President Obama held his “Jobs Summit” – formally called the “Forum on Jobs and Economic Growth” – on Thursday, December 2, 2009, where he summoned 133 civic, labor, and business leaders to the White House to discuss how to curb or possibly reduce the American unemployment rate which is currently stated as being at 10.2%. The actual (U-6) unemployment figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics is 17.2%!
Firstly, if President Obama is actually willing to listen to business leaders as well as the heads of various labor unions and academic institutions, this might have been a good step forward. To date it has been painfully obvious that essentially nobody in Obama’s administration has any practical idea of how the private sector functions.
I’m not sure if that is how it played out though. Parts of President Obama’s keynote speech at the Job Summit leads me to think otherwise.
I want to hear about what unions and universities can do to better support and prepare our workers, not just for the jobs of today but for the jobs five years from now and 10 years from now and 50 years from now.
I want to hear about what mayors and community leaders can do to bring new investment to our cities and towns and help recovery dollars get to where they need to go as quickly as possible.
I want to hear from CEOs about what’s holding back business investment and how we can increase confidence and spur hiring.
That sounds an awful lot like President Obama is asking academia, the labor unions, and local government officials how they think they can help spur job growth, but asking business why they aren’t doing so themselves and need this “help” in the first place.
There’s also the issue of whether President Obama would truly listen to- and act upon the likely responses to the question of what’s holding back business investment and how we can increase confidence and spur hiring?
Now Give One Good Reason Why You’re Not Hiring
As Gary Varvel’s cartoon so aptly points out, there is not just one but several reasons why many businesses – especially the smaller companies with lower margins and market caps – aren’t hiring. So very much of what Obama and his Liberals are trying to do would have a chilling and quelling effect upon American businesses, especially small and mid-cap ones.
If President Obama’s “Jobs Summit” is going to have any tangible value and end up being anything more than yet another PR stunt in his ever ongoing Presidential Election Campaign, he’s going to have to listen to the issues that American businesses have with his agenda. But, for the sake of creating needed jobs, can he and would he cast aside so many key planks of his political platform?
I sincerely doubt that President Obama has the will and strength of character to do so – just as I doubt that any other man placed in that position would. Universal Healthcare, Cap and Trade, and rolling back the Bush era tax cuts on businesses were key promises he made to the Liberals in order to get elected. Turning aside from that agenda would be political suicide.
Face it, how many men would sacrifice their own job in order to get one for someone else? That may very well be the upshot of Obama’s “Jobs Summit.” President Obama may have to gut his own chances at reelection in order to do what is needed to salvage the American job market.
I suppose that it should come as no surprise that President Obama’s Stimulus Plan, the first of his attempts at a new Reconstruction of America would utilize the Union Army to further his agenda. Of course, this time it won’t be the Blue Bellies and it’s not just the South being ground under a POTUS’ jackboots. Obama’s Union Army is made up of the federally subsidized labor Unions – aka Soviets.
Just as the Union enacted a punitive regime in the South, so too has President Obama enacted a punitive regime across all of America. That is the Hope and Change he threatened.
It seems that New Hampshire won’t be receiving very much from Obama and his Liberals’ “Stimulus” plan. This is because funds for construction projects from this abomination and act of Generational Theft can only be distributed to union projects. Free and freedom-loving Americans need not apply.
The Administration’s decision to discriminate against successful and independent construction firms simply because New Hampshire employees choose to work in a union-free workplace and not bow down to the demands of big labor is extremely unfair to our state. The request for bids issued by the Department of Labor requires that contractors employ a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) and requests they provide proof of completion of three prior PLA projects. However, under these conditions there is not a single firm in our State that would be eligible to bid on this multimillion dollar construction project. In a time of economic hardship, it is simply absurd to discriminate against local contractors and construction workers for the benefit of national labor unions.
To educate the masses, a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) is is when the government awards contracts for public construction projects exclusively and solely to unionized firms. A Project Labor Agreement (PLA) mandates that all contractors, whether or not they are unionized, to subjugate themselves and their employees to unionization in order to work on a government-funded construction project. This is done by including a union collective bargaining agreement in a public construction project’s bid specifications. In order to receive a contract, a contractor must sign the agreement and submit itself and its employees to union control.
Worse but not surprisingly, President Obama and his Liberals aren’t satisfied with “merely” requiring that only workers’ soviets get Stimulus funds; they are mandating that any company or contractor must have a history of submission by mandating that these American companies must have proof of having knuckled under to the unions at least three (3) times in the past.
Since only 8.7% of New Hampshire’s construction workforce has voluntarily surrendered their right to work, this means that essentially no New Hampshire building firm can bid on any of the Stimulus-funded construction projects.
Hope an Change? Yeah; hope for Obama’s soviet army, and change as expressed by a 2nd Reconstruction of America – this time into something recognizably foreign, failed, and evil.
Of course, historically only approximately 15% of construction trades workers in all of America were union members or working under union-coerced contracts. Since there are approximately 9.6 million construction trades workers in the US, 1.9 million of which are self-employed, only 1.44 million – likely none of the self-employed – could benefit from the Stimulus-funded projects.
This explains why so little of Obama and his Liberals’ Stimulus monies have been spent to date. They have to wait until the “negotiators” from the various unions / soviets can convince Americans to enlist. It takes time – and possibly a carefully managed increase in unemployment rates – in order to coerce Americans to surrender their values and freedoms in order to feed, cloth, and house their children.
Obama’s Union Army – if you’re an American construction trades worker, contractor, or employer, you’ll see them coming to a job site near you…to take projects and wages that could have fed American families.
In what passes for common wisdom among the Left, the big money donors to politicians are those “evil” corporations that “not-so-secretly run America” and the Republican party is their well-paid tool. This is axiomatic among Liberals. It’s a mantra they chant and was one of the major planks of President Obama’s 2008 campaign.
As is not too surprising given their track record in such matters, the Liberals are either wrong or mendacious on both the source of campaign contributions and the breakdown of the recipients thereof. Thankfully for those interested in the truth, OpenSecrets.org has compiled a summary of the 100 all-time top donors from 1989 – 2008 based upon the data released by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) on May 12, 2009. I’ve tabulated the top 25 donors below:
Note: percentages of Dem: Rep donations total up to 99% each due to unlisted minor party and independent recipients of campaign donations
In the past 19 years the top 25 donors to political campaigns have given a total of $688,899,706 to politicians’ war chests. $497,435,208 (72.21%) was given to Democrats and $182,961,723 (26.56%) was given to Republicans. So Democrats received almost three times as much in campaign donations from the top 25 donors as the Republicans did during the same 19 years. So much for the Liberals’ dogma that the GOP is the party who’s “bought and paid for.”
Having car troubles – i.e. having your automobile malfunction – is a royal pain in the ass. Nobody likes it, except the mechanics of course. They get paid to find and fix those problems.
Mechanic – I found your problem
Of course, sometimes finding out what the problem is doesn’t mean that it’s fixable. This is often the case when one either uses substandard parts to start with or adds shoddy after-market modifications conceived of in the 3rd-World. 😉