Straight Talk In Ohio

by hilzoy

A couple of days ago the Ohio Democrats released this ad:

It shows footage from the town meeting described here:

"Mary Houghtaling, who runs a hospice in Wilmington, Ohio, choked up as she told McCain of DHL's plans to close its domestic air hub in her town, a move that could throw 8,600 people out of work. "This is a terrible blow," McCain told her. "I don't know if I can stop it. That's some straight talk. Some more straight talk? I doubt it.""

Interspersed with the footage are screens that say:

"McCain and his campaign manager, Rick Davis, played roles in the fate of DHL Express and its Ohio air park as far back as 2003."

And:

"Those jobs are on the chopping block because Sen. McCain and his campaign were involved in a deal that resulted in control of those positions being shifted to a foreign corporation."

-- Joe Rugola, president of the Ohio AFL-CIO"

And:

"The firm of Rick Davis, John McCain's campaign manager, earned $185,000 lobbying for foreign ownership, and $405,000 after the deal passed Congress"

It's a very powerful ad. The sight of McCain saying "I don't know if I can stop it. That's some straight talk. Some more straight talk? I doubt it", about a deal he and his campaign manager were involved in making possible, is jarring. And reminding voters that McCain is surrounded by ex-lobbyists cannot help his efforts to convince them that he is a maverick who recognizes that Washington is broken and wants to change it. Especially since, in this case, one of the people McCain's campaign manager was paid to lobby was, well, John McCain.

That said, when I first saw the ad I wondered whether there was less to this story than met the eye. To be clear: I absolutely think that it's a mistake to have lobbyists (including lobbyists who, like Davis, are presently "on leave") running campaigns and serving as senior advisors to candidates. I could be persuaded to make an exception for people who are paid a flat salary to lobby for some worthwhile cause, like the environment or vaccinations for third world children or workplace safety, from which neither they nor the people who pay them will personally profit, but I think that people who have been paid, and might well be paid again, by private corporations or foreign governments should not manage anyone's campaign.

That said, I do not have a problem with private employers deciding to relocate their facilities, or with foreign ownership of companies that operate in the United States. Moreover, Davis' lobbying seems to have occurred between 2003 and 2005, and McCain's involvement was in 2003, so it seemed worth asking whether, at the time, there was any reason to think that the deal might actually cost Ohioans jobs. Because if it looked like a good deal for Ohio at the time, that would make the story told in the ad look very different -- though it would leave intact the general issue of having lobbyists running the McCain campaign.

I was also curious what on earth Congress had to do with what sounded like a normal deal. So I cranked up Lexis-Nexis. Short answer: yes, there were concerns about the effect on jobs at the time. What's below the fold is an explanation of the deal, and of those concerns; I suspect it will be of interest mostly to people for whom the ad raised the kinds of questions it did for me.

First, the deal, in which DHL, which is owned by Deutsche Post, bought Airborne Express, which operates the Wilmington facility. The reason Congress was involved at all was because Airborne Express counts as a US airline, and the law requires that US airlines be controlled by US citizens. (Specifically: non-U.S. companies cannot own more than 25% of their voting stock or more than 49% of their equity.) Deutsche Post had run into trouble already on this score, when it bought DHL. (As far as I can tell, this trouble was helped along by FedEx and UPS, who were not eager for the competition. The trouble did not prevent the deal from going through.) Here's what Deutsche Post proposed:

"Under the terms of the deal, Deutsche Post will buy only Airborne's ground operations; its airline unit will be spun off as a stand-alone business. Deutsche Post will then draw up a contract with this new airline to handle business in America. This not only satisfies the ownership rules, maintains Uwe Doerken, DHL's chief executive, but also fits with DHL's broader strategy of contracting out its airline work.

Combined, he says, the new operation would have 21% of the overnight delivery market inside America, and 23% of the market in deliveries into and out of the country. In the ground delivery business, where UPS has 70% of the market, DHL would have just a 2% share. But it says that weak competition and fat margins make it an easier business to enter.

The Airborne arrangements ought to satisfy one of the worries raised by Kenneth Mead, the DOT's inspector-general, about DHL Airways. Deutsche Post sold a controlling stake in its airline to William Robinson, an American citizen who had been a big shareholder in DHL's international operations. Mr Robinson installed his attorney, his brother and his financial adviser on the four-man board, further satisfying the letter of the law. But Mr Mead seems to be worried that DHL and Mr Robinson have entered into arrangements--formal or informal--that cede actual control of the airline to the Germans. The Airborne deal seems to be free of such complicating personal relationships.

Mr Mead's second worry is more pertinent. This is that the contract between DHL and DHL Airways gives the Germans effective control by making DHL Airways a captive vendor. Mr Mead notes that 90% of DHL Airways' business is with DHL, a figure that he says appears not to have changed since the DOT got DHL Airways to hire a marketing executive to drum up more outside business. Mr Mead also notes that DHL guarantees DHL Airways' debts and picks up its operating costs, the sort of contract that it will want to have with Airborne's spun-off airline. FedEx and UPS both support Mr Mead's recommendation that the DOT put its decision on DHL Airways to a judicial review by independent government lawyers."

(From The Economist, March 29, 2003 U.S. Edition.)

I am neither a lawyer nor an expert in transportation policy. That said: I cannot, offhand, see any particular reason why airlines should be controlled by US citizens. Nonetheless, the law requires this, and laws should be obeyed. And for a foreign firm to buy a delivery business, spinning off its airline, and having that airline's business be almost entirely with the original firm, seems like a rather dubious way of circumventing that law.

(Moreover, here's one objection, from Jay Rockefeller, that's stronger than a plain objection to foreign ownership:

"Deutsche Post is not a fair competitor: It is a government-owned monopoly, it derives the vast majority of its profits from German mail delivery services that are shielded from competition, and it has been repeatedly found guilty of unfair competitive practices and illegal subsidies," Rockefeller said. "U.S. businesses and workers should not be forced to compete with a foreign government agency that enjoys these unfair advantages."

From The Daily Deal (NYC), March 26, 2003 Wednesday.)

***

More to the point, there do seem to have been concerns about the deal's effects on Ohio jobs back in 2003. From Aviation Week & Space Technology, March 31, 2003:

"DHL OFFICIALS said they will spin off ABX Air Inc. as a public company, a move that is raising questions about the survivability of either ABX Air or DHL Airways, which hold minority market shares in the air express industry. The main hubs of the two carriers are less than 50 mi. apart in the Ohio River Valley. Airborne's ABX Air operates the U.S.' largest privately held airport facility, a two-runway former Strategic Air Command base at Wilmington, Ohio. DHL Airways is preparing to open this summer a $ 300-million new facility at the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport.

The Wilmington airport has an edge over the Cincinnati hub as an operating facility, said David Hoppin, principal with MergeGlobal Inc., an Arlington, Va., consulting firm. Hoppin said DHL, if it is working with ABX, will be able to "control it all" at Wilmington, where Airborne is the exclusive operator. But one source close to the DHL operation said Airborne's remote Wilmington location requires employees to be bused, which could be regarded as a disadvantage.

Regulatory approval of the merger is required. Analyst Edward M. Wolfe said on his Bear, Stearns & Co. web site that he expects ownership issues will be fought at the Transportation Dept. and in federal court. Hoppin said the process may become complicated but that the merger "will come to pass eventually." He said the government will bend in this case and cite the failing business doctrine to approve the transaction.

Both Airborne and DHL have had strong leadership and have displayed good strategies and efficient operating structures, Hoppin said, but their survivability against FedEx and UPS competition remains questionable. "The jury is still out whether there is room for a viable nationwide overnight integrator." (...)

The question of carrier and hub survivability is haunting to the thousands of air-side employees of both carriers and the airports. Airborne operates 100 aircraft at Wilmington with a roster of 750 pilots represented by the Teamsters. DHL has just less than 500 pilots represented by the Air Line Pilots Assn. (ALPA) who fly up to 50 aircraft through the Cincinnati hub.

Mark Damron, the DHL unit's ALPA communications officer, said, "We do have concerns but it's a little bit early for speculation" as to what may happen. One consolation is that the company is seeking growth and won't waste valuable capacity, he said. Both facilities will be operating for at least the time period the merger case is argued."

So: from the outset, people were talking about the impact of this deal on jobs, and in particular about whether it would lead to the closing of the facilities in Wilmington, Cincinnati, or both. That seems to me worth knowing, if one wants to assess either the Ohio Democrats' ad or Davis' and McCain's involvement in that deal.

Frankly, though, I can't see why any Senator should have been involved with this deal to start with, especially a Senator from a state that would not be directly affected. And I still think that the main problem with this is that it reminds people that McCain is not in the least detached from the Washington culture he criticizes.

Comments

[Warren Terra]

For me, the last paragraph is the critical one (along with the stuff about lobbyists, but for those of us who pay attention, that's not new). McCain has proved himself remarkably amenable to lobbyists both on federal issues and as Hilzoy points out here on essentially local issues occuring a couple of time zones from his state; the only reason McCain would ever even hear about this stuff is because some lobbyist was able to get his ear. It's not quite as absurdly transparent as that Alaska congressman who was recently revealed to have gotten involved in land swaps and zoning decisions in Florida, but it's basically the same corrupt thing.

Shame no-one who just picks up the newspaper will ever hear this question asked, and neither for that matter will McCain himself.

[byrningman]

Still, it's rather hypocritical of Obama to be basking in the applause of thousands of Germans in Berlin, while railing against a German company taking over an American one back in Ohio.

Politics, politics.

[LFC]

Frankly, though, I can't see why any Senator should have been involved with this deal to start with, especially a Senator from a state that would not be directly affected.

I see Warren jumped on the Coconut Grove earmark by Rep. Don Young (R-AK) right away. It was the first thing I thought of too. Deal like DHL simply mean that McCain is willing to sell his influence to the highest bidder to keep his campaign coffers full. (Just look at the Airbus debacle.)

[Warren Terra]

Um, byrningman, your comment is slightly clever, which fails to make up for its being utter nonsense. But thanks for playing!

[LFC]

Still, it's rather hypocritical of Obama to be basking in the applause of thousands of Germans in Berlin, while railing against a German company taking over an American one back in Ohio.

HUH? So now the people of Germany are responsible for DHL, rather than the company itself, so he shouldn't talk to them? That's ... bizarre.

Even if your point was remotely valid (and it's not), Obama spoke in Germany weeks before this became public knowledge. Are you now judging him on his lack of ability to tell what will occur in the future?

[Anne E]

I'm certainly not expert about the airline industry, but I can see a reason why US airlilnes should be domestically owned.

I work in aerospace, and there are requirements for domestic procurement of parts on military contracts. Some of this is for domestic job protection, but there is a legitimate concern that if you're buying your military parts abroad, they could suddenly be unavailable just when you need them most- in wartime.

It's possible that the thinking about domestic ownership of airlines is similar. If we suddenly faced war with China, for example, we might need to use commercial jets to immediately ferry enormous numbers of troops to the Pacific. If our domestic airlines were owned by Chinese companies, that might not be possible. (I'm only using China as an example of a truly huge possible crisis, not suggesting that such a war is likely.)

[markus]

Jay Rockefeller is being slightly disingenious. Deutsche Post used to have a monopoly on mail (i.e. letters) in Germany in return for being required by law to service every postbox in Germany, no matter how remote. As one might expect, the business is highly profitable in big cities, but labour intensive and costly in rural areas. (To my knowledge experiments with competitors have found they're trying to skim off the profitable markets by various means and/or pay very low wages.) Second, it's considered a souvereign task, like national energy policy, foreign defense etc. There used to be a minister/Postmaster General for it, which is also why it's still mostly state owned.
To my knowledge it makes most of its profits in package and parcel delivery, competing with UPS and FedEx.
Those in turn had difficulties entering the German market, so heightened scrutiny is certainly fair play and Deutsche Post is certainly no saint either. But it's not a government agency.

[OCSteve]

And I still think that the main problem with this is that it reminds people that McCain is not in the least detached from the Washington culture he criticizes.

Well said hilzoy.

[hilzoy]

markus: thanks. That's good to know.

[Lemonade]

Thanks for the diligence in examining this ad and it's background. Items like this are why I routinely visit Obisdian Wings.

[byrningman]

Even if your point was remotely valid (and it's not), Obama spoke in Germany weeks before this became public knowledge. Are you now judging him on his lack of ability to tell what will occur in the future?

No, my point is that he's trying to ride the two divergent horses of disgruntled protectionism and multilateral globalism.

As for judging him on his ability to tell what will occur in the future, well, is he not the candidate who has made superior judgment a lynchpin of his campaign?

[cw]

I happen to live about 25 miles from the Wilmington runways. Most nights I see the buses taking workers to their jobs there, and watch a fairly continuous stream of jets on approach to the airport there. In other words, that operation was very visible throughout SW Ohio. The loss of all those jobs has been news for a long time all over the state - notice the town hall meeting was in Portsmouth, which is about 70 miles away.

Having said all that, I'm not sure how much effect the loss of jobs and the ad will have. Wilmington is in the 3rd Ohio district, right next to the infamous 2nd - the home of Rob Portman and now Jean Schmidt. Like the 2nd, it is very Republican - this whole part of Ohio is - and it's hard for me to guess what it would take to get through to some of those voters.

The current rep there is Mike Turner, who hasn't really done much about this situation; perhaps he's been too busy getting more jobs for Wright-Patterson AFB.

Some trivia: Lexis-Nexis's computers, on which you did your search, are about 25 miles from there too.

[Bernard Yomtov]

It's possible that the thinking about domestic ownership of airlines is similar. If we suddenly faced war with China, for example, we might need to use commercial jets to immediately ferry enormous numbers of troops to the Pacific. If our domestic airlines were owned by Chinese companies, that might not be possible.

That sounds flimsy to me, Anne. The planes will still be physically in the US, after all. If the givernment can essentially commandeer them from American airlines in casse of national emergency why can't it do the same even if the company's principal stockholders are foreign?

[ThatLeftTurnInABQ]

That said, I do not have a problem with private employers deciding to relocate their facilities, or with foreign ownership of companies that operate in the United States.

Good thing, because there is a lot more where this came from. Welcome to the future - where selling off equity in US companies on a large scale will be one of the unavoidable consequence of the immense debt we've racked up in the last decade.

And when jobs are inevitably cut as these companies look to either streamline or to strip-mine assets, there will be many, many more such stories like this one.

[professordarkheart]

I saw something in the Post the other day that explained McCain's involvement. Apparently Ted Stevens tried to add a provision to an Iraq spending bill that would have prevented any of the money being used to pay a foreign cargo carrier; that would have cut DHL out of a big chunk of the market, I guess. McCain, as chairman of the commerce committee (and after being lobbied by Davis), argued against including that kind of policy change in a spending bill; he got Congress to drop that obstacle to the deal.

[superdestroyer]

Isn't is very hypocritical for progressive Democrats to be worrying about a few thousand jobs in Ohio when they keep proposing to eliminate the private insurance companies that will eliminate millions of jobs?
Also, haven't progressives proposed eliminating millions of jobs in tourism, manufacturing, and energy.

[morzer]

Like to know more about the tearful little old lady in the ad? Read and learn about where spontaneous tears come from in McCain land! She is one Mary Houghtaling, and you can learn what she is to McCain by perusing the relevant Wilmington News Journal article (August 5th) by one Gary Huffenberger:

"Presidential GOP candidate Sen. John McCain will be in Wilmington Thursday afternoon to meet with a small group of residents to gain a greater understanding of the difficult situation facing thousands of Wilmington-based workers at the DHL Air Park, and to learn more about the community counteraction.

The meeting is not being organized as a campaign event or political gathering and is not open to general public admission, said Mary Houghtaling, a key local organizer of the get-together."

[Jay C]

Also, haven't progressives proposed eliminating millions of jobs in tourism, manufacturing, and energy.

Uhh, no; not that I've heard of lately. Care to provide some examples?

[mightygodking]

I dunno, Jay C. I mean, speaking for myself as a progressive, I know I sure hate working people.

[a-train]

That said, I do not have a problem with private employers deciding to relocate their facilities, or with foreign ownership of companies that operate in the United States.

Hilzoy, do you think you'd have a problem with private employers "deciding to relocate their facilities" if instead of harming people it harmed cute fauna or insects important to the "ecosystem."

It seems to me that many otherwise progressive people don't get that you are taking away people's way of surviving on this planet when you "relocate facilities."

Relocation is really just a way of pitting middle class laborers world wide against each other (while governments prevent them from making any common cause).

People who make their living doing jobs on the next layer up economically (media, politics, higher education, etc) don't seem to get this sense of threat to basic survival. But I expect that will change. And then the bigger picture things will really start to change. Now, people on both sides of the political spectrum who are politically powerful (and comfortable economically) have no incentive to really change things.

[lovable liberal]

That ad is going to leave a mark! Ouch.

[hilzoy]

a-train: I was thinking of this particular case, in which the relocation is from somewhere in the US to somewhere else in the US, so I wasn't thinking of outsourcing to other countries. I do not particularly like it when companies up and move. But I recognize that sometimes they need to, for good reasons. When they move, some jobs are lost, and others are created.

I do not want it to sound as though I am ignoring the dislocation involved, or imagining that when n jobs are destroyed in one place, if n jobs are created somewhere else, that makes it all OK. I am not. I think that when a company can do more or less as well staying in one place, it should. Moreover, I would expect that it would, at least if moving required, say, constructing a new plant.

All I meant was: I don't think it works at all to say that it's unfair and should be stopped whenever a company decides to move some facility from one place to another. If the complaint about this move was just: an employer has decided to move, period -- then I do not think it is a matter that politicians should get directly involved in. (They should of course get indirectly involved, e.g. by trying to set things up in such a way that whatever dislocations have to happen are as rare and bearable as possible; but that's setting the system up well, not intervening to block a particular corporate move.)

[Jay C]

I mean, speaking for myself as a progressive, I know I sure hate working people.

Yeah, man - I'm sure you do: but really: what have you done to make a positive difference in this country - and throw those ignorant, bigoted bums out of their jobs? I mean, c'mon: can you actually call yourself a "progressive" if you can't or won't take practical steps to insure the wholesale elimination of jobs? Politically correct prejudices and class disdain are all very well and good, mgk: but if superdestroyer is right, and we have millions of jobs to get rid of, well, we'd better get cracking!

Me, I'd love to help out, but I'm one of those eliist progressives who doesn't actually know any working people: but rest assured, that if I did, I'd do my darndest to boot them out of their jobs, and onto the unemployment line a.s.a.p.!

[Jay C]

Note to the humor-impaired: my 9:36 post is meant to be sarcastic - please do not take seriously.
JC

[a-train]

All I meant was: I don't think it works at all to say that it's unfair and should be stopped whenever a company decides to move some facility from one place to another.

I do not believe I argued otherwise. I don't think anyone can argue in the abstract that there is a problem with moving companies. Just as eating meat is not "bad" in the abstract, but when you consider the surrounding industry it is actually immoral.

The reality is that companies move whenever they want to.

My critique is that you seem to believe that the "market" is some force of nature outside the control of human beings. And companies should be allowed to leave a community whenever so-called impersonal market forces dictate. Of course there are good reasons for companies to move. But I am willing to bet that reasons you'd agree are "good" exist in a very small minority of the cases of relocating facilities.

Companies mostly move to make greater profits. Time immemorial, one of the easiest and most effective ways of making more short-term profit is to pay others less or make it cost you less by taking away benefits: safety precautions, breaks, overtime, vacation, etc.

Those who can most easily be be paid less or forced to work under these conditions are also inevitably the most politically disadvantaged.

The majority of these companies are moving to make this sort of "profit," that is, profits that harm others in being realized (whether by pollution or ridiculously unfair labor standards or brutal political regimes, the list could go on).This all has an inevitable impact on the larger "ecosystem."

The the other contextual point that cannot be ignored is that labor is prevented from effectively organizing world wide by their own "representatives" (representatives selected from a menu that is truly a "coke or pepsi" choice on issues most crucial to these people's lives (NAFTA, Fair Trade, etc) AND this is true as much of progressive as conservative representatives with a few notable exceptions).

The market is not a force of nature. It goes to the very essence existing (i.e. "make a living"). I wish a proper analogy came to mind.

[wonkie]

Is that ad on TV? Or just YouTube? Because if it is jjust on YouTube then the people who need to see it won't.

But great ad and exactly the sort of thing Democrats should have started making years ago..

[Gary Farber]

"No, my point is that he's trying to ride the two divergent horses of disgruntled protectionism and multilateral globalism."

What on earth does that latter mean? Was it wrong of Ronald Reagan to travel to Germany and be applauded by Germans? Is it wrong of Americans to be liked by foreigners? Should we strive to have our politicians booed by Germans, or non-Americans? What on earth are you saying? What is "multilateral globalism," and what's bad about it?

"Isn't is very hypocritical for progressive Democrats to be worrying about a few thousand jobs in Ohio when they keep proposing to eliminate the private insurance companies that will eliminate millions of jobs?"

No.

"Also, haven't progressives proposed eliminating millions of jobs in tourism, manufacturing, and energy."

No.

HTH. HAND.

[The Crafty Trilobite]

Isn't is very hypocritical for progressive Democrats to be worrying about a few thousand jobs in Ohio when they keep proposing to eliminate the private insurance companies that will eliminate millions of jobs?

Since Obama's plan isn't single-payer, you must be thinking of some other progressive Democrat. Which makes your argument irrelevant.

But it's wrong, too. Those of us who do propose a single-payer system have this crazy notion that if we were not all paying for more than necessary for health care, we could pour that money into purchases, savings, and investment -- which would generate more net jobs.

But maybe you're right. We should stop trying to eliminate all those organized crime and drug dealer jobs, too. After all, who are we to judge which jobs are harming society and wasting our resources? All jobs are equally useful. I see that now. [/snark]

BTW, "millions"? In health insurance alone? (Nobody is proposing to touch auto insurance, home insurance, life insurance, CGL insurance, etc.) It seems unlikely that over .3% of our population is employed in health insurance. And if millions of jobs would be lost, I have to conclude that the health insurance industry hires millions more people than would be needed to staff a single-payer system serving 15% more people. I look forward to you backing that up, so that I can use your figures to prove how inefficient and wasteful the industry is and how badly we need to switch to single-payer. Thanks in advance.

[superdestroyer]

Health Insurance:Overview and Economic Impact in the States,November 2007 states that the direct and indirect employment from health insurance is 1,350,000. That does not count healthcare providers part of the workload.

If you look at progressive single payer plan such as Physicians for a National Health Program, there proposal is to eliminate those jobs:

single-payer insurance is an antidote to the wasteful corporate bureaucracy of 1,200-plus private health insurers. More than 20 studies since the 1990s, by the Congressional Budget Office, General Accounting Office and others, have demonstrated substantial savings with single-payer insurance

The only way that single payer saves money is to lay off millions of workers.

If people are going to be concerned about a private company saving money pay laying off 8,000 employees, then they should be really concerned about the million employees plus who would be laid off with single payer health care. In addition, many providers will have to close due to single payer because the government will stop reinbursing for their procedures or set the reinbursement below costs (see Bexxar as an example).

Also, how do progressives think that tourism spots like Branson, MO; Gatlinburg, Tn; or the Wisconsin Dells is going to survive much higher fuel prices and zero carbon. They cannot be reached by electric cars. Also, there is no way that Hawaii survives as a tourist spot in a zero carbon world.

[Jesurgislac]

byrningman: No, my point is that he's trying to ride the two divergent horses of disgruntled protectionism and multilateral globalism.

Huh. You know, not that I'm German, but as a citizen of the EU: we expect the US to be full of it when it comes to talking protectionism v. free trade. Most powerful nations are. We're used to it. We do the same thing back. As they say, business is business.

But Bush is a bloody fascist. And the US under Bush has tried to strong-arm its usual friends and allies into taking part in a war of aggression and a hostile occupation, and when it failed to do so (and Germany explicitly refused troops because the German army will never again take part in a war of aggression) the Bush administration said some ugly things about "old Europe". US government agents have kidnapped people from European soil. Europeans have been held prisoner for years in a concentration camp run by the US.

Countries which have direct experience of fascism tend not to like this kind of thing. Business is business, but fascism is unacceptable.

Oh, and Bush tried to grope the Chancellor of Germany on live TV. Say what you will about Obama, and I'm likely to say plenty, you can't imagine him behaving like that.

[grandpajohn]

"Mary Houghtaling, who runs a hospice in Wilmington, Ohio, choked up as she told McCain of DHL's plans to close its domestic air hub in her town, a move that could throw 8,600 people out of work."

Carpetbagger report has some more interesting details on ms Houghtaling, seems as if she was one of the organizers of the event and is a big McCain supporter, so evidently she was acting here as a plant

[grandpajohn]

"Mary Houghtaling, who runs a hospice in Wilmington, Ohio, choked up as she told McCain of DHL's plans to close its domestic air hub in her town, a move that could throw 8,600 people out of work."

Carpetbagger report has some interesting detail about ms Houghtaling such as she one one of the organizers for the McCain event so it appears that she was acting as a shill here.

[grandpajohn]

He is also running a radio ad in Nevada that also delivers a solid hit. It is one displaying McSames hypocrisy on the Yucca Mt nuclear waste site, that most Nevadans are strongly against. Seems as if McSame is for site he just don't want deliveries to it coming through arizona

[Anarch]

Also, how do progressives think that tourism spots like Branson, MO; Gatlinburg, Tn; or the Wisconsin Dells is going to survive much higher fuel prices and zero carbon. They cannot be reached by electric cars.

Why is it necessary that, say, the Dells survive as a tourism spot -- especially if, say, rising prices drive their major attractions (the water parks, here) out of business?

[liberal japonicus]

Why is it necessary that, say, the Dells survive as a tourism spot -- especially if, say, rising prices drive their major attractions (the water parks, here) out of business?

Because if the Dells doesn't survive, the US might become a 1 attraction country and since superdestroyer is all about diversity, that would be horrific.

[Gromit]

Tourist spots aren't exactly going to thrive in a post-peak-oil economy without alternatives, either.

[gwangung]

If people are going to be concerned about a private company saving money pay laying off 8,000 employees, then they should be really concerned about the million employees plus who would be laid off with single payer health care.

Not really. You're just saying the billions we're paying for medical ISNT BEING SPENT ON MEDICAL CARE. AND IT SHOULDN'T BE.

Dunno about you, but that's a DUMB statement.

[gwangung]

The only way that single payer saves money is to lay off millions of workers.

The rest of the world says differently.

For one, standardizing on one records keeping format will save money.

Try some minimal research.

[Tony P.]

gwangung,

Believe me, I am all for single-payer universal health insurance. I am for it because I think it will reduce 'health-care spending'. But 'spending' means buying things and hiring people. The main way any operation, private company or government agency, saves money is by laying people off.

For instance, 'standardizing on one records keeping format will save money' if and only if you get to stop paying the people you now pay to deal with multiple, incompatible formats.

superdestroyer,

That's some good concern-trolling you've got there. Would you also oppose massive reductions in, say, the Dept. of Education budget on the grounds that it would mean lots of people get laid off?

-- TP

[superdestroyer]

Tony,

The Department of Education has about 4200 employees. http://www.ed.gov/about/landing.jhtml?src=gu

It is smaller than the Airborne hub in Ohio. Most of what it does is move money around and hand out grants. How about leaving the 68 billion in tax dollars back in those districts where they could be spent on instruction instead of looping the money through DC, paying 4200 employees about the costs of 420 million plus contractors.

[Hartmut]

How many jobs did the world lose by adoption of first the steam and then the internal combustion engine? Not only did these infernal machines lead to global climate change they also drove countless hand-weavers to literal starvation (and a few revolutions.
Vote Luddite this fall!

[Tony P.]

superdestroyer,

What do insurance companies do except 'move money around'?

If we left 'the 68 billion in tax dollars back in those districts where they could be spent on instruction instead of looping the money through DC', why would we keep 'paying 4200 employees' whose main job is 'looping the money'?

You're either for laying people off from redundant jobs, or you're not. If you are, then your 'single-payer will lay millions off' line is classic (nay, medal-worthy) concern trolling.

-- TP

[byrningman]

Huh. You know, not that I'm German, but as a citizen of the EU: we expect the US to be full of it when it comes to talking protectionism v. free trade. Most powerful nations are. We're used to it. We do the same thing back. As they say, business is business.

But Bush is a bloody fascist.

As another non-German EUer, I suppose I agree. Still, the Obama campaign has definitely pandered to a belligerent streak of protectionism more than any of the other presidential candidates this time around, and that choice is definitely at odds with the spirit of global community that he channels in other fora.

As for Bush being a fascist, eh, that's an exaggeration. He doesn't have the style or flair for starters.

[superdestroyer]

My initial post was about how the concern for causing lay-offs seems to only matter if the person making the proposals is not aligned with the person making the compliant.

If progressives really want to worry about the actions of government causing people to lose their jobs, then they should have a policy that requires some sort of cost-benefit analysis.

Of couse, the one real example I know about is that the EPA is forbidden from considering employment issues when applying the clean water, clean air, endangered species, or NEPA.

If that is the policy that progressives want to follow, then fine. But then they need to shut up about Senator McCAin and DHL/Airbone. If they really want to shown concern about employment issues, then those should be addressed by all parts of the government.

As was pointed out above, Senator Obama is not proposing single payer because he is smart enough to realize how many people will lose their jobs because of it and that his administration will bear the blame for losing those jobs. The same goes for his energy policy. Senator Obama probably is against drilling, nuclear energy, or expansion of coal, but once again, he is smart enough to realize that a renewable only economy would have high levels of unemployment and would be close to collapse most of the time.

[cleek]

if we went to single-payer, a lot of jobs would just shift from private companies to the govt.

it's not like there will be any less need for people to police the flow of cash from insurer to provider.

[Tony P.]

if we went to single-payer, a lot of jobs would just shift from private companies to the govt.

Not all of them -- or else there would be no overall savings.

Well, there would be some savings: we would save whatever money the insurance-company shareholders are now capturing out of the overall 'health-care spending' pot.

And let me be clear: it would be OK by me if the government were to keep paying the surplus paper-shufflers for some considerable time, in the form of extended unemployment benefits. That would still be cheaper, overall, than the status quo.

-- TP

[Nell]

@superdestroyer: If you sincerely believe that the election of Democrats will bring about a single-payer health plan and the demise of the private insurers, you will be reassured to learn that a large coalition of labor unions and liberal think tanks have solidified around a health care campaign that accepts the political and economic reality that the private health insurance industry isn't going anywhere.

They are pushing for a small public component in Obama's health care plan as a wedge by which a move to a public system might be possible. Eventually.

This incrementalist strategy proposal, Health Care for America Now, is regarded as more progressive than Obama's current proposal. At the same time it is regarded as an unwise, premature abandonment/sellout of a truly public plan by some single-payer advocates (others are part of the coalition).

In short, there is less chance that a Democratic administration and Democratic Congress will legislate the private health insurers out of existence than that all U.S. troops will leave Iraq in the next four years.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

As the person who supplied the info on Houghtaling to The Carpetbagger Report -- a simple Google did the trick, no brains necessary -- the key quote to me was the earlier one:

"and, reporting on something that happened the day before the 2004 election
“Then he [GWB] and first lady Laura Bush walked to the tarmac, waved, boarded the gleaming Air Force One and took off. It was a dramatic flourish, and Mary Houghtaling, whose husband has flown cargo jets at the air park for more than 20 years, still says, “Oh, it was the coolest thing.”[emphasis mine]

The whole thing is at http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16501.html
at comment 7.

("okay, so I got an ego -- got a problem wid dat?" he says in his best Brooklynese)

[The Crafty Trilobite]

Superdestroyer, thanks for the 1.35M figure, but you still haven't shown how many jobs would be lost. More importantly, you haven't addressed whether it would be a net good to kill those jobs. I did. You yourself say:

progressives who worry about the actions of government causing people to lose their jobs...should have a policy that requires some sort of cost-benefit analysis.

Not sure what you mean by voters or progressives in general having a "policy" (hint, we're not an organization). But I did address the benefits. Where's your cost-benefit analysis?

Then you say this somehow proves that progressives "need to shut up about Senator McCAin and DHL/Airbone."

Why? We could talk about whether the DHL deal was good or bad. McCain should, since he's in favor of it. So why doesn't he? Or why don't you? But this thread wasn't about whether the deal was good or bad. Hilzoy just pointed out that McCain misled the public.

McCain talked about a deal he himself promoted, bragged that his answer was "straight talk," and never mentioned his own involvement. Are you going to try to argue that it's not relevant that he was part of the deal? That Ohio voters who wanted to hear what he thought about the deal wouldn't think that was important?

Upthread, we find out that McCain even planted the original question. So there he is taking a big dramatic stand for The Truth -- and hiding his own collusion. That's some real 'straight talk' there.

Now, if you want to address the actual issue here, go right ahead. Or if you want to threadjack in a substantive way, by arguing the costs and benefits of the deal, go for it.

As for Branson etc., seems to me they got a free ride for a long time from state-supported oil exploitation and highways. If they still can't make a living by themselves, I think it's bad policy to keep giving them welfare, it will only encourage dependence in future generations.

[superdestroyer]

The Crafty Trilobite,

Thank you for the standard progressive, liberal nitpicking. I assume that what passes for reality based thinking. If the government bans private insurance, then the 1.3 million FTE go away. That is how the savings will work. Of course, even progressive physicians organizations (referenced above) admits that single payer will cause huge job loses and proposes job training to make up the difference (see Michigan for the effectiveness of that idea).

Of course, no one has really addressed the idea of whether the government (so to be totally controlled by Democrats) really needs to worry about whether its policies cause unemployment.

Your own callousness towards people in the midwest is clear demonstration of that and what I really suspect.

[The Crafty Trilobite]

Right, the difference between less than a million jobs and "millions" is nitpicking, the new jobs to be created by freeing up wasted money are irrelevant, and I'm the one who doesn't care how many jobs are lost.

And let me repeat, since you ignored it the first time, that you are attacking a straw man, since Obama's plan is not single-payer.

You don't actually like to use facts, do you?

[Eric Martin]

And let me repeat, since you ignored it the first time, that you are attacking a straw man, since Obama's plan is not single-payer

Word!

That's my complaint about it.

[Rebecca]

I am from the Midwest, and incidently, most people employed by the health insurance corporations are not. Health insurance in this country is a bloated corporate leech, and one of the reasons that health care in this country is so expensive. Yes, single payer health care would provide savings by cutting some jobs in the insurance industry (certainly not all 1.3 million, after all, the bureautic infrastructure for such a system does not exist at this point) but it would also provide savings in the form of effective negotiation with drug companies for bulk discounts (the savings is significant, as we can see by comparing seniors on the new medicare drug program with veterans). You are right that one of the major reasons no one is seriously proposing single payer health care, let alone the abrupt switch that you seem to be imagining, is due to the number of people's jobs that depend on the current bloated system. You also seem to be suggesting that the EPA and its sister environmental bureaucracies ought to similarly weigh jobs lost vs environmental health, and that it is 'you progressives' who prevent this from happening. In point of fact, the corporations that the EPA orders to clean up have been stealing from the public for years in the form of stealing our water, air and pretty animals. But 'us progressives' shouldn't need to justify disregarding corporate health in cases where the corporation's existence and profitability has been predicated on blatant outright theft of public resources. As far as de-industrialization and unemployment in the Midwest goes, you are right, it is horrendous, and the consequences for working people have been dire. So far, none of the government programs to re-train workers have made any noticeable impact (though hopefully that will improve if we get someone who is not a worshiper of the 'free market' in the White House and is therefore willing to properly fund such programs as well as willing to do something about the midwestern housing crisis instead of just paying attention to various crises on Wall Street). However, the blame, at least for the auto industry portion of the situation, lies squarely within the upper corporate echelons of those organizations. Detroit put its eggs in the SUV basket and millions of workers will suffer for its short-sightedness. (Millions, once you include parts manufacturers and operations outside the U.S.) I'm honestly not sure how you manage to blame this on liberals, since we are the ones in favor of a social safety net for the people who pay for corporate greed (the now unemployed) and raising taxes on the people who benefit from it (the CEOs).

[The Crafty Trilobite]

Rebecca, you might add that if America had listened to us annoying liberals, we might have had automobile emissions standards that bore some relation to reality, and applied to SUVs, which would have forced the fatheads in Detroit to build better cars, so their employees would have a chance today. But of course, that would have interfered with the magic market.

Let me say this clearly: one of the most important factors of the classic free market is workers who lose their jobs when a business fails. Bad business choices are supposed to cause failure, and when your employer's business fails, you lose your job. This makes you willing to work for less, so a startup can hire you cheap, which fuels the next go-round. Crashes and poverty are not a bug, they are a feature.

We created a more stable, prosperous middle class in the 2nd half of the 20th Century by methodically interfering with the free market. We did this for two very simple reasons:
1) we thought if we didn't, we'd have a revolution.
2) even on its own terms, the old strategy wasn't working well any more, because whole-industry crashes were getting more common, and a free labor pool wasn't very useful to other industries in a world that needed fewer unskilled laborers overall. Worker retraining has never worked well -- it takes time and energy to learn a whole new set of skills.