The CEO of Mozilla resigned for Thinking ‘Incorrectly’
In 2008, Brendan Eich donated $1,000 to support California Proposition 8. A proposal to keep marriage in California between only a man and a woman. Proposition 8 passed as most Californians agreed with Brendan Eich. They did not want to change law, tradition and custom. The left has determined that the people of California are hate-filled people. And liberal judges have since overruled the will of the people of California.
So who is Brendan Eich? Until recently he was the CEO of Mozilla. The company that puts out the internet browser Firefox. He rose to CEO this year. He cofounded Mozilla Foundation in 1998. So he’s been there for awhile. And did good work. To rise to CEO you have to be pretty darn good. And you can’t be a monster. For if you are a monster the odds are slim of becoming CEO. For it tends to garner bad press.
Well, as it turns out, exercising your free speech can make you a monster. A hate-filled individual. Which the left said he was. Because of this $1,000 donation. Just because he thought like the majority of all Californians. That marriage should be between a man and a woman. And because he did the left demanded his resignation for daring not to think ‘correctly’ like them. So he did. He resigned for thinking ‘incorrectly’.
Conservatives were not Welcomed at a Feminist Conference on Inclusivity
This is not the only ‘thought crime’ the left has leveled at someone. For anyone that dares to think differently from them they call a thought criminal. And do everything in their power to silence them. For the ‘tolerant’ left is very intolerant of anyone that thinks differently from them. Because the left hates dissenting views. Especially those of conservatives. As there are about two conservatives for every liberal they face a lot of dissenting views. So they have a lot of ‘thought crime’ to police.
Universities are mostly liberal these days. And whenever a conservative is invited to speak the thought police come out. They protest. They heckle. They throw pies. Just ask Ann Coulter. Even when conservatives are invited back to their alma maters to give a commencement speech the thought police turn out to keep them from speaking. Just ask Dr. Ben Carson. Or Condoleezza Rice.
Feminists on university campuses are particularly intolerant to other points of view. Even at a feminist conference about inclusivity. Everyone was welcomed. Except conservative women. In fact, the feminists at this conference identified a woman as being a conservative. Telling the students gathering there that they shouldn’t talk to her. Because conservatives were not welcomed at this conference on inclusivity. Just ask Katherine Timpf.
It’s hard to Pass your Agenda when you’re Outnumbered Two to One
Liberals have long wanted to revive the fairness doctrine. For the one area they can’t control is talk radio. And they don’t like what they’re saying on talk radio. So they want to shut them up. To balance the content broadcasted over the public airwaves. As determined by the Federal Communications Commission. Which could, of course, find that 3 hours of Rush Limbaugh a day is not balanced. And require that he give up an hour or two of his time for an opposing viewpoint. Hence the moniker the ‘Hush Rush Bill‘.
The left has been warning us about the calamity of global warming for the last three decades or so. Telling us if we don’t act now the world will end within the decade. But the people aren’t quaking with fear. Some are even debunking their ‘science’. With real science. Something the left does not like. And they want to do something about. They want to shut them up. Some even want to jail them.
Conservatives don’t do this. They don’t call for boycotts or resignations when people exercise their right to free speech. They don’t throw pies at people. They don’t pressure universities to shut down debate by preventing someone from speaking that disagrees with them. They don’t warn young women that someone ‘thinks wrong’. That they shouldn’t talk to ‘wrong thinkers’. They don’t try to balance the content in the liberal-dominated media. And they don’t put politics over science. Liberals do. But conservatives don’t.
There have been some in history that put politics above everything else. Just like liberals do. People who punished those who said the wrong things. And punished those for thinking wrong. They had state censorship. Propaganda. And jail for those who weren’t like them. Or worse. Things the left would love to do to stifle all debate. Because it’s hard to pass your agenda when you’re outnumbered two to one. So who are these people from history? Nazis. And communists. Yes, liberals are about as open-minded and tolerant as Nazis and communists were.
Tags: Brendan Eich, California, communists, conservatives, debate, dissenting views, Fairness Doctrine, feminist, free speech, Global Warming, hate-filled, inclusivity, intolerant, liberal, Mozilla, Nazis, open-minded, Proposition 8, science, talk radio, thought crime, thought criminal, thought police, tolerant
Week in Review
Some see amnesty as a Democrat voter registration drive. Because people will remember who helped them become legal citizens. The Democrats. And will vote Democrat. Some have also said the Affordable Care Act is another Democrat voter registration drive. As Obamacare gave enormous sums of money to people running the insurance exchanges. To set up and maintain those exchanges. And to do something with all of that data they collected. Such as making sure these people signing up for these ‘Democrat’ benefits (the Affordable Care Act was passed along purely partisan lines) register to vote (see California to Send Voter Registration Cards to Obamacare Applicants by McClatchy News posted 3/25/2014 on Governing).
Heading off a lawsuit over compliance with a federal voting rights law, California officials have agreed to help millions of state residents register to vote.
Under a deal announced Monday by several voting-rights groups, the state will send voter registration cards to nearly 3.8 million Californians who have applied for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act…
The Department of Motor Vehicles and state offices that aid low-income mothers and the disabled are also among the agencies required to provide registration services…
A spokeswoman for the state health insurance exchange, Covered California, said the network had already taken “some interim steps,” including providing voter registration information and links to the secretary of State’s office on its website.
It’s probable that these people would not have voted in the next election had they not signed up for mandatory health insurance. But they did. And now are receiving voter registration information. From the good people who signed them up for their health insurance. No doubt Democrat supporters. Will they coach these people on how to vote as well as registering them to vote? Will someone explain to them that if they want more free benefits they need to vote Democrat? Perhaps.
It’s how you buy votes. You give people something. And keep giving them something as long as they keep voting for you. At least, that’s what they say at election time. “I fought to increase Social Security funding while the Republicans wanted to privatize it and make you risk your retirement in the stock market.” “I fought to increase Medicare spending while the Republicans wanted to privatize it and make it wither on a vine.” Etc. So is it improbable to think someone is telling them to be sure to vote Democrat so the Republicans can’t take away your health insurance? To use tax dollars for health care to register Democrat voters? Not really.
The Democrats ran an ad showing a Republican pushing Granny off a cliff in a wheelchair. ‘Rogue’ IRS agents took it upon themselves (or so the Obama administration claims) to harass Tea Party groups to prevent their fund raising, suppressing their free speech in the 2012 election. And, of course, the Democrats lied to the American people to pass the Affordable Care Act into law. If you like your health insurance and doctor, they said, you could keep your health insurance and doctor. So when it comes to getting what they want they appear to be rather pragmatic. Where the ends justify the means. No matter how unsavory, or legally questionable, those means are. Which would make the insurance exchanges the perfect voter registration mechanism. At least for one not bothered by the unsavory or legally questionable.
Tags: Affordable Care Act, California, Democrat, health insurance, insurance exchanges, Obamacare, voter registration, voter registration cards, voter-registration drive
Week in Review
Electric cars aren’t selling anywhere near enough to make them a profitable business. Because they just won’t do for you what gasoline will do for you. Let you carry lots of stuff over great distances. Because the electric car is so less of a car as a gasoline-powered car governments bribe manufacturers to build them. And people to buy them. Just so rich people can have these toys (see California Is Giving Tesla Another Huge Tax Break. Good Move. by Will Oremus posted 12/19/2013 on Slate).
This is going to drive the Tesla-haters crazy. The luxury electric-car maker is getting a huge new tax break from California, SFGate reports. The state will let it off the hook for sales and use taxes on some $415 million in new equipment it’s purchasing in order to expand production of the Model S at its Bay Area factory. That amounts to a $34.7 million tax break to produce more of a vehicle whose sticker price starts above $70,000…
So, in fact, it isn’t Tesla per se that’s getting special treatment from the state. It’s the clean-tech industry in general, which California is very keen to promote…
More broadly, whatever sense a tax on the purchase of manufacturing equipment might once have made for California, it’s patently counterproductive in the context of clean-tech startups in the 21st century. Add to that some of the highest income and sales taxes in the nation, and it’s no wonder California is worried about companies like Tesla picking up stakes and heading elsewhere. Businessweek notes that new manufacturing jobs in the state have risen less than 1 percent since 2010, compared with nearly 5 percent nationally. Gov. Jerry Brown has been chipping away at the tax already, and Tesla is just the latest example.
Nor is the deal likely to burden the state’s taxpayers. Tesla’s Model S is in huge demand, and the company has been scrambling since its launch to ramp up production.
No. The Model S is not in huge demand. Demand may be up for the car. But if the demand was ‘huge’ like every other popular car that sold well you wouldn’t need subsidies or tax breaks to build and sell them. For cars in high demand are often the cars with the greatest profit in their selling price. Because people want them so much that they are willing to pay these higher prices. SUVs and pickup trucks were these kinds of vehicles. And before gas prices spiked they were the lifeblood of manufacturers. Because people paid more for these than they would for the sedans at the time. Which is when the imports took over that segment.
People like SUVs and pickup trucks because they are big. They carry a lot of people. And a lot of stuff. Even pull campers and boats. The ideal vehicle for the family vacation. Something the electric car just sucks at. For any extra weight just sucks away charge time. Limiting your range. Which takes all the fun out of going on vacation. And makes it a little scary. For there is nothing worse than having a car that doesn’t move anymore in a strange place far from home.
But if you’re still convinced that tax breaks to big manufacturers are unfair and wrong, you might want to train your ire on a state a little further north, which just offered an all-time record $8.7 billion in tax breaks to a company that manufactures perhaps the least-green transportation technology of all. The worst part: Boeing might just move out anyway.
There is a bit of a difference between Tesla and Boeing. Boeing employs a great many more people than Tesla. And they’re all union workers ‘further north’. Hence part of the reason for the tax breaks. To help them compete with their high labor costs against the heavily subsidized Airbus. Also, Boeing leads U.S. exports. And is about the biggest component in U.S. GDP figures. So while tax breaks and subsidies are abhorrent at least Boeing gives us something for theirs. Unlike clean-tech industries. That receive huge government subsidies and tax breaks. Only to go bankrupt (Solyndra, Fisker, etc.) a short time later. Tesla is the exception to the rule. Because its founder, Elon Musk, is a billionaire who spends his own money. A lot of it. Unlike the other failed clean-tech start-ups.
Tags: Boeing, California, clean-tech, electric cars, gasoline, Model S, pickup trucks, range, subsidies, SUVs, tax break, Tesla
Week in Review
If you’re a smoker one California town has a message for you. “You are not welcomed here” (see California Town Bans Smoking in Condos and Apartments That Share Walls by ALAN FARNHAM posted 11/21/2013 on Yahoo! News).
The town of San Rafael, Calif., has passed a ban on smoking that city officials have called the most stringent in the nation. The new ordinance makes it illegal for residents to smoke in their own homes if they share a wall with another dwelling.
The ban applies to owners and renters alike, and it covers condominiums, co-ops, apartments and any multi-family residence containing three or more units…
As justification for the rule, she cited studies showing that secondhand smoke seeped through ventilating ducts and walls, even through cracks. “It depends on a building’s construction,” she said, “but it does affect the unit next door, with the negative health impacts due to smoke…”
Does this apply to smoking marijuana, too? If so then where are you to smoke your marijuana?
You have an entire coast pushing hard to decriminalize marijuana for recreational use. Because responsible adults should be able to do whatever they want to do inside their homes. Unless they want to smoke cigarettes, that is. Because smoking will kill you. And anyone near that burning tobacco.
This just goes to show you how irrational the left is. As one type of smoking will kill you. While another type of smoking will do no harm. For the left wants to control our lives. Telling us what we should eat and drink. And telling us what not to eat and drink. Or smoke. But they sure enjoy getting high. Probably to escape the horrible reality they’ve created with their onerous rules and regulations.
Tags: ban, ban on smoking, California, cigarettes, decriminalize marijuana, marijuana, smoking
Week in Review
Those who don’t understand economics always want to raise the minimum wage. Because they think it will help unskilled workers. But it actually hurts unskilled workers. For a couple of reasons. It will increase the cost of business. Especially for small business owners who survive on thin margins. If they have a few minimum wage workers an increase in the minimum wage may force the owner to lay off one of them. Or more. It is often that or working at a loss.
Another way minimum wage workers get hurt by a higher minimum wage is that it will keep them in a minimum wage job. Where they never will earn much. Causing them to struggle throughout their life. You see, minimum wage jobs are entry level jobs. Unskilled jobs for the unskilled. So they can get some working skills when they have little to offer an employer. Which is why historically high school kids and college students work these jobs. Gaining useful job skills to apply to a future career. Where they will earn a lot more. Allowing them to raise a family. It’s why people go to college. To earn more money. As they didn’t expect to get a ‘living wage’ without this higher education.
So raising the minimum wage is not in the best interest for minimum wage workers. Unless they want to remain in dead-end jobs for the rest of their life. After all, these jobs are often referred to contemptuously as ‘hamburger-flipper jobs’. But state governments are always willing to keep people in these ‘hamburger-flipper jobs’. Why? For the votes. Which is why California is raising their minimum wage (see California raises minimum wage to $10 by Melanie Hicken posted 9/25/2013 on CNNMoney).
The state’s minimum wage will gradually rise from $8 to $10, under the law signed by Governor Jerry Brown Wednesday morning. The hourly rate will increase to $9 on July 1, 2014 and to $10 on Jan. 1, 2016…
More than 90% of minimum-wage workers in the state are over the age of 20, while nearly 2.4 million of the state’s children live in a household with a parent who earns minimum wage, according to the statement. The pay bump would boost a full-time worker’s income by about $4,000 to around $20,000 a year.
The next time you go to a McDonald’s count the people working there. There are a lot people. Sometimes 8 or more. Let’s look at that additional $4,000 in a worker’s income. Which if you add taxes and other employee expenses let’s say it costs the employer $6,000 per worker. If there are 5 employees that’s an additional $30,000. Most McDonald’s are franchises. Basically small business for one single small business owner who pays a whopping franchise fee. For the privilege of having to do no marketing to get people to walk through their door.
Let’s assume an owner clears $100,000 in profits for his or her own salary. And works 80 hours a week to earn that. So his or her spouse can be a stay-at-home parent for their children. Who bought the business so the two of them didn’t have to work. Each earning $50,000 to make the house payment in a nice neighborhood with an excellent school system. With the raise in the minimum wage this business owner will take a $30,000 pay cut. Making it difficult to pay his or her bills. Which will force them to lay off some workers and work more hours. Or close the restaurant. So they can get a job. The spouse, too. So they can afford to stay in the house they worked so hard to afford. And keep their kids in the school they worked so hard to put them in. Turning their kids over to daycare as they become working, part-time parents.
Business owners are not all getting rich. More businesses fail than succeed. Some make a lot of money. Some lose a lot of money. While every month is a struggle to meet their cash-flow needs. And increases in the minimum wage won’t make this any easier. It will just increase their costs. Making it harder for them to stay in business. And if they go out of business then that higher minimum-wage won’t help those minimum-wage workers.
Of course the question that just begs to be asked here is this. Why is it that so many families have to rely on entry-level jobs to raise their families? Is it because the Californian educational system failed them and they’re unable to go on to college? Is it because the taxes and regulatory costs in California are so onerous that it is hindering job creation in better paying industries? Or is it because people are so sexually active in high school that they’re having babies before they have an established career? Or is it because they choose to remain in these hamburger-flipper jobs because the minimum wage plus a generous welfare state is enough to make life comfortable? This is the more important problem to resolve. What is putting these people in these dead-end hamburger-flipper jobs to begin with? For these people would be far better off advancing out of these entry-level jobs than staying in them forever.
Tags: California, dead-end job, entry level jobs, hamburger-flipper jobs, minimum wage, minimum wage workers, unskilled workers
Week in Review
Roe v. Wade may have made abortions legal in the country. But it doesn’t force doctors to perform abortions. The Achilles heel of Roe v. Wade. And apparently causing a problem in California (see Nurses could perform abortions in the first 12-weeks of pregnancy under new Californian bill by Anthony Bond posted on the Daily Mail).
Nurses in California could soon be allowed to perform abortions within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.
Nurse practitioners and certified nurse-midwives would be allowed to perform abortions instead of doctors…
Speaking to The Huffington Post, Assemblywoman Toni Atkins, who wrote the measure, said there is a huge lack of abortion providers in California…
Opponents say more providers are not needed becasue [sic] California already has the highest rate of abortion in the U.S.
Even though few doctors want to abort babies in California the state has the highest rate of abortions in the U.S. Which brings up two interesting points. The first being that doctors apparently don’t want to perform abortions. Possibly because of that “I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion” in the Hippocratic Oath. Or because of that “do no harm” in the oath. Assuming they believe a gestating fetus is a human life that they can harm.
The other point is that if they are leading in the number of abortions how can they have a lack of abortion providers? Apparently the few doctors willing to violate their Hippocratic Oath are being fed with more pregnant women to perform abortions on than in any other state. The question is how many more abortions are enough? But there is an even more interesting question. What if they can’t get ‘enough’ nurse practitioners and certified nurse-midwives to perform abortions?
A mid-wife typically helps with the delivery of a baby. Because they love bringing new life into the world. How are they going to feel about amending their business cards to read, “Deliveries and abortions?” To be skilled at both bringing new life into the world? And preventing the bringing of new life into the world? They may not take the Hippocratic Oath but they probably do their job as if they had. And no doubt will be as reluctant to perform abortions as doctors are.
Tags: abortion, abortion providers, California, doctors, Hippocratic Oath, nurse practitioners, nurse-midwives
Week in Review
It’s not snowing enough in the Rocky Mountains anymore because of global warming. According to all the relevant climate scientists today. Whose research appears to contain more politics than scientific analysis. For they have arrived at conclusions based on a selective set of scientific results while conveniently ignoring contradictory data. And because they do they can make claims like this (see Why Dwindling Snow—Thanks Largely to Climate Change—Might Dry Out Los Angeles by Bryan Walsh posted 6/17/2013 on Time Science & Space).
While the national government remains slow to deal with climate change, many cities have been moving ahead. Why the difference? Well, cities tend to be more homogenous politically, which makes any kind of decisive action easier to push through. But the real reason is that city managers know they will be the first ones forced to deal with the likely consequences of global warming: rising sea levels and flooding, deadly heat waves and water struggles…
Now a new study from the University of California, Los Angeles, suggests that the local mountain snowfall — vital for water supplies — could fall 30% to 40% below 2000 levels by midcentury, thanks to global warming. And if emissions don’t decline and warming is worse than we expect, more snow will vanish, even as greater L.A. continues to grow.
Included in the article are very scientific-sounding statements from climate scientists ensconced in one of our liberal universities (UCLA) which, of course, would have no liberal bias.
The mountains won’t receive nearly as much snow as they used to, and the snow they do get will not last as long …We won’t reach the 32ºF threshold for snow as often, so a greater percentage of precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow, particularly at lower elevations. Increased flooding is possible from the more frequent rains, and springtime runoff from melting snowpack will happen sooner…
This science is clear and compelling: Los Angeles must begin today to prepare for climate change.
All because of global warming caused by rising levels of greenhouse gasses? Well, that’s what they say. Of course, that doesn’t explain the fall in global temperatures over the last decade. Odd climate behavior for a climate suffering from global warming. Their models can’t explain this. But this can (see Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) posted 3/2/2011 on appinsys.com/GlobalWarming).
Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land. Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. … Several recent studies suggest that the observed SST variability may be misrepresented in the coupled models used in preparing the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, with substantial errors on interannual and decadal scales. There is a hint of an underestimation of simulated decadal SST variability even in the published IPCC Report.
They go on to discuss something called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). And the PDO index. Which they calculate “from sea surface temperatures and sea level pressures.” What they found was a cyclical warming and cooling every 20-30 years. This change in ocean temperatures caused a change in the low-level jet stream as it blew across the United States from west to east. When it moves south it picks up more moisture from the Gulf of Mexico and causes more Midwest storms. When it moves further south the Midwest suffers droughts. Like those that created the great dust bowl of the Thirties. And causes less snowfall in the mountains.
What causes the PDO? Well, there is a correlation between sunspot activity and the PDO. So that is a likely cause. And a probable cause. So sunspot activity causes warming and cooling of the oceans. Which causes changes in the low-level jet stream. Resulting in warming and cooling over land. And depending where that low-level jet stream moves we may have floods, droughts, storms or mountain snow. None of which has a thing to do with man-made greenhouse gases.
Tags: California, climate change, climate scientist, cooling, droughts, emissions, floods, Global Warming, greenhouse gasses, land warming, low-level jet stream, mountain snowfall, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, PDO, snow, storms, sunspot activity, warming, water supplies
Week in Review
The proponents of Obamacare say it will lower the cost of health insurance, give health insurance to the poor who can’t afford it and cover people with preexisting conditions. That is, we’ll get more for less. In all of recorded history there have been few examples of getting more for less. Usually you have to go to scripture to find them. Such as when Jesus fed about 4,000 people with 5 loaves of bread and two fish. This is what the proponents of Obamacare believe Obamacare will do. A miracle. Even though a great many of them don’t even believe in Jesus Christ. Or miracles. And for Obamacare to do all that they say it will do will take a miracle or two (see Rate Shock: In California, Obamacare To Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums By 64-146% by Avik Roy posted 5/30/2013 on Forbes).
Last week, the state of California claimed that its version of Obamacare’s health insurance exchange would actually reduce premiums. “These rates are way below the worst-case gloom-and-doom scenarios we have heard,” boasted Peter Lee, executive director of the California exchange. But the data that Lee released tells a different story: Obamacare, in fact, will increase individual-market premiums in California by as much as 146 percent…
That Obamacare more than doubles insurance premiums for many Californians is especially ironic, given the political posturing of the President and his administration in 2010. In February of that year, Anthem Blue Cross announced that some groups (but not the majority) would face premium increases of as much as 39 percent. The White House and its allies in the blogosphere, cynically, claimed that these increases were due to greedy profiteering by the insurers, instead of changes in the underlying costs of the insured population.
Soon after, WellPoint announced that, in fact, because of lower revenues and higher spending on patient care, the company earned 11 percent less in 2010 than it did in 2009. So much for greedy profiteering.
This is no surprise. Because you can’t just give health insurance to those who don’t have it without someone paying for it. And you just can’t let people who don’t have health insurance buy a policy when they come down with a costly medical condition without someone paying for it. Before Obamacare these people didn’t have health insurance. After Obamacare these people will. But someone has to pay for it. And guess who that will be? Those who pay for health insurance. Who will now have to pay more as more people will be consuming health care benefits without paying for it themselves.
This is no mystery. And most people seem to understand this when it comes to income taxes. As they will vote to raise taxes on rich people so the government can afford to give them more free stuff. People understand this. They say the rich should pay their fair share so those who don’t can get stuff for free. They understand the principle that for some people to get something for free other people have to pay for it. When it comes to taxes, at least. But somehow they act surprised when the very same thing happens in health care.
Allowing people with a preexisting condition who didn’t bother to pay for health insurance to buy a policy at the same price as everyone else is unfair. Because when they were healthy they did not contribute to the health care system by paying an insurance premium. But now that they are sick they expect others to chip in and help pay their medical expenses when they refused to do it when they had a chance. And with no annual or lifetime limit to benefits those other people will have to pay even more. This is what Obamacare will do. So it was never going to lower the cost of health care. Because you can’t get more for less. Unless you’re Jesus Christ. So, yes, prices will soar for the responsible people who pay for health insurance.
As the Obama administration tries to change the United States into a social democracy like all those European states suffering debt crises and recessions there will be a strong incentive NOT to do well. For those who do well and prosper get rewarded by paying the bill for those who do not. From those according to ability to those according to need. It sounds so utopian. But what happens in socialist countries is that people try to show as little ability as possible while showing as much need as they can. Because that’s how you prosper under socialism. Have other people work hard while you enjoy the fruit of all their labors. And never show ability. Because if you do you will only work harder than the guy that doesn’t.
Tags: California, health insurance, health insurance exchange, Jesus Christ, miracle, Obamacare, preexisting conditions, premium increases, premiums
Week in Review
The past few years haven’t been great for organized labor. They’ve spent a fortune in union dues to win President Obama’s reelection. But though they won that battle they may be losing the war (see Spending large sums in state labor battles adds to unions’ problem of losing members by FOX News/AP posted 12/23/2012 on FOX News).
Unions represented roughly 30 percent of the country’s workforce in the early 1980s, when the federal government started tracking those numbers, but they now represent 11.8 percent.
The declining numbers are in part the result of the country’s shrinking manufacturing sector, but the situation has been compounded by recent efforts in Michigan and Wisconsin to limit unions’ power.
Unions had already spent roughly $22 million in Michigan on a failed November ballot issue regarding collective bargaining, before Republican Gov. Rick Snyder signed legislation this month that stops unions from making workers pay dues or representation fees to keep their jobs…
They also spent more than $20 million in Wisconsin to remove Republican Gov. Scott Walker this year in a recall election after he signed 2011 legislation stripping most public employees of much of their collective-bargaining power, but Walker still won that election.
The unions also spent roughly $24 million last year in Ohio to overturn an anti-union measure.
But unions spent more in California this year to defeat a ballot measure that would curb dues collection than they did total on political efforts in Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin.
James Sherk, a labor expert with the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank, estimates Michigan unions, including United Auto Workers, will lose an additional $100 million annually as a result of the changes and members leaving.
Workers have already “left unions in droves in Wisconsin, Idaho and Oklahoma,” he said.
If you do the math that adds up to $66 million for Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio. Double that to add in California and that brings it up to $132 million. Throwing in the estimated $400 million in the 2012 elections that brings the total up to $532 million.
That’s half a billion in union dues they spent for political purposes. Perhaps explaining why workers are leaving the unions in droves where they can. Especially when the American people identified themselves at the end of 2011 as 40% conservative, 35% moderate and 21% liberal (see Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S. by Lydia Saad posted 1/12/2012 on Gallup). As a lot of those union dues go to support liberal candidates and liberal causes they no doubt bothered the 79% of the population that isn’t liberal. Especially those paying those dues.
Tags: California, collective bargaining, liberal, liberal candidates, liberal causes, Michigan, Ohio, organized labor, union dues, unions, Wisconsin
Week in Review
California loves intrusive government. They have environmental regulations that are more demanding than the rest of the nation. And more costly to business. It is why gasoline prices are the highest in California. It’s also why a lot of businesses are leaving California. Even Hollywood is feeling the high cost of doing business. And are shooting more and more movies on location where there are lower costs. But Californians are okay with all of this. They even just voted a massive tax hike to help pay for this intrusive government. But along with these new tax hikes Californians did something else. Something that goes beyond the pale. Something that businesses may respond to with their feet. And leave this governmental overreach into the private sector economy (see Porn stars angry at condom requirement, threaten to leave L.A. posted 11/7/2012 on the Los Angeles Times).
AIDS activists called a requirement that porn performers wear condoms while filming a “referendum on the subject of safer sex.”
But with almost all the votes tallied and Measure B winning passage, many in the adult film industry were wondering what’s next for the industry — and whether they must now take their business out of Los Angeles County.
During its campaign against the condom requirement, the industry said 10,000 jobs would be at stake and that film companies might be forced to leave Los Angeles County, taking away an industry worth hundreds of millions of dollars…
“It’s a dark day for porn…somehow measure b passed.” tweeted @FetishMoviesCom.
Under the measure, the cost of the law would be paid for by porn producers, who would have to purchase a public health permit, much like tattoo parlors. Violators would be subject to fines and misdemeanor criminal charges.
This is where they draw the line. Porn industry jobs. Probably because of that war on women thing. Even though this is more a product of the political left. Normally defenders of free speech and women’s rights. And here they are. Acting like Republicans. Doing something that is not porn-friendly. And possibly putting thousands of women out of work. Talk about your war on women.
It’s a pity people didn’t feel this impassioned for all of those other anti-business policies of the state of California. For they are killing a lot more jobs then will be lost if the porn industry leaves town. But I guess some jobs are more important than others. At least, to those in California. Who seem to understand the porn industry better than business in general. Then again, California is a blue state. A Democrat state. Who prefer regulating businesses instead of helping businesses.
Tags: California, condoms, Hollywood, jobs, Los Angeles County, Measure B, porn, porn industry, war on women