Tag Archives: Democrats

AFL-CIO to organize “Leisure Unions” of non-working leftists who vote Democrat for a living . . .


The AFL-CIO plans to “organize” non-working leftists and invite them to join the AFL-CIO in order to address a crisis in membership. The Center expects that these new associations will be referred to as “leisure unions” and will advocate for higher government assistance payments to those who vote Democrat for a living.


In addition the AFL-CIO will attempt to union-organize the South because “the labor movement needs to follow the workforce, which is moving down south” [to escape the labor movement].

For liberals/progressives, government failure always requires the same solution: Spend . . .

From the Center:

Rahm Emanuel reminded us early in the Obama Administration that Democrats never let a “crisis go to waste . . . it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” Government by continuing crisis, whether fact-based or by press release, is the Democrats preferred political strategy. The activists and their mainstream media allies demand that the government “do something!” When that “something” fails we are told that “it would have been worse” and we now must “do more.”

For Democrats, doing something about governmental failures invariably means spending and hiring more publicly paid employees.

Sen. Chuck Schumer is never at a loss for new hiring and spending ideas to “do something” about a failure of previous bad ideas. In December 2011 he called for training and appointing TSA advocates to be available to passengers who feel they are being harassed at airport checkpoints.

NYC Mayoral candidate (and, sadly, former Comptroller) Bill Thompson offers a similar proposal to the politically troublesome issue of NYC school administrators dealing with the suspension from school of unruly or dangerous students. Thompson’s solution? Hire “safety agents” to spare administrators the responsibility of making decisions as to which students should or should not be suspended.

The Center suspects that when the “safety agents” solution inevitably fails, an enterprising Democrat will suggest hiring “safety agents reviewers” to “do something” about the problem.

Unfortunately, Sen. Rubio, in pushing his Amnesty Bill, is playing the “do something” canard to convince Americans that “legalization” of illegal immigrants must come before border security because “you have to do something with the people who are here illegally so we know who they are.”

Sorry, Sen. Rubio. We don’t have to “do something” about illegal immigrants other than enforce the existing law.

Liberals and their reliance on “studies” . . .

From the Center for the Center:

Democrats invariably support their legal and public policy proposals and positions by citing “studies” emanating from academia or democrat “think tanks.” These often counterintuitive studies are offered as received scientific wisdom from our self-proclaimed intellectual betters.

This practice flourished with the Progressive legislative movement of the early 20th century. Its legal aspect is observed in the “social briefs” pioneered by progressive activist lawyer Louis Brandeis. The reason for the democrat reliance upon social science “studies” is clear: Progressive (liberal) policies usually conflict with common sense, human nature and real world experience . . .

Democrat policies are finally creating jobs in the Bronx . . .

NY Post:

“Tourists are crowding onto a Bronx bus tour that promises “a ride through a real New York City ‘GHETTO’ ” — and local politicians are furious.

Three times a week, Real Bronx Tours takes riders — mainly white Europeans and Australians — on a trip that includes stops at food-pantry lines and a “pickpocket” “

Why Democrats always promise to “target” legislation and tax policy . . .

From the Center for the Center:

It’s really very simple. Legislation and tax policies which provide benefits to all citizens yield fewer votes, political contributions and favors to Democrats than “targeted” proposals.

The Democrat guiding principle is to divide us into groups, and then to threaten punishment to certain groups while offering rewards to others. This keeps the graft, votes and contributions flowing as the disfavored seek to avoid onerous “targeted” policies and the favored vote and pay to keep their “targeted” programs running.

Treating everyone the same under the law leaves no discretion for graft and corruption.