Government can push companies overseas, too
Many politicians love to rail against corporations for "shipping jobs overseas," claiming that they deliberately deny Americans jobs so they can take advantage of low wages in Third World countries. However, these same politicians pass laws and regulations which, like medications, generally come with unforeseen, unpleasant side effects.
Take tax laws. If a corporation builds a factory in Ireland, it pays that government 14 percent of the profits from its factory in taxes. If the same corporation builds the same factory in this country, it pays our government 35 percent, 2andfrac12; times as much. We have the second-highest corporate tax rates among industrialized countries. Knowing the above, where would you build your factory?
In 2007, Congress (including then-senator Obama) changed the regulations governing light bulbs, knowing that those twisty fluorescent bulbs meet the new standards, while old-fashioned incandescent bulbs don't. Before the new regulations, most incandescent bulbs were manufactured here in this country. Seeing the handwriting on the wall, one by one those factories closed, the last one in 2010. So now we can no longer buy light bulbs made by American labor; instead they're all made abroad, mostly in China. Oops!
Then there's affirmative action. A small factory in New York City had a labor force made up mostly of Hispanics. So you'd think they had nothing to worry about. Right? Wrong! Its management got all kinds of grief from the Department of Justice for hiring too many of the wrong minority; they should have hired more blacks.
Not too long ago, Sears Roebuck and Company tried to sue the federal government. The basis for their lawsuit? If a member of a minority, a woman, and a veteran each apply for the same position, no matter which one is hired, under federal law, the other two have grounds to sue.
After getting hit with such stuff a few times, management daydreams about relocating to some country where they don't have to put up with such nonsense.
So, Mr. and Ms. Politician, if you want to see who's partially responsible for shipping jobs overseas, look in the mirror.
Gorrell has the commitment to improve Baker County
We have a sheriff wanting re-election. People say he has earned it, my question is, does anyone know how he has earned it? From what I see he is maybe an effective administrator. But what we need in this county is a sheriff who has the ability to make a step forward to the future of law enforcement in Baker County, and Gorrell is the man to make it happen. He has already set out a plan of action for the sheriff's office. This county has budget problems, not only from less funding but from the current sheriff not taking advantage of the grants that are available to the office. Gorrell will take every grant available to the office.
There is also the problems that are not being worked on in the sheriff's office that the community does not see. So from my point of view what I see from Southwick is not a very commited sheriff, one who most of Baker County does not even know. Does he just want the paycheck or does he want to lead? How can Southwick be respected by his peers when he doesn't even take the time to know any of the employees that work for him? Southwick performs at a high level? Gorrell performs at the highest level!
This is the time to change from someone who is complacent in their job. Don't just vote for Southwick because he is a "good guy." Vote for something to be done about our county slowly going down the drain.
Once again Dee Gorrell has shown a path for better educated law enforcement. He is a man who is respected. He is ready and willing to serve the county of Baker, and will do the things that need done, he also is a very honest man who is not scared to learn somthing new from someone under him.
Gorrell is also a committed family man, who also knows that your employees are also a part of family that he takes the time to get to know. To me that is important in a leader.