SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sully- who wrote (70535)3/25/2009 4:23:44 PM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 90947
 
House Republicans' Housing Plan

David Freddoso
The Corner

They unveiled it this morning here on the Hill. Here are what I find to be the most interesting provisions — and frankly, I can't see any reason why Obama couldn't adopt some or all of them.

1. A $5,000 tax credit for people who refinance their homes. This is designed to help people who are in trouble making their monthly mortgage payments.

2. A $15,000 credit for homebuyers who put more than 5 percent down. This gives homebuyers an incentive to put some skin in the game when they purchase a home.

3. Extends the real estate capital gains tax exemption not just to primary residences, but to investment properties as well. "If you invest in your neighborhood," said Rep. Kevin Brady, "then we'll invest in you."

Despite having presented a wide variety of ideas', the House Republicans' economic working group has not seen any of its ideas adopted by the Obama administration. I asked Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R) about this, and he conceded that cooperation goes only as far as Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) wants it to go. "The legislation is here in the House," he said.

But the President of the United States can propose anything he likes. He can even start governing in a bi-partisan fashion, if he wants to.

corner.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (70535)3/25/2009 4:51:48 PM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 90947
 
    Organized labor is not dead in America, nor should it be. 
But it’s simply not as important as it once was, because
the government has an alphabet soup of agencies dedicated
to protecting the rights of workers. Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act, OSHA, and the Family and Medical Leave Act make
the need for unions far less acute.
    This is good news for workers, especially liberals, but 
it’s bad news for unions because they need grievances to
grow (and the Democrats need unions).

Labor’s ‘Card Check’ Tricks

They’re not workers with a vote, they’re marks.

By Jonah Goldberg
National Review Online

At the end of the 19th century, unsuspecting workers were “shanghaied” — a practice originated in that Chinese city — to work on British ships, which desperately needed the labor. All manner of tricks were used to hoodwink the poor souls into service at sea. According to one legend, press gangs, or “crimps,” would put a coin — “the king’s shilling” — in a man’s drink. If the mark drank the ale only to see the coin at the bottom of an empty glass, it was too late and he was a member of the Royal Navy.

The proposed Employee Free Choice Act, colloquially known as “card check,” might be better named “The Democrats’ Shilling Act.”
It would radically revise the National Labor Relations Act, primarily by diluting the practice of requiring workers to vote for unionization via an election with a secret ballot, and by changing the rules by which a government official can force labor rules on employers — making the choice to unionize less free. Basically, under card check, labor can unionize a company’s employees if 50 percent of workers sign a card saying they want to unionize. The cards can be signed in the presence of others, including union organizers.

Indeed, the press gangs prefer it that way.

There is a bloody spin war over whether card check abolishes the secret ballot or not. Pro-card-check forces insist that it doesn’t. Unfortunately, these voices include many mainstream reporters who consistently use the language preferred by Big Labor. They parrot the labor line that if 30 percent of workers sign a card asking for an election, they can have one.

But this ignores the unions’ crimp tactics. For starters, the cards are written in ways that make “predatory lending” mortgages seem like paragons of full disclosure.

The National Right to Work website shows an example of such a card. In big, bold letters on top, it says “Request for Employees Representation Election.” But after you fill out the relevant info, there’s the small print, authorizing the Teamsters to “represent me in all negotiations of wages, hours and working conditions.”

In other words, in many cases, workers who think they’re just voting for an election are in fact voting for unionization. The unions make it as difficult as possible to do the former without also doing the latter. Check a card, find the king’s shilling.

Also, if the number of cards is over 30 percent but below 50 percent, there still isn’t an election unless the organizers — not the workers — want it.

As Mickey Kaus, a one-man blogging crusader against card check, wrote, “No individual worker will know if his signed card will provide the 31 percent plurality or the 51 percent majority. Only the organizers know this. You could sign the card intending to provoke an election and discover that you actually prevented an election. There’s no way for ordinary workers to reliably game the system in order to ‘choose’ a secret ballot.”

Translation: They’re not workers with a vote, they’re marks.

“Since when is the secret ballot a basic tenet of democracy?” Teamsters president James Hoffa asked recently. “Town meetings in New England are as democratic as they come, and they don’t use the secret ballot. Elections in the Soviet Union were by secret ballot, but those weren’t democratic.”

It’s a funny argument primarily because it’s so stupid. But it’s particularly funny coming from the son of Jimmy Hoffa, who acted more like a KGB election monitor than a member of New England’s democracy-loving yeoman citizenry. Hoffa the Elder made his name beating up — and much, much worse — anyone who stood in the way of the Teamsters, including other unions. Today’s unions are less Mobbed-up than those of yesteryear to be sure, but they’re hardly above tactics that would be considered intimidating and coercive at a Connecticut school-board meeting.

Besides, if card check is no threat to the secret ballot, why is Hoffa kneecapping the latter?

Organized labor is not dead in America, nor should it be. But it’s simply not as important as it once was, because the government has an alphabet soup of agencies dedicated to protecting the rights of workers. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, OSHA, and the Family and Medical Leave Act make the need for unions far less acute.

This is good news for workers, especially liberals, but it’s bad news for unions because they need grievances to grow (and the Democrats need unions). In a recent Rasmussen poll, only 9 percent of nonunion workers who responded wanted to belong to a union. That’s quite a referendum.

The response from labor and the Democrats? If they won’t join, shanghai them.


— Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and the author of Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.

© 2009 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

article.nationalreview.com