Cars and Parts Springfield Swap Meet
Carroll Commencement
Fairborn commencement
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2009 > May > 01
Friday, May 1, 2009
Editorial: Overreacting to flu hurts more than helps
In the balancing act that constitutes a reasonable response to the swine flu threat, one constructive move might be to send Vice President Joe Biden out of the country for a while.
In a television interview the other day, he left everybody believing that he wouldn’t travel in an airplane or train or subway, and wouldn’t want his family do so, because germs travel fast in a closed environment.
But that, of course, isn’t the government’s position. Later his office said he just meant that sick people shouldn’t be out traveling.
As that flap was winding down a little, the White House sent out an announcement that Mr. Biden is going to Europe in mid-May, perhaps implying that if the United States can just hold on until then, things will be OK.
Short of the Biden expulsion, much of what needs to be done seems to be getting done. Local public health officials are organized to keep tabs on a changing situation, to monitor for outbreaks and to respond quickly.
At the federal level, the president is clearly engaged. Cabinet officers at the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as top officials elsewhere, have received the message that this is not to be the new administration’s Hurricane Katrina. The secretaries are putting themselves on the line as are people at their agencies.
For what it’s worth, Congress, too, is fully engaged, calling these officials to testify, and asking questions about whether they have everything they need and about such controversies as closing the Mexican border.
To non-experts, closing the border is one of the first thoughts that comes to mind, since Mexico is the disease’s epicenter. However, students of these things say that other methods are likely to be more effective.
Shutting down the Mexican economy could do more harm than good, and could lead to other border closings, wreaking international economic havoc, which can increase disease. And the border shutdown would be a monumentally expensive undertaking.
In the cases of the avian (bird) flu a few years ago and the swine flu in 1976, borders were not closed, yet the problems were beaten back. However, those cases did involve containing the diseases. (Every chicken in Hong Kong was killed in connection with the avian flu.)
At this stage, the World Health Organization is saying the swine flu can best be handled with simpler methods: washing your hands often, staying home when sick and closing certain public facilities when there are outbreaks.
Meanwhile, a vaccine can be worked on, perhaps being developed in time for next fall and winter, the flu season.
(Meanwhile, too, it’s only fair to remember that the experts say that getting the disease has nothing to do with eating pork. Local pork producers, among others, would appreciate people knowing that.)
This country, as of this writing, has had not many more than 100 confirmed cases, with the vast majority of people recovering, even without medical treatment. There’s been no local outbreak, though Ohio has had cases.
The swine flu problem is real. It demands attention from the government, the medical community, citizens and the media. This is true partly because the problem is a new one, and nobody knows what it will develop into.
But one task of all is to keep a sense of perspective. In this country in the 1990s, 36,000 people a year died from flu. And disease situations constantly change. Small numbers of generally non-fatal cases don’t justify hugely disruptive actions.
Permalink | Comments (4) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Martin Gottlieb, Social Services
Guest column: Cutting dealerships won’t save any money for GM
Tim Doran is president of the Ohio Automobile Dealers Association.
I am extremely puzzled by the announcement of dealership cutbacks as a seeming “solution” to problems facing the auto industry in general and, specifically, General Motors.
Recently, GM President Fritz Henderson talked about reducing GM dealerships from 6,246 to 3,605 by 2010. Sounds impressive, but what will that do to save GM? The simple answer is nothing.
The most important question is not the number of dealers, but whether the dealers are a cost center for their respective manufacturers. They clearly are not. A study by the Casesa Shapiro Group found that auto dealers provide a vast distribution channel “at virtually no cost” to their manufacturers.
Dealers, for instance, pay for:
• Vehicles for customers and inventory before the vehicles ever leave the factory.
• Parts before ever receiving them.
• All their own personnel costs (wages, benefits, payroll taxes, training costs, etc.).
• Their own real estate.
• All of their own IT and computer costs.
• Equipment costs for their service departments.
And the list goes on.
Also keep in mind that dealers provide revenue to manufacturers, not costs. Dealers generate more than 90 percent of manufacturer revenue. A rapid reduction in dealer numbers would further cut manufacturer revenue and market share, while doing nothing to improve manufacturers’ viability in the short term. Even according to GM executives, it takes 18 months to regain market share when a dealership closes. And that’s a best-case scenario.
Trying to eliminate dealerships beyond the already systematic consolidations that have taken place for the past 60 years will only serve to hurt the hard-working employees of those dealerships and their families, the numerous communities that rely on the taxes generated by those dealerships, the related businesses that sell to those dealerships, the consumers who are served by the competition and convenience of the dealerships, and the numerous charitable organizations that benefit from dealers’ support.
When a dealership closes, the loss to the community is real and immediate. It is unnecessary to artificially designate a “right number” of dealers, as though that number is a “magic cure.” To do so is only an effort to deflect criticism from the manufacturers’ own poor performance and failure to control costs.
Closing dealerships won’t affect the bottom line for any manufacturer positively, but will negatively affect thousands of independent businesses, their employees, the customers who rely on them for sales and service, and the communities that rely on those dealerships.
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment | Categories: Auto industry, Guest Columns
