|
The Obama Administration has said it places a high priority on spending Federal stimulus money to maintain or create jobs in the economy, including in the auto industry. A major reason behind this push is payback for the financial support American labor unions have given to the Democratic Party over the last two decades.
Since 1990, labor unions have contributed over $667 million in election campaigns in the United States, of which $614 million or 92 percent went to support Democratic candidates. In 2008, unions spent $74.5 million in campaign contributions, with $68.3 million going to the Democratic Party. Already, unions have contributed $6.5 million to the 2010 elections, and $6 million has gone to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, D.C.
In the $787 billion stimulus spending bill passed in February, $90 billion has been earmarked to help cover the tax shortfalls in state and local government budgets due to the economic recession. Most of this money will be used to maintain or increase jobs at these levels of government, since those in political office are apparently unwilling to reduce expenditures and cut public payrolls in the face of decreased tax revenues.
This is no doubt related to $38 million dollars that the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Union has contributed to Democratic Party campaigns since 1990, with nearly $2.6 million being given during the 2008 election. Public sector unions as a whole have given around $160 million to Democratic candidates between 1990 and 2008, with donations of $6 million in 2008.
First the Bush and now the Obama administration have spent or promised at least $60-70 billion to support now bankrupt General Motors and Chrysler. The Obama White House has committed the government and the American taxpayer to keeping afloat both companies in the name of saving jobs in what is declared to be an essential sector of the U.S. economy. It is more easily able to do this now that the Federal government owns majority control of GM and 8 percent of Chrysler,
But it is also the case that the United Auto Workers union has donated almost $25 million to Democratic Party candidates since 1990, contributing $2 million of that total in the 2008 election cycle. Nor should it be surprising that both Democratic and Republican members of Congress have expressed concerns about the closing of any GM or Chrysler dealerships, given that between 1990 and 2008 automobile dealership associations have given $67.9 million dollars to Congressional and presidential election campaigns, with 24 percent of that total going to the Democrats and 76 percent to Republicans.
The Obama Administration has also said that it wishes to make greater federal funding for education a priority during the years ahead, and has shown no willingness to support school choice in the form of vouchers. This is hardly unrelated to campaign donations of the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers which since 1990 have contributed more than $50 million to support Democratic candidates running for office. Both unions have been strong supporters of increased federal aid to public schools and have strongly opposed school voucher programs.
The Democrats in Congress and the White House have insisted that a wide variety of public construction projects are essential for recreating jobs, renovating public schools and government buildings, and improving the road and bridge infrastructure. The Obama Administration has announced its intention to speed up federal spending on these projects in the immediate future.
But is it coincidence that construction and industrial workers most likely to benefit from such federal spending in the months and years ahead belong to unions that have contributed huge amounts of money to support Democratic candidates win election? Combined these unions have contributed a least $150-200 million to Democratic candidates since 1990.
In the reality of hardball politics, money talks. Indeed, the logic of special interest and coalition politics explains much of the continuing increase in the size and expenditures of government. (See, Why Government Grows: The Modern Democratic Dilemma, AIER Research Reports, Vol. LXXV, No. 14, August 4, 2008)
The majority party now in control of both houses of Congress and in the White House owes something to those who helped them achieve political power. Unions have been stalwart supporters of the Democratic Party, as the table, below, of the leading union donors to political campaigns clearly demonstrates. The policies and spending programs being implemented are partly the thanks to those who have made the current Democratic majority possible. Leading Union Political Campaign Contributors
1990-2010
| | | Democrats | Republicans | | | American Fed. of State, County, & Municipal Employees | $40,281,900 | $547,700 | | | Intel Brotherhood of Electrical Workers | 29,705,600 | 679,000 | | | National Education Association | 27,679,300 | 2,005,200 | | | Service Employees International Union | 26,368,470 | 98,700 | | | Communication Workers of America | 26,305,500 | 125,300 | | | Service Employees International Union | 26,252,000 | 1,086,200 | | | Laborers Union | 25,734,000 | 2,138,000 | | | American Federation of Teachers | 25,682,800 | 200,000 | | | United Auto Workers | 25,082,200 | 182,700 | | | Teamsters Union | 24,926,400 | 1,822,000 | | | Carpenters and Joiners Union | 24,094,100 | 2,658,000 | | | Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union | 23,875,600 | 226,300 | | | United Food and Commercial Workers Union | 23,182,000 | 334,200 | | | AFL-CIO | 17,124,300 | 713,500 | | | Sheet Metal Workers Union | 16,347,200 | 342,800 | | | Plumbers & Pipefitters Union | 14,790,000 | 818,500 | | | Operating Engineers Union | 13,840,000 | 2,309,500 | | | Airline Pilots Association | 12,806,600 | 2,398,300 | | | International Association of Firefighters | 12,421,700 | 2,685,400 | | | United Transportation Workers | 11,807,000 | 1,459,300 | | | Ironworkers Union | 11,638,900 | 936,000 | | | American Postal Workers Union | 11,633,100 | 544,300 | | | Nat'l Active & Retired Fed. Employees Association | 8,135,400 | 2,294,600 | | | Seafarers International Union | 6,726,800 | 1,281,300 | | | Source: Center for Responsive Politics, Washington, D.C. |
|
http://cuaccforestcitypixetc.com/
SO, Obama during the election would supposedly "text ppl" did they really think that Obama was interested in them or their vote? Did Obama personally send you that wonderous text message or was it automated? Does Obama give a damn about you right now?
I think this article gives a good deal of content and doesn't keep Bush out of the fires - although Clinton wasn't mentioned by name - and he should be - as he and Greenspan are to blame for this current economic downturn.
Again, nice post.
When federal gov't power is limited, there is less to "sell" and less temptation to "sin". But, politicians from both parties have coerced power from the states and individuals for one party's cause and left it to the next generation politician to use differently. Once the power is federalized, it's purpose can be quickly changed without direct consent.
States need to take back their power. Start with repealing the 17th Amendment.
It focuses on analyzing the behavior of those participating in the political process -- politicians, bureaucrats, and special interest groups -- in the same manner that economists try to analyze the incentives and actions of individuals in the private market place.
It is assumed that those in the political process are also motivated by:
(a) Self-interest, that may include non-monetary or ideological goals.
(b) There are supply and demand relationships, that involve politicians "selling" regulations, programs, and other people's money via taxation in return for campaign contributions and votes.
(c) Special interest groups "sell" their votes and give campaign contributions because they demand something in exchange from politicians: protections from domestic and foreign competitors; redistribution of wealth (e.g., subsidies) to themselves that they are not able to acquire on normal open, and competitive markets by offering products that consumers will buy from them; ideological goals through regulations and restrictions they wish to achieve that they have not been able to get their fellow citizens to accept and voluntary agree to or provide on the basis of reason and persuasion.
(d) Bureaucrats who man and manage government bureaus, agencies and departments, who gain in terms of salaries, promotions and power by obtaining increased authority to regulate private sector activities, and larger budgets for their branch of government.
The theory also attempts to logically explain the process by which special interest groups alone or in combination are able to muster the political clout to gain what they desire, even if the costs of such government regulations, redistributions, and controls are greater than any estimated benefit to the other members of society as a whole.
The older theory of government and the political process implicitly assumed that politicians, bureaucrats, and interested parties were somehow motivated purely by non-personal aims. That is, when in the market place people are assumed to be guided by self-interest, but in the political arena they suddenly become motivated by "the common good."
By putting on a "political" hat people somehow, as by a miracle, are transformed from greedy, profit-motivated "sinners" into altruistic, other-oriented "saints."
The public choice approach to politics merely asks us to think about politics in the same way we presume people are guided in the private market place: what's in it for me.
If one takes this more reasonable approach, then "following the money" often takes us to what is behind much that passes for "public policy" in the arena of politics.
In this the economist is an equal opportunity cynic; he assumes that what motivates Republicans or Democrats, liberals or conservatives really amounts to the same thing: power and other people's money.
If you're a liberal, that's what you assume about conservatives, if it not? And if you are a conservative, is that not what you assume about liberals?
The economist just assumes and analyzes the political process under the presumption that both are correct.
Richard
Question that faces us all. How can we fix it? Neither party has a solution that will actually work.
that they are Obama and democrat bashers. Give the guy a chance and get over the amount that the labor unions have donated to the democratic party. After all it's known that the democrats historically have been known to represent the
working class. Lets report on some of the biggest contributors to the republican party and the fact that lots of republicans have been involved with what has happened to this country. Don't be so negative about the current
administration and be thankful that we don't still have the idiot (whom I voted for twice) still in office.