Hey, Ma’am, what are you doing to stop job losses in LA?
Nine months ago, California’s junior Senator heralded Senate passage of the “so-called stimulus,” claiming:
There is a very simple, urgent reason for this bill: We need to save jobs and we need to create jobs. We need to act quickly and boldly because at the rate we are shedding jobs, we are heading into deeper economic turmoil.
Well, Ma’am, you passed that “stimulus,” putting the nation ever deeper in debt, with Los Angeles employers continuing to shed jobs:
Despite Los Angeles County’s already record high unemployment, the job outlook is likely to get worse as the number of businesses that plan to layoff workers has more than doubled since last year, according to a new poll released today.
A survey by the Los Angeles County Business Federation says 33 percent of respondents said they would layoff workers in 2010, up from 14 percent who were asked last year.
Given that “96 percent of businesses are small,” I’m wondering if Mrs. Boxer has any plans to reduce the regulatory burden, a burden which hits smaller businesses much harder than it does larger corporations.
While we need a plan that reduces regulations, the plan Mrs. Boxer’s working on will increase the costs of business, leading to even further job losses. Guess she doesn’t think a 12.7% unemployment rate in LA County is high enough.
18 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
What regulations would you like to see done away with?
Comment by Tano — November 3, 2009 @ 1:49 am - November 3, 2009
Tano, I have two questions for you:
1. What do you think is a “fair” number for the minimum wage?
2. Why not 10 times the amount you stated in your answer to #1?
Tano, I have two questions for you:
1. When the bulk of the jobs created or saved are in the government sector, how is the money to pay the salaries for those jobs acquired?
2. Suppose the government got serious about cutting waste and abuse in the money it spends, would the wasters and abusers then be relocated or fired?
Tano, I have two questions for you:
1. Why does liberalism “as the cutting edge of progress” always require higher taxes?
2. After the rich have been bled dry or driven away, what happens to progress?
Tano, I have two questions for you:
1. Why should undocumented alien workers be given a free pass and welfare recipient citizens be permitted to be unable to find work?
2. Why should employers be any more interested in whether the undocumented alien worker is legit when the government could care less?
Tano, I have two questions for you:
1. If national health care should treat everyone who presents himself, shouldn’t we open branch clinics in Mexico, Belize, El Salvador and Haiti?
2. What floor do you propose for taxing the rich?
Tano, I have two questions for you:
1. How is TARP money to the NEA part of the shovel ready improvement of the infrastructure?
2. How long does it take for the average community organizer to get the community organized? (Or, in other words, how does one succeed in herding cats?)
Tano, I could go on forever, just answer these. Or half of these. Or one of these.
Comment by heliotrope — November 3, 2009 @ 8:55 am - November 3, 2009
#1, NEPA requirements would be a good start–then maybe some of those “shovel ready” projects could get started.
Comment by Alex in Denver — November 3, 2009 @ 9:11 am - November 3, 2009
ROFL
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 3, 2009 @ 9:15 am - November 3, 2009
Just as I thought. “Excessive regulation” is a mantra – one that conservatives repeat endlessly without having ever thought through the issue and identified any particular regulation that is offensive.
Regulation of the marketplace is akin to laws that regulate behavior on the street. If you live on an isolated farm in the 18th century, you dont need many laws. Your business activity needs little regulation. IF you live in the 21st century, where your activity bumps up against other people, where your interests clash with them on a daily basis, then you need some laws and regulations in place to keep things operating smoothly, and to keep the cheating and criminal instincts at bay.
The question I ask is highly pertinent. What regulations cause you problem? Should all the small businesses that sell us food be freed from the burden of food purity regulations? Should the factory in town be freed from the ban on hiring eight-year olds, and paying them next to nothing? Should fraud be allowed to flourish, because criminalizing it is an impediment to our freedoms?
Comment by Tano — November 3, 2009 @ 9:20 am - November 3, 2009
Aw, Tano, everyone knows that conservatives love child labor. The more abusive, the better. I loved those old rope lofts in New England. Also, industry must be permitted to belch toxic fumes into the air and poisons into the water and aquifers. E. coli is the conservative’s friend. Tainted food should be a road to riches. And so forth.
Tano, have you any clue? Your examples of nasty capitalism were regulated 100 years ago. “Cap and trade” and “card check” are hardly in a league with unregulated capitalism. And I wonder why liberals are so loathe to regulate the trial lawyer industry.
You should hop on down to your city hall and get a suitcase full of rules and regulations for starting up a fully compliant restaurant with 6 employees. Be sure to get all the rules and regs for from the health department and the employment commission. Get an idea of whether you want sub-chapter S or just go sole proprietorship. Check with your insurance broker about how to cover your obligations and to protect yourself. You should also get a small business lawyer to review your federal obligations as an employer.
Or maybe, just maybe, you would rather buy a lawn mower and go knock on doors and work for cash. Get it? Cash. Cash money. No paper trail.
Comment by heliotrope — November 3, 2009 @ 10:33 am - November 3, 2009
In other words: We need more and more compulsion and regulation and regimentation from the Dear Leader in our lives, precisely because we have become so very progressive, enlightened and ‘advanced’.
Should I go with a comment about the absurdity of it? Or just point out that it is one of the standard arguments for fascism?
Up next: villain Ellsworth Toohey, in _The Fountainhead_ by Ayn Rand – “Only by accepting total compulsion can we achieve total freedom.”
Um… yes. Tano, have you ever heard of the idea, “bad regulation drives out good regulation”, meaning that government regulation drives out self-regulation? Well, I already know you haven’t. Unfair question.
That depends on the country and economic situation. Note that unregulated, laissez-faire capitalism abolished 95% of child labor in the U.S., before there were any laws against child labor. That’s because free-market, laissez-faire capitalism raises living standards, even for the poorest of the poor, and also demands a quality of labor much better than what uneducated and starving children can supply. On the other hand, if you have a country just emerging from the ravages of (say) tribalism or socialism or Maoism, with everyone on the edge of starvation, the 8-year-old might reap great personal advantages (as in, not starving) by leaving town and getting work in that newly opened factory.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 3, 2009 @ 11:19 am - November 3, 2009
Also – Who says that community standards always have to be enforced *with laws*, or *by government force*, anyway? (Oh, yeah: Hitler again.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 3, 2009 @ 11:22 am - November 3, 2009
heliotrope,
Yes, actually, your conservative ancestors were the ones who fought bitterly against child labor laws, against clean air and clean water regulations (in my lifetime!). Every step of progress we have made against the excesses of capitalism, and against the criminality of the unscrupulous has been won in pitched battle against the conservatives.
You conservatives just end up being forced to accept certain things, then, when they prove to be valuable, you pretend y’all were for them all along.
At least childish morons like ILC are consistent – he proudly asserts that he is opposed to government regulation of the food industry, and tries to pretend that all these problems just solve themselves through the magic of unfettered capitalism. One gets the feeling that his understanding of economics and history comes from coloring books.
Comment by Tano — November 3, 2009 @ 1:56 pm - November 3, 2009
Ah, personal insults. That means poor, poor Tano has lost. And knows it
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 3, 2009 @ 2:41 pm - November 3, 2009
Excesses like what – raised living standards? The end of childhood mortality? Or human freedom in general?
But Tano, now it’s my turn to praise your consistency. You know who else fought and won pitched battles against those wicked, freedom-loving, small-government, conservative pro-capitalists? Mussolini. And Hitler. Don’t forget Stalin, Castro and Kim Jong Il.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 3, 2009 @ 2:49 pm - November 3, 2009
Should all the small businesses that sell us food be freed from the burden of food purity regulations?
Why not?
There’s this whole concept of caveat emptor that seems to be quite beyond the power of Tano to understand.
Classic example: organic food. People got into their heads that their food was polluted with “pesticides”, and presto chango, started buying “organic”, even though it costs twice as much, because they wanted to do so.
And thus works the invisible hand. Would I buy food that didn’t meet purity standards, even if it was cheaper? Most likely not; I would go looking for a place that did. The place that offers food that doesn’t meet purity standards will serve those customers who don’t care about it; the place that does meet them will serve those customers.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 3, 2009 @ 3:32 pm - November 3, 2009
Also, we should point out that “progressives” like Tano enforce their rules against “capitalism” based solely on whether or not “progressives” benefit.
Case in point: Charles Rangel, who has deliberately lied, deliberately dodged taxes, and deliberately broken laws to benefit himself at the expense of others…..but is championed and protected by “progressives” like Tano because Rangel himself is a “progressive”.
Tano and his ilk literally do not care what you do as long as you espouse their leftist principles, even if what you do runs completely contradictory to said principles.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 3, 2009 @ 3:35 pm - November 3, 2009
Don’t forget as well, Tano believes that the laws should be followed only when it benefits him.
Comment by The_Livewire — November 3, 2009 @ 3:59 pm - November 3, 2009
NDT, here’s another example – the whole “cruelty-free” concept (no animal testing). People who want companies to meet certain standards, badger them until they do and then it’s done. Here’s another one, accomplished with government nowhere to be found: partner benefits for gays, which I helped bring about (as part of a larger group of activists) at a very major corporation in the 1990s.
Oh, but I do forget: No possible human goodwill or self-regulation or change can exist without government force and regimentation. Please excuse me for having just pretended that human beings are capable. I didn’t mean to.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 3, 2009 @ 4:14 pm - November 3, 2009
Does anyone ever wonder why the federal government (or ANY government) and NOT private companies should be in charge of working to assure food purity?
Does anyone wonder why there’s (allegedly) $500,000,000,000 in “waste, fraud and abuse” in Medicare and Medicaid but not in private insurance companies? Or why private companies usually pay less than $500 for a toilet seat? Or a hammer?
Any theories? Tano?
Comment by polly — November 3, 2009 @ 7:55 pm - November 3, 2009
Oh…..my…..gosh!
I have spent a career spouting ideologue claptrap to thousands of students about self reliance and the free market and now I find out that simply exterminating the conservatives would have transported civilized mankind to the bosom of the mother force of peace and harmony.
Tano, I will tear the stripes from my cowl and send you the pointed, velvet stripped droopy sleeves from ye olde robes if you can back up this bombast with a scintilla of evidence. (I won’t hold you to back up the hyperbole of “every step of progress”… you can just go straight to the Haymarket Riots.)
Comment by heliotrope — November 3, 2009 @ 9:01 pm - November 3, 2009
America was founded by people that, in today’s world, would be “libertarian conservatives” and/or “social conservatives”.
Slavery was ended by “classical liberals”, people valuing individual liberty and small government. People who would almost certainly reject today’s Left so-called “liberals” (really fascists).
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 3, 2009 @ 9:45 pm - November 3, 2009