Red County National – monoblogue

Driving out the competition

In one of the first acts of his presidency, Barack Obama crafted an Executive Order reinstating the use of Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) on federal construction jobs where total costs to the government exceed $25 million. This gift to Big Labor overturned a previous ban on the practice President Bush instituted early in his term back in 2001.

It took bureaucrats almost a year to devise the regulations, which were released last week. Naturally the Administration was pleased with the effort. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis called the new red tape “a win-win; they benefit businesses, workers and taxpayers. I’ve seen the track record in cities like Los Angeles — high quality work on projects done on time, on budget and good job and training opportunities that strengthen our communities.”

But Obama’s first attempt at enacting a PLA resulted in the cancellation of bidding on a New Hampshire job training center because a non-union contractor balked at the restrictive pro-union rules it would have to follow as a winning bidder.

Most telling about the arrogance of Washington bureaucrats, though, is their claim (page 8 here) that these regulations are not a “major rule,” which allows them to circumvent the Congressional Review Act. Their ludicrous assertion is that PLAs will not create an effect on the economy of more than $100 million, cause a major increase in costs, or lead to significantly adverse effects on competition.

It’s a claim which is laughable. According to the Associated Builders and Contractors, these PLAs will increase construction costs 20 percent at a time when 1 of every 4 in the industry is unemployed. Thus, taking the ABC at face value, just $500 million in construction contracts let would bring the price of these new regulations above the $100 million threshold and certainly a 20 percent increase would be termed “major” to most unbiased observers. The Associated General Contractors also weighed in, calling the new regulations, “unnecessary…costly and counterproductive.”

While the proposed rules leave some wiggle room for discretion against PLAs in certain situations, it’s unlikely that this labor-friendly regime will allow exceptions but for rare cases. With billions of dollars in stimulus money still to be given out, the timing of these rules is key to promote the cause of Big Labor just in time for the midterm elections.

This is another article I did for Red County National; they chose to title it “Another Day, Another Economy-Wrecking Gift to Big Labor.”

Earmarks: the gauntlet has been thrown down

With the 2010 elections looming and the lack of fiscal responsibility by Washington becoming a larger issue, both parties are taking steps to curb the use of earmarks, which are loosely defined as appropriations added to spending bills to benefit a particular interest, usually within the sponsor’s state or district.

Democrats Wednesday proposed an end to earmarks designated to for-profit entities, which will mainly affect defense spending. This ban was passed by the House Appropriations committee.

But in the game of “can you top this” they were trumped by the Republicans’ decision Thursday morning to enact an immediate, unilateral moratorium on all earmarks. House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence was excited about the move, calling it, “very uncomfortable for business as usual.”

In truth, earmarks are but a small portion of the federal budget, accounting for only about 1% of total spending. Yet crusaders in both the House and Senate (most notably Senator John McCain) have attempted with little success over the years to curtail the earmarking practice. Even President Obama was on the anti-earmark bandwagon originally but had to capitulate early on by failing to veto a pork-laden omnibus spending bill.

Obviously, the impact of these efforts will only be felt if House Republicans have the stomach to carry out that which they’ve proposed after winning back the majority. Meanwhile the Senate is cool to such restrictions on their own spending. As we’ve seen with Senator Jim Bunning’s stance against a blatant violation of the PAYGO regulations passed weeks earlier, that which is passed into law has no effect on Congress if they interpret the rules in ways that make sense only to them.

And the temptation to bend these new rules is great – according to a study by the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, a politician’s share of the vote increases anywhere from 4.1 to 5.7 percent for every 100 percent increase in earmarks obtained by a legislator. Before too much faith is placed into Congress, though, we have to remember this is an election year and job one for a sitting member is to be re-elected.

Buying votes seems to be a Democrat pattern

Speaking from the safety of civilian life and not seeking political office, former GOP Senator Mel Martinez of Florida told the Hotline in a Tuesday interview that he could have named his own price to support last year’s stimulus bill. But he noted instead, “I wanted a better bill.”

Expressing that talks with the White House on the stimulus left him “disillusioned,” perhaps this issue was one thing which hastened his surprising departure from the Senate last year. It’s also worth noting that while Martinez avoided a Florida version of the ‘Cornhusker kickback’ Florida Governor Charlie Crist still liked the stimulus as it was. Now it’s costing Crist in his Senate race against upstart Marco Rubio.

One also has to ask what GOP Senators Snowe, Collins and Specter (now a Dem) who crossed over to vote with the Democrats got for their votes? Likewise, in scrutinizing the jobs bill which just passed the Senate, people should be asking what Ohio, Massachusetts, Missouri, and Maine are getting as bribes for their support.

Yet this revelation brings up a more general question about how Democrats and the White House are attempting to push their legislative agenda through. Certainly, Congress has always been a home of “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” horsetrading of favors, but when you consider the Democrats won Congress in 2006 in part by vowing to clean up a “culture of corruption,” the outright bribery which they’ve engaged in to get their legislation passed doesn’t match the image they campaigned on.

The GOP is on the right side of issues as the “party of no” and voters are now paying attention to what bribes and favors the White House and Democrats are dangling in front of soft Republicans to gain a bipartisan fig leaf for their unpopular legislation. The Martinez example shows what the acquisition and pursuit of total power has done to the Democrats, and voters need to remember this come November.