Business Climate Change: Post-Election Layoff Tsunami

In the 48 hours since Obama was re-elected, dozens have companies have announced layoffs.

Why?   Saying that these companies are doing this to somehow “screw” Obama as I’ve already heard some say is simplistic and misses the mark.

Uncertainty in the marketplace about regulation, the healthcare law and the looming fiscal cliff was a major hindrance on hiring over the last year.   The picture is clearer now.  While the fiscal cliff still looms, we know now that the Affordable Health Care Act will be fully implemented.  Furthermore, the administrations enthusiastic appetite for regulations – especially in terms of the environment and energy – will continue to drive costs upward.  (Related: total costs of federal regulation.)   Coupled with the still stagnant economy, the effects of the administration’s policies do not create an ideal business climate.

So companies are re-trenching, hunkering down and reducing their workforce.  And it’s not a surprise.  Numerous large companies warned of layoffs if Obama was relected.

Reducing full-time staff in favor of part-time workers

In addition to layoffs, another defensive posture organizations are taking is reducing the number of full-time employees they have,  switching them to part-time status.

Why are they doing this?   The Huffington Post lays it out:

“Under the Affordable Health Care Act, businesses with more than 50 workers are required to provide health care coverage for full-time employees or those working more than 30 hours per week. Darden Restaurants, the parent company of Red Lobster and The Olive Garden, announced in October that it would downgrade workers to part-time status to limit costs from Obamacare.”

A stark view was offered in a radio call-in discussion on KXNT in Las Vegas.  A small business owner named David called in with the news that he had laid off 22 employees due to Obama’s re-election, citing the costs of Obamacare.

“I had to lay off 22 people today to make sure that my business is gonna thrive and I’m gonna be around for years to come. I have to build up that nest egg now for the taxes and regulations that are coming my way. Elections do have consequences, but so do choices. A choice you make every day has consequences and you know what, I’ve always put my employees first, but unfortunately today I have to put me and my family first, and you watch what’s gonna happen. I’m just one guy with 114 employees — well was 114 employees — watch what happens in the next six months. The Dow alone lost 314 points today. There’s a tsunami coming and if you didn’t think this election had consequences, just wait.”

Who benefits from the Obama administrations’ policies?
So what’s the net effect?  Higher unemployment, for sure.  And increased dependence upon government programs such as unemployment benefits, food stamps and Obamacare.

Who benefits from this?  Certainly not the recipients of government this government largesse.  They’re going to see a reduction in their quality of life.   Taxpayers – those still generating incomes – won’t benefit.  They’ll be paying the tab.  Shareholders won’t benefit.  We’re not going to see business growth.

The beneficiaries will be the small handful of people who have a vested interest in increasing the number of people on the government dole.   For them, this is job security.  For them, this is re-election.

I am skeptical of any interest that does not have increasing the competitive advantage of the US and driving economic growth at its heart.    And if I have this wrong, I’d love to hear an opposing view.

Companies announcing layoffs included:

Abbott Labs

AlcatelLucent

Atlantic Lottery Corporation

American Coal

Boeing

Boston Scientific

Brake Parts

BristolMyers

Caterpillar

Center for Hospice NY

Commerzbank

Corning

Covidien

CVPH Medical Center

Dana Holding

Darden Restaurants

Ericsson

Gameforge Berlin

Hawker Beechcraft

Hill Rom

Husqvarna

Iberia

ING

JANCOA

Kinetic Concepts

Kroger

Lightyear Network Solutions

Lower Bucks Hospital

Majestic Star Casino and Hotel

Medtronic

Momentive Performance Materials

Murray Energy

Oce North America

PerkinElmer

Providence Journal

Research in Motion Ltd.

Rocketdyne

Smith & Nephew

SRA International

St. Jude

Stryker

Umatilla Chemical

United Blood Services Gulf

US Cellular

Vestas Wind Systems

Welch Allyn

Westinghouse

 

If I Wanted America to Fail …


This video from Free Market America does an amazing job of framing the collective effect of the left’s policies – ranging from energy to education.   Watch, and then ponder our slowing economy,  sliding educational standards and the difficult path ahead of us.  Will these regulations make America more competitive?  Are we instilling a desire for achievement and excellence in the next generation?  What’s the end game the policy makers really have in mind?

Anti-business? Revelations from review of Obama & Biden’s personal finances

Kiplinger ran an article this month titled “An Inside Look at the Personal Finances of the Obamas and the Bidens“  that reveals a deeply personal distrust of the stock market and calls the financial acumen of both the President and the Veep into question.   Tellingly, the investment strategies (or lack thereof) provide insight into the fundamental beliefs that shape the decisions Obama and Biden make.

Lack of trust in the market? Or lack of understanding?

Many people – myself included – describe the Obama administration as being “anti-business.”  I stand by that statement – the emphasis on regulation and belief in government as a creator of jobs – suggest to me that the President is deeply skeptical of private enterprise.   His investments underscore that.  Obama, according to the article, is worth almost $5 million.  However, 92% of his money is in cash.  Only $325,000 is invested in the stock market.  That investment sits entirely within a 500-stock index fund.

Biden’s financial approach is similarly weird. He and wife Jill have a mishmash of nine checking and savings accounts, with balances between $1,000 and $15,000.  They also own two CDs, worth between $100,000 and $200,000.  Like Obama, they have a very small exposure to the stock market.

These strategies say one of two things about Obama and Biden.  They either don’t understand the stock market, or they don’t trust it.   And by extension,  you can also say they both lack trust in and understanding of the American business marketplace that underpins the stock market.

A lax attitude toward personal debt … and the nation’s?

Both Obama and Biden also carry debt, and neither are doing a particularly good job of managing it.   Obama hasn’t refinanced his house since 2005.   With rates at an all-time low, and with his balance estimated at $750,000, he could end up saving himself more than $100,000 if he refinanced.

Biden carries considerably more debt, borrowing against home equity lines of credit and insurance policies in addition to carrying a traditional mortgage.   Some of his loans carry interest rates that are stunningly high (9.9%) given the historic lows.   He has enough cash on hand to retire some of the higher rate loans, or he could consolidate them.  Either way,  Biden appears to be completely disorganized – and he’s doing some really stupid things with respect to his personal finances.

The fact that both men take a lax attitude toward managing debt in their personal lives is reflected in the fact that they seem to be completely at ease with the burgeoning government debt.   I can’t help but believe that someone with sensibilities geared more toward penny-pinching wouldn’t take a more active approach in managing the US debt.

Simple lack of financial acumen? Or something else?

While I’m no fan of their politics, I’m not willing to say that Obama and Biden are idiots.  They are both smart and accomplished people.   I’m confident they both understand concepts like compound interest.   And while they’re both busy, busy men, they’re surrounded by people.   To me, the “too busy” and “I don’t get it” excuses for poor financial planning simply don’t apply to either.

So what is going on here?  Why do a couple of the most powerful men in America have such ineffective, unsophisticated approaches to their own personal finance?    It’s going to get a bit ugly, but here are a few of my theories:

  • Narcissism: Once out of office, rich speaking gigs, book deal and lobbying gigs await.   Obama and Biden (and their wives) may be banking on their future ability to cash in, and thus aren’t concerned about paying attention to their day-to-day affairs.
  • Belief in big government:   The retirement benefits received by former Presidents include a pension, Secret Service protection, and reimbursements for staff, travel, mail, and office expenses. The Presidential pension is not a fixed amount, rather it matches the current salary of Cabinet members (or Executive Level I personnel), which was $191,300/year as of March, 2008 and is now higher.  Biden and his wife Jill are currently on track to receive pension benefits of about $90,000 annually when they retire.   So, effectively, defined benefit  plans – which have fallen far by the wayside in the real world of private enterprise – form the basis for the futures of both the President’s and the VP’s families.   This “I don’t have to take care of me because the government will,” belief is strongly reflected in the Democratic leadership’s dim view of personal responsibility and the fact that big government is the solution they offer to most problems.

Simply put, it’s not Mitt Romney who is out of touch.  He gives copiously to charity (as in millions of dollars) and sees to it that his investments are managed aggressively and skillfully, despite the fact that he (like all pols) needs to be certain to avoid conflicts of interest.

Who will do a better job of running the economy and the country’s affairs?  My vote is for the guy who respects business and knows how to handle his own money.  That would be Mitt Romney.

 

 

Failures of leadership

Barak Obama is being widely accused of leadership failures by Republicans; and within his own party, there are doubtless many who fel the same way, even if they’re less vocal about it.

Obama’s soaring rhetoric has given way to muddled decision-making by consensus and committee.  Which, as anyone who’s ever suffered through this situation knows, is a great way to guarantee watered down decisions and total inaction.

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but it makes me miss Bill Clinton, and not just because the “New Democrats” he led were more palatable to me than is the old-school, big government, liberal wing of the party Obama represents.  Clinton was a guy who was able to get things done.  The delivery of welfare reform – which was not entirely popular with his party – is a great example.  You’ll recall that during his time in office, Republicans had no love for the guy.  They impeached him, remember?

But despite hostilities, Clinton stuck to his agenda and got things done.  Obama, on the other hand, blames Bush and doesn’t take leaderly action.  The slights-of-hand, closed-door bargaining and creative interpretation of legislative rules  that led to the passage of Obamacare were strategically smart.  Karl Rove probably gave the Obama team a quiet tip of the hat on getting it done.  But it wasn’t leaderly.

Even more staggering is the fact that Obama, in three years, has failed to pass a Federal budget. Let that sink in for a minute.   In my mind, for the President of the United States, passing a budget is a mission-critical task.  Instead, his budgets have been mired in acrimony and indecision.  Congressional leaders filled the void.

“Obama convened an urgent meeting with top congressional leaders in the White House. According to Woodward, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) pointedly told the president that the lawmakers were working on a plan and wouldn’t negotiate with him. Obama, surprised, told Boehner and the others that they could not exclude him from the process, Woodward reports. “I’ve got to sign this bill,” he is quoted as saying. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) then said the four leaders wanted to speak privately, asking Obama to leave a meeting he had called “in his own house,” in Woodward’s words. The president, fuming, agreed to let them talk. “This was it,” Woodward writes. “Congress was taking over.” – From the Washington Post‘s review of Bob Woodward’s new book, The Price of Politics.

Obama has failed to pick up the reins and lead.  Instead, he administers and weighs in.   The last four years have been tough, the next four promise to be even more difficult.  It’s time for the US to have a proper leader.  One more reason why I’m voting for Mitt Romeny, a real leader.

Senator Patty Murray Wants the GOP to Do a Belly Flop off the Fiscal Cliff

Reblogged from International Liberty:

Click to visit the original post

Democrats have openly admitted that their top political objective is to get Republicans to give up their no-tax-hike position.

You would think, therefore, that Republicans would instinctively recognize that they should hold firm. After all, when your enemy wants you to do something, it's not because he has your best interests at heart.

But there's a reason that the GOP is known as the "stupid party"

Read more… 703 more words

Excellent perspective on the politics behind the fiscal cliff, and the Democrats' willingness to hamstring the economy.

How Obama’s economic policies have throttled job growth.

Diane Swonk, a much respected economist with Mesirow Financial, broke down some of the key problems with Obama’s economic policy vis a vis American business in an interview on Chicago Public Radio’s Afternoon Shift show yesterday.

First, on the subject of the most recent jobs numbers, Swonk had a dim view. In order to actually make a dent in unemployment, the US needs to be adding 150,000 – 200,000 jobs per month.   The 96,000 jobs reported yesterday is close to a stall rate.  The economy has

“It’s not all that statistically significant from zero,” she said.

The fiscal cliff in January is another problem. Swonk says that CEOs she’s spoken to have said that with no roadmap in front of them – no certainty around tax policy, spending policy and the deficit – they delaying hiring and projects.  Simply put, they don’t know if we’re going to have another recession in January.

Certainly, the uncertainty businesses are facing is compounded by the looming election, and the possibility of a Romney win, which would lead to the departure of Bernanke from the Fed and carries the likelihood of significant changes to (if not the repeal of) the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare.)

However, a lot of the blame for the shaky ground can be laid at Obama’s feet.  And the fact that he’s willing to accept these macroeconomic uncertainties – and let them persist – indicates the degree to which he doesn’t understand business.   Uncertainty stifles job growth, period.   And Obama’s policies have created this uncertainty.

 

The cost of charity – a $50 lesson

The $50 lesson

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 124 other followers