EU warns President Obama to drop protectionist measures

Add comment February 3rd, 2009

“The European  Commission believes that attempts to insist that only American iron, steel and manufactured goods are used in projects financed by the $800bn US rescue package currently before Congress violate international trade rules policed by the Geneva-based World Trade Organisation”http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5653096.ece

So are we Free Traders or Protectionists?   How come they can put up restrictive trade rules but we can’t?

Maybe it’s time we stuck up for our workers.

A Congressman’s Analysis of the House Stimulus Bill

1 comment February 3rd, 2009

Here’s Congressman’s Don Manzullo’s analysis (Jan. 27th) of the House bill as presented:

Americans need jobs right now, and this bill does little to put Americans back to work.

Despite claims it is a job-creating infrastructure bill, just 4 percent ($30 billion) of the $825 billion bill is allocated for road construction. This amounts to less than one half of the average annual federal road spending allocation.

The 16^th Congressional District will see little of the road funding because it primarily will be given to the states to use at their discretion with no opportunity to earmark funding for specific projects. The State of Illinois has traditionally ignored the road infrastructure needs of northern Illinois outside of Chicago.

1. The little job-creating
   infrastructure spending that exists in the bill takes too long to
   stimulate the economy.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, only 7 percent of the overall infrastructure
spending would be delivered to the economy by the end of the federal fiscal
year on October 1.

Just one in seven dollars of the massive $18.5 billion on energy efficiency and renewable
energy projects would be spent within the next 18 months.

Plans to bring broadband Internet service to rural and underserved areas will take years
to implement, and only 25 percent of the clean drinking water projects can be
completed by October 2010.

1. The vast majority of
   spending in this bill has nothing to do with stimulating the economy but
   rather increasing government social programs.

The debate over whether to increase these government programs should come during the
normal budgeting process – it should not be disguised as emergency stimulus
spending.

The non-job creating spending in this bill includes:

a)      $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts.

b)      $400 million to study climate change.

c)      $200 million to revitalize the National Mall, including planting new sod.

d)      $1.1 billion to allow  the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a permanent board to
ration health care services, a precursor to universal health care.

e)      Hundreds of millions of dollars for contraceptives and family planning services through Medicaid.

f)        $650 million dollars for additional digital TV converter box coupons.

g)      $166 billion in direct aid to help states pay their bills.

h)      $13 billion for reading programs.

i)        $15.6 billion to increase the maximum annual Pell grant (for college students) by $500 from $4,360 to $4,860.

j)        $3 billion to public health departments for additional immunizations.

k)      $1 billion in additional funding to pay heating bills of low-income Americans.

l)        $1 billion for the 2010 census.

m)    $100 million for National Science Foundation scholarships.

n)      $200 million for nutrition programs.

o)      $200 million to provide incentives to teachers to raise test scores.

p)      $2 billion in additional funds for low-income child care.

Energy Conservation 101

Add comment February 3rd, 2009

You have to be kidding!  In these days where manufacturers are laying off people or working short hours to also conserve energy, this isn’t quite the role model that I would expect to see…..

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/03/obama-getting-heat-for-turning-up-thermostat/

What the GOP Considers Wasteful in the Senate’s Porkulus Plan

Add comment February 3rd, 2009

I could see some worthwhile requests, but generally…pork!  This is supposed to be Job Creation for Infrastructure…

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/02/gop.stimulus.worries/index.html

FMA Scholarships for Manufacturing Students

Add comment February 3rd, 2009

Here is an opportunity for young students to receive a $500.00 scholarship from FMA.  See the video here….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KziGTg8Nk0I

 

Please pass the link along to anyone you may know who might have a young person who is going to technical school in the fall to study for a manufacturing job, or anyone who could forward it to others who might get this in the hands of possible students.

Thanks to Pat Lee and FMA

A Manufacturing Approach to Not-for-Profits

Add comment February 3rd, 2009

With the difficulty that United Way has had in closing the gap of funding and with the barrage of requests that I receive at the office as well as at home, it got me thinking.

In the manufacturing world, especially in those multi-facility locations, when companies look for efficiencies or reduced cost when revenues are falling, they will often consolidate facilities or even entire businesses.  We’ve seen that take place right here in the Rock River Valley.  The cost savings usually will come from consolidating staff, management, and even reducing the number of facilities in operation.

Usually, this results in saving products and saving customers.  Alternatively, if these actions weren’t taken, businesses would close and customers lost to competition.

So is there any lesson that could be translated to the Not-for-Profit agencies?  What if some of them would consolidate and reduce the staff and possibly facilities.  The new units could still serve their customers, i.e. the people in need.  But it could be done with less input of money either through donations or from United Way.

A very similar approach as I’ve seen numerous times in the manufacturing world.  So who would do the consolidating?  Surely, none of the agencies would offer to be consolidated?

Maybe the United Way could give this guidance or even stronger, make it a condition for the agencies to receive funding from them.  Did they ever think there simply were too many NFP’s?

Alternatively, maybe an ad hoc group made of of board members of several agencies might give this consolidating effort the guidance needed.

Harsh?  Yes for the organizations.  It may reduce duplication. After all, they are there to serve their customers, i.e. people in need.  And if they could deliver their services at a lower cost and with lower incoming money, then that certainly is better than reducing the funding that is given to the people in need.

One man’s opinion!