Unions = Lobbyists / "There Won't Be Jobs Left To Protect"

by: Bryan Baumgart - May 30, 2012

It always amazes me when the same folks that despise lobbyists can somehow rationalize support for unions.  

Unions ARE lobbyists! 

They may be WORSE than lobbyists because they not only employ the same tactic of bribery used by lobbyists, but they also use much more sinister tactics such as bullying and threats!

The dictionary definition of "lobbyist":

• a group of persons who work or conduct a campaign to influence members of a legislature to vote according to the group's special interest.  

This is precisely what the unions do!  Unions and lobbyists both go after taxpayer money by influencing (through bribes or threats) the government officials that oversee the dispersion of the taxpayer's money.  Our representatives sit across from the union bosses at the bargaining table.  Union leadership promises to keep those government officials in office in exchange for lavish perks at taxpayer expense.  Perks that average citizens don't receive, such as the pension and healthcare benefits that are sinking cities like Omaha today!  Average citizens not only pay for their own retirement and healthcare, but union bosses request that average citizens also pay for their over-the-top benefits as well!  Those union leaders also make it clear to those elected officials sitting across the table from them, that failure to comply with requests for lavish perks will cost them their office.  

This is what we see being played out in Wisconsin today to Governor Scott Walker, who had the bravado to stand up to the unions and take away their right of collective bargaining over pensions and healthcare. The unions have already spent over $60 million dollars in an attempt to recall Walker.  They have succeeded in forcing a recall election to be held in Wisconsin on June 5th, despite the fact that Walker's actions have been overwhelmingly successful.

It is interesting that the 99% Occupy Movement folks aren't up in arms over the division of class contained within union systems.  Think of it this way.  The upper class is made up of top union officials, the middle class being union members, and the lower class being the taxpayers.  The top union officials aren't really concerned with protecting jobs or even the rights of union members, they are concerned with protecting unions. As long as powerful unions exists, the ability to blackmail government officials (or corporations in the case of private unions) for lavish perks will remain a reality.  The top officials (upper class) welcome extravagant salaries and benefits while tossing a bone to union members (middle class) to appease them and maintain support.  Who pays for this extravagance?  The taxpayers (lower class) of course! So who will stick up for the taxpayer's interest if government officials fall to bribery and bully tactics?!

I have family and friends who are union members and although they don't agree with the politics pushed by the unions, they state that, "Unions protect my job."  What they fail to realize is that because of union politics, there won't be jobs for unions to protect!  Need an example?  Just look to Detroit and the automaker unions, where the cost of lavish perks has made it impossible for once dominant American auto companies to compete with foreign auto companies out of China and Japan.  And once again, average citizens are on the hook.  To cover the cost of the union's demands, American auto companies have been forced to raise the prices of their autos while passing that cost onto consumers.  And when GM still couldn't compete, it was the taxpayers that were forced to bail them out to the tune of almost $50 billion dollars!


Union supporters argue that foreign automakers have the advantage through cheap labor; however, foreign automakers such as Toyota efficiently produce more autos here in America than the domestic auto makers.  What's the difference?  You guessed it...the absence of unions!

And then of course there is the union employees themselves who are bullied by the unions.  Employees forced to join unions against their will.  Employees forced to contribute money that is spent to elect candidates or to push policies to which they are personally opposed.


Which segues nicely into two points that were brought up above.  Price increases and minimum wage increases.

Unions support an ever increasing minimum wage.  Raising minimum wage leads to inflation and therefore doesn't leave anyone better off than where they started.  In fact, it leaves them worse off in many instances as companies are forced to move jobs overseas to remain competitive on the world marketplace, or close up shop all together. Current wage is better than NO wage.  A better answer is to battle inflation to increase the purchasing power at current wages.


Many folks call corporation evil and call for an increase in their taxes.  "Pay your fair share!, they cry." They fail to realize that corporations never have and never will pay taxes.  They simply pass along taxes to consumers (the same people calling for tax increases on corporations) through price increases.  Calls for increasing corporate taxes equate to calls for increasing taxes on consumers!  


Unions at one time served a useful purpose.  The champion of fair labor practices, wages, working conditions, etc.  They were set up to protect the common man.  Now who will protect the common man from the unions?!!!


READ MORE BELOW:

Unions Must Go

What Public Employee Unions are Doing to Our Country

Taxpayers Set to Lose $30+ Billion on the Auto Bailout

by Seton Motley - 4/12/2012

In 2012 reelection mode, President Obama has routinely chastised Mitt Romney and we Conservatives for wanting General Motors (GM) and Chrysler to go through bankruptcy...bailout-free.
In 2009, President Obama finished handing GM and Chrysler $85 billion in bailout money and then...had them go through bankruptcy.

Which - as Romney and we Conservatives have pointed out - they could and should have done for free.

In late 2009, President Obama told us that we would make money on the auto bailout.

In late 2011, the Administration begrudgingly admitted that we’ll lose $23.6 billion.

That’s a “success?”

And - as with most things Obama Administration - their numbers are uber-fudged.

This is, after all, the Administration that as part of tracking the nearly $1 trillion in “successful” “stimulus” money created fake Congressional districts - in which they “created or saved” imaginary jobs.

The Administration’s $23.6 billion auto bailout loss number includes a $9.3 billion hit on the 500+ million GM stock shares We the People now own as a result of the bailout.

But that’s a fudge-y number.

Right now, we’re actually losing nearly $15 billion on our shares. On a stock that dropped by a third just after the bailout, and has basically flatlined ever since.

So that ups the auto bailout loss to about $30 billion. At least.

Because, again, we’re having to take at face value the rest of the Obama Administration’s always highly irregular math. On the GM side - and the Chrysler side. A very difficult proposition indeed.

The total auto bailout loss is undoubtedly - probably dramatically - higher than $30 billion. And counting.

Only the biggest of Big Government proponents can consider this titanic loss a “success.”

Your Share of Fannie, Freddie Losses: $1,300.00

Total funds requested, minus the dividends paid, work out to about $1,300 per American household.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Feb 29, 2012 - By Jack Hough

Fannie Mae said Wednesday it lost $2.4 billion during the fourth quarter of 2011 and $16.9 billion for the full year.

It has had worse years, remarkably. Fannie lost about $60 billion in 2008 and $72 billion the following year–two of the 10 largest corporate losses ever. Sibling Freddie Mac is responsible for a third, a $51 billion loss in 2008.

Fannie Mae was established in 1938 to promote home ownership by making federal funds available to lenders. In the 1950s and 1960s, it transformed into a profit-seeking corporation, with the goal of purchasing mortgages and selling them to investors, thereby replenishing funds to banks for fresh loans. Freddie Mac was created in 1970 to spur competition.

Recent losses for both agencies stem from the U.S. housing bubble that peaked in 2006. House prices fell nationwide by more than one-third since mid-2006 by one measure, the S&P/Case-Shiller index. Price changes vary by market, but for the country as a whole, homeowners erased the gains made since 2003.

Millions of homeowners defaulted on their mortgages, leaving Fannie and Freddie saddled with bad loans. Both reverted to government control in 2008.

Fannie and Freddie were once profitable, but the money they have lost dwarfs what they made in good years. During the three years leading up to the house price peak, Fannie reported annual profits of between $4.1 billion and $6.3 billion, and Freddie, $2.1 billion to $2.9 billion. During the five years since, Fannie lost a cumulative $163 billion, and Freddie, which hasn’t yet reported fourth quarter results for 2011, $91 billion.

Both Fannie and Freddie pay dividends to the Treasury Department as a condition of their government sponsorship, but both have regularly requested larger sums than they have paid. For example, Fannie said Wednesday that it paid $2.6 billion in dividends to the Treasury during its fourth quarter, but that it would soon submit a request for $4.6 billion to offset losses.

Fannie says it requested a total of $116 billion from the Treasury since the fourth quarter of 2008 and paid about $20 billion in dividends. Fannie requested $72 billion and paid $15 billion.

Total funds requested, minus the dividends paid, work out to about $1,300 per American household. That includes both owners and renters.

Fannie asks gov't for almost $4.6B after 4Q loss

Never learning from mistakes, the obama administration continues to shell out our taxpayer money to failing companies, taking away any incentive to improve.  After Fannie's 3rd quarter loss of $5.1 billion, we again bailed them out with an additional $7.8 billion dollars.  Now they lose $2.4 billion in the 4th quarter and we get to bail them out with another $4.6 billion!!  Fannie had lost $1.3 billion in the 2nd quarter btw.  Total tab for Fannie Mae so far...a whopping $117.2 billion dollars and counting!!!  Fannie Mae has now reported losses in 17 of the past 18 quarters!!!  (the only quarter they reported a profit was due to a one-time payment from Bank of America.)

As for Fannie's evil cohort Freddie Mac, we see a similar story.  Loss after loss, bailout after bailout.  Freddie's 3rd quarter loss...$4.4 billion and a bailout of $6 billion dollars worth of taxpayer money.  Brace for their 4th quarter loss...it's coming!

So far...bailouts of the two is approaching $200 billion dollars worth of taxpayer money.  Time to dissolve the two money sieves!  Let's protect taxpayers and get the government out of the free market!!!

By Derek Kravitz - 2/29/2012

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Mortgage giant Fannie Mae said Wednesday that it lost money in the fourth quarter and is asking the federal government for nearly $4.6 billion in aid to cover its deficit.

Washington, D.C.-based Fannie said it lost roughly $2.4 billion in the October-December quarter, stung by declining home prices. Revenue was about $4.5 billion.

The government rescued Fannie and sibling company Freddie Mac in September 2008 to cover their losses on soured mortgage loans. Since then, a federal regulator — the Federal Housing Finance Agency — has controlled their financial decisions.

Taxpayers have spent more than $150 billion to prop up Fannie and Freddie, the most expensive bailout of the 2008 financial crisis. The government estimates that figure could top $259 billion to support the companies through 2014 after subtracting dividend payments.

Fannie has received more than $116 billion so far from the Treasury Department, the most expensive bailout of a single company.

Fannie's bailout money totaled roughly $16.4 billion in 2011 after accounting for dividend payments. That's up from about $7.3 billion in 2010 but down from about $32.5 billion in 2009.

Fannie officials say losses have increased in recent quarters for two reasons: Some homeowners are paying less interest after refinancing at historically low mortgage rates; others are defaulting on their mortgages.

"While economic factors, such as falling home prices and high unemployment, produced strong headwinds for our business again in 2011, we continued to grow a very strong new book of business as we have since 2009," said Michael J. Williams, Fannie's president and CEO.

When property values drop, homeowners default, either because they are unable to afford the payments or because they owe more than the property is worth. Because of the guarantees, Fannie and Freddie must pay for the losses.

Fannie's $2.4 billion loss for the fourth quarter takes into account $2.6 billion in dividend payments to the government. That compares with a loss of $2.1 billion in the fourth quarter of 2010.

In November, Freddie requested $6 billion in extra aid — the largest request since April 2010 — after it reported losing $6 billion in the third quarter.

Fannie Mae and McLean, Va.-based Freddie Mac own or guarantee about half of all mortgages in the U.S., or nearly 31 million home loans. Along with other federal agencies, they backed nearly 90 percent of new mortgages over the past few years.

Fannie and Freddie buy home loans from banks and other lenders, package them with bonds with a guarantee against default and sell them to investors around the world. The companies nearly folded more than three years ago because of big losses on risky mortgages they purchased.

The Obama administration unveiled a plan one year ago to slowly dissolve the two mortgage giants. The aim is to shrink the government's role in the mortgage system, remaking decades of federal policy aimed at getting Americans to buy homes. It would also probably make home loans more expensive.

The firms' regulator, the FHFA

Exactly how far the government's role in mortgage lending would be reduced was left to Congress to decide. But all three options the administration presented would create a housing finance system that relies far more on private money. ..

REPORT: Federal Aid Pushes Up College Tuition Rates

I cried foul when the obama administration decided to usurp control of yet another aspect of the American economy (Student Loans).  Soon after, he revealed intentions that included ignoring the repayment terms agreed to by borrowers, and instead allowing borrowers to repay loans on a "pay what you can afford" basis (rather than what they themselves had agreed to).  In typical "ignore personal accountability" obama fashion, he also stated his intention to ignore the repayment terms altogether, by cancelling them entirely after 20 years. 

My first reaction...Did we learn nothing from the mortgage crisis?!  Anyone can accurately predict that in an effort to decrease risks, banks will become very selective in making school loans in the future.  You can also predict that the government will step in in the name of "social justice" and force banks into making these risky loans (knowing full well that they won't be repayed and the taxpayers will again be forced into another bailout).  The excuse will be the same.  Just as they wanted to increase home ownership among the low income, they will suggest they want to grant equal opportunity at educational advancement to the lower income.

The excuse given by obama for this overreach by the federal government?  Tuition rates are spiralling out of control.  I am proud to say that I accurately predicted at that time (my friends remember the mass email I sent out), that obama's motives would achieve just the opposite outcome!  That colleges and universities would seize on the opportunity to hike tuition rates, knowing full well that the government would guarantee loans to cover tuition no matter what the cost!

FEBRUARY 24, 2012 - By JACK HOUGH



Why College Aid Makes College More Expensive 

"New research shows how federal spending on higher education can backfire."

Federal aid for students has increased 164% over the past decade, adjusted for inflation, according to the College Board. Yet three-quarters of Americans and even a majority of college presidents see college as unaffordable for most, and that sentiment has been steadily spreading, the Pew Research Center reports.

Also SeeThe ABCs of Dodging Mutual Fund Fees The Surprising Truth About Positive Earnings Surprises How Families Can Get $3.5M in FDIC Coverage.

Two new studies offer clues on why. One measures the degree to which some colleges reduce their own aid in response to increased federal aid. The other suggests federal aid is helping to push college costs higher.

Recipients of federal Pell Grants have, by definition, limited means to pay for college, so they are likely to qualify for grants and price breaks given out by schools, too. But schools view a student's sources of federal aid before deciding how much to give on their own, rather than the other way around. The result is a crowding out effect, where some schools give less as the government gives more.

Lesley Turner, a PhD candidate at Columbia University, looked at data on aid from 1996 to 2008 and calculated that, on average, schools increased Pell Grant recipients' prices by $17 in response to every $100 of Pell Grant aid. More selective nonprofit schools' response was largest and these schools raised prices by $66 for every $100 of Pell Grant aid.

Aid from schools over the past decade has increased about half as fast as federal aid, according to the College Board.

Perhaps worse for students than a crowding out effect is the Bennett Effect, named for William Bennett, who 25 years ago as Secretary of Education wrote for the New York Times, "Increases in financial aid in recent years have enabled colleges and universities blithely to raise their tuitions."

If subsidies puff up buying power and shift prices higher, as economics courses teach, could federal aid for college help create an affordability problem? After all, the federal government began spending more on college aid with the Higher Education Act of 1965 and the full funding of Pell Grants in 1975. Since 1979, tuition and fees have tripled after adjusting for inflation. That's much faster than the increase for real estate and teacher pay.

There have been mixed findings on the Bennett Effect in recent decades, with some studies finding a dollar-for-dollar relationship and others, none at all. Determining why college costs are rising is a difficult task, after all. Stephanie Riegg Cellini of George Washington University and Claudia Golden of Harvard take a new approach, focusing on for-profit schools. Some of these are eligible to participate in so-called Title IV aid programs (named for a portion of the aforementioned Act) and some not.

After adjusting for differences among schools, the authors find that Title IV-eligible schools charge tuition that is 75% higher than the others. That's roughly equal to the amount of the aid received by students at these schools.

Studies like these suggest that if one goal of government is to make college affordable, aid should become more thoughtful instead of merely more plentiful. And the total cost of federal spending on college isn't fully known. That's because spending on loans dwarfs that on grants. Student loans recently eclipsed credit card debt.

With credit cards, borrowers pay high interest rates to make up for their lack of collateral. Many many student loans have subsidized rates; others have low rates based on the assumption that a college education is a good financial risk for lenders.

If costs outpace the ability of graduates to find jobs with good pay, and repayment rates on these loans slide, taxpayers could end up feeling the crunch.

FANNIE-FREDDIE Bailout Could Cost Taxpayers $1 Trillion...

http://www.cnbc.com/id/37982580

Published: Tuesday, 29 Jun 2010

By: Reported by Steve Liesman, written by Michelle Lodge

For American taxpayers, now on the hook for some $145 billion in housing losses connected to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans, that amount could be just the tip of the iceberg.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the losses could balloon to $400 billion. And if housing prices fall further, the cost to the taxpayer could hit as much as $1 trillion.

Two things are clear: Taxpayers don’t want to foot the bill, and Fannie and Freddie, taken over by the government in 2008 to stanch the financial bloodletting, need a major overhaul.

“Some of us who don’t even own homes are paying to support others and their home ownership, and they ask ‘why?’ said Robert J. Shiller, a Yale University economics professor and co-creator of the S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Indices.

The indices measure the US residential housing market by tracking changes in the value of residential real estate both nationally and in 20 metropolitan regions.

Shiller added that the mission of Fannie and Freddie should be severely cut back “so that they’re not helping middle-class homeowners, [but] they’re helping poor people get into the housing market.”

At the crux of the financial crisis, the government took over Fannie and Freddie to avert possible massive losses for banks, money-market funds and, perhaps, most importantly, foreign institutions that purchased billions of Fannie and Freddie debt because of its implied government guarantee.

The Chinese, for example, had invested heavily, and the US decided it didn’t want them to take a loss on their investment.

One possible scenario for the entities is to turn them into utilities, said Sean Dobson, CEO and chair of Amherst Securities.

“Freddie and Fannie could be used to standardize the mortgage product,” Dobson said, “to completely describe what the risks are and then act as a conduit for the capital markets to take the risk.”