REALLY JOE? REALLY? Updated

I'm going to keep this short and sweet because I am absolutely sick and tired of this demagogic crap.

VP Joe Biden once again claimed that people who oppose President Obama's so-terrible-even-the-democratic-majority-senate-won't-pass-it American Jobs Act apparently don't mind if people are raped or murdered because of the lack of cops on the beat due to budget cuts.  (Doesn't that mean he's criticizing his own party?)

SAN FRANCISCO SAVORS THE GOURMET WAIVER FAVORS

Two hundred and four new Obamacare waivers were issued by the Obama Administration last month, for a grand total of more than thirteen hundred waivers.  Of those 204, thirty-eight - nearly twenty percent - went to Nancy Pelosi's home district, namely to high-end establishments like TRU Spa - the "best day spa in San Francisco" -  posh restaurants boasting $50+ entrees, luxury hotels and nightclubs.  These latest waiver recipients join quite a long list of previous waiver winners, a majority of which seem to be comprised predominantly of labor unions and democrat supporters (but I repeat myself). 

This is bad optics on two levels.  First, it once again illustrates how deeply the corruption and cronyism goes in this administration.  Considering we are entering what is sure to be a contentious election cycle, exempting businesses in her district make it look like Pelosi is doing favors in return for local support.  Whether that assertion is true or not is moot - perception is reality, and this looks really bad.  You can rest assured, though, that conservatives will be watching those businesses during the election cycle to see what level of financial support they offer her campaign.  There will also most likely be increased scrutiny (and lots of google mapping) of waiver winners to find other potentially advantageous groupings elsewhere.

Second, it illustrates what a mess the healthcare legislation really is - it was supposed to bring down costs and provide access to coverage for everyone but instead costs have continued to rise and people who currently have insurance now find it threatened.  Even staunch supporters are looking for an escape hatch.

Pelosi's response is that criticism of the waivers is "pathetic" (please note the usual Alinskyesque derision):

"It is pathetic that there are those who would be cheering for Americans to lose their minimum health coverage or see their premiums increase for political purposes. These waivers are reviewed and granted solely by the Administration in an open and transparent process so workers currently enrolled in 'mini-med' policies like those in San Francisco and across the country will not be punished and lose the minimum coverage they already have. These waivers will be eliminated in 2014 when Americans will have an opportunity to shop for affordable coverage on the health exchanges and will no longer be at the mercy of insurance companies placing coverage limits on policies.

The complaints coming from this crowd that supports ending Medicare is just another example of putting politics first."

What is really pathetic is her spin on this issue.  It almost sounds like she is slamming her own legislation - "It is pathetic that there are those who would be cheering for Americans to lose their minimum health coverage or see their premiums increase for political purposes."  That line could also be used to describe the jubilation with which she celebrated the passage of that horrible bill.  Her attempt to make her critics look bad in reality only makes her signature piece of legislation look like what it is - an over-reaching, unsustainable jumble of crippling regulations that is so bad that it requires exemption.  Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) said the waivers constitute:

..."tacit admission that the health care law is fundamentally flawed."
"Despite the president's promise, it appears that just because you like your health care plan does not mean that the administration will allow you to keep it," Upton said.

And to think this 'historically bad legislation' is the thing in which this administration is most proud.  Now that's pathetic.

Many of the groups that received waivers were some of the biggest, most vocal supporters of the legislation - particularly the labor unions.  The fact that they are now getting waivers is no surprise, however.  After all, they already got one heck of a concession before the bill was ever even passed.  This was after a failed attempt to exempt them from the law altogether.  But fear not, union cronies - this administration is adept at making end runs around things they find inconvenient.  Since they couldn't exempt them directly in the legislation, they will simply hand out waivers instead.  That waivers are now being given at this level begs the question, who really is yoked to this harness?  So far, it seems only those opposed to the law are being forced to comply - almost like a punishment. 

The waivers are for only one year! supporters will cry.  But congress just loooooves to extend things, like debt ceilings, the Patriot Act, and Pelosi's personal favorite, continuing resolutions - CRs must be her favorite, since she seemed to prefer them to passing an actual budget last year.  This desire to continue things ad infinitum is evident in their deep and abiding affection for tenure (or is perhaps an explanation for it).  The waivers are only available in yearly increments until 2014, but, if past experience is any indication, that date, too, will be extended.

What is becoming more and more evident is that under the Obama/Pelosi/Reid triumvirate, there are two laws of the land - one for the average Joe, and another for the administration and their supporters. 

THE REAL BONE OF CONTENTION

Let's face it - the real reason the DNC and Obama's OfA are freaking out over and attempting to organize and expand the Wisconsin budget protests isn't just because of the fact that if Gov. Walker has his way he will end collective bargaining.   There is a much deeper issue at stake, and it's something that isn't getting much play in the media, because it's not a sympathetic position ("It's for the kids!"™).  Walker's budget will also force unions to collect their own dues and, most importantly of all, have an annual membership vote.  That is the union buster, right there.  If Walker's plan goes through, union membership in the public sector will sink like a stone. 

This is, after all, a forced unionization state - if you work for the state of Wisconsin, you are a union member.  Period.  The dues are automatically garnished from your wages by the state; you have no choice.  The thing Walker is attempting to allow, which the unions and the DNC are desperate to stop, is employee choice over whether they want to be in the union or not.  According to this poll, there's a good chance that a healthy majority will choose "not".  Especially when those dues no longer magically disappear from their paychecks, sight unseen, and they have to cut a check themselves every month.  People tend to stop and think, to assess something more closely, when they are the ones writing the check for it - especially in a recession.

The most dangerous development in Madison is the annual membership vote. On a personal note, years ago I started working at a large corporation.  While I was going through the orientation process I was heavily pressured to join the union.  I did, as did most new hires.  But as I went through my first year, I realized that, being in a right to work state, union and non-union members had the same contracts - with the exception that non-union didn't have the pressure of a threat to strike every time the contract was up for renewal.  And I mean every time.  And so, like a large majority of my fellow employees, on my one year anniversary I dropped out of the union.  Wisconsin state employees don't have this luxury, but Walker wants to change all that.  It's not so much that he is trying to bust the unions as make the conditions possible for them to bust themselves.

Make no mistake, though - the DNC and OfA aren't coming to the rescue because this is an "assault on unions"; they are charging into the fray because it's an assault on the their campaign contributions.

The potential drop in membership in turn robs some of the DNC's biggest contributors of their forced dues, which they so generously donate to their pet politicians.  President Obama himself owes a huge debt to unions, and no doubt was counting on their support come 2012.  So the reason why the DNC and OfA have thrust themselves into a state issue is certainly no mystery.  The only thing under debate, really, is the appropriateness of their actions.

This isn't about "the little people", this isn't really even about collective bargaining.  It's about keeping forced membership, which will allow the government/union circle jerk to continue unchecked.  It's just amazing how hysterical some people become over corporate cronyism, and yet shout "power to the people" when it comes to union cronyism.  The problem is, public union cronyism is even more dangerous, because while a corporation greases palms and buys politicians to help create or prevent legislation/regulation that might enable their companies to have an edge in the marketplace (which might have the happy result of job creation/economic growth), unions grease the palms and buy the politicians with whom they negotiate their salaries and benefits.  It's like having union bosses on both sides of the table, only the "corporation" they are nailing to the wall is the American taxpayer (who is, at least according to Paul Krugman, the new mortal enemy of democracy). 

So don't be fooled by the DNC and unions (but I repeat myself) lamenting "worker's rights".  In the end, all they care about is the bottom line.  Ultimately the bottom line Walker is offering could be potentially crippling for them in the upcoming election cycle.  And that's all that really matters - the next election cycle.

Let's hope the gravy train has left the station by then.

A STERN WARNING

Andy Stern, head of the SEIU, is "retiring" from the union.  The news has a lot of people scratching their heads.  The man is arguably at the top of his game, so why is he throwing in the towel? 

There are a  few ideas about why he's quitting, from wanting to concentrate on Obama's deficit reduction commission to preparing himself to be a Supreme Court nominee.  That last one seems a bit far-fetched, though, because there would be strong opposition to his appointment by Senate republicans (and a majority of Americans, not that that really matters).  The fact that he is neither a lawyer nor judge certainly should put him out of the running, even if his radicalism and conservative opposition doesn't. 

No doubt he will be spending a lot of time on the deficit reduction panel, but it's also quite likely that all of his newfound free time will be spent advising a certain resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  Why stop now?  After all, there is still amnesty to force through.  Think of all of those new Americans to put on the labor rolls!  No doubt he wants to be able to work closely with his old buddy Barry O. for another heapin' helping of "social justice".  Even our braindead neoPravda media couldn't miss the glaring conflict of interest if the sitting CEO of SEIU were instrumental in legislation for increasing the workforce by millions.  Now he has the shiny patina of virtue in no longer being affiliated with the labor union.  It's a wafer-thin patina, but that seems to be enough for this administration.  It just needs the barest appearance of credibility or virtue.

There was a time, once, when the barest whiff of a scandal ruined someone for public life.  Now all that is required to pursue public life is the barest whiff of respectability.  Have we really become so ADD as a society that we can only give those who would rule us the quickest, most cursory once-over before moving on to the next big iWhatever/celebutant/scandal of the nanosecond?  How horribly sad.

There is talk that there might be a scandal brewing at the root of Stern's resignation, but the talk is vague and non-committal.  All of these instances of wild conjecture do is distract from reality.

One reality could be dissent in the ranks.  Stern and SEIU have experienced some internal revolts over the past few years.  In 2005 Stern and the SEIU joined the Teamsters and other unions in breaking away from the AFL-CIO, creating the Change to Win coalition.  They in turn have been battling a breakaway union that has been luring thousands of unionized health care workers away from SEIU.  There are also allegations of corruption by a handpicked protegee and excessive grasping for power  and strong-arm tactics on opposing unions and bosses.

The other reality is that his move out of SEIU should be cause for concern, no matter what the root cause.  It is far better to have people like him out in the open.  When a manipulative man with power and an agenda goes under the radar, it's time to get nervous.  Very nervous.  This man has a huge amount of power and influence, and he has an agenda that he has been dreaming of implementing since his college days in the 1960's - a vision shared by the current commander-in-chief.  He's not going anywhere, except underground.

Much like Van Jones, Andy Stern bears watching.  Looking elsewhere while he positions himself behind the scenes and enabling him to fly under the radar would be a huge mistake.

A SUPREME MESS

The Supreme Court recently ruled, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, that corporations, lobbyists and unions could freely donate to political campaign advertising.  You would think that the democrats would be thrilled at the prospect, because this frees up their beloved unions to more fully support their campaigns.  And out in the open, for a change.  Although daylight might be the last thing the union heads want, bloodsuckers that they are.

Instead, the democrats are in an absolute tizzy about the ruling and even had the audacity to announce they would try to pass a Constitutional amendment to bypass it.  Good luck with that.  President Obama, in one of his less than presidential moments, even scolded the Court publicly during his State of the Union speech.  Justice Samuel Alito silently mouthed the words "Not true" as the liberals in Congress stood up and cheered Obama on.

Chief Justice John Roberts finally made a statement on the whole episode last week.  He called the scolding "very troubling" (via the New York Times):

The chief justice painted a harrowing picture of “one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according to the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless.”

This has reignited a firestorm about the decision, and once again the liberals are freaking out.  It's a bit surprising, though, considering their beloved unions and lobbyists will now have free rein.

The real problem is that corporations are also being given free rein, and that includes insurance companies and Wall Street banking firms.  Wall Street was a heavy supporter of Obama during the campaign, but one would imagine that they are having a change of heart after the past year's confiscatory taxation and demonization.  A leading indicator of their disaffection is the fact that they are already switching alliegances. 

The basis of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was a dispute over a film about Hillary Clinton that Citizens United wanted to air during the campaign.  The film would have been highly damaging to her campaign and was slapped with a lawsuit to stop its release.  The Supreme Court's ruling opened the doors to future films in future campaigns. 

I can't imagine why President Obama is so passionate about overruling this.  It's not like there are any highly placed politicians whose pasts have been shrouded in mystery during the last election cycle or anything....

HOFFMAN AND PELOSI

Things are really heating up in chilly Upstate NY. The 23rd district, to be exact.

Apparently there are some serious...anomalies in the vote results. According to an email sent out by Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate:

• his campaign received faulty information on election night,
• inspectors read numbers incorrectly over the phone,
• a loss in Jefferson county has turned into a 400+ lead,
• not one but four districts incorrectly entered his vote total as zero.

So far, a 5,000+ 'win' for Owens has trimmed down to 3,000+, with 10,000 absentee ballots to go. The odds are good that Owens will still end up the victor, since Dede Scozzafava was still on the ballot at the time they went out. Of course ACORN and the unions seem to be involved, according to the Hoffman campaign. No concrete proof yet, though, so the jury's still out on that.

What surprises me is that no one seems to be talking about the legitimacy of Owen's vote for PelosiCare - perhaps because even without his vote it would still pass. But it certainly does illustrate the desperate measures Pelosi and co. are willing to sink to, all the way to allowing an uncertified civilian to vote for Congressional legislation.

The fact that the State Board of Elections Communications Director John Conklin sent a letter to the House Clerk explaining there was no winner yet in NY-23, no matter what the press are reporting is getting zero play. What's next, Nancy swearing in some buddies for the day to pass amnesty and 'working out the details' of the vote's legitimacy later? She seems to be playing politics pretty fast and loose lately, no?

Taken alone, this incident could be considered a minor glitch. But combined with the hyper-partisan strong-arm tactics, the manipulation of the press, the demonization of dissent, the KSM kangaroo court they are planning on setting up and the utter lack of concern - nay, disdain - for what the majority of America wants, this is starting to really look like a dictatorship. I'm just not sure who the dictator is - Obama or Pelosi.

Is there such a thing as a co-dictatorship?