From
Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25072.html):
QuoteConservative group offers to sell endorsement for $2M
By MIKE ALLEN | 7/17/09 5:07 AM EDT
The American Conservative Union asked FedEx for a check for $2 million to $3 million in return for the group's endorsement in a bitter legislative dispute, then flipped and sided with UPS after FedEx refused to pay.
For the $2 million plus, ACU offered a range of services that included: "Producing op-eds and articles written by ACU's Chairman David Keene and/or other members of the ACU's board of directors. (Note that Mr. Keene writes a weekly column that appears in The Hill.)"
The conservative group's remarkable demand — black-and-white proof of the longtime Washington practice known as "pay for play" — was contained in a private letter to FedEx , which was provided to POLITICO.
The letter exposes the practice by some political interest groups of taking stands not for reasons of pure principle, as their members and supporters might assume, but also in part because a sponsor is paying big money.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25072.html#ixzz0LWi6MrME
Sorry to interrupt the important discussion about mommy jeans, but lobbyists are busy selling access to our government and we should care about this.
ACU offered to support FedEx's desire to limit labor union expansion...for $2 million cash American. When FedEx rebuffed them, they flipped sides...and everybody's favorite conservative buddy, Grover Norquist, is among the ACU members that signed off on the flip. Ugly stuff.
If verified, the group lost any and all credibility. I hope the members are appalled. They aren't taking a stance on issues, they are selling political support.
You guys are making it sound like this is the only group in Washington doing this. Have a cup of coffee and wake the love up. The lobbyists have been in control of DC for the last 20 years, not the Democrats or Republicans or the liberals or conservatives.
Well there is precedent here......
3rd Columnist On Bush Payroll
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/26/politics/main669432.shtml
Pundit Armstrong Williams settles case over promoting education reforms
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-20-williams_x.htm
The ratio of principle vs. economics with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (members make Boeing 777s) will be interesting if Smith (FedEx) cancels a multibillion $ order for 777s based on the outcome of the legislation. See George Will's piece on today's TW editorial page.
George Will is your typical anti-union conservative elitist....
There are two sides to every story, sometimes more than two.
A story you won't see in the TW....
FedEx's Anti-Union Drive
FedEx tries to tap taxpayer resentment by portraying proposed labor law changes as a "bailout" for rival UPS
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2009/db2009068_154641.htm
Here are the details: The legislation seeks to remove a distinction between how UPS and FedEx Express must deal with employees. Because FedEx was originally founded as an airline, FedEx Express workers are currently subject to the Railway Labor Act (RLA), a law passed in 1926 to prevent disruptions to national air and train traffic. Though many FedEx Express workers don't have a direct relationship with the operation or maintenance of the air fleet, they are still covered by the RLA. That law carries a difficult path to unionization that requires a national vote by every worker at a company, and doesn't allow for organizing at a local, terminal-by-terminal level. Since the late 1990s, UPS and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters have pushed to change this classification.
The provision in the current bill would remove FedEx Express drivers from the jurisdiction of the Railway Labor Act, and put them under the National Labor Relations Act. The NLRA covers most private-sector workers in the U.S., including delivery drivers, truck mechanics, and workers at sorting facilities both at UPS and at FedEx Ground, a sister unit of FedEx Express. "FedEx has managed to use the RLA to keep workers from organizing," says Jim Berard, a spokesman for the House Transportation Committee. "This bill puts FedEx on the same footing as UPS." The Teamsters union is pushing for the bill as a way to create what it calls a level playing field for workers at the two companies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And yes, the idea that a conservative organization should ask FedEx to give them millions of dollars for their support is NEWS.
Of course, if a liberal organization like MoveOn.org ever tried those kinds of tactics, the same usual suspects on this forum would be HOWLING IN PROTEST!
And Fox News would be on the story like flies on XXXX.
UPS can't afford another strike. Fortunately for UPS, Fedex was just barely getting into ground transportation during the strike 6-7 years ago, otherwise UPS would just be another epitaph in the U.S. corporate graveyard.
Funny how the wealth re-distribution types never snipe about over-paid union employees or the leeches that live off union dues.
Ruf
Yep, George Will is an anti-union conservative. Elitist, maybe. I consider him balance for Maureen Dowd, Georgie Ann Geyer (sp?) and others like them. Fortunately we don't have to put up with too many in the TW.
You and I have different opinions about the benefits of Unions. No sense in re-hashing that here.
George Will also explained the difference between the NLRA and RLA. He also noted that FedEx supported UPS's 1993 effort to have its workers moved to RLA. FedEx Pilots are Union. Smith (FedEx) "says that the pay and benefits for its drivers are, on average, higher than those of UPS drivers, and that new FedEx drivers must only wait three months to be eligible for benefits whereas UPS drivers must wait a year."
OK, where's the benefit to the FedEx drivers to unionize into different locals all over the country? Lower wages? Wait longer for benefits? The probability of making your employer even more unprofitable in a recession? Dealing with dozens(?) of locals for a nationwide system has to be a major headache. The benefit to Unionize FedEx drivers into the NLRA vs. the RLA is for UPS, not the FedEx workers. If FedEx is such a terrible place to work, the drivers would be able to get enough support for a national level union.
A conservative (or any persuasion) organization asking for $ to support a position in a similar manner is indeed news.
If a liberal organization were to try that they should get the usual protests, here, FOX, CBS, NBC, ABC,...... Just the same as any conservative group will get clobbered by the Big Three networks. All this brings up the reason for my post. IF FedEx cancels the order with Boeing, will the Machinists at Boeing stand by their support for UPS or will they vote with their wallet? What coverage other than FOX would you expect to hear if they vote their wallets? You can probably guess what coverage I would expect. (Guess low.)
Quote from: Conan71 on July 17, 2009, 10:43:31 PM
UPS can't afford another strike. Fortunately for UPS, Fedex was just barely getting into ground transportation during the strike 6-7 years ago, otherwise UPS would just be another epitaph in the U.S. corporate graveyard.
Funny how the wealth re-distribution types never snipe about over-paid union employees or the leeches that live off union dues.
UPS is a good company....
Funny how conservatives never mention fairness in regards to organized labor-- who can organize, who can't and who relies on antiquated laws from the 20s (FedEx) to give them an unfair advantage over a union shop (UPS)... that's what this is about....
Wealth re-distribution?
Yeah, that's what Reagan did in the 80s when he raised my taxes and froze minimum wage for a decade...... and what Bush did by freezing minimum wage for a decade and no longer taxing dividends or the kind of wealth that doesn't actually involve work to acquire...
See, I don't get my flat tax panties in a wad when people who made half the money I make aren't paying the same percentage of income tax I pay....
Guess what? I like non-union WalMart... I work for a non-union shop... I prefer it that way... I was forced to join a grocery store union (AFL-CIO) in Indiana.... but some unions have their place...
But this isn't about that..... this is about fairness in the ability to organize or not to organize.... and about the actions of a conservative group to whore out their influence to the highest bidder....
Go figure.
Quote from: USRufnex on July 18, 2009, 05:13:44 PM
UPS is a good company....
Funny how conservatives never mention fairness in regards to organized labor-- who can organize, who can't and who relies on antiquated laws from the 20s (FedEx) to give them an unfair advantage over a union shop (UPS)... that's what this is about....
Wealth re-distribution?
Yeah, that's what Reagan did in the 80s when he raised my taxes and froze minimum wage for a decade...... and what Bush did by freezing minimum wage for a decade and no longer taxing dividends or the kind of wealth that doesn't actually involve work to acquire...
See, I don't get my flat tax panties in a wad when people who made half the money I make aren't paying the same percentage of income tax I pay....
Guess what? I like non-union WalMart... I work for a non-union shop... I prefer it that way... I was forced to join a grocery store union (AFL-CIO) in Indiana.... but some unions have their place...
But this isn't about that..... this is about fairness in the ability to organize or not to organize.... and about the actions of a conservative group to whore out their influence to the highest bidder....
Go figure.
So Ruf, I guess it would stand to reason you'd be equally upset about a liberal group to whore out it's influence to the highest bidder or for liberal Congressmen and Senators to whore out their votes to their most influential campaign contributors?
Quote from: USRufnex on July 18, 2009, 05:13:44 PM
UPS is a good company....
Yeah, that's what Reagan did in the 80s when he raised my taxes and froze minimum wage for a decade......
My taxes went up during the Reagan era too but Reagan didn't raise them. My employer did by increasing my salary. Darn the bad luck.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 18, 2009, 07:56:44 PM
So Ruf, I guess it would stand to reason you'd be equally upset about a liberal group to whore out it's influence to the highest bidder or for liberal Congressmen and Senators to whore out their votes to their most influential campaign contributors?
Of course Ruf would not be upset. Dems/libs corruption (or whoring out influence) does not count.
Hmmm. Republican chattering class at play.... let me get this right.... Rush Limbaugh has opinions, but Michael Moore is... gasp.... propaganda.
Back to the premise of this thread.... so, has Moveon.org engaged in this kind of pay-for play, too?....... if so, can you post a link, please? ::)
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 19, 2009, 10:48:14 AM
My taxes went up during the Reagan era too but Reagan didn't raise them. My employer did by increasing my salary. Darn the bad luck.
I was in college full time on scholarship working part-time retail jobs at or near minimum wage...... guess that just makes me lazy.
Darn the bad luck.
Quote from: USRufnex on July 19, 2009, 01:52:57 PM
I was in college full time on scholarship working part-time retail jobs at or near minimum wage...... guess that just makes me lazy.
Darn the bad luck.
Every time I look at the tax rates from that era, I do not see an increase. You must have had some deductions that you lost. FWIW, I never called you lazy.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 20, 2009, 08:01:58 AM
Every time I look at the tax rates from that era, I do not see an increase. You must have had some deductions that you lost. FWIW, I never called you lazy.
Maybe if you take off your rose colored spectacles...Reagan raised taxes, and he raised them because he saw that his 1981 tax cut was not working, which is something Bush Jr. never did. I don't know why some of y'all choose to live in a fantasyland. We're in a mess today, and it started long before Obama. It started with Reagan telling us tax cuts and trickle down would be good for America. It wasn't, and even Reagan knew it:
QuoteThe first Reagan tax increase came in 1982. By then it was clear that the budget projections used to justify the 1981 tax cut were wildly optimistic. In response, Mr. Reagan agreed to a sharp rollback of corporate tax cuts, and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. Over all, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut; as a share of G.D.P., the increase was substantially larger than Mr. Clinton's 1993 tax increase...
...Mr. Reagan's second tax increase was also motivated by a sense of responsibility; or at least that's the way it seemed at the time. I'm referring to the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which followed the recommendations of a commission led by Alan Greenspan. Its key provision was an increase in the payroll tax that pays for Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance.
For many middle- and low-income families, this tax increase more than undid any gains from Mr. Reagan's income tax cuts. In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent; but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up, not down.
2004 editorial from Krugman: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/opinion/08KRUG.html
And back on topic...to reiterate usrufnex's request: which liberal groups were/are doing pay for play? You guys
said it, but I'm with the soccer fan; you should prove it.
Quote from: Chicken Little on July 20, 2009, 09:54:44 AM
And back on topic...to reiterate usrufnex's request: which liberal groups were/are doing pay for play? You guys said it, but I'm with the soccer fan; you should prove it.
I do not think they constitute a group, but I thought Illinois/Chicago DEM Blago has been indicted in a pay for play scandal and Bill Richardson withdrew his nomination over the same. Seriously, how is this a "scandal" Oh I know, because there are "neocons" involved.
Quote from: Chicken Little on July 20, 2009, 09:54:44 AM
Maybe if you take off your rose colored spectacles...Reagan raised taxes, and he raised them because he saw that his 1981 tax cut was not working, which is something Bush Jr. never did. I don't know why some of y'all choose to live in a fantasyland. We're in a mess today, and it started long before Obama. It started with Reagan telling us tax cuts and trickle down would be good for America. It wasn't, and even Reagan knew it:
2004 editorial from Krugman: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/opinion/08KRUG.html
And back on topic...to reiterate usrufnex's request: which liberal groups were/are doing pay for play? You guys said it, but I'm with the soccer fan; you should prove it.
Wow, taxes shot up a whopping .7%!
The article does not specify whether the % represented as FICA was the total FICA paid on behalf of the taxpayer or the taxpayers 1/2. If it represents the total collected, that's a rate hike if .35% on the taxpayer.
Quote from: guido911 on July 20, 2009, 11:44:27 AM
I do not think they constitute a group, but I thought Illinois/Chicago DEM Blago has been indicted in a pay for play scandal and Bill Richardson withdrew his nomination over the same. Seriously, how is this a "scandal" Oh I know, because there are "neocons" involved.
I'll give you points for Blago...thanks, Guido. I don't doubt that both sides are doing this kind of thing, but just
saying so isn't the standard we should hold for discussion. TN forums are more fun when we apply a little rigor. :D
Quote from: Conan71 on July 20, 2009, 12:00:03 PM
Wow, taxes shot up a whopping .7%!
The article does not specify whether the % represented as FICA was the total FICA paid on behalf of the taxpayer or the taxpayers 1/2. If it represents the total collected, that's a rate hike if .35% on the taxpayer.
Actually, I think it does specify:
QuoteIn 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent; but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up, not down.
(Emphasis mine). And yes, it may have been a small net gain, but remember, he slashed taxes before he flip-flopped and raised them again. So, to recap: Reagan
raised taxes on middle-income Americans, (a net positive change, not just a yo-yo); he did it because he saw the evidence and realized that tax cuts and trickle down was fiscally irresponsible. And even with the course correction, Reagan still drove the debt through the
roof (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26402-2004Jun8.html):
QuoteThe fiscal shift in the Reagan years was staggering. In January 1981, when Reagan declared the federal budget to be "out of control," the deficit had reached almost $74 billion, the federal debt $930 billion. Within two years, the deficit was $208 billion. The debt by 1988 totaled $2.6 trillion. In those eight years, the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation.
Bush repeated all of Reagan's mistakes...and did so without even a tinge of guilt. Remember what Cheney said, "You know, Paul (O'Neill), Reagan proved deficits don't matter,". Well, guess what, they really do matter.
Quote from: Chicken Little on July 20, 2009, 02:13:24 PM
Actually, I think it does specify:
(Emphasis mine). And yes, it may have been a small net gain, but remember, he slashed taxes before he flip-flopped and raised them again. So, to recap: Reagan raised taxes on middle-income Americans, (a net positive change, not just a yo-yo); he did it because he saw the evidence and realized that tax cuts and trickle down was fiscally irresponsible. And even with the course correction, Reagan still drove the debt through the roof (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26402-2004Jun8.html):
Bush repeated all of Reagan's mistakes...and did so without even a tinge of guilt. Remember what Cheney said, "You know, Paul (O'Neill), Reagan proved deficits don't matter,". Well, guess what, they really do matter.
If the net increase was .7% I doubt that was anywhere close to keeping up with the rate of inflation, as far as net spendability to the government and the taxpayer, the increase was negligable.
Quote from: guido911 on July 20, 2009, 11:44:27 AM
I do not think they constitute a group, but I thought Illinois/Chicago DEM Blago has been indicted in a pay for play scandal and Bill Richardson withdrew his nomination over the same. Seriously, how is this a "scandal" Oh I know, because there are "neocons" involved.
Comparing the American Conservative Union to Blago is like comparing apples vs. unicorns.....
I hate Blago; he was a corrupt governor who replaced another corrupt governor (George Ryan)... he'll literally say anything to win an election; Blago vs. Judy Baar-Topinka? Talk about a choice between lesser evils....
The Blago scandal was ALL OVER THE "LIBERAL" MEDIA!
This Pay for Play scandal by a conservative group? Sound of crickets....
When politicians are corrupt, it's "dog bites man."
When a conservative group violates its own principles and scruples to ask FedEx for bribes, it's "man bites dog."
I can come up with a huge list of corrupt politicians... but name another 527 in past few years, or a PAC from 80s who's stooped this low?
Why do I not see this scandal in the national media?
If MoveOn.org did the same thing, I can guarantee you the national "liberal" media would be reporting on it and the Hannity's of this world would be HOWLING IN PROTEST....
The big losers here are the card carrying supporters of the American Conservative Union, btw.
Bill Buckley must be rolling over in his grave about now....
Quote from: Conan71 on July 20, 2009, 03:46:45 PM
If the net increase was .7% I doubt that was anywhere close to keeping up with the rate of inflation, as far as net spendability to the government and the taxpayer, the increase was negligable.
.7% of total income, but another way of saying it is that taxes on working Americans went up by 8.5% under Reagan...which they did. Reagonomics reduced income tax rates of the top personal tax bracket from 70% to 28% in 7 years, while social security and medicare taxes increased. He simply shifted the tax burden to the middle class. Toss in a little dangerous deregulation, and oh yeah, keep growth strong by borrowing like an SOB. And there ya have Reagonomics in a nutshell. We still haven't paid off the debt that Reagan racked up in the 80's.
All this mythology about Reagan is particularly stupid today. Obama is simply deficit spending...something that Reagan pioneered, and baby Bush foolishly pantomimed to fuel an economic bubble and land us on the brink of a Great Depression. The differences are pretty subtle, and if I can admit that, then so can you wingnuts.
Obama isn't crassly proposing new giveaways to the rich, but he hasn't yet eliminated any of Bush's giveaways either. Obama is deficit spending to keep us from sinking into an economic depression, and that's a dangerous game. Bush did a h*ll of a lot more deficit spending than either Reagan or Obama, and he did it all apparently for sh*ts and giggles. If you want to whine about the deficit, then honor Reagan and that cretin Bush accordingly.