Presidential Leadership - Then & Now
50 years ago today we had a real leader in the White House. The American public were getting whacked by steel executives driving the price for steel up and it effected all Americans.
Today, Oil goes up due to speculation and greed, and all we get from the President is " Not my job.." and excuses.
News yesterday - "The Energy Information Administration says gasoline will cost an average of $3.95 per gallon from April through September, an increase of 6.3 percent from the same period last year. The peak monthly average should be $4.01 in May.
The government says there's a small chance the price for a gallon could climb as high as $4.50 in June."
Take a listen to how a REAL leader dealt with the issues that hurt Americans economically 50 years ago today. THIS is the type of leader we need here & now but is no where in sight for our country.
And that is a crisis. ( Play the audio, really - you will enjoy listening to what REAL LEADERSHIP sounds like - Trust me.)
Statement of the President of the United States
John F. Kennedy
The Steel Crisis
April 11, 1962
" Simultaneous and identical actions of United States Steel and other leading steal corporations increasing steel prices by some $6 a ton constitute a wholly unjustifiable and irresponsible defiance of the public interest. In this serious hour in our Nation's history when we are confronted with grave crises in Berlin and Southeast Asia, when we are devoting our energies to economic recovery and stability, when we are asking reservists to leave their homes and their families for months on end and servicemen to risk their lives--and four were killed in the last two days in Viet Nam and asking union members to hold down their wage requests at a time when restraint and sacrifice are being asked of every citizen, the American people will find it hard, as I do, to accept a situation in which a tiny handful of steel executives whose pursuit of private power and profit exceeds their sense of public responsibility can show such utter contempt for the interests of 185 million Americans.
If this rise in the cost of steel is imitated by the rest of the industry, instead of rescinded, it would increase the cost of homes, autos, appliances, and most other items for every American family. It would increase the cost of machinery and tools to every American businessman and farmer. It would seriously handicap our efforts to prevent an inflationary spiral from eating up the pensions of our older citizens, and our new gains in purchasing power.
It would add, Secretary McNamara informed me this morning, an estimated $1 billion to the cost of our defences, at a time when every dollar is needed for national security and other purposes. It would make it more difficult for American goods to compete in foreign markets, more difficult to withstand competition from foreign imports, and thus more difficult to improve our balance of payments position, and stem the flow of gold. And it is necessary to stem it for our national security, if we're going to pay for our security committments abroad. And it would surely handicap our efforts to induce other industries and unions to adopt reasonable price and wage policies.
The facts of the matter are that there is no justification for an increase in steel prices. The recent settlement between the industry and the union, which doesn not even take place until July 1st, was widely acknowledged to be noninflationary, and the whole purpose and effect of this Administration's role, which both parties understood, was to achieve an agreement which would make unnecessary any increase in prices. Steel output per man is rising so fast that labor costs per ton of steel can actually be expected to decline in the next 12 months. And in fact, the acting Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics informed me this morning that, and I quote, "employment costs per unit of steel output in 1961 were essentially the same as they were in 1958."
The cost of the major raw materials, steel scrap and coal, has also been declining, and for an industry which has generally been operating at less than two-thirds of capacity, its profit rate has been normal and can be expected to rise sharply this year in view of the reduction in idle capacity. Their lot has been easier than that of one hundred thousand steel workers thrown out of work in the last 3 years. The industry's cash dividends have exceeded $600 million in each of the last 5 years, and earnings in the first quarter of this year were estimated in the February 28th Wall Street Journal to be among the highest in history.
In short, at a time when they could be exploring how more efficiency and better prices could be obtained, reducing prices in this industry in recognition of lower costs, their unusually good labor contract, their foreign competition and their increase in production and profits which are coming this year, a few gigantic corporations have decided to increase prices in ruthless disregard of their public responsibilities.
The Steelworkers Union can be proud that it abided by its responsibilities in this agreement, and this Government also has responsibilities which we intend to meet. The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission are examining the significance of this action in a free, competetive economy. The Department of Defence and other agencies are reviewing its impact on their policies of procurement. And I am informed that steps are under way by those members of the Congress who plan appropriate inquiries into how these price decisions are so quickly made and reached and what legislative safeguards may be needed to protect the public interest.
Price and wage decisions in this country, except for a very limited restriction in the case of monopolies and national emergency strikes, are and ought to be freely and privately made. But the American people have a right to expect, in return for that freedom, a higher sense of business responsibility for the welfare of their country than has been shown in the last 2 days.
Some time ago I asked each American to consider what he would do for his country and I asked the steel companies. In the last 24 hours we had their answer. "
Showing posts with label Presidency. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Presidency. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Monday, November 15, 2010
MIA in 2012 field: Military service
THIS is not a good trend....WE NEED people who have dedicated themselves to our Country for more than a paycheck to be the President. Military service is a good prerequisite for the position. Lack of it makes the learning curve much steeper.
MIA in 2012 field: Military service
By: Kasie Hunt - Politico.com
November 13, 2010 07:04 AM EST
The resumes of the Republicans most frequently mentioned as potential presidential candidates are studded with impressive accomplishments and experience at the highest levels of government.
Yet, nearly all of them are missing a tour of duty that for much of American history has been a prerequisite for the presidency: military service.
Of the 16 top GOP presidential prospects for 2012, only Rep. Ron Paul and Texas Gov. Rick Perry have ever served in the Armed Forces. Since President Barack Obama also never served in the military, the odds are that in two years, Americans are likely to cast their votes in the first presidential race in nearly 70 years where neither major party nominee has ever worn the nation's uniform.
The last time that happened was 1944, when New York Republican Gov. Thomas Dewey lost to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who had been crippled by polio.
The veteran-free presidential contest would take place as the nation debates the future of its military presence in Afghanistan — now the nation's longest war — and attempts to figure out how to limit the American presence in Iraq.
Former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.), a Medal of Honor winner who lost part of his leg in Vietnam, points out that while the scenario once might have seemed highly unusual, such a small percentage of the population now serves in the military that few voters care whether a presidential candidate has served in the military.
"I don't see a lot of evidence that it matters to voters anymore," Kerrey said. "We have an all-volunteer force now. ... Once people didn't have real skin in the game, they began to lose interest."
What's developed, he said, is a political culture that's a lot more willing to send men and women to war — and one that's less likely to question leaders who do.
"I think you lose what you would call the political trip wire on expeditionary efforts. Anything that requires men and women to go into harm's way is an awful lot more difficult to do if it's broadly shared by all households," Kerrey said. "I promise you that it would come up at town hall meetings if every 18-year-old had to go sign up for the draft and possibly go to war."
"The bottom line is it's just a sign of the times. We moved several elections ago into the Vietnam and post-Vietnam generations," said John Ullyot, a Republican political consultant who spent years working for the Senate Armed Services Committee under then-Chairman John Warner (R-Va.).
The likely absence of a veteran at the top of the ticket coincides with a decline in the number of veterans serving in Congress. In 1971, there were 398 veterans serving in the House and Senate. By 1981, it had fallen by roughly a quarter to 298, according to the Congressional Research Service. There will be just 113 veterans in the 112th Congress when it convenes in January, down from 121 in the current Congress.
While there are signs that veterans of recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have started entering public life in greater numbers, it's unlikely to significantly move the dial because a hallmark of these wars are repeated tours from the same small group of people. Rep.-elect Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), for example, served a combined five tours with the Air Force, three in Iraq and two in Afghanistan.
"You've asked a very small part of America to take most of the risks for America," said Anthony Cordesman, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies who has advised the Obama administration on its policy in Afghanistan. "I don't think the 2012 Republican slate is as much an issue as the level of sacrifice that's being asked a very small proportion of America to make."
But military service — or lack of it — has been a persistent issue in presidential politics for decades.
John F. Kennedy built his presidential campaign around his World War II heroism. A 1960 campaign brochure noted that he was "a much decorated war hero of World War II" and cited "his four years of service as an officer in the Armed Forces." The pamphlet, which mentioned his authorship of "Profiles in Courage," also told the story of his PT boat experience, referring to it as "one of World War II's most dramatic stories."
Later that decade, future President Bill Clinton acknowledged the importance of military credentials for aspiring politicians. In a now-famous letter written to the head of the Reserve Officer Training Corps at the University of Arkansas in December 1969, Clinton wrote, "I decided to accept the draft in spite of my beliefs for one reason: to maintain my political viability within the system. For years, I have worked to prepare myself for a political life."
In 2004, Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry crafted his persona around his Vietnam War service. Four years later, the years Republican Sen. John McCain spent as a prisoner of war provided the foundation for his powerful narrative as a war hero devoted to country.
"Part of what really launched the McCain campaign was his service and how unique it was," Ullyot said. "In 2000, it gave him instant credibility with voters in New Hampshire because it was out of the ordinary with the crowd at the time. And now you've moved into an era where most people haven't served."
While it hasn't surfaced yet as an issue among the 2012 crop of potential candidates — and the lack of service didn't stop Clinton or Obama from defeating decorated war heroes — the GOP hopefuls recognize that it's an issue that's worth addressing, in one way or another.
"His experiences as the son of a career soldier convinced him at an early age to dedicate his life to his country and to the protection of freedom," former House Speaker Newt Gingrich writes on his website.
He's currently promoting his latest book, "Valley Forge," a tribute to George Washington's famous Revolutionary War camp there. Gingrich, like Clinton, received student deferments during Vietnam.
Other prospective candidates go to lengths to show their support for the troops or to note family members who have served.
"Tim and his wife, Mary, also led efforts to support Minnesotans serving in the military," Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty's website says. "In addition to traveling several times to the war zones in Afghanistan and Iraq to visit with commanders and troops, he led efforts to create one of the nation's most comprehensive programs to support veterans, military members and their families."
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, whose son Track served in Iraq, often references his service in the Army.
"As a military mom, I know how much sacrifice is involved when our loved ones choose to serve ... I also know though about the pride that comes with that loved one choosing to defend this country," Palin told a crowd at a June 2010 speech in Norfolk, Va.
The issue proved a thorny one for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney during his 2008 run after he provided an awkward answer in response to a question from a voter about whether any of his five sons has served in the military.
In his new book, "No Apology," Romney cites the visits he made to the military hospital Walter Reed and a boyhood hero who served in the military.
"As a boy, Bill McCaffrey was my hero," Romney writes. "Rather than join his dad's highly successful business, he served for twenty years in the army, often away from his wife and four children on long tours of duty."
Zachary Abrahamson contributed to this report.
© 2010 Capitol News Company, LLC
MIA in 2012 field: Military service
By: Kasie Hunt - Politico.com
November 13, 2010 07:04 AM EST
The resumes of the Republicans most frequently mentioned as potential presidential candidates are studded with impressive accomplishments and experience at the highest levels of government.
Yet, nearly all of them are missing a tour of duty that for much of American history has been a prerequisite for the presidency: military service.
Of the 16 top GOP presidential prospects for 2012, only Rep. Ron Paul and Texas Gov. Rick Perry have ever served in the Armed Forces. Since President Barack Obama also never served in the military, the odds are that in two years, Americans are likely to cast their votes in the first presidential race in nearly 70 years where neither major party nominee has ever worn the nation's uniform.
The last time that happened was 1944, when New York Republican Gov. Thomas Dewey lost to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who had been crippled by polio.
The veteran-free presidential contest would take place as the nation debates the future of its military presence in Afghanistan — now the nation's longest war — and attempts to figure out how to limit the American presence in Iraq.
Former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.), a Medal of Honor winner who lost part of his leg in Vietnam, points out that while the scenario once might have seemed highly unusual, such a small percentage of the population now serves in the military that few voters care whether a presidential candidate has served in the military.
"I don't see a lot of evidence that it matters to voters anymore," Kerrey said. "We have an all-volunteer force now. ... Once people didn't have real skin in the game, they began to lose interest."
What's developed, he said, is a political culture that's a lot more willing to send men and women to war — and one that's less likely to question leaders who do.
"I think you lose what you would call the political trip wire on expeditionary efforts. Anything that requires men and women to go into harm's way is an awful lot more difficult to do if it's broadly shared by all households," Kerrey said. "I promise you that it would come up at town hall meetings if every 18-year-old had to go sign up for the draft and possibly go to war."
"The bottom line is it's just a sign of the times. We moved several elections ago into the Vietnam and post-Vietnam generations," said John Ullyot, a Republican political consultant who spent years working for the Senate Armed Services Committee under then-Chairman John Warner (R-Va.).
The likely absence of a veteran at the top of the ticket coincides with a decline in the number of veterans serving in Congress. In 1971, there were 398 veterans serving in the House and Senate. By 1981, it had fallen by roughly a quarter to 298, according to the Congressional Research Service. There will be just 113 veterans in the 112th Congress when it convenes in January, down from 121 in the current Congress.
While there are signs that veterans of recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have started entering public life in greater numbers, it's unlikely to significantly move the dial because a hallmark of these wars are repeated tours from the same small group of people. Rep.-elect Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), for example, served a combined five tours with the Air Force, three in Iraq and two in Afghanistan.
"You've asked a very small part of America to take most of the risks for America," said Anthony Cordesman, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies who has advised the Obama administration on its policy in Afghanistan. "I don't think the 2012 Republican slate is as much an issue as the level of sacrifice that's being asked a very small proportion of America to make."
But military service — or lack of it — has been a persistent issue in presidential politics for decades.
John F. Kennedy built his presidential campaign around his World War II heroism. A 1960 campaign brochure noted that he was "a much decorated war hero of World War II" and cited "his four years of service as an officer in the Armed Forces." The pamphlet, which mentioned his authorship of "Profiles in Courage," also told the story of his PT boat experience, referring to it as "one of World War II's most dramatic stories."
Later that decade, future President Bill Clinton acknowledged the importance of military credentials for aspiring politicians. In a now-famous letter written to the head of the Reserve Officer Training Corps at the University of Arkansas in December 1969, Clinton wrote, "I decided to accept the draft in spite of my beliefs for one reason: to maintain my political viability within the system. For years, I have worked to prepare myself for a political life."
In 2004, Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry crafted his persona around his Vietnam War service. Four years later, the years Republican Sen. John McCain spent as a prisoner of war provided the foundation for his powerful narrative as a war hero devoted to country.
"Part of what really launched the McCain campaign was his service and how unique it was," Ullyot said. "In 2000, it gave him instant credibility with voters in New Hampshire because it was out of the ordinary with the crowd at the time. And now you've moved into an era where most people haven't served."
While it hasn't surfaced yet as an issue among the 2012 crop of potential candidates — and the lack of service didn't stop Clinton or Obama from defeating decorated war heroes — the GOP hopefuls recognize that it's an issue that's worth addressing, in one way or another.
"His experiences as the son of a career soldier convinced him at an early age to dedicate his life to his country and to the protection of freedom," former House Speaker Newt Gingrich writes on his website.
He's currently promoting his latest book, "Valley Forge," a tribute to George Washington's famous Revolutionary War camp there. Gingrich, like Clinton, received student deferments during Vietnam.
Other prospective candidates go to lengths to show their support for the troops or to note family members who have served.
"Tim and his wife, Mary, also led efforts to support Minnesotans serving in the military," Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty's website says. "In addition to traveling several times to the war zones in Afghanistan and Iraq to visit with commanders and troops, he led efforts to create one of the nation's most comprehensive programs to support veterans, military members and their families."
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, whose son Track served in Iraq, often references his service in the Army.
"As a military mom, I know how much sacrifice is involved when our loved ones choose to serve ... I also know though about the pride that comes with that loved one choosing to defend this country," Palin told a crowd at a June 2010 speech in Norfolk, Va.
The issue proved a thorny one for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney during his 2008 run after he provided an awkward answer in response to a question from a voter about whether any of his five sons has served in the military.
In his new book, "No Apology," Romney cites the visits he made to the military hospital Walter Reed and a boyhood hero who served in the military.
"As a boy, Bill McCaffrey was my hero," Romney writes. "Rather than join his dad's highly successful business, he served for twenty years in the army, often away from his wife and four children on long tours of duty."
Zachary Abrahamson contributed to this report.
© 2010 Capitol News Company, LLC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)