In an e-mail sent out this week, “as part of the AFL-CIO’s dialog with union members and allies on how we can strengthen America’s union movement”, the AFL-CIO is seeking input. You may recall that AFL-CIO President John Sweeney is under siege from a group of unions dissatisfied with his (lack of) leadership. They have a website of their own: www.unitetowin.org.

If you have any good suggestions or ideas for the good folks over at Casa Sweeney, have at it. God knows they need the help. The Bureau of Labor Statistics announced yesterday that union membership declined yet again. Says BLS, “In 2004, 12.5 percent of wage and salary workers were union members, down from 12.9 percent in 2003. 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.”

For his part, John Sweeney himself weighed in with a message to the troopson January 26, and he appears to be hoppin’ mad, rarin’ to go. “I’m not ready to give up on what I know America can be and should be and will be”, he says in closing. Unfortunately, he may have lots of time to think about it in retirement.

Post Script: With help from a Washington Post story on the subject, we just figured out what the AFL-CIO needs: More cowbell!!

Sometimes there is just no comfort in being right, when the ultimate outcome — albeit predicted — is a bad one. On January 4, we reported on Maryland Governor Bob Ehrlich’s battle with the legislature over medical malpractice reform “A Stray Bullet in Maryland”, below). Some geniuses and trial bar shills in the Maryland legislature hatched a perfect plan: a tax on HMO’s to help defray the cost of out-of-control premiums, so as not to interrupt the flow of cash to their cronies. We said at the time that it was a rotten idea. The obvious villains were the trial lawyers, who escaped from unscathed from all this reform. Taxing HMO’s, of course, would only drive up premiums.

Well, it’s all come to pass in less than a month. The legislature overrode Gov. Ehrlich’s veto and guess what? A front page story in yesterday’s Washington Times by Robert Redding, Jr. and Marguerite Higgins reports that HMO’s are having to pass the costs along to the consumer. Big shockeroo there.

Today’s story is even better (read: worse), i.e, that the Democrat state leaders are blaming it all on the Republican state insurance commissioner.

OK, so let’s recap: Maryland is flooded with frivolous lawsuits thanks to the trial bar’s grip on the legislature. Premiums skyrocket, doctors flee. So far, no surprises. Governor moves to fix it, capping damage awards, reining in the lawyers. Trial bar-controlled legislature passes a bill instead that shoots the wounded, adding a tax on HMO’s, hoping apparently to run the last provider out of the state. Governor vetoes, trial lawyers override it through their lackeys in the legislature and guess what? Costs increase some more. Who knew? We did.

Forget Hertzberg — maybe these guys should get the ostrich award.

At 11 a.m. today, we will be announcing the launch of the American Justice Partnership (AJP) at a press conference here at NAM headquarters.

As you faithful NAM followers and blog readers know, NAM President John Engler has announced an intention to work for the confirmation of federal judges who are fair-minded when it comes to business issues. (See “Evaluating Judges Through a Wider Lens”, January 18, below). Well now comes a complement to that effort, the AJP.

The AJP is a nationwide coalition that will bring together leading pro-reform groups to advocate legal reform at the state level. Its goals are to: 1.) Support pro-reform candidates for governor, attorney general, the state legislature and state supreme court; 2.) Enact pro-reform legislation and adopt court rules to curb frivolous lawsuits; and 3.) to educate the public about the importance of legal reform. As it now stands, the amount we spend on legal costs in this country exceed the entire Gross Domestic Product of some 200 countries.

Here’s a copy of the message that went out from John Engler to all NAM members yesterday. You can also access a one-pager on the AJP, and can visit the AJP website.

Stay tuned, will update as needed, but this is going to be a big story. Know how we can tell? It’s got the folks over at the People for the American Way up in arms.

Follow this link for a video of today’s press conference.

Looks like there’s a new ostrich in town. Here comes denizen of the media establishment– and former Jimmy Carter speechwriter — Hendrik Hertzberg, writing in the New Yorker about Social Security saying — guess what? — no crisis. Along the way, he takes an uninformed and gratuitous shot or two at the Alliance for Worker Retirement Security, calling it “‘astroturf’, or fake-grassroots, front for the National Association of Manufacturers.” This is obviously a guy who doesn’t know much about us. Might’ve been nice if he at least called before waxing inaccurately.

Along the way he shows some spectacular old school thinking, noting that, “at some point over the next couple of decades, of course, some adjustments will have to be made.” He goes on to float some suggested “adjustments”, like raising the retirement age, raising the cap on wages subject to the payroll tax and “adding a bit of progressivity to the benefits.” Of course, can he find anyone to actually propose these things? Of course not. They’d be vilified by his friends on the left.

To be fair, Hertzberg didn’t have the benefit of last Friday’s confab on Social Security, featuring Social Security Administration Chief Actuary Steve Goss, Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Holtz-Eakin and US Comptroller General Dave Walker. Hosted by Centrists.org, participants came to the un-startling consensus that Social Security is on an unsustainable course and that the sooner we act the better off we will all be. Not sure any facts would have swayed him.

Hertzberg opines in his piece about all kinds of nefarious reasons that the President favors allowing people to opt to invest a portion of their Social Security money in private accounts, but one is left wondering why on earth anyone would oppose it? Do they not trust people to invest their own money? Arrogance breeds more arrogance, apparently. Father government knows best. How quaint.

In any event, we’re thinking of starting an Ostrich Society for people like poor ol’ Hendrik, who clearly have their heads in the sand on this issue. We think maybe we should print up some cute certificates — suitable for framing, of course — and maybe a statuette or a pin of an ostrich, head firmly planted in the sand as dark clouds gather. Heck, we can even call it the Hertzberg Award, borrow the money from our kids to pay for it.

Let us know what you think. Time to start recognizing the ostriches among us, no?

No ostriches over at USA Today, no sirree. In a front page story entitled, “Social Security Gets Stretched, Strained by Long Retirements”, Dennis Cauchon lays out the plain facts about the demographic shifts eroding Social Security. Among other facts, the average life expectancy was 63 when Social Security’s original retirement age of 65 was set in 1935. Today, life expectancy is 77. For those who live to 65, life expectancy is 83. Logic compels the conclusion that the system just can’t keep up.

Click here to see Cauchon’s article, long on facts, short on editorializing. What a concept. Maybe Hendrik will see it. Nah, he probably doesn’t read USA Today.

Not sure how many of you are following the recent flap over the Department of Education and Armstrong Williams, the conservative African-American commentator. The press has seized upon this as the scandal of the decade, in that Williams was allegedly paid to hype the “No Child Left Behind Act” on his radio show. A closer look reveals that the Department of Education contracted with the Graham Williams Group, a PR firm that Williams runs with Mr. Oprah Winfrey, Stedman Graham, to do advertising in minority areas providing information on No Child Left Behind. This contract was let according to all the General Service Administration (GSA) rules, but no matter, the press has met it all with a collective gasp and a cry of “off with their heads!”

So why is this on a blog dealing with manufacturing issues? Because it was not very long ago when the Clinton Administration’s Labor Department — OSHA, to be precise — paid over 20 witnesses $10,000 each to come testify in favor of its flimsy ergonomics regulation. In contrast to what the Department of Education just did, this was not run through any GSA filter, the money was just doled out to allies (“cronies” has such a pejorative connotation) of the Administration and the rule. We raised a stink at the time Download file
(Click here to download letter to OSHA), but the only reporter who found it a little, uh, aromatic was John McCaslin of the Washington Times, who ran a piece on it. Not one of his brethren in the Fourth Estate found this the slight bit unseemly or newsworthy when in fact it stunk out loud.

So now comes the same Fourth Estate — the ones not bothered at all by Soprano-style paid witnesses ( Click here to download “The Labor Department Sopranos”)– on their trusty white steeds, calling for heads to roll at the Education Department, calling for inquiries and inquisitions galore. Must be repressed outrage, bottled up from the Clinton years. They’re outraged that the US Government would pay people to support their point of view without either of them disclosing it. What’s so ironic is that this isn’t what the Department of Education did, but it is precisely what OSHA did, to a collective yawn from the press, save one.

How quickly they forget, indeed.

– It’s been a busy week around the blog, witnessing history and generally taking part in the Inaugural festivities. Hope you all saw NAM member Lenox featured yesterday at the Presidential lunch following President Bush’s swearing-in. Lenox gives a gift to the American people every Inauguration Day, a set of beautiful crystal hurricanes. Lenox President Jay Hanauer and Lenox First Lady Elizabeth Hanauer joined the newly-(re-)inaugurated President and a host of other dignitaries at the lunch. As Jay said, at his table were “The Bushes (President Bush #41 and Barbara), the (Sandra Day)O’Connor’s and the Hanauers.” Also joining them at the table were Laura Bush’s mom, Jenna Welch and Condi Rice. Glad to see these folks were in the good company of a manufacturer as once again, manufacturers made the day possible.

– Want more business? Tune in to the NAM webinar on Exporting to Singapore and Southeast Asia, this Wednesday, January 26 from 7 – 8:15 p.m, broadcasting live from Singapore. This is the second in a series of webinars we’re doing on the topic of exporting. They are very popular, at least among those manufacturers who want more business….

– If you care about manufacturing (and we know you do because you’re reading this) you need to be in Washington February 15-17 for our annual “72 Hours to Educate and Celebrate“. This is a great event (for those of you who haven’t done it before), as thousands of manufacturers descend upon Washington to educate members of Congress about the importance of manufacturing and the challenges we face and to celebrate manufacturing’s contribution to this great Nation. If you’re an NAM member, click here to get details. If you’re not a member, join the Coalition Forum and Fly-In. Don’t just stand there, do something!

– Happy Birthday to us! Tomorrow, January 22, is the 110th anniversary of the NAM. We know — we don’t look a day over 100… To commemorate this great occasion, the imagineers in our Member Communications and Marketing Services Department have created a Timeline of Historical Manufacturing Events – enjoy!

Not much to say today except that all the bloggers are off witnessing history at the 55th Presidential Inaugural. At yesterday’s NAM-hosted lunch for White House Chief of Staff Andy Card, he noted the simplicity and the power of the President’s oath, one of the shortest of any public official:

“I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

How simple, how great. May it be ever thus.

To see the role that manufacturers play in the Inaugural, see this story from the NAM’s Marissa Gandelman.

Business Week continues to be one of the least business-friendly publications in America. This week’s evidence comes in the form of an editorial (which we won’t even dignify with a link) on Social Security entitled, “The Pros and Cons of Private Accounts”. The title’s a bit misleading because there are a lot of cons in their analysis and not a lot of pros.

“The Bush Administration says that there is a crisis in the Social Security system”, they write, “and that private accounts can help solve the problem. The first statement”, they say — incredibly — “is false.” They go on to say that “‘Crisis’ implies immediacy and there is nothing in the years or even decades ahead that suggests any crisis.”

Derrick Max, of the Alliance for Worker Security, weighed in with a response, but Business Week’s ostrich-like ignorance of the facts is astounding. We are paying the price for years of overpromising, accompanied by years of underfunding.

At the moment, the unfunded liability in Social Security is a whopping $10.5 trillion. Yup, you read that right — trillion. To make matters worse, the demographics are all militating against Social Security’s continued viability. In l950, less than 20 years after its inception, there were 16 active workers for every retiree. Today, there are a little over three workers for every retiree. By the time today’s forty year-old reaches 65, there will be only two workers for every retiree. In the absence of any real reform, the FICA tax would have to be increased nearly 80% — from the current 10.5% to almost 18%.

We arrived here because for too long the facts have been ignored by folks living from election to election. “We don’t inherit the world from our ancestors”, goes an old Native American saying, “we borrow it from our children.” The President deserves great credit for tackling this issue head on not for his time, but for those who will come after us. What a concept.

Let’s take the long view and get this thing fixed.

For those of you not regular readers of the New York Times, there’s an editorial there today on our boss, NAM President John Engler. The Times doesn’t make a habit of talking about us in their editorials, but we apparently have piqued their interest.

Under the heading, “Upping the Judicial Ante” they opine — not unfavorably — on John Engler’s stated intention to support federal judicial nominees who interpret the law rather than make law from the bench. It is a laudable goal. For too long, in his view. federal judicial nominees have been seen only through a narrow prism, identified by whatever social issue the left deems important. Along the way, we’ve lost many a good fair-minded judge to filibuster, inaction and defeat.

John Engler’s point — made in a Tom Hamburger front page story in the LA Times on January 6 — is that we need to look at the totality of judges’ records, and especially on their decisions affecting manufacturers. Did they interpret contracts or write new ones? Did they rein in legal excess or allow it to go unfettered? In fact, as Engler points out, judges will spend the vast majority or their time on these sorts of issues, not on social issues. We want to make sure — same as we do with elected officials — that they are men and women who don’t make it harder for American manufacturers to survive and prosper. It’s that simple, although liberal groups like the People for the American Way (a misnomer if ever there was one) have attacked us and others over this notion. What on earth will they do if judges start being evaluated on the totality of their decisions and not just on one narrow issue, or two? It might undermine the American Way’ers’ view of the world, no?

“Nothing is more dangerous than an idea”, said 20th Century philosopher Emile Chartier, “when it’s the only one you have.” The Johnny one-notes of judicial nominations have met their match. As the aperture for evaluating judges grows wider, and people view them in their totality, we hope to see more fair-minded judges join the federal bench.