Getting Loopholed Out of Benefits

Tweet

The July 24th edition of the Janesville Gazette headlined a story titled Benefits denied for LSI, which attempted to give an explanation of sorts as to why the federal government denied offering an extension of unemployment and education benefits to laid off workers of a local GM support company.

At the core of this argument is the question of whether global competition was responsible for the announced closings of the Janesville GM plant and if not, therefore, workers of independent logistic's companies don’t deserve help.

JG Excerpt:
Typically, TAA status is granted on a case-by-case basis when workers are displaced by global competition. Whether the GM plant’s product has been adversely affected by global competition likely will be decided this fall.

Somebody is still undecided on whether Janesville GM was adversely effected by global competition? Also, in a supporting article titled “Loophole keeps TAA benefits flowing for workers at Lear”, the Gazette reinforces the same idea.

JG Excerpt:
Lear workers, however, will get TAA benefits even though they have been laid off for the same reasons as their counterparts at GM and LSI

What does all of this mean? Several things. For one, it means that instead of the Gazette writing that a improper technicality in due process known as a “loophole” is responsible for denying benefits, they write the benefits in a negative presupposition, that some workers are receiving them because of a “loophole.” Secondly, the newspaper fosters animosity and divides the nervous community further by implying that undeserving workers are receiving loopholed benefits, yet are able to hold up the local union as the incompetent wheel and target of those loopholed out of benefits. Thirdly, if government decides that Janesville GM was not effected by forces of global competition, this could have a long ranging adverse effects on future benefits for all workers tied into the local GM factory. This triple twist of spin I believe, fits the newspaper's program, and catapulted this story into the headlines of the front page.

It is true that high energy prices are partly responsible for killing off sales of gas guzzlers of all brands, but that was no reason to announce the closing of the Janesville GM plant. And true, they build large SUV’s in Janesville, but SUV’s are a concept, that they happen to get poor gas mileage is more a strike against the internal combustion engine than against the concept OR the hard working people supplying parts and support for the factory.

That gasoline prices are high it has been said, is a direct result of global competition for oil. Despite high gasoline prices, GM has not cut off all SUV production in the United States. Obviously, there are more reasons than the high cost of fuel as to why GM decided to close the four plants in North America. If another reason was to cut costs, for what reason other then to compete with the competition? And it was global competition to blame in a more obvious sense decades ago when the American car manufacturers failed to compete when oil was cheap.

JS Online excerpt:
Rising oil and gas prices have resulted in a permanent shift away from large SUVs and pickups, GM Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner said in a conference call. The inability of oil suppliers to keep up with rising demand for energy worldwide means current prices will be the norm going forward, he said.

This should come as no surprise that in nearly every story related to the GM announcement, both corporate officials, politicians and the traditional media have blamed surging fuel prices for the closings. Except one.

The Paul Ryan Paradox

It so happens that the Janesville GM plant resides in the congressional district of which Republican Paul Ryan has been representing for the past ten years. With this close proximity oddly enough, he still is able to seize the workers frustration as an opportunity to distance himself from the causes of their blight. For this, he is the one exception to the rule who would rather blame the federal government and congress. And he's right. This beginning in 1994 with the Republican “Contract with America” and culminating into Ryan's first eight years in the GOP-led Congress of which he voted "Yea," on policies that led us to where we are today.

So he politicizes it -- expected in a political year -- and works it into his shtick of running as a change candidate within the status quo against a congress with low approval ratings. What is totally absurd is that he is able to exclude himself. Sure, Ryan can point fingers and blame government for the high prices of the free markets and the job losses, everybody does - it's the popular thing to do. So long as we never blame his votes on trade agreements, globalization or issues regarding the free markets.

Rep. Ryan’s position on the TAA benefits issue will likely influence the federal position that will ultimately decide whether the plant closing here was a result from something other than global competition, if true, the workers will get nothing.

The Gazette and Paul Ryan - what a mess they've weaved.