Obama's Jobs Summit: The Invisible Hand of SEIU and ACORN

by Liberty Chick -

As President Obama concludes his first jobs summit, almost a year into his presidency, the nature of the guest list hints at a deliberate initiative that's been underway for over 15 years - and it's not one of the obvious presumptions that most would make. Notice that of the list of leaders invited, the majority are labor union leaders, leaders of businesses with government contracts, or leaders of businesses that operate on partial public funding. There is a common element across most of the businesses represented: in one capacity or another, even if they are private sector businesses, most on the list benefit from some form of public money.

There is a legal precedent over 15 years old that is the pervasive push behind such a premise, one that was the product of ACORN and labor union coalitions. And judging by Change to Win / SEIU’s Anna Burger’s plan for today’s jobs summit, it’s evident that this precedent is in play as we speak.

It’s no coincidence that in the wake of America’s economic crisis, some lawmakers have been pushing for infusions of public funds into the private sector. No, we’re not just talking bank and insurance company bailouts. We’re talking about tax credit and incentive programs, health care reform proposals, green jobs programs, energy efficiency initiatives, and even real estate development companies. As the conservative accusations of socialism have begun to sink in with progressive leaders -especially with union leaders, who are especially sensitive to being perceived as public spenders – the language has been changing. Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand” doesn’t sound so scary when it’s wrapped in the glove of words like “co-ops” and “public-private partnerships” and “national service”, which are now quickly being mainstreamed into the rhetoric.


To the observant reader, one can look at the list of Jobs Summit invitees and know what the outcome will be, and why. The goal is not to create jobs. The goals are to create public-private partnerships and to create union membership opportunities.

In 1994, when ACORN and its community and labor union allies won the first Living Wage fight against Baltimore’s Inner Harbor development project, a national movement was underway. It was not only about Living Wage, but the premise itself opened up the door for a broader, more creative initiative.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The premise of Living Wage: any private business that benefits from public money can be controlled in part by government policy, and in this particular case, must pay their workers a living wage. While minimum wage is a standard national and state guideline across the board, living wage is different in that it calculates the income an adult with the average family of two must make in order to live comfortably in the middle class bracket for that geographic location.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The premise of today’s broader movement: create more opportunities for private businesses and individuals to benefit from public money, and the government can then intervene to dictate anything it wants – labor regulations, wages, health benefits, and much more.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we see in SEIU’s campaigns to unionize home child care workers and UAW and AFSCME’s campaigns to do the same, any trickle of state or federal subsidies creates an opportunity for government and union entry, which drives up taxes and stresses the economy. And SEIU is applying the same logic to home care workers, nursing home workers, cafeteria workers, and the like.

We see this premise of control via public subsidy in action most obviously today with TARP and the bank bailouts. Conveniently for unions and community organizers, the bailouts outraged many – even constitutional conservatives. Hence, why SEIU especially seized upon the opportunity to channel that collective rage and turn it instead into a marketing tool to create anti-capitalist hype. (Note that SEIU selectively excludes the Automaker Bailouts from its manufactured rage). Bashing capitalism and the free enterprise system has become a favorite pastime for some. It seems just downright trendy these days to equate greed or corruption with capitalism and use it as a basis for throwing out an entire economic system, doesn’t it? When in your lifetime have you stood in line at the grocery store and overheard everyone from your postal carrier, to the elementary school’s janitor, to your neighbor’s college student son, all offering their theories on the evils of capitalism? You don’t even have to know anything about economic theory or the important role of Capitalism in the founding of America to participate in this latest fad. (After all, in a study of the Ability Of College Freshmen To Identify Adam Smith And Karl Marx, only 26.6 percent could identify Adam Smith as the “father of Capitalism”).

By the way, if you want to argue the positive aspects of Capitalism, just watch Steve Forbes put SEIU’s Andy Stern in his place on the issue in this video from the The Federalist Society, where it presented a panel discussion on Redistribution of Wealth at the 2009 National Lawyers Convention. (full panel video on C-Span)

Keeping in mind the consequences facing banks that have received public funds, let’s look at all of the private sector areas in which SEIU and other labor and community organizing coalitions have been gaining unionizing strongholds, based on the same precedent initially set by the living wage laws 15 years ago:

• Child care workers who have customers that receive public subsidies through welfare programs
• Home care workers who serve patients who receive Medicare, Medicaid, or other public health care benefits
• Using unionized workers to drive public weatherization and energy efficiency initiatives that receive public funds
• Private schools and universities with students who receive public grants or loans
• Private companies that do business with the government in any capacity
• Private companies that have received public grants or loans
• There’s even a push to regulate private companies that have received loans from any banks that have received public funds
• The future focus no doubt will be on creating regulations related to anyone who receives public health care benefits

Unions have been unable to successfully grow membership in the private sector; therefore, SEIU has focused on growing its public sector opportunities by organizing typically private sector independent workers as mentioned above. In addition, it has focused on acquiring, often by force, other unions, and on creating political policy that will create public sector jobs in their realm of union membership, such as with health care. Lastly, the SEIU conducts repeated corporate campaign attacks on organizations that support free markets and that oppose forced unionism. Simply look at their attacks on non-unionized hospitals like this one and this one, and groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (which coincidentally was left off today’s jobs summit invite list).

In fact, just watch this Campaign for America’s Future video on C-Span, with panelists Anna Burger (Change to Win/SEIU) and Ilyse Hogue (MoveOn.org), especially at around minutes 57:00 and at 58:40 when Hogue mentions their joint campaign with SEIU against the US Chamber of Commerce to mobilize 22,000 small business leaders to oppose the Chamber of Commerce under the guise of saving the planet.

Given the observations of all of the above, now examine the highlights from Anna Burger’s plan for creating jobs at Thursday’s jobs summit:

• Increase unemployment insurance and expand work sharing programs to provide unemployment benefits for reduced hours of work
• Use TARP funds to increase credit for small businesses
• Expand federal fiscal relief to states and local governments (to save an anticipated 900,000 jobs?)
• Create jobs in child care, in-home services for the elderly and disabled, and other community services through a public jobs program
• Leverage private investment with public dollars through a Green Bank that will promote energy-efficiency and renewables as a major source of job creation; Expand home retrofitting programs begun under the Recovery Act to commercial and public buildings
• Rebuild schools, roads and bridge; create an Infrastructure Bank to foster public/private partnerships in developing regional and large scale projects
• Passing health care reform will add “tens of millions of Americans to the healthcare rolls and create more than a million new and different jobs” in healthcare and related industries
• Pass the Employee Free Choice Act
• Expand worker training programs on a national scale

Every last one of Burger’s recommendations hinges entirely upon public dependency, both at the business level and the at the individual level. Aside from being one of the most powerful labor union leaders in the world, Burger is a primary participant in today’s summit, and she’s also on the President’s Economic Recovery Board of Advisers. As SEIU Secretary/Treasurer and chair of Change to Win, Burger’s organizations spend the union members’ dues on some of highest lobbying numbers on Capitol Hill for a multitude of self-serving policies.

Today’s jobs summit is not about creating jobs. It seems relatively clear that the goals will be more focused on establishing ways to propagate “public-private partnership opportunities” to all facets of the private sector. “Reformist”, “Social Capitalism”, “Market Socialism” – use whatever terms you want. Most of us know that Capitalism didn’t cause this crisis, because Capitalism isn’t really what we have anymore, which is why the free market needs to be restored. While we may hear what sounds like private sector rhetoric from President Obama, Progressives in Congress, and today’s jobs summit leaders, don’t be easily fooled – beware of Adam Smith’s infamous “Invisible Hand” in the form of the proverbial wolf disguised in sheep’s clothing.

Liberty Chick is an associate member of New Jersey Tea Parties United as well as a contributor to Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com

Medicare Tax Increase

by PDR -

Medicare Tax according to Webster's: A tax deducted from employees' paychecks that goes to pay for medical benefits for people over 65 years of age. Medicare tax is paid by both employee and employer.

Medicare Tax was first imposed upon us working Americans in 1966 at a rate of .35 or .70. The current Medicare Tax rate is 1.45% or 2.90%; that is a 241% increase over a 43 year period. Medicare is paid by the employee, yes you the employee and is matched by the employer. There is no wage base for the Medicare tax, you pay it from day 1 and you pay it as long as you are a wage earning American. We already pay too much in taxes.

This tax affects ALL of us adversely:

The young will be paying from the first job they take. They will have no CHOICE but to participate in government sponsored health care. They will this Medicare tax until they are ready to retire at age 65 and collect their and then they will become SENIORS

SENIORS, who have been paying into Medicare are will receive less services by less doctors; higher premiums for MediGap and the government will have direct access to your bank account to obtain payment for services. Medicare already denies more claims than any private insurance plan. HR3962 specifically makes reference to a reduction in Medicare funding, higher Medicare Taxes but less funding and benefits. Is this what we want? NO we do not.

And Small business owners-we know who we are and we know how we are currently struggling under high taxes. We can no longer afford additional taxation. Small businesses combined provide the greater majority of jobs in this country and are always hardest hit by tax increases. Why? Because it is more difficult for small businesses to compete and more difficult for small businesses to increase the costs of goods and services. Colgate Palmolive can increase the cost of a tube of toothpaste 1% to cover this Medicare tax increase and the American consumer will continue to purchase the toothpaste. They can raise the price by 10 or 20% to cover all the additional costs that will be imposed upon us by HR3962 and we will continue to purchase their products. The small business owner who increases his price for goods and services by 10% may be out of business tomorrow.

I urge everyone to oppose HR3962. It is an invasion of our privacy. It takes away our choices. It reduces benefits to our seniors. It increases taxes and costs. And it does not provide coverage for every uninsured American, but it sure does tax every working American.

BETTER LATE THAN NEVER? Charges Filed Against SEIU Purple People Beaters...

From the Labor Union Report -

It is said that the wheels of justice turn slowly.
In the case of the SEIU purple shirted thugs who beat a conservative black man selling Gadsden flags at a town hall meeting in August, justice is coming more slowly than usual and the wheels?...Well, in St. Louis, the wheels of justice seem to be nothing more than that of a blue matchbox car.

The St. Louis Post Dispatch, which has a reporter among one of the charged, writes:

Six people arrested in August outside a raucous town hall meeting in south St. Louis County have been charged with misdemeanor ordinance violations.

The six, including a Post-Dispatch reporter, had attended a demonstration outside an Aug. 6 forum called by U.S. Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-St. Louis, at Bernard Middle School in Mehlville to discuss health care reform....

The maximum penalty upon conviction would be one year in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Some bloggers have been writing for months about the lag between the arrests at the politically-charged event and the filing of charges.


County Counselor Patricia Redington insisted it had nothing to do with politics, influence or pressure from any official.

"These charges are like the 90,000 other charges we file each year," she said.
[Emphasis added.]

Interestingly, although the county counselor insists her delay has nothing to do with politics, she seemed much more interested in justice nine years ago when she filed charges against a Republican staffer for pushing a camera away from his face.
Redington was quick to file charges back in 2000, when a staffer for Democrat Richard Gephardt stalked serious contender Republican Bill Federer on a parade route. The staffer, James Larrew, tried to shove his camera into Federer’s face until Federer was forced to push the camera away. The staffer freaked, flagged down a cop and claimed that he had been assaulted. Larrew then called Gephardt’s office and spoke to Joyce Aboussie, Gephardt’s top political adviser, who then contacted Redington’s office. Two days later Redington filed assault charges against Federer, on Columbus Day, a national holiday; after which Redington, Aboussie, and Larrew conducted a media blitz, all arranged for by Gephardt’s office.

Something tells us that the wheels of justice are a bit off track in St. Louis.

http://laborunionreport.blogspot.com/2009/11/better-late-than-never-charges-filed.html

Reflections on the Status of Marriage

by CH -

The New Jersey Legislature is contemplating a vote on same sex marriage during the lame duck session. Governor Corzine promises to sign this legislation before leaving office.

I am against changing the definition of Marriage. Marriage is the committed relationship between a man and a woman. It is a unique institution and its meaning to society should be upheld and valued. One of the primary purposes of marriage is to procreate and raise the next generation. Mothers and fathers each bring a unique set of attitudes, skills and emotions to the table to help raise their children.

Children need both of these unique sets of tools to become healthy adults. The traditional Marriage relationship has proven to be the best environment possible to create and nurture children.

In addition, I fear that if same sex marriage is folded in to traditional marriage then any religious organization founded on the basis of traditional religious values will be pressured to change or risk losing their tax status, etc. I recently read that a Catholic Church was being challenged in Canada for refusing to rent out their church reception hall to a lesbian couple. A private religious entity should not be forced to do anything that is against the biblical values they are based on.

The slippery slope concept is worrisome. If same sex unions are defined as marriage then why not include multiple partner marriage or marriage with a minor? How far could we eventually go? Once marriage is opened up to a different meaning then people should be able to define it any way they see fit to adapt to their personal lifestyle.

The current recognition by New Jersey of civil unions for committed same sex couples is justified. It could be used to fight for health benefits, pension benefits, etc. But we don’t have to change the meaning of marriage to accomplish these goals. Same sex civil unions can be used as the vehicle to grant couples the benefits and protections that they deserve. We don’t need to retrofit marriage to make it all encompassing. We need to continue to recognize marriage as the loving union between a husband and wife and the best environment to raise children.

I realize my views will be depicted as hate speech and bigotry and that’s too bad. My views are not against same sex couples, what they do in their private lives is their own business. But I must stand up for the special status of traditional marriage. Most Americans agree. Whenever same sex marriage is put to a vote of the electorate, it loses. Voters recognize the unique status of marriage and want to keep it as such. Pushing a vote in a lame duck session in New Jersey not only ignores the recent election results, but takes the vote away from the people.

Why Not Try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed In Federal Court?

by Brian Baldwin -

The Stop The Terror Trial in NYC Rally will be held on Saturday, December 5, 2009, at Noon in Foley Square on the steps of the Federal Courthouse.

Organized and led by the 911 Never Forget Coalition, the rally will be supported by 911 family members, FDNY and NYPD personnel, members of the military, veterans, the 912 Project, Tea Party Patriots and thousands of Americans protesting the plan to hold the trial that will give enemy combatants of the U.S. constitutional protections by holding the trial in U.S federal court.

But why is it wrong to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Federal Court, when Zacarias Moussaoui was successfully tried in Federal Court?

Zacarias Moussaoui, the infamous “20th Hijacker”, was arrested by law enforcement authorities on immigration charges after arousing suspicion at a Minnesota flight school. Moussaoui was mirandized and provided with an attorney. Although he rejected his appointed attorneys and chose to represent himself, the groundwork for a trial in our legal system had been laid down. He was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury on December 11, 2001. His trial finally met its completion in 2006 with a life sentence.


Why shouldn’t Khalid Sheikh Mohammed be tried in Federal Court in NYC? Attorney General Eric Holder says the trials are finally moving forward after “8 years of delay”. Isn’t it time that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was brought to trial?

But what happens if Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is found not guilty? Don’t worry. Attorney General Eric Holder brushed off the question, saying, "I would not have authorized the bringing of these prosecutions unless I thought that the outcome -- in the outcome we would ultimately be successful. I will say that I have access to information that has not been publicly released that gives me great confidence that we will be successful in the prosecution of these cases in federal court."

President Obama, while visiting Tokyo, said, "I am absolutely convinced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be subject to the most exacting demands of justice…The American people will insist on it and my administration will insist on it."

It certainly sounds as if President Obama and Attorney General Holder are sure of the outcome of this trial. Is this the message we want to send to the Muslim world? We are going to pick and choose which high profile cases will be publicly tried while others, that are not a slam-dunk, are left in Guantanamo to rot in prison or face military tribunals. Doesn’t this undermine the arguments of the left that this must be done to show the world “American Justice”. We are treading on a dangerous path.


This is not the first time Eric Holder has shown bad judgment. As Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration, he pushed for the release of 16 violent FALN terrorists against the advice of the FBI, the US Attorneys who prosecuted them and the NYPD officers injured by them.

Senator Barack Obama often held a different position than President Barack Obama, and this case is no different. In September 2006, debating the Military Commissions Act, then-Senator Obama said Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and those like him would get "basically a full military trial with all the bells and whistles. He's going to have counsel, he's going to be able to present evidence, he's going to be able to rebut the government's case. Because the feeling is that he's guilty of a war crime and to do otherwise might violate some of our agreements under the Geneva Conventions."

"I think that's good that we're going to provide him with some procedure and process," then-Senator Obama said. "I think we will convict him and I think he will be brought to justice. I think justice will be carried out in his case."

Certainly, not everyone has done a 180 on this. Attorney General Holder was never a supporter of military tribunals. As he said, “after 8 years of delay”, we are finally moving forward”. It is true. Very few military tribunals were ever carried out due to leftist attorneys’ attempts to derail the proceedings with legal challenges. Many of these attorneys are in the Obama Justice Department today – including Eric Holder, a former partner in Covington & Burling LLP. Covington and Burling represented at least 18 Guantanamo detainees, donating over 3,000 FREE hours of legal service, making Holder’s claim of “8 years of delay” even more incredible.

Countless lawsuits delayed the military trials. These same delays, created by law firms like Covington and Burling, are the Obama administration’s justification for holding civilian trials.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was arrested during a military action involving Pakistani ISI (Inter Service Intelligence) and SOG (Special Operations Group), a division of the CIA responsible for paramilitary operations. He was transferred to military custody at Guantanamo Bay detention camp to face a military tribunal – the tribunal once supported by Senator Barack Obama. Although Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was ready to plead guilty and accept a death sentence, President Obama, upon taking office, suspended all military tribunals.

Now that the trial will be moved to Federal Court, what legal rules will be followed? Miranda rights were not read. No attorney was provided. Will any evidence, testimony or previous confessions be allowed, even though he confessed to being responsible for the planning of 9/11 “from A-Z”? Will our military now be compelled to read Miranda rights and collect evidence on the battle field?

Even Judge, Michael Mukasey, who presided over the trial of the blind sheikh Omer Abdel Rahman says “the plan seems to abandon the view that we are involved in a war”. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his co-defendants will now be given a forum to disseminate hatred and propaganda. A civilian trial will compel the US government to reveal intelligence and how it was obtained, thus hindering US efforts to combat terrorism. Al Qaeda will better understand our intelligence gathering techniques and respond accordingly.

Should Zacarias Moussaoui have been tried by military commission? In 2001, President Bush established military commissions, a wartime system of justice used during the Revolutionary and Civil wars as well as World War II. Congress approved these procedures in 2006, long after Moussaoui’s Grand Jury indictment. Military Commissions have since been upheld by the Supreme Court.

The actions of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were acts of war against the United States and should be prosecuted by a military commission. The world is too dangerous of a place to continue sending mixed messages regarding our commitment to fight terrorism, whether we want to use the name “Terrorism” or “Man-caused Disasters”.