There’s an internal war going on in one of the Communications Workers of America’s largest locals, New York City’s Local 1101.  Accusations of poor, absentee leadership has caused a group of rank and file stewards and chief stewards to start a campaign to reform the local. Now, the issues have involved the CWA International in Washington, which has placed a monitor over the local due to an investigation’s findings that revealed the local’s union bosses have been fattening themselves on their members’ dues.

CWA Local 1101 has nearly 7,000 members—most of whom work for telecom giant Verizon, as well as a handful of other companies. In 2010, local 1101 took in over $5.3 million in dues and agency fees. In addition, because New York is not a right to work state, Local 1101 is legally permitted to charge its members 1.9% of their pay as a condition of employment. If they don’t pay, the union can order them to be fired. As such, some members pay over $1400 per year in union dues to enable the local’s officers to rake in over $150,000 a year in compensation.

This is, perhaps, one of the reasons the local membership is up in arms over the alleged financial improprieties of a number of the local’s officers [via Labor Notes]: (more…)

Most Americans are unaware (although readers of my website, AtlasShrugs.com, are well aware) of the atrocity that is taking place at the 9/11 Memorial and Museum. The New York Times reported last Sunday that “a dispute” is taking place over the remains of 9/11 victims, “between some of the victims’ families and the officials planning the National September 11 Memorial and Museum underneath where the twin towers stood.”

The dispute has arisen, says the Times, because “officials plan to take the remains seven stories below ground and place them in the new museum behind a wall with a quotation from Virgil about never forgetting, studded in letters of World Trade Center steel. But the families, appalled by the idea of remains that could belong to their loved ones being turned into a lure for tourists, want them kept in a separate above-ground memorial that would be treated like hallowed ground.”

The remains of the victims of the September 11th Islamic attack on this country do not belong to those ghouls at the 9/11 Memorial and Museum (Ground Zero mosqueteer Daisy the Khan is on their advisory board). Sally Regenhard, who lost her son Christian on 9/11, explained: “I personally feel I’ve been robbed of access to where my son’s remains are potentially being buried. My entire family, we will never go in there. This is a post-traumatic stress situation waiting to happen.” Rosemary Cain, whose son George, a firefighter, was killed on 9/11, said that putting the remains in the museum was “like a freak show.”

However, the president of the National September 11 Memorial and Museum, Joe Daniels, was fine with the freak show: “What the families need most and what the public needs most is a memorial they can come to to pay their respects at.” The hubris of this creep. He is going to tell the 911 family members what they need.

(more…)

The media are reporting that if a governmental shutdown occurs, it will affect only “nonessential services and personnel.” Now, call me superficial, but I have a question:

At a time when we face a $1.4 trillion deficit this year alone, why are we funding anything or anyone that is admittedly “nonessential”?

I have been pondering an analogy that ought to be easy for anyone to grasp. Let’s compare the current congressional battle over federal spending with a hypothetical family feud over your own household budget.

Suppose you and your spouse are arguing about your finances. You have discovered, to your horror, that you are spending $1,400 per month over and above your total household income. Terrified, you inform your spouse that this is completely insane and unsustainable, and that it must stop immediately.

Your spouse nods in nominal agreement — but then digs in his or her heels against every single specific spending cut that you propose.

Knowing of your partner’s stubborn, spendthrift ways, you eventually propose just $100 in reduced spending. That would still have you falling behind each month by $1300, but at least it’s a start. However, your spouse is outraged and rejects the figure out of hand; it’s “draconian,” and would undermine the profligate lifestyle to which you’ve become accustomed.

You argue, and argue, and argue. Getting nowhere, and desperate for any point of agreement, you say: “Look, can’t we cut just $61 from our monthly spending? We both know that this won’t even make a dent in our obligations, but at least it might slow our rush toward bankruptcy, if only by a few days.”

(more…)

History books are filled with examples of unplanned and unexpected events.  U.S. presidents like any head of state anywhere in the world must be capable of responding to sudden, serious and totally unexpected turns of events. As renowned historian Arnold Toynbee famously noted, “History is just one damn thing after another.”  It is easier to criticize during a campaign than it is to govern when stark facts with which one’s predecessor had to grapple are presented or new unplanned events occur.  Then the choices become opaque.

President Obama came to office imbued with the notion that American unilateralism was the cause of our unpopularity in much of the third world.  President Bush saw and acted through his belief in American exceptionalism along with certain core principles largely predicated on his notion of what American leadership in the world required. This was especially true following the attacks of 9/11.  Mr. Obama, on the other hand, seemed primarily to see American arrogance as the cornerstone of prior foreign policy, so he quickly moved to reset our relationships with long-standing as well as more recent adversaries.  No more bold, “you’re either with us or with the terrorists,” would emanate from the Obama White House.

To set the stage for his new emphasis, Mr. Obama thought it necessary to distance the United States from some of its traditional friends.  What had been our “special” relationship with Great Britain (a phrase repeated by every president in the post‑World War II era) did not issue from his lips.  In fact, the new president, apparently finding no room in any White House closet sent that “dust catcher” of a sculpture of Winston Churchill back to the Brits.  Not only did this set a tone, it slapped a face.

Israel was also slated for Mr. Obama’s new policy of reset relationships.  Since he was of the view that solving the Israel ‑ Palestine dispute was the magic elixir to bring peace and stability to the Middle East, the new president made a series of blunders.  He implied, rather early in his administration, that America could no longer be counted upon by Israel to counter the appeasement policies of the European powers or the hostility of the U.N.  He famously and gratuitously insulted the visiting Israeli Prime Minister, Benyamin Netanyahu, by keeping him unceremoniously waiting in the West Wing for a couple of hours so he could dine with his family in the White House living quarters.

(more…)

Donald Trump for President may be for real. Is Obama fired?

With all wards reporting, the unofficial results indicate that Deputy Attorney General Joanne Kloppenburg leads Supreme Court Justice David Prosser by a margin of 204 votes, a margin so narrow the Associated Press declined to declare a winner in the contest.

The margin was .014 percent.

While the 72 counties reported their results throughout Tuesday night, the lead shifted wildly between the two candidates. Wednesday morning, Prosser was leading, but little by little Kloppenburg caught up and finally took the lead herself as wayward wards in Crawford, Dunn, Sauk and other counties were counted.

The narrow margin of victory guarantees a recount, a process that could leave uncertain the fate of the Wisconsin Supreme Court until June.

The election was billed by the Kloppenburg supporters as a referendum on Governor Scott Walker and his proposal to limit collective bargaining for public sector unions. Unions and their third-party groups invested heavily, looking for a powerful ally on the high court.

As soon as the occupation of the State Capitol began in late February, “Vote Kloppenburg” signs began appearing along side banners and placards protesting the changes in Wisconsin’s law governing collective bargaining.

Prosser lost Dane County, home to the State Capitol and tens of thousands of state workers, by nearly 85,000 votes.

(more…)

As the Wisconsin Supreme Court race looks to be decided by just a matter of a few hundred votes, questions naturally arise about potential improprieties that may have been conducted in an effort to “get out the vote.” One such instance occurred in Madison where two taxi cab companies decided to offer free rides as part of a “Democracy in Motion” effort to “support our community by helping people get to the polls.”

The cab companies Union Cab Coop and Badger Cab offered free rides to the polls by request in the Dane County communities of:

• Middleton (Kloppenburg: 68%)
• Monona (Kloppenburg: 75%)
• Shorewood (Kloppenburg: 84%)
• City of Madison (Kloppenburg: 82%)
• Blooming Grove (Kloppenburg: 74%)
• Burke (Kloppenburg: 60%)
• Maple Bluff (Kloppenburg: 59%)
• Fitchberg (Kloppenburg: 68%)

Seems rather benign on the surface, but when one considers the areas in which these cabs served, they voted for the JoAnne Kloppenburg to the tune of 79%.

According to Union Cab Coop, they brought 102 people to the polls yesterday. When Media Trackers contacted Badger Cab they had not compiled the exact numbers but estimates were that they brought “around 50 people” to the polls.

Despite this “non-partisan” facade, Union Cab Coop has posted on their website a series of statements that reveal that there may have been more than meets the eye for these friendly free rides.

(more…)

Washington is filled with groups that piously express their devotion to balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility, so it is rather revealing that some of these groups have less-than-friendly responses to Congressman Ryan’s budget plan.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, for instance, portrays itself as a bunch of deficit hawks. So you would think they would be doing cartwheels to celebrate a lawmaker who makes a real proposal that would control red ink. Yet Maya MacGuineas, president of the CRFB, basically rejects Ryan’s plan because it fails to increase the tax burden.

…while the proposal deserves praise for being bold, the national discussion has moved beyond just finding a plan with sufficient savings to finding one that can generate enough support to move forward. All parts of the budget, including defense and revenues, will have to be part of a budget deal… Now that both the White House and House Republicans have made their opening bids, this continues to reinforce our belief that a comprehensive plan to fix the budget like the one the Fiscal Commission recommended has the best hope of moving forward.

I’m mystified by Maya’s reference to an “opening bid” by the White House. What on earth is she talking about? Obama punted in his budget and didn’t even endorse the findings of his own Fiscal Commission. But I digress.

Another example of a group called Third Way, which purports to favor “moderate policy and political ideas” and “private-sector economic growth.” Sounds like they should be cheerleaders for Congressman Ryan’s plan, but they are even more overtly hostile to his proposal to reduce the burden of government.

(more…)

In the year that has passed since the Supreme Court decided Citizens United v. FEC, the liberal elites have waged a war against the First Amendment.  Liberal politicians including President Barack Obama and Senator Harry Reid, liberal media corporations like the New York Times, and labor unions have joined together to support restrictions on speech and liberty.

Their proposals for “reform” have fallen flat, in large part because they have been exposed as efforts to chill the Freedom of Speech.  These attacks on the First Amendment have used populist rhetoric in an attempt to silence corporate speech.  These efforts to silence corporations are difficult to reconcile when one sees that the New York Times, a media corporation, published a new proposal for “reform” authored by the founder of a non-profit corporation, aimed at silencing speakers that do not support their liberal world view.

In the April 4, 2011 edition of the New York Times, David Callahan launched an ideological attack on the boogeymen de jour, Charles and David Koch.  Callahan sets the tone of his article by attacking the Koch brothers for “conceal[ing] the recipients of their largess.”  In order to prevent this from occurring, Callahan would “require all nonprofit organizations that engage in political advocacy to reveal their donors.”

While Mr. Callahan alleges the current system can be utilized by the left and the right, he seems particularly offended by David Koch’s support of “ideologically driven organizations like the Cato Institute.”  Callahan argues that such groups should be treated differently from other not-for-profit organizations.

(more…)

A single undercover detective and his informant walked into the house full of armed men, ready to close a deal for 500 pounds of marijuana that was supposed to lead to the seizure of a quarter-million dollars in cash for the police department in Chandler, Ariz.

There had been glitches throughout the day.

The sale was supposed to take place at a house on West Maldonado Drive in south Phoenix, miles away from suburban Chandler. At one point the deal fell apart because the buyers could not produce the cash. They later called the police informant, saying they had the money in hand and wanted to close the deal, but at a different house.

They called again, switching the location back to the house on Maldonado.

Chandler police agreed to each of the demands. And now they were staged to make the sale, swoop in with their SWAT team, arrest the suspects, and confiscate the money.

There were as many as a dozen suspects inside the house. It is unclear from the police reports whether police saw any guns at that point.

The undercover detective checked the money, but apparently did not count it. He called in the other two officers who were driving nearby, giving them the signal to bring the marijuana to the house and back into the garage. When the delivery car arrived, the detective noticed more men get out of another car parked nearby and walk inside, according to an account he later gave to Phoenix police.

(more…)

We’ve already seen the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in illegal and extraordinary fashion commandeer control of the Internet – so as to then impose the ridiculous notion that is Network Neutrality.

Which remains a solution running around looking for a problem – government rushing to drastically increase government to allegedly address a non-existent “crisis.”  (Even the fake ones are never allowed to go to waste.)

In addition to being a horrendous overreach of the FCC’s non-existent statutory authority, it is an incredible and unwieldy disruption of the free market.

A free market which has thus far worked amazingly well – as the government-free Web has rapidly developed into the free speech, commerce-rich Xanadu we all know and love.  (Internet business now represents 1/6^th of the U.S.’s entire economy – an equal share to that of health care.)

The Internet – free from stifling and sloth-inducing regulation – is reinvented for the better again and again, on an almost moment-to-moment basis.

The government, meanwhile, cannot successfully deliver snail mail.  It therefore cannot hope to keep up with the mercurial, improvisational Internet – nor should it try.

But Net Neutrality is not just the oppressive burden of ham-handed regulation of the inter-network – it is also a backdoor, stealth imposition of price controls.

(more…)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson is joined by Mark Hemingway to discuss the Obama’s launch of his 2012 campaign and who the GOP might nominate to face him, then Pej talks about the KSM trial.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Obama Kicks Off Re-Election Drive With Appeal to Grass-Roots Backers
Slate: Military Trials are ‘Cowardly’ and ‘Stupid’ Except When They’re Not
For 2012, is Boring the New Awesome?
Chris Christie, bringing sexy back
2012 Iowa Race Is a Crapshoot
Mark Hemingway at the Weekly Standard
Pej: The Obama Administration’s Very Grudging Admission

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Mark on Twitter
Follow Pej on Twitter

Big labor attempted to turn yesterday’s election for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court into a referendum on Governor Scott Walker’s budget policies, but, like much else in Wisconsin politics these days, the results remain unclear. This state court fight drew national attention because of its potential implications for the state’s new law, supported by Walker and Republicans in the legislature, barring collective bargaining for government employees.

Charles H. Franklin, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison told the New York Times Monday “This has really become a proxy battle for the governor’s positions and much less a fight about the court itself.”

Prosser, seen as a conservative, is expected to uphold Governor Walker’s union bill, while the liberal Kloppenburg has been heavily backed by the unions because she is expected to overturn it. The current court is split four to three in favor of conservatives, which makes this seat the deciding vote if the union case were to reach the state Supreme Court.

The morning after the polls closed there is no clear winner. Kloppenburg leads by a mere 224 votes 739,574 to Prosser’s 739,350 with 99 percent of precincts reporting. Turnout was high, but it is significant to note that, for all that it invested in this contest,  big labor was unable to secure a decisive win. It wasn’t for lack of trying.

Unions attempted a show of force across the country on April 4, staging hundreds of “We are 1” rallies. Their goal was to show solidarity but the outcome was lackluster at best. Redstate.com reported that despite the unions spending tens of thousands of dollars many of the rallies had only a fraction of the expected turnout.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka boldly predicted that the union’s demonstrations across the country would translate into electoral victory – starting yesterday in Wisconsin and catapulting Democrats to large wins in November 2012. On Tuesday he told a closed door Democratic House caucus meeting, “I firmly believe that if Democrats are to take back the House in 2012, it will be because they succeed in riding this wave, keeping that spark alive and closing the enthusiasm gap.” However, the unclear result from the Wisconsin Supreme Court election makes Trumka’s bluster ring hollow.

(more…)

“I may not agree with what you say but I’ll fight to the death to defend your right to say it.” Voltaire

Who would have ever thought a philosopher from France (of all places) would support individual freedoms more than American political leaders? Not moi, but unfortunately we’re not making American political leaders like we used to!

Much has recently been made of Florida preacher Terry Jones’ burning of the Koran and the subsequent Afghanistan riots that resulted in the murders and beheadings of UN workers. What has been more repugnant, but not surprising, is the speed in which American political leaders have rushed in front of cameras to condemn Jones and even suggest restricting the First Amendment and freedom of speech!

South Carolina RINO Senator Lindsey Graham appeared on CBS Face The Nation yesterday. He stated:

“You know I wish we could find some way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war. During World War II you had limits on what you could say if it would inspire the enemy.”

Senate Leader Harry Reid added on the same program:

“Ten to 20 people have been killed. We’ll take a look at this of course…as to whether we need hearings or not, I don’t know.”

Shame on these lame excuses for Americans! Graham has the audacity to state “free speech is a great idea?” No, Senator Graham, free speech is one of the cornerstone liberties that separate America from the totalitarian controls in countries where citizens suffer with the oppression of communism or sharia law. It is America’s love and defense of individual freedoms and rights that serve as the backbone of our love and defense of liberty.

(more…)

When you think about a highly aggressive cartel teaming up with politicians to pass protectionist laws that kick entrepreneurs out of work, you probably don’t think about interior designers.

But you should.

The American Society of Interior Designers (ASID) represents less than 3 percent of all designers, but its members have designated themselves as spokespeople for the entire industry. ASID has spent over 30 years and millions of dollars lobbying from coast to coast for interior design licensing schemes.  Not surprisingly, the schemes they propose would force all interior designers to have the exact same credentials as required for membership in ASID.

The group has worked relentlessly to enlist state legislatures in its campaign for total industry cartelization. The Institute for Justice has documented these efforts in a study titled “Designing Cartels.”

Florida is ground zero right now in this epic battle.

(more…)

Just as the discussion in Washington turns inescapably to reckless spending of the sort that earned Spain the title ‘The Next Greece’, President Obama goes to Pennsylvania today for an ‘energy town hall’ to promote policies he used to regularly admit he borrowed from Spain’s socialists. Yet these are policies Spain, Germany and the rest of his models are actually sprinting away from.

Specifically, the president will strike the ‘green jobs’ pose again at a plant owned by Spanish windmill producer Gamesa, rather incredibly reprising his cheerleading for this subsidy-dependent industry – all of whose manufacturing jobs will flee when the subsidies run out. That is, they are not – wait for it – ‘sustainable’.

So let’s review the unhappy history of the agenda and its talking points.

First, a sordid walk-through of the economic recklessness of this persistent, key component of ‘fundamentally transforming America’ is in my February testimony placed into the record by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which makes for some timely and fun reading.

Next, recall how deeply troubling this persistence is: the damage these policies wreak has been specifically, thoroughly and professionally exposed as regards the very countries Obama used to tell us to look because they were his models (Spain, Denmark, Germany; the sole exception not receiving the full review is Japan). He no longer cites them, obviously due to said exposés, but he still pushes the costly schemes. He knows, and cares not. That is disturbing.

(more…)

The Centers for Medicaid and Medicare (CMS), under enormous public pressure, proposed that Provenge, a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved treatment for prostate cancer, be covered by insurance following a controversial “review.” A final decision on the issue is expected to be published 60 days after the public comment period for the proposed decision has ended.

On the same day as the CMS decision, Judicial Watch released hundreds of pages of documents from the Obama Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) detailing how and why the review was instituted. And here’s one of our major finds: While the Obama administration claimed the cost of Provenge had nothing to do with their review, these documents suggest otherwise. (Remember Medicare and the FDA are legally prohibited from denying approval of a medical treatment based solely on cost.)

Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request with HHS over Provenge after the press reported the CMS had taken the rare step of calling for a review Provenge to see if it is “reasonable and necessary” and should be covered by Medicaid and Medicare.

The move caused widespread panic among those patients who depend on the treatments to live, as well as anyone else who had heard all about health care rationing and “death panels” under Obamacare. (Let’s not forget, Obama named “Death Panel Donald” Berwick to head CMS and Berwick is on record supporting the idea of health care rationing, so these fears are not unfounded.)

(more…)

It’s easy to complain about the IRS, but more often than not the bureaucrats are simply carrying out the bad policies imposed by Congress. There certainly are some egregious cases of IRS abuse, but it’s typically the fault of lawmakers for enacting bad law.

But such is not the case with a regulation currently under consideration which would require that American banks put foreign tax law above U.S. tax law. The regulation deals with the obscure issue of reporting requirements for bank deposit interest paid to foreigners, but the economic impact would be significant. Worst of all, the IRS is seeking to overturn existing law. In some ways, this is the tax equivalent of the EPA’s notorious power grab scheme to impose cap-and-trade with regulatory edicts.

A bit of background. On January 7th, the IRS proposed this regulation (REG-146097-09) to force American financial institutions to report any interest payed to foreigners. Typically, U.S. tax authorities only require information used for U.S. tax purposes. And since Congress wants to attract this investment to the American economy, the law has clearly stated for 90 years that foreigners won’t get taxed, leaving no need to collect any information about this income. But now, as part of global efforts to undermine tax competition and usurp fiscal sovereignty, the IRS is unilaterally asserting the right to demand this information. Only it’s not to enforce American law, but in order to hand the information over to foreign governments so that they can tax this U.S.-source income.

There is good reason why investors would want to protect their personal information.

(more…)

Bill Ayers, the one-time domestic terrorist who, along with his colleagues in the Weather Underground, bombed government buildings, now wants us to believe the government is the answer to all our problems.

I suppose that’s what happens when your friend becomes President of the United States.

Ayers recently appeared in New Jersey and was questioned by a pro-charter school activist.  She wanted to know why Ayers opposed alternatives to traditional public schools, particularly for poor kids who can’t afford private school tuition, and what he would do to offer children a better education.

Ayers solution?  Government-run schools – and more money for them.  Ayers despises private companies being involved in the education of children.  Who cares if kids receive a better education from a corporation?  Apparently he sleeps better knowing some kids are sentenced to violence and a poor learning environment in many assembly-line, government-run schools.  As long as it’s government-run, with labor unions calling the shots, that’s good enough for Ayers.

(more…)