Outside of Ron Paul few politicians are known for being ideologically consistent and as we inch closer to a government shutdown Republican legislators are offering another shining example how maddeningly capricious most politicians are.
For instance to offer support for the union restrictions implemented by Scott Walker in Wisconsin and John Kasich in Ohio, Republicans quote Franklin Delano Roosevelt who stated that a strike by public sector employees "manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied." Yet here we sit within hours of the government being shut down because Republicans are obstructing until their demands are satisfied.
Additionally, while debating the Farm Bill, Republican Representative Marlin Stutzman - a staunch proponent of separating the agriculture and food policy portion - stated: "Congress must remove welfare provisions from the farm bill and give taxpayers the honest debate they deserve on both. It’s simple: food stamp policy isn’t farm policy" and "Separate consideration of these policies will allow us to forge ahead with real solutions and reform instead of repeating the mistakes of the past."
Well, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) isn't the Federal Budget and Americans deserve and honest debate on both instead of repeating the same mistake 42 times. Because if Republicans are serious about the effects of the ACA on the Federal Budget they would recognize that repeal would actually increase the deficit.
There has also been much consternation of how the ACA was passed with errant suggestions that the method of passage was unprecedented. And while this talk is purely rhetorical, if historical norms are important then the fact that Republicans have voted 42 times to repeal the same bill and are content to shutter the government rather than offer a single change, certainly seem like an out of the ordinary way to jam something through the legislature.
There is plenty to dislike and discuss about the ACA but the hypocrisy over how the Republicans are handling what should be a valuable debate is astounding. Perhaps instead of worrying about how the ACA polls, congress should take a look in the mirror and recognize that these sort of inconsistencies are part of the reason that congress has an approval rating slightly higher than North Korea, Lindsay Lohan, and gonorrhea.
Monday, September 30, 2013
Friday, September 27, 2013
ObamaCare is making Republicans sick
As we creep ever closer to a government shut down over the Affordable Care Act (ACA - affectionately known as ObamaCare) Republicans and Democrats alike are pressing their version of events hoping to shift public opinion. Michigan Representative Mike Rogers recently used the Detroit News Opinion section to assert the Republican case.
His narrative hits upon familiar themes - the legislation was jammed though congress, people don't like it, the implementation is not going well, and of course it kills jobs. It should be noted that Republicans have jammed though plenty of legislation using the reconciliation process- which is credited for the "jamming" of the ACA - 14 times including the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts. And while the ACA may have a slightly unfavorable rating it polls better than shutting down the government to defund it, which all but one House Republican voted to do.
It can certainly be argued that the implementation has not gone as planned however there are plenty of individual items within the ACA that poll very well. At this point the House has attempted to repeal the ACA 42 times however they have not voted once on fixing the bill to keep the parts that people like and make the implementation process easier.
But the most ironic argument against the ACA is the insistence that it kills jobs. While most Republicans would argue that the government can't create jobs apparently government can destroy them.
It is certainly true that austerity measures have cost nearly 600,000 public sector jobs which stands in stark contrast to the recessions under Regan, Clinton and George W. Bush where the public sector hiring helped stabilize the economy instead of creating a drag. According to the New York Times the US government employs around 22 million Americans or 7 out of every 100 people which is below the 7.3 per 100 that we have averaged since the late 80's.
Additionally, studies by Goldman Sachs and the CBO show the sequester will cost around 100,000 jobs this year with as many 750,000 fewer jobs being created than without the cuts.
So while the recession and the subsequent response certainly offers a glimpse of how the government can kill jobs and cost the economy nearly 2 million jobs the ACA will have very little impact on jobs. Data shows that of the companies that would be impacted by the ACA 95.7% already offer health care insurance. These companies will not suddenly face a new burden that will require drastic changes to their current systems.
On the other hand, the companies that are close to the 50 employee limit where cutting staff or pushing people to part time could help them avoid the ACA requirements, represent only 1% of job growth. The head of the right leaning Small Business Chamber of Commerce for South Carolina stated that the insistence that ObamaCare will negatively affect small business is "strictly a talking point by those who want to kill off the ACA".
If concern about government spending and jobs is truly the reason for a full repeal then one assumes congress could find better uses for the $1.45 million it costs per symbolic repeal vote or the $109 billion repeal would add to the deficit.
Is it possible that some companies will be negatively affected by the ACA? Sure it is. But anecdotal evidence doesn't prove a systemic problem.
No one is arguing for fewer jobs, so if there is a way to insure more American's, reduce the deficit and create jobs, Democrats would be more than happy to have those conversations. Unfortunately, at this point, Republican legislators would rather push the government to the brink in petulant gamesmanship than provide a single solution. Perhaps this is good for their position in the Republican Party but if any jobs are going to be lost due to ObamaCare it would be poetic justice if it was that of the congressman that put the will of their party ahead of the good of the people.
His narrative hits upon familiar themes - the legislation was jammed though congress, people don't like it, the implementation is not going well, and of course it kills jobs. It should be noted that Republicans have jammed though plenty of legislation using the reconciliation process- which is credited for the "jamming" of the ACA - 14 times including the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts. And while the ACA may have a slightly unfavorable rating it polls better than shutting down the government to defund it, which all but one House Republican voted to do.
It can certainly be argued that the implementation has not gone as planned however there are plenty of individual items within the ACA that poll very well. At this point the House has attempted to repeal the ACA 42 times however they have not voted once on fixing the bill to keep the parts that people like and make the implementation process easier.
But the most ironic argument against the ACA is the insistence that it kills jobs. While most Republicans would argue that the government can't create jobs apparently government can destroy them.
It is certainly true that austerity measures have cost nearly 600,000 public sector jobs which stands in stark contrast to the recessions under Regan, Clinton and George W. Bush where the public sector hiring helped stabilize the economy instead of creating a drag. According to the New York Times the US government employs around 22 million Americans or 7 out of every 100 people which is below the 7.3 per 100 that we have averaged since the late 80's.
Additionally, studies by Goldman Sachs and the CBO show the sequester will cost around 100,000 jobs this year with as many 750,000 fewer jobs being created than without the cuts.
So while the recession and the subsequent response certainly offers a glimpse of how the government can kill jobs and cost the economy nearly 2 million jobs the ACA will have very little impact on jobs. Data shows that of the companies that would be impacted by the ACA 95.7% already offer health care insurance. These companies will not suddenly face a new burden that will require drastic changes to their current systems.
On the other hand, the companies that are close to the 50 employee limit where cutting staff or pushing people to part time could help them avoid the ACA requirements, represent only 1% of job growth. The head of the right leaning Small Business Chamber of Commerce for South Carolina stated that the insistence that ObamaCare will negatively affect small business is "strictly a talking point by those who want to kill off the ACA".
If concern about government spending and jobs is truly the reason for a full repeal then one assumes congress could find better uses for the $1.45 million it costs per symbolic repeal vote or the $109 billion repeal would add to the deficit.
Is it possible that some companies will be negatively affected by the ACA? Sure it is. But anecdotal evidence doesn't prove a systemic problem.
No one is arguing for fewer jobs, so if there is a way to insure more American's, reduce the deficit and create jobs, Democrats would be more than happy to have those conversations. Unfortunately, at this point, Republican legislators would rather push the government to the brink in petulant gamesmanship than provide a single solution. Perhaps this is good for their position in the Republican Party but if any jobs are going to be lost due to ObamaCare it would be poetic justice if it was that of the congressman that put the will of their party ahead of the good of the people.
Friday, September 20, 2013
Republicans erroneous SNAP judgment
This week Republicans again exposed their true colors. They voted to cut nearly $40 billion dollars from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) which helps 47 million Americans purchase food. The reason for these cuts according the Republican House member Mike Conaway of Texas is to "limit the public assistance program to those who qualify and close loopholes that have allowed people to game the system."
This fits with the Republican narrative that we are a nation of makers and takers however it should be noted that 84% of SNAP recipients are children, elderly or disabled. These are people who society does not expect to be full time participants in the work force. The program also shows an excellent return on investment resulting in $1.73 of economic activity for every dollar spent. And as a safety net program it should come as no surprise that SNAP increased spending as unemployment rose. That is what a safety net program is designed to do. Help people and subsequently the economy handle down times.
If you these Representatives really wanted to lower SNAP spending all they need to do is create jobs. But instead of serious discussions about how to get people back to work we are stuck with cuts to important programs for the poor, government shutdown over the debt ceiling and 41 separate votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
And while closing loopholes and eliminating cheaters seems to be a popular idea when it comes to the poor the same standards don't seem to exist for the rich. The House Energy and Commerce Committee, for example, recently voted 51-0 to make sure that Doctors wouldn't have to experience any cuts to the money they receive from Medicare. This change will cost $140 billion over the next 10 years and at this point there are no plans to make any offsetting cuts. Cutting half of the $60 billion a year in Medicare fraud, some of which is perpetrated by the very doctors and other medical professionals this committee is bending over backwards to protect, would be a nice way to pay for something by eliminated those who game the system.
Carl Levin has proposed changes to the tax code that would close some offshore tax loopholes and generate $220 billion in additional revenue for the Treasury over the next decade.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that in 2009 the Pentagon weapons projects were over budget by a total of $296 billion.
The carried interest loophole that allows private equity firms to report their wages as capital gains and thus pay a much lower tax rates costs the Treasury around $1.3 billion per year or about a third of cost of the cuts to SNAP over 10 years.
These are just a small sample of the other areas congress could focus on if they are really concerned about closing loopholes and eliminating those who game the system. But the reality is these Representatives don't care about cutting loopholes, they believe that the bulk of the people who get public assistance are lazy moochers and cutting off their funds will magically lead them to get jobs.
If the global downturn has taught us anything it's that focusing on government spending instead of job creation has dire results. This obsession over punishing the poor for being poor may play well with the base but turning our backs on millions of Americans in their time of need not only hurts the economy but it makes these Republican Representatives look like unpatriotic elitist bullies.
This fits with the Republican narrative that we are a nation of makers and takers however it should be noted that 84% of SNAP recipients are children, elderly or disabled. These are people who society does not expect to be full time participants in the work force. The program also shows an excellent return on investment resulting in $1.73 of economic activity for every dollar spent. And as a safety net program it should come as no surprise that SNAP increased spending as unemployment rose. That is what a safety net program is designed to do. Help people and subsequently the economy handle down times.
If you these Representatives really wanted to lower SNAP spending all they need to do is create jobs. But instead of serious discussions about how to get people back to work we are stuck with cuts to important programs for the poor, government shutdown over the debt ceiling and 41 separate votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
And while closing loopholes and eliminating cheaters seems to be a popular idea when it comes to the poor the same standards don't seem to exist for the rich. The House Energy and Commerce Committee, for example, recently voted 51-0 to make sure that Doctors wouldn't have to experience any cuts to the money they receive from Medicare. This change will cost $140 billion over the next 10 years and at this point there are no plans to make any offsetting cuts. Cutting half of the $60 billion a year in Medicare fraud, some of which is perpetrated by the very doctors and other medical professionals this committee is bending over backwards to protect, would be a nice way to pay for something by eliminated those who game the system.
Carl Levin has proposed changes to the tax code that would close some offshore tax loopholes and generate $220 billion in additional revenue for the Treasury over the next decade.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that in 2009 the Pentagon weapons projects were over budget by a total of $296 billion.
The carried interest loophole that allows private equity firms to report their wages as capital gains and thus pay a much lower tax rates costs the Treasury around $1.3 billion per year or about a third of cost of the cuts to SNAP over 10 years.
These are just a small sample of the other areas congress could focus on if they are really concerned about closing loopholes and eliminating those who game the system. But the reality is these Representatives don't care about cutting loopholes, they believe that the bulk of the people who get public assistance are lazy moochers and cutting off their funds will magically lead them to get jobs.
If the global downturn has taught us anything it's that focusing on government spending instead of job creation has dire results. This obsession over punishing the poor for being poor may play well with the base but turning our backs on millions of Americans in their time of need not only hurts the economy but it makes these Republican Representatives look like unpatriotic elitist bullies.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Syria and Republicans sudden concern over US role as world police
President Obama's recent request for military intervention in Syria brought about a curious response from a number of Republicans. Apparently some of them now feel that America should not be the world's police.
And while I imagine many would have agreed with this statement long before Barack Obama became president, the reality is that the US has military personnel in 148 countries and accounts for around 40% of the world's military spending - three times as much as the next country on the list and slightly more than the next 9 countries combined.
Additionally the US has somewhere around 700 foreign military bases which thoroughly dwarfs the rest of the world - combined.
The Republican stance on this spending and military proliferation has been fairly clear - not only is the money a good use of tax dollars but according to many we are actually under spending.
The problem then becomes if you spend like you expect to be the world police and if you establish bases around the globe to police the world, then - like it or not - you are the world police.
We also have a history of attempting to spread democracy, imposing our views on human rights, and combating terrorism across the world.
While an attack on Syria seems to have been averted for the time being the concern from the right lamenting our role as the world police while simultaneously advocating for more military might and influence is completely disingenuous.
And while I imagine many would have agreed with this statement long before Barack Obama became president, the reality is that the US has military personnel in 148 countries and accounts for around 40% of the world's military spending - three times as much as the next country on the list and slightly more than the next 9 countries combined.
Additionally the US has somewhere around 700 foreign military bases which thoroughly dwarfs the rest of the world - combined.
The Republican stance on this spending and military proliferation has been fairly clear - not only is the money a good use of tax dollars but according to many we are actually under spending.
The problem then becomes if you spend like you expect to be the world police and if you establish bases around the globe to police the world, then - like it or not - you are the world police.
We also have a history of attempting to spread democracy, imposing our views on human rights, and combating terrorism across the world.
While an attack on Syria seems to have been averted for the time being the concern from the right lamenting our role as the world police while simultaneously advocating for more military might and influence is completely disingenuous.
Thursday, September 12, 2013
God help the orphans
The Michigan House of Representatives is considering two bills that would allow religious based adoption agencies organizations to discriminate based on religious beliefs. My colleague Dan Calabrese wrote a piece discussing how the bills protect religious freedom and concludes that "discrimination in adoption is a good thing".
Never mind the constitutional questions surrounding tax exempt religious entities ability to discriminate, suggesting that religious based adoption agencies should use their religious beliefs to determine the placement of orphaned children has a number of other issues as well.
While there obviously needs to be a set of standards that individuals and couples must meet Dan and many other view this through a very narrow prism where Christians are the only group affected. Christians have been adamantly opposed to the creation of Islamic mosques across the country so just imagine the outrage when an Islamic adoption agency not only gets a tax exemption but then places children born to Christians in Islamic homes. Or race based agencies that refuse to let white couples adopt outside of their ethnic background.
Also where do we draw the line? Gay couples can't adopt but straight can? How about Jews? Can these agencies use their religious beliefs to deny adoptions to Asians, Hispanics and African Americans? Do you have to attend church a certain number of days to be deemed a suitable adoptive parent? If so, how many? What if you are overweight? That is a sin in the eyes of God. The same is true of adulterers and those who are greedy or too prideful. At what point does religious freedom become unquestioned bigotry?
But maybe more important to this debate is the fact that adoption agencies are intermediaries in this process. They do not own these children. They are not some "honk if you love Jesus" bumper sticker that act as an extension of the church. They are human beings who deserve better than being used as some sectarian pawn to catechize us on Christine doctrine.
Perhaps a couple who spends their Sunday morning reading the New York Times instead of going to church but devoted to giving their adopted Asian child a true sense of their heritage offer a superior upbringing for some children. Perhaps a child with Islamic roots would feel more at home in a Muslim household than a Christian one. Perhaps homosexual children would have a better upbringing in a home that doesn't tell them every day that God hates them. Perhaps it’s more important to protect the religious freedom of these children than those of an inanimate organization.
The goal of any adoption agency should be to place the children in homes that give them the best opportunity in life. I get that many Christians probably believe that, regardless of the child, being raised to embrace Jesus Christ as your lord and savior gives every person this opportunity, but assuming your organization's secular ideology sets the moral compass for every child smacks of the very sin of pride that might make you and unqualified adoptive parent under this legislation.
Never mind the constitutional questions surrounding tax exempt religious entities ability to discriminate, suggesting that religious based adoption agencies should use their religious beliefs to determine the placement of orphaned children has a number of other issues as well.
While there obviously needs to be a set of standards that individuals and couples must meet Dan and many other view this through a very narrow prism where Christians are the only group affected. Christians have been adamantly opposed to the creation of Islamic mosques across the country so just imagine the outrage when an Islamic adoption agency not only gets a tax exemption but then places children born to Christians in Islamic homes. Or race based agencies that refuse to let white couples adopt outside of their ethnic background.
Also where do we draw the line? Gay couples can't adopt but straight can? How about Jews? Can these agencies use their religious beliefs to deny adoptions to Asians, Hispanics and African Americans? Do you have to attend church a certain number of days to be deemed a suitable adoptive parent? If so, how many? What if you are overweight? That is a sin in the eyes of God. The same is true of adulterers and those who are greedy or too prideful. At what point does religious freedom become unquestioned bigotry?
But maybe more important to this debate is the fact that adoption agencies are intermediaries in this process. They do not own these children. They are not some "honk if you love Jesus" bumper sticker that act as an extension of the church. They are human beings who deserve better than being used as some sectarian pawn to catechize us on Christine doctrine.
Perhaps a couple who spends their Sunday morning reading the New York Times instead of going to church but devoted to giving their adopted Asian child a true sense of their heritage offer a superior upbringing for some children. Perhaps a child with Islamic roots would feel more at home in a Muslim household than a Christian one. Perhaps homosexual children would have a better upbringing in a home that doesn't tell them every day that God hates them. Perhaps it’s more important to protect the religious freedom of these children than those of an inanimate organization.
The goal of any adoption agency should be to place the children in homes that give them the best opportunity in life. I get that many Christians probably believe that, regardless of the child, being raised to embrace Jesus Christ as your lord and savior gives every person this opportunity, but assuming your organization's secular ideology sets the moral compass for every child smacks of the very sin of pride that might make you and unqualified adoptive parent under this legislation.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Awful arguments against green energy
For anyone who has ever read the Detroit News political blog you probably know that our editor - Henry Payne - hates green energy. And while there are plenty of good arguments about green energy Henry's most recent post entitled "Windmill eyesores" is an example of one of the worst.
The two key points of this argument are that windmills ruin an otherwise serene landscape and that birds are "shredded" due to these windmill farms. But if we're being honest I imagine even Henry would have to admit that this talking point only resonates with those who are already against green energy.
If the preservation of natural beauty were the primary argument for how we operate in America one would expect a lot more push back to things like:
Coal fired power plants,
Oil rigs,
Cell phone towers,
Nuclear power plants,
Garbage dumps,
the Highway system,
the Train system,
Ports,
Power lines,
the Logging industry,
Mountaintop coal mining,
I'm not sure anyone would suggest that these items enhance the natural beauty of the areas where they are located.
And as for the argument that the windmills kill birds, data shows that up to 40,000 birds die every year from windmills while as many as 174 million die each year from power lines. Of course if we can save some of the 13,000 people who die prematurely each year from poor air quality that would probably be advantageous as well.
The reality is that these types of arguments only prove how little the anti-green energy crowd understands the motives of green energy advocates and what they think is a clever exposure of hypocrisy is really just an example of ignorance.
The two key points of this argument are that windmills ruin an otherwise serene landscape and that birds are "shredded" due to these windmill farms. But if we're being honest I imagine even Henry would have to admit that this talking point only resonates with those who are already against green energy.
If the preservation of natural beauty were the primary argument for how we operate in America one would expect a lot more push back to things like:
Coal fired power plants,
Oil rigs,
Cell phone towers,
Nuclear power plants,
Garbage dumps,
the Highway system,
the Train system,
Ports,
Power lines,
the Logging industry,
Mountaintop coal mining,
I'm not sure anyone would suggest that these items enhance the natural beauty of the areas where they are located.
And as for the argument that the windmills kill birds, data shows that up to 40,000 birds die every year from windmills while as many as 174 million die each year from power lines. Of course if we can save some of the 13,000 people who die prematurely each year from poor air quality that would probably be advantageous as well.
The reality is that these types of arguments only prove how little the anti-green energy crowd understands the motives of green energy advocates and what they think is a clever exposure of hypocrisy is really just an example of ignorance.
Friday, September 6, 2013
Unions and Corporations: failing to unite, united to fail
Labor Day and the recent minimum wage demands by employees in the fast food sector have many talking about labor unions. With the drop in union membership and stagnant or dropping wages for 93% of Americans, now is the perfect time to discuss the role of unions moving forward.
Unfortunately rather than having substantive discussions about how effective unions actually make companies more profitable while rewarding employees with a greater share of record profits, we get mired in nugatory rhetoric such as the wages of union leaders.
The reason that those who oppose unions think the salary of top officials is important is first because they believe there is little to no return on investment for union members and second because they misunderstand the goals of union members.
Contrary to popular belief union members aren't communists who think everyone must make the same wages so the fact that a union leader like Jimmy Hoffa makes $300,000-400,000 a year to run an organization of with 1.3 million members, doesn't seem too exorbitant considering that this works out to $0.31 per year for each member. Especially considering the $10,000 or so per year advantage union members have over non-union workers.
Although some union bosses make 10 times as much as their average member that is small potatoes when compared with the average CEO who makes 273 times as much as the average worker. And when compared to the $131 million in compensation McKesson Corporation CEO John Hammergren made for company with 43,500 employees or $3,011 per employee, spending a few bucks a year to have an organization fighting for your piece of the pie doesn't seem so outrageous.
And while many question the value of labor unions those same question don't seem to exist when it comes to industry trade unions like the Chamber of Commerce and American Petroleum Institute whose CEO's make $4.75 million and $6.4 million respectively. Their goals of "representing the interests" of their members and giving them a "voice" are no different than that of labor unions but since they represent businesses instead of the working class their contributions are somehow more meaningful.
Unfortunately both union leaders and corporate management have become too greedy. Rather than focusing on how they can work together to increase productivity, boost profits and expand the company they concern themselves with power and money. This obsession has many good CEO's cooking the books and ultimately destroying their companies all to appease stockholders. It also leads to a jobs bank program that pays employees not to work.
In an ideal world all companies would value their employees enough to create a safe workplace, provide good benefits and share in the success of the company. And unions would make the companies goals their goals. But rather than seeing the upside of cooperation both sides have turned the corporate / union relationship into an adversarial one. The truth is both entities want the companies to succeed and until we start seeing corporations and unions as two sides of the same coin we will continue to fight a completely useless rhetorical war where union leaders pay is inexplicably considered an important talking point.
Unfortunately rather than having substantive discussions about how effective unions actually make companies more profitable while rewarding employees with a greater share of record profits, we get mired in nugatory rhetoric such as the wages of union leaders.
The reason that those who oppose unions think the salary of top officials is important is first because they believe there is little to no return on investment for union members and second because they misunderstand the goals of union members.
Contrary to popular belief union members aren't communists who think everyone must make the same wages so the fact that a union leader like Jimmy Hoffa makes $300,000-400,000 a year to run an organization of with 1.3 million members, doesn't seem too exorbitant considering that this works out to $0.31 per year for each member. Especially considering the $10,000 or so per year advantage union members have over non-union workers.
Although some union bosses make 10 times as much as their average member that is small potatoes when compared with the average CEO who makes 273 times as much as the average worker. And when compared to the $131 million in compensation McKesson Corporation CEO John Hammergren made for company with 43,500 employees or $3,011 per employee, spending a few bucks a year to have an organization fighting for your piece of the pie doesn't seem so outrageous.
And while many question the value of labor unions those same question don't seem to exist when it comes to industry trade unions like the Chamber of Commerce and American Petroleum Institute whose CEO's make $4.75 million and $6.4 million respectively. Their goals of "representing the interests" of their members and giving them a "voice" are no different than that of labor unions but since they represent businesses instead of the working class their contributions are somehow more meaningful.
Unfortunately both union leaders and corporate management have become too greedy. Rather than focusing on how they can work together to increase productivity, boost profits and expand the company they concern themselves with power and money. This obsession has many good CEO's cooking the books and ultimately destroying their companies all to appease stockholders. It also leads to a jobs bank program that pays employees not to work.
In an ideal world all companies would value their employees enough to create a safe workplace, provide good benefits and share in the success of the company. And unions would make the companies goals their goals. But rather than seeing the upside of cooperation both sides have turned the corporate / union relationship into an adversarial one. The truth is both entities want the companies to succeed and until we start seeing corporations and unions as two sides of the same coin we will continue to fight a completely useless rhetorical war where union leaders pay is inexplicably considered an important talking point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
