Category: Politics

By on

Republicans are spreading the rumor that Barack Obama is actually running the country while old Joe Biden is sitting on the White House veranda drooling and soaking up the sun under a pile of warm blankets waiting to die. While there is no evidence that this is true, and I am convinced that Biden is presently up to the duties of his office and infinitely better president than that wastrel Donald Trump, I find Biden’s age worrisome. So when I hear these whispers about Obama being in charge, it comforts me.

Not because I believe it to be true but because it reminds me that the American system of government prevents the most powerful person in the world from having too much power. As we have witnessed in the past 20 years of partisan warfare, the President can do very little without the support of Congress and the approval of the Supreme Court. Biden doesn’t have either and thus little is being done right now. The only unchecked power he has, and it is mighty, is to send missiles flying in the event of a sneak attack. So who are the Republicans trying to scare here?

Not me. I like Obama and he also is popular with a large segment of the American Electorate. He is a young man particularly in comparison to both Biden and Trump. He is a recent president so he is up on the latest issues. Obama is a Democrat, Biden is a Democrat — is there much of a chance that Obama would be doing anything differently from Biden? Why should this concern me?

The Republicans spread this lie as if this should be upsetting. All I can say is good then. There is someone stable at the helm. And, if given the choice between a senile old man that is being manipulated by a younger known politician and a mad man who doesn’t take anyone’s advice but his own and who’s understanding of the bigger world stopped somewhere in middle school. I am going with the senior citizen.

The Republicans can continue to spread this vicious piece of gossip for however long they want to but I don’t think many people are gasping from the shock. They are undermining their strongest argument against Biden for no good reason. The only thing I can come up with is that they think the general public hates Obama as much as they do. They must have forgotten that Obama handily defeated the Republicans twice. I am happy to see them fumble around with this issue as I think a stronger and potentially more damaging case can be made regarding Biden’s age. Fortunately the Republicans aren’t able to grasp what that is.

By on

Mark Tapscott at the Epoch Times reports that, according to the National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR), Unions spent $25 billion dollars on 2022 election. Which is really kind of remarkable because Federal Elections Commission (FEC) reported that the total amount of money spent on political campaigns was 8.9 billion dollars. You might have spotted a glaring difference between the two organization’s figures. I certainly did.

Why the difference? First, and this is pretty important, the NILRR is anti-union. They want to demonize the union movement so they fiddled with the figures to make the actual 54 million labor spent on 2022 campaigns $25 billion. After this little switcheroo, the relative modest spending becomes outrageously large, especially with the untampered figures from corporations. $25 billion says unions are this powerful behemoth who have an endless supply of money to force their collectivist ways on the poor employers of America.

How did $54 million become $25 billion? NILRR’s much broader interpretation of union political spending can be found here: “the bulk of unreported political power is wielded by government union officials. They’re armed with the monopoly power to negotiate salaries, pensions, and hiring practices for entire swaths of federal, state, and local government workers. This makes monopoly bargaining in the public sector, by its very nature, political.” So, everything a union does is political and, therefore, must be included in political spending. Voila, you now have a rich monster with billions to spend facing those poor corporations who are just trying to run their business.

It’s a blatantly unfair comparison. Why isn’t the same standard applied to corporate spending? In non-union shops, which is close to 90% of all American worker’s experiences, the companies have this same monopoly power to negotiate salaries, pensions and hiring practices. When there are no unions, the worker is on his own and the company has all the power. Does the NILRR consider the money spent on Union Busting as political spending? Technically, I am sure it isn’t but by the NILRR broad definition of political spending, it definitely should be.

I am confident that when you add up all the Corporate Spending on salaries, benefits, HR policies and union busting, there would be a much higher amount of money for corporate political spending. Then we can talk political spending for both Corporations and Labor. Until then I think the FEC’s figures on money spent directly on political campaigns is the only fair way to appraise political spending. It gives a much different story about who is spending more money than Tapscott and NILRR.