Archive for the ‘Special Interests’ Category

Greedy SEIU

I’m so sick of hearing those on the left complain about “greedy” bankers, capitalists, what have you. Protecting what is rightfully yours is not greedy. Taking from others what isn’t rightfully yours is. When the others are people on public assistance and the takers live the fat life while pretending to be allies, the theft goes beyond greedy. It’s unconscionable. And it’s par for the course for SEIU, other public sector unions, and their enablers and apologists.

In a piece from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, titled “Michigan SEIU Scam the Product of Government Collective Bargaining,” author Trey Kovacs details a scheme where the Michigan Quality Community Care Council (MQC3) was created ostensibly to register providers as an aid to Medicaid recipients looking for home health care service. In fact, it was used to declare all such providers government workers, facilitating their covert and forced unionization.

Once the scam was completed, SEIU was given a collective bargaining agreement by the state, and the theft began. A mechanism was created to siphon union dues from Medicaid checks. Read that again: SEIU is quietly, deceptively, possibly illegally siphoning union dues from medicaid checks before they get to the recipients — people who cannot afford health care on their own.

Since 2006 SEIU has taken $28 million from medicaid recipients and their caregivers.

And this is just one such scam. How many more are there throughout the country?

The left always claims to be motivated by a greater measure of compassion for those in need, and by “fairness” for working people which can only be secured by unions fighting against the greedy interests arrayed against them. Where is the compassion for Robert and Patricia Haynes, the parents of two children with cerebral palsy, cared for at home with help from medicaid so they don’t have to be institutionalized. The Haynes are not health care workers but simply parents caring for their children in need, and they lose $30 / month to the greedy SEIU thugs and their legislator and bureaucrat partners.

Read the rest here:

Michigan SEIU Scam the Product of Government Collective Bargaining

Parents Forced to Pay Union Dues, Lawmaker Rakes In Health Care Money

Post to Twitter

What is a “Special Interest?”

In a daily mailing from Silicon Valley Mercury News, the following blurb caught my attention:

The predicted flood of money behind Proposition 23 has yet to materialize. With barely more than two weeks to the election, opponents of the controversial ballot measure to suspend California’s landmark global warming legislation have far outpaced the proponents in fundraising. As of Thursday, the No on 23 campaign — a coalition that includes environmentalists, venture capitalists, social justice groups and some of Silicon Valley’s hottest cleantech companies — had raised $19.6 million while Yes on 23 had raised $9.1 million.

It was the innocuous description of those raising money to defeat the proposition that stood out.  They are a “coalition” not “special interests.”  It reminded me of something I once read (believed to be from George Will but couldn’t be found) that can be paraphrased: A special interest is a group that contributes to the other guy’s campaign. Those who contribute to mine are constituents.

To be fair, the full article includes this quote:

“It appears that the billionaire hedge fund manager and the venture capitalists — some from California, some from other states — who are bankrolling the No on 23 campaign have decided that defeating Proposition 23 is a good investment that will reap them huge returns,” [spokeswoman for Yes on 23] Mangels said. “Investing in No on 23 is the ultimate self-interested political ploy that will help the rich campaign contributors get richer and make it even harder for struggling California families to make ends meet.”

The article lists Thomas Steyer (hedge fund), John Doerr (and wife Ann) (venture capital), and Vinod Khosla (venture capital) as 3 of the top 4 contributors against prop 23, having given $8 million to the cause. There is no hand-wringing about the probable self-interest of the donors at the expense of regular California citizens.  There is no hue and cry over “special interests” buying our democracy.

There should be yet another layer concern.  Presumably the listing of John and Anna Doerr is because that money came from their foundation.  If so, those are tax advantaged funds paid, likely, to protect vested commercial interests. The probable “defense” of all this monied influence would be that the self-interest is incidental, that the intent is serving the “public interest.” Should that be blindly accepted?

I submit the reason for the blind eye is not simple hypocrisy, but willful ignorance.  If you think you can have a government that limits rent seeking only to those causes you approve, and that such monied influence can be kept benign, than you know nothing of human nature, nor the history of government.  Some would probably argue that lower carbon emissions are an unmitigated public good, the benefits to be enjoyed by all.  Tell that to the people who lose their jobs.

Post to Twitter