Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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: Peter Dierks who wrote (77758)	2/21/2010 1:53:07 AM
From: Sully-	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Are unions responsible for stimulus failures? By: Mark Hemingway Commentary Staff Writer 02/19/10 5:38 PM EST Yesterday, I noted that the Department of Energy's plan to use $5 billion in stimulus cash to weatherize homes has been a big floperoo -- so far only 9,100 homes have been weatherized with stimulus cash at a cost of -- this is not a typo -- $57,362 per home. The Government Accountability Office blames "red tape" for the problem, or more specifically, dealing with prevailing wage laws. But Mickey Kaus cuts to the chase -- the problem is really unions: The home "weatherization" jobs in the stimulus bill were subjected to Davis-Bacon wage regulations--a favorite of the AFL-CIO Building and Construction Trades Department--under which federal Labor Department officials establish "prevailing wage" rates that must be paid. Why do unions like this system? Because the "prevailing wages" are determined in a way that guarantees they are usually more than the actual market wage, sometimes by large margins. ... As a result, the Department of Energy apparently weatherized only 22,000 homes under the program. Another pre-existing program, which doesn't have to comply with Davis-Bacon, appears to have weatherized about 100,000 homes, if my math is right. That's OK. It's not as if speed was important last year in terms of putting people to work. ... Oh wait, it was. [Insert now-embarrassing Obama quote here] Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (77758)	2/22/2010 8:26:37 AM
From: Sully-	2 Recommendations Respond to of 90947

"It is vitally important for the future of our nation that the states stand against the relentless expansion of the federal government and restore the proper balance to our federal system," Lawmakers in 44 states warn Congress Angry voters spur bills for sovereignty By Seanna Adcox, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS COLUMBIA, S.C. \| With tax collections dropping and jobless rates at record highs, state legislators hundreds of miles from Washington have found an easy way to appeal to conservative voters: Bash the federal government. Lawmakers in 44 states have introduced measures warning Congress not to trample states' rights and dozens of other resolutions opposing the government on issues including gun control and health care. Their efforts play to people angry with the status quo. A recent Pew Research Center poll found high anti-incumbent sentiment among voters ahead of the November congressional elections. "The closer you are to elections, you see legislators with more backbone," said Michael Boldin of the California-based Tenth Amendment Center, a nonpartisan think tank named for the constitutional amendment that specifies any power not granted to the federal government is reserved for the states. "I'm sure there's a lot of grandstanding." No states are likely to secede from the union, but they could derail or delay federal legislation the way they have by balking at a national identification program billed as a way to fight terrorism and identity theft. Most states still aren't complying with the Real ID law passed in 2005. In conservative South Carolina, Republican House Majority Leader Kenny Bingham said his caucus made standing up to the federal government a top priority this year. "I hear it at church, at the barber shop: 'You guys need to stand up.' The issue of federal intrusion is a John Doe issue," he said. "This is a yes-point for us. They're mad. They're upset. They expect us to respond." That response included passing a resolution to assert the state's rights under several constitutional amendments. It says South Carolina's attorney general will sue if Congress passes mandates that the state deems unconstitutional, and that no state agency will follow the mandates while a decision is pending. "To say public reaction and being vocal doesn't have any influence is ludicrous," Mr. Bingham said. "That's how you enact change in a civilized society." Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Louisiana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Tennessee have passed resolutions asserting states' rights under the 10th Amendment, according to Mr. Boldin's group. Another passed the Kansas Senate last week after hundreds of residents rallied, brandishing copies of the U.S. Constitution, and vowed to "take their country back." In South Carolina, the House has already passed an expanded version of a state rights measure it first approved last year. A version is awaiting Senate approval. "It is vitally important for the future of our nation that the states stand against the relentless expansion of the federal government and restore the proper balance to our federal system," it reads. Some Democratic legislators call the measures pointless, political moves that do nothing to improve residents' lives. Black Democrats in South Carolina say Republican efforts are reminiscent of South Carolina's declaration of secession 150 years ago, which, they noted, didn't work out so well. "We're talking about seceding from the union," said Rep. Chris Hart, Columbia Democrat. "I thought we tried that." washingtontimes.com