What Is It with Massachusettes Governors and Armored Vehicles? There are actually some reasons to vote for Mitt Romney in this year’s GOP Primaries. I don’t personally find them compelling, and have endorsed one of Gov. Romney’s opponents. I admire the man’s ability to manage large projects and he does know how an executive office works. Voting for Mitt Romney may not be my personal predilection, but it isn’t quite as pointless as wearing a rally cap or tossing maidens down a well for good luck. People have also offered sales pitches on Romney’s behalf that are about as believable as SpongeBob Squarepants discovering the Higgs Boson. One of the sadder aspects of Mitt Romney’s mild ride this year has been watching people I have deemed intellectually powerful perform about as well at ratiocination as my little boy’s favorite cartoon character would at advancing particle physics. When Jonah Goldberg of National Review Magazine wrote The Case For Romney about a week ago, I remembered what outstanding work he had done in the past, and therefore delayed this post until it could age a bit and marinate. I felt I owed him a better expression of my angst than “WTF?” Goldberg states the hypothesis that Mitt Romney would make a great president for Conservatives because he would owe us. He states the following: …there is an instrumental case to be made for him: It is better to have a president who owes you than to have one who claims to own you…..If elected, Romney must follow through for conservatives and honor his vows to repeal Obamacare, implement Representative Paul Ryan’s agenda, and stay true to his pro-life commitments. Oh my! Is that really so? When he was Governor of Massachusetts, how did he repay all the Republicans he owed up there? Romneycare? Was it the complete and utter destruction of the state’s GOP infrastructure and popularity in his wake? Martha Coakley has done far more to help Republicans win high office in Massachusetts than Mitt Romney. Jonah Goldberg tries to explain why Mitt Romney doesn’t quite gel with Middle Class and Working Class Conservative voters. He makes Romney sound like the slightly nerdy white guy sitting around studying mathematics problems in Southside Richmond, VA. Romney doesn’t dislike these people as much as he doesn’t grok their folkways quite, and can’t make himself look authentic. I think this dramatically understates Mitt Romney’s problems with Conservative voters. To Governor Romney, Southern and Mid-Western Social Conservatives are like Dustin Hoffman’s character in the great Western Little Big Man was to the Cheyenne Indians who rescued him from death. Mitt Romney doesn’t even subconsciously believe he comes from the same species. The word Cheyenne, when translated literally, means “human being.” Those who were not Cheyenne were considered something else. Mitt Romney, I’ve come to sincerely believe, considers those not from his own rather isolated Cheyenne Village to be something else. It explains how he could even accidently articulate the fact that he doesn’t worry about the very poor. He’s willing to be nice to people like myself, but it’s not like he’ll any more use for me after Election Day than he would for a prophylactic after an act of sexual intercourse. I couldn’t make Mitt Romney understand who I am and where I come from even if he was really bored one afternoon and decide to amuse himself by actually giving a rat’s anus. There simply isn’t any way on God’s Green Earth that Mitt Romney would ever afford me the status of someone he would actually owe something to. If I ever were presumptuous enough to suggest such a thing it would serve as a profound affront to his self-image and dignity. Like Ann Coulter in the wake of her “THREE CHEERS FOR ROMNEYCARE” debacle and the Massachusetts GOP, anyone foolish enough to believe Mitt Romney owed them something in return for a vote would quickly discover the finite limits of Lord Willard’s sense of noblesse oblige. Some reasons actually exist to support to support Mitt Romney for President. One or two of them might even be worthwhile. However, any sense that he feels a bond of honor to movement Conservatism is simply delusional. I look back at all the great, wise and hilarious things Jonah Goldberg has written for National Review Magazine. This body of superb political commentary gives me reason to hope this endorsement he penned of Mitt Romney was just the lower tail of his Bell Curve. Jonah, for the sake of your honor as a man of intellect; climb down from the Mitt Romney Tank.
See the rest here:
Vote For Romney Because He’ll Owe Us?….Seriously?
If you’ve ever wanted to hang out with the next President of the United States, you’ll have your chance this weekend at D.C.’s Marriott Wardman Park Hotel. The three top candidates for the Republican nomination — former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum — will speak Friday at the 39th Conservative Political Action Conference . Sarah Palin will give the final keynote speech on Saturday and, if that’s not enough to excite your interest, the protesters from “Occupy DC” have promised to show up and keep things lively. On their website , Occupy DC vows “non-violent resistance” at this year’s CPAC, aiming to “make this a conference the attendees will never forget.” And Occupy DC calls CPAC “a who’s who of dastardly politicians… another gathering of bigots, media mouthpieces, corrupt politicians, and their 1 percent elite puppet masters,” who will “attempt to perpetuate the radical right wing’s imperialist ideologies… pursuing its racist, sexist, patriarchal and exploitative agenda.” Indeed, this is exactly what my friends and I have in mind when CPAC convenes Thursday. In between attending speeches, seminar panels and cocktail parties — where our “elite puppet masters” will exhort us to perpetuate their “imperialist ideologies” — we’ll make occasional visits to the Marriott lobby, hoping to catch an entertaining glimpse of the clashes between police and smelly hippies from the Occupy DC encampments. What could be more fun than watching left-wing scum getting tased, pepper-sprayed and hauled away in handcuffs by the Metropolitan Police? CPAC is, as I have called it, ” Mardi Gras for the Right ,” a three-day annual festival celebrating everything conservatives hold dear, including free-market capitalism. And it is entirely fitting that this year’s CPAC should be held at the posh Marriott Wardman Park, considering that two heirs to the Marriott fortune are among the billionaires who have donated money to Republican “super PACs.” Alas, the Marriott brothers are supporting Romney, but we won’t begrudge them that while we party with our friends in the VIP suites, gazing down from the balconies — champagne glasses in hand — at the Occupy DC protesters waving signs, chanting slogans and shivering in the cold on the sidewalks behind the police barricades. The conference annually attracts thousands of conservative activists from all over the country. Officials are hesitant to predict this year’s total attendance. CPAC spokeswoman Kristy Campbell said Tuesday that advance registrations are on track for a 20 percent increase over last year’s conference, which was the biggest ever. The first-ever CPAC appearance by Palin is certain to be a favorite event for many attendees. “We’re thrilled to host the governor,” said Campbell, noting that “logistical issues” had prevented Palin’s attendance in previous years. And the ongoing presidential campaign also adds a special element of excitement to this year’s conference. “I think, if you just look at where we are with the primary season… if you look at Friday, that’s really going to be a day to highlight the conservative alternatives to Barack Obama,” Campbell said of the three Republican candidates who will address CPAC. Campbell added that while a fourth candidate, Texas Rep. Ron Paul, was unable to attend because of a scheduling conflict, he will be represented by his son, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul. The CPAC stage will also feature former presidential candidates Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, and Atlanta businessman Herman Cain. In addition to the presidential candidates, conference attendees will also hear from a long list of Republican congressional luminaries, including South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner, as well as the Republican governors of Virginia, Florida, Louisiana, and Wisconsin. There will also be speeches and seminar presentations by many leading conservative columnists, authors, talk-radio hosts and TV personalities including Ann Coulter, Andrew Breitbart, Laura Ingraham, Michael Medved, Craig Shirley, Oliver North, Jonah Goldberg, S.E. Cupp, Cal Thomas, Dana Loesch, Rich Lowry, Ed Morrissey, Matt Lewis, Roger Hedgecock, Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson and Dinesh D’Souza. The American Spectator ‘s own Jeffrey Lord will appear on a Thursday morning panel discussion of “The Future of the Conservative Movement,” and indeed, the future of the movement will be in heavy attendance at CPAC. “Every year we hold a job fair for young conservatives… a lot of people come here hoping to break into politics,” Campbell said, noting that student passes for the conference are only $35. “More than half of the attendees who come to CPAC every year are students. This is a great opportunity for students to come out and get involved.” Consider this ironic contrast: While conservative students who aspire to careers in politics will be inside CPAC attending job fairs and hearing paeans to the glories of free-market capitalism, outside the conference the left-wing protesters from “Occupy DC” will be complaining about economic woes they blame on what they call “another gathering of bigots.” But what really annoys the Occupiers, I suspect, is their envious belief that the right-wingers at CPAC are having lots of fun. And in that belief, at least, they are absolutely correct.
Continue reading here:
The Best CPAC Ever
Wisconsin, the birthplace of the American socialist movement and the first state to allow public employees to unionize, has a blunt conservative governor named Scott Walker who has become a familiar face in the national spotlight. Walker, who signed Republican-backed legislation last year to eliminate most public sector unions’ abilities to collectively bargain while requiring employees to start contributing to their pensions (5.8% of their salaries, on average) and double their health care premium (12.4% of their salaries), has balanced a budget that started with a $3.6 billion deficit. So far, the modest changes in state law are working. For example, Walker’s reforms allow schools to take private bids on health care insurance, saving schools hundreds of dollars per pupil. In addition, school districts have been able to implement performance-based payment systems, which has saved hundreds of teachers from being laid off. For his efforts, Walker now faces a recall effort. Supporters recently filed more than 1 million signatures (twice as many as required). Walker will now be forced to defend himself in a special election. According to Democratic and Republican Party officials, the spending on the recall by both sides is expected to total $100 million. That does not include $9 million in processing and software costs to taxpayers, according to estimates from the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, the agency tasked with verifying petitions. This week, the MacIver Institute informs TAS , the agency failed to fulfill its promise to post the signed petitions online for inspection, which will only encourage additional expensive legal battles. Thanks to Wisconsin law that allows political committees to raise unlimited funds for recall campaigns, Walker last month added an impressive $5.1 million added to a $12 war chest built up since January of last year. A notable $500,000 donor is Texas homebuilder Bob Perry, a conservative activist and major funder of 527s, such as American Crossroads and the Club for Growth. Recalls in Wisconsin have been permitted since 1926, but only four were held until last year. In an August special election, Democrats and outside union groups spent $44 million trying to recall six state senators. They succeeded only in removing two of them, and thus failed to win back a majority in the state senate. Now, with labor unions making it a high priority to spend heavily in Wisconsin, Democratic consultants are concerned about using so many resources just months before the 2012 general election. Gov. Walker, seeing the political challenges ahead, is proposing a major income tax cut, but he has backed off supporting right-to-work legislation of the sort that has just passed in Indiana. His approval number is at 51% (higher than President Obama’s 47% in Wisconsin), and Democrats are yet to find a strong, well-known candidate to challenge him. Former Senator Russ Feingold was the most popular name floated as a potential opponent, but he is not interested. Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk announced her candidacy in mid-January, but has a record of defeat and extreme-left views. Likely candidates Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett and former Rep. David Obey, according to a recent Marquette Law School poll, trail Walker 50-44 and 49-43 percent, respectively. And State Senator Tim Cullen, a candidate who’s won the backing of the increasingly RINO-ish Republican Senate candidate, former Governor Tommy Thompson, also trails 50-40. Walker faces an additional problem: a widening corruption investigation stemming from his tenure as Milwaukee County executive, which has led to the arrest of some of his former top aides. Although Walker himself is not under suspicion, former deputy chief of staff Tim Russell faces embezzlement charges involving more than $21,000 from a nonprofit Walker asked him to run. During the investigation, Russell’s domestic partner Brian Pierick, who has donated $250 to Walker, was charged with a felony child enticement after seized phones and computers showed him trying to lure young children into his van. In addition, prosecutors have charged former aid Kevin Kavanaugh with stealing $43,232 in donations while serving as treasurer of the local Military Order of the Purple Heart. Democrats will certainly make political hay as more details emerge from the investigation that is being led Milwaukee County district attorney John Chistholm, a Democrat. It remains to be seen how badly the corruption investigation will hurt Walker’s chances. But it is clear that the outcome of recall election will set the tone for the rest of the country as states continue to wrestle with the interests of unions and serious fiscal crises.
Follow this link:
Total Recall
Having spent nearly a decade as a former union representative and activist (aka “union thug”) in a Right-to-Work state, it has been interesting to discuss and watch the activities and debates over the Right-to-Work battles occuring within the various states. Having been on both sides of the labor-management equation, it’s easy to see the two sides of the coin—the pluses and the minuses—that come into play with Right to Work legislation. However, since Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels signed Right-to-Work legislation on Wednesday, making the Hoosier State the nation’s 23rd Right-to-Work state and, coincidentally, Ohio’s Attorney General approved language that will allow a Ron Paul supporter and Tea Party consultant to use his “ Ohioans for Workplace Freedom ” to gather signatures to put Right-to-Work legislation on Ohio’s November ballot, perhaps it’s time we explore what’s right and what’s wrong with Right to Work. What is Right-to-Work? First, for those unfamiliar with Right-to-Work laws, it is easy to be misled by the hyperbole often thrown around (mostly by unions and their allies) that Right-to-Work has anything to do with anything other than the collection of union dues. It doesn’t. Very simply, Right-to-Work laws outlaw a union’s ability to require employees to pay union dues (or agency fees) as a condition of employment. In states without Right-to-Work laws (known as Non-Right-to-Work states ), it is legal for a company and a union to agree to a contract that requires every employee in the bargaining unit to pay dues or be fired . For a union, the ability to collect union dues is the lifeblood of the union; it is how unions function, it is how they get paid. Therefore, the inability to require dues for their services (whether good or bad) threatens their very existence which is why, very often, unions in Non-Right-to-Work states will strike over their ability to collect dues . As importantly, it should be noted that, since Right-to-Work laws only came about as a result of the 1947 Taft-Hartley Amendments to the National Labor Relations Act, Right-to-Work laws apply only to companies and employees covered under the NLRA . They do not apply, for example, to airline and railroad companies and employees, since they are covered under the Railway Labor Act. This is why airline workers in Texas (or any other Right-to-Work state) can be required to pay union dues as a condition of employment. Note: Even in Non-Right-to-Work states, it is possible to removed forced dues from a union contract through a ‘ Deauthorization Election .’ The Union Argument. For unions, there is a legitimate issue that arises with Right-to-Work laws and that is the requirement to represent so-called “free loaders”—those employees who pay nothing to the union, but are “entitled” to union representation as well as “enjoy” (or suffer ) the union-negotiated wages and benefits. This, however, is part of the problem with the foundation of the National Labor Relations Act. Since the enactment of both the RLA and NLRA, unions have been granted “ monopoly bargaining power ” privileges, or the ability (or right) to represent entire bargaining units (even those who don’t want the union). However, this fundamental problem cannot be addressed unless federal labor laws are entirely re-written or eliminated. The double-edged sword of monopoly bargaining power is that unions in Right-to-Work states are required to represent non-members as well as well as dues-paying members. To a union representative, it is frustrating to have a “free loader” demand a grievance be filed on his behalf over something as benign as a vending machine continually being broken and taking his money, all the while knowing that this individual will never join the union or pay union dues, not out of ideology, but because he is cheap. [Yes, this actually happened .] The Upside of Right to Work. The economic impact of enacting Right-to-Work laws has been largely beneficial to those states as they do attract more business and incomes do rise. In that regard, because there is less union density in Right-to-Work states, unions decrying the fact that Right-to-Work entices companies to leave Non-Right-to-Work states is accurate. In Indiana’s case, according to one study : …if Indiana had adopted such a law in 1977, by 2008 per capita income would have been $2,925 higher—equating to $11,700 higher for a family of four. Another way to put it: Indiana’s personal income in 2008 would have been $241.9 billion, 8.4 percent more than the actual $223.2 billion. Nearly $19 billion in annual income was lost because of Indiana’s lack of a right to work law. Related: Right to Work States Benefit From Faster Growth, Higher Real Purchasing Power – 2011 Update Just as importantly, unions in Non-Right-to-Work states often use union dues to fund political activities to elect anti-business politicians [mostly Democrats] who, in turn, chase more businesses away by creating more burdensome regulations and higher taxes. Ironically, the more unions are successful in Non-Right-to-Work states, the more it hurts them by making “union states” less attractive to business investment and, as a result, less jobs are created (if not lost). [See California , for example.] The Downside to Right-to-Work. While Right-to-Work laws do have real economic benefits, unionized workplaces in those states are often rife with division between union dues payers and non-members. Very often, non-members in those workplaces are subject to harassment or harangued by union members and, occasionally, a “bounty” is placed upon them by union officials to try to get members to sign up non-members. In the 80s, our union paid between $15 and $25 per new member, although other unions pay more today. Legislative Action Vs. Ballot Initiative With Indiana’s passage of Right-to-Work legislation yesterday, the Hoosier State’s AFL-CIO boss, Nancy Guyott, shouted from the Statehouse steps , “We’ll take our state back, one citizen at a time! You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.” It is worthwhile to note this because, in Indiana’s case, the Right-to-Work legislation was passed over and above the tantrums of union-bought Democrats. During the fight inside the Statehouse, union-bought Democrats attempted to have Right-to-Work placed on the ballot in November. The purpose of this effort was simple. Union-bought Democrats like to ignore the fact that the United States is a Republican-form of Democracy. If given the opportunity to have Right-to-Work placed on November’s ballot, unions would spend tens of millions of their members’ money on deceptive advertising to defeat the legislation, as well as to turn out votes for Barack Obama and against “those evil Republicans.” In effect, it is running two campaigns for the price of one. This brings us back to Ohio. Ron Paul supporter and Tea Party consultant Chris Littleton is spearheading an effort to put Right-to-Work on Ohio’s November ballot. If successful in getting enough signatures to have the initiative placed on the ballot, Littleton and his compadres will likely do nothing more than ensure an Obama victory in Ohio. With unions collecting more than $8 billion per year in union dues, no amount of money Littleton can raise will be enough to outspend the unions on the issue Right-to-Work—as evidenced by the recent fight over SB5 (Issue 2) in November. In fact, union bosses and Democrats are likely hoping for Littleton to get enough signatures to put Right-to-Work on the ballot. [Don't be too surprised if unions, either directly or indirectly through third-party operatives, quietly encourage people to sign the petitions.] Once Right-to-Work is on the ballot, unions can turn Ohio into World War IV (again). Regardless of the amount of money Littleton and his associates may make from putting Right-to-Work on Ohio’s ballot, his efforts put the rest of the nation at risk of seeing Barack Obama win Ohio and, as a result, likely re-election. This is something that, hopefully, even Littleton’s presidential pick, Ron Paul, would see the practical ramifications of avoiding if it meant putting Obama back in the White House for four more years. Even though Ron Paul has been cagey on stating he would not run as a third-party candidate, his son, Rand Paul, has stated that it would be impractical, knowing that it would ensure an Obama victory. Hopefully, his Ohio supporters are as practical in that regard when it comes to placing Right-to-Work on November’s Ohio ballot. As the saying goes: “Pick battles big enough to matter, small enough to win.” Or, in the case of Ohio, another way to put this is: Forego the battle for now, if it helps you win the war later. With the nation nearing $16 trillion in debt and owing $117 trillion in unfunded liabilities, despite the legislature in Indiana winning Right to Work, putting a Right-to-Work initiative in Ohio is not worth the risk. Not now. Not this year. Related: Right-to-Work is a Bandaid ‘Collective Bargaining’ is Compulsory Bargaining __________________ “I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776 Cross-posted on LaborUnionReport.com
Read the original:
A Former Union Thug’s Take On Right-to-Work: What’s Right & What’s Not…
At the risk of beating a dead horse, there are two other items from Ann Coulter’s pro-Romneycare column that require a response. Coulter contends, “What went wrong with Romneycare wasn’t a problem in the bill, but a problem in Massachusetts: Democrats.” We heard a version of this argument when Congress passed the Medicare prescription drug benefit under George W. Bush — the original Bush proposal was better than the final product. But in both cases, Bush and Romney decided to sign the finished product into law with great fanfare. They both accepted credit for the programs as major legislative accomplishments. You can’t take credit for these bills without accepting the blame too. In the case of Romneycare, while it is true that the Democrats pushed some details to the left, the basic architecture of the plan — mandates, subsidies, government-run exchanges, and expanded Medicaid — were all in the original proposal backed by the governor. The final product didn’t differ in kind from Romney’s proposal, though it did to some extent by degree. And Romney had already decided not to run for reelection, thus leaving the plan’s implementation totally up to Democrats. “Romney, incidentally, has always said his plan would be a bad idea nationally,” Coulter writes. But that’s not entirely clear from his repeated references to the Massachusetts plan as a national model. Romney also predicted , erroneously, that most states in the nation would end up with his mandate-driven approach. Jonathan Gruber, a liberal scholar who helped design both Romneycare and Obamacare, favored federal mandates. The Heritage scholars Coulter cites were originally supporters of the federal mandate. (Many of them have renounced their support; see this op-ed from the oft-Coulter-quoted Bob Moffit who called “operationally ineffective and legally defective.” The point here isn’t to vilify Coulter, a fine columnist, or even Romney. Romney should be defended from attacks from his left. The point is avoid consolidating liberal policy gains by a.) engaging in revisionist history to let our favorite Republican co-conspirators off the hook, b.) making arguments that will make the reversal of those gains much more difficult, and c.) turning serious constitutional and policy differences into partisan squabbling.
More here:
Romneycare is the Democrats’ Fault
