How to kill good jobs

left-wing, union-oriented, "public investment"; i.e. higher taxes, excessive business regulation, etc...

Sounds like what killed California.. and how many other states hopes for brighter futures, No?

This is the liberals' "The disease is the cure" mindset.

Do the unions make that much of a difference in if jobs leave or stay? Most (>90%) of the computer jobs that have went off shore where not union but they left anyway.

If only all subsidies and special interest protection were abolished a lot of jobs could be created with the saved money, e.g. we could hire more teachers.
Subsidies for agriculture distort the prices on the food markets and are a significant burden for tax payers in the US. They were one main reason for the failure of WTO negotiations in Cancun where poor countries protested against the fact that the European Union and the US are not willing to give up their agricultural policies and let free trade rule where it could benefit the interests of others. In Cancun cotton production was a major issue. Another one is sugar. The US run a domestic sugar program that costs the US economy hundreds of millions of US$ every year. It has been calculated that if the money was given directly to the workers they would earn more and the consumers could benefit from lower prices of imported sugar.
A study from 1984 revealed the absurdities of the sugar program. His case study culminates in the sentence “some firms began importing Canadian pancake mix, which contains a high proportion of sugar but is not subject to the quota, and processing it to extract the sugar.”
But the issue is rather used in elections where the subsidies buy the votes of the sugar workers who fear unemployment.

CLEAN, GREEN AND JOBLESS:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1034642/posts

Clean, green & jobless
Financial Post ^ | December 5, 2003 | Terence Corcoran

Posted on 12/05/2003 9:38:12 AM PST by Squawk 8888

Wondering what the new urban agenda will deliver to you and your city? Toronto is hardly representative of all Canadian cities, but if the opening antics of Toronto's newly elected Mayor and council are any indication, Canadians are about to get a first look at how a city works when the radical left gets its hands on the balance of power and starts shaking Ottawa's leash.

Take, for example, Toronto Councillor Olivia Chow. The wife of NDP leader Jack Layton, Ms. Chow seemed to set the new urban agenda when she broke into a crucial debate on Wednesday on the future of a bridge to Toronto's island airport. The bridge, to be built by Toronto's Port Authority as a link to the downtown airport, would allow a private airline to run a service using Q400 turbo-prop aircraft made at Bombardier's DeHavilland plant north of Toronto.

Ms. Chow joined the Mayor and 30 other councillors in the vote to kill the bridge, but not before delivering a little industrial sermon on the inadequacies of Bombardier and its the Q400s. Ms. Chow: "I'm mighty proud of our workers, but the longer we wait the less there is a market for turbo-props ... Horizon is the only airline in North America that's flying these turbo-props. And recently, Taiwan airlines sold off all of its turbo-props, not long after the purchase, and replaced them with regional jets. So the market is not there, and we need to think about the workers, but we need to find ways to make sure Bombardier can find other businesses and not just turbo-props."

There's a mighty deep illogicality to the above, but never mind. The bigger question is whether the citizens of Toronto actually voted for the new Mayor, David Miller, so they could listen to Ms. Chow dump on Bombardier's products and urge the company to find another line of business. Bombardier, of course, just might do that, including moving its Toronto production to Montreal.

No big deal, apparently. Those are just private sector jobs. As one councillor noted during heated debate over the bridge, there may be two kinds of jobs in the new Toronto: public and private. As a councillor, Mr. Miller was a vocal and forceful defender of the city's workers, urging "compassion" when it came to protecting jobs of members of the Canadian Union of Public Employees. When it comes to private sector jobs held by the Canadian Auto Workers, well, maybe the province or Ottawa can come up with an aid program, Mr. Miller said.

That's the new urbanism: make Ottawa do it, let the province fix it. Proof that nobody in Miller City wants to pay for anything became startlingly clear during Wednesday's opening debate to kill the bridge. To stop the bridge now, the new council must rip up contractual agreements with the federal government and the Toronto Port Authority. That in turn could trigger breaches of contract with numerous private contractors, some of whom have already set up at the bridge construction site.

Breaking contracts inevitably costs money, a fact the city's beleaguered solicitor, Anna Kinastowski, appearing before council and looking nervously over her shoulder at the imposing figure of the Mayor, eventually and reluctantly conceded. At first she said the Mayor's too-clever motion -- to ask Ottawa to make the first move to stop the bridge -- does not "itself" trigger liability. But she came around, under questioning from council members, to the idea that "there might be some costs."

It was a rare event in city politics -- a major decision with possible risks was presented to council without a legal opinion or written legal advice. "We had some meetings and phone conversations" with outside counsel, said Ms. Kinastowski, who seemed to think the only risk to the city might be the "costs" incurred by the construction companies and the airline company as they prepared to build the bridge and set up the air service. As many legal precedents show, the costs could also include the value of lost profit on the airport and airline operations. Costs plus lost profits could equal hundreds of millions of dollars in court-awarded settlements.

As council learned of looming liability of undetermined proportions, it came across a solution. It passed another motion, a murky affair, that essentially asks the federal government to "indemnify the City of Toronto against any legal costs and liabilities."

So that would put the feds on the hook for at least two items: the cost of lost jobs and possibly the entire plant at DeHavilland, and the accumulating third-party liability risk. Transport Minister David Collenette yesterday avoided all of the above and passed the bridge over to the Toronto Port Authority, an arms-length federal agency.

As the bridge ball moves through this process, Mr. Miller keeps pinning his plan on Paul Martin, who said last month that he, as prime minister, would abide with city wishes. Although what he actually said was that he would do so "subject to the restrictions that might be placed upon us as a government." A healthy liability risk might be just such a restriction.

Observing Toronto city council and Mr. Miller work their way through this shameful exercise was to get a first-hand look at raw municipal politics. In disgraceful performances, the debate showed how a new political regime can impose control and discipline, even to the point of dragging politicians and officials into taking decisions that are legally and morally indefensible.

The most glaring case of hypocrisy in the goal of self-advancement came from Councillor Howard Moscoe. A veteran of council, Mr. Moscoe admitted to the Toronto Star's Linda Diebel that he had initially voted in favour of the bridge last June as part of a secret deal with Bombardier. In return for his vote, Bombardier promised to release land it owned near the DeHavilland plant for use as a housing project in Mr. Moscoe's riding.

This would put Mr. Moscoe into the category of sleazy backroom operator, a species Mr. Miller says he wants to clean out of city hall. But then, as Mr. Moscoe changed his vote to join Mr. Miller and oppose the bridge project, Mr. Miller awarded Mr. Moscoe the plum job he coveted, chairman of the Toronto Transit Commission. The backroom doors are still open.

Other councillors, seeking appointments and generally to curry favour with the new Mayor, fell into line. Some, new to the business, contorted their arguments into senselessness to justify their decision to kill the bridge. A group of new councillors -- notably Shelley Carroll and Adam Giambrone -- set a new standard for grovelling inconsistency. They claimed the bridge issue was a high-priority item in their wards, and they agreed with the Mayor that they had a mandate to act early and decisively, but let's not spend any time on it because voters have way more important issues on their minds.

"Quite frankly," said Mr. Giambrone, "I think it's time to move on, to get rid of this issue, and vote on it. The fact that only 1% of people are concerned about it (the bridge) only suggests we vote on it and get on to other issues." Among other issues identified as being the real priorities of voters were crime, jobs, traffic, violence and safety.

The whole operation reeked of slick political immorality. Nobody cares about the bridge, but let's turn it into a big deal, let's vote on it anyway, no matter what the costs or losses, just to get on the inside of the new leftist cabal that's taking over.

A half dozen senior civil servants -- the solicitor, the planner, the health officer, the economic development officer -- were also sucked into the game, some no doubt willingly. Sheela Basrur, the medical health officer and long-time scaremonger, warned of possible cancer-causing fumes from aircraft exhaust and water contamination from de-icing fluids. Asked whether air pollution at Pearson airport or the expressways might not be a greater concern, Ms. Basrur said "logically, yes, but that's not a database response, it's an intuitive one."

The city's planner, who previously supported the bridge, now joined Olivia Chow in complaining that a city centre airport is "an industrial use, really," and therefore incompatible with the city's plan to have a "clean and green" waterfront. Clean and green. No jobs, just clean and green.

Toronto, like most cities, grew around industry, usually cheek by jowl with residential and commercial, and adjacent transportation links. Its famous neighbourhoods are mostly the product of industrial development. The current Toronto skyline and harbourfront is filled with condos and living quarters built right up against the noisiest expressways in the country. The bridge to the island airport would continue that long urban tradition of dynamic mixed uses.

But the new leftist urbanism wants nothing of industry. It wants clean and green, a balance of everything except the industries and transport services without which no jobs exist. Clean, green and jobless.

http://www.itworld.com/Career/4102/CIO010501world/
http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2000/1128union.html

Do the unions make that much of a difference in if jobs leave or stay?

Most of the computer jobs were non-union anyway, so its hard to equate unionized with job retention.

One things for sure; India saw a good thing and they went after it. They went after IT and customer service jobs like buffalo hunters went after bison. When someone in the US can come up with a business model to beat the Indians at their own game, the jobs will return. Although I doubt it will happen. The labor inertia of business is to outsource overseas. I expect governments will have to do the same. The States will soon have their Dept. of Motor Vehicles in New Delhi.

Do the unions make that much of a difference in if jobs leave or stay? Most (>90%) of the computer jobs that have went off shore where not union but they left anyway.

Fair question. Well, if you consider how the "system" works these days, one could probably make an argument either way in response to it.

Consider how contributions to legislators and elected officials by unions as advocates for their "members and agendas" sway governmental stances and resultant law and/or regulations..

Are you a Californian, by chance? I have worked in the industry here for years and have never seen any union active in the computer arena, myself. Curious how you popped the >90% number out so readily. ;-]

Not from CA, I am from TX but I have followed this issues for a while. :->

The States will soon have their Dept. of Motor Vehicles in New Delhi.

On second thought, that may have an effect in itself. If California continues to kill off private business and encourage it to go overseas, the tax revenue may drop to the point that it will be necessary for California to outsource its state bureaucracies overseas. State AG Lockyears, "Assistant AG", will be named Sangi and litigate the states legal business by computer from Bombay.

Peace be with you, Sahib.

http://news.com.com/2030-7341-5096283.html

Who wins in offshoring?

From the McKinsey Quarterly
Special to CNET News.com
October 26, 2003 6:00 AM PT

Widely cited figures predict that by 2015, roughly 3.3 million U.S. business-processing jobs will have moved abroad. As of July 2003, around 400,000 jobs already had.

Other research suggests that the number of U.S. service jobs lost to "offshoring" will accelerate at a rate of 30 percent to 40 percent annually during the next five years. Vast wage differentials are prompting companies to move their labor-intensive service jobs to countries with low labor costs: For instance, software developers, who cost $60 an hour in the United States--the country that does the most offshoring of jobs--cost only $6 an hour in India, the biggest market for offshore services.

Such projections have caused alarm in the United States. In February 2003, the cover of Business Week asked, "Is your job next?" In June, the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Small Business held a hearing called "The globalization of white-collar jobs: Can America lose these jobs and still prosper?"

Several U.S. states are considering legislation to prohibit or severely restrict their state governments from contracting with companies that move jobs to low-wage developing countries, and labor unions, notably the Communications Workers of America, are lobbying Congress to prevent offshoring.

Yet pandering to protectionism would be wrong. Many people believe that money spent to buy services abroad is lost to the U.S. economy, but such views are easily disproved. Companies move their business services offshore because they can make more money, which means that wealth is created for the United States as well as for the country receiving the jobs. A McKinsey Global Institute study reveals the extent of the mutual benefits.

Companies move their business services offshore because they can make more money.

As the study shows, for every dollar that was previously spent on business processes in the United States and now goes to India, India earns a net benefit of at least 33 cents, in the form of government taxes, wages paid by U.S. companies and revenues earned by Indian vendors of business-process services and their suppliers. What of the impact on the U.S. economy? First, it is important to put the figures in context, since fear of job losses makes many people overstate the effects of offshoring. Some 70 percent of jobs in the United States are in service industries such as retailing, catering and personal care. This work, by its very nature, cannot be moved abroad.

In addition, any job losses must be seen as part of an ongoing process of economic restructuring, with which the U.S. economy is well acquainted. Technological change, economic recessions, shifts in consumer demand, business restructuring, and public policy (including trade liberalization and environmental regulation) can and frequently do result in job losses. Even when the economy is growing, mass layoffs--usually from restructuring--are much higher than the job losses predicted from offshoring.

In 1999, for instance, 1.15 million workers lost jobs through mass layoffs, out of a total of 2.5 million lost. Liberalized, competitive economies with flexible labor markets can usually cope with such restructuring; the U.S. economy, the world's most dynamic, certainly should be able to do so. Indeed, history suggests that, over the medium to long term, a flexible job market and the mobility of U.S. workers will make it possible for the United States to create new jobs faster than offshoring eliminates them.

The United States today has more than 130 million employed workers. According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the United States has the highest rate of reemployment of any member country by a factor of almost two. Over the past 10 years, 3.5 million private-sector jobs a year have been created, on average, for a total of 35 million new jobs, so most workers who lose their positions find another within six months. Jobs lost to low-cost foreign competitors are not so easy to replace.

Nonetheless, from 1979 to 1999, 69 percent of the people who lost jobs as a result of cheap imports in sectors other than manufacturing were reemployed. The mean wage of those reemployed was 96.2 percent of their previous wage.

Finally, remember that the population of the United States is aging. At current productivity levels, the country will need 5 percent, or 15.6 million, more workers by 2015 to maintain both its current ratio of workers to the total population and its living standards. By 2015, despite current fears about job losses as a result of offshoring, the U.S. economy will need more, not fewer, workers. Offshoring is one way to meet that need.

But focusing the offshoring debate on job losses misses the most important point: Offshoring creates value for the U.S. economy by creating value for U.S. companies and freeing U.S. resources for activities with more value added. It creates value in four ways:

Cost savings
For every dollar of spending on business services that moves offshore, U.S. companies save 58 cents, mainly in wages. Offshore services are identical to those they replace--and at times better because offshore workers, enjoying higher-than-usual wages, tend to be motivated. Reduced costs are by far the greatest source of value creation for the U.S. economy.

New revenue
Indian companies that provide offshore services need goods and services themselves, ranging from computers and telecommunications equipment to legal, financial, and marketing expertise. Often, they buy these from U.S. companies. We estimate that for every dollar of corporate spending that moves offshore, suppliers of offshore services buy an additional 5 cents worth of goods and services in the United States. Exports from the United States to India stood at $4.1 billion in 2002, compared with less than $2.5 billion in 1990.

Repatriated earnings
Many Indian offshore service providers are in fact U.S. companies that repatriate earnings. Such companies generate 30 percent of the revenues of the Indian offshore industry. Thus an additional 4 cents of every dollar spent on offshoring creates value for the United States.

Redeployed labor
Beyond the direct benefits to the United States in the form of savings, new exports, and repatriated profits, offshoring can indirectly benefit the economy: Capital savings can be invested to create new jobs, for which labor will be available. Indeed, this is exactly what has happened over the past two decades as manufacturing jobs moved offshore.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that overall manufacturing employment shrank by 2 million jobs in the past 20 years. But workers have found it easy to locate jobs in other areas, such as educational and health services. These service jobs, on average, pay more than the manufacturing ones they replaced, helping to increase the population's standard of living.

The same thing could well happen again. As jobs in call centers, back-office operations and repetitive IT functions go offshore, opportunities to train labor and invest capital to generate opportunities in higher-value-added occupations such as research and design will appear.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that from 2000 to 2010, there will be a net creation of about 22 million new jobs in the economy, mostly in business services, health care, social services, transportation, and communications. How much value will be created in this way depends on the country's future economic performance.

Historical trends can serve as a guide. If we use the statistics on reemployment and wage levels already noted--69 percent of nonmanufacturing workers are reemployed at 96.2 percent of their previous wages--and bear in mind that 72 cents of every dollar that goes to offshoring had previously been spent on U.S. wages, the indirect benefit to the U.S. economy would come to an additional 45 to 47 cents for every dollar spent on offshoring.

Offshoring, far from being bad for the United States, creates net value for the economy.

That is a conservative estimate because workers in IT and business services tend to find jobs more quickly than do workers in the service sector as a whole, and the demographic shift will increase the demand for workers.

In this way, offshoring, far from being bad for the United States, creates net value for the economy. It directly recaptures 67 cents of every dollar of spending that goes abroad and indirectly might capture an additional 45 to 47 cents--producing a net gain of 12 cents to 14 cents for every dollar of costs moved offshore.

The total possible wealth creation does not, of course, ease the plight of people who lose their jobs or find lower-wage ones. The statistics showing that 69 percent of those who lost jobs in the nonmanufacturing sector were reemployed also show that 31 percent were not fully reemployed. And while, on average, those who found new jobs secured similar wages (96.2 percent of their previous wage), 55 percent took lower-paid jobs. As many as 25 percent took pay cuts of 30 percent or more.

These issues must be addressed. Training programs and generous severance packages, perhaps accompanied by innovative insurance programs, are among the measures that could mitigate the effects of the transition without great cost to the economy. And while many people will undoubtedly suffer short-term disruption, it should be set against the consequences of resisting change: If U.S. companies can't move work abroad, they will become less competitive--weakening the economy and endangering more jobs--and miss the chance to raise their productivity by focusing on the creation of jobs with higher value added.

The openness of the U.S. economy and its inherent flexibility--particularly that of its labor market--are two of its great recognized strengths. The current danger is that public policy will make its economy less flexible. To do so would endanger the economic well-being of the United States.

For more insight, go to the McKinsey Quarterly Web site.

---------------------------------------------

http://www.computerworld.com/careertopics/careers/story/0,10801,83697,00.html

How to Stem the Tide

Temares downplayed the potential effect that pro-U.S. labor legislation might have on stemming the flow of IT jobs overseas. "I'm a believer in market economics, so I don't think legislation is the solution," he said. Instead, Temares believes that finding more effective ways to do technology work domestically would make U.S. IT shops more competitive with ones offshore. Being able to guarantee that U.S.-developed software is more secure than code written by offshore workers would also help, he added.

Maria Schafer, an analyst at Meta Group Inc., also in Stamford, agreed with Gartner's estimates that the number of jobs sent overseas by U.S. IT vendors may approach 10% by the end of next year. But Schafer said she thinks Gartner's prediction that 5% of corporate IT jobs will be moved offshore by that point "is wildly high."

Relocating jobs to other countries "takes a lot of different pieces coming together, not least of which is an organization strategy and plan, an available workforce and, most importantly, transition time," Schafer said. "It takes a lot of effort to manage remotely what you've up to now managed locally."

Gartner analyst Fran Karamouzis said researchers at the company are still trying to calculate the total number of jobs that will be moved offshore to places such as India and Singapore by the end of 2004. The challenge "is that there's a level of new-job creation" that has to be factored into the calculations, she said.

The movement of IT jobs offshore could be affected by "public and legislative pressure," said Craig Symons, an analyst at Giga Information Group Inc. in Cambridge, Mass. Symons added that he expects the financial services industry to lead the offshore push among U.S. companies. Banks and brokerages have historically led the curve when it comes to adopting new technologies and IT methodologies, he noted.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/12/11/HNoffshorejobs_1.html

--snip--

You look 10 years out, and the numbers get very huge," Kenney said of the potential for outsourcing.

But political tensions in parts of the world may keep the offshore outsourcing numbers from growing as fast as some predict. "If Pakistan and India have a nuclear war, your call center could be in trouble," he said. "Things could change on a dime."

Supporters of offshore outsourcing argued the practice can save companies money, encourage other countries to buy U.S. products and allow U.S. workers to focus on a company's core products. Some companies have reported savings of 40 percent to 80 percent by moving some businesses processes out of the U.S., Kenney said.

The U.S. IT industry will continue to thrive even with offshore outsourcing, because its IT industry continues to be the most innovative, said Jeff Lande, vice president of the IT Services Division at the Information Technology Association of America. Offshore outsourcing does not mean a "zero sum game," with every job created overseas equaling a lost U.S. job, he said.

"We're not going to win this battle over wages," Lande said. "This is going to be a battle over innovation and quality. The U.S. IT workers are the best in the world, and they're going to continue to be the best."

A study released by Forrester Research Inc. in November predicted 3.3 million U.S. jobs in the service industries would move overseas by 2015, but Lande noted that less than 1 million of those were predicted to be IT jobs. The IT industry should grow in 2004, meaning more U.S. jobs, he said. And with the baby boomer generation closing in on retirement, the U.S. should have a shortage, not a surplus, of skilled workers in the next 15 years, he said.

With pressure from stockholders to keep costs low, efforts to stall offshore outsourcing could harm U.S. businesses, said Rolf Lundberg, senior vice president of congressional affairs for the United States Chamber of Commerce. Efforts in eight states and among some members of the U.S. Congress to prohibit government contracts from being fulfilled by foreign workers will, in the long run, hurt the U.S. by driving up the cost of those government contracts and discouraging other countries from buying U.S. products, he said.

Instead of "protectionist" policies, the U.S. government should work on ways to cut health-care costs and limit the number of lawsuits against U.S. companies, Lundberg said.

Lundberg defended offshore outsourcing by saying the money savings will pump up the bottom lines of U.S. companies. "Savings are passed on to consumers," he said. "Dividends are passed on to shareholders."

But Robert Atkinson, senior vice president of the Progressive Policy Institute, disagreed with predictions of worker shortages, saying fewer U.S. workers will mean less demand for products produced in the U.S. "You know what happens when jobs level off -- demand levels off," he said.

Instead of worrying about numbers of workers, or trying to pass laws against offshore outsourcing, the U.S. government should develop a national policy to grow the IT sector by using it to improve the country's transportation, criminal justice or health-care systems, Atkinson said. The positive result of a national debate over offshore outsourcing, which he predicted would be a 2004 election issue, could be a change in the national attitude about priorities such as using IT to improve those services, he said.

"We need to grow the IT economy," he said. "We could really have some big national goals."

If more government spending was the answer to low wages, then citizens of the old Soviet Union would have been the wealthiest people on Earth.

This is worthy of being a "Quote of the Day"

Widely cited figures predict that by 2015, roughly 3.3 million U.S. business-processing jobs will have moved abroad . . . software developers, who cost $60 an hour in the United States -- the country that does the most offshoring of jobs -- cost only $6 an hour in India, the biggest market for offshore services.

These two different points in that article illustrate the idiocy of making economic projections for even an intermiediate-term horizon year. The second point -- the wage differential between U.S. and Indian software developers -- is exactly what is driving so many companies to "outsource" more and more jobs. And yet nobody can state with any certainty whatsoever that the cost of U.S. labor will still be ten times the cost of Indian labor in the year 2015.

The last time this "high-paying jobs lost to other countries" concern was a prominent political issue, it was Japan who was going to take over the world and relegate U.S. workers to Third World status. Since then, just about every Japanese auto manufacturer is now building their best-selling models right here in the United States.

Redeployed labor Beyond the direct benefits to the United States in the form of savings, new exports, and repatriated profits, offshoring can indirectly benefit the economy: Capital savings can be invested to create new jobs, for which labor will be available. Indeed, this is exactly what has happened over the past two decades as manufacturing jobs moved offshore.

The loss of manufacturing jobs was offset by the demand for high tech workers. The loss of high tech jobs is being offset by...the need for people to stock shelves at WalMart.

Instead of worrying about numbers of workers, or trying to pass laws against offshore outsourcing, the U.S. government should develop a national policy to grow the IT sector by using it to improve the country's transportation, criminal justice or health-care systems,

So instead of interfering with the market, the government should interfere with the market. More corporate welfare - make the taxpayer pay for government building programs and socialized healthcare...maybe develop more LE technology with which the border patrol can be barred from using to arrest illegals. This free market yahoo is calling for a TVA for the 21st century.

Jobs, skills, markets, etc, fluctuate and I think America has done well by being hard-working, flexible fast learners and innovative.
I don't think government interference is a solution.
I do think the government should make use of, and encourage by demanding excellence, new technologies.
I do think that ambitious projects such as space exploration are one of many ways to spearhead technological development. I do think that even if they want to process and "tag" the illegals already here, that it should go hand in hand with strict border enforcement, including the use of volunteer civilian patrols and drones and other surveillance technologies.

I am also very concerned by the poor performance of our education system, and the number of kids who are not learning the basics needed to advance. These kids will not be the innovators of tomorrow because of the lack of emphasis on math, science, and critical thinking skills in our schools.
I am also very concerned about the UN and the proliferation of NGOs who would dictate what America can and can't do in the global sphere. Groups that would "level the playing field" with global socialism that will only serve to drag everyone down to the lowest level.
We will need to be a nation of doers and achievers to retain our sovierenty and freedoms. A couple more generations of leftist drivel in our schools and we'll we well on our way to joined the global sheep herd.