Right To Work Makes It to Wisconsin

Many years ago, the Midwest was normally called the industrial heart of the nation or something similar to indicate just how many of the nation's factories were concentrated in this section of the country.  The region was the center of the labor movement.  The big parade on Labor Day was the one in Detroit, not some event in Washington or New York.  Wow, has that changed!

In the last few years, Michigan passed right to work legislation.  Michigan!  The new law provides that workers cannot be forced to join a union to work for a particular employer, and non-union employees no longer can be forced to pay union dues.  In other words, employees who think that they get nothing from the union in exchange for the dues no longer have to pay.  Unions have to win support by what they achieve for the workers and not by the strength of state law.

In the next day or so, Wisconsin is going to join Michigan with a right to work law.  Given the previous battles between unions and Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, the unions are making a lot of noise about how the law is an attack on working men and women, but a funny thing has happened.  Polling in Wisconsin indicates that voters in that state favor right to work legislation by more than 60%.  The last poll was 62 to 38 percent in favor of the law. 

 

Net Neutrality

Right now, we still don't know what is in the three hundred pages of regulations that the FCC is voting on today.  These so called "net neutrality" regulations are supposed to give the FCC regulatory control over the internet, but that is all we know.  The agency and the supporters of the net neutrality talk about the regs as if they will protect internet users, but these people have not seen the proposal.  Others claim that the regs will limit the speed of the internet, but these people have not seen the proposal.  Some folks argue that the FCC and the government will use the regulatory power to control the availability of web sites to those with viewpoints that are out of favor with the then government, but these people have not seen the proposal. 

The idea that the FCC is voting on regulations that will revamp the ienternet without first releasing the text of the proposal and allowing debate on the subject is beyond belief.  Only in Obama's Washington would such a move be contemplated.  We already had Obamacare passed with the statement by the Speaker of the House Pelosi at the time that they had to pass the bill in order to find out what was in it.  We know how that turned out.  Now a regulatory agency filled with political appointees is going to vote on secret regulations that could affect the future of the internet forever.  It is an outrage, to say the least.

I hope that the regulations fail, either because the FCC lacks the power to pass them or because they are somehow struck down by Congress due to public outrage.  I really do not care what they say.  It is a travesty for the hacks at the FCC to try to do something like this without allowing full public debate.

 

Something Totally Different

Governor Scott Walker has written an op-ed in today's USA Today in which he says that he is not going to take the bait when the media asks questions about someone's religion or other extraneous matters.  Instead, Walker says, he is going to stay focused on the issues that matter to the people of Wisconsin (and the people of America.)  All I can say is that it's about time we had a politician who recognized the ongoing media gotcha questions for the nonsense that they are and who refused to participate.  In 2012, Democrat operative (excuse me, I am supposed to say "reporter") George Stephanopoulos famously asked Mitt Romney a question about limits on birth control to start the meme about the supposed "War on Women" by the GOP.  There was no issue about limits on birth control at the time, and there never was such an issue after that, but the phony claims went forward after that through the entire election.  That question by Stephanopoulos at least pertained to an issue that had been on the table 50 years earlier.  Questioning Walker about president Obama's religion (the latest attempt at a gotcha question of the Wisconsin governor) does not even have the relevance of an old issue.

I do not know how the country will react to Walker's position.  There is a reader's poll in response to his column where over 80% of respondents support him, but that is hardly scientific.  I'd like to think that the American people will understand what he is saying and approve of it.  Jobs and national security are much more important than Obama's religion or whether Walker paid attention in a class in college thirty years ago.  If that view prevails, the mainstream media will be hysterical.  It would stop them from being able to control the conversation so as to focus on silly little items rather than on the issues where their favored candidates have such a deficient track record.

Hillary's Rotting Foundation

For the last ten days or so, there have been reports about how the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation has been accepting multi-million dollar contributions from foreign governments and lobbyists for those governments.  The contributions look very much like attempts by these governments to buy the approval of Hillary Clinton who is likely to be the Democrat candidate for president in 2016.  It's not that these foreign countries get something now from Hillary in exchange for their millions; rather, it looks like these countries are expecting something from Hillary in the future should she get elected.  In other words, it is highly inappropriate.  Since the story first broke, however, we have all been told that while Hillary was secretary of state, the foundation stopped accepting "gifts" from foreigners to avoid conflicts of interest.

Well, like many items of information put out by the Obama administration (and by Hillary too), this last claim turned out to be false.  The Washington Post is reporting that while Mrs. Clinton held the post of secretary of state, the Clinton Foundation went right on accepting big bucks from the foreign governments.  One gift mentioned in the WaPo article is half a million dollars from Algeria that was given just at the time that Algeria was lobbying the State Department to get off the list of human rights violators.

When the Clinton Foundation took gifts after Hillary left the State Department, it was just tawdry and called into question the judgment of a potential presidential candidate.  Accepting the gift when Mrs. Clinton was in office at State, however, could be a felony in certain circumstances.  Obviously, we do not yet know all the details of what happened and must rely only on what the WaPo has reported, so it may turn out the Mrs. Clinton has not committed a criminal act.  One thing is certain, however; Mrs. Clinton has to come forward and explain what happened here.  Otherwise, this may be the end of her campaign even before it starts.

 

Even Worse Than Rice

Earlier today, I wrote about the dishonesty and incompetence of the national security adviser, Susan Rice.  Then, within hours, secretary of state John Kerry managed to say something so profoundly idiotic that he made Rice and her lies look good by comparison.  Kerry testified before a congressional committee today.  During that appearance, Kerry pointed out how Israeli prime minister Netanyahu does not do well in analyzing foreign policy issues.  Specifically, Kerry said this about Netanyahu and the U.S. invasion of Iraq:

"The prime minister as you recall was profoundly forward-leaning and outspoken about the importance of invading Iraq under George W. Bush. And we all know what happened with that decision."

Unbelievable!  Are we supposed to forget that Netanyahu was not prime minister at the time the War in Iraq began?  Are we supposed to forget that prior to the invasion of Iraq, Congress voted on whether or not to proceed and Kerry voted FOR the invasion?  Are we supposed to forget that two years later when Kerry ran for president as the Democrat nominee he still supported the War in Iraq?

The whole thing is a joke.  To use Kerry's old phraseology, he was for the war before he was against it.  Now, he wants to use Netanyahu's agreement with Kerry's position in 2002 as something that disqualifies Netanyahu's ability to recognize the best course in foreign policy.

I say again, Kerry used to be known as the dumbest senator in the US Senate.  Now he is setting the bar extremely low for the office of secretary of state.  Forty years ago, Richard Nixon nominated Clement Haynesworth to be a justice of the Supreme Court and famously said in essence that "mediocrity" deserved to be represented on the Court.  President Obama took that to heart when he made Kerry his secretary of state.  Kerry is mediocre for sure.  In fact, calling Kerry mediocre is an insult to mediocre folks all across the world.  The truth is that Kerry is worse than mediocre.

 

Two Kinds of Rice

Over the last decade, America has seen two women named Rice at the head of the National Security apparatus at the White House.  The first Rice, Condoleezza Rice, was a strong force in the Bush White House and at the State Department.  Many around the country disagreed strongly with her views, but there was never any question as to her intellect, her ability to see things in a rational manner, or her integrity.  The second Rice, Susan Rice, is the current National Security Advisor and was president Obama's ambassador to the UN prior to that.  It is Susan Rice who went before the American people on the Sunday after the Benghazi terrorist attack and lied on five separate news shows about the cause of that attack.  It is Susan Rice who came forward and called Bowe Bergdahl an American hero on multiple TV shows even though she knew that Bergdahl had deserted and possible defected to the Taliban in Afghanistan.  In other words, it is Susan Rice who has presented many questions both as to her intelligence and her integrity (or, more precisely, her lack of intergrity.)

Today, Susan Rice did more damage to America's foreign policy for domestic political purposes.  She said on television that the speech by Israeli prime minister Netanyahu next week to Congress will be "destructive of the fabric of the relationship" between the USA and Israel.  This is a woman who is supposed to understand diplomacy.  Does she actually think that by issuing such strong criticism of the head of the government of our main ally in the Middle East, she is being diplomatic or improving the relationship we have with Israel?  Imagine, Netanyahu goes before Congress at the invitation of that body and speaks about the perils of an Iranian nuclear weapon.  Somehow that damages the relationship with the USA even though both Obama and secretary Kerry keep professing that the goal of American policy is to make sure that Iran does not have such a weapon.  This is "destructive"?  When Susan Rice accuses the prime minister on national TV of inflicting damage upon the relationship, does Rice think that she is improving that relationship?  Is she really that dumb?  Indeed, if she thinks she is helping then no further proof is needed that the woman is a moron.

The truth is that the second Rice (Susan) looks at America's security and foreign policy as secondary to achieving the political goal of supporting Obama.  The problem is that the damage she causes with her politically spinning (okay political lies) is major while the political gain for Obama, if any, is fleeting.  I realize that as part of the Obama administration, Rice is surrounded by a miasma of mendacity; nevertheless, she still ought to know better.  Just because she hangs out each day with people who never seem able to even recognize the truth, let alone state it, is no excuse for Rice to join their club.

Wouldn't it be nice to have Condoleezza back?  She is a woman who some thought ought to run for president.  When Susan Rice leaves (and let's hope that is soon), the only job she will be qualified for is to star in a movie called "The Dallas Liars' Club".

Helping the Middle Class One Regulation At A Time

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has managed to shake off his worries about ongoing federal criminal investigations swirling around him and his administration and has done something that his supporters call a bold move to help the middle class.  What is this bold move?  Cuomo has issued an order to raise the minimum wage for "tipped" workers to $7.50 per hour.  Tipped workers are people like restaurant workers, hotel maids and pizza delivery workers who get a substantial portion of their income from tips.  The minimum wage is the amount that employers must pay in wages to these workers before they collect tips.  The minimum has been $5 per hour, so the increase is 50%.

The effect of this move will be interesting to see.  Certainly many workers will benefit.  On the other hand, some marginal businesses will throw in the towel.  Think about it.  A restaurant with ten waiters, bartenders, and busboys will suddenly have to pay an additional $52,000 per year in wages, and since many items like insurance, social security, etc. are proportional to wages, there will be other increases.  There are many restaurants for which the extra $75,000 per year will be too much.  These places will close and the workers will lose their jobs.  Then there is another question that needs to be addressed:  how many of these workers will start to be paid "off the books".  Will jobs for hotel maids migrate to illegal aliens or others who are willing to stick with lower wage payments that are never disclosed to the government?

The truth is that a major change to wage rates which is set by an edict from the government always has unintended consequences.  We will have to wait to see how this unfolds.