Tag Archives: Democratic

An Election Year Is No Excuse To Avoid Doing Your Job

Posted on by

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article yesterday on the progress of the Senate in producing a budget. The Senate is legally required to pass a budget by April 15th, but is not at all interested in doing so. Why? Because it is an election year, and Democrat Senators (who hold the majority) do not want to go on the record as supporting anything.

Outgoing Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad announced that his committee would be marking up a budget, but his efforts were shut down by Harry Reid.

Power Line reports:

Then, earlier this afternoon, Conrad gave a press conference in which he made the stunning announcement that there will be no budget markup after all. Instead, he will present a budget to the Budget Committee tomorrow. There will be no amendments and there will be no votes; not, at least, until after the election. Apparently Conrad had been proceeding on his own initiative, and at the 11th hour Harry Reid–supported by members of his caucus who do not want to have to go on record in favor of any budget–shut down the process.

Whoops!

The article further reports:

The content of Conrad’s budget is almost an afterthought, but it may be even worse than President Obama’s. It includes zero spending cuts from the existing baseline and increases taxes by $2.6 trillion, $700 billion more than Obama’s budget. Under Conrad’s budget, the federal debt (granting all assumptions underlying the calculations) would increase by $7 trillion.

A Daily Caller article posted today tells what happens next: 

Without a formal budget process, the 2013 budget will be prepared in a closed-door, end-of-year conference meeting of Senate and House leaders.

It’s time to elect people to Congress who care more about the country than their own political futures.

 
Enhanced by Zemanta

It May Not Have Been Very Funny, But I Believe It Was A Joke

Posted on by

Even as a retiree, I sometimes get too busy to pay attention to what the news is actually saying. And when I pay attention to the mainstream news media, I generally get confused. Recently I wondered why Allen West would make the remark he made recently about communists. It really doesn’t seem to fit with the entire picture of who he is.

Well, I got my answer this morning when I heard the full story on my local talk radio show (Helen Glover). It seems that the sound bite played by the media was not the entire sound bite. Why am I not surprised at this?

The Huffington Post reports:

West’s video is nearly 30 seconds longer but adds little in the way of content. Most of the added time is taken up by audience members murmuring after West states that “about 78 to 81 members of the Democrat Party that are members of the Communist Party,” which was the focus of the original video from the Democrats. After the reaction dies down, West identifies his alleged Communists.

“No, they actually don’t hide it. It’s called the Congressional Progressive Caucus,” he tells the audience.

I think the video released by Allen West  totally changes the content–even if the Huffington Post doesn’t. I suspect the comment was made rather tongue in cheek. Unfortunately, a lot of the mainstream media and the left have lost their sense of humor. Maybe they should look for it the same place they lost their sense of fiscal responsibility!

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Taking A Good Concept And Making It Unacceptable

Posted on by

We have all been hearing a lot lately about the Republican’s ‘war on women.’ I wondered about that since I am a Republican and I wasn’t aware of any war against me. Well, as usual, it is about an attempt by the current administration to run for re-election on any issue other than their record.

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article yesterday that helped me understand some of the issues. Hopefully it will be helpful to all of us. Please follow the link to read the entire article– I have just posted a few examples of what is going on.

Mr. Hinderaker states that the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was supported by both political parties when it was introduced in 1994 and reauthorized in 2000 and 2006. So what changed? A few poison pills were added to change to bill to make it unacceptable so that it could be used as a political issue.

The article reports:

Last year, when the Judiciary Committee marked up the bill, it contained controversial provisions that were never included in earlier versions of the bill. It also lacked much needed fraud protection provisions regarding grant funds and immigration. …

Senator Grassley introduced an amendment that authorized aid for victims and also protected against fraud and misuse of funds. The Democrats refused to work with Republicans to write a bill that could enjoy bipartisan support in Committee.

…The Leahy bill creates 5K more U-visas annually, but lacks needed provisions to ensure that the purpose of the visa is fulfilled. The Democrats refused to support such provisions.

The Grassley amendment contained provisions that will ensure that the available 10K visas go to immigrants who actually qualify by:

* Requiring that the crime on which the visa is based be reported within 60 days of its occurrence;
* Requiring that the statute of limitations has not run on the crime, which would prevent prosecution; and
* Requiring that the crime be under active investigation or prosecution.

…Tribal Jurisdiction: In a dramatic break from legal precedent, the Leahy bill gave criminal jurisdiction over non-Indian individuals to Indian Tribes. A hearing was never held on this provision, so the consequences of such a drastic measure are unknown.

While the bill’s jurisdiction is limited to domestic violence offenses, once such an extension of jurisdiction is established, there would be no principled reason not to extend it to other offenses as well. A non-Indian subject to tribal jurisdiction would enjoy few meaningful civil-rights protections. Courts have held, for example, that tribal governments are not bound by the Constitution’s First, Fifth, or Fourteenth Amendments.

…Lack of Grant Oversight: The Leahy bill authorized over $600K [sic] for VAWA grant programs. While this was a reduction from the 2006 authorization, the bill lacked much needed oversight provisions for the spending of grant funds. There is overwhelming evidence that without oversight provisions, the funds given to grantees under VAWA may not be used to protect victims of domestic violence.

No, there isn’t a Republican war against women–there’s a Democrat war against voters.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Using The Government For Political Purposes

Posted on by

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article today on some of the thuggery being used by Democrat candidates to raise money.

The article reports:

Democrats on K Street are warning their corporate clients: Give to Republican challengers in the 2012 election, and you’ll regret it come tax reform time.

Lobbyists are getting that message from allies of powerful Democrats such as Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who is closely watching support for Rep. Denny Rehberg, a Republican challenging Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.). Baucus supporters fear that if Rehberg ousts Tester, Baucus could be next to face a serious Republican challenge in the state.

One K-Streeter close to the Baucus operation said the senator considers a gift to Rehberg a contribution against him. Another Democratic lobbyist told a client to take his name off a Rehberg fundraising event because it would be hurtful to his company, according to sources.

The credibility of these threats are partially the result of the Obama Administration’s policy of using the tax policy to pick winners and losers in the private sector.

The article further points out:

Jim Pethokoukis notes that the Bush tax rates would be a goner in a second Barack Obama term, with no subsequent election to leash his inner tax-hiker — and that Obama would let all of the Bush tax rates expire.

Ed Morrissey concludes at the end of his article:

Seems to me that the real message to K Street — and everyone else — will be that the only way to avoid getting hammered with economy-killing tax hikes will be to replace as many Democrats as possible in the fall, starting at the White House and going all the way down to state legislatures.  That way, Baucus won’t be running the committee any longer, and Obama won’t have the opportunity to pass the biggest tax hike in American history.

If by some awful twist of fate, President Obama is reelected, he will no longer have to worry about running for office again. He will be free to follow his heart–more taxes and more spending. Please remember this when you vote.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

It’s Been One Thousand Days

Posted on by

John Hinderaker at Power LIne reminds us today that it has been 1,000 days since the United States Senate passed a budget. This is a violation of federal law.

The article reports:

Since the Democrats last passed a budget, just three months into the Obama administration, the federal government has spent $9.4 trillion and added $4.1 trillion to the national debt. The current fiscal year will be the fourth in a row in which the Obama administration racks up a $1 trillion-plus deficit.

If the Senate Democrats can’t do their job (as required by federal law), they need to be replaced. The claims that the Democrats have not passed a budget because the Republicans would filibuster it are false–under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, budgets pass the Senate by a simple majority and cannot be filibustered. As usual, yesterday President Obama announced that he will not meet the statutory deadline to submit his budget to Congress–again. The last budget he submitted to the Senate was voted down 97-0. I think he (and the Senate) can do better than that.

Meanwhile, the out-of-control spending continues.

Enhanced by Zemanta

It Had To Happen–The Associated Press Is Blaming President Bush For The Failure Of The Super Committee

Posted on by
Official photograph portrait of former U.S. Pr...

Image via Wikipedia

The article was posted today at ABC News. I really have nothing to say. I think the whole thing is ridiculous. If you care to read the original article, you have my blessings, but I’m not quoting it! Keep in mind that the super committee was designed to fail and become a campaign issue. That’s what this article is about. Watch for class warfare and how unfair it is that some Americans are actually successful!

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Case For Voter Identification

Posted on by
Artur Davis (D) - US Representative

Image via Wikipedia

Yesterday the Daily Caller posted a story about the need for voter identification. Generally speaking, the Democrats claim that the move toward requiring voters to have picture identification is designed to limit the voting ability of minorities. Well, one Democrat is destroying that argument with tales of Democrat voter fraud.

The article reports:

But former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis told The Daily Caller that anti-fraud measures are needed to protect African-Americans from corrupt political bosses — many of them African-Americans themselves — who run Democratic Party machines in the South.

The Daily Caller quotes Mr. Davis:

“What I have seen in my state, in my region, is the the most aggressive practitioners of voter-fraud are local machines who are tied lock, stock and barrel to the special interests in their communities — the landfills, the casino operators — and they’re cooking the [ballot] boxes on election day, they’re manufacturing absentee ballots, they’re voting [in the names of] people named Donald Duck, because they want to control politics and thwart progress.”

We need more people to speak up for voter identification–honest elections are a very necessary part of our government.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Rolled Again ?

Posted on by

Are the Republicans about to be rolled by the Democrats on the Super Committee? The Hill reported yesterday that word has leaked out that Republicans on the super committee have put nominal tax increases on the table. This has resulted in the Tea Party circulating a petition blasting any supercommittee compromise that includes tax increases.

The article reports:

“Reports that the Republican members of the committee have agreed to a framework of tax increases to replace spending cuts is appalling,” Tea Party Express co-chairman Amy Kremer wrote in an email sent to members asking them to fight any compromise. “The election of 2010 was a total repudiation of the ‘tax and spend’ mentality that has brought America to a fiscal crisis with excessive spending and an out-of-control national debt.”

The Hill is not necessarily and objective news source and reports that the Tea Party is forcing the Republicans into an uncompromising position. That is not the whole story. The Tea Party members were elected to Congress to stop the runaway spending. Every time they have attempted to do that, they have been met head-on by the Washington establishment–both Republican and Democrat. If the Tea Party cannot stop the spending, the current rate of spending will probably bankrupt the American economy by next summer. Frankly, until the Republican leadership changes, I don’t believe we have any hope of solving our economic crisis. The other thing to remember here is that the Democrats have done very little compromising–they are letting the Republicans negotiate with themselves in the hope that the Republicans will either cave or no deal will be reached. Either way, the Republicans will have a very difficult time retaining any House of Representative seats in 2012. The Tea Party was elected to do something. If they do nothing, they will probably not be reelected.

The problem is not that our taxes are too low. The problem is that government spending, traditionally at about 18 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) are now over 20 percent. It is time to cut the spending!

Enhanced by Zemanta

Are The Republicans About To Get Rolled In Washington Again ?

Posted on by

We had an election in 2010. The Republicans made historic gains. The message from the American voters was ‘we want smaller government.’ ‘get the government out of our lives and our pockets,’ and ‘get rid of professional politicians.’ That may not be exactly right, but it’s close. The Democrats have ignored that message and governed as if it never happened. If the Republicans don’t hear the message and differentiate themselves from the Democrats, the Republican Party as we know it will cease to exist.

Now we are at a point in history in Washington that will determine the survival of the Republican party. Because the Republicans did not have the intestinal fortitude to stand their ground on the budget deficit discussions, they formed a ‘super committee.’ The super committee has no guts either, and they are supposed to come up with debt solutions by November 23. That deadline is fast approaching and it doesn’t look good.

On Thursday, CNS News reported that the Democrats on the super committee have offered a deal–Democrats are proposing to match any spending cuts with new tax increases, attempting to find $1 trillion in savings to match $1 trillion in new taxes. This offer comes after Democrats turned down an offer by Republicans for $1 trillion in projected spending cuts over the next 10 years and raise taxes by $1 trillion over 10 years. Either one of these deals would be a mistake for Republicans. Spending cuts over the next ten years never happen–this present Congress does not have the power to control the actions (and spending) of any future Congress. Also, under baseline budgeting–if the $1 million budget for my department does not increase at the going rate (whatever that is), and stays the same for the coming year, that is considered a spending cut. You will note that there was no savings involved, but it was still considered a spending cut.

It’s time to put the government on a starvation diet. Unfortunately, the powers that be that are currently in Washington have no desire to do that. The election of 2010 brought many small government Tea Party types to Washington, but it did not change the leadership of the Republican Party. Until we change the leadership of both the Republican and Democrat Parties, there will be no change in how business is done in Washington.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Looking Past The Headline To The News

Posted on by
John_F_Kennedy_1964_Issue-5c.jpg

Image via Wikipedia

Yesterday the Los Angeles Times posted a story with the headline, “Election laws tightening in GOP-run states.” Interesting headline. Why are election laws being strengthened in Republican rather than Democrat states? There are two ways to look at this–the Democrats would have you believe that the Republicans are trying to hinder minority voters, the Republicans would have you believe that they are combating voter fraud. Which is closer to the truth?

The article reports:

But Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said the GOP drive was triggered by “the infamous example of ACORN,” the collection of community organizations which, he said, submitted 400,000 fraudulent registrations in 2008. He called the new laws “common-sense proposals” to “preserve the sanctity of our elections by ensuring that only eligible voters vote.”

The results of the election of 2008 would not have been changed had voter fraud not existed, but in a close election, voter fraud can change the results. It s an accepted fact that Mayor Daley stole the election in 1960 for John F. Kennedy.

Wikipedia (not my favorite source) reports:

Known for shrewd party politics, Daley was a stereotypical machine politician, and his Chicago Democratic Machine, based on control of thousands of patronage positions, was instrumental in bringing a narrow 8,000 vote victory in Illinois for John F. Kennedy in 1960. A PBS documentary entitled “Daley” explained that Mayor Daley and JFK potentially stole the 1960 election by stuffing ballot boxes and rigging the vote in Chicago. In addition, it reveals, Daley withheld many votes from certain wards when the race seemed close.

I have no problem with requiring voter identification. Identification is required to do many things in our society that are considerably less important than voting–rent a video, board an airplane, cash a check, buy cigarettes, buy alcohol, and receive any sort of federal assistance. Voting is at least as important as any of these.The election of 2012 may be close. I would prefer that whatever the result is, it represents the rule “one man, one vote.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

An Interesting Supporter Of Voter Identification

Posted on by
Congressman Artur Davis (D. Ala.) visiting tro...

Image via Wikipedia

Yesterday the Daily Caller posted an article about former Alabama congressman Artur Davis, an African-American Democrat, who has recently changed his position on voter identification laws.

The article reports:

“I’ve changed my mind on voter ID laws — I think Alabama did the right thing in passing one — and I wish I had gotten it right when I was in political office,” Davis wrote in an October 17 op-ed published in the Montgomery Advertiser.

“The truth is that the most aggressive contemporary voter suppression in the African American community, at least in Alabama, is the wholesale manufacture of ballots, at the polls and absentee, in parts of the Black Belt.”

Every person in America has probably heard a story from a friend or relative that they went to vote in an election and were told that they had already voted. Laws that require voters to show identification will greatly reduce that kind of voter fraud.

The article further reports:

Democratic activists say the new laws aren’t needed, and the the ID requirements will make it harder for poor people, Hispanics or African-Americans to vote. In Alabama, the new law “is about suppression, not protection,” Democratic Rep. Terri Sewell said in September.

“There’s really no evidence of reduced voter turnout,” said Republican Scott Gessler, Colorado’s Secretary of State, in an interview with The Daily Caller. “But that does really stop the left screaming about it because, in part, it is a wedge issue they use to get people to vote.”

Hopefully the American people have figured this out!

Enhanced by Zemanta

Union Leaders — The New Fat Cats

Posted on by

Ed Morrissey at Hot Airposted a story today about two high-ranking union officials who took advantage of a legal loophole in the Illinois pension law to collect a $100,000 per year pension for teaching one day in school. A bill was passed recently that:

…enabled union officials to get into the state teachers pension fund and count their previous years as union employees after quickly obtaining teaching certificates and working in a classroom. They just had to do it before the bill was signed into law.

The article at Hot Air Reports:

Although the bill received bipartisan support, the benefit to union officials was sponsored by Springfield Democrats showered by IFT campaign contributions during the 2006 elections.

“The people that are on the inside and understand the process are going to be able to make the system work for their advantage,” said Kent Redfield, who teaches political science at the University of Illinois Springfield. “That this legislation got a hearing and got considered and passed is a reflection of that close relationship between the IFT and the Democratic leadership.

“It feeds into the cynicism about all the deals, that it’s an insider’s game and that the system is rigged.”

Meanwhile, Illinois residents have been hit with tax increases because the spending by the state is out of control. Overspending by government is both a local and national problem. Until the unions and the democrat politicians stop working toward taking as much money as possible from working people while blaming the rich for the state of the economy, our country’s financial problems will continue.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Numbers Versus What We Have Been Told

Posted on by

Today’s Wall Street Journal posted a piece by Douglas Schoen, who previously served as a pollster for President Clinton, detailing the ideas of the people at Occupy Wall Street.

The article reports:

The protesters have a distinct ideology and are bound by a deep commitment to radical left-wing policies. On Oct. 10 and 11, Arielle Alter Confino, a senior researcher at my polling firm, interviewed nearly 200 protesters in New York’s Zuccotti Park. Our findings probably represent the first systematic random sample of Occupy Wall Street opinion.

Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn’t represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence. Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, virtually all (98%) say they would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and nearly one-third (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda.

This is not representative of most Americans. The article also points out that contrary to what the media has told us, only 15 percent of the protesters are unemployed (the national unemployment rate is 9.1 percent). The protesters polled also represent some really bad news for President Obama. The article reports:

An overwhelming majority of demonstrators supported Barack Obama in 2008. Now 51% disapprove of the president while 44% approve, and only 48% say they will vote to re-elect him in 2012, while at least a quarter won’t vote.

Fewer than one in three (32%) call themselves Democrats, while roughly the same proportion (33%) say they aren’t represented by any political party. 

 The article concludes:

Put simply, Democrats need to say they are with voters in the middle who want cooperation, conciliation and lower taxes. And they should work particularly hard to contrast their rhetoric with the extremes advocated by the Occupy Wall Street crowd.

Douglas Schoen understands what is going on. It’s a shame that the Obama administration does not seem to be listening to his wisdom.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

An Interesting Perspective From Mort Zuckerman

Posted on by

Yesterday the Wall Street Journal posted an interview with Mort Zuckerman on the state of things in America. Mort Zuckerman is a successful businessman who is a Democrat. He is not thrilled with the leadership skills of President Obama.

The article quotes Mr. Zuckerman:

The Boston Properties CEO is trying to understand why Mr. Obama has made little effort to build relationships on Capitol Hill or negotiate a bipartisan economic plan. A longtime supporter of the Democratic Party, Mr. Zuckerman wrote in these pages two months ago that the entire business community was “pleading for some kind of adult supervision” in Washington and “desperate for strong leadership.” Writing soon after the historic downgrade of U.S. Treasury debt by Standard & Poor’s, he wrote, “I long for a triple-A president to run a triple-A country.”

When President Obama was elected, the Democrats controlled the House of Representatives, the Presidency, and had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. The had free reign to do anything they wanted to do. President Obama said in a meeting with Republican leadership, “We won,” indicating that he was going to push through his ideas and was not open to compromise. I believe that is the problem. The basic attitude of the President is that he is going to do what he wants–with or without Congress. We have seen federal agencies used to enforce regulations Congress refused to pass. We have seen the results of ignoring the voters and simply passing edicts. It’s time for a change.

The article further states:

At that time he supported Mr. Obama’s call for heavy spending on infrastructure. “But if you look at the make-up of the stimulus program,” says Mr. Zuckerman, “roughly half of it went to state and local municipalities, which is in effect to the municipal unions which are at the core of the Democratic Party.” He adds that “the Republicans understood this” and it diminished the chances for bipartisan legislating.

Then there was health-care reform: “Eighty percent of the country wanted them to get costs under control, not to extend the coverage. They used all their political capital to extend the coverage. I always had the feeling the country looked at that bill and said, ‘Well, he may be doing it because he wants to be a transformational president, but I want to get my costs down!'”

Mr. Zuckerman recalls reports of Mr. Obama consulting various historians on the qualities of a transformational president. “But remember, transformations can go up and they can go down.”

Mr. Zuckerman concludes:

“Democracy does not work without the right leadership,” he says later, “and you can’t play politics.” The smile inspired by Reagan memories is gone now and Mr. Zuckerman is pounding his circular conference table. “The country has got to come to the conclusion at some point that what you’re doing is not just because of an ideology or politics but for the interests of the country.”

Well said.

A World Of Misleading Headlines

Posted on by

Tampa Bay Online posted this headline last night:

GOP senators vote to defeat Obama’s jobs bill 

The New York Daily News reports:

Senate Republicans vote to kill Obama’s $447 million jobs bill

Those are two examples. If you choose to look, I’m sure you can find dozens. Let’s look at the facts. This the current breakdown of the Senate: Democrats: 57, Republicans: 41, Independents: 2. Because of the filibuster, it takes 60 votes to get anything voted on in the Senate.

The New York Daily News reports:

The $447 billion plan died on a 50-49 tally that garnered a majority of the 100-member Senate but fell well short of the 60 votes needed to keep the bill alive. The tally had been 51-48, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., switched his vote to “nay” so that he could force a future revote.

Power Line reports:

the bill stalled with Democratic Sens. Ben Nelson (Neb.) and Jon Tester (Mont.) joining all 46 voting Republicans to oppose the motion. …

At least three Members of the Democratic Conference who voted to move the legislation forward, Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Jim Webb (D-Va.), said they would have opposed its final passage absent significant adjustments.

I realize that I am being picky, but considering this will be a campaign issue in 2012, I think it’s a good idea to get the facts straight at the outset. The only bipartisanship was against the bill. All the Republicans voted against cloture, but two Democrats joined them. All but two of the Democrats voted for cloture, but some Democrats said they would not vote for the bill unless it was changed significantly. The Republicans did not block this bill–the Democrats were simply not able to get the support of all their members and make a case good enough to get a few Republican votes. It’s not gridlock–it’s simply a bad bill that did not pass!

Enhanced by Zemanta

Political Rumblings

Posted on by

Yesterday Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article about union bosses being dissatisfied with the progress of unions under Democrat administrations.

The article reports:

The growing rift between labor and their Democratic allies was on full display Thursday, as AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka told reporters that labor groups are planning to scale back their involvement with the Democratic Party in advance of the 2012 elections.

Going forward, Trumka said, the labor movement will build up its own political structures and organizations rather than contribute to and depend on the Democratic Party’s political operation. …

Labor has traditionally been a major contributor to Democratic candidates and causes around the country. Trumka said that their outside effort will help keep union-backed candidates more accountable for promises made on the campaign trail.

“Let’s assume we spent $100 in the last election,” he said, explaining the union’s position.

“The day after Election Day, we were no stronger than we were the day before,” said Trumka. “If we had spent that [$100] on creating a structure for working people that would be there year round, then we are stronger.”

What is this really about? The unions have spent a tremendous amount of money supporting Democrat candidates. Unions accounted for three of the top five high-spending outside groups in the 2010 election cycle. Needless to say, they were not as successful as they had hoped. Because of problems with union pension funds, unions need labor-friendly politicians in power to keep them going. Unions depend on growth in membership to keep funding their pension plans so that the members who have paid in over the years will get paid the pensions they were promised. According to the Pension Protection Act of 2006, pension plans whose funding levels are below 80 per cent are considered endangered, and plans whose funding levels are below 65 per cent are considered in critical condition.

It was reported in rightwinggranny.com on March 2, 2010:

“The SEIU National Industry pension fund is right at the 65% mark. The Newspaper Guild’s plan is at 62.8%, which is interesting in that newspapers seem uninterested in reporting on the problem. Sheet Metal Workers National is only funded to 38%.” 

This is a ponzi scheme. Unless the unions drastically increase their membership in the very near future, their pension funds will run out of money. It will be interesting to see exactly what the unions do in 2012. Strong union support of candidates who are not traditional Democrats could create a huge problem for the Democrats in national and local elections.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta