Redstate opines: Unfortunately for Bob King and his ambitions, the UAW got some bad news on Friday. It appears the German unions
have decided against helping the UAW unionize the VW plant in Tennessee.
This comes as a double-whammy following VW-owned Audi’s decision to
locate a new manufacturing plant in Mexico instead of the U.S. in what appears to be a desire not to put itself in the UAW’s (
and NLRB’s) sights.
To make matters worse for King and his cronies at the
Solidarity House, just a few weeks after UAW members rejected a final offer at an American Axle plant in Cheektowaga, New York, the
company has decided to close the plant, eliminating 300 jobs.
This closure follows the UAW’s rejection of a contract at American Axle’s Detroit facility two months ago, which prompted the company to
announce the closure of the Detroit facility as well.
http://www.redstate.com/laborunionreport/2011/08/20/union-aint-wanted-the-uaws-bad-week/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Post reveals: With coal providing 45 percent of the nation’s energy, utility companies warn of an economic “train wreck” if the regulations -- based on Bush-era EPA proposals that the federal courts threw out in 2008 -- take effect. One Wisconsin utility says its costs would jump $32.6 million next year, while the head of the Texas
Public Utility Commission says the rules could lead to rolling blackouts -- especially given the short time the utilities have to comply with Washington’s iron fist.
Steve Miller, president and CEO of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, warns of job losses totaling 1.4 million over the next eight years and a 23 percent jump in electric rates in states dependent on coal-fired plants.
Environmental extremists cheer the new rules because closing “dirty” coal plants is part of their fantasy of “clean energy” and green jobs. But the reality is otherwise. Even backed by stimulus funds, “green” business after business has flopped or folded, costing taxpayers millions.
In Seattle, a plan called Retrofit Ramp-Up sucked up $20 million in federal grants to make houses more energy efficient. The result: so far, only three homes retrofitted and just 14 jobs “created.” California got $186 million for a similar program and has spent just over half of it -- with just 538 new full-time jobs to show for it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo Finance reports: States Where No One Wants To Buy A New Home
There is a strong indication that home builders have almost ceased activity in several states as demand for newly built homes has dwindled. The slowdown in new home permits is particularly stark when compared to the total number of existing homes in each state. 24/7 Wall St. examined the number of building permits to find the states where no one wants to buy a new home.
4. Michigan
Building permits/total housing units: 0.09
Decline in building permits (2005-2011): -82.19% (7th largest)
Building permits 2011 YTD: 4,250
Total housing units: 4,532,233
Michigan is one of the states that has suffered the most from the recession. The state's unemployment rate peaked around 15% in 2010. It is now at 10.5%, which is still significantly higher than the national average of 9.2%. The state has a vacancy rate of just under 15%, which is one of the highest in the country. New building permits have also decreased by over 80% since 2005, also one of the highest rates in the country. The state may now be more focused on tearing down old buildings than building new ones.
http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/113351/states-no-one-buys-new-home-247?mod=realestate-buy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Townhall carries the words of "Black" columnist Star Parker as she opines: For black political culture that dominated after the civil rights movement, the point was not just equal treatment under the law, but special treatment under the law. Plus the assumption that more black political power -- defined by more blacks holding office -- would mean that blacks would be better off.
In other words, post-civil rights movement black political culture embraced an agenda exactly the opposite of what the civil rights movement was about. Its agenda was to get laws and policies that were not neutral but racially slanted and to put individuals in power based on their race and not on their character and capability.
So, according to the script of this political culture, election of a black man as president meant more than an end to racism. The conclusion had to be that if the man holding the highest political office in the nation was black, it must follow that blacks would be better off.
Now blacks have a dilemma. We have a black president and blacks are worse off. Not just a little, but a lot worse off.
In the words of longtime Congressional Black Caucus member Maxine Waters, D-Calif., "Our people are hurtin'.."
Blacks now grapple with two possible conclusions.
One, our black president is a traitor to his race. Our struggles put him in power and now he's not taking care of his folks. He's become, in the words of left wing professor and activist Cornel West, a "mascot" of Wall Street.
Or, two, that the man's performance reflects his views and his capability, not his race. He's not delivering for anyone. Blacks are hurting more because they were already in worse shape when Obama got elected. Bad policies hurt the weakest the most.
Take the Congressional Black Caucus itself. The average poverty rate in Black Caucus districts is almost 50 percent higher than the national average. Yet, these black politicians have 100 percent re-election rates.
Maybe a real bonus that will have come from electing a black president is that blacks will take seriously Dr. King's dream that we judge men by their character and not their color.
http://townhall.com/columnists/starparker/2011/08/22/blacks_dilemma_with_obama/page/full/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Government writes: According to the Durbin Amendment, a hard cap of 12¢ per transaction will be put into place [on debit card use]. This replaces the previous method of calculating transaction fees based upon the cost of the item. Before the Dodd-Frank bill, banks would charge a transaction fee of approximately 1% of the total cost of the goods or services that had been purchased. The 12¢ rule is now in play whether you are buying a Cadillac with your card, a computer or a can of Mr. Pibb.
According to J.P. Morgan, this cap will cost them over a billion dollars in lost revenue. In fact many banks claim that 12¢ is too low, and that it costs them more than that to process each transaction. In short, the Durbin amendment removes the incentive for banks to encourage their customers to use debit cards as a method of payment. So as a result, the debit rewards program that many of us have come to rely on are going away.
In the end, this takes money directly out of the pockets of the middle class (money they would have spent with the very merchants the law seeks to help, ironically hurting their bottom line as well). While this legislation was the result of the Democrat battle cry of “Punish the Rich”, I doubt Warren Buffet or Bill Gates is cashing in their debit rewards points in early December to help pay for Christmas gifts. Even worse, banks may now try to discourage the use of debit cards by adding a user fee to each transaction. This fee would be paid by cardholder, not the merchant. That would cost the average American even more.
http://biggovernment.com/bcherry/2011/08/22/no-points-for-you-say-dick-durbin-and-barney-frank/#more-317700
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
World Net Daily writes: The documents, obtained using a Freedom of Information request, showed that from October 2010 through February 2011, the Obama administration spent $1,435,009 on an online advertising campaign alone, including campaigns with Google and Yahoo, at almost $300,000 per month.
The documents, obtained using a Freedom of Information request, showed that from October 2010 through February 2011, the Obama administration spent $1,435,009 on an online advertising campaign alone, including campaigns with Google and Yahoo, at almost $300,000 per month.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Thinker opines [on another way Obama is tipping America toward Socialism]: The Obama administration is busy expanding the exact type of vicious, ungrateful underclass which recently exploded in London. An administration program will expand free school meal coverage to millions of young people who are not even supposed to be eligible.
A stated goal of the program is to eliminate the stigma of getting a free lunch. But that stigma is one of the only things separating dignified free people from wretched government dependants.
The Obama administration is busy expanding the exact type of vicious, ungrateful underclass which recently exploded in London. An administration program will expand free school meal coverage to millions of young people who are not even supposed to be eligible.
A stated goal of the program is to eliminate the stigma of getting a free lunch. But that stigma is one of the only things separating dignified free people from wretched government dependents. By 2014-15, the option will be available in all states, if this law is kept on the books. http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/obama_baits_the_dependency_trap.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Spectator reminds us: At a 2007 fundraiser, for example, he told his admirers, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution." This claim
turned out, of course, to be one of Obama's trademark shadings of the truth. He was never a "professor" as genuine academics use the term. He was, however, a part-time faculty member at the University of Chicago, where he occasionally subjected hapless students to pontifications on the nation's founding document.
The latter assertion, that the individual mandate is analogous to laws requiring people to buy auto insurance, betrays a level of ignorance concerning the difference between state prerogatives and those of Congress that wouldn't be tolerated in a high school government class. It's a little unnerving coming from the President of the United States. The scholar-in-chief apparently doesn't remember that the reach of the federal government is limited to a specific set of enumerated powers and that any power not found on that short list is reserved to the states.
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/08/23/professor-obama-holds-forth-on
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Barack Obama's Complete List of Historic Firsts - Part 1
Posts
