Otherwise, Johnson said of Vitter, it would appear, “He’d rather pay a prostitute than pay auto workers.”
That's David Vitter, of diapers fame, who purports to represent a state that has subsidized -- are you ready -- foreign auto makers.
On the other hand, you do have to be crazy to be able to pretend that somehow any principles are at stake other than union busting, which, I guess, is a principle in and of itself:
An action alert circulated among Senate Republicans on Wednesday called for Republicans to “stand firm and take their first shot against organized labor.”
In doing so, analysts said, Republicans were planting the seeds for a fundraising appeal to big business—other than the Big Three, of course—as they gear up for a major political fight next year over expected legislation that would make it easier for unions to organize.
Mitch McConnell and the Republicans (a more complete list here) who all voted against this bill but for the financial bailout will all earn 160k and the best benefits package in the country, but are going to let an entire industry die because some autoworkers make more money than Bob Corker thinks they should.
That sort of says it, doesn't it? Of course, most commentators are somewhat puzzled by Republican congressional acquiescence to the bank bail-out -- which will run well over a trillion dollars, when all is said and done -- against their resistance to a measly $15 billion for the auto industry. Hint: the banks aren't unionized.
And here I though we left the thirties behind a few decades ago. (Cole's posts are the best I've seen for reducing the whole debacle to apprehendible proportions, and well worth a read.)
What amazes me is the fact that the Senate Republicans, after being trounced in the last two elections, have decided to take on a major voting bloc.
WTF?
2 comments:
Hypocrisy? I find it amusing (and sad) that liberals would piss and moan about the money the CEOs make, but wouldn't dare expect the UAW to make any kind of concessions. Add in the whining about CEOs flying on corporate jets, when many in congress do the same, and you quickly see the comedic value.
Regardless, the people are opposed to a UAW/Granholm bailout. The party that came to power in 06 pontificating about how they were going to do "the will of the people", and haven't done a damn thing since, should be paying attention.
C'mon Hunter! This isn't about helping the poor, blightered American auto workers. This is payback for the hundreds of millions the unions spent getting Comrade Obama elected.
Then again, WaPo found that most union households oppose bailing out UAW/Granholm.
I'd be more inclined to pay attention to your remarks if they displayed any evidence that you'd actually read this post. I didn't discuss the "bailout" of the Big Three -- which, as it happens, is not something that's on the table: we're talking "loan" here -- there is a difference, you know. I'm talking about the Republicans' naked agenda of union-busting, which I find hard to believe has no relationship to the fact that those most vocal in their opposition to giving the Big Three a loan come from states with non-union auto plants -- such stalwart American brands as Honda, Mercedes, and Nissan. (Which plants, by the way, were heavily subsidized by the states in question -- oh, wait -- those are called "tax incentives." Pardon me.)
Cole links to an article from the LA Times that cites the "action alert" circulated among Senate Republicans, which I've seen references to and quotes from all over the blogosphere:
Labor was another issue underlying the tense negotiations. An action alert circulated among Senate Republicans on Wednesday called for Republicans to "stand firm and take their first shot against organized labor."
In doing so, analysts said, Republicans were planting the seeds for a fundraising appeal to big business -- other than the Big Three, of course -- as they gear up for a major political fight next year over expected legislation that would make it easier for unions to organize.
"They may lose money from the auto industry, but a union fight will get them a lot of money from the rest of the business community," Sabato said.
And, as it happens, the UAW has already agreed to a number of concessions -- the Republicans blew the deal because the salary cuts weren't happening fast enough to suit them. (And I'm surprised you didn't haul out the "$70/hour" myth.) It's obvious they don't give a shit about the economy or American workers, but then they never did, really. Take it as a given that neither Corker nor "Diapers" Vitter are the brightest porch lights on the block, but does anyone else want to guess what happens when 1) a million more people lose their jobs, and 2) GM and Chrysler default on payments to parts suppliers, many of whom are depending on that money to stay in business themselves? Where is Honda going to get its parts then?
Read the LA Times article and then come back and discuss who's paying back which campaign contributions.
So the Senate Republicans are still in the 1930s and figure union-busting is the way to redeem the party. Maybe that's a clue as to why they've become nothing more than obstacles to getting anything done.
Of course, I'd be more hopeful if there were actually a Senate Majority Leader.
Post a Comment