Archive for May, 2009

“Payback” for Unions… “Blackmail” for California

Tuesday, May 12th, 2009

RNC Tribute to Jack Kemp

Sunday, May 10th, 2009

Presidential Candidate George McGovern on Card Check

Saturday, May 9th, 2009

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124165379013293871.html#printMode

 

The recent news that Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter has become a member of the Democratic caucus has given new life to legislation that many thought had been put to rest for this Congress — the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).

Last year, I wrote on these pages that I was opposed to this bill because it would eliminate secret ballots in union organizing elections. However, the bill has an additional feature that isn’t often mentioned but that is just as troublesome — compulsory arbitration.

This feature would give the government the power to step into labor disputes where employers and labor leaders cannot reach an agreement and compel both sides to accept a contract. Compulsory arbitration is bound to trigger the law of unintended consequences.

Currently, labor law maintains a careful balance between the rights of businesses, unions and individual employees. While bargaining power differs depending on individual circumstances, the rights of the parties are well balanced. When a union and a business enter negotiations, current law requires that both sides bargain “in good faith.”

In a contract negotiation, each party typically perceives the other as too demanding. But no one loses their right to contract willingly or suffers being forced to agree to anything. Employees can strike if they feel that they have been dealt with unfairly, but it is a costly option. Employers are free to reject labor demands they find to be too difficult to accept, but running a business without experienced employees is itself difficult. Both sides have an incentive to press their demands, but they also have compelling reasons not to press their demands too far. EFCA would disrupt that balance by enabling government-appointed lawyers to decide what they believe is fair or reasonable.

A federally appointed arbitrator cannot be expected to understand the nuances specific to each business dispute, the competitive market position of the business, or the plethora of other factors unique to each case. Yet fundamental decisions on wages and benefit costs, rules for promotions, or even rules for exiting an unprofitable line of business could fall to federal arbitrators under EFCA.

Many labor contracts can run over 100 pages with their requirements of each party. Compulsory arbitration is, in one sense, government dictating to employees what they will win or lose in the deal, with no opportunity to approve the “agreement.” Why should employees pay union dues to get such a contract?

My perspective on the so-called Employee Free Choice Act is informed by life experience. After leaving the Senate in 1981, I spent some time running a hotel. It was an eye-opening introduction to something most business operators are all-too familiar with — the difficulty of controlling costs and setting prices in a weak economy. Despite my trust in government, I would have been alarmed by an outsider taking control of basic management decisions that determine success or failure in a business where I had invested my life savings.

When it comes to labor disputes, both parties should be guaranteed a real chance for compromise under the joint economic threat of contract breakdowns. George Meany, president of the AFL-CIO for nearly 30 years before retiring in 1979, had it right in condemning mandatory arbitration as “an abrogation of freedom.”

My party has well-deserved majorities in both houses of Congress, and I am thankful to have an exceptional president in Barack Obama. But while the Democratic majority in Washington confers the power to reward our loyal supporters, today’s problems require solutions that transcend party politics. Even when that means taking unpopular stands.

Mr. McGovern is a former senator from South Dakota and the 1972 Democratic presidential candidate.

White House Puts UAW Ahead of Property Rights

Friday, May 8th, 2009

TOWNHALL.COM

Columnists

White House Puts UAW Ahead of Property Rights
Michael Barone
Thursday, May 07, 2009

Last Friday, the day after Chrysler filed for bankruptcy, I drove past the
company’s headquarters on I-75 in Auburn Hills, Mich. As I glanced at the
pentagram logo, I felt myself tearing up a little bit. Anyone who grew up in
the Detroit area, as I did, can’t help but be sad to see a once great
company fail.

But my sadness turned to anger later when I heard what bankruptcy lawyer Tom
Lauria said on a WJR talk show that morning. “One of my clients,” Lauria
told host Frank Beckmann, “was directly threatened by the White House and in
essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under threat that
the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation
if it continued to fight.”

Lauria represented one of the bondholder firms, Perella Weinberg, which
initially rejected the Obama deal that would give the bondholders about 33
cents on the dollar for their secured debts while giving the United Auto
Workers retirees about 50 cents on the dollar for their unsecured debts.

This, of course, is a violation of one of the basic principles of bankruptcy
law, which is that secured creditors — those who loaned money only on the
contractual promise that if the debt was unpaid they’d get specific property
back — get paid off in full before unsecured creditors get anything.
Perella Weinberg withdrew its objection to the settlement, but other
bondholders did not, which triggered the bankruptcy filing.

After that came a denunciation of the objecting bondholders as “speculators”
by Barack Obama in his press conference last Thursday. And then death
threats to bondholders from parties unknown.

The White House denied that it strong-armed Perella Weinberg. The firm
issued a statement saying it decided to accept the settlement, but it
pointedly did not deny that it had been threatened by the White House. Which
is to say, the threat worked.

The same goes for big banks that have received billions in government TARP
money. Many of them want to give back the money, but the government won’t
let them. They also voted to accept the Chrysler settlement. Nice little
bank ya got there, wouldn’t want anything to happen to it.

Left-wing bloggers have been saying that the White House’s denial of making
threats should be taken at face value and that Lauria’s statement is not
evidence to the contrary. But that’s ridiculous. Lauria is a reputable
lawyer and a contributor to Democratic candidates. He has no motive to lie.
The White House does.

Think carefully about what’s happening here. The White House, presumably car
czar Steven Rattner and deputy Ron Bloom, is seeking to transfer the
property of one group of people to another group that is politically
favored. In the process it is setting aside basic property rights in favor
of rewarding the United Auto Workers for the support the union has given the
Democratic Party. The only possible limit on the White House’s power is the
bankruptcy judge, who might not go along.

Michigan politicians of both parties joined Obama in denouncing the holdout
bondholders. They point to the sad plight of UAW retirees not getting full
payment of the health-care benefits the union negotiated with Chrysler. But
the plight of the beneficiaries of the pension funds represented by the
bondholders is sad, too. Ordinarily you would expect these claims to be
weighed and determined by the rule of law. But not apparently in this
administration.

Obama’s attitude toward the rule of law is apparent in the words he used to
describe what he is looking for in a nominee to replace Justice David
Souter. He wants “someone who understands justice is not just about some
abstract legal theory,” he said, but someone who has “empathy.” In other
words, judges should decide cases so that the right people win, not
according to the rule of law.

The Chrysler negotiations will not be the last occasion for this
administration to engage in bailout favoritism and crony capitalism. There’s
a May 31 deadline to come up with a settlement for General Motors. And there
will be others. In the meantime, who is going to buy bonds from unionized
companies if the government is going to take their money away and give it to
the union? We have just seen an episode of Gangster Government. It is likely
to be part of a continuing series.

 

http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelBarone/2009/05/07/white_house_puts_uaw ahead_of_property_rights

A Great Tribute to Jack Kemp

Wednesday, May 6th, 2009

http://www.freep.com/article/20090505/OPINION05/90505046/1068/OPINION/Kemp+s+model

May 5, 2009

Jack Kemp: A political legacy worth remembering

By Clark Durant

It’s early 1987. Jack Kemp is at our home near Detroit on one of his many Michigan visits from 1985 to 1988. We are recruiting precinct delegates, county and district chairs in a ground game for 1988 presidential delegates. My 5 year old son runs into the room with a small silver cowboy gun and red cowboy boots. And Jack just entertains young John as if he were one of his own boys. And, on command, everybody puts their hands up!

Jack and I met on the Platform Committee of the Republican Party at the national convention in Dallas in August 1984. I was 35. We had a blast. The platform was rich in the ideas of hope, prosperity, and peace. And, no tax increase!, despite the wiggle room Drew Lewis, Bob Dole, and others wanted. Gingrich. Lott. Kasten. Weber. Hyde. Schlafly. These were the movement players. But, Jack was our leader. 

Money as good as gold. Reduce taxes to prosperity, to break the cycle of poverty, and to create more capital for the working man and the poor. And, urban homesteading, just like Lincoln. It was morning in America. Ronald Reagan’s steady hand had steered our ship of state out of the darkness, despair, and misery of the Carter years into a safe harbor of opportunity and freedom. But, it was Jack Kemp who drew the map, tended the lighthouse, and cleared a wider shore for all to know freedom. The seeds for “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” were planted in that platform by Jack, the co-chair of the foreign policy subcommittee. 

I was in a hotel room in Chicago last week. I couldn’t sleep. It was 3:30 a.m. I turned on Sports Center to see if the Tigers had won the day before. ( I once asked Jack if he liked baseball. “Nope, no quarterback”, he said.) There on the screen was Jack’s picture with the years 1935 – 2009 just below. The dreaded image. I shuttered for just a moment. All knew it was coming. Now it had, only nine hours before to a friend, and a good man, father, and husband. The quick story was upbeat (could it be any other way with Jack?) and covered the sports and public life essentials. But, as I was sifting through my dusty basement boxes last night, I was reminded time and again what a wonderful gift Jack’s life had been to me, my family, and countless others over the years.

For 1988 Michigan had adopted an out-lier process to decide presidential delegates, even before Iowa and New Hampshire. Jack visited the state, alone and with others, in the next three years as if he was Paul the evangelist. (But, he avoided a Friday night or weekend event. He wanted to get home to be with his family and loved watching his sons play football.) 

Like Paul, he built hearts and minds of true believers, and not just for an election cycle. And, like Paul, he journeyed where the faithful had not gone before. We did labor union halls, city churches, and urban schools. And, if we ended the day generating funds in the home or club of a well connected friend, it was always the same message everywhere: prosperity is rooted in freedom not privilege, lower tax rates create growth and upward mobility, and politics is helping people have more control over their own lives.

In our old green station wagon I traveled with three of our children to Iowa for a long Thanksgiving in 1987. We visited cities and little towns, worked shopping malls, senior residences, and popular restaurants. The kids were interviewed by small town newspapers. Jack called me from Washington and asked how we got the great coverage. “Jack”, I said, “who ever turns down an interview with an 11, 9, or 7 year old, particularly to find out why they have traveled so far and worked so late with silly, but colorful, homemade signs and t-shirts saying Kemp for President? 

They could repeat Jack’s favorite lines: politics is for everybody, ideas matter, freedom brings prosperity, and we must be the party of Lincoln.

Jack didn’t get the nomination in ‘88. But the ideas he stood for (tax cuts across the board, enterprise zones, freedom around the globe, the value of every human person, born and unborn) helped Ronald Reagan become President, and the ideas still resonate. They can and should inform our contemporary politics. The last time I saw Jack was when he and Joanne came to our home for lunch during the Super Bowl of 2006. There is a Churchill picture in my library. Jack looked at the picture. He turned to me and said, “now there was a man of destiny”. Jack, my friend, so were you. Great game. Your best. And everybody has their hands up.

Clark Durant is the CEO and co-founder of the Cornerstone Schools in Detroit.


R.I.P. Jack Kemp…A Great Leader

Saturday, May 2nd, 2009

kemp1988

Jack Kemp and I during his 1988 Presidential campaign.

The Importance of Jack Kemp by the American Spectator…a must read.

http://www.thatssaulfolks.com/2009/04/17/the-importance-of-jack-kemp/

This article presents a good historical perspective of who Jack Kemp was.

A self described “bleeding heart conservative”.

Here is some good background information on Jack’s career: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518722,00.html

A Provocative Essay – A Peaceful Revolution?

Friday, May 1st, 2009

 

Alexander’s Essay – 30 April 2009

“A republic, if you can keep it.” –Benjamin Franklin

obam-amspec

The Peaceful Revolution’s First 100 Days

By Mark Alexander

Last fall, Barack Hussein Obama pledged that his administration would carry out a “fundamental transformation of the United States of America.” Today, as we reflect on the first 100 days of the Obama regime’s occupation of the executive branch, with Party allegiance in the legislative branch, it pains me to report that he has exceeded the wildest expectations of his Socialist constituencies.

In the wake of last year’s “October Surprise” (the catastrophic meltdown of the nation’s largest financial institutions), his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, said of Obama’s strategy, “Rule 1: Never allow a crisis to go to waste. They are opportunities to do big things.”

Indeed, Obama has done BIG things. In the words of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, “Obama’s first 100 days have been spectacularly successful. Obama is the strongest domestic Democratic President since Lyndon Johnson. … In just 100 days, Obama has been devastatingly effective in moving forward swiftly the most radical, government-expanding agenda in American history.”

How did that happen?

Some political scientists argue that democracy is a conduit for “peaceful revolutions,” including radical shifts in political ideology, without a shot being fired.

I agree, except that our nation is not a “dumbocracy.” It is a republic, or at least it was before the once proud Democrat Party became infested with Socialists, who masterfully co-opted the education system along with the modern “opiate of the masses” (television and print media), and re-educated those masses.

So successful has this Leftist strategy been that their dumbed-down constituencies now follow their messianic leader like dullard lemmings.

Consequently, here is an account of a few notable events from the first 100 days of “hope and change.”

Under the aegis of “economic stimulus,” Obama promptly raided the Treasury and doled it out to his constituencies — at terrible expense to this and future generations. Asked how one might evaluate the effectiveness of his plan, Obama replied, “I think my initial measure of success is creating or saving four million jobs.” Not even Bill Clinton had the hubris to suggest something as slick as “saving four million jobs.”

Remarkably, Obama managed to ram that one through Congress without a single Democrat claiming to have read it.

As for his cabinet, a long list of Obama nominees agreed to pay back taxes in return for rubber stamp appointments, including Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, who, despite owing more than $40,000 now oversees the IRS.

Poor nominee Tom Daschle, who in a previous life as Demo Senate Majority Leader proclaimed, “Tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter.” He was all but confirmed as HHS Secretary until we learned that he had cheated us out of $130,000 in back taxes. Apparently even Obama’s hypocrisy knows some limits.

Obama last fall repeatedly promised to end the practice of special interest earmarks. Then, he signed an appropriations bill with more than 8,000 earmarks, including $2 billion for House Appropriations Chairman David Obey’s lobbyist son’s projects, $3.7 billion for contracts to Sen. Diane Feinstein’s husband’s company, and $4.19 billion for Obama’s favorite voter fraud outfit, ACORN.

When the pork-laden bill passed, Obama had the audacity to proclaim, “I’m proud that we passed a recovery plan free of earmarks.”

Obama also converted the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation into instruments for nationalizing the banking system.

Under the pretense of responding to “global warming,” Obama has plans to impose almost $2 trillion in cap-and-tax energy taxes — this despite his oft-repeated pledge that 95 percent of Americans wouldn’t see their taxes increased.

Obama’s $3.5 trillion 2010 budget includes projections for more than $9 trillion in near-term increases of national debt. Feigning fiscal integrity, Obama demanded budget cuts of $100 million — which is to say that even while obscenely expanding the size of government, he targeted some spending that was out of line with his ideology. For the record, $100 million represents three one-thousandths of one percent of Obama’s FY 2010 budget, or approximately what the central government redistributes every 13 minutes of every hour of every day of every week of…

Harvard Economist Greg Mankiw also offered some perspective on this $100 million spending cut, noting that it’s the equivalent of a family with a $100,000 income cutting a $3 latte from their budget.

Of Obama’s budget, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi exclaimed, “[F]or the first time in many, many years, we have a president’s budget … that is a statement of our national values. … It’s a very happy day for our country.”

Meanwhile, according to The Wall Street Journal, in February, the price of single-family homes in 20 major metropolitan areas fell 18.6 percent from the previous year, after a record 19 percent drop in January.

In the first quarter of 2009, the U.S. economy contracted at a seasonally adjusted 6.1 percent annual rate, and Americans lost more than two million jobs. No doubt Obama’s bold and swift action saved four million other jobs.

Perhaps the most dangerous of all the Obama policy shifts, however, is his framing of our foreign policy with atonement for America’s past, which he says has been “arrogant,” “dismissive” and “derisive.” In doing so, he lends credibility to the anti-American attitudes and actions of our enemies.

Some of the most telling examples of Obama’s ideology are apparent in the last few of his first hundred days. For example:

Day 97: Obama’s White House Military Office appointee, former Clintonista Louis Caldera, authorized a photo shoot of Air Force One over Manhattan, an event which involved the low flight of a large jet plane with two F-16s in pursuit over Ground Zero and points nearby. Because the public wasn’t told, many feared another 9/11 attack was in progress.

Indeed, an FAA memo prior to the flight warned of “the possibility of public concern regarding DoD aircraft flying at low altitudes.” To which Obama responded, “It, uh, was, uh, a mistake. It, uh, will never, uh, happen again.”

The Air Force reported that the flight of the VC-25 (customized Boeing 747) and its two attendant F-16s cost $328,835. However, the actual cost associated with the operation of VC-25 alone, when considering all support and planning for this photo folly, was closer to $775,000 (and who knows how many Al Gore carbon credits had to be purchased to offset this operation).

On the other hand, the one-time purchase of Adobe Photoshop costs around $600.

In January, Obama chastised private sector executives for using corporate jets to commute, most of which cost $3-$5 thousand per hour to operate. The plane we taxpayers fund for Obama costs $260,000 per hour to operate, and Monday, it was cruising around without him.

Day 98: Obama’s EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, in an NPR interview about Obama’s Orwellian cap-and-tax policy, remarked, “The president has said, and I couldn’t agree more, that what this country needs is one single national roadmap that tells automakers, who are trying to become solvent again, what kind of car it is that they need to be designing and building for the American people.”

The interviewer asks, “Is that the role of the government? That doesn’t sound like free enterprise.”

Jackson, obviously in need of her ObamaPrompter, replied, “Well, it, it, it is free enterprise in a way. Um, ah, you know, first and foremost, the free enterprise system has us where we are right this second. And so some would argue that the government has a much larger role to play then we might’ve when Henry Ford rolled the first cars off the assembly line.”

Some might argue that “we are where we are” because government has played “a much larger role since Henry Ford rolled the first cars off the assembly line.”

Day 99: After the media fanned the flames about a “swine flu pandemic,” Obama warned, “This is obviously a serious situation, serious enough to take the utmost precautions.” He then promptly applied his “Rule 1″ and asked Congress for $1.5 billion in emergency funding.

Day 100: The Obamaprompter addressed the nation yesterday, and not only did he claim, “We inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit. That wasn’t me,” but once again trotted this one out: “[My recovery act] has already saved or created over 150,000 jobs.”

We checked, and Congress sets budgets, the Democrats have controlled the Senate and House for the last two years (which coincides with the housing and financial market collapses) and Obama was in the Senate for two of those years.

As for jobs, I am sure that Obama has “saved” all our jobs! Hail Obama! Let’s us all bow down to “The One.”

House Minority Leader John Boehner correctly surmises, “The president’s first 100 days can be summed up in three words: spending, taxing, and borrowing.”

Suffice it to say, the list is as long as it is absurd, and you can bask in a litany of examples we’ve compiled for your reading displeasure at “The First Hundred Days.”

As for “peaceful revolutions,” John F. Kennedy declared in 1962, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

I would argue this case: “Those who undermine our republican rule of law make violent revolution inevitable.”

To that end, there is some good news on the “checks and balances” front, though some may find this a bit disconcerting.

There are now more than 65 million gun-owning Patriots across this nation, many of whom have taken sacred oaths “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

We stand ready to honor that oath, understanding that, in the words of John Adams, “A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”

And the ranks of Patriots are growing.

In the last three months of 2008, Americans bought enough guns to arm the national armies of both China and India — a total of 12.7 million guns last year. Gun sales in the first three months of 2009 were 27 percent higher year-over-year than the first three months of 2008 (which also recorded record sales).

Perhaps all these gun purchases are coincidental, not consequential. But I doubt it. As Americans begin to awaken to the reality of Obama’s Socialist agenda, it will be interesting to see how his next 1,361 days unfold.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin was asked if the delegates had formed a republic or a monarchy. “A republic,” he responded, “if you can keep it.”

We will see.

 

The Patriot Post is a good source of conservative news and analysis available here: http://www.patriotpost.us/

A Tale of Two Houses – And Hypocrisy

Friday, May 1st, 2009

att277326

House  #1
A 20 room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house, all heated by gas. In one month this residence consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400 per month.. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern ’snow belt’ area. It’s in the South.

att277327

House  #2
Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university. This house incorporates every ‘green’ feature current home construction can provide. The house is 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on a high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground.

The water (usually 67 degrees F) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and it consumes one-quarter the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape. The heating/cooling system is so efficient that initial plans to install solar panels were cancelled.

HOUSE #1 is outside of Nashville, Tennessee ;
it is the abode of the ‘Environmentalist’ Al Gore.

HOUSE #2 is on a ranch near Crawford , Texas ;
it is the residence of the former President of the United States, George W. Bush.

Yes, it’s “An inconvenient truth..”

You can verify it at :http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp