411 Politics Fact or Fiction 09.10.10: Hillary 4 President 2012, Labor Unions, and the End of Too Big to Fail

Posted by Mark Radulich on 09.09.2010

Ain't nothing like the real thing; It's the return of the traditional Fact or Fiction!


I promised that if people actually contacted me to participate I would run the traditional Fact or Fiction rather than the comments only version so here it is. Before we get under way I have to take care of a few housekeeping issues.

1) Those of you who responded to my call for conservative participation in Fact or Fiction are awesome but unless you send me an e-mail, I have no way of contacting you. Posting a comment saying you want to participate is nice but does me no good. Please send me an e-mail if you want to participate in Fact or Fiction. I'm still looking for more conservatives but that doesn't mean you should not apply (and by apply I mean send an e-mail that says, "I want to participate").

2) I don't like to call out 411 readers who post in the comment zone by name but I'm breaking my rule just this one time for a specific reason. In the past there's been times where the comment area ends up with two readers having an argument that pretty much takes over that particular column. In addition, there's also the occasional outright challenge (GaryML VS AG Awesome; John VS Jason Douglas; Grant Vs GaryML; Grant VS the entire 411 comment area; etc.) to settle political arguments in a Fact or Fiction. Again, I'll be more than happy to moderate those debates if any of you are serious about doing it.

3) That brings me to the last housekeeping item; Here's how I typically conduct FoF with participants - I send out the first set of statements Sunday and the deadline is Tuesday at 4:00 PM. As soon as I receive the responses I send them to the other party and the deadline for a return on those responses is Thursday at 4:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time). If you are chosen to participate I will e-mail you before Sunday to let you know to expect an e-mail from on Sunday. If feel like you can't meet the deadlines then let me know and I'll call on someone else. In the event that I don't have finished responses by Thursday evening, the column goes up comments-only style.

That being said, I actually screwed up and didn't send Zimmer the second set until late Thursday but like a champ he got them done with plenty of time for me to post for today. Zimmer =



Alright, enough of that. You all know Mr. Robert Zimmer. He writes unrepentantly liberal columns for the 411 Politics Zone and usually sticks a thumb in the eye of conservative readers while do so. His opponent is a proud independent, political junkie and long time 411 reader Michael Ferness.

Disclaimer: The following Fact or Fiction statements are not necessarily my opinion but rather statements made (mostly) in the affirmative so you could clearly answer them: Fact or Fiction. I did my best to make this as even handed and neutral as possible. In addition, I provided video's for supplementary information in case some readers are not familiar with the topics at hand. LET'S DO IT!



1) A Chicago dentist named William DeJean has put up $5,000 of his own money to run an ad spot calling for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to run for president. If SoS Clinton took him on this, she'd not onlyget the nomination this time around but would also become president.



Robert Zimmer: FICTION. First, this ad reopens the old wounds from the bitter 2008 Democratic presidential primary by taking a swipe at Obama. Second, the ad is ineffective because it has this sort of man-ish, Dear Leader animatronic image of Hillary that is creepy, not inspiring. Third, the Democrats' political standing is too weak at this time to survive the sort of fratricidal battle for the soul the party that the Tea Party is forcing within the GOP. The outlook for 2011 is too uncertain. Lastly, the parlor rumor in Washington, D.C. is that Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton will switch jobs in 2012 and Hillary will join Obama on the re-election ticket as his Vice Presidential nominee.

Michael Ferness: FICTION. While I drool at the prospect of Part 2 of Hillary vs. Obama for more reasons then I can count, it shall never come to be. If there is one thing the " School of Bubba " teaches its students, unlike the school of "Axe and Barry," it is that you never do anything that could potentially fracture your own party and or lead to an electoral demise at the hands of the voters.

For example, take current Obama Chief of Staff and former senior advisor to Bill Clinton Rahm Emanuel. Al though, in spirit and ideology, Rahmbo might have agreed with Obamacare, politically he knew it could amount to poison. His objections to the health overhaul and insistence upon a much smaller bill have been well documented. Why did he oppose the massive monstrosity that was passed this past spring? Because he knew, if passed, two risks would be ran:

1-Democrats would potentially sacrifice most of their political capital and agenda for the year on one single issue (immigration and climate reform???)

2-The passing of the legislation would potentially be seen as a slap in the face to the will of the voters, thus costing them the support (especially of Independents) needed to retain their hold on Congress.

Rather then focus on idealism alone, Rahm, just like all disciples of William Jefferson Clinton, knows to think of the long term health of his party just as much, if not more, then that of one single issue.

Like Rahm, and taking a cue from the centrist political nature that defined her husbands' post '94 presidency, Hillary Clinton would NEVER put her party at risk by running against Barack Obama. Why? For starters it would cause a civil war within her own party that makes the current GOP vs. Tea Party struggle look like a playground fight. Secondly, if she were to run, whether she won the primary or not, a Republican (not named Palin) would be presently assured a victory in 2012 as Hillary would have robbed the Democrats of what is slowly, but surely, becoming their only salvation for retaining the White House in two years: an Obama/Clinton super ticket.

SCORE: 1 for 1

2) In an August Gallup Poll, 52 percent of Americans said they approve of labor unions, the second-lowest approval rating in Gallup's 70-year history of asking the question. The lowest was last year's 48 percent. One worker in eight belongs to a labor union and for the first time in history, in 2009, more public-sector workers (500,000 more) belonged to a union than did private-sector workers. At the rate we are going, the American labor union movement will inevitably implode and become a relic of the past.



Robert Zimmer: FICTION. Conservative-leaning Americans, and without question conservative politicians, have historically held a distrust and dislike of unions for the very reasons unions exist -- to ensure that workers are fairly treated by their employers. As long as there are bosses who try to treat workers unfairly, there will always be unions. However, unions have become too accustomed to the perks. Due to skyrocketing costs of health care and pension obligations (both a mandatory part of any union's collective bargaining agreement), companies are increasingly looking to cut back on these benefits. The comprehensive reform of health care will lower costs over time, which will alleviate some of the pressure, but in the end the unions will have to negotiate reasonable limitations on benefits that take into account that employee benefits, particularly at larger corporations, can cause financial instability (read: GM before its bankruptcy).

Michael Ferness: FICTION.This past July, while in the midst of a $95 million resurfacing project on the Eisenhower Expressway in Chicago , the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150 went on strike in order to demand a pay increase of 15 percent over three years.

If you were to look up the term "audacity" in the dictionary, you might just find the definition written within the span of a mere three digits... 150. Never mind the fact that close to 10 % of the country was out of work at the time this local chapter decided to strike (up to 18% if you take into account the underemployment rate), and never mind the fact that, according to the Chicago Tribune, the hourly wage for laborers within Local 150 began at $53.37 per hour, and $68.18 for operating engineers. Apparently, Local 150, despite the disruption to the construction project, the reach FAR ABOVE fair market value, and, most importantly, the utter distastefulness in the face of a jobless workforce around them, felt it was in their best interest to strike.

Ahhhhh... labor unions. Don't you just love ‘em?

This local Chicago chapter is but a mere small window into this countries al ready out of control, yet truly obsolete union movement. Some might say "but the necessity for a labor union will always present itself as long as there are employers willing to screw over an employee." My response is simple: this is not 1965. In the face of clear employer misconduct, current federal law al ready provides for an employee the following:

The right to minimum wages

The right to a harassment free working environment

The right to a physically un-harmful work station

The right to be worked only a limited and safe amount of hours in succession

The right to NOT be discriminated against based upon skin color, sex, or religion

OSHA Anyone?

If anyone is being screwed over, it is the city, state, federal agency, small business, or corporation that has to pay, for example, an assembly line worker $29 per hour, when the market value is half of that, and then pass along that inflated work rate to either the taxpayer or consumer.

In a perfect world this would cease to exist.

This world, however, is not perfect.

Labor unions, for every single headache they bring upon this nation, every individual they turn against them, every cost they force to rise, every company their existence forces to close, and every step closer they bring America to the deep abyss, will always be here, at least in my lifetime.

Why?

The explanation all lies within the following three small sentences which were written two Labor Days ago, a mere two months before the 2008 Presidential Election:

On the eve of Labor Day, a Times analysis of Federal Election Commission data shows Obama scooped up $8.1 million from union political action committees through July 2008 while McCain garnered just $54,100 from organized labor and employee PACs so far in this presidential election cycle. Of all the political action committee donations made to the Obama campaign, 89.3 percent were from unions. Of all the political action committee donations made to the McCain campaign, just 2.9 percent came from unions and employee PACs.

http://www.nwitimes.com/business/local/article_e5c9aa20-58ee-5527-90e7-aa9ed1198e43.html

Although I hate to deal in generalizations by "labeling" a political party as one thing or another, let's all be honest about something: as long as there is a Democratic Party that is available to be bought, the American labor union movement will always have their foot in the door pressed firmly upon the toes of both the free market and, in the case of our lovely Local 150, pride itself.

SCORE: 2 for 2

3) Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke stated Thursday to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission that regulators' central task in overhauling the financial system is ending the notion that there are some firms too big to fail. He added that, "We should use supervision and regulation (read: Dodd-Frank legislation) to approach bubbles. We didn't do that. Going forward we need to be able to do that." You agree with Mr. Bernanke.



Robert Zimmer: FACT. Very few people in the Treasury Department, or any branch of the government for that matter -- had any idea that the economy was about to collapse in a death spiral because of the collapse of the housing bubble and the associated collapse of the speculative derivatives market, largely because the intricacies of these financial schemes were too difficult for most people to understand, let alone predict. Furthermore, the Bush administration largely gutted all meaningful financial regulation and oversight in banking and investment, much as it did in virtually every part of the private and public sector. The result was a too-big-to-fail monster which almost strangled the country. The government should walk softly and carry a big stick: it should generally try to stay out of capitalist innovations and the free market except to encourage its growth. However, it should also be empowered (which it is under Dodd-Frank), and willing (too soon to tell) to aggressively step in to put a stop to corrosive and self-destructive financial instruments which threaten the national and global economy. The nation is unlikely to survive another economic collapse in the near term, making this ability for the government to act decisively imperative to long-term financial health.

Michael Ferness: FACT. I champion for more government oversight about as often as the Chicago Cubs reach the World Series, but it should be obvious even to a blind man that more government regulation was desperately needed in order prevent our economic meltdown, and will without question be required to ensure another meltdown does not occur. Al though I worry about just how effectively the Feds can or will be in eliminating "Too Big to Fail" from our vocabulary or keeping "bubbles" from bursting (the Dodd-Frank Act, written by two of the individuals who were culpable in getting us into this mess in the first place, goes nowhere near far enough in some areas that desperately need to be addressed, and reaches horrifically too far in others) I whole heartedly agree with Uncle Benny that the chief purpose of regulators, or at least one of their chief purposes, is to make sure our financial well being does not hinge upon the likes of a "Fannie or Freddie" ever again.

SCORE: 3 for 3



4) The Wall Street Journal is reporting that, "A few months ago, the U.S.-Japan alliance was rocked by the prospect that the new Tokyo government might try to kick the Marines off Okinawa. Now they're down to haggling over which letter best shapes a runway: I or V." The US government should just close the Okinawa base and bring the troops stationed there home. (the video is a few months old but it gives the best explanation of what has happened).



Michael Ferness: FICTION. Seeing as we are a mere hopscotch skip away from a fully nuclear North Korean state, whose relationship with us continues to deteriorate by the microsecond, it is vital to our own national security that we have as many operational military bases set in place, in the surrounding region, to act on either preemptive or retaliatory orders against any potential aggression from a rather unstable dictator who has threatened the United States time and time again.

Furthermore, outside of our own national security, to say an American presence within the borders of North Korea's neighbors, such as South Korea or Japan, is imperative to their own well being would be a gross understatement.

How so?

It would be too easy to use South Korea as an example,especially since either conclusively (Korean War) or circumstantially (the sinking of a South Korean submarine in March of this year) the South has been attacked upon by the North and need all the help they can get.

Instead, let's take Japan, for example.

What some in Okinawa, most of whom are against our current Futenma military base operating within their city, seem to forget is Article 9 of their very own Constitution.

Written upon the conclusion of World War II when the Japanese surrendered to the Americans, Article 9 states the following:

1. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese
people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes.

2. In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea and air forces, as
well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

www.loc.gov U.S. Library of Congress

Although interpretations vary, and amendments have since been made to the Constitution, at its very base one could be lead to believe that Japan,bound by its own laws, does not have the right to defend itself, at least not through more conventional means such a standing army, navy, or air force. If you couple that with the fact that Japan is not a nuclear state, a situation presents itself for an oppressive power, such as a rogue North Korea, where there is little to no deterrent in attacking a country like Japan.

WE are the deterrent. An American presence within Japan, especially in a marquee target such as Okinawa with a population well over one million people, is crucial to ensuring that the island is neither harassed or attacked by outside forces.

But don't take my written word as gospel. Instead, take that of Japans own Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada:

"The framework of the security treaty is that the United States has the responsibility to protect Japan while Japan hosts the (U.S.) bases, including for the sake of the Asia-Pacific region, and without the permanent stationing of U.S. troops, it would be truly one-sided ... so that is unthinkable."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60D0Q020100114

Need more be said?

Robert Zimmer: FICTION. I don't think I could have written a better analysis than Mike, with whom I agree completely on this issue. As long as North Korea remains a threat, and Japan remains essentially defenseless, the base in needed. The point of compromise should be to address the more localized reasons that the citizens of Okinawa are annoyed by the base. Military codes of conduct need to be re-stressed with an eye towards trying not to piss off the local population when the troops are off-duty and off-base.

SCORE: 4 for 4

5) Dr Larbi Sadiki, a Senior Lecturer in Middle East Politics at the University of Exeter made the following statement in a recent article on Aljazeera (English): "Excluding Hamas from current and future Palestinian-Israeli peace negotiations is an exercise in futility." In that regard, the US should allow a representative from Hamas to the negotiating table along with PA President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in order to make any serious headway towards peace.



Michael Ferness: FICTION. The official charter of Hamas, neither blindly paraphrased or taken out of context, calls for the death and destruction of both Israel and Jews worldwide. Forgive me if I sound melodramatic, but to negotiate with such an entity of absolute hatred would frankly be comparable to Chamberlain negotiating with Hitler in Munich (and we all know how that turned out).

Al though Hamas is in a position of political power, as they were legally elected to represent the Gaza Strip, the Nazis were legally elected to power too. That doesn't mean negotiating with them is practical, moral, or needed. That might sound somewhat simplistic, but so is identifying Hamas for what they are in mind, body, and soul: terrorists! And I'm sorry, but when you are a seeker of tranquility and freedom, you don't negotiate with terrorists.

If you want to talk about a real spectacle in futility, I suggest sitting down with a group that outwardly and adamantly admits to seeking your very demise as their whole premise for being, and convincing them that they should feel otherwise.

Robert Zimmer: FICTION. I am no fan of Hamas, and it's important to remember that they are on record even days ago as opposing any peace negotiations with Israel. I think it is both prudent and pragmatic to bring Hamas to the table if they publicly support negotiations, but they continue to maintain a belligerent stance towards Israel even as the peace negotiations have gotten under way. How can we say a representative of Hamas should be allowed at the negotiating table when they refuse to send anyone or even bless the idea of negotiations? In Afghanistan, numerous factions within the Taliban have expressed to both the U.S. and to the Afghan government that they are interested in some sort of negotiated peace. This is a good model to follow; if Hamas wants to play ball, let them come to the table. However, as long as they continue to insist that the only path forward is the destruction of Israel, there is nothing to negotiate with them. They are an obstacle to peace while aligned in this fashion, not a component of the solution. If a deal is made without them, so be it. Let them become a relic of the past.

SCORE: 5 for 5

6) USA Today has reported that, "...in the face of the nation's largest recorded egg recall, a total of 550 million eggs potentially infected with salmonella enteritidis, and revelations of filthy conditions at the two Iowa egg farms involved, many animal rights groups and organic supporters have pointed a finger of blame at industrial animal agriculture." Between this and the obesity epidemic going on this country, the US government should begin dismantling the industrial agriculture business in favor of promoting local farms and food.



Michael Ferness: FICTION. The issue comes down to a battle between health and economics.

Although a large part of me would love to see a transfer of power from our industrialized farm complex to organically natured local farming and their products, most Americans (myself included) are a bit more concerned, especially in a recession, with the health of their wallet as opposed to that of their body, an animal, or the environment around them.

For all the faults of the industrialized farming complex, the conditions that they promote, and any harm done to the animals they harvest, there is simply no way for your common grocery chain to sell items produced at a local farm, free of hormones or animal cruelty, in an environment void of potential nauseating conditions, without a hand-off of greatly increased retail prices to the consumer.

So this all comes down to a simple question: Is it your health or your finances that are more important?

If you answered health I actually applaud you. I wish I had the fortitude to answer the same way you did, but alas I don't, and neither do most Americans. So, for the time being, and barring a VERY slow and anemically gradual change, the services of the industrialized farming complex are to remain what they have been for decades upon decades: one very large bullet the American public has no choice but to bite.

Robert Zimmer: FACT. This egg mess reminds me of the BP oil spill. How many times do we have to be subject to corporate industry's neglect of safety protocols, resulting in a destruction of our environment and a risk to our nation's health, before we lower the boom on these reckless companies? The mantra of "we can't afford to regulate industry during a recession" is lazy, irresponsible, and is nothing more than just kicking the can down the road. The economic consequences of lack of regulation are far greater than those of proper regulation. Eggs, oil, military contractors, whomever -- get these companies under control once and for all.

FINAL SCORE: 5 for 6

First I want to thank Zimmer and Michael for participating. They were excellent and are on my permanent list for future FoF's. Great job fellas!

Second, I am nothing if not consistent. Once again I foster more agreement than disagreement...



...ah well, better luck next time when 411 reader Black Scorpion leaps from the comments zone into the pages of Fact or Fiction to take on purported liberal and 411 reader Donald R. Maust. Until then, have a safe weekend everybody.