Horrific Bills = Happy Dems
Nathan Greene
in Culver, Palin, Statehouse Issues
|
14 Comments
By Emily Geiger
So much to say, so little time.
It’s Baaaa-aaaack
Just when you thought that the Fair Share bill was dead and buried after Chester’s veto last year, it has reared its ugly head yet again.
The Register is reporting that various union leaders are pushing the governor to support a plan that is described as a “major expansion” of the bill that was originally proposed two years ago.
The bill would mandate that certain non-union employees who benefit from union agreements be required to pay union fees, even if they want nothing to do with the unions themselves.
Though Chester previously vetoed this bill, it seems much more likely that he will support it this time around. This time, the bill was drafted by the governor’s office, but has not yet been introduced in the legislature.
Looks like Chet’s union buddies have gotten under his skin. I’d sure like to know what threats were made, I mean, what was said to make Chester do this total 180 degree turn-around. Chester does need those union minions doing his GOTV work in this next election...
So, How Are Paying for Infrastructure again?
Is it through bonding, or through a gas tax increase? I saw State Sen. Tom Rielly on Iowa Press last weekend talking about how much we need the gas tax. Now I read that Chester is moving forward with his plans to promote his $700 million bonding proposal.
Cake-eater? You decide.
I think both ideas suck. Which is probably why the Dems are going to want to do both. But hey, did anyone really expect Chester NOT to have his cake and eat it too?
Isn’t this why we all had our license and registration fees jacked up so much last year? Isn’t that money supposed to fund road construction (in addition to what was already being spent on road construction)? This just doesn’t make any sense to me.
Palin Stick to Her Guns
I was very impressed with the latest news I read about Alaska Governor and former Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin. It seems Palin has put in her two-cent’s worth in an effort to raise money for a Texas GOP gubernatorial candidate.
But the question is, which one?
Option one is Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a moderate who voted for the first bailout bill and who supports abortion rights. Oh yeah, and she’s a she.
Option two is Gov. Rick Perry, a fiscal and social conservative who opposes government bailout and has a much more restrictive view on the abortion issue. Oh yeah, and he’s a dude.
I was happy to see that, like me, Palin feels that a candidate’s views are more important than a candidate’s gender. I’m all for electing more women, but I won’t abandon my principles just for the sake of electing women.
Being tough, sticking you’re your beliefs, and doing what’s right... now that’s girl power!
Nathan Greene
Correction
We previously stated in the original post that the union-back bill which Culver vetoed last years was a “fair share” bill. It was actually a union-backed bill related to collective bargaining.
We should have known that because we wrote about it extensively last year here, here, here, here, and here. (And probably some other places, too.)
What can we say? Sometimes we’re sleepy when we write.
Reader Comments (14)
Emily,
"Fair share" is a different bill then what the governor vetoed last year. "Fair share" guts Iowa's right to work law where the bill from last year deals with Iowa's collective bargaining law.
Both big union payout bills. Both not good for our state's economy of businesses, but not the same thing.
Wouldn't both bills have required non-union workers to pay fees to unions? Was there other differences?
The Fair Share bill would require all employees to play a fee for services provided to them by the union (usually for negotiations).
The collective bargaining bill would allow more issues be bargained for during negotiations for public employees, just like private employees can do.
Just because they involve unions doesn't mean they are the same thing. Try doing a little research before writing next time.
Now if you can get Palin to stop supporting pork-riddled bailouts and phony stimulus packages we might actually have something.
A wolf in sheep's clothing is still a wolf. It may not be the same bill as 2007, or 2008, but it still has the same goal: obtain payment for union "services" from non-members of the union.
And what do they want to use that money for? Well it's right in the article..."to organize workers." In fact, the union bosses see "so many workers that need to be organized" all across the state, that they need this money from non-members in order to do that sacred work.
If someone wanted to be a member of the union, they'd join.
I am so sick of these liberal goons thinking they know what's best for all the rest of us.
The main difference in this bill is this: it's Culver's idea this time. In other words, he wants to write a bill he can sign. We should be very afraid.
Just so no one thinks I'm joking or making things up here. From the article:
"Iowa's right-to-work law forbids workers from being forced to join a union or to pay dues. About 10 percent to 12 percent of Iowa's workers belong to a union.
Unions want to be able to charge nonunion workers "reasonable" fees to help cover costs of union representation, such as when workers file grievances, Swisher said. She said the money would also be used to organize more workers, such as nurses.
"It certainly isn't for union halls or more union staff or higher wages for union staff," she said. "It's because we have a lot of workers in the state that need to be organized."
So, thank god there's someone like Nurse Turd Swisher who wants to take MY money for a group that I DO NOT WANT TO JOIN so that they can encourage MY FRIENDS WHO DON'T WANT TO JOIN to join their group, which represents less than 15% of Iowa's workers. Makes perfect sense to me.
Steve,
Actually my source material for the Palin story indicated that Palin did oppose the federal bailout/stimulus packages, and that was part of her reason for supporting Perry over Hutchison.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/03/palin-backs-perry-hutchison-texas-governor-race/
Palin went to Washington to get her fair share of the pork but yet says she is against it. If she really was against it, she wouldn't be lobbying for her slice of the bacon. This is why we are losing. Republicans with no principles and say one thing buy yet do another.
Emily,
That's good to hear because after reading the following links I was concerned:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/01/ultimate-heart-ache-palin-supports-the-stimulus/
http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/02/02/zoinks-a-republican-supports-obamas-stimulus-package/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090201/ap_on_go_co/stimulus_gop_governors
Sounds to me from reading those articles that she's not thrilled about the bailout, but as a governor, if they're going to be handing out money to the states, she feels obligated to ask for her state's share.
The political reality is that there aren't many governors wouldn't do that.
Just like I'm sure everyone who really didn't need their stimulus checks they got last year immediately sent their $1200 right back to the federal government.
Neal,
The stimulus checks the government sent us last year was simply our own money (if we pay taxes). The stimulus package President Obama is talking about is redistributing our money to more people it doesn't belong to. Thus, I'm not sure how your analogy fits but I could be wrong.
I thought the stimulus checks last year weren't really our tax dollars coming back to us, but rather money that the govenrment borrowed from China and then distributed to us.
Both that stimulus and the present bailout package come from borrowed money that we are all going to have to pay back someday.
I'm not saying either was a good idea, but I don't think you can be consistant and believe that one is OK and the other is not.
"I thought the stimulus checks last year weren't really our tax dollars coming back to us, but rather money that the govenrment borrowed from China and then distributed to us."
Well done, Neal, you are now snottier than me! :-)
Deace,
You are right that this stimulus bill is just taking our money and redistributing it to lazy poor people.
We need more hard working people like you. I am amazed that you have time for a radio show when you are so busy filling pots, building wind turbines, and fixing up the school in your neighborhood.
Someone as Godly as you should not have to pay taxes at all. It's like you eat Care Bears for breakfast or something and the love just emits from you all day long.