Thursday, February 26, 2009

A "Card Check" Compromise I Would Support!

Congress is debating the union "card check" bill, which will allow a union to represent employees of a business if over half of them "sign a card" affirming they want it. The current law is a voting system, with a "secret ballot," just like government elections. There are many reasons to oppose "card check," on a bi-partisan basis. Liberals such as George McGovern to conservatives like Rush limbaugh have denounced it, but I think I've found a suitable compromise:


Make "card check" a two-way street. Allow half of the people in a company to sign a card saying that they don't want to be in the union anymore, and the union has to get out. This way, when people aren't getting any real benefit from, or maybe even being held back by the union, they have a way out. It's all about fairness to the worker, in the end.


I'll point out one of my own experiences, back in the '80's. I got an easy job, and quickly became better at it than people who had been there for many years. Being in a union, my boss could only give me raises when the union allowed it, so my proficiency was not rewarded. Of course, it also bred resentment in some of my co-workers, who were either slacking off, or barely up to the job. I got flack for picking up someone else's slack from my supervisor, who was also in the union.


The job didn't pay much, and the biggest benefit was $1 glasses, if you went to the union clinic in Jamaica, Queens. Still, I was a year or so out of the USMC, and was "gung ho" about doing a good job. I started getting harassed by my supervisor, until I finally quit. However, the manager demoted my supervisor, after I left, to the joy of most of my former co-workers.


Here's the kicker: After I quit, I got a letter from the union, threatening legal action if I used any of their "benefits" effective on the date that I quit, and demanding the return of their union card. I had thrown it out already, so I wrote them back a letter telling them what they could do with their "benefits." They didn't protect me from the harassment, and I never used a dime of their benefits in my year and a half at the company, so why would I want to now?


That's only one of my encounters with unions. There's also that time that they spiked my tires, when I was a "scab" 411 operator for AT&T (another job I excelled at, for a few weeks), but that's another story. Why not let workers decide if their union is really representing their, or someone else's interest? Shouldn't it be as easy to get rid of a union, as to join one? It seems like something most people would agree is a "fair" compromise.


Of course, if this were in the bill, some would say "your employer can pressure you to sign a card at any time," and they would be right. So can your co-workers. It's a bad idea, and if the current bill gets out of the House, it probably will be killed in the Senate. I've been wrong before, though (on campaign finance reform, for instance), so I hope someone in the Congress will take up my suggestion before this bad idea becomes reality.

Sunday, February 22, 2009

OBAMA'S "20 LEGS"

First, they called it a "three-legged stool," when it was just TARP, the auto bailout, and the stimulus package. Now, it's "four legs to hold up the table," with the new mortgage deal. How long until it takes "at least 20 legs for the millipede to walk?"

I'm only half-joking. Expect more "crap sandwiches" to be forced down our throats, with the media wind at Obama's back, as they try to sell it. I think that the American public is gagging, already.

Pres. Obama has serious deficiencies in domestic and foreign affairs, as well as on the economy. He better get with it, or he'll be a one-term president. It doesn't look like he's getting any help from the markets, but what do they know? Something he doesn't, apparently.

The Obama administration can belittle guys like Rick Santelli, Rush Limbaugh, and even Joe the Plumber. But all of the lofty pie-in-the-sky rhetoric about "hope and change" crumbles, when it meets the reality of "what are you going to do, Pres. Obama?"

We're waiting, and not patiently.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

NIGHTLINE'S Terry "Moron" Only Half-Witted, but Totally Tilting to the Left..

"There are no stupid questions" is an old adage I remember from my youth. It's good advice for children, but the anchor of ABC's NIGHTLINE program should be held to a somewhat higher standard. Terry Moran recently interviewed Pres. Obama, and asked the following questions:

Why not just nationalize the banks?

and:

-why shouldn't you just fire the executives who wrecked these banks in the first place and tanked the world's financial system in the process?

Let's look at these questions, one at a time. Does Terry Moran think that nationalizing the US banking system is a viable option, if even possible? This nation is the heart of capitalism. He might as well have asked "Why not just kill all the capitalists?" The second question is even stupider, because the banks are not "nationalized," so the president has no power to fire any CEO's, even if they took "bailout" money. Mr. "Moron" may think Obama can do these things, but he can't.

I'm sorry to say it, but this level of ignorance is rather common among network news people. That's among the reasons they're losing viewers to other news sources. In Moran's defense, he did get at least one point right, when he said: The Republican argument is that you and Nancy Pelosi are using the need for a stimulus bill as an excuse to jack up spending under a traditional liberal Democratic agenda. That's why he gets credited as a "half-wit," instead of "witless."


Hat tip to Rush Limbaugh, and Newsbusters' blogger Scott Whitlock for the transcript. (link)

Friday, February 06, 2009

TWO "TAXING (AND SPENDING)" WEEKS FOR PRES. OBAMA

I tried to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt, in the time between the election and his taking office, that he wouldn't govern as a typical "tax and spend" liberal. After two weeks in office, he has just raised my taxes by over $200 a year, ostensibly to "give health care" to children of people that may make more than I do.


Is this his idea of "personal responsibility?" I've never depended on the government for my health care (save for during my military service), and I've been responsible enough not to father any children, because I've never been married. Why does being a smoker make me responsible for children's health care? Even under the twisted logic of "we're all responsible" for providing it, then why am I "more" so?


On top of this, President Obama is pushing hundreds of billions of dollars in deficit spending, most of which is of dubious "stimulative" value. Anticipation of this was among the reasons I didn't vote for him, and he has confirmed my worst expectations, so far. It only took him two weeks to start picking my pocket, and I'm one of those lower middle class people that he promised to "help." I can't wait to see how he "helps" get our nation out of this recession.


The "honeymoon" is over. I have to oppose his "tax and spend" policies as vocally as I can. If America is to succeed, our president may have to fail.

Tuesday, February 03, 2009

ACORN, La Raza, NACA, LCCR All To Get "Stimulus" Money: Tip of the Iceberg?

There is a reason that so many politicians of both parties are saying "we have to pass the stimulus bill now." They don't want you to know what's in there. Meanwhile, details are coming out about where some of the last "bailout" bill money went. Specifically, that Bank of America is directing two million dollars to ACORN and the National Council of La Raza, as "charity." Michelle Malkin has a long list of ACORN and NCLR branches that the bank is "spreading the wealth around" to. The bank states "Economic emergency: For efforts to prevent foreclosures and educate people about finances and purchasing homes: $2,000,000 to Acorn Housing Corporation (Chicago, Illinois), in it's "charitable" donation announcement.


This brings us back to the bill that is in the Senate now. Any legislation that is being openly "rushed" through the legislative process is suspect, and it doesn't help if the minority party is united against it, coming out of the House. It turns out that there's plenty to oppose in this bill, including ninety million set aside for the "Leadership Conference on Civil Rights" and a group called the "National Association of Area Agencies on Aging." This "earmark" is taken out of the larger two hundred million dollars earmarked for the "digital to analog converter program." This money will presumably be used to teach poor and old people how to adapt their TV's for the coming "digital conversion."


It sounds like you could buy a "digital ready" TV for every poor and old person in the US, for that kind of money (BTW, there are new TV's that wtill receive digital broadcast signals, if you search). No, I don't think this money is being "earmarked" to help the poor or the aging get TV. I tend to agree with Erick Erickson's take, on the Red State blog:


Here's where it gets funny. Each group is now only getting about $2 million.


The Senate believes it needs to give $90 million more - and only these organizations will be able to get their hands on the money. Only these two groups - one group that helps senior citizens and one group whose members were Democrat foot soldiers in 2008 and, with the "administrative costs" they'll be able to take in overhead, will be well funded for coming elections.


It gets worse: Ms. Malkin also illuminate's "the 'Community Development Fund' in the House version of the stimulus bill. Some $4.19 billion would be 'used for neighborhood stabilization activities related to emergency assistance for the redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes.' The legislation changes the way the fund would be disbursed and loosens lobbying restrictions." Now wait a minute. This money is going to be used for already forclosed homes? ACORN seems to be "playing both sides of the fence," and profiting in both positions.


They get millions to "counsel" people how to avoid forclosure, but get billions to "redevelop" foreclosed properties. Follow the money, and see where thie "stimulus" is for groups like ACORN. They have no interest in keeping people in their homes. They profit from "disenfranchised" minorities, to justify their political racket. How much are they going to rake out of this, and how many people will they actually help?


El Rushbo labeled this bill "porkulus"; it's also been called the "spendulus" bill, and the "Generational Theft" bill, by other luminaries. This post highlights a tiny fraction of the whole bill, and will no doubt be dismissed as such, by it's proponents. I say let's start looking at the details of this huge cluster of law that our legislators are writing, one line at a time. To paraphrase The Who, "(DON'T) GET FOOLED AGAIN! This can't be done "quickly," which casts a cloud over the "rush it through" crowd. Call me a skeptic, but I bet the whole thing's filled with similar pork.


I wonder what Treasury Secretary Geithner thinks about this bill; he hasn't said a word. That's funny, because I thought his input was so "important" to the process, that we had to overlook his tax problems. The primary drivers behind this bill seem to be liberal congressional interests, with Obama giving "lip service" to the GOP, while "dissing" the conservative rank and file. It's interesting political theater, but there is too much at stake to dismiss it as such. Does the Senate GOP really believe that payoffs to liberal interest groups are going to help the economy in any way, or is that something that they are willing to continue caving in on?


Will the Senate fully debate this bill? Minority Leader O'Connell is equivocating, judging by this excerpt from Ms. Malkin:

"Our goal is not to kill it," McConnell said. "Our goal is to make it
better." The GOP, he insisted, "has an open mind." And: "Nobody that I know of
is trying to keep a package from passing."

That sounds alot like playing "prevent" defense in Football: All you "prevent" is your own victory, with that strategy. A "victory" for the nation will be achieved when most people can make an honest buck again, without some "government stimulus" being involved.