I hope so, but how many know about the defense of Corregidor, the subsequent Bataan Death March, that resulted in thousands of deaths on the way to march to a horrible concentration camp in Tarlac? I'm not sure how many of my readers even know what country I'm referring to. Well, it is the Philippines. We have a long history there dating from the Spanish American War, but that is for another blog.
We have a lot of ceremonies honoring our Normandy invasion dead and survivors. How many do we have for those who fought in the Pacific? We had the last hold outs at Corregidor. How many school kids know about it? It's indeed a moving sight. It's not even taught in schools anymore. How about the battle of the Philippines in 1944 where tens of thousands died liberating that island nation from Japanese imperialism? Nope, it is not taught. I had relatives who fought there and died in Leyte. One is buried in the Manila American Cemetery and Memorial. It's is awesome sight to see, the memorial is breathtaking, and I have always left with tears in my eye. Sadly this is neglected by Americans. Our forefathers fought to liberate Asia to keep us free, and they deserve the same honor.
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Unions and Politics: A Personal Introspective
I'm originally from the coal mining region of northeast Pennsylvania, and this was one place that needed a good union around the turn of the 20th century as much as Poland needed Solidarity in the 1980s. The UMW was very successful in initiating safety rules in the mines, workers rights, and the right to strike after a long struggle and a lot of violence. These were all things desperately needed at the time. Working conditions in the mines were deplorable, the mining companies owned the company stores that the workers shopped at, and owned the row houses they live in. It was a form of serfdom. Immigrants flocked to the area to work the mines from very diverse places like Ireland, Wales, Scotland, Russia, Italy and the many ethnic regions of the Hapsburg Empire. The numerous churches in the Scranton/Wilkes Barre/Hazleton Pennsylvania region, some more like grand cathedrals all built by immigrants who worked in menial low paying jobs, in their copious free time demonstrated their faith in God. Although these immigrants worked together in the mines, steel mills, and dress factories during the day, they usually stuck with their own outside that environment. They spoke their own language and worshiped in their own churches. They voted for politicians who supported their very narrow viewpoint, and ethnicity. Neither political party did a whole lot to help alleviate the awful work conditions, and depended on their particular ethnic minorities to get elected. Someone from Italy would never vote for one of those filthy Scots, and the Scots wouldn't vote for someone Welsh, let alone a Jew, and....well you get the picture. Politics was ethnic, not so much party oriented. Catholics, were almost exclusively Democrats, as were their politicians, and Protestants were Republicans and their clergy regularly preached politics from the pulpit. The average miner or steel worker knew nothing of politics other than their local council member, mayor, or police chief. They voted along ethnic lines. The union was the uniting force, and was necessary at the time to liberate the people working the mines and mills from serfdom. Neither the politicians of either party or the churches did much to stand up for the little guy.
That was then, this is now. Unions were and are still a part of American life, industry, and especially government. While once unions were organizations who fought against, sometimes literally, against thugs to stand up for decent living and working conditions for their members; now they stand up for very little more than bigger government and endless entitlements. Most unions are just fundraising organizations for the Democratic Party, lining their union leadership pockets with money, and grabbing political power nationally. Most private industry is now nonunion, due to competitive markets for skilled employees, and except in some large legacy companies in states that allow closed shops, union workers are few....Except in government. The biggest segment of union employees are now working for the taxpayer.
Oddly, people who I once grew up with who were so pro-union and and still vote along ethnic lines, have gotten very little for their political investment. Ok, Joe Mcdade (The John Murtha of the Republican party) brought a brand new Taj Mahal terminal to the Wilkes Barre/Scranton Airport with government pork, and it employed a few hundred people working union jobs over a few years, but these guys are now swilling beer at at 2 pm in the local saloon. And McDade though a nominal Republican, voted like a Democrat, And Gringrich stripped him of his position on the appropriations committee in 1995. But the big government guys have been screwing the people from my hometown for 60 years.
There have been revolts against government employee unions, most notably in Wisconsin, and the recent recall votes are heartening, but nothing like this is likely to happen in northeastern Pennsylvania, where all you is to have the last name Casey (Democrat) or Scranton (Republican) and you will get elected. Sad but true from an area that my 82 year old dad was just saying that this area was in a depression in 1938 is in one in 2011, and will be in 2111.
When I visited my hometown earlier this month, I talked to a lot of old friends, and most are yellow dog Democrats, and I asked them why they support the people who they do, and the answer was astounding. Educated people told me, because we have always been Democrats (or in a few cases Republicans) since their great grandfather immigrated to the USA. I inquired as to why they never looked at what the candidates actually stood for with a critical eye, and was greeted with blank looks and answers like, "Why are you asking, Keith? This is how we vote". There was no serious discussion of policy or issues amongst any of them.
Much like I can no longer go back to the church of my youth, I can't go back to a place that is rust belt poor area where I grew up. People there just keep voting what their unions, local politicians, and in many cases churches tell them.
Sometimes things evolve with time, sometime they stay stuck in an earlier era. In the area I grew up in, it is the later, They pine for the glories of the mines, railroads, and steel mills. Sometimes you can't go home again.
That was then, this is now. Unions were and are still a part of American life, industry, and especially government. While once unions were organizations who fought against, sometimes literally, against thugs to stand up for decent living and working conditions for their members; now they stand up for very little more than bigger government and endless entitlements. Most unions are just fundraising organizations for the Democratic Party, lining their union leadership pockets with money, and grabbing political power nationally. Most private industry is now nonunion, due to competitive markets for skilled employees, and except in some large legacy companies in states that allow closed shops, union workers are few....Except in government. The biggest segment of union employees are now working for the taxpayer.
Oddly, people who I once grew up with who were so pro-union and and still vote along ethnic lines, have gotten very little for their political investment. Ok, Joe Mcdade (The John Murtha of the Republican party) brought a brand new Taj Mahal terminal to the Wilkes Barre/Scranton Airport with government pork, and it employed a few hundred people working union jobs over a few years, but these guys are now swilling beer at at 2 pm in the local saloon. And McDade though a nominal Republican, voted like a Democrat, And Gringrich stripped him of his position on the appropriations committee in 1995. But the big government guys have been screwing the people from my hometown for 60 years.
There have been revolts against government employee unions, most notably in Wisconsin, and the recent recall votes are heartening, but nothing like this is likely to happen in northeastern Pennsylvania, where all you is to have the last name Casey (Democrat) or Scranton (Republican) and you will get elected. Sad but true from an area that my 82 year old dad was just saying that this area was in a depression in 1938 is in one in 2011, and will be in 2111.
When I visited my hometown earlier this month, I talked to a lot of old friends, and most are yellow dog Democrats, and I asked them why they support the people who they do, and the answer was astounding. Educated people told me, because we have always been Democrats (or in a few cases Republicans) since their great grandfather immigrated to the USA. I inquired as to why they never looked at what the candidates actually stood for with a critical eye, and was greeted with blank looks and answers like, "Why are you asking, Keith? This is how we vote". There was no serious discussion of policy or issues amongst any of them.
Much like I can no longer go back to the church of my youth, I can't go back to a place that is rust belt poor area where I grew up. People there just keep voting what their unions, local politicians, and in many cases churches tell them.
Sometimes things evolve with time, sometime they stay stuck in an earlier era. In the area I grew up in, it is the later, They pine for the glories of the mines, railroads, and steel mills. Sometimes you can't go home again.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
When government owns the means of production
HotAir.com's Ed Morrissey posts a daily "Obamateurism of the Day" that picks up on the daily gaffes, misstatements, and maddening things that President Obama says and does on a daily basis. Today Ed hit upon Obama's latest attempt to influence the free market. You see, Pres. Obama thinks that General Motors makes too many SUVs and trucks and not enough compact cars. Of course the government always knows how to run a business far better than the free market concept of meeting demand with supply. Government just demands more crappy cars like the Chevy Volt, and people will swarm to buy one, right? Well no, the Volt is a dismal failure.
After reading Ed's blog today, I got to thinking about just how good the auto industry was in a truly dynamic socialist economy, that being the former German Democratic Republic (aka East Germany) and it's leading edge technology triumph the Trabant 601. I found this fascinating 2 part promotional video (part 1, part 2) on YouTube produced by the GDR government in 1965 showing the production of the "Car of the Century". While capitalists in West Germany were wasting their time building Volkswagon, BMW, Audi and Mercedes Benz automobiles, the high minded socialist economists were busy producing a vehicle with a 2 stroke engine, plastic body, ran on 83 octane gasoline and had a maximum speed of 100 km/hour (62 miles/hour) that was so popular there was a 15-20 year wait just to be the proud owner of one of these triumphs of a socialist planned economy. The imperialists in the west could only dream of owning one of these truly magnificent vehicles.
For a little compare and contrast, lets have a look at a similar era Mercedes Benz. The superiority of the socialist car is glaringly obvious.
Ok, that's enough snark for now. The Trabant was a truly awful car, broke down frequently, and was very good at turning low octane gasoline into noise and smoke. I had the opportunity to take a test drive in one about 10 years ago at an antique car show. The one I drove was impeccably maintained, and the steering wheel still pulled to the left, the top speed was 40 miles per hour, and struggled to get up a small hill. When you open the hood to work on the engine (something required at least weekly), it took a rubber mallet and crow bar to get it closed again, because the body parts were just so poorly fit.
For anyone going to Berlin, there is a Trabant museum there that is very interesting, and has a lot of good demonstrations on just what went in to making this hand manufactured car. This was no assembly line vehicle, which may explain the long wait list just to buy one.
So there you have it folks, this little exercise is a perfect demonstration what you get when the government .controls the means of production, as well as what is available on the market.
Update: Here's a look at the Trabant factory as filmed by a West German film crew. This film really shows just how ugly the factory was, and what an awful car it produced. And this demonstrates their quality control.
After reading Ed's blog today, I got to thinking about just how good the auto industry was in a truly dynamic socialist economy, that being the former German Democratic Republic (aka East Germany) and it's leading edge technology triumph the Trabant 601. I found this fascinating 2 part promotional video (part 1, part 2) on YouTube produced by the GDR government in 1965 showing the production of the "Car of the Century". While capitalists in West Germany were wasting their time building Volkswagon, BMW, Audi and Mercedes Benz automobiles, the high minded socialist economists were busy producing a vehicle with a 2 stroke engine, plastic body, ran on 83 octane gasoline and had a maximum speed of 100 km/hour (62 miles/hour) that was so popular there was a 15-20 year wait just to be the proud owner of one of these triumphs of a socialist planned economy. The imperialists in the west could only dream of owning one of these truly magnificent vehicles.
For a little compare and contrast, lets have a look at a similar era Mercedes Benz. The superiority of the socialist car is glaringly obvious.
Ok, that's enough snark for now. The Trabant was a truly awful car, broke down frequently, and was very good at turning low octane gasoline into noise and smoke. I had the opportunity to take a test drive in one about 10 years ago at an antique car show. The one I drove was impeccably maintained, and the steering wheel still pulled to the left, the top speed was 40 miles per hour, and struggled to get up a small hill. When you open the hood to work on the engine (something required at least weekly), it took a rubber mallet and crow bar to get it closed again, because the body parts were just so poorly fit.
For anyone going to Berlin, there is a Trabant museum there that is very interesting, and has a lot of good demonstrations on just what went in to making this hand manufactured car. This was no assembly line vehicle, which may explain the long wait list just to buy one.
So there you have it folks, this little exercise is a perfect demonstration what you get when the government .controls the means of production, as well as what is available on the market.
Update: Here's a look at the Trabant factory as filmed by a West German film crew. This film really shows just how ugly the factory was, and what an awful car it produced. And this demonstrates their quality control.
Monday, August 8, 2011
What have they done with my church?
This past week I visited my elderly parents in their small town, in northeastern Pennsylvania. This is the town where my older brother and I grew up. It's a tough old coal mining area where God fearing people worked hard, had sincere beliefs and were not only ethnically diverse, but were ethnically segregated in many cases on Sunday. Around the turn of the 20th century, there was a huge immigration to the USA from diverse places as Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Italy and Eastern Europe from what was then Austria-Hungary. They all built their own churches in their own traditions. They may have worked together, mostly in the anthracite mines of the area, but on Sunday, they worshiped at their own churches. The few ethnic groups that even remotely mixed on Sunday tended to be of the Protestant denominations, one of them being the affiliation of my youth, the Presbyterian Church U.S.A (PCUSA).
The church I grew up in tended to be WASP-ish, but my mother and her family are German Presbyterians. My paternal grandmother was a Scot and was more Presbyterian than John Knox (she was also about as tolerant with those who weren't). The Irish Catholics were her sworn enemy, and barely tolerated my German mother. My paternal grandfather was what we could call a Heinz 57, but for the most part was Scots-Irish, and not particularly religious. He was a general building contractor in the early-mid part of the 20th century and much to my grandmother's chagrin often associated, hired, and was friends with the dreaded Methodists, Baptists, and dare I say, CATHOLICS!. (The horrors!).
By the time I was a young child, the church I grew up in became far more inclusive of "foreigners", and those who were not traditionally Presbyterians. We had a number of Slovak families, a pastor who came from Italy and converted from Roman Catholicism as a young seminarian, and served at our church until he retired 50 years later. One thing remained constant however. Presbyterian doctrine went all the way back to the founders such as John Calvin and John Knox. The General Assembly, the governing board of the church, was steadfast in reiterating this for hundreds of years. Although there were many modernizations, the beliefs and doctrine were steadfast. There was a distinct difference with other Protestant sects such as Methodists and Baptists, although at least in my town, the Protestant churches got along very amicably, and in the summer, even had union services, allowing the ministers of these churches to have a few weeks vacation. This also exposed young people to the noticeable differences between the faiths. They had far more in common than the elders would admit, I can remember.
The Catholics and Orthodox churches didn't have much to do with the Protestants or each other, and we all accepted that. By the time I was born in the late 1950's, the majority of citizens in my area were Catholic. Prior to Vatican II, the local churches regularly vilified "heretics and Jews". The Protestant churches did not. This made a big impact on my young mind, and I decided by the time I was 10 years ago that I was good with my faith, and as soon as I was eligible, eagerly went to communicants class at the same church I went to Sunday School since the time I was a toddler. I was comfortable in my church, enjoyed the service and the sermons by our highly intellectual pastor (he actually spoke way over the head of many of his congregation at times, me included). Some things did not chance. The Presbyterian Church was faithful to its base beliefs and its doctrine.
Things started to change in the 1980's. The church became political, in ways that had nothing to do with scripture. The General Assembly embraced Liberalism, albeit initially in very small ways. The pastor who I grew up with retired, and was replaced with a brash young idealistic woman the same age as me. She had big designs on "Hope and Change" within the church. My small town church, that had very strong traditional conservative values, suddenly had this young "progressive", speaking of "social justice", "liberation", and expressing, loudly, solidarity with the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. She was quickly put in her place by the elders of the church, my father being one of them, and she began keeping her political views to herself.
However, sadly her views were shared with the ruling body, the General Assembly of the PCUSA, and it started to show in the church services. Still, in my sleepy town, not a whole lot changed.....initially. Some things began to show up in the General Assembly's annual report that I found very disturbing. They were making a very pro-Palestinian policy, and selectively divesting from Israel, which has only accelerated in recent years. They actively support far leftist ideology, while shunning traditional conservative ideals. I really didn't pay too much attention until I moved to the Memphis, Tennessee area over 15 years ago. The church I attended seemed very odd to me, and the sermons were very similar to those I heard 10 years prior in my hometown church, before the smackdown. I became very disgruntled, and started to look for a church that was more to my liking; something that maintained traditional Presbyterian beliefs.
It didn't take long. Apparently, at least in the South, there were a number of other Presbyterian congregations that became fed up with the liberal ruling body, and decided to form the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).
That brings me to the question I asked in the title of this piece.
As I mentioned in the opening paragraph, I visited my childhood home this past week, and accompanied my parents to the church I grew up in. I hardly knew it. They have replaced the King James Bible with some politically correct, non-gender, asexual, and revisionist religious text that is an insult to God's holy word. Gone from the service is the Apostles Creed, replaced with a very touchy-feely "affirmation of faith" that affirms nothing, and acknowledges neither Hell nor the resurrection of Christ. Gone is the singing of the Gloria Patri. Scripture readings sound more like childhood Sunday School stories rather than the word of God. I walked away from the service bewildered, and depressed. I asked my 82 year old father, how he felt about the changes in his church. Needless to say, he is not at all happy, but at his age, feels there is little he can do to change anything anymore.
I don't think I can return to the church of my childhood. The building might still be there, but the soul is gone.
The church I grew up in tended to be WASP-ish, but my mother and her family are German Presbyterians. My paternal grandmother was a Scot and was more Presbyterian than John Knox (she was also about as tolerant with those who weren't). The Irish Catholics were her sworn enemy, and barely tolerated my German mother. My paternal grandfather was what we could call a Heinz 57, but for the most part was Scots-Irish, and not particularly religious. He was a general building contractor in the early-mid part of the 20th century and much to my grandmother's chagrin often associated, hired, and was friends with the dreaded Methodists, Baptists, and dare I say, CATHOLICS!. (The horrors!).
By the time I was a young child, the church I grew up in became far more inclusive of "foreigners", and those who were not traditionally Presbyterians. We had a number of Slovak families, a pastor who came from Italy and converted from Roman Catholicism as a young seminarian, and served at our church until he retired 50 years later. One thing remained constant however. Presbyterian doctrine went all the way back to the founders such as John Calvin and John Knox. The General Assembly, the governing board of the church, was steadfast in reiterating this for hundreds of years. Although there were many modernizations, the beliefs and doctrine were steadfast. There was a distinct difference with other Protestant sects such as Methodists and Baptists, although at least in my town, the Protestant churches got along very amicably, and in the summer, even had union services, allowing the ministers of these churches to have a few weeks vacation. This also exposed young people to the noticeable differences between the faiths. They had far more in common than the elders would admit, I can remember.
The Catholics and Orthodox churches didn't have much to do with the Protestants or each other, and we all accepted that. By the time I was born in the late 1950's, the majority of citizens in my area were Catholic. Prior to Vatican II, the local churches regularly vilified "heretics and Jews". The Protestant churches did not. This made a big impact on my young mind, and I decided by the time I was 10 years ago that I was good with my faith, and as soon as I was eligible, eagerly went to communicants class at the same church I went to Sunday School since the time I was a toddler. I was comfortable in my church, enjoyed the service and the sermons by our highly intellectual pastor (he actually spoke way over the head of many of his congregation at times, me included). Some things did not chance. The Presbyterian Church was faithful to its base beliefs and its doctrine.
Things started to change in the 1980's. The church became political, in ways that had nothing to do with scripture. The General Assembly embraced Liberalism, albeit initially in very small ways. The pastor who I grew up with retired, and was replaced with a brash young idealistic woman the same age as me. She had big designs on "Hope and Change" within the church. My small town church, that had very strong traditional conservative values, suddenly had this young "progressive", speaking of "social justice", "liberation", and expressing, loudly, solidarity with the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. She was quickly put in her place by the elders of the church, my father being one of them, and she began keeping her political views to herself.
However, sadly her views were shared with the ruling body, the General Assembly of the PCUSA, and it started to show in the church services. Still, in my sleepy town, not a whole lot changed.....initially. Some things began to show up in the General Assembly's annual report that I found very disturbing. They were making a very pro-Palestinian policy, and selectively divesting from Israel, which has only accelerated in recent years. They actively support far leftist ideology, while shunning traditional conservative ideals. I really didn't pay too much attention until I moved to the Memphis, Tennessee area over 15 years ago. The church I attended seemed very odd to me, and the sermons were very similar to those I heard 10 years prior in my hometown church, before the smackdown. I became very disgruntled, and started to look for a church that was more to my liking; something that maintained traditional Presbyterian beliefs.
It didn't take long. Apparently, at least in the South, there were a number of other Presbyterian congregations that became fed up with the liberal ruling body, and decided to form the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).
The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) is an evangelical Protestant Christian denomination, the second largest Presbyterian church body in the United States after the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). The PCA professes a strong commitment to evangelism, missionary work, and Christian education. The church declares its goal to be "faithful to the Scriptures, true to the Reformed faith, and obedient to the Great Commission."I'm quite comfortable being part of this organization, and find comfort in belonging to a congregation that still follows traditionalist beliefs rather than liberal revisionism.
That brings me to the question I asked in the title of this piece.
As I mentioned in the opening paragraph, I visited my childhood home this past week, and accompanied my parents to the church I grew up in. I hardly knew it. They have replaced the King James Bible with some politically correct, non-gender, asexual, and revisionist religious text that is an insult to God's holy word. Gone from the service is the Apostles Creed, replaced with a very touchy-feely "affirmation of faith" that affirms nothing, and acknowledges neither Hell nor the resurrection of Christ. Gone is the singing of the Gloria Patri. Scripture readings sound more like childhood Sunday School stories rather than the word of God. I walked away from the service bewildered, and depressed. I asked my 82 year old father, how he felt about the changes in his church. Needless to say, he is not at all happy, but at his age, feels there is little he can do to change anything anymore.
I don't think I can return to the church of my childhood. The building might still be there, but the soul is gone.
Friday, July 29, 2011
How a place goes from riches to ruin
Back in the 1980s and early 90s I lived and worked off and on in Binghamton in the southern tier of New York State. This was historically a very prosperous area dating back to before the revolutionary war days, being an an important port at the confluence of the Chenango and Susquehanna Rivers. It continued to be prosperous during the 19th century and the city and adjoining towns grew quickly. In the early 20th century the Endicott-Johnson Shoe Company employed thousands of people, amongst them many new immigrants. One of the things heard by people from immigrants leaving Ellis Island were people who spoke little English asking, "which way EJ?" IBM had its founding as a modern company in the Binghamton suburb of Endicott. It remained a busy manufacturing facility as well as having their Glendale Labs there until the mid-1990's. Edwin Link founded Link Aviation in Binghamton and invented the flight simulator. The Link Trainers also known as Blue Boxes were used in World War II to give basic flight training to young pilots with no aviation experience. It grew into a company that at its height employed almost 5000 employees and was the leader in flight simulation. General Electric had a large high tech facility. Other companies popped up and added high tech, high paying jobs, like Universal Instruments, photography company GAF, and many smaller companies that did contracting work for the larger industries. Binghamton had a VHF TV station, WBNG channel 12) years before many much larger cities had any TV.
In the 1980's this area peaked and quickly declined. Early on, you could see how busy the area was by just showing up at Binghamton Regional Airport at 7am any weekday morning. There were at least 2 or 3 large jets going to USAir hubs, along with dozens of turboprops going to all the New York City area airports, Boston, Washington, and around the state. These were planes filled with business travelers from Singer-Link, IBM, GE and numerous other local companies.
There were numerous factors that caused the decline of the area, not the least being an over regulated and over taxed business community. Endicott-Johnson moved it shoe manufacturing to countries with cheaper labor. There is no more EJ in the USA. IBM decided that rather than caving to the high tax schemes of New York State politicians in Albany, closed most of it's factories in the state and moved a large portion of its business to places like North Carolina. Singer-Link had a lot of issues, with arrogance and mismanagement not being at the bottom the reasons for their demise. The Link Division of the Singer Company began losing contracts and new business to the competition from abroad, especially in the commercial business. They introduced technology didn't work well and attempted to shove it down the throats of customers, and lost them in droves. The entire Singer Company was bought out by Paul Bilzerian and he promptly sold off the divisions he could at a huge profit. The military systems division of Singer-Link was sold to a Canadian simulator manufacturer CAE Electronics. The commercial business was not so easy to sell, as its was not an entirely independent entity. All of it's manufacturing was done in the plant that made the military based equipment. That piece of Link was only sold after Bilzerian sold off all the divisions, declared bankruptcy and was in the process of shutting down what whatever was left. Bilzerian later went to Club Fed for a year for SEC violations. A Maryland Company, AAI Corporation, bought the commercial assets and tried to make a go of it, but due to law suites by CAE over technology rights and the fact that the company had lost credibility, it t lasted only about a year. The current owners, L3 Communications, of the company that Ed Link built now employs fewer than 100 people on top secret projects that can not be moved to other contractors.
Other companies either failed or moved. GAF is long gone, Universal Instruments moved most of its business abroad, GE sold the division to British Aerospace, and they have significantly downsized their operation and may leave shortly. The area that was once a mini Silicon Valley, is now a mini Death Valley. Downtown Binghamton is a dismal place full of closed and boarded up buildings. It's amazing that Boscov's Department Store can remain in business there. There is little else left besides government buildings and a few banks. The airport is almost vacant and the remaining airlines board fewer than 300 passengers a day to just one or two airports.
So what caused the decline and abandonment? First, high corporate taxes, over regulation and union problems drove many companies south. Second, bad and corrupt management of certain companies sped up their doom. And finally, the high cost of labor forced the rest to choose more fertile grounds to expand their business. This is an area that I love, but it is a shell of what it used to be, and is a perfect example of government trying to tax companies and people to prosperity.
In the 1980's this area peaked and quickly declined. Early on, you could see how busy the area was by just showing up at Binghamton Regional Airport at 7am any weekday morning. There were at least 2 or 3 large jets going to USAir hubs, along with dozens of turboprops going to all the New York City area airports, Boston, Washington, and around the state. These were planes filled with business travelers from Singer-Link, IBM, GE and numerous other local companies.
There were numerous factors that caused the decline of the area, not the least being an over regulated and over taxed business community. Endicott-Johnson moved it shoe manufacturing to countries with cheaper labor. There is no more EJ in the USA. IBM decided that rather than caving to the high tax schemes of New York State politicians in Albany, closed most of it's factories in the state and moved a large portion of its business to places like North Carolina. Singer-Link had a lot of issues, with arrogance and mismanagement not being at the bottom the reasons for their demise. The Link Division of the Singer Company began losing contracts and new business to the competition from abroad, especially in the commercial business. They introduced technology didn't work well and attempted to shove it down the throats of customers, and lost them in droves. The entire Singer Company was bought out by Paul Bilzerian and he promptly sold off the divisions he could at a huge profit. The military systems division of Singer-Link was sold to a Canadian simulator manufacturer CAE Electronics. The commercial business was not so easy to sell, as its was not an entirely independent entity. All of it's manufacturing was done in the plant that made the military based equipment. That piece of Link was only sold after Bilzerian sold off all the divisions, declared bankruptcy and was in the process of shutting down what whatever was left. Bilzerian later went to Club Fed for a year for SEC violations. A Maryland Company, AAI Corporation, bought the commercial assets and tried to make a go of it, but due to law suites by CAE over technology rights and the fact that the company had lost credibility, it t lasted only about a year. The current owners, L3 Communications, of the company that Ed Link built now employs fewer than 100 people on top secret projects that can not be moved to other contractors.
Other companies either failed or moved. GAF is long gone, Universal Instruments moved most of its business abroad, GE sold the division to British Aerospace, and they have significantly downsized their operation and may leave shortly. The area that was once a mini Silicon Valley, is now a mini Death Valley. Downtown Binghamton is a dismal place full of closed and boarded up buildings. It's amazing that Boscov's Department Store can remain in business there. There is little else left besides government buildings and a few banks. The airport is almost vacant and the remaining airlines board fewer than 300 passengers a day to just one or two airports.
So what caused the decline and abandonment? First, high corporate taxes, over regulation and union problems drove many companies south. Second, bad and corrupt management of certain companies sped up their doom. And finally, the high cost of labor forced the rest to choose more fertile grounds to expand their business. This is an area that I love, but it is a shell of what it used to be, and is a perfect example of government trying to tax companies and people to prosperity.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Essential Air Service
When I was reading my news feed this morning, I read that Delta Airlines plans to end service to 24 small towns that it serves through one of their Delta Connection carriers using turboprop aircraft. Some of the towns have less than 9,000 residents, and their planes are departing less than half full. All the subject airports that Delta currently serves are taxpayer subsidized through the Essential Air Service Program enacted by congress at the time of airline deregulation in 1978. Delta released a press release explaining that these communities are losing money, even under subsidy, and furthermore Delta is retiring their aging fleet of turboprops and 50 seat regional jets.
So what is this program and why is it necessary, or as I'm about to argue, an unnecessary burden on taxpayers?
In a nutshell the EAS program heavily subsidizes the airline(s) selected by the program administrators based on competitive bidding by carriers wishing to operate under subsidy. The EAS program office has published a history of the program. In Delta's press release, they gave a brief explanation of the purpose of the program.
Other communities, mostly in the lightly populated western states, the argument can be made that subsidized air service is still necessary. In a few cases, these towns are hundreds of miles from the nearest large or even medium sized city. Still this list can be trimmed town to a small fraction of towns where government subsidized air service can be deemed necessary in the 21st century. I went through the list with my atlas and the list can be reduced by 90% saving the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars annually.
This program is just one example of waste, and you may say, it is small potatoes when we are talking about current level of government spending. However, if the president went through his budget with a fine toothed comb and line by line, as he promised during the campaign, and removed waste and overspending, and we had responsible people in Congress, we could get our debt under control, and actually have balanced budgets. Unfortunately I don't see this anytime in the foreseeable future, or dare say in my lifetime.
Correction and update: I've cleaned up my typos and need to hat tip the New York Times (via Yahoo Business). I apologize for the omission.
So what is this program and why is it necessary, or as I'm about to argue, an unnecessary burden on taxpayers?
In a nutshell the EAS program heavily subsidizes the airline(s) selected by the program administrators based on competitive bidding by carriers wishing to operate under subsidy. The EAS program office has published a history of the program. In Delta's press release, they gave a brief explanation of the purpose of the program.
The EAS program was created to ensure small communities continue to have access to passenger air service. In some cases, airline service in EAS markets is subsidized by the government. The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 provides that if a carrier is held in beyond the 90-day notice period, it is entitled to receive compensation "to pay for the fully allocated actual cost to the carrier of performing the ...service ... plus a reasonable return on investment that is at least 5 percent of operating costs; and to provide the carrier an additional return that recognizes the demonstrated additional lost profits from opportunities foregone [by continuing to be held in and providing service].So essentially the US taxpayer is paying airlines a rather substantial subsidy, including a profit margin to entice them to operate to communities that could not support air travel otherwise. Basically any airport that had service prior to deregulation is eligible for EAS provided they are more than 70 miles from the nearest commercial airport. The entire list of cities served by this program as of May 2010 can be read here. Some cities are extremely close to major airports that in many cases are airline hubs. Two that stuck out to me immediately were Jackson, TN, and Jonesboro, AR. Both of these cities are 60 to 90 minutes from Memphis International Airport. Is there any reason why we the taxpayers should be paying airlines to fly to cities like these that enplane less than 50 passengers a day and are an easy drive to a major airport? Some states with powerful Senators and Congressmen have added pork to keep air service to towns that are in close proximity to one another, and not all that far from a commercial airport. If you look at the spreadsheet to which I linked, the kings of subsidized airline pork include West Virginia, and Pennsylvania, including the late John Murtha's pork laden Johnstown Airport. That particular airport is currently getting a second parallel runway built long enough to support large jets, but that is a different subject for a different blog post.
Other communities, mostly in the lightly populated western states, the argument can be made that subsidized air service is still necessary. In a few cases, these towns are hundreds of miles from the nearest large or even medium sized city. Still this list can be trimmed town to a small fraction of towns where government subsidized air service can be deemed necessary in the 21st century. I went through the list with my atlas and the list can be reduced by 90% saving the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars annually.
This program is just one example of waste, and you may say, it is small potatoes when we are talking about current level of government spending. However, if the president went through his budget with a fine toothed comb and line by line, as he promised during the campaign, and removed waste and overspending, and we had responsible people in Congress, we could get our debt under control, and actually have balanced budgets. Unfortunately I don't see this anytime in the foreseeable future, or dare say in my lifetime.
Correction and update: I've cleaned up my typos and need to hat tip the New York Times (via Yahoo Business). I apologize for the omission.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
FAA Reauthorization Bill and what it means to aviation
Jazz Shaw over at the excellent blog HotAir posts an excellent and somewhat worrisome piece regarding the FAA Reauthorization Bill, which must be passed very quickly if the entire civil air traffic is to remain operational. Please read the whole article. Of course Congress is working diligently porking up the bill in order to bring money to their own districts without consideration to what is actually necessary and what can be cut out with what President Obama called "his scalpel", which is pretty much standard operating procedure for Congress, even in these tough times.
I can only scratch the surface as to what the FAA does here and could easily write volumes on the subject, but here goes. First a little background on what the FAA is and why it is an essential agency. Some of the comments I read at HotAir were very naive to assume that the airlines could just continue with out the FAA support mechanisms in place. That's plane fantasy (pun intended). The air traffic control system in the USA for all its faults is still the best, most comprehensive and efficient in the world. The amounts of flights they handle per day is far larger than the rest of the world combined. So lets put this myth aside, the FAA shuts down, the friendly skies will suddenly be empty, with the exception of military operations. Even they rely on the civilian air traffic control system over most airspace, as they share the same airways as your flight to visit mom and dad in Springfield (you pick the state). We can all remember the 9/11/2001 attacks, and the shutdown of the entire airspace over the US, and that will happen if the FAA is defunded. The economy took a huge hit and was one of the factors that drove a few airlines out of business, and several others eventually into Chapter 11. Our Congress-critters will be forced to revert to ground transportation to return to their districts is probably a bigger motivator for some of out less scrupulous representatives and Senators to get it done. (Yes I can be a cynic).
Ok, we've covered why having a functional air traffic control system is essential just to keep planes in the air. Now, lets talk about what else they do that affects me and my job.
Like many, if not most government agencies, they are bloated at the top and at some middle and lower levels of management, but having to deal with the nice folks in our local Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) and the National Simulator Evaluation Team (NSET), the people I personally deal with most, I'm here to tell you that these people are understaffed, work a lot of hours, and are always begging for more personnel as airlines expand, flight training facilities grow more numerous and demand increases. Are these people necessary? Well if we were the wild west, with no regulations and and everyone was free to operate as they want, the regulators would be unnecessary, but in a modern world we need these folks as the regulators and rule enforcers, Without them, there are no checks and balances on how airlines, air taxi services, and general aviation maintain their equipment, train their pilots and mechanics and the quality of airplane maintenance, pilot training and operation of the airlines. Can some of the rules and regulations be overkill, needless and overly intrusive; you bet. But in a world that is increasingly complex, we need to have our Federal Air Regulations (FAR).
The bureaucracy in DC is indeed bloated, politically motivated and makes decisions without considering real life decisions on the ground, but name one federal agency that isn't? That's where a lot of waste gets doled out, often to political cronies *gasp*. The people on the ground, or in the air, however the case may be that I work and interface with are very hard workers, fairly paid compared to their private sector counterparts, although there is bloated management at many levels, and in many cases even middle level managers are political hacks who have no idea what their people do for a living and what they need to do their jobs.
So finally in answer to Jazz's question and concern, forget about it buddy, there will be last minute funding. It might be ugly, but a shutdown is not an option.
Perhaps some of my tens of readers who work in aviation can contribute more to this piece, so comments are welcome, and I'll gladly elevate relevant ones as updates.
I can only scratch the surface as to what the FAA does here and could easily write volumes on the subject, but here goes. First a little background on what the FAA is and why it is an essential agency. Some of the comments I read at HotAir were very naive to assume that the airlines could just continue with out the FAA support mechanisms in place. That's plane fantasy (pun intended). The air traffic control system in the USA for all its faults is still the best, most comprehensive and efficient in the world. The amounts of flights they handle per day is far larger than the rest of the world combined. So lets put this myth aside, the FAA shuts down, the friendly skies will suddenly be empty, with the exception of military operations. Even they rely on the civilian air traffic control system over most airspace, as they share the same airways as your flight to visit mom and dad in Springfield (you pick the state). We can all remember the 9/11/2001 attacks, and the shutdown of the entire airspace over the US, and that will happen if the FAA is defunded. The economy took a huge hit and was one of the factors that drove a few airlines out of business, and several others eventually into Chapter 11. Our Congress-critters will be forced to revert to ground transportation to return to their districts is probably a bigger motivator for some of out less scrupulous representatives and Senators to get it done. (Yes I can be a cynic).
Ok, we've covered why having a functional air traffic control system is essential just to keep planes in the air. Now, lets talk about what else they do that affects me and my job.
Like many, if not most government agencies, they are bloated at the top and at some middle and lower levels of management, but having to deal with the nice folks in our local Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) and the National Simulator Evaluation Team (NSET), the people I personally deal with most, I'm here to tell you that these people are understaffed, work a lot of hours, and are always begging for more personnel as airlines expand, flight training facilities grow more numerous and demand increases. Are these people necessary? Well if we were the wild west, with no regulations and and everyone was free to operate as they want, the regulators would be unnecessary, but in a modern world we need these folks as the regulators and rule enforcers, Without them, there are no checks and balances on how airlines, air taxi services, and general aviation maintain their equipment, train their pilots and mechanics and the quality of airplane maintenance, pilot training and operation of the airlines. Can some of the rules and regulations be overkill, needless and overly intrusive; you bet. But in a world that is increasingly complex, we need to have our Federal Air Regulations (FAR).
The bureaucracy in DC is indeed bloated, politically motivated and makes decisions without considering real life decisions on the ground, but name one federal agency that isn't? That's where a lot of waste gets doled out, often to political cronies *gasp*. The people on the ground, or in the air, however the case may be that I work and interface with are very hard workers, fairly paid compared to their private sector counterparts, although there is bloated management at many levels, and in many cases even middle level managers are political hacks who have no idea what their people do for a living and what they need to do their jobs.
So finally in answer to Jazz's question and concern, forget about it buddy, there will be last minute funding. It might be ugly, but a shutdown is not an option.
Perhaps some of my tens of readers who work in aviation can contribute more to this piece, so comments are welcome, and I'll gladly elevate relevant ones as updates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)