-
Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack
May 22, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Curl is Right: Don’t Dismiss Benghazi
May 22, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real
May 19, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Good New Book: ‘Precipice’
May 19, 2013 | 1 comment
-
A Long Record of Obamite Thuggery
May 16, 2013 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
As a longtime admirer and booster of Paul Ryan’s who was touting him for Vide President four years ago, before he really was nationally prominent, and also as somebody who understands that sometimes one’s home district requires a lack of philosophical purity from time to time, it still galls me to see Ryan repeatedly go off the reservation when it comes to labor-union issues. Fifteen months ago, at a Spectator Newsmaker Breakfast, Ryan claimed he merely made a mistake when voting(in effect) to uphold a requirement for expensive, unnecessary, union-friendly, freedom-destroying Project Labor Agreements. (See link for details.) He immediately pledged that he would vote against PLAs at the next opportunity.
Well, yesterday he did technically abide by that pledge: As a host of other Republicans voted to save PLAs — a horrible, horrible vote — Ryan at least had the grace not to join them. Alas, though, he sucked up to the unions in another way just as bad, indeed for something that is almost the same thing as PLAs, namely for so-called Davis-Bacon requirements that require union-level wages on federal projects, no matter what the local wage rate otherwise would be. Red State has the full report here (not focusing on Ryan, but I focus on Ryan because of his pledge last year and because, of course, he is a Vice-presidential contender).
On one hand, this could make Ryan an even more valuable member of a Romney ticket, because it might help at the margins in gaining the ticket blue-collar support, especially in Wisconsin. It also puts Ryan squarely in the tradition of his mentor, Jack Kemp, who I admired tremendously but who also repeatedly sucked up to unions even when it wasn’t politically necessary. On the other hand, both Davis-Bacon and PLAs add large amounts of costs to the federal budget, and Ryan is of course the most prominent leader on cutting the budget. If he won’t cut his own special interest, it makes it more difficult to ask others to make tough votes to cut elsewhere. And, really, even though his district is sort of a swing district, he has been there long enough and wins by margins huge enough that he’s not likely to lose his House seat no matter how he votes on Davis-Bacon and on PLAs. Therefore, his vote is a big disappointment. Ugh ptui/phtooey.
View all comments (9) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/06/01/paul-ryan-sneaky-on-unions
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- A President Loses His Power
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
- We Have Her Example
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
JimH| 6.1.12 @ 1:00PM
Sometimes a politician will vote a certain way when the outcome is known in advance and that his vote will not result in an undesired outcome. It lets them tell constituents who support the issue ‘hey, I tried’. Is it possible that this is one of times? If not I will be very disappointed with Mr. Ryan.
Oldefarte| 6.1.12 @ 2:22PM
Sadly, this problem concerning labor union political influence peddling is prevalent throughout our political system. It's conseidered by the domestic terrorists aka Democrats to be anti-American to be against labor unions. Granted during the industrial revolution etc, unions served a much needed purpose in forcing labor laws protecting workers from abusive treatment by manufacturers etc, but those days are long gone. Now there are ample laws on the books that today protect workers adequately, and labor unions have now outoved their usefulness and are simply too expensive in their wage demands upon employers. This country and its employing companies cannot afford the excessiveness of labor unions today. Due to supply and damand economic/financial factors, workers will be paid a fair market based wage and benefits package etc, but labor unions demands for far more than same has caused the exodus of [especially] manufacturing labor operations to be outsourced overseas for cost cutting purposes by companies. The result is that our manufacturing operations in this country are no longer, and non-college degreed job seekers' only alternative is unemployment [and therefore becoming a governmental welfare recipient unjustly]. Unions simply must be eliminated!!!!!!!!!!
LiveFreeOrDie| 6.1.12 @ 3:18PM
"Unions simply must be eliminated!!!!!!!!!!"
If only it was that simple. People have the right to collective bargaining. What should be eliminated is political contributions that originate from union dues. If a union member wants to support a candidate they should do so as an individual, just like everyone else.
Oldefarte| 6.2.12 @ 11:20AM
NO unions SHOULD BE ELIMINATED. Research the historical history of labor unions and their original purposes. As I said above they were originally formed because of manufacturing employer abuses of their workers, and said unions rightfully and adequately eliminated same over time [especially during the industrial revolution]. Today their one/only purpose is political and self-serving, and they do not serve their membership's needs. Workers today will be paid a market based wage rate due to established laws which are regulated by the NLRB etc, and there is simply no longer a need/purpose fulfilled by these unions [other than to extract payroll membership dues and to use same for their selfish purposes]. Of course workers can form collection activities [ie tea party organizations] if they wish, but they do not need formal labor unions to do so. Unions are the reasons why manufacturers etc have outsourced their labor operations to foreign countries, and in order to regain same, elimination of unions by law is a necessity. The reason why unions have declined in membership numbers is because workers gradually wake up to the selfish and unnecessary reasons for their belonging to same. Eliminate the unions in this country and manufacturing jobs etc will return in droves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LiveFreeOrDie| 6.2.12 @ 1:57PM
We will just have to disagree. I won't sacrifice freedom of assembly, freedom of speech and the right to negotiate contracts in order to curtail unions run afoul of their original intent.
I will agree with you that PUBLIC employee unions should be eliminated! They are nothing more than political organizations at the expense of taxpayers.
Oldefarte| 6.2.12 @ 2:14PM
My essential point is that unions are one of the reasons for the current high unemployment rate in this nation, since union wage rates are substantially higher than the supply and demand market wage rates [causing outsourcing of needed jobs to foreign countries]. If manufacturing jobs [which used to provide substantial employment to non-college degreed workers, but no longer does so] are not returned to this country, this high unemployment rate will continue and increase over time. Companies have to maintian profitablilty and if their payroll costs are excessive high from labor union wage rates, they will simply employ oversees instead and the result is no/less employment opportunities for the younger generation etc. If unions cause same, when only increasing wage rates say 15-20%, are they that important? Is not a Japan auto manufacturing job [non-unionized] obtainable from an operating company more important than one not obtainable from a bankrupted/closed Detroit [unionized] one? If the younger generation is unable to obtain a high paying manufacturing job and instead is forced into collecting governmental welfare at taxpayers' expense, are labor unions then worth their existence??????????????
LiveFreeOrDie| 6.1.12 @ 3:08PM
Like a blissfully ignorant, teenage girl many conservatives fall in love with the new guy only to discover after giving up the goods that he's just like the rest of them.
FeFe| 6.2.12 @ 3:37AM
I find it most intriguing that Niall Ferguson would travel half-way round the world some months past and state that Rep. Paul Ryan is "the only one" in D.C. doing anything about the absolutely abysmal fiscal cliff. The Ryan budget didn't balance then or now. The Ryan entitlement reform didn't have a co-sponsor through compromise as of yet. But this somewhat obscure political figure was getting better press than the nation of Lady Liberty. Interesting, no? Furthermore, Ryan was all about the Ayn Rand "She Gets It" Society that dominates The Bernanke budget, policy is personnel, bipartisan network, but now his veneer is decidedly not of this set but Catholic. Ryan voted for TARP.
However, what remains most vivid for me is his repeated protestations to remain neutral in the GOP presidential primary but when the bread and circuses came rolling into his state, Ryan unflinchingly climbed inside the bionic Romney machine Trojan horse and started speaking out of it's... Of course we all knew that Ryan took a deal after Christmas for he told us so. He wasn't going to run for president himself but there were other options on the table. As coy as Ryan is, his constituents appeal that their concerns not just be spoken but heard; to carry forth the Tea Party townhall fiscal plea to stave off societal collapse, to ensure America's cultural inheritance, all appear to have been outsourced by him. Sure, Ryan talks a good game but checks his swing. Don't worry, he's close with management.
aware| 6.3.12 @ 1:57PM
Poor Quin, all politicians make you sorry you ever "defended" them. Stop pretending any of them is anything but a member of vast criminal conspiracy and you won't be surprised by whatever they do.
Anyway, in 6 to 12 months it won't matter anymore. Neither will "election" results. Enjoy the relative "stability" while it lasts and get ready. The end game of fiat is almost upon us. 1 bank failure in Europe will be the pebble that begins the biggest avalanche in human history. It will come any minute. Watch.