Michigan senator Debbie Stabenow has a graduate degree in social work from Michigan State University. So this week, she invested $2 billion of your money in the lithium-ion-battery industry.
Ain’t spending other people’s money fun?
Actually, “invested” is hardly the term you would use for someone who has no background in the financial industry. Financial advisors “invest” your money in anticipation of a financial return. Social workers-turned-pols confiscate their clients’ money through taxation then “spend” it to solve global warming.
Financial advisors consult research analysts and study the structure of a business and whether it is in a viable market. Senator Stabenow just stares into a crystal ball and says batteries are the future. Because, she says, “I can feel (global warming) when I’m flying.”
Stabenow says she will introduce her Battery Innovation Act this week to coordinate all aspects of advanced battery production — from research and development to manufacturing, where she and her colleagues have handed over billions more of your money to politically connected corporations. All this even though she has never coordinated a parade, much less a battery-manufacturing firm.
She says “she hopes (it) spurs a growing market.”
Would you hand over $2 billion of your money to a broker with Stabenow’s resume? Would you hand her $2?
Of course, the skill Stabenow does bring to the table is that she can issue edicts creating guaranteed markets for her “investment.” Where will her batteries be sold? She and President Obama have mandated that all 600,00 vehicles in the federal fleet be converted to hybrid-battery power.
What’s more, she and the president — himself a social worker — want to essentially mandate that America’s car fleet be battery-hybrids with a 56 mpg fuel-economy standard by 2025.
How does a social worker know the future of the most complicated manufacturing product on the planet? How does a lifetime pol who has never worked in the capital markets know that it will “generate billions in private sector economic activity, creating thousands of jobs and making America competitive in advanced battery technologies”?
Easy. In America these days, social workers mandate the future.
The social workers I know are compete idiots when it comes to money and finance. Both with their own personal money and the taxpayer money they are entrusted with.
Don't get me wrong, the ones I know truly do try their best to help the people they are given to help. But most of them couldn't balance a checkbook no matter how hard they tried.
Though most make at least a decent living (but always far too low in their minds, they wouldn't complain so much if they had to earn that much in a different field, I bet).
They just don't get why there isn't more money in social work (for both their pay & budgets). It blows the mind sometime. And I am just the "uncaring conservative" when I tell them for the millionth time why.
Frankly even if they got more money things wouldn't be any different for their "clients" recipients (they call them clients, the rest of us call them what they are, recipients). The only difference would be wasted money.
I don't know why they are so fixated on money (or the lack of it) when they are in a field that isn't supposed to care about money. Maybe that is part of the problem, when limited resources (money) isn't given the respect it should have.
It not a problem in missionary work. I have never heard a missionary complain about their pay (you do hear about their financial problems at times). And their pay doesn't come close to what social workers make. The ones I know probably make a third (if that) of what my social worker friends make. If anyone has a gripe about rotten pay, its missionaries.
I have never NOT heard a social worker not complain about their pay. Both missionaries and social workers DO KNOW that they aren't going to get rich when they go into this work. But yet this problem.
I don't know if this problem comes from their schooling? (probably) Or that they think they are providing a much more important service in society then they really are? (likely) Or that one group is largely liberal and the other is largely conservative? (bingo)
The higher calling work of missionaries, I think sometimes fixes the problems that social workers go out trying (and failing) to solve. Material problems (the problems social workers are trying to fix) don't count for much when your personal problem can't be solved with secular ideas.
The irony is that out of the retired missionaries and social workers I know, its the missionaries that seem to be better off (financially) in retirement. In spite of not having government pensions, the better pay over life and other benefits from government work they still beat the social workers. Hands down!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDefinition for irony: Rich B. misspelling "Complete idiot" in his comment and then supporting the argument with anecdotal personalized evidence.
Definition for idiocy: Henry Payne and the argument he is making in this article.
Rather than explore the policy in an intelligent manner, Mr. Payne resorts to the typical political rhetoric that serves only to waste the time of anybody who reads it. Senator Stabenow is supporting the 4 major battery manufacturing operations in her home state as she is preparing to run for election. This may not be desirable but it's not stupid, as Mr. Payne suggests, nor is it abnormal political behavior. This bill has about a 1% chance of actually passing & is really more about generating personal PR for herself.
If one were to correlate financial training and experience with economic policy performance than the evidence would suggest that more experience is worse. Hank Paulson and George Bush were at the helm in the years preceding the financial crisis. Hank Paulson was head of Goldman Sachs and both of these leaders have MBAs from Harvard. Unlike Sen Stabenow, these guys were actually in a position to do something meaningful & they elected not to & instead poured fuel on the fire to try to pump up the economy while they were in control and the fire eventually got out of hand. Not only are financial systems complicated but the self-interested actors (including banks and politicians) rarely make the decision that is optimal for the system rather than the decision that is optimal for themselves at the time. This is true of nearly ALL politicians whether they have a social work degree from MSU or an MBA from Harvard.
I'm not supporting Stabenow's policy but on actual policy grounds, not because she happened to be a social worker earlier in her career.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHenry should invest in a periodic chart and turn his 401k over to Stabenow, whose brilliant move should have come years ago.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm not that big of a fan of social workers even when they're doing "social work" which seems to be a first cousin to community organizing, only broader in scope and deluded by countless self-serving "studies." But what could go wrong as long as we add a few environmentalists to consult with the social workers on energy investment decisions?
"I can feel [global warming] when I'm flying." There's a social answer to a scientific question.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI HATEHATEHATEHATEHATE when politicians use the word "investing." Whenever a politician uses any variation of the word "invest," he's lying.
That's important, so let me say it again: Whenever a politician uses any variation of the word "invest," he's lying.
Investing means putting X dollars out somewhere with the hope that you'll get X+Y dollars back in Z time. With X, Y, and Z, you can calculate a return on investment, or ROI. If you don't understand that because your degree is in something that ends with the word "studies," take a accounting 101 at your local community college, after you've mastered some basic math, such as calculating percentages.
Politicians only use the X amount above - and they almost always get it wrong by factors of magnitude - and never, never, never give you a number for Y or Z. What they do with your money bears less resemblance to real investing than it does to throwing fistfuls of seed corn out a car window and expecting ethanol pumps to sprout up where they land.
PS: Obama has a press conference tomorrow. Count how many times he says "invest" or "investing." Every single time will count as a lie.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseInvesting = spending in DC. Always, always, always. If Ms. Stabenow is a financial adivsor, then I'm a doctor because I can feel indigestion when she speaks.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHeh. Cleverly snarky.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Would You Let a Social Worker Handle Your Investment Portfolio?"
I wouldn't let a social worker change my grandson's diaper.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, those 5-year plans for state-directed expenditures worked out so well in the Soviet Union. And Cuba and North Korea thrive as economic powerhouses, I can't wait for Stabenow's next brain seizure.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere are 4 ways of spending money:
1. You spend your own money on yourself.
2. You spend your own money on someone else.
3. You spend someone else's money on yourself.
4. You spend someone else's money on someone else.
By conjuring up a few scenarios for each of the above it is easy to see which ones will receive the most scrutiny. I don't need to point out which category politicians are in and the obvious end result.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBrilliant. Exactly what we need. More political stereotyping and denigration of anything we remotely don’t agree with. Just a quick search on the internet establishes that Payne, a political cartoonist turned commentator -now THERE is a career for you –has been agitated by Stabenow’s take on global warming & the environment for years. He’s like a stalker cloaked in the quasi-credibility of a journalist.
In fairness, it occurs to me that we might actually be much better off letting a social worker handle our investment portfolio than letting a cartoonist draw our image of truth and reality.
Here is a bit of reality: we elect our congress people and senators to represent us. And those representatives come from a variety of professional and career backgrounds. The very criticism levied here on the back of Senator Stabinaw might as well be spoken of a lawyer, a small business owner, farmer, physician, veteran, journalist even, or whatever other education and experience that ANY particular representative may possess. Jeeez, we have this same lot sorting out a tremendous budget mess, matters of defense spending, Medicare and Medicaid, foreign trade, and the provision of health care for millions. Fortunately, few of them, regardless of political affiliation pursue such policy proposals independent of guidance and support from their constituency and industry experts.
As posted, Payne’s poke seems an effort not only to denigrate a politician in his home state but also an attempt to besmirch the work of a worthy profession. Sadly, such simple minded attacks as this, sighting NO EVIDENCE of incompetence or impropriety, not only persist, but find firm foothold in the minds of people willing to abdicate mindfulness and let others think for them.
Being somewhat familiar with the social work profession and its educational standards, it occurs to me that social work might actually be the ideal preparation for service in a representative form of government. Over time, many abuses and exploitations have occurred at the hands of folks claiming the title of or labeled by the uninformed, as social workers. In fact social work today is a highly regulated profession built upon a solid college education, post graduate testing to assure basic competencies, state licensure, and continuing education standards that in some states surpass the requirements for physicians, nurses and lawyers. And while many social workers find employment in the government sector, many more are employed in private, non-profit, and faith based organizations.
Back to politics now. I did not vote for either my current congressman or senator. But they represent ME in Washington. (Sometimes brilliantly, sometimes not so much.) So I regularly communicate with BOTH. That is my responsibility. And theirs. And yours. And to my congressman’s credit, while serving as a state representative he on a couple of occasions contacted ME for my professional insights.
Yes, it discourages me that both of my representatives, while educated as lawyers are in fact career politicians. Neither of them knows as much about Medicare and Medicaid or batteries as they do fund raising. But there you go.
I suppose that the author is more comfortable with career politicians. This mystifies me. Would you, do you, must you, rely upon someone whose greatest measure of success is raising millions of dollars in campaign contributions every two years in order to maintain a job that pays $200,000 per year and comes vested with benefits after 4 years?
It also occurs to me that our financial and investment wizards haven't been so successful of late, but silly me, I still am investing. Go figure.
Gary Bachman, Social Worker
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseId pay her 2 bucks to resign. Did she really say she can "feel" global warming? what a maroon.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse