Alreco, Without The EPA

Last week brought news of a few more jobs for the Kentucky labor force and maybe got a step or two on the EPA regulations concerning toxic waste materials.

On December 13 the State of Kentucky announced that an Australian company, MHM Metals, would be opening a new plant in Western Kentucky. Normally that wouldn't mean much to me, except that this company processes aluminum waste by-products, and we have some aluminum plants in Ky. MHM has a proprietary process to remove all the toxic waste from the leftovers of recycling aluminum cans.

The top three reasons for location in Ky were listed as:

• 115-acre industrial landholding in Russellville, Kentucky
• Existing buildings on site and property zoning to benefit time frame
• 350,000 tons per annum of salt slag and black dross (the waste product) within an economic radius and rail availability with a high-quality rail operator may further extend this economic distance

Most of us know that R. J. Corman, a high-quality rail operator, runs a train every other day from Berea to Russellville, hauling aluminum ingots from the recycler to the can factory. Anywhere from 20 to 30 cars in a train. What I did not know is that there are two other aluminum producers in Paris (Central Motor Wheel of America) and (Kentucky Smelting Technology, Inc ), both of which have to melt their materials to cast them. There is a third smelting plant in Shelbyville (Ohio Valley Aluminum) which is conveniently right on the rail line and about halfway along the line. Corman's Memphis line division is similarly situated among several aluminum smelters too.

With so many current aluminum plants around and a history of either landfilling or stockpiling this excess material, there should be much work for the new Alreco facility and the three railroads of the region.

All of this without a peep from the EPA or any mention of their “job killing” regulations.

PS, I have not heard Mr McConnell's name spoken in context with this either.

If They Can Create Jobs, Let Them Start Now

I voted for the first time in 1968.  I guess that you can do the math but I've been voting for a long time.

For as long as I can remember, the candidates have always been saying what they will do for the American public once they get into office.  I have voted for some strictly on that basis and, like the majority of you, I have been disappointed on more than one occasion.  Many times it was that I was wanting a different direction than the majority.  Sometimes, the winner just did not do what he promised and others, the victor was hampered at every step by the opposite party.  My greatest disappointments come when they just can't get the job done.

This year, in both the gubernatorial and presidential campaigns, our candidates seem to be finding more flaws with their opponent/s than actually solving the problems at hand. In last night's presidential debate, all of the speakers told of their grandiose plans to right the government, create jobs and lower taxes, all without losing any of the gains in our American lifestyle or costing anyone any more money.

Multiple strategies and multiple directions which arrive at the same point, low unemployment and good, high paying jobs.(i.e. full recovery from this recession).  I would think that most economists think that this can not be done but economists are not running for President.

These debates serve the function of job interviews and allow the candidates to showcase their qualifications and accomplishments.  It is too bad that they gloss over he details of how and focus on the broad statements of a job well done while leaving out the facts to support them.  One thing that they all agree on is that we need to get Americans back to work, paying taxes and growing the economy.  It just has to happen AFTER they get into office.  The Obama administration cannot get any of the credit for any job creation.

I have been on both sides of job interviews before and have always been more impressed by the ones who had really done something lately and not he ones resting on way past performances.  

Since the election is still over a year away and we need the jobs right now, maybe we should make part of the contest a real race to see which one will create the most jobs in the next 12 months.  They each have a plan which they will be allowed to implement but only if the follow the same rules. They can not use public funds of any kind, they can not use tax breaks or incentives to lure jobs and they can not poach existing jobs from other areas in the U.S.  The end result should be an unemployment rate of  less than 5%.  The candidate with the highest total of jobs to which he can be directly linked by the end of October 2012 should be declared the winner by acclamation.