RTW: A Right to... What?

RTW: A Right to... What?
Threading your way out of a tangled web can be... painful, and heated. I'd wanted to get a few more posts in on Progress vs. Regress before turning to 'Right To Work', but I'm too slow and the time is here now. But before getting to the RTW bill Missouri is in the midst of debating, or what I think about it, let me make clear my position on Politics and on Unions.

Politics: I'm not here to aid or support anyone, or any bill, or any policy in any election, or in any other pursuit for that matter. I'm here to present the ideas I've learned to be true, ideas I believe are important to people's lives, ideas which I think that a person who values their life should be aware of and understand. The core of these ideas are what made America possible in the first place and which neither it nor liberty can continue for long without. It's been said that 'Politics is downstream of Culture', which is very true, but Culture is itself downstream from the ideas which it is formed from. If you don't alter or deepen the ideas which the people of a culture are thinking or are even willing to consider, then you won't change the culture, and that, the ideas our culture is aware of, is the target I use this blog to aim at. True, there is circulation between the two, but simply presenting yourself more fashionably or being more 'edgy', won't accomplish a damn thing.

Unions: The heart and soul of the union, the central idea they were originally formed around and which they are battling to maintain, or even strengthen today, is that they are an organization designed to get what they have no right to, in order to exercise power upon all. The first victims explicitly targeted by Unions are those they claim to want to 'represent': the worker. Their first actions are not taken against the rich, but towards intimidating those workers who aren't inclined to join them, into their membership against their will. Only once enough of the workforce has been pressed into their ranks, do they then turn their tender attentions to 'the rich', using the workers they claim to represent, as tools of intimidation in order to rob 'the rich' and the worker of their right to make their own decisions, neatly gaining power over them all.

Whatever guise they hide behind, 'Trade Union' or otherwise, I despise them all. Sure, some good things may have resulted from actions unions have taken, no doubt some good things have come from the Mafia as well. I'm not impressed by such 'good deeds' and give them no credit because of them.

And yes I know, everyone knows someone in unions who are just swell. My Brother in Law spent a couple decades in a union. My Wife is in a union. Because they had the choice to join their union? No. Because they were compelled to join a union. Whatever good it is that you want to chalk up to unions, I can show one or more evils that have been condoned and accepted into society to accomplish that 'good', and which compounds the initial evil done. That they have been legalized, simply means that the Law has been perverted into protecting thuggery.

Unions are the embodiment of 'Might Makes Right' and few things are more Pro-Regressive than that. I detest them for what they actually are, not for who might be in them or what good might appear to have resulted from them. Anything that hinders them, I'm for. Anything that can legitimately be done to limit their power, or to dissolve them from the American landscape, I am for.

That being said, it is difficult to be a whole hearted supporter of RTW, as the position we are in is too like having to use Romney to vote against Obama, and far too familiar for us on the Right; but no, it's not an unprincipled vote and yes, we've got to do it. But. Is it possible to take a principled stand on ground that has already been rendered unprincipled? Care must be taken. The distastefulness is not just because of the bill itself, but because of the deforming federal laws it must 'respect', and because of the approach the GOP has taken to sell it. And to understand why that is, we need to know some of the background behind it.

RTW? How about a Right to Rights?!
Firstly, and probably least in the minds of supporters of RTW, I object to the Utopian title: "Right To Work". Why? Take a moment and think about what it presumes and what it neglects. A hint as to the problem in Missouri's bill, is in a comment Michigan's Gov. made upon a similar bill:

"Gov. Rick Snyder, who took a hit in popularity polls after he pushed for right-to-work, has said the law “isn’t about being anti-union,” but is “about being pro-worker.”"

Anyone notice the vital party neglected by that comment upon employment? Yep, the employer. This is Law we're talking about. Laws which directly affect the rights and livelihoods of all Americans, and at the very least, for a law to be 'Pro' one side or the other, is to slight the rights of some - minority or majority matters not in the least - the result is to undermine the rights of all. It is either 'One nation, under law', or one group pitched against another, for the benefit of yet another.

But more fundamentally, I object to the term 'Right To Work' because there is no 'right to work', and there cannot be. It is a Utopian and self contradictory term. What do I mean? To claim that there is a 'Right To Work', means that someone, somewhere, somehow, at some point in time, must be compelled to provide jobs as an end in itself, and so those providing the jobs cannot have full political rights themselves, and so no one in that utopia can have Rights, or at least not Rights as understood to be inherent in their nature as human beings, and that leaves only privileges. Privileges bestowed upon some, by those with the power to compel the material of them from others.

There can be no 'Right to Work' and Individual Rights.

Secondly, the strategy used to promote RTW laws disturbs me. The GOP approach is to focus on jobs:

"The arguments surrounding right to work center on economic issues and fairness. Supporters point to greater job growth in the states, mostly in the South, with right-to-work laws. Opponents counter that these states also have lower wages."

What's disturbing about that? It's because arguments that focus primarily on results, on statistics, in this case economic issues and fairness, or in ObamaCare's focus on the uninsured and fairness, disregard or minimize the Rights of those involved and the principles that must be fully respected for those rights to have any real meaning and power under law.

That, I find disturbing.

Do RTW states experience a rise in wages? Pardon me, but I don't really give a rat's ass whether they do or not! Do their people - employers, employees and those they choose to associate with - experience the ability to exercise their rights to make their own decisions, while respecting the rights of others to do the same? If they do, then their wages will more closely reflect the values that they've produced - and in the context of exercising power over people, I don't care about anything else, and govt sure as hell shouldn't be freed to either.

What's that? You think it does matter?

Let me ask you this: Do you believe people should be paid more than the monetary value their efforts have produced? Yes? You are for 'something for nothing'? Then you, left or right, are the embodiment of the Marxist ideal of 'greedy capitalists' which they've successfully branded the Free Market with (Thanks Schools!). If you are alright with that, then please, go find your position on the proRegressive left. Don't worry, they'll make room for you, as soon as you make it clear you have no principles but those of convenience, they'll find the right group to fit you in with.

The actual issue here is do people have the right to form businesses, do individuals - business owner and employee and organizations - still retain one of the few rights included in the original un-amended Constitution, the right to contract? Do business owners have the right to make the decisions required to operate their businesses? Do the potential employees have the right to accept or decline? Do others have the right to form associations and offer their services to both? (See the various versions of skilled worker placement/consultants/project mgmt companies which populate the tech industry. No reason why the same wouldn't work in the blue color industries that unions prey upon... except that they aren't free to, of course)

Or more succinctly: Do people have the right to live their own lives, or not?

Not a litmus test
Don't get yourself into a tizzy, I'm not setting up a 'with me or against me' litmus test over RTW legislation. In spirit I'm wholeheartedly in favor of what I think the spirit of RTW bills are (which adds up to way more spirit over material fact than I'm comfortable with in any law... but leave that aside for a moment). And yes, the Unions are opposed to this bill, which will likely have a large impact on their ever diminishing power. Good on that. My natural urge is to swallow the bile rising in my throat and back anything, such as RTW, that reduces the power and place of unions, and I think any conservative is naturally going to want to side with RTW laws. In fact, I would assume sight unseen, that any Republican politician that is opposed to RTW, probably found their position more by calculating the electoral votes of union members against the rights of the rest of their constituents, than by a consideration of principles. Sure, there may be some who actually do oppose RTW upon principle, but before accepting their word on that, I'd suggest taking a look at their other votes first, such as on Smoking Ban's, Common Core, Medicaid expansion, and sweet business/govt partnership deals like 'Aerotropolis/China Hub', etc. And then I'd ask them to take a closer look at their principles as a whole, and what they are for - more on that in a bit.

But there is a reason why RTW makes the bile rise in my throat, which a closer look at the bill itself, House Bill 1770 should make clear:

290.591. 1. Except in instances when this section conflicts with or is preempted by federal law, no person shall be required as a condition or continuation of employment to:
(1) Become or refrain from becoming a member of a labor organization;
(2) Pay any dues, fees, assessments, or other similar charges, however denominated, of any kind or amount to a labor organization; or
(3) Pay to any charity or other third party any amount equivalent to, or on a pro rata basis, any dues, fees, assessments, or other charges required of members of a labor organization, in lieu of the payments listed under subdivision (2) of this subsection.
2. Any agreement, understanding, or practice, written or oral, implied or expressed, between any labor organization and employer that violates the rights of employees as guaranteed under this section is declared to be unlawful, null and void, and of no legal effect.

Now take a look at this portion of the first line again:

"...no person as a condition or continuation of employment can be required to..."

, 'can be required', by who? By the person who is offering them a position of employment in their business, the employer, that's who. Why would they not have the right to make an offer of employment on terms which they judged best for their business? Notice that the bill doesn't say that:

'No business owner shall be compelled to offer as a condition or continuation of employment, a requirement that'

Now let me ask you this: What of a business owner, who, for reasons that would be entirely unfathomable to me, wants his business to be a 'Union Shop'?

Does he not have the right to operate his business as he sees fit? Do you see the problem? Why would we want a law further restricting the liberty of employers? It not only infringes upon the rights of the business owner, but does even further damage to the already battered shell of Property Rights (without which no Rights can have any substance) that are still remaining to us.

If you ask the legislators why they've written their bill this way, there response will probably be that federal law compels them to, and those few who aren't just repeating the talking points that'll keep the union vote happy, would likely direct your attention back to the first line in their RTW Bill:

290.591. 1. Except in instances when this section conflicts with or is preempted by federal law

, and the 'preempted by federal law' refers to lines such as these, from the NLRB which forbids businesses:

"(a)(2) "to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it"
, and,
"(5) to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees, subject to the provisions of section 159 (a) of this title." "

So on one side we have the union promoting legislation already on the books, which forbids business owners from using their own judgment and forces them to 'bargain' with unions, while on the other 'Pro-Worker!' side we have 'Right to Work' laws, which forbids business owners from using their own judgment and forces them to not have a full union shop. The result is that The Law is being used to prevent a business owner from having any say in some of the most critical decisions which their businesses face on a daily basis.

Heads you lose. Tails you lose. Wanna flip again?

Do you know what the worst part is? This is the best and most 'Rights' promoting option available to us today, and it is so because of laws such as the 'Wagner Act' (which created the National Labor Relations Board) that 'Progressive Democrats' placed on the books 70+ years ago during FDR's terms, and which the GOP 'fixed' a few years afterwards with 'Taft-Hartley' when they regained power.

What the Briton said of the Romans: "They make a desert and call it peace", might be said of our bi-partisan govt: "They eliminate an employers rights, and call it a Right To Work.".

How'd we get here? The easy way, of course.
Because our laws have already been corrupted, any new laws must make allowances for that corruption, in order to try and make... ehm, progress. How did we get here? By allowing Pro-Regressives to pass off a position that was actually pro-regress, as 'progress', and because the GOP didn't stand for Principle, but ran on poll tested tactics (as they are still doing today), they missed out on the fact that FDR's position wasn't just a modification of the business to employee relationship, but an elimination of the Right to there even being such a thing. But of course the original spin-meister, FDR, dressed it up a bit nicer than that, as he said of the Wagner Act on July 5, 1935:

“A better relationship between labor and management is the high purpose of this Act. By assuring the employees the right of collective bargaining it fosters the development of the employment contract on a sound and equitable basis. By providing an orderly procedure for determining who is entitled to represent the employees, it aims to remove one of the chief causes of wasteful economic strife. By preventing practices which tend to destroy the independence of labor, it seeks, for every worker within its scope, that freedom of choice and action which is justly his.”

Understand, the Supreme Court had already struck down FDR's previous attempt at legislating such a 'Labor Relations Board', so FDR did then, what today's President Obama recently did: he intimidated the court. FDR threatened to pack the court with new appointees to get his way, and the conservative court, then under Hughes, as in our day under Roberts, caved to executive intimidation and approved it, a tactic forever known as the 'Switch in time that saved nine'. However, in a previous case on nearly identical legislation, the court struck it down, saying that setting up such labor relations boards was:

"...The effect, in respect of wages and hours, is to subject the dissentient minority, either of producers or miners or both, to the will of the stated majority, since, by refusing to submit, the minority at once incurs the hazard of enforcement of the drastic compulsory provisions of the act to which we have referred. To "accept," in these circumstances, is not to exercise a choice, but to surrender to force.

The power conferred upon the majority is, in effect, the power to regulate the affairs of an unwilling minority. This is legislative delegation in its most obnoxious form, for it is not even delegation to an official or an official body, presumptively disinterested, but to private persons whose interests may be and often are adverse to the interests of others in the same business. ..."

No matter what subsequent Supreme Court decisions ruled, that is still at the heart of Union power as imposed upon us today, and my natural urge is to do the only thing that seems left to do, and that's back anything, such as RTW.

But the real problem here is the Right's seemingly instinctive resignation to half-measures and our toleration of 'what else can we do?' approaches.

It is not only easy to make the 'pragmatic' case for such laws and actions, but in some sense it is necessary because once pragmatism has been allowed in, principle is necessarily forced out of the door, and it has been - so what else can you do? There is something more we can do, and it doesn't mean rejecting the distasteful steps we do have to take right now, but it does require insisting that those steps be part of a more clearly defined destination - which I'll come back to shortly.

Is that not the same refrain we hear from establishment republicans against ObamaCare today?

Well it's nothing new, in fact it is nearly as old as the modern left and has defined the GOP response to every Democrat gain since FDR, even when they themselves are the party in power! The Taft-Hartley Act in 1947, was the perpetual short term half measure that the GOP proposed because it didn't have the guts to toss out the Wagner Act altogether. Eyes forever on the polls, even once they've secured the power to do what they campaigned on doing, they sought only to weaken Union power, and even that was only effected on the surface. An adviser to the Senators proposing Taft-Hartley warned them against such half-hearted 'what else can we do' measures, warning that if such 'Right To Work' measures were passed, instead of repealing the Wagner Act outright:

" ...Greaves was closely involved in the issue. At the request of Sen. Robert A. Taft in 1946, he helped draft a precursor to Taft-Hartley. According to Greaves, union activity had caused the Wagner Act to fall out of favor with the public. Taft wanted an ameliorative bill that would win enough votes to override a veto by President Harry Truman — in another words, a watered-down bill. Then, after the Republicans won the White House and Congress in 1948, they would pass a better law.
Greaves “opposed this thinking on the basis that it would be better not to have any new law at that time[, contending] that a successful veto of a better law would result in a growing public pressure for the repeal of the Wagner Act and the election of the party that espoused such a move. The senator was not willing to go that far.” Greaves feared that “if the senator’s plan were successful, the public would be persuaded that the then evident economic distress flowing from union activity had been remedied and the next tide of public opinion might well be in the other direction.”
Taft disagreed, and Greaves left the Senate committee. “Freedom … lost,” Greaves wrote looking back, because once Taft-Hartley passed, the pressure on the Wagner Act disappeared... [Emphasis mine]

Today, nearly 70 years later, we are still taking such palatable, ultimately self defeating measures. The Right is talked into proposing measures which don't repeal the legislative acts which are the real cause of the problem, and always with the promise of "after the next election, we'll 'pass a better law'". The fact is that Taft-Hartley didn't reduce the unions power, but only consolidated it, as this, from the introduction to a book of economist Henry Hazlitt's essays during that time, points out:

"... Taft-Hartley emerged as the conservative counterweight to the Wagner regime, the product of a Republican-dominated 80th Congress elected in 1946 in response to post-war inflation, excessive government controls, and historic levels of labor strife. Passed by an alliance of anti-labor Republicans and Southern Democrats, Taft-Hartley did not roll back, so much as circumscribe, New Deal labor law. It retained the process of collective bargaining supervised by the National Labor Relations Board, but outlawed wildcat strikes, secondary boycotts, and the closed shop. It prohibited both management and labor from engaging in “practices which [sic] jeopardize the public health, safety, or interest” and required anti-communist affidavits from all unionists. Moreover, it authorized the president to intervene in strikes that threatened national security and enabled individual states to pass “right-to-work” laws outlawing exclusive union shops...."

IOW it had given monopoly control over unionized workers to one union in a shop, whether or not the owner of that shop wanted them there, or even whether any other employee might have preferred another union to represent them. Republicans are heading the very same road with ObamaCare and Medicaid Expansion, such as Missouri sleazeball State Sen. Ryan Silvey has proposed doing, and no doubt 70 years from now our grand-kids will be proposing some sort of 'Right To Prescriptions' laws because of it.

This relentless GOP retreat of 'do what we can' half-measures, with no wider strategy having been defined or committed to, not only does not succeed, but they cannot succeed. While such short term efforts may be necessary, in the short term, to adopt them as our overall strategy, as the GOP has been doing for decades, is suicide.

This isn't about Business vs Labor, but about the inconvenient Rights of both - inconvenient to the established powers that be who just want to tend their power gardens, grooming them sometimes to appeal to the Left, and sometimes to the Right, but always producing a bumper crop of incumbents for the benefit of each. Also keep in mind that politically influential business 'interests' were very much behind the 'Wagner Act' to begin with, because they thought it'd make it easier on their businesses by helping to promote cooler headed unions over the real radicals ('Big Business' is almost always as opposed to a Free Market as the radical Left is)... and they've continued to split the difference between Individual Rights and their own interests ever since.

How do we get a right to our Rights back?
RTW does curb the power of unions. But. But it also increases the power of Govt. RTW as written, reduces the grip Unions have on workers, but it does so by increasing Govt's power over business owners, which in the end, means over all of us. It's hard not to hear Gandalf reading in the background: 'One Ring to rule them all...', right?

So where does that leave us?

In about the same place that Richard Nixon & Teddy Kennedy's HMO bill left health care back in 1973. It leaves us in that place where every attempt to improve the situation, necessarily restricts our liberty even further, compounds our problems, and hastens the time where an ObamaCare-type solution will be proposed to 'fix' it.

So what do you do when placed in a position of choosing between two evils?

Don't.

First, recognize that sometimes acting 'on principle' can be unprincipled behavior. Principles are an aid to thinking, not a substitute for it, and used imprudently, can do more harm than good. When you find yourself in a place where no good choices are possible, that doesn't mean that you make no choice at all, it means that you widen your perspective and clarify your goals.

Choose instead, where there is a choice to be made, that which causes the least damage to your liberty, and the most damage to the forces arrayed against you - and do NOT accept that as your only or final option. The confused morals of our current laws makes measures such as RTW necessary, but we can and must do more to make it only an inconvenient step, rather than a destination of moral compromise.

Widen your perspective - as the situation stands now, our govt has already asserted its right to compel business owners to do what it wants... 'for the greater good'; it has done so in the 'Wagner Act', and 'Taft-Hartley' and Medicaid and so many other laws since, all the way up to ObamaCare, that this... this is just one more lash in a thousand stripes across our backs. So, sad to say, it is not unreasonable to see that adding yet another layer of restrictions upon us, is like painting an '11' on the volume knob - a distinction which makes no further difference. More to the point, for those thinking that not voting for RTW will somehow leave business owners free to conduct their business without govt interference - that's damn near delusional. Isn't it? So please, remember how laughable that argument is if someone makes it to you.

On the other hand, RTW does limit unions access to our fellows, it will limit the power of unions over the workforce, it will reduce their power in our society, and so on that basis, I do see a more solid strike for liberty being made by voting for RTW, than the strike which RTW itself makes against our liberty.

But having made that painful calculus, the only way to prevent it from becoming a choice of lesser evils, is to NOT accept that as your only or final option. You must have a long term goal, a long term strategy to get the Right to our Rights back. We've got to be looking to strike at the real political root, and that isn't unions, but those acts which gave them power over us, such as the 'Wagner Act' and 'Taft-Hartley'. And measures such as this, a 'States Repeal Act', which I'll dig much deeper into in later posts, is one way to enable RTW states to do just that, and help get back the right to our Rights.

For myself, keeping in mind that Politics is downstream of Culture, and that Culture is downstream of the arena of Ideas, I'm keeping my efforts focused there. For the Culture to come around to the idea that restricting liberty doesn't increase it, and to understand why that is, then the ideas which make liberty a conclusion, rather than a starting point, need to be aired, and discussed, and understood. And that's what I attempt to do with this blog. Air the ideas which we as a culture must breathe in, for Liberty to regrow its roots within us. As those ideas become more commonly understood, then our culture will tear out  abominations such as the 'Wagner Act', and the 'Affordable Care Act', root and branch.

So I will support RTW, as one distasteful step in a long journey, while keeping my eyes on the real goal, one which results in real liberty for all.

Instant Karma: According to Union leaders and membership, all union leaders and members are racists and fascists.

Just a quick note to prove I'm still alive and share a fun fact. It seems that the Unions are waking up to the facts about Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reed & Obamacare. The Wall Street Journal informs us that James P. Hoffa, together with other Union big-wigs, have penned a letter to little miss "Gotta pass it to find out what's in it" Pelosi and Harry 'Pasty Face' Reed (long time Nevadan's will get that), telling them that:

" will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class."

They also note that their political darlings are apparently dishonestly leading them on for their own purposes:

" As you both know first-hand, our persuasive arguments have been disregarded and met with a stone wall by the White House and the pertinent agencies. "

They've even figured out that they won't get to keep their own health care plans if they like them,

"Our health plans have been built over decades by working men and women. Under the ACA as interpreted by the Administration, our employees will treated differently and not be eligible for subsidies afforded other citizens. As such, many employees will be relegated to second-class status and shut out of the help the law offers to for-profit insurance plans."

, with even a glimmering of a hint that the Free Market may have some benefits for workers, they note that,

"And finally, even though non-profit plans like ours won’t receive the same subsidies as for-profit plans, they’ll be taxed to pay for those subsidies. Taken together, these restrictions will make non-profit plans like ours unsustainable, and will undermine the health-care market of viable alternatives to the big health insurance companies."

Though, in the end, demonstrating that they are themselves simply corrupt thugs demanding their share of the loot, they opine,

"We continue to stand behind real health care reform, but the law as it stands will hurt millions of Americans including the members of our respective unions."

Isn't that special?

Of course, most of that is what the Tea Party was trying to explain to them back in 2010.

To which we were subjected to slander and even assault. But, out of respect for the Union brotherhood's tightly reasoned and highly principled responses to the Tea Party when we tried explain the '2+2=4's of the world to them, obviously Hoffa and all Union members, and all Union sympathizers, are clearly all ignorant racists and neo-fascists who just hate America and who especially hate America's working class, it's children and the elderly.

Thank you, that is all.

Rah! Rah! Ssss... Boommm... Bahhh! - Obama's Sound, and the Unions Fury

Fine sounding words and ominous sounding actions.
A couple take away points from President Obama's campaign speech tonight, both on the lightweight side, and an ominously heavy side. First the lightweight stuff.

From the opening of his speech, with its relentlessly peppy opening gambit of "Look at the wonders I have for you!", this speech was heavy on swell sounding words, but extremely light on acknowledging the costs which those words and wonders would bring. And in case you missed it, or didn't realize what it was you were hearing, this,

"The American Jobs Act will repair and modernize at least 35,000 schools. It will put people to work right now fixing roofs and windows; installing science labs and high-speed Internet in classrooms all across this country. It will rehabilitate homes and businesses in communities hit hardest by foreclosures. It will jumpstart thousands of transportation projects across the country. "

, is nothing but spending, and big spending at that. But the icing on the cake in our face, was this,

"Every child deserves a great school — and we can give it to them, if we act now."

With all the energy and practiced enthusiasm which this was delivered with, I found myself wondering, is the pitchman Billy Mays still alive? I could almost hear "But wait! There's more!"

This speech was no serious, considered, substantive plan to get government out of the way to enable America to get back to work, this was an infomercial to kick off his 2012 campaign - and worse than that, it was only the first part of one. We were told part way through, that we tuned in tonight in order to find out that we've got to endure a second speech in a couple weeks to learn what the plan is for how he's going to pay for all of this... which by the way, would be The Plan, which we were promised we'd hear tonight, and which was the point of calling a joint session of congress to witness.

No gots. Big surprise.

And then, not surprisingly, we discovered that the plan, which we still do not have, is one that is very much in keeping with yesterday's post on Robert B. Reich's article about Obama's 'Zero Economy',



This message of peace is from a Union site.

When words and actions don't agree...
read their actions.

 " It will provide a jolt to an economy that has stalled"

The viewpoint of this speech, and the person and team behind it, is not one that views an economy which is something that is made up of people making careful decisions, based upon perceived favorable, or hostile circumstances and laws, but one more consistent with seeing an economy as a closed system of rats in a maze, which uses shocks and cheese, in order to push them through, to ring the bell, and please their masters.

And it showed an obliviousness of our current situation, and how we got there, that is truly disturbing. Disturbing because of 'optimistic' sounding lines like this,

'And to help responsible homeowners, we're going to work with federal housing agencies, to help more poeple to refinance their mortgages, at rates that are no near 4%, that's a step "

, which were delivered with no awareness of how much they reflect the ideas which got us into the current situation we are trying so desperately to get out of today. Noting that the Republicans were still sitting down on what he expected to be an applause line for everyone, he says,

"I know you guys must be for this, because that's a step that can put more than $2,000 in family's pocket"

No, they are not for this - or at least they'd better not be. Does this President not have a clue what the major trigger was for the current mess we are in? Housing bubble? Helloo?!

If the people he is targeting here were good credit risks, they wouldn't need help from federal housing agencies to get low interest loans - I hear ads for several lenders touting just that every morning while driving into work. If they are credit risks, why in God's name, would you try, in this economy, triggered by federal agencies serving up home loans to people who didn't warrant good loans, why would you attempt yet another program for federal agencies to serve up more easy home loans to people who don't warrant a loan?

The one line in the entire speech which actually did catch my attention in a positive way, was this one,

"We're also planning to cut away the red tape that prevents too many rapidly-growing startup companies from raising capital and going public. "

, but unfortunately it was also the one line in the entire speech which began with 'We're also planning', rather than 'we are!' or 'we will!', and so, pardon my cynicism, but I put about as much faith in that materializing as I would a faith healer... who asks to be paid first.

But his most telling line, to my mind, was this - in what was said, and the much more meaningful portion that was not said, but was very much implied by it:

"What kind of country would this be if this Chamber had voted down Social Security or Medicare just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could or could not do?"

The easy reply to this is that this nation would be a far more closely knit one, a far wealthier one, one that would be significantly more free, and one with a much sounder rule of law, without those two Article 1, Section 8 shredding programs. Why do you ask?

Why did he ask? In hopes of successfully distracting from and ignoring several issues.

• One, that few things are more divisive to society than govt charity; I do not see Social Security or Medicare as kindnesses, but as one of the first measures to begin breaking apart the bonds and responsibilities which had bound us together for so long.
• Two, to point out how annoying, and obstructionist it is having to follow the rule of law is, and how the Constitution should be ignored, so that the President can more easily deliver goodies to his fans.
• Three, he wants very much for the Constitution to be sidelined and ignored, in order to be able to 'do good' for the American people.

Speaking of goodies,

"The people who hired us to work for them, they don't have the luxury of waiting 14 months"

They also don't have the luxury of taking vacations every other week, unlike some POTUS's we know.

And now to the dark and heavy side.
The dark side of the evening grows out of my habit of paying more attention to what this President does, than to what he says he'd like to do. President Obama had a nice rousing line in his speech about the wonderfulness of three words:

"I want to see more products sold around the world stamped with three proud words: "Made in America.""

, which would be nice to hear, if it wasn't for the fact that sitting in the audience as a guest of Rep. Marsha Blackburn, was the CEO of Gibson guitar, whose company has been singled out by this President's Justice Dept. for harassment , has had plants closed down, and numerous materials confiscated with no explanation or charges being brought against them, other than suggestions that it shut down or send its manufacturing jobs to Madagascar.

That's a big Strike One!

Then there was the fact that sitting with the First Lady, was Jeffrey Immelt, the head of the 'JOBS!' committee, who's company, with his enthusiastic blessing, has sent several of its manufacturing divisions... to China!

That's a big Strike Two!

And if that wasn't bad enough, also sitting with the First Lady, was the President of the AFL-CIO union, Richard Trumpka.

That's a big Strike Three!, he's outta there, no credibility, no way, no how.

Why? You really need more? Ok.

On Labor Day the Teamster's President Jimmy Hoffa said,

“...The war on workers, and you see it everywhere, it [sic] is the Tea Party . . .President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let’s take these son of a bitches out . . .”

On Labor Day, VP Biden told a union crowd:

"You are the only ones who can stop the barbarians at the gate! That’s why they want you so bad.”

and worse, Biden said this:

“You are the only non-governmental power that has the power and capacity to stop this onslaught.”

And today, early this morning, hundreds - HUNDREDS - of members of the AFL-CIO stormed a port in Longview Washington, vandalized the grounds, and held people hostage, over a labor dispute...

"Hundreds of Longshoremen stormed the Port of Longview early Thursday, overpowered and held security guards, damaged railroad cars, and dumped grain that is the center of a labor dispute, said Longview Police Chief Jim Duscha.
Six guards were held hostage for a couple of hours after 500 or more Longshoremen broke down gates about 4:30 a.m. and smashed windows in the guard shack, he said."

... and that union's president, Richard Trumpka, was a guest of honor in President Obama's box tonight, to listen to the President's speech with the First Lady.

Anyone see any signs for concern here? Does anyone think that hundreds of members of a union are mobilized to storm a port, vandalize property, hold people hostage, and be released without charges - without the leadership of that union knowing about it? Ahead of time? Do you think the President of that union, knowing that he'll be sitting as a guest of the President of the United States of America, would risk blindsiding and embarrassing the President, without letting him know that... some sort of incident was going to occur?

Not friggin' likely. Anyone see any signs for concern here now?

"... nobody has been arrested. Most of the protesters returned to their union hall after cutting brake lines and spilling grain from car at the EGT terminal, Duscha said."

How about now? No? Really?

"We're not surprised," Duscha said. "A lot of the protesters were telling us this in only the start."

Now? If not now, when?! If not you, who?! Who are you waiting for? YOU are the person you have been waiting for... if you will do nothing, no one will.

As I said to a friend the other day, just think about the implications of that Vice President Obama's statement, and this mornings actions:

1. That govt power is united with the interests of the labor movement and is also available to be used to 'stop this onslaught',
2. That union people comprise a power that should be used as a force, backed by the U.S. Govt, to be mobilized against those who disagree with them.
3. They apparently are beginning to do just that.

But we don't need to imagine the implications of this scenario any longer, it's beginning to happen right now. Just look at the news. If you can find it. Google it. You won't find much.

Interesting, no? Sound and fury, signifying... more than I'd like to imagine.

Jimmy Hoffa! Finally a leftist who understands the true meaning of his ideas!

Finally a leftist has come along who understands the true meaning of his ideas, and doesn't try to hide it behind politically correct wobbly words! Let's hear it for Teamster President, Jimmy Hoffa! Finally! A leftist who understands the true meaning of his ideas!

While warming up the crowd for President Obama, Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa demonstrated that he knows EXACTLY what ‘Spread the wealth around’ and the elimination of property rights means, and that is that the elimination of Rights requires the exercise of force to get your way:

"We've got to keep an eye on the battle that we face -- a war on workers. And you see it everywhere. It is the Tea Party," he said. "And there's only one way to beat and win that war -- the one thing about working people is, we like a good fight."

Interesting that the only thing the Tea Party advocates is the preservation of Individual Rights through the rule of law, as defined in the Constitution of the United States of America. Extremists.
How is that a threat? How is that in anyway seen as 'waging war' on workers? The people of the Tea Party are themselves made up on workers - where is the sense here? See the official St. Louis Tea Party response here.

Well, pardon me, I realize that if you've followed the last several posts on this site, we've already established the fact that most leftists use words as decoration and for visual impact - not because they mean something.

So... on that score, that of using words in a way that makes sense, well, Hoffa flunks out just as badly as all the rest of his fellow proregressive leftists do. But on the count of coming out and saying plainly and clearly, what his ideas must mean in practice, comes out and states the only alternative available to those who discard care for the meaning of words, on that score, I've just got to give him a big thumbs up!

“...The war on workers, and you see it everywhere, it [sic] is the Tea Party . . .President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let’s take these son of a bitches [sic] out . . .”

And President Obama is standing right there with him. Isn't that comforting?

So America, you've got a choice before you. Do you want to line up as an army and march on, and 'take out' your fellow Americans who are asking for the rule of law?

Or do you instead want to see that the Constitution is respected and that the rule of law rules the land - and not an army of thugs who want things there way, no matter the cost?

Choose wisely my friends.

UPDATE:
I didn't get to hear Biden's remarks from his rally until this morning, and if anything, I think they are far worse than what Obama and Hoffa had to say.

The Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden (now granted, it is Joe 'gaffamatic' Biden, but what he said fit seamlessly with what the others said), told his crowd

“this is a different kind of fight. This is a fight for the heart and soul of the labor movement. This is a fight for the existence of organized labor. You are the only ones who can stop the barbarians at the gate! That’s why they want you so bad.”

And worse,this:

“You are the only non-governmental power that has the power and capacity to stop this onslaught.”

Just think about the implications of that statement. One, that govt power is united with the interests of the labor movement and is also available to be used to 'stop this onslaught', and two, that union people comprise a power that should be used as a force, backed by the U.S. Govt, to be mobilized against those who disagree with them.

That those whose ideas don't agree with those of the labor movenemt, constitute an onslaught against the interests of the Govt.

Just friggin' Wow.

And neither Obama, Biden nor Hoffa are trying to walk their statements back in the least. Bad stuff is coming down the pike folks. If this stuff isn't called out, bad stuff can't help but follow.