Yes, oil companies have seen an increase in their profits, but I’m more concerned about another company with high earnings.   Not only has this company made $2.54/share in the last year, it has rewarded its CEO with $12.5 million in compensation (not counting stock options) and $100,000 to cover personal use of the corporate jet, while it has also developed a plan to adjust its employee benefits.   (I used to work for such a company and we engineers organized a union to have some effect on our benefits.)
 
What company is this?   Wal-Mart, who closed one of their Canadian stores after the workers voted in union representation.
 
Here is some of what their VP of benefits suggests (see attached company memo) according to The New York Times:
 
“hiring more part-time workers and discouraging unhealthy people from working at Wal-Mart”
 
“reducing 401(k) contributions and wooing younger, and presumably healthier, workers by offering education benefits”
 
“all jobs to include some physical activity (e.g., all cashiers do some cart-gathering)”
 
“Ms. Chambers proposed that employees pay more for their spouse’s health insurance.   She called for cutting 401(k) contributions to 3 percent of wages from 4 percent and cutting company-paid life insurance policies to $12,000 from the current level, equal to an employee’s annual earnings.”
 
“Ms. Chambers’s memo voiced concern that workers were staying with the company longer, pushing up wage costs, although she stopped short of calling for efforts to push out more senior workers.”
 
I have no doubt that the benefits at the high profit oil companies are much better than those at Wal-Mart.
 
For more on Wal-Mart’s profits vs. employee benefits:

Wal-Mart forfeits soul to low prices
By LOREN STEFFY

Wal-Mart memo sparks criticism

Then there is the new Wal-Mart DVD.

Keep an eye on the federal budget and where the money goes.   The money in the chart below is based on Congressional appropriation bills that are signed by the President.   It shows how your taxes plus your investments in the government plus the money we borrow from many nations is distributed.

If I were an American soldier captured by terrorists, how do you think I would feel when my captors quoted the Golden Rule and told me that my own Commander-in-Chief had justified what they were about to do to me?   The terrorist tells me, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.   Since President Bush has authorized our mistreatment by his CIA, he has also authorized us to treat you inhumanly.”

Why is the President trying to lower this nation to the level of the terrorists?   The only difference between what the President is proposing and what the terrorists have done is that they broadcast it to the world, while he hides it from the world.

In case you haven’t heard or seen the news concerning a meeting on Oct 20, 2005, where The New York Times reported, “C.I.A. Director, Porter J. Goss, urged Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican who wrote the amendment [against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment], to support an exemption for the agency, arguing that the president needed maximum flexibility in dealing with the global war on terrorism, said two government officials who were briefed on the meeting. ”

For more on authorizing the recent attempt at expanding our nation’s authority to abuse human rights:

Bush seeks to exempt CIA from bill barring abuse of detainees

W. House Looks To Weaken Abuse Ban | October 25, 2005 19:30:05

U.S.: License to Abuse Would Put CIA Above the Law ”

Again I ask, why is this happening? It’s because torture is the easy way out.   Maybe if we had a leader capable of considering the more difficult and more complex options, or someone willing to accept the idea that there are options, we could actually make some serious progress.   But the harder solutions take time and some of us don’t have the patience.

Even the war on Iraq was an easy way out after the President became impatient with the difficulties of finding OBL in Afghanistan.

What most citizens know about the separation of church and state will not help with this informative questionnaire.   If you just want to see the answers, there is a link at the bottom of the page.

In Secure Borders, Open Doors, the Migration Policy Institute MPI “discusses reforms to the entire [visa] system through which foreigners travel to and seek entry into the United States.   It investigates changes to the visa issuance process and to the infrastructure that supports that function at the Departments of State and Homeland Security.   It then discusses how well the new post-September 11 policies, mechanisms, and procedures advance the stated goals of the visa program: Secure Borders, Open Doors.”

The MPI report finds that “the basic legislative framework” for determining who can be admitted to the USA and “the legal structure of the visa process” have not changed in any meaningful way.   For example, after a visa is granted, the holder can still travel to the USA where an inspector provides the final approval or denial of entry.   However, administratively the process has “changed substantially.”   The visa process has become “much more security conscious.”   But at what cost?

On pages 17 and 18, the report states, “In fact, US businesses claim that shifts in visa policy have hurt their ability to remain competitive in the global marketplace.”   In addition, “The US travel and tourism industry has also seen the number of foreign visitors for pleasure entering the United States plummet by over 10 million (from 30.5 million to 20.1 million) from 2000 to 2003, representing an estimated $22.5 billion dollars in lost revenues.   While many of these industries gained ground in 2004, visa issuances have not returned to pre-September 11 levels.”

In addition to the losses from fewer foreign visitors, there is the impact on the USA’s ability to remain competitive in the global marketplace.   Page 17 of the report also states, “This assertion seems to be supported in a recent Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development report that finds a substantial drop in foreign direct investment in the United States from $72 billion in 2002 to $40 billion in 2003.   While there is no widely-recognized methodology to estimate the proportion of this drop that may be attributable to US visa policy changes, the National Foreign Trade Council claims that visa delays alone may have cost US exporters $30.7 billion in lost contracts.   Firms doing business with the Middle East have been particularly hard hit, losing an estimated $1.5 billion per year in contracts, tuition, and tourism from the region.”

Then there is the effect on student visas – a valuable resource for American business.   “It is entirely possible that this new perception of visa policies may be deterring exactly those people that they are intended to deter—“known” potential terrorists.   It is even clearer, however, that they also deter many persons from whom the United States has traditionally benefited—top students and scientists, business persons, artists, visitors, and other individuals for whom seeking a US visa is no longer an attractive option.   The extent and long-term implications of some of these losses must not be underestimated.   Leading universities abroad have benefited so greatly by the lessened interest in studying at US universities that the five largest European Union Member States—France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom—agreed on July 5, 2005, in Evian France, to increase “considerably” the number of top students receiving scholarships under the Erasmus Mundus program and open the program to doctoral students.”

We may be administratively ‘pumping up’ our border security, but will the indirect long term costs cited by MPI have a greater impact than the terrorists could have hoped for?   They don’t need to bomb the USA again to cause us harm, the new visa policies are doing that for them.   (Does your foot hurt?   Mine does.)

In a related article, Visa Policy Costing Economy Billions, William Fisher reviews this study and related information.

A study was documented, back in 1999, on the ‘criminal’ backgrounds for numerous members of Congress.   According to America’s Criminal Class: The Congress of the United States, the sources for this study were “public records, past newspaper articles, civil court cases and criminal records of both current and recent members of the United States Congress (since 1992).”  

With the arrest of Tom Delay today, this information seems worth another review.

The following from Random Ramblings – Just like you and me! seems to be a summary that research, but it’s somewhat inaccurate and out of context.   The items in () are from the original study .

36(29) have been accused of spousal abuse
7(7) have been arrested for fraud
19(19) have been accused of writing bad checks
117(117) have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
3(3) have done time (arrested) for assault
71(71) cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
14(14) have been arrested on drug-related charges
8(8) have been arrested for shoplifting
21(21) currently are defendants in lawsuits. and
84(27) have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year

One item from the original study that was not included in this list was:

53 were denied government security clearances.

Since information from the internet should always be suspect, I wondered how meaningful these numbers were – assuming they are fact to start with.   They are for a select group from society, but how does this group compare to society as a whole?

As to the spousal abuse arrests, Violence Against Women in the United States had this to say about spousal abuse: “BATTERING . Although only 572,000 reports of assault by intimates are officially reported to federal officials each year, the most conservative estimates indicate two to four million women of all races and classes are battered each year.   At least 170,000 of those violent incidents are serious enough to require hospitalization, emergency room care or a doctor’s attention.” Keep in mind that these numbers do not represent arrests made and the number of related arrests are probably smaller.

If you take the above range of values for assaults and relate it to the July 2005 USA population of 295,734,134, you get an abuse rate ranging from 0.02% to 1.35% of the population.   Using the Congressional abuse number of 29, you get an abuse rate of 6.7% for member of Congress – assuming that it’s 29 out of 535 Congressman.   This is 5 time the worst case for society.   Should we be concerned?

Since the original Capital Blue Hill study did not give the number of Congressman they researched to find the 29 abusers, how many Congressmen would they have research to find these 29 just to match the societal rate above?   Somewhere between 2148 and 145,000.   That doesn’t seem very likely, but 29 still seems worse than society at large.

Also, comparing the original article to the short summary above, you find that the 71 with bad credit applies to some group of 117 Congressmen – not all 535.   But that is still 61%!!

Well, regardless of the study results, the out of context summary, and the fact that the study results can’t be easily compared to society, they still are of concern.

According to RollingStone.com: Bush’s Most Radical Plan Yet, President Bush proposed the creation of a Sunset Commission that would add another 8 appointees to the thousands he has already appointed.   This new commission will decide what federal agencies should be eliminated for ‘not producing results’ and only an act of Congress can cancel a majority decision of the commission.   That may sound good, but who will these 8 cronies be – those with MBAs?   And what results will they be looking for – those that benefit citizens or those that adversely affect their business friends?

This proposal was hidden in this year’s 2,000 page federal spending plan from the President. If enacted, how would the President apply the Peter Principle this time?   What would happen to the EPA, OSHA, and/or FEMA?   Should that kind of power be placed within the Executive Branch?   Should Congress let this commission undo the work of previous Congresses?   Is there a Constitutional issue concerning Separation of Powers?   Even if there is, who will be on the Supreme Court when this proposal becomes law and then is contested?

But why worry about some small proposal that few know of and those that were aware of initially have since forgotten?   Well, that was at the start of 2005.   What’s happened since?

On July 14, 2005, the Federal Agency Performance Review and Sunset Act was submitted for review to the House Committee on Government Reform.   Debate was held on September 25, 2005.

An article from the Associated Press on October 16, 2005, discusses some of the latest contributors to the losses in union membership: competition in a global economy, deregulation, powerful corporations like WalMart, disagreements between unions, declaration of corporate bankruptcies, and job outsourcing.   (The article did not mention the lack of interest or concerns by workers as contributors.)   This loss of membership is detailed in Labor Market Reporter: US Trade Union Membership: 1900-1999.   As a percentage of the workforce, union membership peaked around 1960 and has declined to one fourth of that.

According to another report from the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, “In 2004, 12.5 percent of wage and salary workers were union members, down from 12.9 percent in 2003, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.   The union membership rate has steadily declined from a high of 20.1 percent in 1983, the first year for which comparable union data are available.”

SourceWatch provides a summary of the Pentagon Channel and states that is has been broadcasting since May 2004.   It is provided to the members of the US Armed Forces and their families via American Forces Radio and Television Service overseas.   However, it is available to all statewide cable and satellite providers and via the Pentagon Channel website.   SourceWatch also stated that Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Allison Barber oversees the Pentagon Channel.

About a year later, Professor Ralph J. Begleiter, from the Department of Communications at the University of Delaware, told The Chistian Science Monitor that the on-air staffers for the Pentagon Channel are not journalists – they are salesmen.

More recently Allison Barber, performing other Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense duties, was video taped preparing 10 members of our military for a teleconference with President Bush.   Here is a portion of the rehearsal as reported in Newsday.com: A role rehearsal –

“OK, so let’s just walk through this,” said Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary Allison Barber, coaching the soldiers in Tikrit before the conference.

“Capt. Kennedy, you answer the first question and you hand the mike to whom?”

“Capt. Smith,” Kennedy said.

“Capt. Smith, you take the mike and you hand it to whom?” she asked.

“Capt. Kennedy,” the soldier replied.

“If the question comes up about partnering – how often do we train with the Iraqi military – who does he go to?” Barber asked.

“That’s going to go to Capt. Pratt,” one soldier said.

The above preparation process by Ms. Barber for a video/televised event leads me to this question.   If Ms. Barber is a leader by example and others at the Pentagon Channel report to her, is the Pentagon Channel’s presence in the public domain the first step at media control by the US government?

In The Peter Principle and the Neocon Coup, dated 11/2004, Robert Scheer discusses several examples of President Bush’s implementation of the Peter Principle, or promoting individuals after years of stellar performance at one career to their highest level of incompetence in a new career. He also points out that these high ranking incompetents are now in control of the most powerful military in the world. “With the ravaging of the CIA and the ousting of Powell–instead of the more-deserving Rumsfeld–the coup of the neoconservatives is complete. They have achieved a remarkable political victory by failing upward.”

The fulfillment of the Peter Principle by President Bush has grown since the above article was published a year ago. One example is Michael Brown, a former commissioner of an Arabian horse association who stepped down last month as director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Now, with the nomination of Harriet Miers, the Peter Principle is about to spread incompetence to the highest judiciary.

The OpinionJournal – Extra had this to say about the application of the Peter Principle to the Supreme Court, “To be qualified, a Supreme Court justice must have more than credentials; she must have a well-considered “judicial philosophy,” by which is meant an internalized view of the Constitution and the role of a justice that will guide her through the constitutional minefield that the Supreme Court must navigate. Nothing in Harriet Miers’s professional background called upon her to develop considered views on the extent of congressional powers, the separation of powers, the role of judicial precedent, the importance of states in the federal system, or the need for judges to protect both the enumerated and unenumerated rights retained by the people.”

What is even scarier is that according to Bloomberg.com: Top Worldwide, the application of this principle may have spread farther and deeper in to the government than anyone realizes. “Federal jobs available to political appointees rose 15 percent to 4,496 last year from 2000, according to the 2004 edition of the “Plum Book,” which is published by Congress after each presidential election to list positions up for grabs. Those jobs declined 5 percent during President Bill Clinton’s second term, a comparison of the 2000 and 1996 Plum Books shows.” This article also contains more current information on the success of Bush’s application of the Peter Principle.