The following is a copy of my column for the local paper. In it I want to show that cooperation is possible and that much of what we see and hear is noise generated by the media and special interests for their own self-serving purposes. For most of the people in the country the differences are not that great but the shouting and slogans make it difficult to see the truth. Here we see a very conservative CEO working with the President to create jobs and we see that the slogans from each side are not relevant. For some reason the elected representatives have stopped serving their constituencies and have gone with the loudest. We must also be loud.
Sunday night I watched “60 Minutes” just as I usually do. I am grateful that the new season is here and we don't have to watch segments that appear to be strangely out of context. The segment that caught my attention was the one in which Leslie Stahl was interviewing Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of General Electric. Mr. Immelt is a card carrying Republican who says that his parents watch 5 to 6 hours of Fox News daily but he is the Chairman of President Obama's job creation panel. His parents, true to the Tea Party ideology, assumed that he would turn down the position but he did not.
Mr. Immelt knows what it takes to be productive and competitive in global markets. General Electric is one of the corporations that is making money and 60% of its income is coming from overseas operations. He mentioned that GE is bringing manufacturing jobs home because he thinks we can produce GE's products here for less than they can produce them overseas. GE also happens to be one of the companies that pays almost nothing in corporate taxes. However, I am not out to bash GE here but there are a few things he said that caught my ear.
When asked about the corporate tax rate he said that he thought it should be around 25%. That is some 10% less than it is now but it was what he said next that caught my ear. He added, no loopholes. That is correct. NO LOOPHOLES. Now, I have to tell you. I think I can live with that if that is really what he means. That contradicts current GOP ideology about increasing revenues and in addition he said that he did not think that such a position would cost US jobs at all. Ms. Stahl asked him about a tax holiday to bring overseas cash home. Would the increased domestic cash result in job creation? His answer, again against GOP orthodoxy, was that experience indicates that it would not but that it just seemed like a good idea to have the money here rather than in Ireland or some other tax haven. He was asked about GE shipping jobs to other countries and his reply was revealing. His reply was that it is not his name over the door. He works for the GE shareholders. If he did not produce goods all over the world it would result in thousands of fewer jobs in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Texas. His point is well taken but notice that he did not say that he thought it would be best for the US if he had all of GE's jobs here. My point is that GE is a profit generating corporation just like other corporations and its fealty is to the bottom line, not the American nation or it's people.
Since the Citizens United v. FEC case last year decided before the Supreme Court is has been legal for corporations to donate money to political elections. The Court has decided that corporations are for all intents and purposes the same as individuals and enjoy the same rights. But Mr. Immelt, who seems to be an earnest and good citizen, has openly admitted that GE's motive is profit. If that is true then this decision by the court will allow the influencing of legislation in order to serve the corporations specific needs. The corporate need is not the same as the needs of the citizens.
The Koch brothers have pledged to insert $200 million into conservative electoral politics next year. The may be their personal stash or not. The point is that favorable legislation can be bought by buying favorable legislators. The only way to stop it is by removing the money from the political process by publicly funding elections and prohibiting individual or corporate contributions.
Another comment by Mr. Immelt was in response to what the reasoning was for our corporations sitting on over $2 trillion in cash. His response was that he did not know what the reasoning was. That whatever their reasoning was it was just wrong. As for them being unsure of regulation, nonsense. As he and many others have said the problem is lack of demand and demand can't be created by cutting spending. That will only further decrease demand and we will stay in the moribund economy for years. As a matter of fact, this card carrying Republican supports the President's jobs bill.
The point here is that solutions are perfectly possible if reasonable people will put personality and party aside for the good of the American people. The conflict is a party thing and it is being driven by impossible demands from groups of people, left and right, and our elected representatives don't have the stomach to take a chance on not being reelected.
And as for the idea that we just need to get government out of the way? In his words, government has always been involved in innovation. Aerospace industry sprang from defense needs. Health advances come from the National Institute of Health. Mr. Immelt says that we need to spend more to retrain workers and that we can't save our way out of this.
And there you have it. Words from a conservative that support the jobs bill put forward by the President and just recently stymied in the Senate. It is not that the bill did not get a majority of the votes, it did. It is just that it did not get 60 votes required to close off filibuster. That is just ridiculous. Personally, I can't understand why those doing the filibuster aren't required to actually stand up and talk so that the people can see how sophomoric they really are.
My Take on the American Jobs Act? I'll be darned if I know. It attempts to do something with few resources. On the whole, it may help some and almost certainly won't hurt.
How would you deal with it going forward?
