Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

Posts Tagged ‘Union political money’

The Outsized Political Might Of Unions

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/06/09

Public Employee Unions and private sector Unions have far too much political influence compared to their size. And that political influence is bought through the forced Union dues paid by many people who are diametrically opposed to the political goals of those Unions, like the Ohio teacher who had her Union dues spent to fight her husband’s political candidacy. Her husband won the election, despite the Ohio Education Association stealing her money and then using that ill gotten booty to attack her husband.

Here are Jade Thompson’s own words:

Teachers should be free to spend their hard-earned dollars to contribute to the candidates and causes they actually support. The OEA and its parent organization, the NEA, refuse to acquiesce because they have an obvious agenda. After all, as the general counsel for the NEA once said in federal court, “if you take away payroll deduction, you won’t collect a penny from these people, and it has nothing to do with voluntary or involuntary. I think it has to do with the nature of the beast, and the beasts who are our teachers … (They) simply don’t come up with the money regardless of the purpose.” Teachers, this is what your union thinks of you.


 

Do Unions forcibly take Union dues away from people who do not want to be in the Unions? Yes, they do. Do those same Unions then spend those Union dollars on political campaigns many of their members vehemently oppose? Yes, they do. And it’s sinful and tyrannical.

Now, how big are the unions? Not very big when compared to the rest of the people. The Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics spells it out rather clearly in its January, 2012 summary.

In 2011, the union membership rate–the percent of wage and salary workers who were members of a union–was 11.8 percent, essentially unchanged from 11.9 percent in 2010, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The number of wage and salary workers belonging to unions, at 14.8 million, also showed little movement over the year. In 1983, the first year for which comparable union data are available, the union membership rate was 20.1 percent and there were 17.7 million union workers.

So, less than 12 percent of America’s workers are members of Unions (and I already pointed out that many of those Union members are unwilling members but were forced to be members against their will). But the news for the American public is much worse than that. A reasonable person would tend to believe there are more private sector Union members than public sector Union members simply because there are vastly more private sector jobs than public sector jobs. That reasonable person would be grossly in error.

From the same Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics report comes the data. Of the 14.8 million Union members, representing a mere 11.8 percent of the workforce, 7.2 million are in private sector Unions while 7.6 million are in public sector Unions. 51.4 percent of all Union members have public sector jobs while only 48.6 percent of all Union members work for businesses. That means Public Employee Unions represent 6.06 percent of all people in the workforce, or barely over 1 in 20 employees. And yet, as the chart on the right, from Open Secrets, shows, Public Employee Unions are among the absolute biggest political spenders in the nation. And they’re almost monolithic in their support for the Democrat Party (as opposed to businesses, which are far more balanced in their political spending, and spend far less money in politics). The top 4 highlighted groups on that chart are Public Employee Unions, and the 5th highlighted one is a group of Unions that contain both PEUs and private sector Unions. That, alone, would show an over-stated position of political power compared to their relatively small size.

But this isn’t about just the Public Employee Unions. It’s about all the Unions. So take a look at that chart of the biggest political spenders again.
3. Public Employee Union
5. Public Employee Union
7. Public Employee Union
9. Union
10. Public Employee Union
11. Union
12. Union (that I was a forced member of, twice)
13. Union
14. union
17. Union
18. Union
20. Union
29. Union
30. group of Unions

14 of the top 30 biggest political spenders are all Unions, and yet, Unions represent less than 12 percent of the workforce. But the Union spending doesn’t stop there.

40. Union (that I was a forced member of for nearly 9 years)
43. Union
44. Union
49. Union
52. Union
57. Union
58. Union
59. Union
65. Union
75. Union
85. Union
117. Union
119. Union
128. Union
133. Union

For Unions to be proportionately representative, they would need to have only 15 of the top 140 biggest political spenders, and yet they have 14 of the top 30 and 15 of the top 40! Unions represent 29 of the top 140 biggest political spenders, or just over 20 percent. From 1989 to present, Unions in the top 140 biggest political spenders have spent a combined 667,321,417 dollars on politics, and almost monolithically Democrat/Leftist politics. The top 140 spent a combined 2,367,159,046 dollars on politics in that time period, meaning Unions spent 28.2 percent of the political money of the top 140, far in excess of their proportionate representation, even considering Unions’ 21 percent representation in 1983 (which has been steadily falling since then).

Again, since 1989, Unions have spent 667.3 million (over 2/3 of a billion) dollars on politics. How much has the Left’s bogeyman, the Koch brothers, spent? A paltry 12.7 million dollars. So, next time some radical Leftist complains about the Koch brothers, remind that person that Unions are outspending the Koch brothers nearly 55 to 1. And while you’re at it, remind them that Unions are outspending their representative proportion more than 2 to 1.

Oh, by the way, that great evil, FOX News? Its parent company is on the list, at number 81, with 51 percent of its political money going to Democrats and only 48 percent going to Republicans. But in Liberal la-la land, that means they’re in the tank for Republicans.

UPDATE
From Bill Whittle (via Hot Air) comes this strong video:

Posted in economics, Elections, Liberal, media, politics, truth | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

How Barack Obama Loses In 2012

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/06/03

I actually wrote this as a comment on The First Street Journal, but I thought it worthy of its own article.

 

Obama will not win any states he lost in 2008. I guarantee that. So, Obama has to hold onto the states he won in 2008. And he will lose some of those states. I guarantee that, as well.

Obama will lose Indiana and North Carolina, two states he won in 2008. That’s “settled science.” Trends show Obama losing Florida. Ohio and Virginia are sliding toward the Republican column. Nebraska split its electoral votes in 2008. The Democrat Cornhusker Kickback was so roundly despised by the Cornhusker State that I project a full slate of Republicans in their electoral college. And it is likely that New Hampshire returns to its Conservative tradition (or New England Conservative, which is far squishier than the vast majority of the nation’s Conservatives).

Here’s a map showing the 2008 US Presidential election results from US Election Atlas.org, which I’ve previously used on more than one occasion (for more detailed information or to look at previous election results, click the above link and not the map itself):

So, breaking down what I wrote above:
Indiana, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, New Hampshire, Virginia flip from Democrat to Republican, and Nebraska goes from split electors to a full slate of Republican electors.

That is all that is necessary to boot the Socialist from the Oval Office.

But Obama cannot just focus on those states. Round about 50 million Union dollars spent in Wisconsin to get rid of the Republicans (who righted Wisconsin’s economic ship and reduced Wisconsin’s tax burden) all for naught. The Republican Governor and the Republican Government survives. In fact, the Republican Governor could very easily win with a double-digit margin, making the Recall election a Republican Mandate — to the horrors of a great many Democrats, who are suddenly down-playing the Wisconsin Recall after they had previously declared it something far more. Democrats had pointed to Wisconsin and declared, basically “this is what happens when you go against the Unions and Democrats.” But what happens? You win and the Unions and Democrats (same thing, really, Socialists, all) lose. So they’re now down-playing the Recall Election after they basically spent 50 million dollars leading up to it.

So Obama could lose Wisconsin, the “birthplace of American Progressives”. Meatchicken (I’m from Ohio, and that’s how any honorable Ohioan would spell that State Up North, as Woody always called it) is in play. Obama could lose Meatchicken. Pennsylvania is looking stronger and stronger for Republicans this cycle. Maine could go Republican this cycle. Nevada is not a Democrat lock, by any stretch of the imagination. Iowa could flip Republican.

There are actually rumblings that New Jersey, with Chris Christie being rather liked for his major fixes to that chronically damaged and chronically Democrat state, might be ready to go Republican this cycle.

For various scenarios, do view 270 To Win.

There are essentially 3 main reasons why Barack Obama is doing so poorly:

  • Barack Obama himself, and his massively over-reaching, totalitarian Socialist agenda that too many patriotic Americans hate.
  • The TEA Party and their Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, Patriotic aims.
  • The exploding blogosphere, breaking through the Hard-Left agenda of lamestream media.

Those three points should very likely mean the death of the contempt of Federal Court Barack Obama Regime.

(The chart on the right, of the top political contributors from 1989 to 2011, with its absolutely one-sided Democrat nature was provided to prevent a standard Liberal lie concerning political money. Look at all the Union money going almost all Democrat and the dearth of corporate money doing anywhere near the same for Republicans. Also note the absolute absence of the Leftists’ chosen fall-guy, the Koch Brothers, from that list. Source: Open Secrets.)

Posted in Blogging Matters, Conservative, Constitution, Elections, Health Care, Liberal, media, Obama, Philosophy, politics, society, TEA Party | Tagged: , , , , , | 3 Comments »

 
%d bloggers like this: