Kirk Adams is a small businessman and supporter of SBABG’s mission.  He is running for Congress to represent Arizona’s 5th Congressional District.  We are excited to see him take on the entrenched Washington insiders.  We need more small businessmen to run for office!

His opponent, Washington insider Matt Salmon, has been attempting to reinvent himself as a small government conservative.  Adams is taking him to task (see full video below). After a decade of lobbying for energy mandates, public employee unions, and crony capitalist projects, Salmon finally moved back to Arizona (from Washington), bought a cowboy hat, and is attempting to reacquaint himself with some conservative principles (such as don’t give money to liberal candidates like Ed Pastor and Joe Baca).

Yesterday, in pursuit of his new image, lobbyist Salmon released an opinion piece condemning congressional insider trading.  He’s right, politicians should never use their positions to enrich themselves, whether it’s through insider trading while in office or through lucrative lobby…err…other careers once they leave office.

What made his piece laughable is the fact that Salmon personally donated money liberal Congressman Ed Pastor, who was featured last month in a New York Times article about–you guessed it–congressional insider trading!

“When Ed Pastor was first elected to congress two decades ago, he was comfortably ensconced in the middle class.  Mr. Pastor, a Democrat from Arizona, held $100,000 or so in savings in the mid-1990s and had a retirement pension, but like many Americans, he also owed nearly as much in loans.  Today, Mr. Pastor, a miner’s son and a former high school teacher, is a member of a not-so-exclusive club:  Capitol Hill millionaires.”

So, what gives?  The Kirk Adams for Congress campaign asked Arizona voters, “Why would a former Republican U.S. congressman, turned lobbyist, donate money to a liberal Democrat campaign.” A few answers:

“They would give money to any campaign that served their particular needs.”

“Wasn’t principled in the first place and now he’s out for the money.”

There sure is something fishy about Matt Salmon.

Competition is a by-product.  It’s not something desirable in itself – it’s just what happens when other desirable things happen.

Competition comes about when three conditions hold.

1. People are free to serve others.  That is, they are free to provide labor on behalf of other people, to make others lives better.  This condition contains the converse – that people are also free to receive service from others, without intervention/prevention from others.

2. People are free to exchange services with one another in ways that mutually benefit them.

3. People are free to decide between any number of servers/services offered the one that they prefer and feel will most benefit them.

When these conditions hold, what you have is groups of people working for the opportunity to serve one another and offering more and more in exchange for the privilege of being chosen to give the service.  In return for the service, they also receive service (or goods, usually in the form of money) in return.

When people who offer the same service make themselves available simultaneously, the person receiving service has the choice to choose the provider they believe will serve them best.  The two service providers will each work and improve to be able to provide the service.  The net result is that the person served will be able to exchange, perhaps, fewer services in return than may have been necessary.  This is a benefit to the receiver – it means he has that much more service to exchange later for additional services he otherwise might not have been able to “purchase”.

Competition is nothing more than the result of allowing people to freely serve one another and allowing those served the freedom to choose those servers/services that they feel will best serve them.

Any effort to reduce “competition” must NECESSARILY do one or more of the following to the three conditions.

1. Take away people’s freedom to serve one another; that is, to disallow or prohibit service
2. Take away people’s freedom to voluntarily trade service with each other
3. Take away people’s freedom to choose between providers of services and instead mandate that if they want the service at all they must use just one provider (which they did not choose).

People who want to do away with free markets or competition are really just people who want to eliminate service, freedom, prosperity, and choice.

Nice people!

Also contains information on Cap and Tax and Labor Law changes being pursued.

This Administration is BAD NEWS for Small Business.  Get informed by reading the report.  And then please share it with at least 5 other Small Businesses you know.   If we work together, we can push a lot of this stuff way back.  But we have to be willing to share, to talk, to raise our voices and speak out and educate.

Please subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Facebook group.

Public unions’ traditional strength–the ability to finance their members’ rising pay and benefits through tax increases–has become a liability. Although private sector unions always have had to worry that consumers will resist rising prices for their goods, public sector unions have benefited from the fact that taxpayers can’t choose–they are, in effect, “captive consumers.”

At some point, however, voters turn resentful as they sense that: (1) they are underwriting, through their taxes, a level of salary and benefits for government employment that is better than what they and their families have; and (2) government services, from schools to the DMV, are not good enough—not for the citizen individually nor the public generally—to justify the high and escalating cost.

We are at that point.

Read the whole article and share with your friends, family, and – especially – employees and co-workers.

Please subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Facebook group.

But recently, UPS has declared war on FedEx, in the form of Union-Driven rent seeking and the outcome of the war will likely affect small business owners and employees.

Lakers vs. Celtics, Red Sox vs. Yankess, UPS vs. FedEx.  Rivalries are good, and in the case of the latter two package delivery companies, a strong rivalry results in better prices, improved innovation, and improved choices, particularly for small businesses.

But Congress is trying to mess with that by “leveling the playing field” through a small provision tucked into the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009.  The Act, which made it through the house is now in front of the Senate, and essentially changes the rules on labor organization for express package carriers. (See Section 806)

The bill’s sponsor is Minnesota Representative James Oberstar, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and co-sponsored by Jerry Costello, from Illinois.  Both of these congressmen receive a large percentage of their campaign contributions from Union organizations, and both have been the recipient of steady generous campaign contributions from UPS and the Teamsters Union (which represents UPS workers).

At issue is this:  FedEx Express (which carries only the overnight and express packages) workforce is governed under the Railway Labor Act, which requires a national vote of employees in order to form a Union.   UPS, on the other hand, is governed under the National Labor Relations Act, which allows for unions to form on a local level.  UPS and its Teamsters Union admit that the fact that FedEx’s workers are not unionized is a “competitive advantage.”  They have therefore used their political clout to get Mr. Oberstar and Mr. Costello to pork-barrel in legislation that would put FedEx Express under the NLRA, and make it possible for local union organization.

Why should you care?

1. This will drive up the cost to run your small business.  If FedEx workers were to organize, it would assuredly result in a higher cost of business for them. Those additional costs would then be passed on to businesses and consumers that use FedEx.  Even if you use UPS, your costs would go up, because as FedEx raises it’s prices, UPS would not be forced to keep prices down to remain competitive.  Thus resulting in higher overall transportation costs for everyone.
2. The federal government should not be involved in “leveling the playing field.”  Many small and large businesses in all industries take advantage of competitive positions, through legal loopholes, legislative action, or through strategic partnerships.  If FedEx has found a legal way to have an advantage over a competitor, why should that be taken away?
3. There are only 2 small package delivery companies in the country (if you don’t count the Post Office (and we don’t)). Taking away competitive advantages results in identical companies, thus creating a duopoly.  With no competitive differences, there would be no incentive for either company to work harder for your business, thus resulting in higher prices, and lower service for small businesses that ship goods.
4. Do you remember when the Teamsters Union chose to strike in 1997?  If you owned a business then, I guarantee you remember. Small businesses were the ones that suffered the most.  If passed, we could conceivably end up with both FedEx and UPS workers going on strike at the same time.  What would that do for your business?
5. Organizing as a Union will do nothing for the average FedEx worker.  The next time you shop at a grocery store, ask the clerk at the counter what he gets from being a member of his local Grocery Workers Union.  Or ask your favorite teacher if she is confident that the local Teacher’s Union has successfully secured her a competitive salary.  The UAW is just as much at fault for the failing US auto industry as is poor management. Unions do nothing for average workers except take a piece of their paychecks, and gift an occasional hat or commemorative pin.

In reality, Unions are a thing of the past.  They may have been a necessary part of the development of our laws.  But in today’s economy, they essentially create no net gain for their members and are merely a self serving political entity.  As Veronique de Rugy puts it:

Unions represent an Industrial Revolution–era understanding of labor relations. The modern American movement grew out of an assembly line culture where every product was identical and workers were viewed in a similar way. As that mode of production has declined, so have unions’ relevance and power. 

Call or write your Senator today.  Tell them to stay out of business, and to vote no on the H.R. 915 -FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009.  Click here for a quick and easy email submission tool.

Sign up for our RSS feed and become a fan of our Facebook Page and we’ll keep you aware of how Big Business and Unions collude with Big Government to punish free markets and prosperity.