Sunday, June 10, 2012
Time to Cut IMF's Credit, End Europe's Bailouts
Like a bad soap opera, the European debt crisis never wants to end, and it’s likely to enter a worse phase when Greece holds its next election on June 17. With less than two weeks to go, the outcome seems preordained: the major Greek parties want to end the bailouts and the conditions that come with them.
That’s why the next few weeks are so crucial: Instead of waiting on the inevitable, the European Union, the International Monetary Fund, and the Obama Administration – which provided a $100 billion line of credit to the IMF, which is being used for the bailouts – should rethink their “Bailout Universe” strategy. That strategy has failed, and a new one is needed.
The failure is easy to see: while Greece, Ireland, and Portugal have secured over $500 billion in bailout money over the last two years, their debt burden continues to grow. Meanwhile, Spain and Italy face a similar crisis because of too much spending and borrowing. Nearly one-third of the bailout money comes from the IMF, and the largest contributor to the IMF is the U.S. The Obama Administration has quietly endorsed these bailouts because they believe that while the bailouts are costly, by enforcing “austerity” on Europe, they will also solve the problem.
Now is the time to question that assumption. For starters, Europe is hardly in an “age of austerity.” Last year, 23 of the 27 EU nations increased spending. One of the few that did make cuts, Greece, cut only 6 percent of its budget – hardly draconian. Meanwhile, Greece continues to run a budget deficit equal to 10 percent of its economy. The national debt in France, Spain and Italy continues to increase. This is “austerity”?
And what of “austerity’s” future? In the recent Greek election, 68 percent of the vote went to anti-bailout parties. In France, Socialist Francois Hollande was elected President promising to lower the retirement age from 62 to 60. German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently said she was open to giving Greece an injection of “stimulus.” At the recent G-8 summit, President Obama urged European leaders to enact a new round of “stimulus” for the whole continent.
Clearly, Europe is going in the wrong direction, and the Administration isn’t helping. That’s why it’s so important for global leaders to start working on a Plan B, a simple plan that would have three basic concepts: stop the bailouts, end the spending binge, and balance the budget once and for all.
President Obama can do his part by reducing America’s line of credit to the IMF to pre-2009 levels, protecting almost $100 billion. I have introduced legislation, HR 2313, which would do exactly that. My bill, which has 94 cosponsors, would send a powerful message to Europe: Uncle Sam’s blank check is over.
This isn’t meant to punish Europe. Rather, it’s meant to help Europe make the tough choices that are necessary for a true, sustainable recovery. That recovery can’t happen until job creators – in Europe and the U.S. – gain confidence that the world’s governments have the discipline to get spending and borrowing under control and unleash the power of free enterprise.
Those who worry that revoking the $100 billion line of credit would scare the markets should remember two things. First, it’s actually the uncertainty caused by the endless bailouts – and the fear they’ll never end because of the lack of fiscal discipline – which has caused the swings in the market and the underperformance of the world economy since the Great Recession officially ended in 2009. The crushing burden of debt – and the fear that government debt is out of control – is the main reason why this recovery has been so lackluster, in contrast to the Reagan Recovery which was led by the private sector, not government “stimulus,” and was much stronger.
Furthermore, many experts believe that $100 billion won’t make any difference anyway. It’s too small to make a real impact on the EU’s situation, but it’s definitely big enough to leave a hole in the wallets of U.S. taxpayers at a time when we’re about to face our own fiscal crisis. Consider: a bailout of Italy equal to Portugal’s bailout – about half of GDP – would need over $1 trillion. There isn’t enough money in the world for that kind of commitment. That’s why dealing with this problem now is essential. And instead of waiting by the sidelines and quietly funneling money to the EU through the IMF – as the Administration has done – the US should be working constructively with our allies to find a true, long-lasting solution.
Now is the time for action and a renewed commitment to freedom and smaller government. We cannot take the “too big to fail” philosophy to a global level. The only thing “too big to fail” is America itself.
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) is Vice Chair of the House Republican Conference.
Big Peace
ACORN Offshoot Sues Massachusetts for Failing to Register Welfare Recipients
by
Tom Fitton
Think ACORN is defunct and no longer able to exert its corrupt influence in the 2012 presidential election campaign? Think again. Splintered across the country into dozens of difficult-to-track state organizations, the ACORN network is now working hand-in-hand with the Holder Department of Justice (DOJ) to register voters to help Obama retain power in November. In fact, according to The Associated Press, one of the ACORN offshoots, New England United 4 Justice (NEU4J), recently sued the State of Massachusetts to address the “problem” of registering to vote at welfare and DMV offices:
Massachusetts citizen and community groups are suing the state for allegedly failing to offer recipients of public assistance help in registering to vote.
The suit was filed in federal court on Tuesday (May 15) by the regional office of the NAACP, the group New England United for Justice and Bethzaida Delgado, a Massachusetts woman who said she was repeatedly denied voter registration services.
The suit alleges that Secretary of State William Galvin's office and the state Department of Transitional Assistance violated the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 by failing to offer registration opportunities to the poor.
(If you’re a student of leftist agitprop, you can read the ACORN front group complaint here.)
Just like the other ACORN “Frankensteins,” as former ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis calls them, NEU4J would like you to believe that they are a brand new organization, completely separate from the disgraced “community organization” that was forced to file bankruptcy. Not true, as our Corruption Chronicles blogger Irene Garcia reports:
NEU4J is the reincarnation of ACORN in New England, according to a Judicial Watch analysis of records. Its president, Maude Hurd, was previously the national president of ACORN and a board member at ACORN Housing. Its executive director is Noemi Ramos, who was ACORN Boston’s head organizer, and its vice president is former ACORN Massachusetts President Sandra Ramgeet.
Much like ACORN, NEU4J promotes social justice by representing low and moderate income families.
Now let me put this lawsuit in the context of a larger campaign by the Obama gang’s two-pronged strategy to steal the elections by manipulating the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).
Step 1: Use the full weight of the Obama DOJ to enforce Section 7 of the NVRA, which instructs public assistance agencies to register low-income voters, widely considered a key voting demographic for the Obama campaign.
Step 2: Ignore Section 8 of the NVRA, which requires the states to take reasonable steps to ensure that the voting rolls are accurate (by doing simple things, such as removing dead people from the rolls).
And how does the ACORN network fit into this plan?
Judicial Watch has uncovered documents showing that the Obama DOJ is now working with ACORN-front Project Vote, Barack Obama’s former employer, to boost registration numbers for welfare recipients across the country.
For example, according to internal DOJ email correspondence obtained by Judicial Watch, “civil rights groups” – led by former ACORN attorney and current Project Vote Director of Advocacy Estelle Rogers – met with Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli on March 17, 2011, specifically to discuss Section 7 of National Voting Rights Act.
Following the meeting, Rogers and the “undersigned voting rights groups” that met with Perrelli sent detailed recommendations to the associate attorney general for strengthening compliance with the NVRA.
Forwarded to Perrelli by Rogers, the recommendations stated “we are grateful that you have invited us to continue this dialogue on the Department’s [DOJ’s] role in providing guidance to states, and we would be happy to supply any additional information you need.”
Project Vote and the Obama DOJ have also filed copycat lawsuits using the NVRA to attack states that are not registering enough (in their minds) public assistance voters.
ACORN’s new state organizations are in on the scheme and are using their resources to contribute to this effort. According to a JW investigation, after ACORN pressured the State of Colorado to boost registration numbers for welfare recipients, the percentage of invalid voter registration forms from Colorado public assistance agencies jumped to four times the national average!
And if you want to know why this coordinated strategy between the Obama DOJ, ACORN, its partner Project Vote, and the dozens of ACORN offshoots nationwide is so dangerous to free and fair elections this fall, please read our special report, “The Rebranding of ACORN.”
ACORN and Project Vote were responsible for massive voter registration fraud in the 2008 election cycle (the one that elected former Project Vote executive director, Barack Obama). So to have these groups working with the DOJ on election law is like having the Mafia running the FBI.
Judicial Watch has devised a strategy to counter the Obama gang’s scurrilous campaign to re-elect Obama by hook or by crook. We call it our “2012 Election Integrity Project.” And one of the most critical areas of focus for Judicial Watch is dirty voter registration rolls.
Our investigations team analyzed voter registration data to determine which states have the dirtiest voter registration lists. According to this investigation, some of the worst offenders are Mississippi, Iowa, Indiana, Missouri, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Florida, Alabama, California, and Colorado.
We have notified election officials in these states that if they fail to clean up voter rolls in accordance with the law, Judicial Watch is prepared to file lawsuits to force them to do it (Judicial Watch lawyers are preparing lawsuits as I write this).
It is no exaggeration to say that our 2012 Election Integrity Project is among the most important programs we’ve ever initiated. And for this reason you can expect to hear additional updates in this space very soon.
Big Government
Saturday, June 9, 2012
Some of What Wisconsin Means
by
Frank Salvato
There are many in the pundit-sphere who are dissecting Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s recall victory and declaring that Mr. Walker’s retention means one thing or another. Truth be told, many of their declarations hold merit as far as political science is concerned. But, American politics being what it is, the November General Elections are an eternity away and any perceived misstep – or an effectively marketed October surprise – can swing public support from a clear front-runner to a dark horse. That said, a few things were exposed in the Wisconsin recall election as irrefutable. Some of those things are good...while some of those things are disturbing. One of the preeminent facts to come out of the Wisconsin recall election was this: Scott Walker’s fiscally Conservative policies work. Looking back to Mr. Walker’s first campaign for governor – all the way back to 2010, Wisconsin had a $3.6 billion – billion with a “B” – budget deficit.
By invoking fiscal reforms outlined in Wisconsin Act 10, today, the State of Wisconsin is running a $154 million surplus.
In addressing the benefits of the Act 10 reforms, Jennifer Stefano, a TEA Party activist and Pennsylvania state director for Americans for Prosperity, wrote:
In fact, with an unemployment rate of 6.7 percent – quite a bit better than the U-3 national average of 8.2 percent (the U-6 national average is 14.8 percent and when all demographics are included, the SGS national unemployment rate stands at 22.7 percent), and job creation numbers in the black, Wisconsin has joined the ranks of States that are actually looking attractive to business creators; to job creators.
Another prescient point made in the polling that led up to the recall election is that when public-sector employees are afforded the choice of whether to join a labor union or not, many are opting out.
FOX News reports:
Yet another pertinent point codified as fact via the recall election is that labor union leadership, along with their most ardent rank-and-file lock-steppers, will do anything – anything – to win elections and advance their agenda, even if it is to the detriment to the very communities in which they live.
During the course and immediate aftermath of the Wisconsin recall election, labor union leaders and their henchmen operatives exhibited such an incredible disregard for the truth; for professional and personal ethics, that it is incredibly hard to accept their routine declaration that they stand as champions of the worker; of “the little guy,” in the face of the oppressive corporation (in this instance, read: government).
Labor union spokesmen routinely misled the voting public by saying that Wisconsin Act 10 “stripped” public-sector unions of their collective bargaining rights when, in fact, it did no such thing. Act 10 limited public-sector unions to collectively bargaining their wages, excluding pensions and employment-perk benefits, elements where labor union negotiators exhibited little restraint – and a tremendous amount of greed – given the financial abilities of the State of Wisconsin. The big crime against the public-sector union workers culminated in state workers being asked to pay just under six percent of their salaries towards benefits and a little over twelve percent to their premiums, financial burdens still less than what those in the private-sector have to bear.
The truth regarding the reasons why the union-backed candidate, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett (D), lost was also manipulated beyond recognition. Labor union mouthpiece after mouthpiece took to the airwaves and print media even before the recall voting had started in a desperate attempt at political damage control, with almost every one of them parroting the talking point that the loss had everything to do with the “disproportionate” amount of money spent in advertising during the recall campaign. Of course, the union mouthpieces didn’t bother to include in their calculations: 1) the amount of money spent bringing about the recall election in the first place, and 2) the dedicated man hours their organizations used in executing the recall campaign from start to finish.
Additionally, there were numerous reports of voter fraud and attempts by outside groups from Illinois and Michigan to affect the outcome of what was supposed to be a recall election by the people of the State of Wisconsin, including this eyewitness account from someone calling The Chris Plante Show, broadcast on WMAL radio, from inside a bus leaving Michigan in route to Wisconsin on recall election day:
Even in losing, union operatives and their political Democrat kin couldn’t be forthright and honest with the citizens of Wisconsin and, by virtue of the attention the Wisconsin recall election garnered, the American public.
In describing the “too-close-to-call” results from Wisconsin’s 21st Legislative District between former Wisconsin State Sen. John Lehman (D) and retiring incumbent Van Wanggaard (R), where the results stand at Lehman with 36,255 and Wanggaard with 35,476 (which should absolutely garner a recount), Wisconsin Senate Democrat Leader Mark Miller said:
Aside from all of these indisputable points, perhaps the most important result in all of this is that truth has become a casualty of politics where Progressives, labor unions and Democrats are concerned.
Now, I am not naïve enough to believe that the truth isn’t, bent, manipulated, spun and bastradized on the Right side of the aisle as well, but the difference is this: when the truth is found to have been circumvented by elected officials, candidates and operative surrogates on the Right, the electorate of the Right objects; we hold those who lie, cheat and steal accountable, most often affecting the ends of their careers. In contrast, how many times have Republicans and Conservatives had to resign for doing the exact same thing that their Progressive, Liberal and/or Democrat counterparts have done; things that garner those on the Left little if no rebuke? A perfect example would be the Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters ethics issues...and I won’t get into seated presidents lying under oath because that would require defining what the word “is” means.
When the facts are manipulated for political purposes; when the truth suffers at the hands of political opportunists and power-seekers, it damages society and divides the citizenry against itself. This is evidenced by the societal divide that exists today in Wisconsin, courtesy of the political operatives of the many labor union organizations who purposely misled the voting public of that State for their own narcissistic gain. And as the labor union leaders and operatives board their Lear Jets and buses (respectively) bound for the next political battleground, they leave, in their wake, damaged relationships between neighbors, between friends and family; divided communities where it will take years, if not lifetimes in some cases, to heal the wounds inflicted by the reckless, the greedy and the opportunistic of the political class.
In the end, 36 percent of Wisconsin’s labor union workforce voted to retain Gov. Scott Walker. In the end, after all the divisive and untruthful rhetoric that surrounded this unnecessary event, the notion of not spending more than you make; not spending more than your budget will afford – whether you are the head of a household, a corporation or a government entity – won out over the Grecian model of purposefully borrowing into debt to satisfy the unsustainable demands of those who don’t have to live the economic consequences.
Maybe, just maybe, the electorate doesn’t want to suffer the slings and arrows of a Greek existence; of European-style austerity. Maybe, just maybe, this generation of Americans isn’t narcissistic enough to saddle their children with unmanageable debt; debt that will rob them of opportunity and the real American Dream.
Maybe, just maybe, the American citizenry is waking up to the very real possibility that should we continue to tax-and-spend; should we continue to indebt ourselves beyond recovery, we will lose this country.
Maybe, just maybe, the country is waking-up. We’ll find out on November 6th.
Big Government
There are many in the pundit-sphere who are dissecting Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s recall victory and declaring that Mr. Walker’s retention means one thing or another. Truth be told, many of their declarations hold merit as far as political science is concerned. But, American politics being what it is, the November General Elections are an eternity away and any perceived misstep – or an effectively marketed October surprise – can swing public support from a clear front-runner to a dark horse. That said, a few things were exposed in the Wisconsin recall election as irrefutable. Some of those things are good...while some of those things are disturbing. One of the preeminent facts to come out of the Wisconsin recall election was this: Scott Walker’s fiscally Conservative policies work. Looking back to Mr. Walker’s first campaign for governor – all the way back to 2010, Wisconsin had a $3.6 billion – billion with a “B” – budget deficit.
By invoking fiscal reforms outlined in Wisconsin Act 10, today, the State of Wisconsin is running a $154 million surplus.
In addressing the benefits of the Act 10 reforms, Jennifer Stefano, a TEA Party activist and Pennsylvania state director for Americans for Prosperity, wrote:
“Nowhere was that felt more powerfully than in Wisconsin’s schools. The Kaukauna School District, near Appleton, Wisconsin, had a $400,000 deficit for the upcoming school year and was going to be forced to lay off teachers. By instituting the changes to pension and health care payments, Kaukauna swung to a $1.5 million surplus allowing class sizes to fall and was able to institute over $300,000 in merit pay for teachers.”Indeed, across the State of Wisconsin, wherever the ACT 10 reforms were employed with fidelity, jobs cuts were avoided and budget deficits were transformed into budget surpluses; jobs were saved and exasperated fiscal coffers were afforded relief.
In fact, with an unemployment rate of 6.7 percent – quite a bit better than the U-3 national average of 8.2 percent (the U-6 national average is 14.8 percent and when all demographics are included, the SGS national unemployment rate stands at 22.7 percent), and job creation numbers in the black, Wisconsin has joined the ranks of States that are actually looking attractive to business creators; to job creators.
Another prescient point made in the polling that led up to the recall election is that when public-sector employees are afforded the choice of whether to join a labor union or not, many are opting out.
FOX News reports:
“Wisconsin membership in the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees – the state’s second-largest public-sector union after the National Education Association, which represents teachers – fell to 28,745 in February from 62,818 in March 2011, according to a person who has viewed AFSCME’s figures.
“Much of that decline came from AFSCME Council 24, which represents Wisconsin state workers, whose membership plunged by two-thirds to 7,100 from 22,300 last year.”And according to the Wall Street Journal, the American Federation of Teachers’ Wisconsin Chapter, a labor organization representing 17,000 public school teachers, has seen 6,000 members leave its ranks.
Yet another pertinent point codified as fact via the recall election is that labor union leadership, along with their most ardent rank-and-file lock-steppers, will do anything – anything – to win elections and advance their agenda, even if it is to the detriment to the very communities in which they live.
During the course and immediate aftermath of the Wisconsin recall election, labor union leaders and their henchmen operatives exhibited such an incredible disregard for the truth; for professional and personal ethics, that it is incredibly hard to accept their routine declaration that they stand as champions of the worker; of “the little guy,” in the face of the oppressive corporation (in this instance, read: government).
Labor union spokesmen routinely misled the voting public by saying that Wisconsin Act 10 “stripped” public-sector unions of their collective bargaining rights when, in fact, it did no such thing. Act 10 limited public-sector unions to collectively bargaining their wages, excluding pensions and employment-perk benefits, elements where labor union negotiators exhibited little restraint – and a tremendous amount of greed – given the financial abilities of the State of Wisconsin. The big crime against the public-sector union workers culminated in state workers being asked to pay just under six percent of their salaries towards benefits and a little over twelve percent to their premiums, financial burdens still less than what those in the private-sector have to bear.
The truth regarding the reasons why the union-backed candidate, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett (D), lost was also manipulated beyond recognition. Labor union mouthpiece after mouthpiece took to the airwaves and print media even before the recall voting had started in a desperate attempt at political damage control, with almost every one of them parroting the talking point that the loss had everything to do with the “disproportionate” amount of money spent in advertising during the recall campaign. Of course, the union mouthpieces didn’t bother to include in their calculations: 1) the amount of money spent bringing about the recall election in the first place, and 2) the dedicated man hours their organizations used in executing the recall campaign from start to finish.
Additionally, there were numerous reports of voter fraud and attempts by outside groups from Illinois and Michigan to affect the outcome of what was supposed to be a recall election by the people of the State of Wisconsin, including this eyewitness account from someone calling The Chris Plante Show, broadcast on WMAL radio, from inside a bus leaving Michigan in route to Wisconsin on recall election day:
“On WMAL’s The Chris Plante Show today a Michigan resident by the name of ‘Mike’ called in to discuss how he had infiltrated a Michigan Union’s organized bus convoy, en-route to vote in the Wisconsin recall election for Democrats.Of course, this account is subject to scrutiny. But having been born and raised in a western suburb of Chicago, and having been active and engaged in Illinois politics from a young age, I am more inclined than not to believe that “Caller Mike” was truthful, knowing Chicago and union politics the way that I do.
“The caller claimed that Michigan’s ‘Democrat Unions’ had organized a convoy of 4 buses, filled with Michigan Democrats, with the intention of voting for Tom Barrett in the Wisconsin recall election.
“Caller ‘Mike’ describes ‘Greyhound size buses, filled to capacity’ with a good amount of ‘freebies’ available, ‘They treated me to lunch!’
“The caller also points out that the organizers did not tell union riders that it is illegal to vote in Wisconsin if you're from another state.”
Even in losing, union operatives and their political Democrat kin couldn’t be forthright and honest with the citizens of Wisconsin and, by virtue of the attention the Wisconsin recall election garnered, the American public.
In describing the “too-close-to-call” results from Wisconsin’s 21st Legislative District between former Wisconsin State Sen. John Lehman (D) and retiring incumbent Van Wanggaard (R), where the results stand at Lehman with 36,255 and Wanggaard with 35,476 (which should absolutely garner a recount), Wisconsin Senate Democrat Leader Mark Miller said:
“Tonight, Wisconsinites across the 21st Senate District elected a new State Senator. By electing a Democrat Senate, the people of Wisconsin have opened the door to responsible dialogue and if needed provide a bulwark against continued political extremism, and restored checks and balances to the Wisconsin Legislature. I look forward to working again with Senator-elect Lehman in the State Senate in the coming months.”The 10,000lbs. gorilla in this room is that Wisconsin’s legislature won’t be in session from June 13, 2012 until after the November elections; elections where 16 of the 33 Senate seats are up for election. That said, anyone who believes that any elected body can achieve anything in an election year in just six days, well...
Aside from all of these indisputable points, perhaps the most important result in all of this is that truth has become a casualty of politics where Progressives, labor unions and Democrats are concerned.
Now, I am not naïve enough to believe that the truth isn’t, bent, manipulated, spun and bastradized on the Right side of the aisle as well, but the difference is this: when the truth is found to have been circumvented by elected officials, candidates and operative surrogates on the Right, the electorate of the Right objects; we hold those who lie, cheat and steal accountable, most often affecting the ends of their careers. In contrast, how many times have Republicans and Conservatives had to resign for doing the exact same thing that their Progressive, Liberal and/or Democrat counterparts have done; things that garner those on the Left little if no rebuke? A perfect example would be the Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters ethics issues...and I won’t get into seated presidents lying under oath because that would require defining what the word “is” means.
When the facts are manipulated for political purposes; when the truth suffers at the hands of political opportunists and power-seekers, it damages society and divides the citizenry against itself. This is evidenced by the societal divide that exists today in Wisconsin, courtesy of the political operatives of the many labor union organizations who purposely misled the voting public of that State for their own narcissistic gain. And as the labor union leaders and operatives board their Lear Jets and buses (respectively) bound for the next political battleground, they leave, in their wake, damaged relationships between neighbors, between friends and family; divided communities where it will take years, if not lifetimes in some cases, to heal the wounds inflicted by the reckless, the greedy and the opportunistic of the political class.
In the end, 36 percent of Wisconsin’s labor union workforce voted to retain Gov. Scott Walker. In the end, after all the divisive and untruthful rhetoric that surrounded this unnecessary event, the notion of not spending more than you make; not spending more than your budget will afford – whether you are the head of a household, a corporation or a government entity – won out over the Grecian model of purposefully borrowing into debt to satisfy the unsustainable demands of those who don’t have to live the economic consequences.
Maybe, just maybe, the electorate doesn’t want to suffer the slings and arrows of a Greek existence; of European-style austerity. Maybe, just maybe, this generation of Americans isn’t narcissistic enough to saddle their children with unmanageable debt; debt that will rob them of opportunity and the real American Dream.
Maybe, just maybe, the American citizenry is waking up to the very real possibility that should we continue to tax-and-spend; should we continue to indebt ourselves beyond recovery, we will lose this country.
Maybe, just maybe, the country is waking-up. We’ll find out on November 6th.
Big Government
The Last Gasps of Public-Sector Unionism
June 9, 2012
By William Sullivan
Democrats are settling into a hybrid state of denial, anger, and depression in the aftermath of the Wisconsin recall election, where Scott Walker handed them an historic and embarrassing defeat.
This was clearly another vote against vampiric public-sector unionism in Wisconsin and the collective bargaining that has grifted copious and unwavering entitlement funding from taxpayers. But Democrats are in complete denial of that fact. They are convinced that allowing union bosses to extort money by holding public officials hostage just makes sense in a workers' rights kind of way. And since Democrats also believe themselves to be the smartest guys in the room, they have no doubt that Americans would agree with them if it weren't for the rich fat cats stuffing money into Walker's campaign chest, allowing for a media onslaught of anti-union sentiment.
Of course, the GOP financial advantage has been dishonestly inflated, often touted by liberal pundits as somewhere in the range of 7-to-1. This figure, however, does not account for unions' contribution to the campaign, which ring to the tune of about $10 million. Cameron Joseph at The Hill is nice enough to offer the more reasonable spending discrepancy, reflecting a GOP advantage of roughly 2 to 1.
Doesn't quite give the same picture of shadowy corporate interests swallowing the little man, does it? After all, Barack Obama outspent John McCain at roughly 2.5 to 1 in 2008. And the same Democrats now crying foul find no fault in the Obama campaign's propaganda blitzkrieg in the weeks leading to the 2008 election -- an assault that dwarfed McCain's at a spending level of 5 to 1.
This omission of union contributions in considering the logistics of the Wisconsin race is an act of pure deceit, but Americans aren't falling for the ruse. Public unions have notoriously deep pockets and an organizational infrastructure built upon campaigning, and it is an unspoken truth understood on both sides of the ideological divide that their financial clout and efforts are singularly directed to benefit their own symbiotic existence with Democrats. And the left now seems keenly aware that if unions do not have the ability to collectively bargain with politicians, and if they are unable to demand that all public workers finance union efforts, public unions will go the way of the dodo -- and with them, the grandiose collectivist ambition of the Democratic Party.
And they are right. But through mental gymnastics and blind hope, they fail to recognize the real reason why this is all happening to them. They cling to this notion that big-money corporations and their surrogates in the GOP have poisoned the information well, infecting the public with anti-union fervor when they would otherwise be supportive of the union cause. But the truth is much, much simpler.
Collective bargaining and the power it brings public unions is so fundamentally abhorrent a prospect that even the godfather of progressivism himself, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, had this to say of the matter in 1937:
It is now clear that FDR's warning was prescient to the point of being eerie. Public unions have become an organ of a political party, directing public policy by negotiating with administrative officials that are incapable of fully representing the citizenry that subsidizes their existence. And by way of collective bargaining and the resulting collusion with corrupt politicians, they have pilfered the public treasuries to increase their wealth and influence.
FDR feared the very idea of collective bargaining and public union power, and he was opposed to it in principle. So why is it so hard for the left to believe that after witnessing five decades of the result, the American public would not fear it also and be opposed to its practice?
The truth that Democrats understandably repress is that Scott Walker was elected to dismantle overgrown public unions the first time around. And that request was even more emphatic the second time around, after having seen the results of Walker's policy reform. What Wisconsin has witnessed since 2010, according to Charles Krauthammer, is "a huge budget deficit closed without raising taxes, significant school-district savings from ending cozy insider health-insurance contracts, and modest growth in jobs."
But "the real threat," Krauthammer continues, "is that the new law ended automatic collection of union dues." As Rachel Maddow laments, "Democrats have no way to compete in terms of big outside money."
Heretofore, the "big inside money" of the labor unions was Democrats' answer to that. The unions' "real, practical effect," according to Maddow, is that they "had been big supporters of Democratic candidates and Democratic causes and had had a lot to do with the Democratic ground game." Clearly, automatic dues collection, a result of collective bargaining, is nothing more than a mandate that all public workers donate to Democratic politicians' war chests. Since Wisconsin's new law has given public workers a choice, public unions have "experienced a dramatic drop in membership -- by more than half for the second biggest union," dealing a decisive blow to labor unions and, by proxy, the Democratic Party.
So it stands to reason that the choice for Wisconsinites in the recall election was painfully clear to make. On one path, they could have chosen to preserve their heritage of five decades as ballast for Big Labor and the Democratic Party. One the other path, they could have renounced that heritage and the failure it has wrought by choosing success and freedom. They reasonably opted for the latter.
Wisconsin's recall election proves that American citizens now find the institution of a powerful public union an anathema, not a boon. That is why Democrats have come unhinged and now claim that Republicans stole the election. Wisconsin signals the last gasps of an inherently diseased, and now dying, entity.
By William Sullivan
Democrats are settling into a hybrid state of denial, anger, and depression in the aftermath of the Wisconsin recall election, where Scott Walker handed them an historic and embarrassing defeat.
This was clearly another vote against vampiric public-sector unionism in Wisconsin and the collective bargaining that has grifted copious and unwavering entitlement funding from taxpayers. But Democrats are in complete denial of that fact. They are convinced that allowing union bosses to extort money by holding public officials hostage just makes sense in a workers' rights kind of way. And since Democrats also believe themselves to be the smartest guys in the room, they have no doubt that Americans would agree with them if it weren't for the rich fat cats stuffing money into Walker's campaign chest, allowing for a media onslaught of anti-union sentiment.
Of course, the GOP financial advantage has been dishonestly inflated, often touted by liberal pundits as somewhere in the range of 7-to-1. This figure, however, does not account for unions' contribution to the campaign, which ring to the tune of about $10 million. Cameron Joseph at The Hill is nice enough to offer the more reasonable spending discrepancy, reflecting a GOP advantage of roughly 2 to 1.
Doesn't quite give the same picture of shadowy corporate interests swallowing the little man, does it? After all, Barack Obama outspent John McCain at roughly 2.5 to 1 in 2008. And the same Democrats now crying foul find no fault in the Obama campaign's propaganda blitzkrieg in the weeks leading to the 2008 election -- an assault that dwarfed McCain's at a spending level of 5 to 1.
This omission of union contributions in considering the logistics of the Wisconsin race is an act of pure deceit, but Americans aren't falling for the ruse. Public unions have notoriously deep pockets and an organizational infrastructure built upon campaigning, and it is an unspoken truth understood on both sides of the ideological divide that their financial clout and efforts are singularly directed to benefit their own symbiotic existence with Democrats. And the left now seems keenly aware that if unions do not have the ability to collectively bargain with politicians, and if they are unable to demand that all public workers finance union efforts, public unions will go the way of the dodo -- and with them, the grandiose collectivist ambition of the Democratic Party.
And they are right. But through mental gymnastics and blind hope, they fail to recognize the real reason why this is all happening to them. They cling to this notion that big-money corporations and their surrogates in the GOP have poisoned the information well, infecting the public with anti-union fervor when they would otherwise be supportive of the union cause. But the truth is much, much simpler.
Collective bargaining and the power it brings public unions is so fundamentally abhorrent a prospect that even the godfather of progressivism himself, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, had this to say of the matter in 1937:
All Government employees should realize that the prospect of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purpose of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.Ironically, life was breathed into FDR's fears by his own political progeny, who regularly invoke his name. And now, dreaded collective bargaining has been inseparably tied to the fate of Roosevelt's party.
It is now clear that FDR's warning was prescient to the point of being eerie. Public unions have become an organ of a political party, directing public policy by negotiating with administrative officials that are incapable of fully representing the citizenry that subsidizes their existence. And by way of collective bargaining and the resulting collusion with corrupt politicians, they have pilfered the public treasuries to increase their wealth and influence.
FDR feared the very idea of collective bargaining and public union power, and he was opposed to it in principle. So why is it so hard for the left to believe that after witnessing five decades of the result, the American public would not fear it also and be opposed to its practice?
The truth that Democrats understandably repress is that Scott Walker was elected to dismantle overgrown public unions the first time around. And that request was even more emphatic the second time around, after having seen the results of Walker's policy reform. What Wisconsin has witnessed since 2010, according to Charles Krauthammer, is "a huge budget deficit closed without raising taxes, significant school-district savings from ending cozy insider health-insurance contracts, and modest growth in jobs."
But "the real threat," Krauthammer continues, "is that the new law ended automatic collection of union dues." As Rachel Maddow laments, "Democrats have no way to compete in terms of big outside money."
Heretofore, the "big inside money" of the labor unions was Democrats' answer to that. The unions' "real, practical effect," according to Maddow, is that they "had been big supporters of Democratic candidates and Democratic causes and had had a lot to do with the Democratic ground game." Clearly, automatic dues collection, a result of collective bargaining, is nothing more than a mandate that all public workers donate to Democratic politicians' war chests. Since Wisconsin's new law has given public workers a choice, public unions have "experienced a dramatic drop in membership -- by more than half for the second biggest union," dealing a decisive blow to labor unions and, by proxy, the Democratic Party.
So it stands to reason that the choice for Wisconsinites in the recall election was painfully clear to make. On one path, they could have chosen to preserve their heritage of five decades as ballast for Big Labor and the Democratic Party. One the other path, they could have renounced that heritage and the failure it has wrought by choosing success and freedom. They reasonably opted for the latter.
Wisconsin's recall election proves that American citizens now find the institution of a powerful public union an anathema, not a boon. That is why Democrats have come unhinged and now claim that Republicans stole the election. Wisconsin signals the last gasps of an inherently diseased, and now dying, entity.
William Sullivan blogs at http://politicalpalaverblog.blogspot.com and can be followed on Twitter.
American Thinker
ACORN Official Grabs $445 Million Grant From Obama Admin
ACORN, the supposedly defunct organization defunded by Congress in the aftermath of James O’Keefe’s video exposing ACORN employees’ willingness to help out pimps and prostitutes attain government benefits, is back. As Judicial Watch has uncovered, the Obama administration offered $445 million to a former ACORN official as part of a $7.6 billion government program designed to help “unemployed or substantially underemployed” Americans make their mortgage payments.
The ACORN official, Joe McGavin, is director of Hardest Hit, an Illinois program that received that massive Treasury infusion. Prior to his time at Hardest Hit, McGaven was director of counseling for ACORN Housing in Chicago, and the operations manager for Affordable Housing Centers of America (AHCOA), an ACORN affiliate.
While ACORN was supposedly cut off from taxpayers, the facts say otherwise. And this is just the latest indicator. As Judicial Watch reported, “ACORN got tens of thousands of dollars in grants to ‘combat housing and lending discrimination.’ The money came via Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which awarded a $79,819 grant to AHCOA.”
Don’t be surprised to see the new, reorganized ACORN – now spread out across the country, without benefit of the ACORN label – play a role in the 2012 election cycle.
Big Government
'New Party' Literature Suggests Obama Paid Dues to Join
by
John Sexton
In the ongoing discussion of Barack Obama's involvement with Chicago's extremist "New Party," online literature from the Party likely reveals that the young state senator not only was a member but had to commit financially to membership. This past week, National Review author Stanley Kurtz revived the question of whether or not Obama was ever a member of the Party. Arguing for the affirmative, Kurtz demonstrates fairly conclusively that it did. On the other hand, Joel Rogers, founder of the New Party, tells Ben Smith that it did not. And documents available online suggest that Kurtz is correct and that Rogers is not being completely truthful.
First, there's a bit more background which is relevant here. Kurtz originally raised the question of Obama's involvement with the New Party back in 2008. At the time, the campaign denied Obama was ever involved and referred to the allegation as a "crackpot smear." Ben Smith, then at Politico, wrote a piece in which he quoted New Party founder Joel Rogers to the effect that Obama had never been a member of the New Party because the New Party didn't have members.
On Thursday, Kurtz announced the discovery of new documents that supported his original claim. In particular, he found minutes of a 1996 New Party meeting which read:
Friday, Ben Smith conceded that this proves the White House was wrong when it claimed in 2008 that Obama had never sought an endorsement. However, Joel Rogers is sticking to his claim that the New Party never had members, telling Ben Smith, "'I have no idea what the Chicago people were saying about him being a member,' he said. 'We didn’t have membership, it wasn’t a membership organization.'"
The problem with this is that the New Party website--earlier drafts of which still exist in the internet archive--mention membership repeatedly and, as we'll see, even define what membership meant. Here's the 1999 version of the New Party website, specifically the "Join the New Party" page. Let me pull a few quotes that seem pertinent:
What is evident looking at these old websites is that membership in the New Party was contingent on making a donation. That is spelled out even more clearly on this 1997 New Party web page titled "New Party Profile." It reads in part:
But the fact that New Party members were "dues-paying" suggests something else. Let's examine the statement Stanley Kurtz discovered once again:
Based on the various statements on the Party's website and the "Candidate Contract" Obama signed, it's clear that joining the New Party is synonymous with making a monetary contribution (of at least $36). The meeting minutes say Obama "joined the New Party," so we can say with near certainty that, like all the other members, he paid to join.
Big Government
In the ongoing discussion of Barack Obama's involvement with Chicago's extremist "New Party," online literature from the Party likely reveals that the young state senator not only was a member but had to commit financially to membership. This past week, National Review author Stanley Kurtz revived the question of whether or not Obama was ever a member of the Party. Arguing for the affirmative, Kurtz demonstrates fairly conclusively that it did. On the other hand, Joel Rogers, founder of the New Party, tells Ben Smith that it did not. And documents available online suggest that Kurtz is correct and that Rogers is not being completely truthful.
First, there's a bit more background which is relevant here. Kurtz originally raised the question of Obama's involvement with the New Party back in 2008. At the time, the campaign denied Obama was ever involved and referred to the allegation as a "crackpot smear." Ben Smith, then at Politico, wrote a piece in which he quoted New Party founder Joel Rogers to the effect that Obama had never been a member of the New Party because the New Party didn't have members.
On Thursday, Kurtz announced the discovery of new documents that supported his original claim. In particular, he found minutes of a 1996 New Party meeting which read:
Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.
Friday, Ben Smith conceded that this proves the White House was wrong when it claimed in 2008 that Obama had never sought an endorsement. However, Joel Rogers is sticking to his claim that the New Party never had members, telling Ben Smith, "'I have no idea what the Chicago people were saying about him being a member,' he said. 'We didn’t have membership, it wasn’t a membership organization.'"
The problem with this is that the New Party website--earlier drafts of which still exist in the internet archive--mention membership repeatedly and, as we'll see, even define what membership meant. Here's the 1999 version of the New Party website, specifically the "Join the New Party" page. Let me pull a few quotes that seem pertinent:
- Transforming the face of American politics is a long, hard task. Your membership dollars can help us make each step of this process a reality
- [T]he New Party's work depends on our members.
- Most New Party members join as a monthly sustainer.
- Sustainer pledges are automatically deducted from members' credit cards
- All New Party members receive a free subscription to our quarterly newsletter
- If you have any questions about the New Party that weren't answered on our site, or if you want to know if your membership is current, please contact our membership coordinator
What is evident looking at these old websites is that membership in the New Party was contingent on making a donation. That is spelled out even more clearly on this 1997 New Party web page titled "New Party Profile." It reads in part:
The New Party is run by dues-paying members, who are organized into chapters. The national organization provides support for chapter growth and coordination. Every member gets one vote.
Members
From 1992 through early 1997, the New Party grew to 10,000 members. Growth has been accelerating-membership doubled each of the last two years-and we hope to be at 20,000 by the end of 1997.Clearly the New Party did have members. Its membership was based on dues. And dues-paying members were allowed to vote. This completely contradicts every part of the statement Joel Rogers gave to Ben Smith in 2008 and this week. As the founder of the group, there's no way he could have been unaware of this, so we must conclude he was intentionally not telling the truth.
But the fact that New Party members were "dues-paying" suggests something else. Let's examine the statement Stanley Kurtz discovered once again:
Barack Obama... signed the New Party “Candidate Contract”... He also joined the New Party.Here is the New Party of Illinois "Candidate Contract" listed on a website in 1999. We can't be completely sure, but this is likely the same or similar to the document Obama signed in 1996. Note that the contract has two parts. The first part stipulates what the New Party will do for the candidate. The second part lays out what the candidate is expected to do for the New Party. And right there, consistent with everything else we've seen, item #2 says "Join the New Party as a dues-paying member." Here's a screenshot:
Based on the various statements on the Party's website and the "Candidate Contract" Obama signed, it's clear that joining the New Party is synonymous with making a monetary contribution (of at least $36). The meeting minutes say Obama "joined the New Party," so we can say with near certainty that, like all the other members, he paid to join.
Big Government
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
