WCRN 830 AM Western Mass Radio Guestspot 5 21 11

This morning, I was privileged to be a guest on the Saturday Morning, Weston & Wesley Review, on 830 AM, WCRN, in Worcester MA. This early morning show is a fantastic edition to the Conservative Talk line-up in Massachusetts - Saturday 6am to 7 am - live streaming available. For video archives and Tom Wesley's weekly essay visit http://tomwesley.com

Unions Expected To Pull Cash from Union Dues from Democrats Who Don’t “Do Enough To Support Labor” - The Economic Impact May Play a Factor.

From the AP: The AFLCIOmay be about to pull financial support to Democrat members of Congress who “don’t do enough” to support labor:

In prepared remarks, Trumka says the role of unions is not to build the power of one political party but to improve the lives of working families.
The AFL-CIO's executive council is considering a plan that could spend less on congressional races and more on fighting state battles, like those in Wisconsin and Ohio, where lawmakers want to weaken collective bargaining rights.

The articles goes on to say that one of the largest firefighters unions stated it would no longer financially support Congressional Reps who showed a lack of support for labor unions.

The Bigger question, can unions continue to support individual candidates?

In most instances, National Unions have been a cash cow for the Democrat Party, however, one has to be realistic about how far the members’ union dues can stretch in an economy where membership is decreasing due to hiring freezes and lost jobs. When one joins a Union (most often there is no choice), then one pays dues that are ostensibly used to fight for the employees rights and support pensions. The U.S. unions have, for the most part, pushed hard for the Democrat Party, the statistics from Opensecrets.org/” lists top donors in the political cycles from 1989 through 2010 – of the first top 20 donors, 12 are unions, the balance associations and corporations, of which two lean towards donating to Republicans, three give their cash to both parties, the unions lean heavily Democrat, giving either 100% or close to that particular party.

That said, with the economy shedding jobs, and inflation on the rise, union membership is in decline, down to 11.9% nationwide as of January this year. The fact that the Stimulus funds are now disappearing, and states that relied heavily on the funds, (along with the municipalities) will be forced to lay off teachers and support personnel who are union members. The fact that there are fewer individuals employed in the private sector, who’s taxes fund the federal and state governments, puts those unions, specifically Teachers, Firefighters, Government workers, at a bit of a loss, as their livelihood depends upon a robust private sector.

When one expects the government to pay for everything, one does not consider that without taxpayers, the government does not have any income – period. Therefore, as the largest unions are municipal in nature, one can expect the cash to begin to dry up a bit, as ironically it is the working taxpayer, who, for the most part, is non-union, pays for the salaries of the members of those unions, the money then goes to support one political party only. This alone might cause a bit of resentment by those working in the "private sector".

There should be a law in place that allows unions to only use cash for pensions and to support workers rights through lobbying both parties for legislation that protects life and limb - but is it entirely necessary? Agencies like OSHA, which regulates all businesses to ensure safety compliance in the workplace is one example of the lower need for union intervention on safety issues. In fact, the United States has laws on the books regulating child labor, work safety, and almost everything a union could ostensibly fight for, except one thing: more money. On the corrupt side, some unions even benefit from donating to one political party – the United Auto Workers now own a share in General Motors, the car manufacturer which was “bailed out” by Congress and the current administration (i.e. with Taxpayers dollars); the reports of percentage of ownership in GM vary in new reports, with 55% UAW ownership about average.

Therefore, as the economy declines further, and a lack of an income to certain unions, which is directly tied to the private sector, also declines due to lost jobs, where best for those unions to use the cash? The answer, direct assaults on entire state legislatures as recently seen in Wisconsin where collective bargaining (the Holy Grail of Unions allowing them to get “more money” from State and Local governments), was on the line. The bigger issue may have been the option for state and local employees in Wisconsin to opt out of joining a union at all, further eradicating opportunities for cash and clout. Therefore, the union decision to pull cash from individual candidates is most likely based on economic trends, rather than lack of vigorous support – but the threat alone (i.e. term “union thugs”), may be enough to push Congressional Democrats, and those seeking office, to be more “union friendly” when considering which legislation the Unions feel they should support or not. Lobbyist, regardless of whether they are unions or associations, or banks or larger corporations, should be entirely banned from the ability to influence the individual elected official, or candidate by way of contributions to the same. Individuals, alone, should be allowed to give to the political candidate and/or party of their choice, regardless of which occupation one enjoys, thus ensuring that anyone organization, has little influence on the public sector. The PAC’s however, that are formed for political purposes, may be subject to less scrutiny as their individual members are not required to join, rather opt in on a free will basis.

Suffolk Poll – Romney Leads Republican Pack, Within Margin of Error with Obama – Majority Satisfied with Republican Field

Romney & Palin, most likely front runners 2012, as of May: image New York Daily News

Although the Wall Street Journal bloggedon a recent Suffolk University 2012 Poll, the article suggested that Obama was not beatable if the election were “held today”, and that Mitt Romney benefited the most from Governor Mike Huckabee and businessman Donald Trump’s decisions to forgo the 2012 campaigns.
However, when one reviews the marginal’s here at www.suffolk.edu/images/content/FINAL.Suffolk.University.Naitonal.Survey.Marginals.May.17.2011.pdf, a slightly different perspective is gained.

As to the President’s overall chances of reelection: 48% to 43% (8% undecided) believe it’s time for someone new to take the helm. More telling: 63% of respondents intend to vote in the Republican primaries, while only 34% of the respondents were Registered Republicans. In addition the Republican Field is considered by 46 to 40% (14% undecided) to be satisfactory. However, when looking at the candidates included in the field, (even with Trump and Huckabee Removed), most are, to say the least, unexpected to run: The following were included in the questions regarding the GOP Primary (including the percentage of interest and undecided’s): Michele Bachmann, 2%, Herman Cain,2%, Mitch Daniels, 2%, Newt Gingrich, 2%, Rudy Giuliani, 10%, John Huntsman, 0%, Gary Johnson, O%, Sarah Palin 16%, Ron Paul, 4%, Tim Pawlenty 8%, Buddy Roemer, 0%, Mitt Romney 29%, Rick Santorum, 6%, and undecided 20%.

Considering that Michele Bachman, Mitch Daniels, Rudy Giuliani, Sarah Palin, and Rick Santorum have not officially announced, with some candidates unlikely to even enter the race (Giuliani), the poll skews away from Romney using Giuliani as an example by 10%. This is given the fact that both Romney and Giuliani are considered “moderate” by those who are “extremely conservative”. That said, an additional 20% are yet undecided, as the field such as this, with some candidates clearly not viable due to having not indicated even an interest in the race. Therefore, the poll confuses the actual outcome attributed to Romney. In addition in a head to head matchup with the “unbeatable Obama”, Romney fares quite well. On Question 15 (which appears to have been taken prior to the exits of Mr.’s. Trump and Huckabee – only the “GOP Field questions were callbacks according to the pollster’s marginal’s – not the lead questions on the GOP individual candidates and matchups). Obama garners 46% to Romney’s 43%, 1% indicated “other” and 10% were “undecided”. When on views the respondent data: out of 1070 polled, the political affiliation was as follows: 39% Democrat, 34% Republican, 22% Unenrolled or Independent and 5% other. Given that Obama Received 46% with 39% of the Respondents Democrat, the remaining 7% may have been Independent or other, that leaves Romney, with 9% of his support coming from independent or other, or with a slightly better edge with the “independent voter than the President.

Given the fact that both campaigns have yet to pick up any real steam, other than media drumbeat, Romney is, this far out in the game, fairly well positioned for the run at the White House, this is contrary to the WSJ report, which begs the questions: did the author consider reading the marginals? As with any poll, the marginals are more telling that the editorial on the polls release. The data serves to give an overview of the demographic that the pollster employed, and one can determine if it accurately reflects the voting public (in this case, most likely). In addition, one can see where those polled contradict the headlines vis a vis, the Republican Field and general dissatisfaction with the current “crop” of candidates, by merely looking at the marginals.

Therefore, Romney, even with imaginary candidates, polls highest in the field, and against Obama is within the Margin of error on the poll, therefore, it is a statistical tie- and not as headlined, a huge win for the President. Of course, all this before all candidates named (or even some unnamed such as Rick Perry, Governor of Texas who is toying with the idea of running for the GOP nod) have committed or not, before any firm field has been established. Therefore, should Romney continue his current path of high fundraising, keep up his visits to the all important early primary states, he should be well positioned, even with the promise of a “dark horse” candidate, which has yet to emerge. What the fled lost with the decisions of both Huckabee and Trump was an excitement factor that was due mostly to entertainment factor (on Trumps part) and the “celebrity” of both candidates, which clearly gave them a temporary edge. Romney, for his perfect hair, his stiff upper lip, and his penchant for being down the middle, does not sit well with most social conservatives, however, one cannot imagine that even the most stalwart of those right of right, would forgoes the opportunity to remove Obama from office, and vote for Romney even if they disliked the man.

On the Massachusetts versus the U.S Health Care Reform Debate and Romney’s refusal to let go of his legislation and or apologize for conceiving of a plan that was exported nationwide: he’ll more than survive this. One, he did not apologize because the man truly believes he did the right thing for Massachusetts based on the financial aspect and projected costs savings of his model. He stuck to his guns. What he most likely should have done, was bring along his infamous PowerPoint, showing Romney’s version and what became of it once the Massachusetts Democrat controlled legislature got a hold of it, after he left office. One finds two different animal – and one thing that is missing from the conversation: Romney care, as it is now called, actually proved Romney has some compassion mixed with his business sense, something that appeals to those moderate Republicans, moderate Independents and yes, even some moderate Democrats. Other than his perfect hair and the health care issue, there’s little left in Romney’s closet to upset the “conservative base” – Additionally contrary to popular theory, Romney can take the south, and the Midwest and the northeast, with some exceptions: One would expect in a matchup between Romney and the President, that Obama would hold the states of Massachusetts (this is based on data from Obama’s approval being above 50% statewide), Hawaii, California and New York, there were a total of ten states where the President’s approval indicated that he might be re-electable In those states. The rest, falling well below 50% would, in all likelihood go to the Republican nominee. Romney may even pick up states by default, regardless of political ideology. That sums it up as of the latest poll and the way in which, when “pulled apart” one can find a totally different scenario emerge, one that is more likely than “No Republican can Beat Obama” – to which one can say with some authority

“Hog wash!”.

Gallup polling currently shows that Obama has a 3 point advantage (one would say within the margin of error) over any Republican candidate) – the score: Obama 43, unnamed Republican 40 – leaving 17% undecided – or in line with the Suffolk Poll. In addition, Gallup contends there are “no clear front runners”, with Romney and Palin taking the lead out of the following field:
Romney, 20%, Palin, 18%, Gingrich, 11%, Ron Paul, 8%, Michelle Bachman, 5%, Mitch Daniels, 4%, Tim Pawlenty, 4%, Rick Santorum and John Huntsman at 2% respectively, Gary Johnson at 1%, and Herman Cain at 0%. This field is more comprehensive (fewer choices) than the Suffolk poll), however, again, includes candidates that are, for the most part, undeclared as to intent. That includes Sarah Palin, who has yet to enter the fray.

Of interest and back to the Suffolk Poll, given all the aforementioned data, one question stood out like a sore thumb: Question 55 on the Suffolk Marginals asks: Do you think a woman will be elected president in 2012 or 2016? 51% agreed, only 36% said no and 13% were undecided.

Therefore, it is no out of the realm of possibility that a strong, well funded, female candidate could conceivably win the general election, sooner than later. Of the two GOP potential female candidates, Palin and Bachman, Palin is the only candidate that has experience governing, and has a high profile among GOP voters. Michelle Bachman, a congresswoman, has less governing credentials and, although wedded to the Tea Party Movement, more than Palin, is still lacking the litmus governing test. Interestingly, Romney, although polling ahead, and able to beat the President, is followed next in both polls by Palin.

Word of caution, we’ve got a long way to go before November, when, all begins in real earnest ahead of the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire Primary.

Poll data all sources; Gallup Polling and Suffolk University.