blame for California’s huge budget mess.

Today, the citizens of California had a clear choice: Close the budget gap by enacting more fees and taxes, or close the budget gap by closing down government services. After all, Governor Schwarzenegger made it perfectly clear that the state was going to have to make serious cuts if these ballot propositions failed. One might make the argument that Californians also felt an option on the table was that if they didn’t fund it themselves, then the federal government would write them a check – but that is so despicable that I won’t even assume that the liberals out in CA would try to avoid paying taxes themselves, since they seem to think taxes for the rest of us are something we should be proud to pay.

Regardless of what motivated the voters to vote the way they did, I see glimmers of hope coming out of this election – true glimmers of hope, not the glimmers of hope Barrack Obama talks about in the economy. These are the glimmers of hope that show people are taking a stand – they have had enough, and they are saying “when.”

With 80.5 percent of the precincts reporting as of the time I write this, almost a full two-thirds of the people have voted against fees, taxes, and spending that will strap the backs of the citizens of California with so much weight that they will not be able to lift themselves out of the recession. (Note: This is important to the rest of us because CA’s economy is the 6th largest economy in the world – by itself! CA tanking is bad for us all.)

They voted no to the ridiculous propositions for the “Rainy Day” Budget Stabilization Fund, the Education Funding Payment Plan, the Lottery Modernization Act, the Children’s Services Funding, and the Mental Health Funding. All of these by more than 60%. And, to the proposition on whether or not elected officials salaries should be frozen, Californians voted approximately 75% that elected officials’ salaries should be frozen.

But we can’t count our chickens before they’re hatched. 19.8 percent of the votes still need to be counted. However, what struck me was not so much the total vote count as the count in one particular county.

San Francisco County, recognized around the nation, if not around the world, as one of the most liberal, if not THE most liberal, counties in the United States, with 100% of its votes counted, has voted against taxation (with the exception of education), and in favor of freezing the elected officials’ salaries.

I would have voted against all of the propositions to raise taxes, including education; however, if education is the one place where San Franciscans waivered, then I salute them. They voted against taxation (except for education) with “No” votes ranging from 53% to 58%. That is ASTOUNDING for this counting. Absolutely astounding, and a true glimmer of hope.

The education proposition passed 52 to 48, but in the liberal’s shining city by the bay, this is not a dramatic victory. After all, Barrack Obama received 84% of the vote only 6 short months ago.

Winning 52 to 48 is not really a victory when you consider how badly Barrack Obama beat John McCain in this county. The propositions that did fail with “No” votes ranging from 53 to 58% of the vote, however, should be hailed as the “vote heard around the world.”

No matter what the final statewide outcome, today was a fantastic day for America because of the results of the voting in San Francisco County.

Friedrich Hayek in The Road to Serfdom warned us that the road to fascism and serfdom is paved with liberal (note: “liberal” here in the classical sense of the word – of and pertaining to freedom) rhetoric, just as the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

According to Hayek, it was De Tocqueville who succinctly put that “while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” It was suspicions of socialism such as the ones expressed here by De Tocqueville which forced the rise of a new kind of socialism: “democratic socialism.” However, this socialism, according to Hayek, came wrapped in the language of freedom, and, in fact, promised a “new freedom.”

This new freedom was not “freedom” as we have come to understand it from the principles of the American Revolution: freedom from taxation without representation; freedom from a tyrannical government; freedom of the press; and any of the freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. No, it was not this type of freedom, but, instead, an “economic freedom.” In essence, it was a promise of freedom from the toils of everyday life that are required to put a roof over your head and food in your belly. Democratic socialism promised freedom from economic hardship.

These promises of freedom from economic hardship ultimately lead to harsh fascist rule, where a person’s true freedoms (i.e. the freedoms guaranteed to us, as Americans, in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights) came to an end in pursuit of bringing about economic freedom. As anyone who has been educated in even the historical events of the last one or two generations of Americans should know, the fascist rules brought about by these promises of freedom from economic hardship brought about no such thing. In fact, poverty among the common people in the Soviet Union ran rampant. The Soviets were unable to afford enough to cover even the very most basic human needs, and this has been shown to be a direct result of communism, which everyone agrees does not work.

In the 1980s, the United States ended what had become a full fledged war against communism under the leadership of President Ronald Reagan, who, as Margaret Thatcher said, “…ended the Cold War without firing a shot.” Ronald Reagan took the reigns from Jimmy Carter, and quickly put an end to high taxation, government intervention, and the energy rationing of the 1970s which were thought to be a fact of American life that would exist into the foreseeable future.  Reaganomics, which, as Reagan once humorously pointed out, the media stopped using as a moniker the program once it started working, was responsible for the tremendous growth in the United States throughout the 80s, and for igniting anew the flame of passion for individualism, freedom, and a nationalism rooted in pride for the principles of individualism and freedom in the United States.

Now, less than a generation later, we are again facing the battle of collectivism versus individualism, and the collectivists are represented by a revered man who speaks with great eloquence: Barrack Obama. Barrack Obama, much in the way that collectivists before him took control of liberal (note: again, classical liberal) economies throughout the world, has wrapped his package of socialism in the rhetoric of freedom.

On May 23, 2008, Barrack Obama said this on the campaign trail:

“What all of us strive for is freedom as FDR described it. Political freedom. Religious freedom. But also freedom from want, and freedom from fear.”

“Freedom from want” is precisely the kind of perversion of freedom that was used in the past to bring collectivism into individualistic societies – the collectivism that destroyed the true freedoms of the people who inhabited those societies.

On May 13, 2009, speaking to ASU graduates at Sun Devil Stadium, President Barrack Obama exposed his socialism for the world, if they were listening:

“In the face of these challenges, it may be tempting to fall back on the formulas for success that have dominated these recent years. Many of you have been taught to chase after the usual brass rings: being on this “who’s who” list or that top 100 list; how much money you make and how big your corner office is; whether you have a fancy enough title or a nice enough car.”

…

“The leaders we revere, the businesses that last – they are not the result of narrow pursuit of popularity or personal advancement, but of devotion to some bigger purpose….”

Later in his speech, Obama talks about setbacks and how we shouldn’t let setbacks stop us. After all, he points out, “look to history…. Colonel Sanders didn’t open up his first Kentucky Fried Chicken until he was in his sixties.”

There is no question about what Obama is saying here: forget about your own success, at least in the terms of success as a capitalist society like the United States would define success, and instead devote yourself to a “bigger purpose” or common good. He would prefer that people are devoted to the collective US population above themselves. This, by definition, is collectivism.

And what “great purpose” was Colonel Sanders after? Did he want to make sure everyone in America got to have some of his fried chicken? Did Sanders sell his chicken at cost, or even at a loss to help those in need? No. Colonel Sanders started KFC because he wanted to make money. He was chasing one of the “usual brass rings.” And he was successful. Rumor has it that KFC – after nothing more than profit – has lasted. Obama’s own example refutes his point.

This, my friends, is the face of socialism. Friendly and magnanimous as this face of socialism may seem, the belly of socialism would like nothing more than for this face of socialism to take you into its mouth, grind you up (stripping you of your freedom) and consume you in its bile.

It is said that “those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.” I, for one, do not want to be sitting in one of the gas lines of the 1970s, and don’t want to be ruled by a fascist government like we have seen around the world after this family-friendly face of socialism has reared its ugly head.

Beware of what is to come. Socialism may sound appealing, but we know where it ends.

“WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has begun serious talks about how it can change compensation practices across the financial-services industry, including at companies that did not receive federal bailout money, according to people familiar with the matter.”

“At the same time, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D., Mass.) is working on legislation that could strengthen the government’s ability both to monitor compensation and to curb incentives that threaten a company’s viability or pose a systemic risk to the economy.”

-Wall Street Journal 05/13/09

The United States has nationalized investment banks, traditional banks, the nation’s largest insurance company, and automotive companies.  The United States has fired executives and decided who shall and shall not receive bonuses at these companies.  Now, the United States is trying to decide how and how much people in companies that have not been nationalized deserve to be paid.

President Obama and Congressman Frank would have you believe that they know which pay structure is best.  They would have you believe that they are more informed than these financial firms or the numerous compensation consulting groups they hire to determine which means of compensation will return the greatest production.  The members of our government would have you believe that they simply know more than you, and that you should, therefore, yield all decision making to them.

Well, I say that they are wrong.  I say that few things could do more to “threaten a company’s viability or pose a systematic risk to the economy” than the United States Government deciding how much and through which means people are to be paid.