Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    If you only read

    If you only read

    one op-ed today, I hope it is Mary O’Grady’s column in the Wall Street Journal: “Big Labor’s Yanqui Imperialism.”

    On the face of it, the National Labor Relations Board’s effort to block a new Boeing plant slated for the right-to-work state of South Carolina seems like a futile exercise. After all, we live in a global economy, and that means U.S. producers who can’t access a competitive labor market at home can go abroad.

    That is unless Big Labor manages to impose its stifling regulatory model beyond American borders. In that case, costs could be pushed up strategically elsewhere, and companies that might otherwise try to escape U.S. regulation would have nowhere to run.

    The effort is already under way in Latin America, where countries that have signed free-trade agreements are being increasingly bullied by the Obama administration. The administration claims it is defending worker rights, but it seems more likely that it wants to use labor regulation as a back door to increase protectionism at the behest of U.S Big Labor. […]

    You should really read the whole piece, one excerpt will not suffice.

    I am knee deep in homework, so I’ll just direct you to an article that I wrote about a similar saga in May 2010:

    Barack Obama was supposed to be “pro-free trade” – reserving the right to “not sign another trade agreement unless it has protections for our environment and protections for American workers.” He touted his vague support of free trade on the trail despite his support from union thugs like SEIU head Andy Stern. Though it seemsStern’s frequent visits to the Obama White Housepersuaded the President to veer towards protectionist measures. Early on in the administration we saw the influence of big labor in a dispute allowing Mexican trucks on US roads and later on in September [2009] when Obama imposed tariffs on Chinese tires.

     

    In March 2010, the Obama administration released a ”Trade Policy Agenda,” alleged to make trade work for America’s families. It reads that “President Obama’s economic strategy halted the slide into a deep economic crisis and laid the foundation for renewed American prosperity that is more sustainable, fairer for more of our citizens, and more competitive globally.” I beg to differ. Since February 2009, the unemployment rate has soared from 7.7% to 9.7%, 1 out of 10 Americans are receiving food assistance, and the prospect of growth for the middle class is looking grim.  Aside from this, though, Obama’s policies have already sent companies like Pfizer to look for greener pastures to move their assets.  In addition to creating a poor climate for business, President Obama has gone one step further to shaft American businessmen- $800 million of the first billion spent on wind energy went to foreign producers.

     

    Beyond this, Obama’s Agenda has little provision to effectively rectify any of these issues amidst his “five year plan” for doubling US exports. His game plan to achieve this Leningrad-high goal was through selecting certain industries and micromanaging them through a new bureaucracy (“Export Promotion Cabinet” and “Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee” respectively). Picking winners never works; just ask the last people who used jargon like “five year plan.”

    This administration is full of bologna.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments


     
     0 
     
     0
    David R. Graham | September 19, 2011 at 5:38 pm

    “I am knee deep in homework, so I’ll just direct you to an article that I wrote about a similar saga in May 2010:”

    It is common practice these days to use some form of the cueing phrase “I direct you/your ….” In addition to being discourteous, the phrase is also vacuous because its user lacks standing and ability to force a reader’s attention in any direction.

    The courteous phrase is, “I invite your attention to …” or some variant, such as “may I recommend you peruse …” or “I recommend for your attention ….” Or, for a digital/hyperlink environment, something like, “here is a link of possible interest/correlation/comparison/refutation/etc.


       
       0 
       
       0
      WarEagle82 in reply to David R. Graham. | September 19, 2011 at 5:56 pm

      And now we have the netiquette police…

      Explain why the phrase is “vacuous?” If I may quote from “Princess Bride,” I do not think that word means what you think it means…

      Next, explain why the author of the blog people choose to read because of the author’s opinion has no standing to direct the reader’s attention?

      The real reason Ms. McCaffrey can’t direct my attention is that I don’t have a subscription to the WSJ and am not willing to buy one to read this single article.

      The courteous phrase is, “I invite your attention to …” or some variant, such as “may I recommend you peruse …” or “I recommend for your attention ….” Or, for a digital/hyperlink environment, something like, “here is a link of possible interest/correlation/comparison/refutation/etc.

      You neglected the part where Squire Kathleen must say the phrase while kneeling in one knee and averting direct eye contact. Following which Squire Kathleen must retreat from your most puissant presence in humble obeisance.

    Is there a link to Obama’s 5-year plan statement?

    “This administration is full of bologna.”

    I have another word in mind….

    Always remember that Obama puts on faces like most people wear clothes.
    When I read that Obama thought that Jesus Christ was a significant “historical figure,” I knew he didn’t believe a bit of anything Rev. Wright threw at him for 20 years. He puts on religion like a suit.
    So why can’t he put on his “Pro-free trade” suit as well. While he has it on he talks a good game about a ”Trade Policy Agenda.”

    But then he takes it off.

    As for Labor, no amount of pushing, prodding or conjoling is going to get the Chinese or the Indians to raise the price of their labor to make the US Labor Movement happy.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend