Let’s Prosecute The Thieves Of The Tsunami

Talifaitasi W. Satele


I’ve always been disturbed by the attitudes of government officials who pick on private citizens, businesses and non-profit organizations. They fancy their persecutions as courageous acts of bravery, fighting against invincible villains from whom the public have no protection. What a joke!

Take for example the Attorney General Office’s pledge to prosecute violators of Governor Togiola’s price-gouging law. Is it so courageous to threaten people whose licenses (their very means of living) you can revoke if they don’t do as you say? If the AG’s Office had some real balls, they’d focus 100% of their efforts and resources into prosecuting the real gougers of the tsunami’s aftermath: the thieves who ransacked people’s and businesses’ property in our greatest hour of vulnerability.

That would take real courage right there. Instead of doing what government is supposed to be doing (which is protecting our lives and property), what is the ASG doing now? Picking a fight with the Pago Pago Yacht Club. What cowards.

You know, one of the most important lessons I’ve learned growing up back home is that thugs only respect other thugs. They only pick on people they don’t expect to push back. That’s why the thieves of the tsunami will get away with their crimes while innocent people who live at the mercy of the ASG will continue to suffer under the thumbs of bullies.

The Black Sheep

Talifaitasi W. Satele


With all due respect to the Governor, sometimes doing nothing is actually better than doing anything at all. In situations such as purchasing the COS facility, I am constantly reminded of one of my mentor’s favorite newspaper cartoons. It depicts a lone black sheep running away from a towering cliff while the rest of the flock blindly follow one another right over it.

Fortunately, in our particular situation, legislators are asking the tough questions that need to be asked instead of going right along as usual.

However, my main concern is not particularly the proposal itself. It’s how Governor Togiola is going about it and how it reflects on how he’s been doing business lately. After making enemies out of anyone who dared to oppose his agenda in the first few years of taking office as governor, Togiola changed his strategy and made them all his “friends”.

There is nothing wrong with that. It’s the “big tent” philosophy. You know, keep your friends close and your enemies closer sort of deal.

But you start running into problems when you expect everyone just to fall in line. That’s a rare occurrence in a home with a family of more than two— let alone a “big tent” full of different interests and agendas.

But this administration seems to expect and assume broad support for anything it chooses to do. That sort of arrogance led the administration to deem it not necessary to get the Fono’s approval before expending funds on a number of items this year.

Assumption of approval replaced actual approval in that case, and that is wrong.

Otherwise, why have a Fono at all? Just assume that a make-believe legislature representing a make-believe people authorized you to spend their real life money.

And who cares if the court orders the ASG to do something; the power of the purse lies with the legislature, not the treasurer. It’s the Fono’s responsibility to address such mandates. The Fono cannot be an equal branch of government unless the other two, let alone its own legislators, treat it that way.

But getting back to his proposal, the Governor is the salesperson in this situation and the Fono (and the people) are the investors. In the free market, you persuade people to risk their own money in backing your plan; you can’t order them to do so.

The Governor has to spend more time convincing us why his proposal is, at the very least, better than doing nothing at all, and not expect us just to follow him over what seems to be a very big cliff.

In that newspaper cartoon, the only thing the black sheep says is, “excuse me, excuse me”, as he makes his way through an unsuspecting crowd. I am very proud that, in this case, our legislators are saying more than that!

Lessons Forgotten

Talifaitasi W. Satele


Governor Togiola has said that the profit motive will not run the new ASG Cannery. So does he expect this company to operate at a loss or barely break even? If this new government entity does not generate revenues above expenses, then taxpayers will be throwing their money down a bottomless pit.

And I don’t believe anyone around here is so naïve as to believe that government officials or workers don’t have a profit motive of their own. If they didn’t, then we could rest assured that ASG employees all worked for free! That is simply not the case.

Nevertheless, the profit motive in government just doesn’t work like it does in the free market. For one, there isn’t the same level of responsibility in government as there is in the marketplace. That’s because the money the ASG will use is not Governor Togiola’s or Mr. Sanchez’s. Whether this venture succeeds or fails, no one here will be held financially liable, and that fact alone makes their decision making process a lot less reliable than someone who has a personal stake in a gamble of this nature and magnitude.

Second, the profit motive in a free market depends on having a very satisfied customer. That’s because the customer is your only source of revenue, and on top of that, he is free to go to your competitor. Government, on the other hand, can continue to tap taxpayers as a source of revenue whether the customer is satisfied or not. Or whether they do the job right or not, or the market is up or down, or they advertise sufficiently or not, and so on and so forth.

We can go all day making the case why ASG involvement in the cannery business is certainly doomed for failure. Is it not enough to take a overall look at the government as a whole and see where and how this thing is going to end up?

But how can anyone blame Governor Togiola for taking such drastic measures? After all, this is what the majority expects a governor to do, and that’s to do something, rather than nothing, especially at a time like this! Our expectations of his office empower him to take almost any measure necessary lest his constituents judge him for not having enough compassion for those who are about to lose their jobs.

However, a popular idiom reminds us that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. In actually using the government to do something to remedy the situation, we only make matters worse.

In times of extreme shakeup of an economy, conservatives-libertarians point to three ideas for policy guidance. They are benevolent ignorance, creative destruction, and believe it or not, having faith. Benevolent ignorance means government ignores a problem so that private actors can more appropriately and efficiently address the situation. Creative destruction refers to the fact that sometimes something has to be destroyed in order for something else to be created and take its place. And having faith means just that: having faith that it will all work out. These are lessons already learnt but easily forgotten; especially for those with little faith indeed.

Defending the Constitution

Talifaitasi W. Satele


Originally, the US Constitution did not include a Bill of Rights. Federalists argued that since the Constitution didn’t give the government power to infringe on our inherent rights, like Free Speech, we didn’t need those 10 amendments explicitly protecting them. It was a naïve assumption to say the least.

Terrance Jeffrey, a reporter for Human Events, asked former Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, in an interview a couple years back if she could “point to language in the Constitution that authorized the federal government to have a Department of Education.” Her reply: “I can’t point to it one way or the other. I’m not a constitutional scholar, but I’ll look into it for you, Terry.”

She never got back to Mr. Jeffrey because the Constitution doesn’t authorize a DOE.

Supporters of the Bill of Rights did not buy the Federalists’ argument that government would restrain itself to the limits of its contract with the People. They knew better. They knew that the Constitution had to explicitly restrict government from infringing on our individual rights; otherwise, it eventually would.

But what makes the Bill of Rights so effective is that people go up in arms defending them. We will never see Congress ban Free Speech or the Freedom of Religion or the Right to Bear Arms. They can try, but Americans stand up for themselves, and it would be a cold day in hell before any of that stuff happens!

The point being is that no one pays attention to the Constitution unless someone stands up for it and defends it. Sadly, the ASG makes that point all too clear with its budget appropriations (spend first, ask later).

Luckily, we have a few heroes in the Fono who are working to change that. Hopefully, one day, we will have a Fono and a government we can all be proud of.

False Altruism

Talifaitasi W. Satele


We should be wary of folks who preach that we should live our lives in service of others. I say that because they usually don’t practice what they preach. Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks notes in his book, “Who Really Cares”, that “people who believe it’s the government’s job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away” to charities.

Not only do altruists not follow their own ideology to a tee, their rhetoric is often inconsistent. Some try to pass themselves off as advocates of the least fortunate amongst God’s Children, but they won’t extend that same compassion to their brother if he is branded an illegal immigrant. Nor if their brother is of a different race or of a certain income level.

Moreover, altruists contribute almost nothing to the actual welfare of the people they claim to want to help. Most supporters of the minimum wage, for example, don’t provide jobs to anybody nor could they show us how to provide living wages to our people. And some of altruists’ ideas actually harm the general welfare such as price controls or trade restrictions.

All altruism does is provide rhetoric for those who want to sound like they care when they really don’t. So until an altruist provides public access to his own private home, we should take his philosophy with a grain of salt.

Plastic Saves Lives

Talifaitasi W. Satele


Have you ever seen that commercial where the setting is in a hospital, and everything made of plastic starts disappearing? The I.V. bags, X-Ray Photos, the bedding patients lie on, etc. After all things plastic have disappeared, the hospital room is bare metal and wood; not a pretty sight at all, especially if you’re an institution charged with saving people’s lives.

As Mr. Kneubuhl acknowledges in his guest editorial dated 8/19/2009, “The Pago Pago Jellyfish”, everything we consume involves the use of plastic in one form or another. Most of our foods are packaged with and preserved by the material. Why? Because plastic’s attributes make that possible.

If another material could do what plastic does at a cheaper price, we would be using it. We use plastic because it’s cheap, very durable and very convenient, and any realistic alternative would have to surpass those qualities if it has any chance of serving as a replacement in the free market.

Nevertheless, it is plastic’s greatest strength (durability) that serves as its greatest weakness in the eyes of the public. It’s not biodegradable (if it were, we wouldn’t be using it the way we do) and it sticks around long enough to cause an eyesore. But that shouldn’t serve as reason to dismiss this product’s blessings, but rather as a point of focus for its proper disposal.

And one can glean as much from the comments on Mr. Kneubuhl’s guest editorial on Samoa News’ website. And I believe Mark would agree with me that as far as plastic being an inherent danger to its human consumers’ health, the science is not settled yet.

But as far as the plastic bag ban being that gentle “prodding” the Chamber of Commerce believes businesses need to do what they think is right, let’s remember how gentle the container inspections at the loading docks were, or the Governor’s ban on 10 year old import vehicles. The first was a boondoggle failure and the latter caused mass confusion with residents (especially for Military Veterans returning home) losing time, money and assets.

Pollution is a problem that involves more than just plastic bags, and their outright ban may have costs that far outweigh the benefits.

Standing With Senator Velega

Talifaitasi W. Satele


What an honor it must have been to stand up as one of the two shepherds who tried their best to protect their flock from a chamber full of wolves. It is not easy to do what is right, especially when the rest of your peers take the easy way out. Yet there he was standing alone; a situation in which righteous men often find themselves.

But I would like the Senator to know that he is not alone in voting “no” to the $200K bill to fund the Heritage Week in Hawaii. He has a whole island of constituents in his corner as they too have never consented to that expenditure— since none of their representatives or senators voted to approve the bill before the money got spent.

The Senator should remind his colleagues that the Constitution serves a contract between the People and the Government. Government derives its powers from the People through the terms outlined in the Constitution. For Government not to discharge its duties in accordance with the terms of the Constitution constitutes a breach of its contract with the People.

If Government continues to function without regard to the Constitution, then the People are no longer its masters. Government becomes a power onto itself, and that sets a very dangerous precedent.

Legislators always talk about protecting the integrity of one of our most important institutions in our system of checks and balances. But when they had that very chance to stand up to do so, they decided it was best to remain seated.

Drawing the Line

Talifaitasi W. Satele


The Private Sector and the ASG may have a nice, cozy relationship going on with its partnership together on the minimum wage petition, but that will soon come to an end.

For one, Congress will never delay the next increase in the minimum wage law lest they be made out to be a bunch of hypocrites by Republicans and liberals alike in the national media.

Two, the devastating effects of an increase in labor costs based on nothing other than Congress’ preconceived notions of social justice will force the ASG to choose between either upsetting its own work force (for cutting personnel costs) or its new found friend (for raising taxes on them to pay for its personnel costs).

As California and many other states have figured out the hard way, government is no creator of wealth. If government did create wealth, it could tax itself on the way to a balanced budget!

But the truth of the matter is that it is the Private Sector that creates wealth and the new revenues governments have had the pleasure of redistributing. So what many states have had to decide during this recession is either to raise taxes, cut spending or both.

Right now, the ASG is positioning itself to raise taxes with its un-prioritized spending. $200K for a Heritage week in Hawaii and trips to Washington D.C. to hand deliver the minimum wage petition do not put the ASG in a fiscally responsible position at a time when COS departure will mean a substantial loss amount of taxes to fund the government. And the Private Sector has said virtually nothing in the way of constructive criticism of the government’s reckless spending habits.

If private citizens don’t draw the line somewhere sometime soon, it will be that much more difficult to complain when the ASG comes knocking on the door after running up the tab.

Real Advocates of the Poor

Talifaitasi W. Satele


I could understand Common Cause’s position in support of the minimum wage law, if it were not causing jobs to disappear. Downsizing (in terms of personnel and benefits) actually started soon after the federal government forced this law upon us and well before the recession began to take its hold over the global economy. To say this law is not a significant reason for the COS’ departure is either dishonest and/or ignorant of everything that has been happening so far.

And clearly the canneries were the targets of the minimum wage law. But now with one to close in September and the other with one foot out the door, it would be those businesses still remaining that will have to comply with this law. And does anyone really expect these small businesses, these mom and pop stores, to pay the minimum wage, especially after the canneries’ departure?

Thousands of our low wage workers may be “aliens”, but you won’t know how good you had it until they’re gone. People complain about foreigners sucking up all of our precious limited resources, taking up all the jobs, owning all the businesses and crowding our schools and dysfunctional hospital, but wait until the streets are empty and life on Tutuila starts to look and feel like it is in Manu’a.

And while Tutuila starts to become an ever increasingly isolated island, watch the cost of living go up, not down. I have an uncle who travels to American Samoa every now and then, and he talks about the horrors of the rental rates for cars back home. Of course, it’s because he’s comparing them to rental rates here in Hawaii, and I have to remind him that car rental shops are dime a dozen over here.

If he thinks car rental rates back home are bad now, wait until after September.

It used to be that supporting the minimum wage law meant supporting the poor and the least fortunate amongst us. With the way things are going now, that is clearly no longer the case.

Slave Wages?

Talifaitasi W. Satele


To compare people who work at low wages to slaves does a great disservice to those who actually live or have lived in real slavery.

A real slave doesn’t get paid anything; he or she is forcibly taken against their own will, beaten and threaten with death if they don’t do as they’re told. Slavery is a real, sad and unfortunate crime committed against individuals to this very day, and no one should make a joke of the term by using it to describe what people working at the canneries are going through.

If anyone is close to being slaves around here, they are businesses. They are being forced to pay wages on a notion other than profit-maximization. That notion is simply the law. And in what ways are businesses compensated by the government for making these payments? None. Right now, businesses are paying for a government welfare program without even a word of thanks!

Slavery is a condition where one is subjected to another. Offering low wages to someone to perform a job doesn’t fall into that category. Wages, high or low, are offered to free men not slaves.

The Spirit of Optimism

Talifaitasi W. Satele


A close relative once gave me his perspective of what it means to be the cook for one’s family or village. He said that even if you slaved all day preparing food for the President of the United States, it is the cook, not the President, who gets to eat first. After all, someone has to taste the food before it gets served.

His point of view reminded me of something very unique about the Samoan Culture. Those who practice our culture always seem to have the trait to make lemonade out of lemons. I sometimes want to call it arrogance, but it’s more a combination of unrelenting pride, appreciation of life and a strong dose of optimism.

With the canneries closing, I think we’re missing that sort of inspiration from our leaders. All I hear from the top are numbers and models and mystical multipliers that, even as a self-proclaimed economist, I’m left rather uninspired by anything the ASG or the Congressman has had to offer in the way of solutions so far.

Our leaders are always quick to suggest that we return to our roots when it comes to our economic way of life (which is unrealistic). I very respectfully suggest to our leaders to return to that Samoan spirit of optimism that our people need in these very difficult times.

The departure of COS could either be an opportunity or a loss. Like they say, the choice is ours to make.

The Freemarket Solution

Talifaitasi W. Satele


Whenever the ASG attends those DOI sponsored business conferences, I always wonder what the attendees think of our officials’ statements about how welcoming our great territory is to investors.

With just a little research, they could find out for themselves that if they don’t pay enough in wages or benefits (like unemployment or health insurance), they’ll be attacked for corporate greed and mismanagement.

If they happen to be the only game in town, they’ll be attacked for establishing a monopoly. And if they stick around long enough, they are bound to become some politician’s target for a new “revenue” measure.

Instead of rolling out a welcome mat, the ASG puts out a blatant warning sign to potential businesses with all its policies and rhetoric, and it reads: Run like hell! And like the old saying goes, actions speak louder than all the flattering words our officials could ever say at any business conference.

Why not reform our tax system to level the playing field and tie taxes to the services one receives? That way there is a sense of fairness and the idea that one doesn’t pay something for nothing.

Why not resolve to not dictate to businesses what they should pay in wages or benefits, and leave the matter between employers and employees (with collective bargaining if need be)?

Why not put up for sale assets that should clearly be in private hands (ASPA, ASTCA, KVZK-TV, DBAS and LBJ) and get the government out of the business of competing with the private sector?

And there are plenty of other unresolved matters that we need work on. We need relief from Cabotage laws to free up the airline market. We definitely need relief from the federal minimum wage law. We don’t just need the increases stopped; we need to have the law rolled back!

The free market solution simply asks for relief from government intervention. Mind you that while it is a simple request, it won’t be easy for our politicians to discard their policies unless they believe that the private sector (meaning the people) can succeed as well as achieve the ends (higher wages or benefits) for which their policies were founded.

Above all, the free market solution asks that the people believe in themselves and their fellow citizens. That belief alone should be the engine upon which we rebuild our economy.

It's All A Guess

Talifaitasi W. Satele


Businesses need to defend their decisions and not cede public opinion to the politicians or even to pundits, like myself. But seeing that Chicken of the Sea (COS) doesn’t want to justify how its bottom line is better off in Georgia than it is in American Samoa, then I guess someone has to speculate on their behalf.

I’m guessing that paying 200 workers $7.25/hr in Georgia is better than employing 2,172 of our people at $4.76/hr in American Samoa. That actually amounts to $8888.72 of instant savings in labor costs per hour, and that will especially be true if COS can employ less workers to do the same amount and quality of work in Georgia as it does now in the territory.

I’m guessing COS will be able to employ fewer workers to do the same job by investing in more capital (newer technology, methods and machines). It’s textbook economics that as labor costs go up, businesses have the incentive to substitute labor with machines. But as any accountant can tell you, the danger in doing that is that you increase your fixed costs relative to your variable costs. When things go south, you can’t fire machines; you still have to pay for them day in and day out.

I’m also guessing that the relocation to Lyons has a lot to do with its proximity to Atlanta , which is the transportation hub of the South East. Three interstate highways converge in Atlanta , and even Mexican drug cartels have relocated there to take advantage of the infrastructure. So instead of producing in American Samoa and shipping product via sea transportation, they’ll make it and transport it right there in its main marketplace.

I’m guessing there are whole bunch of other reasons that makes COS move more profitable than staying, but I’m not privy to any inside information. Is the minimum wage the sole reason they’re leaving? No. But it sure as hell didn’t help any.

The canneries may not have paid our people what many think are “fair” wages, but do they even get credit for all the indirect benefits they provided our great territory? Interest rates for auto loans are now going up; do the canneries get credit for unintentionally helping to keep them low while they were here?

How about the economies of scale they’ve helped with in transportation costs and electricity or all the supporting businesses that make money from them? Seems to me that the choice is either “fair” wages or nothing, which is not much of a choice at all.

I don’t care whose theory of economics this whole fiasco fits in. The fact is that we have 2000+ workers soon to be out of work, and we’ll trade $22-23 million of paid work for a $20 million welfare check from Uncle Sam (and that’s a Big IF). Our leaders must do something and do something quick.

But Faleomavaega’s rhetoric so far is not helping any. Any potential businesses or investors looking at American Samoa are probably reading his press statements and saying to themselves, “This is how I’m going to be attacked if I open up shop. Best not open up at all.”

How the government plans to attract businesses other than providing for a free market is anyone’s guess at this point.

Force: A Governing Philosophy

Talifaitasi W. Satele


I’m very thankful for Mr. Slater’s letter written in response to my diatribe on the House ban on petroleum-based plastic shopping bags. His commentary was less a defense of the House bill than it was an explanation of his beliefs about the role of government, and I’d like to respond as such.

I agree that government should “promote the common good”. It’s even in our Constitution under slightly different terms: To Promote The General Welfare. Actually, I believe the legislature can “promote” anything it wants, but to “force” or “legislate” or “guarantee” goes beyond mere “promotion” and requires the use of the state’s police powers.

That line between promotion and the use of force is a very thin one. There’s a lot of things government would love to promote like lower prices for food, gas, and airline tickets. Government would like for all of us to be in tip-top physical shape and eat only vegetables for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Officials would love for us to quit smoking, stop drinking beer and be in bed by 10 o’clock every night. All in the name of the common good of course.

Do not the above causes deserve the use of government force? Is the criteria for determining what are just causes whether they’re too controversial or not?

That sort of criteria is simply called majority rule, and everyone agrees with the majority as long as they’re in the majority. So it begs the question: Where does the majority’s view of what is good for the rest of us end and the rights of the individual begin?

The two concepts are incompatible; on any issue, either majority rule or the sovereignty of the individual triumphs.

But I do not believe that the majority of what the majority “wants” is incompatible with the rights of the individual. Things like a cleaner environment can be addressed while protecting our individual rights to life, liberty and private property.

But the Fono or the ASG doesn’t take that approach. Whatever it wants to do, it just decides to muscle its will with a ban on this and a ban on that. It is that view I will always take issue with, because once that line is crossed, it fast becomes the governing philosophy.

The Ban On Plastic Bags Is A Farce

Talifaitasi W. Satele


The House bill to ban plastic shopping bags is a farce as it will do little to protect our environment. After all, plastic shopping bags are not the only things flowing down our streams and choking our oceans. There are also diapers, cans, bottles, cardboard boxes… you name it, it’s there! Is the Chamber of Commerce going to ask the Fono to ban those items as well?

Free marketers always point to property rights as the means of effective environmental protection. People have the incentive to protect and maintain property from which they individually benefit and bear responsibility. And if government owns property, then it should enforce existing laws that protect it before going off on endless environmental crusades.

But I, for one, actually want to see this ban put into practice.

If biodegradable bags are “generally cheaper” than petroleum-based plastic bags as Mr. Robinson claims, then we wouldn’t need this ban to make the switch. We’d do it ourselves in the marketplace. And even if they were a cheaper alternative, I doubt these “environmental” bags are as convenient as their plastic counterparts are to us customers.

An attempt to force businesses and consumers to use something that’s most likely more expensive and less convenient is likely to cause a popular backlash. If that happens, it’d be interesting to see how many House members retain their seats after unanimously imposing something of this nature on their own constituents.