Washington Post: State Worker Bailout Motivated by Politics

The Washington Post argues that Washington bailouts for state union workers reinforces dependency on the feds and is a political handout to their Big Labor constituency.   It's not often we agree with the Post but in this case they are right: TO GOVERN is to choose, and nothing lays bare a government's true priorities like the choices it makes about spending taxpayers' money. In that regard, the Senate's decision to spend $10 billion on education jobs this week is revealing -- and deeply discouraging. The crusade for an education jobs bill, led by the Obama administration and Democratic leaders in Congress, has always struck us as more of an election-year favor for teachers unions than an optimal use of public resources. Billed as an effort to stimulate the economy, it's not clearly more effective than alternative uses of the cash. Yes, school budgets are tight across the country, but the teacher layoff "crisis" is exaggerated. In fact, as happens each year, many teachers who got pink slips in the spring have been notified that they'll be hired after all. Many layoffs could have been -- and indeed have been -- avoided by modest union concessions. As of last school year, the money for 5.5 percent of the 6 million K-12 jobs nationwide came from Washington through the 2009 stimulus; the new money reinforces this dangerous dependency.

Big Labor Malfeasance and Gov. Ted Strickland

Big Labor Malfeasance and Gov. Ted Strickland

The Columbus Dispatch puts the blame squarely on Gov. Ted Strickland for his cronies funneling no-bid contracts to his union boss buddies at the expense of a school for the blind, home-care worker freedoms, and more: Misfeasance As executive director of the Ohio School Facilities Commission, Richard Murray was supposed to act as a good steward of the millions of dollars Ohio pours into new school buildings every day. Instead, a report by the Ohio inspector general shows, he has abused his position to push the interests of unions, including the one to which he belongs, at substantial cost to the state and local school districts. His unprofessional behavior disqualifies him for this position. Murray’s union advocacy comes as no surprise; his career before Gov. Ted Strickland appointed him included more than 12 years as Ohio director of the Laborers-Employers Cooperation and Education Trust, a union advocacy group. He is a member of Local 423 of the Laborers' International Union of North America. Strickland’s decision in September 2009 to summarily oust well-regarded former Executive Director Michael Shoemaker, a fellow Democrat, and replace him with Murray shows that the governor, too, is far more interested in doing favors for one of his primary constituencies — labor — than in working for Ohioans’ best interests. In fact, Murray says he was instructed by the Strickland administration to treat construction unions as “constituents” and to improve relations with them.

Big Labor White House Insider Flouts Financial Disclosure Rules

BigGovernment.com reports that Big Labor White House insider Patrick Gaspard (SEIU-ACORN) has failed to accurately report his financials on at least two occasions.  Administration officials continue to mock President Obama’s proclaimed high ethical standards: Has Congressman Darrell Issa’s request that White House Political Director Patrick Gaspard explain his failure to report a $37,000 payment from his previous employer SEIU Local 1199 evolved into a cover-up?    It’s beginning to smell like it!  Rep. Issa’s request refers to the same Patrick Gaspard who while working for a Soros-SEIU political committee employed convicted felons to go door-to-door.  In fact, that same Soros-SEIU committee received one of the steepest fines in Federal Election Commission history ($750,000) because its leadership, in Machiavellian fashion, chose to ignore federal laws and take the risk of paying fines if caught.  So, ignoring a few pesky public disclosure laws is not as unlikely as it may sound.  Questions: How did Gaspard work six days in January for SEIU 1199 h while simultaneously working for the “office of the President-Elect” during “January 1-16” of 2009? How did Gaspard earn, in those six days of work for SEIU 1199, “$17,238.56 [of] carried over leave & vacation,” in particular, after apparently having already been paid 2.5 to 4 months vacation pay in 2008? How did Gaspard earn a 9 week severance payout from an employer (SEIU 1199)? According to available SEIU 1199 financial reports (2000-2009), Gaspard was not paid by SEIU 1199 in years 2000, 2002, 2003, and 2004. For the year 2001, SEIU 1199 paid Gaspard only $3,723.  It appears that in at least 5 of the 9 years Gaspard was not on the payroll or worked only a week or two.  An investigation by the House Oversight Committee is warranted.  Unfortunately with