Published: Saturday, Aug. 16 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
"It may be the reason his administration seems to put corporate interest
above the general public's interest."Thank you for drawing
attention to Utah business interests' pro-illegal immigration, immigration
law anti-enforcement, pro-cheap labor agenda -- which has lifted only a few
businessmen's lavish houseboats and speedboats atop the pleasant, blue
waters of Lake Powell, while everyone else's toy bathtub boats have been
sinking. True compassion takes into account the numerous American
families in Utah who do suffer financially (unemployment, lower wages,
foreclosure) and in every other way as a direct result of Herbert's
pro-business, anti-society, illegal-alien sanctuary-state affirmation policy, as
well manifest by his ardent defense of Utah's pro-cheap labor, immigration
law anti-enforcement bill, 2011 Utah House Bill 116.
The author is mad that it is not his opinion but that of someone else that is
being adhered to. The state seems to believe if everybody has a job then things
will be well, I share that belief. Does it mean that all will be the same , no
it doesn't but it does mean all should have an opportunity.Mr Florez
says just over a hundred thousand out of over three million is without health
coverage, which is around three percent. This the same as the states
unemployment rate which is considered nearly full employment. The prober with
taking federal money is that it eventually goes away and then the state has to
fund it.No system is perfect, but here in Utah we have things pretty good.
Mr. Florez usually offers a refreshing breath of fresh air in an otherwise
stultifying atmosphere in Utah.Thank you, Sir, for pointing out some
truths to readers of DN.I hope at least some will be paying
IMO, the formula for approaching the social and economic health of a given
population should be similar to that used by a lot of coaches: Those players
with the greatest gifts need the least resources because they already have so
much at their disposal. They're likely going to succeed regardless.What will give them more opportunities to shine, though, is
strengthening the rest of the team. So the bulk of the time and resources
should go to addressing the weaker participants. The mantra I heard as a kid
was, "The team is only as strong as its weakest player.""Trickle down" actually works against the interests of the
rich/powerful over the long-term. As we now see. Plus it's patronizing as
all get out. Let's get back to basic engineering: First a sound
Mr. Florez is wrong on every point. Tax money pays for all "welfare"
programs. Tax money comes from working people. Utah has one of the lowest
unemployment rates in the nation. When government encourages business to locate
in Utah, Utahns are employed. Employed Utahns take care of their own needs,
reducing the need for State "welfare". Employed Utahns buy their own
insurance, reducing the need for State Medicaid. Employed Utahns pay for
everything that the State buys or "gives".Without
employment, there would be no tax revenue. Without tax revenue, there would be
no "welfare" programs. When liberal-minded people start to
realize that tax revenues must come before there can be any "welfare"
expenditures, they will stop demanding that government turn away businesses.
They will start to see who the "goose" is that lays the "golden
eggs".We should understand that principle from common
experience. No matter how "caring" we may be, without excess funds, we
cannot help others. We need jobs to be "caring", otherwise we are
expecting others to "care" for us.
Mike Richards"When government encourages business to locate in
Utah, Utahns are employed. Employed Utahns take care of their own needs,
reducing the need for State 'welfare.'"But mere
employment per se isn't everything. It doesn't mean much when a
full-time worker is only earning poverty wages -- which is what most new jobs in
Utah pay. Then that worker does need welfare -- despite his full-time labor.
Mr. Florez, another home run! Thank you so much for your refreshing take on
things. You bring so much sanity into an otherwise crazy state politically. God
Bless!@ MikeMr. Richards, why are you only against the
poor receiving government aid? Did you even read Mr. Florez's article?
Where's your concern with the government aid that businesses are getting?
Why aren't your protesting the handouts code named, "incentives"
that our government gives to businesses? Aren't these entitlements? Why are you for our state receiving federal money for highways yet be
against receiving federal money for health care? There's no
difference!Contrary to what you may think, what's good for
business is not always what's good for people.
@ Michael RichardsWhat's the difference between an
incentive/subsidy and entitlement/welfare?Perhaps instead of calling
what poor people receive welfare, maybe we could call it an incentive?Perhaps instead of calling what businesses receive an incentive, maybe we
could call it a handout.Then maybe you'll finally see the point
that Mr. John Florez was making. He was correct on all accounts. And it's
sad to me, that a state which prides itself so much on Christian living, would
confuse these two issues. Here, we have no problem accepting federal bucks for
the stuff we want (roads, corporate handouts, etc) yet refuse to help those most
in need.Helping out the corporate elitists is a great way to help
business. It's not a great way to help people.
@Karen R.Houston, TXThank you, Karen. That is a very wise
comment, well said.
"Then along came the 2000s, when productivity continued to rise but job
growth and the median income started to decline."Good point, but
that process began in the late 1970's. Access Professor Richard D. Wolff
for more analysis. And John, you should give a listen to Wolff too.
Corporation haters can't stand the thought that everything they buy in
America is produced by those "evil" corporations. They can't stand
the thought that those "evil" corporations hire 38% of all workers.
They also can't stand the thought that Utah is in competition with every
other State to lure those corporations to settle in Utah. They can't stand
the thought that when people are working that those people don't need
government welfare. They cry and moan whenever anyone gets off welfare because
doing that proves that government is not god.We do not need more
government programs; we need more businesses in Utah. We need to compete with
any other bidder to get them here and to keep them here. The Governor knows what
he is doing. Those who work for those companies appreciate what he has done.
Those who live in glass houses , who have never owned a business,
who never had to make payroll, who never had to compete will continue to tell us
that larger government is the answer, even as many of them eat at the public
trough, being funded by government to find ways to expand government.
It is time that we pay attention to our citizens more than the interests of
business. In saying that we need a balance of both incentives to private
corporations and also incentives (which Mike Richards calls welfare)to our
citizens. Business does not have the right to operate without social concerns.
To do otherwise is greedy and self defeating. The real difference is
the disparity of wealth in this country. The lack of ability for upward
mobility from the lower and middle classes. If the "incentives" that
allow business to flourish are allowed then it is imperative that those
businesses provide more. These same businesses are the loudest when they claim
issues with government interference but they sure do well with the government
"welfare" that they received at taxpayer expense! And to
ignore our own citizens is not only unchristian it is immoral and disingenuous.
Nothing in the Constitution allows any private citizen to receive personal
welfare from the government. Those who disagree only need to read Article 1,
Section 8 where the duties authorized to the Federal Government are found.
Refusal to read is not an excuse. (General Welfare is not personal welfare.)Nothing in the Constitution put any kind of limit on the wealth that a
citizen, or a group of citizens who pooled their investment funds could make.Nothing in the Constitution allows the government to redistribute
wealth.Those who demand that Government ignore the Supreme Law of
the Land so that Obama can tell us that he "changed" America to a land
where the many are few by some fairy tale "rich guy" will find that
they will soon become the "rich guy" and that Obama will continue to
fly around in his "private" Air Force One to tell even more people to
demand that YOU the "rich guy" do YOUR duty to pay their welfare.Meanwhile you"ll tell us that those "evil" corporations are
the enemy.How about reading the Constitution?
@Utefan60: "The lack of ability for upward mobility from the lower and
middle classes."I can't speak for Utah, but here in Texas
we see a lot of upward mobility over the course of many years. First we
struggle with poverty wages, then we seek education, then we scrimp with
entry-level wages, and finally we prove ourselves enough to get a break and
start getting ahead. Nobody said it would be easy, but looking back over a full
career, I can easily see that prosperity comes from honesty and very hard
work.The only thing I would change is the requirement for a
bachelor's degree for every job that pays a living wage. That's just
foolish. Let hard workers get those entry-level jobs, and let them avoid the
crushing education debt. Let them self-educate along the way.
What am I missing here? Company after company has come to Utah, opened a new
location and are paying starting wages of thirty to forty thousand a year, is
that peanuts? Nobody has to work for peanuts if they are qualified for a better
job! Maybe you and I will never be rich but we can both have a pretty good life
if we try.I don't want government help, I just want the government to
get out of my way and then I will take care of myself.
This is a great article and I am happy to see several along these lines in the
Deseret News. Corruption is rampant in politics and we have seen no exception
in this state. It is good to see many like-minded individuals on here and I
hope john will soon realize how apathetic corporations are towards their
employees. They aren't all bad, they will bend over backwards for
shareholders.While the tide rises for some, it is increasingly
drowning others (see Florez talking about downward mobility, income inequality
gap). In my opinion, there are several labor abuses commonplace among
corporations: Examples: part time or temp work to avoid paying benefits,
including healthcare; unfair wages (including executive salaries and bonuses
after the financial crisis), unpaid "internships", sending jobs
overseas while cutting their workforce, referencing a lack of "skilled
workers" using visa workers (to pay low wages and no benefits).I
hope I can find out who to vote for that actually care about the citizen's
interests rather than those who find their campaign. It will benefit us all to
have someone who has the moral courage and integrity to do so.
@anti-liar:"It doesn't mean much when a full-time worker is only
earning poverty wages... Then that worker does need welfare -- despite his
full-time labor."You got that right. What is life without an
ipad, computer, cable TV, smart phone, two late-model cars in the garage, a two
week vacation each year, and a night out on the town once a week?@The Educator:"Helping out the corporate elitists is a great way to
help business. It's not a great way to help people."Sorry
to inform, but you need healthy corporations to have jobs for the people. If
workers are not being helped you might wanna blame it on foreign competition.@Utefan60:"Business does not have the right to operate without
social concerns."Sorry to inform (again), but businesses have
but one objective... to maximize profits of owners (shareholders). If workers
wanna get in on the bounty, all they need to do is become an owner (talk to your
stockbroker for some help there).@Mike Richards:"How about
reading the Constitution?"You might be forgetting about
Obama's phone, pen, and pal, Attorney General Eric Holder.
@gmlewis:"The only thing I would change is the requirement for a
bachelor's degree for every job that pays a living wage. That's just
foolish."There's alotta good jobs that don't require a
bachelor's degree. But it does require the development of some kind of
marketable skills.@blackattack:"...I hope john will soon
realize how apathetic corporations are towards their employees."Corporations are not obliged to dole out big wages when/if they can get the
job done cheaper. That's found in Econ 101.Besides, we have
entered a global economy which simply put, means businesses and employees alike
must compete with the rest of the world.Further, Obama, et. al.,
have been letting millions of immigrants (illegal and otherwise) into this
country who are taking jobs and depressing wages."They
aren't all bad, they will bend over backwards for shareholders."The corporate mandate is to maximize profits for shareholders, did I
say?"In my opinion, there are several labor abuses commonplace
among corporations: Examples: part time or temp work to avoid paying benefits,
including healthcare..."You may wish to talk to the Democratic
Congress about that.
Nixon enjoyed the best economical times yet he took us off the gold standard and
open the door for the globalization of corporations.
Read the Constitution! Neither Corporations or Private individuals, rich or
poor, should get "incentives" or "welfare". Mr. florez's
point is well taken on the "incentive" side! However, Ias usual, he is
so "caring" for the poor, he either wants Socialism, which most
progressives are afraid to admit, or he doesn't understand the the
Constitution, or rejects it outright. Until John and others can be absolutely
honest about their motives and what they really want and believe, their words
are very slippery for someone that is trying to see their point! Government
should not be in the health care, welfare, and education business, nor giving
"incentives to any business or corporation! If John, and others, actually
wanted to help the poor, he would be advocated for religious liberty and the
sermon on the mount, rather than an impersonal lazy man's approach to
helping the poor, which is, "just let me pay my taxes and force others to do
likewise". Which interpreted means, "I don't want to think about
the poor. I just want somebody, or something else (I.e. Government) to take
care of it". That way, a conscience doesn't have to be addressed!
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments