Pushing manufacturing jobs overseas

To the editor:

The Obama administration played Santa Claus last week to two of its favorite constituencies.

First up, Big Labor. The so-called "ambush organizing" rule handed down by the National Labor Relations Board allows practically no time for companies to respond to an organizing attempt. The majority opinion on this is it will make it easier for unions to organize, as businesses will be caught flat-footed and unable to respond in time for a scheduled union election.

I disagree. I think this new rule will force companies to be continuously vigilant and constantly educating and informing their employees of the consequences of joining a union. It might even force companies to improve their working environments without any union involvement. No response time needed.

The second gift is to Big Green, the so-called new "utility rule" finalized by the EPA last week that requires utilities to use "maximum achievable control technology" on all power plants. This rule is going to wreak havoc on older coal-fueled power plants by requiring such onerous modifications as to make them economically unfeasible.

Because coal powers more than half of the electricity consumed in this nation, this rule is going to substantially increase the cost of electricity. It might even make our electricity supply unreliable.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that both of these heavy-handed government rules will make it even more enticing to move manufacturing and accompanying jobs out of the country. How does all this make us more competitive in the global economy and create jobs? It doesn't. These rules will serve to move even more jobs out of the country.

It is a fantasy to think we can live in a pristine wilderness with no industrial base and be prosperous.

Curtis Williams

Henderson

People person

To the editor:

I was thinking about the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 ruling that corporations are "persons" (Citizens United v. FEC). I disagree with the ruling. The unlimited funds seemingly available to corporations for political contributions will guarantee that our election process will forever be tainted.

But because corporations are now "persons," then logically they should be subject to the individual income tax rates instead of the corporate income tax rates. Likewise, they should be subject to the same deductions allowed to any person who must file a federal return. No more specially tailored tax exemptions, as the corporation is now a "person."

And if a corporation is a "person," then the contribution limit applied to a "person" should likewise apply to a corporation. If the maximum I can contribute to a candidate is $10,000, then that should be the maximum permitted by a corporation.

Hey, it wasn't my decision -- it was the Supreme Court's decision. Do you think this is what the justices meant?

David Adams

Las Vegas