DON’T ENABLE

DESTRUCTION
Tamara Powell | February, 2009 | Op-Ed

Rumors have circulated that the White House and Congressional leaders will be
announcing a deal that will be “rescuing” the automakers in Detroit. As President Murphy said
in his press conference, “the auto industry in Detroit is American as apple pie and baseball.” In
a twist of fate, that same American entity has found itself on the bitter end of an economic
collapse of proportions not seen since the Great Depression. At the other end of the spectrum,
the financial decisions, the long list of errors, and the inability to compete with foreign
competitors simply cannot be ignored or pushed under the rug. Automakers don’t need a
check or a loan, they need fundamentally changed and turned around from the bottom to the
top.

The auto industry has been marred by bad deals, especially in their labor agreements. If Detroit
wants to make a comeback, the automakers need to first look at these agreements and strike
new ones with the UAW. Retirement benefits must be reduced and capped, so automakers are
not footing the bill for unobtainable and unrealistic goals, which has only proven will lead to
 bankruptcy and massive layoffs, ensuring the workers on the other end of those agreements
will never be able to see retirement with the big three.

In its current state, automakers are putting less money into their cars and products and more
money into the workforce — unable to compete with foreign automakers in their design and
functionality, making their product seem inferior. If that continues unchecked, any assistance
from the government wouldn’t matter in the long run, it would only delay what would be
another inevitable filing of
bankruptcy. And with it would go
any trust in the governments
ability to manage taxpayer money.
If automakers want any hope of
turning their business around, it’s
high time to look in the mirror to
see what got them in this mess to
begin with.

There must be a shift in the union

culture, so as to allow automakers
to compete with foreign
competitors, who have far more
ability to make necessary
changes and shifts in order to
keep their cars quality, while also
maintaining a strong workforce. It
is a no brainer that Detroit
“Washington cannot automakers will need to
completely change
enable destruction
their leadership.
of industry through Washington cannot
self-inflicted enable destruction of
wounds.” industry through
self-inflicted wounds
of corporate leaders
who failed on every
front.

Washington can assist automakers by

investing further in energy, driving costs
down for manufacturing, boosting
middle-class income by lowering taxes,
and ending costly regulations which put
our automakers at a disadvantage to
begin with — but giving investors and
shareholders that everything that occurred is just fine, by offering condition-free loans from the
government, will be a catastrophic mistake that will send ripples through the economy for
decades to come, with unforeseen consequences that many will act shocked by, but even the
newest economist could’ve predicted.

There must be accountability. There must be restructuring. There must be a top to bottom reset
of the auto industry — not a blank check which serves no purpose but to put government
money in the hands of bad management and bad investors. The answer is a managed
bankruptcy, assisted by the federal government, to completely change the auto industry as we
know it — while ensuring those at fault are held accountable for their actions which got us into
this mess in the first place.

 The Liability
Unapologetically, Linda Chavez-Thompson Becomes Radioactive

Simon Jackson | February 2009 | Feature Story

The nomination of Linda Chavez-Thompson stirred up the Republican Party as

soon as it was announced. The second-generation Mexican American has been an
unapologetic partisan, serving as Vice President of the AFL-CIO since 1995, and she is
a well-known entity in Democratic politics. She has served as Vice Chairwoman of the
DNC, as well as serving on the inauguration committee of former President Bill Clinton
after his successful reelection in 1996. In that time period, she has been outspoken of
her support for unions, support for amnesty, and her unapologetic views that the
wealthy have caused the ills of the economy.

It is, without doubt, the President’s prerogative who should serve in his cabinet and
that has been a longstanding precedent in the United States Senate. But, with her
partisan past, it was Mrs. Chavez-Thompson’s most recent comments — in her
confirmation hearing — that many analysts and pundits have agreed made her a
liability to Democrats wanting to confirm her. The main point of contention has been
due to the radioactive nature of her views on immigration. During the hearing, Senator
Ari Goodman (R-NE) asked Mrs. Thompson to clarify her views on immigration, and
whether or not she truly believed illegal aliens should receive the same benefits (food
stamps, TANF, social security, etc.) that American’s receive. She doubled down in that
moment. “As I previously stated and has been my consistent position on the issue, I
believe every worker in this country should be treated equally no matter their
immigration status,” she stated in the hearing, with Republican Senator’s notably taken
aback by her comments. Not only does Mrs. Chavez-Thompson believe that illegal
aliens should receive the same benefits as American workers, she believes they should
be granted full amnesty, with no penalties for crossing the border illegally. This blatant
disregard of American laws have caused Republican lawmakers to staunchly oppose
the nomination of Chavez-Thompson, taking to the press to note their concern. It has
been a barrage of opposition, with Senate Minority Whip Thomas McDowell even
giving Chavez-Thompson the nickname ‘Lousy Linda.’

The White House struck back at the comments, with the President himself taking to the
press room — in the middle of an economic crisis — to address the criticisms and
defend the record of his nominee. “There is nothing controversial at all about her
remarks,” President Joseph Murphy declared in the White House Press Room, noting
that she is "far from the only person nominated who backs a legal pathway to
citizenship for undocumented immigrants.” Saying that total amnesty for illegal
immigrants isn’t controversial is, in itself, dishonest.

Just took a look at the facts. A November, 2008 Zogby poll showed only 21% of
American’s supported ‘legalizing or creating a pathway to citizenship’ for illegal aliens
in the United States. [1] It further showed 57% of American’s, a clear majority, believed
that amnesty for illegal aliens would harm workers and further strain public resources
— the very resources Mrs. Chavez-Thompson supports giving them access to. The
fact that President Murphy calls these comments completely non-controversial paints
him as out of touch and unable to see the concerns of the American people, especially
with the backdrop of more and more American jobs being shed every single day. In
fact, pointing to illegal alien laborers as being like all other immigrants is a slap in the
face to the men and women who went through the process of coming here legally,
committed to doing it the right and legal way.

The political consequences are unforeseen, but it seems as though Democrats have
yet to think about the possible consequences of voting for a nominee with such beliefs
— possibly tying themselves to her and her views in the process. Various members of
the Senate Democratic Caucus hail from states which are surely more stark in their
opposition to full amnesty for illegal aliens than that Zogby poll shows. Even members
of Democratic leadership will have tough decisions to make; notably President Pro-
tempore and Senator Christopher Ross (D-AR) along with Senate Minority Whip
Chandler Briighton (D-MO), both from states which Mitt Romney would win easily in
2008.

Former Democratic operative and Bally Magazine contributor Alexander Freeman put it
uniquely. “Voting for a nominee who unapologetically advocates for illegal aliens to
receive benefits, paid for by taxpayer dollars, as American’s lose their jobs and their
homes, is perhaps one of the most inane political moves I’ve witnessed in my career,”
 he told me. He further
elaborated, saying it puts
“unneeded pressure and
eyeballs on potentially vulnerable
incumbents in 2010.”

Back home, these Democrats

will have the unenviable job of
President Murphy has said there is “nothing controversial”
explaining to constituents why
about the views of Linda Chavez-Thompson.
they would vote for a nominee to run the
Labor Department who believes illegal
aliens should receive government benefits
on their dime, as they themselves struggle to feed their families. They’ll have to explain
why the President is so dismissive in their very real concerns about illegal aliens putting
a strain on government benefit systems, as Washington eyes high price-tagged
bailouts of failing industries. The onus, especially, will be on vulnerable incumbents
seeking reelection who are banking on the success of President Murphy in these
tumultuous times. Yet, in the same breath, he’s putting them in a tough position to
succeed.

Indeed, it will be interesting to see how Democrats

now navigate the mine-field that has been laid
before them. Thus far, it remains unclear how the
final vote will look, as members from both sides of
the aisle have kept their cards close to their chest
on current nominees up for a vote. The President
himself seems steadfast in his dedication to
ensuring the original cabinet drawn up by him and
members of his staff stays in tact, willing to go toe
to toe with members of Republican leadership to
ensure they receive a vote before the Democratic
Majority in the Senate, who could likely bend
Senate rules to ensure their passage — though, in
the process, possibly straining the
relationship with Republican members of Chavez-Thompson has been unapologetic about her views
Congress, who will be needed in order to on providing complete amnesty for illegal aliens.
pass anything substantial to help the
economy.

The first real partisan fight of the 111th Congress comes down to the comments of one
woman; Linda Chavez-Thompson. And whether or not the 65-year old labor advocate
will be able to get through the mud, and land her job as Secretary of Labor, will likely
be dependent on Democratic members hinging their bets on a new President just
getting his feet wet in the toughest job in the world. Roll the dice and hope it isn’t a 7.

 One-on-One with Senate Minority Whip Thomas McDowell
Thomas J. McDowell
Senator Thomas J. McDowell is
the new Republican Senate
Minority Whip.
• Republican Senator of Florida,
first elected in 2005
• Former Energy Executive in
Florida for seven years
• Heavily involved in Republican
politics throughout career
Senator Thomas J. McDowell is a
known conservative with a fire-
brand way of thinking. He has
served in various positions in the
Republican Party and prominent
Republican campaigns, notably
as the Deputy Campaign
Manager of former President
George W. Bush.
McDowell was considered to be
the running-mate of Mitt Romney
in 2008, but quickly declined any
desire for the position.
Initially eyeing a run for Governor,
McDowell was encouraged by
fellow Republicans to run for
Senate after the retirement of
longtime Senator Bob Graham.
Q: Right now one of the biggest questions running
through the mind of every American is what is going to
happen with the financial crisis, how Congress will respond.
From what you've seen, the economic devastation, how
should Congress respond?
 
A: Well, it’s straightforward how we need to respond. Right
now, we need to focus not on big car companies, but on
average, working class Americans. We need to focus on small
businesses and families. How do we do that? Now I know
taxes aren’t a fi x for everything, but the way we can stop this
process, and really catch the bullet for the groups that are
gonna get hit by it, is by helping those groups I just stated.
For families, we need tax credits and cuts, not raises. We
need the exact same for our small business, and my
colleagues who think other, with all due respect for them, I
think if they don’t support tax cuts for our small businesses,
they lean on the side of insanity.
I mean, in a global financial crisis, we need our small
businesses, especially when even in normal circumstances,
something like what, 50%, don’t make it past the first year?
Let’s get a tax plan up that puts more cash in their hands, so
they can keep their employees and keep maintenance costs
manageable. Elsewhere, we need to male sure the big banks
that got us in the crap storm we are in now can’t do it again. For other big companies,
I don’t support huge bailouts, but in order to protect our workers, we may need to
throw out a tiny lifeline, but only after we get enough money in a plan for our workers
and families.

Q: You've been championing the American

Energy Independence Act, a bill that would ease
regulations on fossil fuels and open more leasing
to federal land. President Murphy has been
historically in opposition to the use of fossil fuels.
He's called for a move toward renewable energy.
Do you believe Democrats have moved too far
radically in terms of their environmentalism and
how that might effect our economy? 

A: Being real, the problem with this

Administration is just that: in many crucial areas,
they can be very left-wing and radical. Why does
President Murphy have to kneecap dozens of
energy related businesses to ride his high,
distorted moral horse? Know, yes, I think we can
do a better job protecting our environment, but
I’m not supporting a plan that gives the American
energy workers a pink slip. Look, Karen, I’m a
former energy guy myself. I ran an oil company for
ten years. I was there in 1992 when the Florida
Legislature, because of the millions being thrown
at them by big city Liberal elites, banned offshore
drilling. I was there for the horrifi c result that nearly
destroyed my company. And you can bet your behind I will not let something like that
happen nationally.

Q: According to a recent Gallup poll, a healthy majority of American's believe it is the

governments responsibility to ensure access to healthcare. Do you believe that? How
should the government address the number of uninsured American's across the
country?

A: Well, we could do better with healthcare in this country, but I do not think we can
afford some big, European scale or style of healthcare. It’s just not going to happen in
this country. However, I think our government, especially our state governments, have
a responsibility to better their healthcare systems. Concerning a healthcare plan, I
approve and support John McCain’s proposed plan. Now, if you recall, that was a plan
that was more centered on families, as well as making health care more affordable &
lowering costs, yet offering a ton of assistance by the federal governments to our
state governments.

Q: You probably saw the tragic retirement

home shooting that occurred in North Carolina.
Eight were killed. The gunmen was taken into
custody. A lot of the left has been calling for
new second amendment restrictions. They've
been blaming the NRA for the woes of the
countries gun problem. How do you view the
issue of gun violence and how should the
government try and bring the number of gun
deaths down? 

A: Well, I’m not going to beat around the bush

before this interview get’s out and Democrats
attack me; I’m a proud NRA ally. I’ve taken
money from them in my 2004 Senate campaign,
and the were instrumental for my victory. The
NRA is one of the most dedicated, effort-full
organizations in this nation in fi ghting for the
rights of our citizens in defending their gun
rights. For the woman in an ally who has a piece
in her purse so she doesn’t get mugged or
worse, the NRA is a life saver. Now, what happened in North Carolina was a terrible
tragedy, and I hope the gunman gets the death penalty. But this issue is not on the
NRA. There is no blood on their hands. People kill people, not guns. Let’s make it
harder for people who have mental health problems, or criminal histories, even minor
ones, or just people with a shady background or reason for owning  a gun at all, to
purchase a weapon. It’s time Democrats stop painting all of us gun owners as a bunch
of mass murderers.

Q: We know that all American troops are supposed to be out of Iraq by 2011.
President Murphy has confi rmed his commitment to that goal, initially set by
President George W. Bush. In many areas of Iraq, violence remains prevalent. Terrorist
activity is still very real in the country. How likely do you believe it is that the plan for a
complete withdrawal by 2011 happens and do you believe it is the best strategy? 

A: Well, I’m a former Marine. I served in the Shaba II confl ict in the mid 70s. And let
me tell you, I know what happens when we rush out of a nation without a plan. I
respect President Murphy, don’t get me wrong. But this “2011” plan is so green
behind the years, so impossible, really so dangerous for the entire region, it’s hard not
to shake your head at. Do I want to leave Iraq? Of course! Do I want our nation’s sons
and daughters home? Of course. But I will not support any plan that leaves
prematurely. Let’s eradicate all insurgent forces in that region. Let’s prevent a power
vacuum, so we can prevent groups even worse than currents ones from taking force.
And let’s set up a governmental system, one that is sustainable and stable. And then
we can leave. Could that be 2012, 2014, even? Yes. But these situations aren’t “Oh, it’ll
just take a few months” type situations. No, these are decades long problems, and will
take a couple of years to truly fi x.

Q: You recently signed The McAllister Institute Tax Rejection Pledge. A lot of people
are concerned with the possibility of a huge jump in spending with the goal being to
stimulate the economy -- that is the direction President Murphy has said he intends to
go, 'boost investments' as he called it. Are you concerned with the possibility of
ballooning the defi cit and do you believe it is likely Democrats will talk about
increasing taxes to pay for it? Do you believe Republicans will be able to stop them if
they do? 
 
A: Well, if he tries to raise taxes, I’m happy we have the house of Representatives,
because every attempt to raise taxes will be killed. And you’re right, I signed the
McAllister pledge, and I’m proud to. Y’know, 20 years ago, President bush said that
infamous line at the ‘88 GOP Convention. Unfortunately, he misled voters, because he
eventually would. But trust me, and read my lips: I will not vote for a single plan
increasing taxes on Floridians, or any Americans on that matter. But going back to
your main question, it’s concerning that the President wants to adopt his big city
Liberal, tax and spend plan. Y’know, I’m sure that worked in Denver, or whatever Blue
Mecca he lives in in Colorado, but it ain’t gonna work in Millington, Tennessee, or
Callahan, Florida, hard-working, middle class cities. We know the Democrats tax plan,
if one is issued, will increase taxes across the board to afford these big changes the
President wants. And we all, as Americans, must kill that plan. If your congressional
representative wants to raise taxes, call them and yell at their secretary to get your
point across you’re not gonna pay for a change or reform you’ll never see or feel.
Because I know the Republican Party will never support such a plan.