Outsourcing

When a liberal newspaper, such as the San Francisco Chronicle, cannot bring itself to endorse a “Progressive” over a “Conservative” preferring to endorse neither, what other proof is needed who they believe the better candidate is?  One even has to wonder, is the Chronicle’s announcement of its non-endorsement of Barbara Boxer the closest it can come to pointing voters in the correct direction without damaging its liberal standing?  After all, it isn’t as if readers were clamoring for their opinion.

In this election, as every other in California, the almighty D behind the name carries a lot of weight.  Now, I know that can be just as true in red states, and the overlying reason is one of sound merit.  After all, people align themselves with a party because they tend to have the same ideological views.  I absolutely get that.  However, this can be a lazy merit when we don’t take the time to really look at the candidates and their issues.

Forget the D and R for a moment.  Pretend they don’t exist.  It is simply Boxer and Fiorina.

What exactly has Barbara Boxer done for California?  She claims that Fiorina is dangerous to our economy, but Fiorina has just come upon the stage and has not contributed to the mess we find ourselves, she’s not held office.  Barbara Boxer has, she’s been at the helm for years, and done nothing to improve our economic situation, but now she suddenly has the answers?  What’s different this year from all the others?  Her voting record indicates that she is for tax hikes whenever possible – the gas tax, the death tax, and in refusing to fully extend the 2001 & 2003 tax cuts.  (These are all on record: USA Today, 5/94, www.ontheissues.org & The Sacramento Bee, 7/7/10).

She claims she is all about encouraging small businesses, yet she refuses to extend the cuts for people earning $250,000. and more a year.  I know $250,000. sounds like a lot of money (and yes for my income level it would be a BIG boost), but that is nowhere near Bill Gates territory.  You know who earns that average?  Mostly small business owners fall into this bracket.  I use to work for one such owner until he could no longer afford to keep employees, let alone offer them health insurance.  (Imagine the shape he’ll be in when Obamacare hits?  But that is another post.)  Barbara Boxer says it is “fiscally irresponsible” to extend the cuts for that income level because it will cost the government millions in revenue.  How can it cost them anything?  They weren’t already spending money they didn’t have were they?  Perhaps Boxer can vote no on a congressional pay raise (July 2009) the next time around, and find some revenue there.  Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman are vilified for giving themselves corporate pay raises, yet it is ok for Barbara Boxer to do it with OUR money?

The Small Business and Jobs Credit Act?  Oh, yes, this is one of the highlights on Boxer’s website.  She voted for it, yes she did.  This will enable those small business owners who are about to be hit with a huge tax hike to take out loans for expansion.  Except, what business owners understand, and politicians never will, is that you do not borrow and overspend in such uncertain times.  A majority of small business owners do not want a bailout, especially when they may come with government strings attached.  So, in effect, Boxer is crowing about a bill that is as ineffective as her tenure.  The irony would be comical if it weren’t so disheartening.

Let us also look at Boxer’s most vehement slam against Carly Fiorina.  Yes, she outsourced between 10,000 to 30,000 (or so) jobs while working for HP.  However, let us look at this in context:  She did what was in the best interest of the company she worked for because of a hostile business environment engendered by BIG government.  Big government voted on by Barbara Boxer.  Yes, all the regulations pounded on to businesses have a trickle-down effect in a negative way, unlike the positive trickle-down effect in economics.  Businesses pack up and go where it is less expensive.  However, if Carly Fiorina is elected, she will be working for US.  In which case, as a good businessperson knows, she will need to solve problems that are in our best interest.  In this climate we need businesspeople who understand cutting back on frivolous spending, not politicians who only come alive when the polls are about to open.

Now, I do not overlook Fiorina’s ouster from HP either.  HP took a hit in its stock while she was there, and a big climb up when she left, and her employment there was tumultuous.  In the end there are no denying two facts: 

1.  The Compaq merger was the right move, though it took a few years to prove itself. http://www.emsnow.com/newsarchives/archivedetails.cfm?ID=14975

2.  Carly Fiorina’s performance was less than stellar, and her ego kept her from delegating tasks beyond her expertise.

It is a black eye in what would otherwise be an exceptional candidate.  My hope is that the lesson learned at HP will have humbled Fiorina into adapting her previous business acumen highlighted at AT&T where she excelled, and really carved her niche as a powerful, successful businesswoman.  Let’s not forget that her record does hold that, whereas for Boxer, the self-interested politician we see now is the one that has always been there.  Moreover, it is this very same politician who will continue to drag America, and California in particular, into economic oblivion if her stranglehold cannot be pried off the senate.  It is definitely time for some outsourcing of our own.