As has been written here, the economic situation in these United States has, for some illegals, started a migration back to their home country due to a lack of work here. Apparently there really are Americans that want to do those jobs. But now, with the escalation of drug cartel-related crimes, including kidnapping, Mexico’s wealthy are crossing the border for their own safety. And the new burgeoning industry in Mexico has become personal security where for Mexico’s wealthy, the cost of living now includes guards.

But hundreds of well-off families along the border have become so consumed by their fears that they have moved out of Mexico, at least temporarily, often using business visas granted because of their work in the United States.

“It’s a bad feeling to have to leave your country behind,” said Javier, a prosperous Tijuana businessman, who moved his family across the border to San Diego last year after a group of armed men tried to kidnap him. “But I didn’t really have a choice.” He insisted that his last name not be used, out of fear that criminals might track him.

Disclaimer. This comes from the New York Times, so whether it is fact or fiction depends on what you already know about the New York Times. Before making your travel plans to Mexico, you may want to consider this.

In the border state of Chihuahua, the Mexican Employers’ Association recently reported a 300 percent increase in the number of bodyguards. In that violence-torn state, some luxury hotels now offer their guests bodyguards and bulletproof vehicles.

link: For More of Mexico’s Wealthy, Cost of Living Includes Guards

Don’t you find it just a little bit ironic that Democratic leaders in Congress are demanding that, before they agree to a bailout, that the auto companies produce a plan, a long range plan, that will show them able to sustain business on their own and to remain profitable, when we just elected a new president without the slightest curiosity about what his plan is for the future viability of this country? Well I do.

“It is all about accountability and viability,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. “We [need to] see a plan where the auto industry is held accountable. Until they show us the plan, we cannot show them the money.”

Just know that what we are witnessing is the ‘show’ of fiscal responsibility, before they bail out big labor, which is all they are interested in doing. Well, that and nationalizing yet another segment of our economy.

And the irony doesn’t stop there. Hearken back to the start of the economic crisis, the collapse of the finance industry which also took down Wall Street and financial markets around the world. While we see these democrats chastising the auto industry CEO’s for not seeing their problem coming, the same can be said of these same democrats, not only for not seeing it coming, but for not recognizing or accepting the warnings of things to come where Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are concerned by those who did. Back then, in 2003 and again in 2005, it was republicans that were sounding the warning. And it was these same indignant democrats we see today that were responsible for not seeing or heeding the warnings. Isn’t that like the pot calling the kettle black?

In this video, Rush Limbaugh puts it well in his own way and then some.

related links: Dems delay auto bailout vote, seek plan from Big 3| What Caused The Economic Crisis?

One of the main reasons the big three automakers can’t compete with other automakers IN THE U.S., (Hyundai, Toyota, Honda, BMW and Mercedes ) is the three-letter word UAW. That would be the United Auto Workers, aka Big Labor.

Automakers are in Washington today with hat in hand looking for some of our money to keep them afloat. Unfortunately for them, no amount of our tax dollars can repair the rotting hull in the auto industry’s boat.

Any ‘bailout’ would be a union bailout, not a company bailout. Nor would it be a permanent fix. The way out for the automakers is to reorganize under Chapter 11. Chapter 11 is the only way out of the union contracts. That’s the only way to reorganize in such a way for these automakers to have a chance of being profitable again. Otherwise, they’ve earned the right to fail.

Granted that it was the management of these automakers that agreed to such extravagant benefits, at the threat of a strike, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see how labor unions can put not only the auto industry, but any industry at a competitive disadvantage, including small businesses that need all the help they can get. If unions go away, no one suffers. If large and small businesses go away, everyone suffers.

The only automakers in the United States that are profitable are the ones that are non-union. UAW president, Ron Gettelfinger is in total denial when he asserts that union costs and contracts are not the problem . . .

The domestic auto industry simply cannot succeed in today’s unstable economic environment without immediate help from the federal government.

Oh really? Can you say Hyundai, Toyota, Honda, BMW and Mercedes?

It is not the actions of our members that have caused the crisis in today’s auto industry; the crisis is being driven by economic factors that have nothing to do with labor costs or factory performance. To the contrary, our contracts have put our employers in a position to compete.

In his editorial, Gettelfinger calls the wage and benefit gap (see chart) an alleged wage and benefit gap.

A Nov. 8 Post editorial claimed that unionized auto manufacturers pay “wages and benefits that far exceed those of non-union competitors,” but recent labor negotiations with Chrysler, Ford and GM addressed this alleged wage and benefit gap.

Awash in delusion as he is, Gettelfinger says this . . .

Our 2007 labor negotiations with the companies transformed the domestic auto industry; when the agreements we reached have been fully implemented, they will largely or even completely eliminate the labor-cost gap between unionized auto plants and our nonunion competitors. One analyst has estimated that as a result of our contracts, GM will soon enjoy a labor-cost advantage over Toyota.

Speaking before Democratic Congressional lawmakers last week, Gettelfinger had this to say . . .

The prospect of concessions from the union came up during a meeting involving executives of Detroit’s Big Three auto makers and Democratic Congressional lawmakers on Capitol Hill Thursday. But UAW President Ron Gettelfinger made clear that concessions were out of the question, union lobbyist Alan Reuther said in an interview with Dow Jones Newswires Friday.

“Workers and retirees have already made significant sacrifices,” said Reuther, paraphrasing remarks that Gettelfinger made to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D- Calif., and others in the meeting, including renegotiated contracts. “We feel we’ve already stepped up.”

Bottom line, those that still want a job can be rehired. And for any of the ‘2 million arguments‘ for a bailout that can not adapt or refuse to adapt to a reorganization, they also have an option. It is called Chapter 13. Get off of the taxpayers’ back. That the UAW accepts no responsibility for this mess is insulting.

The solutions are out there and currently available without another government takeover. And the solution does not include the United Auto Workers Union.

related links:

• Business as usual must end in Detroit
• AP’s Auto Bailout Coverage Nearly Ignores Excessive Labor Costs, Omits UAW’s Concessions Refusal
• Ron Gettelfinger, Main Street’s Engine
• UAW Contracts Put Detroit On Road to Ruin, and A $50B Bailout Would Only Be The Down Payment
• Employee Free Choice Act Is Democrats’ Quid Pro Quo

The Iraqi government, fearful of what Obama might do in terms of precipitous U.S. troop withdrawals, just rushed approval of a longer-term security pact between Iraq and the United States—-which would keep the United States in Iraq through the end of 2011.

Key revisions on sovereignty issues, demanded by Iraq and accepted by the US during months of fractious negotiations, led Iraq’s highest-ranking Shiite religious figure, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, to indicate over the weekend he would not object to the sweeping deal. Although the pact has experienced pockets of resistance, many Iraqis say the victory of US President-elect Barack Obama was a factor because of his promise to withdraw troops within 16 months of taking office.

Also a factor to an agreement is to maintain some political stability since a United Nations mandate, under which US forces currently operate, expires at the end of this year.

What is Barack-nophobia? Monica Crowley defines it like this:

Barack-nophobia: Noun. Fear of what a President Obama might do. Symptoms and signs: high anxiety, palpitations, selling of assets before he can tax them into non-existence, depression, fatigue, excessive sleeping or insomnia, excessive consumption of refined sugar products, cold sweats, and generalized nervousness.

related links: Barack-nophobia | Iraqi cabinet votes to keep US troops

I’d like to think that the rest of the world can learn by our example of how shifts in political power and leadership can happen peacefully and with public participation, without political and civil turmoil that is seen in some parts of the world in other, less free, countries. This blogger in India, who also happens to be the creator of the WordPress theme used by The Lunch Counter, sees it this way in speaking of President-elect Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain.

As I’ve said before. I did not vote for Obama, but he will be my president none the less. He has earned the chance to either make or break this country in the next four years. Lord knows the challenges he faces are enormous. May God bless him and guide him in making the right decisions for America, and may God bless America.

link: ‘Change’ comes to America