<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Obama&#039;s Enemies List: A Growing List of Obama&#039;s Enemies &#187; Chamber of Commerce</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.obamashitlist.com/category/chamber-of-commerce/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com</link>
	<description>Are you on OBAMASHITLIST?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 02:30:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Defeat The Highway Bill</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/defeat-the-highway-bill/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/defeat-the-highway-bill/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 00:30:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>LanaGalloway</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chamber of Commerce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[budget]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conservatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deficit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[highway]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[highway-trust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[labor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[offsets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[transportation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unholy-alliance]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/defeat-the-highway-bill/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Here we go again.  Republicans talk incessantly about the need to cut the deficit, yet they are once again proposing a policy that will actually augment the deficit. On March 31, authorization for transportation spending, along with its accompanying revenue source – the federal gasoline tax – is set to expire.  Republicans in the House and a bipartisan group in the Senate have introduced dueling proposals to fund long-term transportation projects, in lieu of the short-term bills that have been enacted since 2007.  Unfortunately, the Republican House bill is not much better than the Senate bill. One need not be a staunch conservative to appreciate how inane it is to collect gasoline taxes from all 50 states into one pool, only to be doled out randomly for every state&#8217;s personal transportation project.  Ever since the Interstate Highway System was completed almost 20 years ago, there has been no rational purpose for the current top-down federal control over transportation.  Successive congresses have diverted as much as 38% of the gas tax revenue to mass transit projects and wasteful endeavors for specific states.  The net result is that some states are donors (contribute more), while other states are recipients (receive more in funding than they contribute). We need to abolish the federal gas tax, and devolve all responsibility and taxes for transportation projects to the states.  The two bills percolating through Congress will double down on failed policies, add to the debt, perpetuate inefficiencies in highway construction, continue to encumber traffic, and preclude any devolution of responsibility to the states. The Senate bill, S. 1813 , funds transportation at $109 billion over two-years, $54.5 billion per year.  The House bill, despite accolades from Republican leadership, is only slightly smaller than the Senate version.  The House bill, HR 7 , will authorize $260 billion over 5 years, $52 billion per year.  Both bills continue to divert about 20% of the gas tax revenue to fund liberal mass transit projects.  But here&#8217;s the kicker: according to CBO, the Highway Trust Fund will only take in $187 billion in revenue over 5 years.  Both bills rely on using all unspent funds in the trust fund, totaling about $20 billion.  We will still incur a $30-50 billion deficit over 5 years, and at least $136 billion over 10 years.  Remember we already bailout out the trust fund in 2008 with general fund revenues to the tune of $35 billion. But, fear not, Republicans plan to attach three bills authorizing drilling in ANWR, offshore, and in the western states.  They pledge to use the revenue from the royalties to offset the deficit engendered by general fund transfers to the Highway Trust Fund.  The problem is that these proposals are dead on arrival with the Democrats.  Once we agree to the premise of higher transportation spending, and the Democrats jettison the drilling royalties, we will be left with a deficit once again. This position mirrors the cycle of capitulation with the budget bills.  Democrats propose some profligate legislative budget bill.  Conservatives advocate that we uproot the entire premise by drawing a line in the sand on the principles that got us elected.  Republican leaders eschew conservative principles and acquiesce to the premise that the Democrat budget is a priority too big to fail.  They telegraph the message to Democrats that they will never let the budget bill fail, but promise to make them pay for it with reforms or other spending offsets.  Democrats balk at the offsets. Finally, we are left agreeing to the spending without the offsets. Moreover, if we run a perennial deficit in the trust fund, we will be permanently exposed to future hikes in the gas tax.  The Chamber of Commerce and Big Labor are already joining in an unholy alliance to support a gas tax hike. We must defeat the 847-page highway bill , and call upon Congress to devolve transportation authority to the states .  At the very least, they should stick with the original House proposal to peg the cost of transportation spending to revenues from the gas tax.  Why are we negotiating with ourselves again? Cross-posted from The Madison Project ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/defeat-the-highway-bill/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Defeat The Highway Bill</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/defeat-the-highway-bill/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/defeat-the-highway-bill/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 00:30:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>IDontThinkSo0001</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chamber of Commerce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[budget]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deficit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[highway-trust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[offsets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[senate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unholy-alliance]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/defeat-the-highway-bill/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Here we go again.  Republicans talk incessantly about the need to cut the deficit, yet they are once again proposing a policy that will actually augment the deficit. On March 31, authorization for transportation spending, along with its accompanying revenue source – the federal gasoline tax – is set to expire.  Republicans in the House and a bipartisan group in the Senate have introduced dueling proposals to fund long-term transportation projects, in lieu of the short-term bills that have been enacted since 2007.  Unfortunately, the Republican House bill is not much better than the Senate bill. One need not be a staunch conservative to appreciate how inane it is to collect gasoline taxes from all 50 states into one pool, only to be doled out randomly for every state&#8217;s personal transportation project.  Ever since the Interstate Highway System was completed almost 20 years ago, there has been no rational purpose for the current top-down federal control over transportation.  Successive congresses have diverted as much as 38% of the gas tax revenue to mass transit projects and wasteful endeavors for specific states.  The net result is that some states are donors (contribute more), while other states are recipients (receive more in funding than they contribute). We need to abolish the federal gas tax, and devolve all responsibility and taxes for transportation projects to the states.  The two bills percolating through Congress will double down on failed policies, add to the debt, perpetuate inefficiencies in highway construction, continue to encumber traffic, and preclude any devolution of responsibility to the states. The Senate bill, S. 1813 , funds transportation at $109 billion over two-years, $54.5 billion per year.  The House bill, despite accolades from Republican leadership, is only slightly smaller than the Senate version.  The House bill, HR 7 , will authorize $260 billion over 5 years, $52 billion per year.  Both bills continue to divert about 20% of the gas tax revenue to fund liberal mass transit projects.  But here&#8217;s the kicker: according to CBO, the Highway Trust Fund will only take in $187 billion in revenue over 5 years.  Both bills rely on using all unspent funds in the trust fund, totaling about $20 billion.  We will still incur a $30-50 billion deficit over 5 years, and at least $136 billion over 10 years.  Remember we already bailout out the trust fund in 2008 with general fund revenues to the tune of $35 billion. But, fear not, Republicans plan to attach three bills authorizing drilling in ANWR, offshore, and in the western states.  They pledge to use the revenue from the royalties to offset the deficit engendered by general fund transfers to the Highway Trust Fund.  The problem is that these proposals are dead on arrival with the Democrats.  Once we agree to the premise of higher transportation spending, and the Democrats jettison the drilling royalties, we will be left with a deficit once again. This position mirrors the cycle of capitulation with the budget bills.  Democrats propose some profligate legislative budget bill.  Conservatives advocate that we uproot the entire premise by drawing a line in the sand on the principles that got us elected.  Republican leaders eschew conservative principles and acquiesce to the premise that the Democrat budget is a priority too big to fail.  They telegraph the message to Democrats that they will never let the budget bill fail, but promise to make them pay for it with reforms or other spending offsets.  Democrats balk at the offsets. Finally, we are left agreeing to the spending without the offsets. Moreover, if we run a perennial deficit in the trust fund, we will be permanently exposed to future hikes in the gas tax.  The Chamber of Commerce and Big Labor are already joining in an unholy alliance to support a gas tax hike. We must defeat the 847-page highway bill , and call upon Congress to devolve transportation authority to the states .  At the very least, they should stick with the original House proposal to peg the cost of transportation spending to revenues from the gas tax.  Why are we negotiating with ourselves again? Cross-posted from The Madison Project ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/defeat-the-highway-bill/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fire Away</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/25/fire-away/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/25/fire-away/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bob R</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chamber of Commerce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[butler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[clips]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[great-clips]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health-insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[maid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[opinion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[parking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secretary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[snow]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[time]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/25/fire-away/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ LYNDEN, Washington -- You wouldn't think getting a haircut could affect your opinion of a presidential candidate. Yet that's what occurred to your humble but no longer quite so shaggy scribe last week. I went in for a trim and shampoo and came out with that silky fresh smell, and sympathy for Mitt Romney. No, this has nothing to do with his very Mormon hair. Romney is in pitched battle with Newt Gingrich and the terrain is populism. Gingrich's people have dusted off Ted Kennedy's old anti-Bain Capital campaign to paint Romney as a ruthless capitalist, itching to fire people to improve his bottom line. One alleged Romney misstatement came from his speech to the Nashua, New Hampshire Chamber of commerce. Romney said, "I like being able to fire people who provide services to me." He was speaking of health insurance companies, not the butler, the maid, or the secretary. Critics pounced anyway, and the press didn't do him any favors. The ABCNews.com non-parody headline reads , "Romney Likes 'Being Able to Fire People.'" Romney was contrasting a free market in health insurance with one that is substantially controlled by the government. Being a businessman, he elaborated, "You know, if someone doesn't give me a good service that I need, I want to say I'm going to go get someone else to provide that service for me." This earnest, commonsensical point came to mind Sunday as I was driving a wee bit over the speed limit toward nearby Bellingham. It snowed in all of western Washington and the place I normally go to get my hair cut was closed due to weather the two times I had showed up during the week. The first time it was closed, I shrugged, hiked across the parking lot toward the McDonald's to get some work done with the free wifi and fell pretty hard on the slick pavement. The second time, the snow was mostly melted, but Great Clips was still closed. So I came back Sunday, before 4, and found that it closes at 3. Three trips to get a haircut was too much trouble, so I took off. I found a salon in Bellingham that was still open, put my name in the queue, and read a book while I waited. The wait proved well worth it, for entertainment value alone. The twentysomething girl who cut my hair, who we'll call Sherry, chatted as she buzzed and snipped away and fretted over my cowlicks. One of the many things Sherry told me was a story about an argument with her boyfriend. He doesn't want to cut his own toenails and they end up fighting over who has to do it. "He says 'Either you do it or they aren't going to get clipped,'" she told me. "It's ridiculous!" She thought about it for a few seconds and revised her remarks, "Then again, he gives me his paycheck, I clip his nails. Maybe it's a fair trade." When it was time to pay at the counter, Sherry tried to give me on a punch card, one that gives you a free cut after so many trips. Normally, I say no to such things because, odds are, it'll get lost somewhere. But this time I said, what the heck. I had to go somewhere to get my hair cut, perhaps I'd come back here. She smiled and threw in the shampoo for free. Now, maybe I'll go back and maybe I won't. It was more of a drive than Great Clips, but it was also more amusing, the cut was good, the price was $1 north or south of the usual fee-for-haircut, and the salon was actually open in my hour of filamental need. That's all the "good service" I was looking for. Great Clips, you're fired. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/25/fire-away/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>TEA Party Leader Recruiting Campaign Chairmen for Trump</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/29/tea-party-leader-recruiting-campaign-chairmen-for-trump/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/29/tea-party-leader-recruiting-campaign-chairmen-for-trump/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Dec 2011 04:45:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>HigleyLocklear930</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chamber of Commerce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conversation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[donald trump]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[everett]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[everett-wilkinson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patriot-leader]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tea party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[texas-chairman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voting]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/29/tea-party-leader-recruiting-campaign-chairmen-for-trump/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ From the diaries . . . Just in case all the early primary fun hasn&#8217;t put you in a fetal position next to the liquor cabinet, maybe this will finish the job: After his aborted press tour/election tease, Donald Trump nearly immediately went back to hinting at an independent run for President. Speculation has been driven through the last few months by surrogates, media interviews and a rising frustration with the field of Republican candidates. We even had a few moments earlier this month when it looked like some of the GOP presidential candidates would actually take part in a debate that Trump moderated. Thankfully, that moment of insanity passed. This afternoon I was forwarded an email that originated with Everett Wilkinson  ( @TEApartyCzar ) of South Florida. Everett describes himself as, &#8220;a rising local and national star in the tea party movement and the founder &#038; chairman of South Florida Tea Party as well as the Florida Tea Party and Tea Party Chamber of Commerce .&#8221; The email is copied below in its entirety: &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;- Forwarded message &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;- From:  Everett Wilkinson Date: Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 11:18 AM Subject: Confidential TX Issue Dear Patriot Leader, My name is Everett Wilkinson and I am a tea party leader in Florida and friend of Donald Trump.  I am sure you have heard on the news that Mr. Trump is considering a run as an independent.  He has asked me to find a &#8220;tea party&#8221; Texas Chairman for a potential third party by next week.  The role requires a Texas voter registration and is due to the voting laws in Texas.  The person would not have to change their party affiliation or anything. Would you or do you know of any Texan that would be interested? Sincerely,  &#8211; Everett Wilkinson (561) 880-x xxx http://www.SouthFloridaTeaParty.org http://www.FloridaTeaParty.com After receipt of the email I called Mr. Wilkinson and had a brief conversation. He confirmed that he is working at the request of Mr. Trump, whom he describes as a personal friend, to find and register state campaign chairmen across the country. He declined to give any indication of progress other than to say that he was able to find a &#8220;well known, solid TEA Party leader&#8221; so serve as the Texas campaign chairman. It was unclear from our conversation why he was using what appeared to be a TEA party affiliated email or whether the effort had been sanctioned by other members of the group. Everett said that Trump hasn&#8217;t made a final decision on the campaign but that due to election law in some states they need to secure campaign chairmen and begin collecting signatures in case Trump pulls the trigger. The Donald has apparently put Everett in charge of this effort. All in all it&#8217;s just another big face-palm moment to add to the long list. If you really want Obama to get a 2nd term then by all means, throw your support behind a Trump run. There&#8217;s a lot to be frustrated about with the state of the Republican party but cutting off your nose to spite your face isn&#8217;t exactly an optimal strategy. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/29/tea-party-leader-recruiting-campaign-chairmen-for-trump/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>On the Jobs Front</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/27/on-the-jobs-front/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/27/on-the-jobs-front/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2011 16:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bob R</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chamber of Commerce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[companies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fbi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hacking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[japan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mexico]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[street]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/27/on-the-jobs-front/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Efforts to create new American jobs and make the nation more secure seem to involve one step forward, one step (sometimes, two) back. Consider one week's news on this front: The Good. Because the high yen makes exporting unprofitable and because of interrupted supplies from Japan's tsunami and Thailand's floods, Honda has announced a major expansion of its manufacturing in North America. It will increase manufacturing in five U.S. and one Canadian and Mexican plant each (plus building a second in Mexico) by as much as 40 percent, from 1.29 million vehicles a year to more than two million. Not only that, Honda will then export up to 300,000 vehicles from North America to other parts of the world, up from 35,000 currently.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/27/on-the-jobs-front/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Union Bosses’ NLRB Rams Through Ambush Election Rule</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/22/union-bosses%e2%80%99-nlrb-rams-through-ambush-election-rule/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/22/union-bosses%e2%80%99-nlrb-rams-through-ambush-election-rule/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2011 19:00:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>georgiana wren</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chamber of Commerce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Coal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[america]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[block-the-rogue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coalition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[controversial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[delusionally]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democratic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[labor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[relations-board]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/22/union-bosses%e2%80%99-nlrb-rams-through-ambush-election-rule/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ For more than five years, Left-wing union bosses have tried to ram union representation down the throats of America&#8217;s union-free workforce. They first tried, through their bought-and-paid-for stooges within the Democratic party, to enact the delusionally-dubbed Employee Free Choice Act . After that scheme failed, they opted for Plan B : Using Obama&#8217;s appointments of union extremists at the National Labor Relations Board to issue a slew of pro-union decisions and usher in changes that make it easier for unions to pick off job creators and their employees. On Wednesday, the union attorneys at the NLRB adopted a final rule on their controversial proposal that paves the way for unions to conduct ambush elections on America&#8217;s union-free workplace. While the rule will not go into effect immediately (it takes effect April 30, 2012), the substance of  the rule goes to the stripping of due process from the minority of employers who challenge the validity of a union&#8217;s petitioned-for voting unit. As the result of removing an employer&#8217;s right to object to the petitioned-for unit through a regional NLRB hearing and request for review by the NLRB in Washington, not only does it enable the NLRB to conduct &#8220;quickie&#8221; elections (in as little as 17 days from petition filing), but it will also likely cause more employers to use the federal courts as a means of redress against a blatantly pro-union NLRB. As union organizers are legally allowed to manipulate and mislead workers into unionizing, at the heart of the issue is the amount of time union organizers can spend attacking a company in stealth, picking out a small section of the workforce to unionize into &#8220;micro-units,&#8221; and leaving employers virtually no time to counter the misinformation. Currently, most union elections occur within 42 days of petition filing. Under the new rules, they may occur in as little as 17 days. Even before the NLRB formally issued its final rule on Wednesday, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace sued the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to challenge the rule. Coalition for a Democratic Workplace&#8217;s Chairman Geoffrey Burr stated : “Instead of putting fairness first, the NLRB bowed to special interests by abandoning longstanding rules governing union-representation elections for this new rigged system where employees have less information and employers have fewer legal rights and a diminished due process.” He continued, “Big Labor’s paid union organizers seeking more dues-paying members spend months making their pitch. Employees deserve to hear from employers too – employees deserve the full story.” Burr concluded, “Unfortunately, taking legal action was the only way to block the rogue agency’s unfair rule.” With the NLRB&#8217;s Wednesday move, there will likely be a push by many employers to begin planning for the ambush elections. Unfortunately, for those that do not plan in advance—most typically, small employers—there will be many caught wholly unprepared for the attack. As with the Boeing case and numerous other examples, Wednesday&#8217;s action by Obama&#8217;s union appointees at the NLRB is just another reminder of how tilted the playing field has become against America&#8217;s job creators. ______________ “Socialism has no place in the hearts of those who would secure the fight for freedom and preserve democracy.” Samuel Gompers, 1918 ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/22/union-bosses%e2%80%99-nlrb-rams-through-ambush-election-rule/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama&#8217;s Big Labor Wins a Big One</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/20/obamas-big-labor-wins-a-big-one/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/20/obamas-big-labor-wins-a-big-one/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 16:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>AlvarezDana</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chamber of Commerce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bargaining-unit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[railway-labor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[representative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rule]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rule-change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[standardization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[transport]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voting]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/20/obamas-big-labor-wins-a-big-one/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Unions have been disappointed by the Obama administration's inability to move their agenda forward. But they finally won a victory last week. This is bad news for America's transport sector, not to mention travelers and businesses of all sizes that rely on rail and air shipping, because it could cause major disruptions to travel and commerce. Last year, the National Mediation Board (NMB), the government agency charged with overseeing labor relations in the railroad and airlines industries, changed voting rules to favor unionization. On Friday, December 16, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia upheld the rule change as consistent with the Railway Labor Act (RLA). However, as dissenting Circuit Judge Karen Henderson explained, the NMB failed to provide any justification for changing a rule that had stood for 75 years. The Act clearly states: "The majority of any craft or class of employees shall have the right to determine who shall be the representative of the craft or class." A craft or class is any job classification that may be organized as a bargaining unit of like workers -- for example, railroad engineers or airline pilots. The new rule makes it possible for a minority of the employees of a craft or class to vote in a union. The rule change predictably met with strong objections from most of railroad and airline companies. The Air Transport Association of America and U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit challenging it. But this is no simple labor versus management dispute. Several Delta Airlines employees also filed suit on the grounds that the rule change violated their rights of freedom of association. Congress passed the RLA to govern railway unions in 1926 and expanded it to include airlines in 1936. In order to avoid disruptions to America's transport network through strikes and other kinds of work stoppages, the Act imposed mandatory mediation and gave the president the ability to order workers back to work. The RLA allows unions to organize workers for the purpose of negotiating a collective bargaining agreement as the workers' exclusive representative. However, unlike the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which regulates labor relations in other industries and allows unions to organize on a location-by-location basis, the RLA requires a bargaining unit to include all the workers of the same classification throughout an entire company. By requiring unions to organize on a company-wide basis, the RLA helps to avoid the creation of a patchwork of work rules that would result from piecemeal unionization at various facilities. It also prevents localized issues from disrupting nationwide transport networks. Balkanized work rules detract from the standardization and economies of scale upon which network industries rely. In addition, the RLA requires a union to gain votes from a majority of all workers it would represent in a bargaining unit in order to be certified. This ensures that a union truly enjoys the support of the majority of workers in a given craft or class. The rule change now requires merely a majority of votes cast. Thus, under the new rule, a bargaining unit of 100 employees could be unionized with only 41 employees voting for the union in an election in which only 80 votes are cast. The court also failed to address the fact that the NMB made no effort to educate workers about the rule change. It issued no postings, memos, letters, or public service announcements to that effect. The original rule had been in place for 75 years, so to say that the employees would find a rule change surprising and disruptive is an understatement. Employees who once could simply abstain to express their desire not to join a union would be in for a rude shock. That's not all. Under the NMB's rule change, there is more than one way for a union to receive "yes" votes. First, the new ballot includes a "write in" section where any vote cast automatically counts as a vote for the union, because "no union" votes may only be entered in the section so labeled. Second, if there is a runoff election, it may only include the top two union vote getters, with the "no union" option left out. Reforming the Railway Labor Act is a job for Congress, not an unaccountable agency. This case deserves to be either reheard by the full circuit or taken up by the Supreme Court. For its part, Congress should consider reforming the Act in a way that protects employees' right to decide for themselves whether to join or refrain from joining a union. Specifically, it should change the voting procedures back to 50 percent-plus-one of the craft or class and allow runoff elections to include the "no union" option. It should also hold the National Mediation Board accountable, and make it clear that it is not a mechanism to grant favors to the president's union allies. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/20/obamas-big-labor-wins-a-big-one/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Elizabeth Warren’s inaccurate Karl Rove whining.</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/11/elizabeth-warren%e2%80%99s-inaccurate-karl-rove-whining/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/11/elizabeth-warren%e2%80%99s-inaccurate-karl-rove-whining/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Dec 2011 03:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bob R</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chamber of Commerce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[crossroads gps]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[elizabeth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[massachusetts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scott brown]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[video]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[woman]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/11/elizabeth-warren%e2%80%99s-inaccurate-karl-rove-whining/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ So let me set the background, here. Crossroads GPS is a 501(c)(4) associated with American Crossroads (a 527 advocacy group which has Karl Rove advising it; this will be important later), and it put out this ad on Massachusetts Senate hopeful Elizabeth Warren (who is running, of course, against Republican Senator Scott Brown ). Said ad helpfully points out that Warren was up to her eyeballs assisting the 2008 TARP bailout &#8211; yes, the same bailout that she&#8217;s now trying to be a class warrior against : Summation of the video: Elizabeth Warren talks a good game, but she was involved in TARP, in a supervisory role &#8211; so if people don&#8217;t like the way that TARP unfolded, blame her . The ad alludes to the way that Warren sucked up to the Chamber of Commerce in order to try to get support to be made the formal head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Moving away from the ad: Warren also tried that with the 2010 crop of freshmen House Republicans , with about the same amount of success. On the other hand, Warren did manage to put into place the man who would eventually succeed her as chief CFPB bureaucrat&#8230; one Raj Date , former executive at Capital One and Deutsche Bank. All in all, this is all pretty standard, somewhat interchangeable Washington insider (Democratic edition) stuff from Warren. Nothing special, alas. Now, at this point somebody&#8217;s going to complain that Warren was critical of the TARP program when she was (honestly, not very effectively) overseeing it. To which the only necessary response is a shrug and the observation that Lefty radicals typically break down into two types: those who believe that the system is damaged, and needs repair; and those who believe that the system is broken, and needs replacement. Elizabeth Warren was fine when she was timidly taking the first position on TARP; but now that she&#8217;s brassily taking the second&#8230; well, it&#8217;s not Crossroads GPS&#8217;s fault that the woman voluntarily became part of the System and now wants to pretend that she wasn&#8217;t. Revolution isn&#8217;t a part-time business, Elizabeth. Anyway, all of this apparently upset Ms. Warren in that special way that is reserved for academic lefties who suddenly discover that the real world actually scores your performance , not your intentions &#8211; so she lashed back out at Karl Rove . No, not because Karl Rove&#8217;s a standard, if somewhat dated, devil figure among the American academic left&#8230; well, not just because of that. It&#8217;s also because Elizabeth Warren apparently thinks that &#8220;Karl Rove was part of the inner circle when President Bush pushed for TARP bailouts.&#8221; &#8221; Inner circle.&#8221; Oh, my. In point of fact, by the time that the financial crisis/TARP bailouts rolled around &#8211; which is to say, the late summer of 2008 &#8211; Karl Rove had been out of the Bush administration for over a year and was acting as a political commentator. In fact, I have been looking around for a couple of days, and I am not finding any real indication that Karl Rove was involved in the TARP bailout at all &#8211; or, at least, not involved from the inside. Which is of course not something that you can say about Warren. Now, I get that Elizabeth Warren would very much like people to hear the word &#8216;TARP&#8217; and not immediately associate it with her drawing a six figure salary off of&#8230; well, I&#8217;m sure that she did something while she was there, although I couldn&#8217;t begin to tell you what it was. And I&#8217;m equally sure that Warren would like the radicals sullenly buzzing around her cronies in the Democratic Establishment to become happy little worker bees for her campaign &#8211; and never mind that the woman&#8217;s annual salary lately easily puts her in 1% territory. So I understand the need to distance Elizabeth Warren v. 2011 from Elizabeth Warren v. 2008. But&#8230; can we have a little basic accuracy, here? Not checking to see when Karl Rove resigned from the White House is not quite at Martha Coakley-levels of basic campaign idiocy, but you can see her house from there. Moe Lane ( crosspost ) ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/11/elizabeth-warren%e2%80%99s-inaccurate-karl-rove-whining/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>GOProud’s Outing of Rick Perry Pollster Tony Fabrizio Backfires, Outs Them Instead</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/09/goproud%e2%80%99s-outing-of-rick-perry-pollster-tony-fabrizio-backfires-outs-them-instead/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/09/goproud%e2%80%99s-outing-of-rick-perry-pollster-tony-fabrizio-backfires-outs-them-instead/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Dec 2011 04:45:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>DixiePeters</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barbara Boxer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chamber of Commerce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bullies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fabrizio]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[goproud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[governor-perry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reprehensible]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tony fabrizio]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[twitter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[whether-or-not]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/09/goproud%e2%80%99s-outing-of-rick-perry-pollster-tony-fabrizio-backfires-outs-them-instead/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Earlier this week, Governor Perry released a campaign ad which contained a line about gays being able to serve in the military, but children not being allowed to pray in schools. The theme of the ad was ending President Obama&#8217;s &#8216;war on religion.&#8217;  It was, of course,  met with the usual and expected responses from various quarters. I&#8217;m not going to defend nor bash the ad; it&#8217;s neither here nor there to me. What I found most disturbing, and most telling, was GOProud&#8217;s reprehensible, bullying and bigoted response to the ad. A report surfaced that Governor Perry&#8217;s Chief Pollster, Tony Fabrizio, was opposed to the ad. GOProud jumped on that and ran all the way to Vileville with it, exposing their belief that all gay people must think the same way. Granted I&#8217;m one of those icky breeders, but I&#8217;m fairly certain that gay people are, you know, individuals . With thoughts and beliefs of their very own.  Not so, according to GOProud! Stray too far, and we will shame you into lockstep! You see, in the midst of a stompy foot temper tantrum, GOProud&#8217;s true colors came out &#8211; and the colors are so not fabulous: Between updates he made on his Twitter feed and an interview he gave to The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein, the co-founder and executive director of the gay GOP group GOProud, Jimmy LaSalvia, appears to be claiming that Rick Perry’s top pollster Tony Fabrizio is gay &#8212; and using an ugly antigay slur to describe him&#8230;. Reached for comment and offered to appear on my radio progam to discuss the comments, LaSaliva passed, saying that what he said to Stein said enough and that he didn’t want to &#8220;play in the outing sandbox.&#8221; Um. You can&#8217;t say that you don&#8217;t want to &#8216;play in the outing sandbox&#8217; while playing in the outing sandbox . Further, the anti-gay slur appeared on his twitter feed and is pictured below: He followed that up with a tweet confirming that he &#8220; was talking about Rick Perry&#8217;s pollster/strategist .&#8221; He reaffirmed both today , including his use of the F word which I can now only assume is fair game, as it has been GOProud Approved &#8482;. Not content with just putting themselves in identity politics-laden boxes, they decided to &#8216;out&#8217;  Tony Fabrizio in a contemptible attempt to force him into the box they made for him. This is a typical Leftist tactic and one that cannot be tolerated by, or on, the Right. Make no mistake; what GOProud did is  a typical leftist tactic. &#8216;Outing&#8217; is used as some sort of brave action defending the &#8216;gay community&#8217;, for which the outers pat selves on back for being so true to the cause &#8482; and exposing the alleged &#8216;hypocrisy&#8217; of the outees. But there is no hypocrisy! One can be gay and also be opposed to gay marriage or the repeal of DADT, for example. That is allowed; people have this pesky habit of thinking for themselves. So, in actuality the bullying &#8216;outing&#8217; tactic is in no way honorable; it is simply disgusting, nasty, vindictive and super assy. The sole intent is to attempt to shame and marginalize those who don&#8217;t bow to a liberal agenda and stray too far from the plantation (just as they constantly try to sexualize or dehumanize conservative women ). See, even the slightest hint that gay people don&#8217;t all think and believe the same things is a danger to the Left, much like how they believe all African-Americans should think the same. Remember Barbara Boxer, Ma&#8217;am questioning Harry Alford , the chair of the National Black Chamber of Commerce and being all &#8216;but&#8230; but &#8230; the NAACP disagrees! How can you not think the same as they do?!&#8221; She was shocked and in disbelief that he could possibly disagree with the NAACP and the 100 Black Men of Atlanta. How can this be? This does not suit! All y&#8217;all must think the same &#8211; race politics are our bread and butter! Or when Harry Reid was flabbergasted at the very thought of a Hispanic being a Republican. Harry Reid is someone whose ivory tower should be padded. He said &#8220;I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican. ” Think independently?! Unheard of. In the same way, gay activists, liberal and faux-conservative alike, want people to believe that political ideology and sexuality are somehow magically and permanently tied together and cannot be separated. One&#8217;s sexuality must dictate  whether or not one believes in gay marriage legislation, repeal of DADT and the like. The same way that a fancy womb must dictate whether or not one is pro-abortion (you are gender traitor if you disagree). Outing is the blackmail and &#8216;punishment&#8217; for not toeing this revolting line. And it&#8217;s disgusting. It&#8217;s vile when the Left does it and it&#8217;s even more vile when an alleged Right group does it. I&#8217;ve supported GOProud in the past and this greatly disappoints me. It would have been one thing had GOProud simply denounced the ad. I would have expected that, even if it had shown them to be a one-note organization. That&#8217;s to be expected with identity politics groups. It&#8217;s kind of the purpose of  organizations founded upon some sort of group identity, no matter how forcefully such groups try to proclaim &#8211; or even try  to be  - otherwise. But they didn&#8217;t stop there and they&#8217;ve supported similar bullying tactics before. They support Human Rights Campaign and their gestapo tactics against Cleta Mitchell , wherein they are going after her law firm for daring to have an attorney at their firm who is openly against gay marriage. Funny how *some* people aren&#8217;t supposed to be &#8220; living openly and honestly &#8220;, huh? You know, this is not the way to make nice-nice and convince people that you are right on an issue. All they&#8217;ve done is engaged in a circle of jerks smugly back patting &#8211; we expose the supposed hypocrisy of men who dare to be both gay and socially conservative! Or who even just work for someone who is. But, in reality, all they&#8217;ve exposed is the reprehensible tactics of gay activists and the Left. Which is, evidently, redundant. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/09/goproud%e2%80%99s-outing-of-rick-perry-pollster-tony-fabrizio-backfires-outs-them-instead/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>David Brooks: Wrong on Regulations</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/07/david-brooks-wrong-on-regulations/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/07/david-brooks-wrong-on-regulations/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2011 19:06:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Cougar01</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chamber of Commerce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unemployment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brooks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[financial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[from-the-center]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[homes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[labor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marketplace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[product]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulatory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[small-business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[winter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[workers-or-more]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/07/david-brooks-wrong-on-regulations/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ [Posted by Karl] In his latest column, David Brooks argues that Obama&#8217;s regulations aren&#8217;t crushing jobs and the economy.  However, to reach that conclusion, he has to engage in a lot of single-entry accounting. Brooks relies on a report from the Center for Progressive Reforms (gee, I wonder what ideology might be at work here) to note that &#8220;Obama has certainly not shut corporate-types out of the regulatory process.&#8221;  Incidentally, the thrust of the CPR report is to claim that regulatory policy is driven more by raw politics under Obama than it was under George W. Bush &#8212; a conclusion Brooks prefers to overlook.  But the big flaw is the subtext that regulatory capture somehow means that the resulting regulations do not hurt businesses or the economy.  I would suggest the prior regulatory regime for the financial and housing sectors ultimately proved disastrous to the economy and employment (lefties and righties would have some different culprits for this, of course).  More generally, the entire history of progressivism is marked by regulatory capture in which big businesses extract competitive advantage over small business. That Brooks does not understand the effect of regulations on small business is evident here, too: The Bureau of Labor Statistics asks companies why they have laid off workers. Only 13 percent said regulations were a major factor. That number has not increased in the past few years. According to the bureau, roughly 0.18 percent of the mass layoffs in the first half of 2011 were attributable to regulations. There are a number of flaws with this argument: The first problem is that economic hardship does not come with labels. Employers know if their costs are rising, but not necessarily whether it is due to new burdens imposed on their suppliers or other factors. They may know that they did not obtain the capital they needed, but not whether it was because investors had better opportunities or because of government financial rules. They will know if demand has slumped, but it is not so clear whether it was because their product is valued less by the marketplace or because government rules choked off demand from customers. Despite the orderly and specific categories provided by the BLS, the real-world causes are likely to be mixed, rather than fit neatly into one column or another. *** The BLS figures are also incomplete, including only mass layoffs of 50 workers or more at a time. Those are the layoffs that make headlines, but such mass layoffs are only a small part of the job-loss picture. Many, if not most, layoffs affect fewer than 50 workers at a time. Most small businesses, in fact, do not even have 50 employees in total. In contrast, according to Gallup , small business owners are most likely to say complying with government regulations is the most important problem facing them today.  On top of that 22%, another 5% cite &#8220;new healthcare policy&#8221; and another 9% cite &#8220;poor leadership/government/president.&#8221;  Similarly, a Chamber of Commerce survey found small business owners still find economic uncertainty to be their most-pressing concern (53%), but also worry about uncertainty from what Washington will do next (39%), and the healthcare law (33%).  Nor does Brooks take into account the degree to which policy uncertainty creates a drag on small business hiring, particularly during the Obama administration. Brooks also claims that &#8220;industries that are the subject of the new rules, like energy and health care, have actually been doing the most hiring.&#8221;  Here again, Brooks seems ignorant of the product of regulatory capture and government that believes in the broken windows theory of economics.  Promoting the hiring of paper-shufflers to meet regulations that depress the creation of more productive jobs is no way to help the economy. And yet Brooks, being Brooks, buries this mid-column: Over all, the Obama administration has significantly increased the regulatory costs imposed on the economy. But this is a difference of degree, not of kind. I&#8217;m sure that&#8217;s very encouraging to the unemployed, including those who have completely dropped out of the labor pool.  Maybe they can get through the winter by insulating their homes with copies of the Federal Register. &#8211;Karl ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/07/david-brooks-wrong-on-regulations/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

