September 2-5, 2009
Sep 02 09:54 Robert Reich Doesn't Get It Sep 03 07:06 Dissecting the Kelliher Interview Sep 03 14:34 Building A Perfect Storm Sep 04 03:51 Was Van Jones Vetted? Sep 04 04:06 Meg Whitman's Got Some Explaining To Do Sep 04 05:07 Leadership Summit Update Sep 04 10:43 It's Officially A Trend Sep 05 11:14 Why the Stimulus Is a Failure
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Robert Reich Doesn't Get It
Robert Reich doesn't get it in saying why Republicans are winning the health care debate. Here's what Reich recently wrote:
What we learned in August is something we've long known but keep forgetting: The most important difference between America's Democratic left and Republican right is that the left has ideas and the right has discipline. Obama and progressive supporters of health care were outmaneuvered in August, not because the right had any better idea for solving the health care mess but because the rights' attack on the Democrats' idea was far more disciplined than was the Democrats' ability to sell it.Reich's arrogance is galling to thinking people. What 'the left' has going for it is a goal that's older Obama. That isn't an idea. That's my definition of an antique.
I also take offense at Reich's assertion that the right didn't have better ideas than the Democrats. That's insulting to people like Paul Ryan and Tom Coburn. Ryan, Coburn, Nunes and Burr put together legislation that's easy to read, that doesn't cost trillions of dollars to implement and that doesn't artificially lower costs with price controls or rationing.
It's foolish to think that 'the right' won this fight alone. Joining in the fight were healthy numbers of independents and some conservative Democrats. Reich would know that if he looked at President Obama's plummetting approval ratings. You don't get to 45 percent without a steep erosion of support from independents.
I say the Democrats' "idea" but in fact there was no single idea. Obama never sent any detailed plan to Congress. Meanwhile, congressional Dems were so creative and undisciplined before the August recess they came up with a kaleidoscope of health-care plans. The resulting incoherence served as an open invitation to the Republican right to focus with great precision on convincing the public of their own demonic version of what the Democrats were up to, that it would take away their Medicare, require "death panels," raise their taxes, and lead to a government takeover of medicine, and so on. The Obama White House, a veritable idea factory brimming with ingenuity, thereafter proved unable to come up with a single, convincing narrative to counteract this right-wing hokum. Whatever discipline Obama had mustered during the campaign somehow disappeared.The fact that the Democrats offered "a kaleidoscope of health-care plans" speaks loudly that the Democrats don't have a set of guiding principles apart from universal health care coverage. The American people won't sanction the government takeover of our health care system if it isn't thought through more clearly than that.
The last thing the American people will respond to positively is the Obama admininstration and Speaker Pelosi saying "Trust us." We've seen how badly their projections are with regard to economic growth and job creation coming from the stimulus. We've seen their deficit projections be off by $2,000,000,000,000. We've heard President Obama say that the Democrats' health care plan will save money only to have Doug Elmendorf's CBO say that the Democrats' health care plans would bend the curve UPWARD, not downward.
In short, Democrats shouldn't attempt to radically change our health care system until they've thought this through. This is far too important an issue to take on in such a haphazard way.
Here's the bottom line to this: We'll reject any congressman or senator who can't explain in detail what the bills do.
Posted Wednesday, September 2, 2009 9:56 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 02-Sep-09 12:31 PM
MinnPost today, Sept. 2 has an extensive report on Minnesota's two senators' opinions on healthcare.
Given that the Senate will be the stumbling block on reform, or the bigger impediment at least, it is worth knowing what each is reported to believe, whether you agree or not.
You don't like Reich; you like Beck? It will be interesting to see what ultimately happens.
Gary, I think you and I agree, despite having differing views, any bill that is a thousand pages cannot be free of mischief, hidden traps, and misdirection.
I don't trust anybody's thousand page bill.
KISS.
Simplify.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 02-Sep-09 12:59 PM
Eric, You're right that we probably disagree with alot of things policywise. When I hear a skilled attorney who's weeded through legal documents galore say that she can't understand with certainty what's in the bill & what isn't, that'a a big red flag.
With legislation this important & this complex, it's important that it's clearly written so that everyone can debate based on KNOWN FACTS.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 02-Sep-09 06:45 PM
You are correct about one thing, but did not take it far enough. The left wants "health care reform" and they do not know and do not care what that is. They blindly believe that the GOOD INTENTIONS of those in government are everything, and the details do not matter. The only thing that counts is that the Democrats pass a bill, preferably without the Republicans being involved because, as we all know, Republicans have evil intentions. It's ALWAYS good vs evil with these folks, with them in the white hats. Nothing under the hats.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 03-Sep-09 06:43 AM
I took it exactly far enough.
Dissecting the Kelliher Interview
Thanks to Politics In Minnesota's interview of Speaker Kelliher , we now have an idea of what a Kelliher administration would look like. From where I'm sitting, it isn't a pretty sight.
PIM: Why are you running for governor?This past session, the DFL held a listening tour. During that tour, they sent out emails telling activists what type of testimony they wanted to hear:
Margaret Anderson Kelliher: I'm running for governor because I want to provide leadership for Minnesota and leadership for Minnesotans that's focused on them and helps us become national leaders in the right things again--things like economic growth and student achievement. I'm passionate about this. I believe that now is the right time for me to run and to offer Minnesotans a different style of leadership.
From: Gene Pelowski [mailto:Rep.Gene.Pelowski@house.mn]They even asked to be notified if someone was particularly compelling:
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 10:13 AM
This Friday, February 20, there will be a bicameral hearing held in our region. Senators and Representatives from both political parties will be in Winona from 3:30 to 5:30 PM, Winona City Hall, 207 Lafayette St. The purpose of this hearing is to get testimony from affected programs in every level of government, education, health care or service impacted by the cuts suggested by the Governor's state budget.
I am writing you to ask that you or a designee get scheduled to testify. You may do this by going to the House website at www.house.mn and clicking on "Town Meetings".
We would ask you to focus your comments on the impact of the Governor's budget including what is the harm to your area of government or program. Please be as precise as possible using facts such as number of lay offs, increases in property taxes, cuts in services, increases in tuition, elimination of programs. To be respectful of the time necessary to hear from a large number of constituents it would be advised to use no more than 3-5 minutes to convey your message. If you choose to provide handouts or printed materials, please plan to bring approximately 25 copies, enough for committee members and media.
Sincerely,
Representative Gene Pelowski
District 31A
Dear Reps. Benson, Ruud, Winkler, Peterson and Simon and Sens. Bonoff, Rest and Pappas,These emails weren't haphazard. They had a specific purpose. They were sanctioned by the DFL leadership. Now Speaker Kelliher wants us to believe that she wants to lead all Minnesotans? That's insulting.
Thank you for participating in the Plymouth town hall meeting this Thursday. I anticipate there will be additional members participating but have so far not yet been notified. Meeting details are listed below and directions from the Capitol are attached.
Plymouth Town Hall Meeting
Thursday, Feb. 26 7:00 pm
Plymouth City Hall
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
I have also attached the list of people who have signed up to testify as of 9 a.m. this morning. Because we will be meeting for approximately 2 hrs., we will not be able to hear from everyone. (140 have submitted their names.) We will be limiting testimony to 2 minutes and encouraging individuals to submit their comments in writing or online. If there are any individuals listed who you think would provide particularly compelling testimony, please let me know. We will be working to hear from a variety of individuals covering a wide range of topics.
Please contact me with any additional questions or suggestions.
Speaker Kelliher frequently used her gavel to make sure the House GOP's ideas were shot down. There was no hint that she valued the House GOP's opinions. Now she's suddenly a great champion of all the people? That type of insulting statement will get my wrath every time.
Here's something that people should run from as fast as their feet can fly:
Kelliher: Health care is clearly on the top of people's minds right now. What I hear from folks is that they trust their state government a heck of a lot more right now than their confidence in the national government.MinnesotaCare is a nice safety net program but it's limited. The maximum that MinnesotaCare covers in a year is $10,000. That's likely to be sufficient for most people but someone who has heart problems is on the hook for everything over $10,000.
And when I look at that, I see a couple of things we could do immediately. We should look at the expansion of MinnesotaCare for small businesses so that they can buy in on a premium-based basis into MinnesotaCare to cover more Minnesotans and to help people's budgets. People are spending a thousand, $1200, $1500 a month on health insurance right now. I think we could do better if people were pooling into MinnesotaCare. I also believe that the teachers' health insurance bill is a very important bill to set up a model that can be helpful as we work toward universal portable health coverage in Minnesota.
This is status quo leadership. There's no justification for her ignoring Steve Gottwalt's Healthy Minnesota Plan , which has a $5,000,000 lifetime limit to benefits paid out.
Cookie cutter, status quo leadership isn't leadership we can afford at this time. We can't afford not to pick a leader who is a step or two ahead of the game, someone who's innovative and inspiring.
Speaker Kelliher doesn't fit that description.
Posted Thursday, September 3, 2009 7:06 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 03-Sep-09 09:20 AM
We should all have learned by now that "leadership," like "hope and change" or even "conservative principles" don't mean a rodent's derriere without specifics. Leaders are a dime a dozen. We need somebody with an actual idea or two. Saying you are four square for better jobs and better education is not enough to actually make it happen. Unless you're the Obamessiah, of course, and I must confess that a certain skepticism has crept in even there.
Building A Perfect Storm
If you haven't read Karl Rove's WSJ article yet, then it's important you consider it today's must reading. The Architect outlines the perfect storm heading straight for the Democrats in 2010. It isn't likely to be a pretty sight.
Mr. Obama's problems are legion. To start with, the president is focusing on health care when the economy and jobs are nearly everyone's top issue. Voters increasingly believe Mr. Obama took his eye off the ball.There isn't a day that goes by where President Obama says that fixing health care will fix our economy. While there's no doubt that getting health care under control will improve businesses' bottom lines, it's equally true that there's more to creating a vibrant economy than fixing health care.
Adding to the size of government takes money out of the private sector and permanently puts it into government. That's never the right way to strengthen the fundamentals of an economy. Obama's administration will take more money away from the private sector in the first 24 months than President Bush did in eight years.
That's before we talk about the huge tax increase that Cap and Trade will be. That's before we talk about letting the Bush tax cuts expire. Yes, I'm fairly certain that all of the Bush tax cuts will lapse because the deficits will force major tax increases. While President Obama didn't make a "Read my lips" declaration, his repeating the line that 95 percent of Americans won't get a tax increase will be seen by the public as definitive as "Read my lips."
Here's another major problem for President Obama and congressional Democrats:
Families believe they will be pushed into a government plan as the "public option" drives private insurers out of the market. Health-care providers fear they'll be forced to follow one-size-fits-all guidelines drafted by bureaucrats, instead of making judgments for specific patients.That last paragraph is putting grey hairs in Democratic strategists' heads. If there's any group that Democrats can't afford to lose, it's seniors. They're currently losing seniors and independents by wide margins. If this trend continues, 2010 will be a difficult year for Democrats.
And seniors are afraid of Mr. Obama's plan to cut $500 billion from Medicare over the next decade, including $177 billion for Medicare Advantage. It's simply not possible to cut that much from Medicare without also cutting services seniors need.
That's before noting that Speaker Pelosi has failed in draining the swamp of corruption:
Congressman Rangel has been arrogant in refusing to discuss how, as the man who writes this country's tax laws, he failed to report over $1 million in outside income and $3 million in business transactions as required by the House, lapses under investigation by the House Ethics Committee.Rangel might survive this scandal but I'll guarantee that he'll be the poster child for the Democrats' culture of corruption, along with John Murtha, and William 'Cold Cash' Jefferson. If Republicans are smart, they won't use these gentlemen only as proof that Democrats are corrupt but that their leadership team is utterly corrupt and can't be trusted on important issues like taxes and out-of-control spending.
"I recognize that all of you have an obligation to ask questions knowing that there's none of you smart enough to frame it in such a way that I'm going to respond," Rangel said.
There may be a reason for Rangel's arrogance. CBS 2 HD has discovered that since ethics probes began last year the 79-year-old congressman has given campaign donations to 119 members of Congress, including three of the five Democrats on the House Ethics Committee who are charged with investigating him.
Charlie's "angels" on the committee include Congressmen Ben Chandler of Kentucky, G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina and Peter Welch of Vermont. All have received donations from Rangel.
That's how perfect storms get built.
Posted Thursday, September 3, 2009 2:39 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 05-Sep-09 09:42 AM
Perfect storm or teapot tempest?
Rangel, that's interesting.
Rove --- yawn.
Rove. Go away. Find Bush, in hiding, join him.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 05-Sep-09 11:22 AM
Perfect storm. Charlie Cook is saying D's will lose 20+ seats, Larry Sabato is predicting D's losing 26-41 seats in 2010. Discount the Tea Parties if you'd like buyt they're real & they aren't going away.
Was Van Jones Vetted?
The first segment of tonight's Hannity show was about Van Jones, the admitted Communist who is now President Obama's Green Jobs Czar. Hannity and guest Kimberly Guilfoyle kept tiptoeing around whether the FBI had properly vetted Jones. Fortunately, conservative columnist S.E. Cupp didn't hesitate with her opinion.
Ms. Cupp said that there's no doubt but that President Obama knew exactly who he was. Proof of that was provided by Valerie Jarrett :
JARRETT: Oooh. Van Jones, alright! So, Van Jones. We were so delighted to be able to recruit him into the White House. We were watching him, uh, really, he's not that old, for as long as he's been active out in Oakland. And all the creative ideas he has. And so now, we have captured that. And we have all that energy in the White House.During his "time in Oakland", he was an admitted Communist, an admitted revolutionary and a person who said that white people were committing chemical genocide against people of color. He spoke out that wealth should be given to native Americans and that we needed to change our entire economic system.
Simply put, the Obama administration knew exactly who Van Jones was.
If we want to put this into context, let's remember the FBI files scandal during the Clinton years. Here's what Wikipedia says about Filegate :
Craig Livingstone, director of the White House's Office of Personnel Security, improperly requested, and received from the FBI, background reports without asking permission of the subject individuals. Estimates range from 400 to 700 to 900 unauthorized file disclosures.The reason this caused such a stir is because these files include everything from allegations to unanswered questions to verified facts. This data is found during a full investigation by the FBI. They talk to friends and associates of the person of interest. This data might even contain cheapshots by political adversaries who want to ruin your career. That's why the FBI's files are kept confidential.
That's why it's impossible to believe that the Obama administration didn't know what type of things Van Jones was into. Add to this the fact that everyone who works in the administration gets checked and it's impossible to believe that President Obama didn't know that Van Jones wasn't a radical. In fact, considering how many radicals inhabit this administration, it's more likely that radicals are prefered over trditionalists.
Posted Friday, September 4, 2009 3:55 AM
No comments.
Meg Whitman's Got Some Explaining To Do
I just finished a post about Van Jones' radicalism. Now I've seen this video of California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman talking about Van Jones:
If Ms. Whitman doesn't find Mr. Jones' radicalism upsetting and alarming, then she shouldn't be considered a serious candidate for governor. At minimum, Ms. Whitman has alot of explaining to do.
Posted Friday, September 4, 2009 4:08 AM
No comments.
Leadership Summit Update
It's time for another update on the DFL's 'Leadership Summit'. First, let's just drop all pretenses. While it's being billed as a conversation amongst leaders about how to dig Minnesota out of its current economic difficulties, it's really nothing more than the DFL's attempt to beat up on Gov. Tim Pawlenty.
That's why he isn't attending the event.
This Pi-Press article , combined with a question on the 2009 Minnesota House of Representatives State Fair Poll offers a confusing set of principles:
Former governors, legislative leaders and state finance experts have been invited to a "Minnesota Leadership Summit" at the Capitol on Tuesday to discuss ways to solve the state's recurring budget crises.That's confusing considering this question on the Legislative Poll:
They will talk about the public's money, but they're shutting out the public.
The meeting's sponsors, Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller and House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, notified reporters Thursday that the meeting will be closed to the public and the press. A spokesman for Pogemiller said the meeting was closed at the request of some of the participants, whom he did not name.
6. Should bill and budget negotiations between the governor and legislative leaders be required to be open to the public?The fact that the meeting is closed proves that this will be nothing more than another Bash Pawlenty session. Why is the meeting closed to the public? Why shouldn't we hear everything that's said during this event? Shouldn't we know which politicians took cheapshots at Gov. Pawlenty? If legislators think it's important to have open negotiations on the budget , then shouldn't they insist that this meeting be open to the public, too?
Sen. John Marty (DFL-Roseville) offered an amendment requiring all conference committee negotiations to be open to the public. In addition, the amendment requires meetings between legislative leadership or staff and the governor to be open to the public. Marty offered an amendment to the amendment, clarifying that explaining a bill or provision is not negotiation. The amendment to the amendment was adopted. Sen. Dick Day (R-Owatonna) said the amendment requiring negotiations with the governor is unworkable. Pogemiller said the change would not be adopted by the other body. Marty said, "It is the public's business and negotiations should be open to the public." The amendment was not adopted on a 24-36 roll call vote.I said in this post that this meeting is a travesty. I reached that conclusion when I found out that there wasn't a set agenda for the meeting. If these leaders wanted to accomplish something meaningful, then there has to be some structure to the meeting. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of windbags getting together to whine about how things aren't like the good old days when they were the rulers.
Why shouldn't I believe that Sen. Pogemiller will cheapshot Gov. Pawlenty? It's obvious to anyone who's followed Minnesota politics the past 5 years that Gov. Pawlenty outsmarted Sen. Pogemiller and made him look like an idiot more than once.
That still bothers Sen. Pogemiller.
Another thing that I don't see the usefulness of is having a group of has been officials from a totally different era in politics pontificate about what's broken with the system. What's broken is the fact that the DFL is short on new ideas and long on attitude-laced replies. If we want to fix government, we need serious policymakers. We don't have that right now.
Gov. Pawlenty is right in not attending this event because it isn't a serious event. If it were a serious event, it would be held at the Humphrey Institute with a serious moderator like Tom Hauser. That way, Minnesotans could judge each participant's answers on the merits.
Posted Friday, September 4, 2009 5:07 AM
Comment 1 by MisterC at 04-Sep-09 10:23 AM
Did you see this? Ouch! That'll leave a mark!
http://www.tpt.org/aatc/2009/09/03/closed_content
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 04-Sep-09 10:52 AM
Ouch is right!!!
Comment 2 by Janet at 04-Sep-09 10:51 PM
Yikes - she better wake up fast- is anybody on her staff following what is coming out about Van Jones? I was with her until now - if her team is so unaware of Jones' past behavior and current exposure, they're not very good.
It's Officially A Trend
Back in March, Rasmussen Reports noted that Republicans had polled better than Democrats on the Generic Ballot Question for the first time since 2005. According to Rasmussen's latest polling , Republicans routinely beat Democrats on the generic ballot question:
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 43% would vote for their district's Republican congressional candidate while 36% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.That 7-point margin is well outside the poll's margin of error. Here's what's got the Democrats' strategists drinking Maalox by the bottle:
Listening to two briefings, one by a Democratic pollster who had just conducted a survey for a group favoring health care reform, the other by a Republican pollster more skeptical of the reform plans, I felt as if I were hearing a pair of reports by the National Transportation Safety Board on the same plane crash. But in sorting through the problems facing President Obama and congressional Democrats, focusing too narrowly on their disastrous handling of health care would be a mistake.Saying that Republicans are fired up is understatement but it's deeper than that. What's fueling this GOP resurgence is the Democrats' radical agenda, which is turning off independents and scaring seniors. It also doesn't help to have VP Biden talking about how great the stimulus is working :
Obama and Capitol Hill leaders don't need to worry too much about their modest drop in support from Democratic voters or the predictable drop on the Republican side. But top Democrats should be very frightened about the sharp drop in support among independents, because it could ultimately threaten their party's hold on the House and shrink their majority in the Senate.
Independent voters, fired up by the war in Iraq and Republican scandals, gave Democrats control of both chambers of Congress in 2006. Two years later, independents upset with President Bush and eager to give his party another kick expanded the Democratic majorities on the Hill. Late in the campaign, the economic downturn, together with an influx of young people and minorities enthusiastic about Obama, created a wave that left the GOP in ruins.
That was then; this is now. For the seven weeks from mid-April through the first week of June, Obama's weekly Gallup Poll approval rating among independents ran in the 60-to-70 percent range. But in four of the past five weeks, it has been only in the mid-to-high 40s. Meanwhile, Democrats and liberals seem lethargic even though Republicans and conservatives are spitting nails and can't wait to vote.
Vice President Biden yesterday proclaimed success beyond expectations for the government's $787 billion economic-stimulus program, but his glowing assessment overlooks many of the program's problems, including delays in releasing money, questionable spending priorities, and project choices that are under investigation.Never has a presidential administration fallen more out of touch with the American people than this administration has. Frankly, it's both embarrassing and worrisome that this administration would even attempt to sugarcoat the truth like this. If the Democratic majorities in Congress were acting in the best interests of their constituents, they'd be rebelling against this administration's agenda. Instead of a fullscale rebellion, they're leading the charge.
In a speech aimed squarely at Republican criticism and public skepticism over the program's effectiveness, Biden said accomplishments in the last 100 days provided proof of promises kept when he and President Obama began rolling out the plan earlier this year. It was approved by Congress in February.
"The Recovery Act is doing more, faster and more efficiently, and more effectively than most people expected," he said.
Until congressional Democrats abandon President Obama's and Speaker Pelosi's agenda, expect them to lose ground on the Generic Ballot Question.
Posted Friday, September 4, 2009 10:50 AM
Comment 1 by eric zaetsch at 06-Sep-09 10:26 AM
Gary, there is dissatisfaction with the Obama administration and both houses of Congress, now with Dem majorities. But the latter is consistent with people hating Congress for being deserving of mockery and disdain, for a host of reasons mainly being service to those providing money, vs to the best interest of the public.
But generic polls - wouldn't you rather something more concrete and relevant than "feel good or feel bad" generally?
Do you know of any public polls of any reliable scope saying what percentage likes Michele, what percentage likes Tarryl?
That's what matters. Who gets votes. Then, what the low lifes of each party do, once voted into office.
It is not that either party is liked or greatly trusted. It is weighing lesser evils, on a case by case basis.
We do need viable third parties. More than the IP joke.
Why the Stimulus Is a Failure
This NYTimes article offers a perfect explanation of why the stimulus bill was doomed for failure. The massive infusion of federal cash into the economy wasn't enough to offset the money not circulating through the economy:
ST. CLOUD, Minn. - It was just five months ago that Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. made the New Flyer bus factory here a symbol of the stimulus. With several cabinet secretaries in tow, he held a town-hall-style meeting at the factory, where he praised the company as "an example of the future" and said that it stood to get more orders for its hybrid electric buses thanks to the $8.4 billion that the stimulus law devotes to mass transit.The federal infusion of cash was supposed to stimulate the economy but it didn't. It didn't because other levels of government had to cut spending because they were running big deficits.
But last month, the company that administration officials had pictured as a stimulus success story began laying off 320 people, or 13 percent of its work force , having discovered how cutbacks at the state level can dampen the boost provided by the federal stimulus money. The Chicago Transit Authority did use some of its stimulus money to buy 58 new hybrid buses from New Flyer. But Chicago had to shelve plans to order another 140 buses from them after the state money that it had hoped to use to pay for them failed to materialize. The delayed order scrambled New Flyer's production schedule for the rest of the year, and led to the layoffs.
If ARRA had been done right, it would've put a higher priority on cutting business taxes and infrastructure construction. Cutting business taxes would've given businesses an incentive to put their money at work, which would have increased tax revenues for both the federal and state levels.
Here in Minnesota, we're expecting another big deficit for the next biennium. I suspect that's because Tom Stinson isn't expecting the economy to dramatically improve in that time. If the stimulus plan had set better priorities, the economy would likely have improved by then. Since it wasn't designed to create jobs, states started factoring in lower revenues for the next budget cycles.
Another thing that isn't being talked about is something that President Obama quietly did recently regarding prevailing wages :
To ensure that many of the jobs funded by the stimulus bill go to unionized workers, the Obama administration is pursuing two courses of action. First, the Department of Transportation has issued guidelines directing all construction work on infrastructure projects to be subject to Davis-Bacon prevailing wage determination, which requires federal contractors to pay the "prevailing" wage in a given locality as determined by the Secretary of Labor. Because this has typically been equivalent to the prevailing union wage, the law makes it harder for non-union contractors to compete.This might help unionized construction companies but it'll hurt non-unionized companies. At a time when we want to get as many people working as possible, this rule seems counterproductive from an economic standpoint. (It makes perfect sense from a political standpoint, though.) Still, the goal should be job growth, not union empowerment.
Second, the administration is requiring contractors who want to bid on large federal construction projects to be subject to project labor agreements (PLAs), which impose burdensome requirements on non-union contractors. PLAs typically require non-union employers, even those who provide their own benefits, to pay into union benefit plans. This can entail paying into underfunded union pension funds, which can impose huge liabilities on companies. PLAs may also require contractors to employ workers from union hiring halls, acquire apprentices from union apprentice programs, and require employees to pay union dues.
Putting these things together, it isn't difficult to say that President Obama's economic policies are bassackwards. His priorities are understandable from a political standpoint but they're foolish from an economic perspective.
We can rationalize playing political games when the economy is hitting on all eight cylinders. It isn't possible to justify playing political games when the economy is sputtering like it is now. Economics must trump politics right now.
Setting a higher priority on achieving political goals rather than on putting us on a path to economic prosperity is unconscienable when 15,000,000 people need a new job.
Posted Saturday, September 5, 2009 2:19 PM
Comment 1 by Scott Alan at 05-Sep-09 03:59 PM
Wonderful post!
Thanks for sharing it.
But remember: You are just begging to be tagged as a racist if you keep up with this sort of thing. There's an article along these lines that you might get a kick out of. It's posted at Fire Breathing Christian and titled "You're Surely a Racist, If..."
Here's a link:
http://firebreathingchristian.wordpress.com/2009/09/03/youre-surely-a-racist-if/
Keep fighting the good fight!
Comment 2 by eric zaetsch at 06-Sep-09 10:20 AM
It is probably a case of too little of a commitment, and not spending what was committed wisely. The problem is getting a consensus of what levels of spending are needed and what the priorities should be.
What was done did not hack it. That's clear.
Because it was done, you can evaluate it and criticize it.
What you suggest is not being done, and probably will not be.
Bush cut taxes and ran humongo deficits and things did not get better. The fan loaded up. That's the closest to a test of your theories. That Bush failure leading to the current situation, and the Obama failure to make things better suggests neither approach hacks it.
