Caroline Glick: Migron and the Threat to Israeli Democracy

migron-thumb-470x261-3014

migron.jpg

By Tuesday, 50 Israeli families will have been tossed out of their homes in their village of Migron, which is set for destruction.
They will not be dispossessed because they unlawfully squatted on someone else’s property.
The residents of Migron will be tossed from their homes – on the order of the Supreme Court – because Attorney-General Yehuda Weinstein and his associates believe they are above the law. And due to this opinion, Weinstein and his associates refuse to recognize the sovereign authority of Israel’s government or to act in accordance with its lawful decisions.
The media have alternatively presented the story of Migron’s imminent destruction as a story about a power struggle between so-called settlers and the IDF, whose forces will be called upon to eject them from their homes; or as a struggle between the Israeli residents of Judea and Samaria and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu; or as a struggle between the radical leftists from Peace Now and its fellow foreign government-financed NGOs, and the residents of Judea and Samaria.
These portrayals are reasonable on the narrow level of day to day developments in the story of Migron’s struggle. But on a more fundamental level, the story of Migron and its pending destruction is the story of the power struggle between Israel’s unelected, radical legal fraternity represented by the attorney-general, the State Prosecution he directs and the Supreme Court on the one hand, and Israel’s elected governments – from the Right and from the Left – on the other.
Migron is the latest casualty of this struggle. The legal fraternity’s bid to wrest sovereign power of governance from Israel’s elected leadership threatens our democracy. In its continuous assault on governing authority, the legal fraternity renders it difficult if not, as a practical matter, impossible, for the government – any government – to govern.
It is important at the outset to recognize that there is a world of difference between the rule of law and the rule of lawyers. The fate of Migron, which was sealed on Wednesday with the decision of the Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, to remove all 50 families from their homes, is a legal atrocity.
Migron was founded in 1999 on 60 plots of land. In 2006, the EU-funded Peace Now petitioned the High Court claiming to represent Arab owners of five out of the 60 plots of land. Peace Now asked the court to require the state to explain why it hadn’t destroyed the town, which the group claimed was built on stolen land. Migron’s residents dispute this claim.
In responding to this petition, the State Attorney’s Office could have asked the court to allow the issue of ownership to be adjudicated by a lower court. Instead, the State Prosecution accepted as fact Peace Now’s unproven claim of private ownership of the land. And, after numerous delays, in 2011 the court ruled that the village must be destroyed.
Following its victory in the Supreme Court, Peace Now sued the state for damages for the alleged Arab landlords, claiming that the presence of the community prevented the land’s owners from harvesting nonexistent olive trees. Peace Now abruptly canceled its lawsuit when the court asked for proof of ownership.
For their part, Migron’s residents went through Jordanian land records and were able to find owners for only seven of the registered plots. And they managed to buy – at exorbitant cost – three of those plots. Recognizing that its claim that Migron was illegally built on private lands could no longer be justified, Peace Now changed its strategy. In the latest Supreme Court hearings, brought by Migron’s residents, Peace Now claimed that the reason all the Israelis need to be ejected from their homes, and all the homes need to be destroyed, is that the village was built without proper permits.
Ahead of the court hearing last month, the government’s Ministerial Committee on Settlement convened to determine the government’s position on the new Migron petition. Led by Netanyahu, the ministers decided that the government’s position was to ask for a continuance in order to enable the lower courts to adjudicate the claims of ownership of the land.
Rather than follow the law and represent that position to the court, Weinstein instructed attorney Osnat Mandel from the State Prosecution to inform the court he did not accept the government’s decision, and ask for a continuance in order to give him time to force the government to change its position.
Addressing the court, Mandel said, “The attorney- general believes that the ministerial committee’s position will raise legal difficulties. And since we’re requesting a continuance for undertaking the evacuation anyway [for unrelated reasons], he requests [time] to hold meetings with the elected leadership.”
On the face of it, Weinstein’s defiance of a legally binding government decision was unlawful. Certainly it would appear to be grounds for his immediate firing. But while shocking, Weinstein’s rank insubordination was not unique.
As relates to Israel’s legal rights in Judea and Samaria, Weinstein is guided not by the law but by the ideology of the far Left. This ideology received formal expression in a 2005 report on unauthorized Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria authored by former assistant state attorney Talia Sasson. The Sasson Report represented a wholesale renunciation of all Israeli claims to legal rights over Judea and Samaria. It was unhinged from both Israeli and international law.
And it was embraced by the legal fraternity.
After Sasson finished her report, she joined the post-Zionist Meretz Party. In 2009 she ran unsuccessfully for Knesset.
In an attempt to mitigate the damage Sasson’s report caused to Israel’s legal position in Judea and Samaria, in February Netanyahu commissioned retired Supreme Court justice Edmond Levy to lead a task force of distinguished jurists and present the government with a report setting out Israel’s legal rights to Judea and Samaria. Netanyahu asked Levy to also offer recommendations for implementing those rights in relation to the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.
Weinstein didn’t even wait for the Levy Commission to begin its work before he sent Netanyahu a letter informing him that the commission’s report would have no impact on his handling of issues related to Israel’s rights to the areas. And as his decision to ignore the legally constituted ministerial committee’s position on Migron made clear, Weinstein continues to behave as though he and his colleagues sit above Israel’s democratically elected representatives.
Many on the Right are urging Netanyahu to adopt the findings of the Levy Commission as official government policy. While such a move certainly can’t hurt, it is hard to see what difference it would make in practice. Weinstein has already pledged to defy the government. So even if the report is adopted, the government’s lawyers will refuse to defend its positions.
Weinstein is only able to behave as he does because he operates in an environment where the Supreme Court has usurped the power of Israel’s elected governments to determine state policy.
At the same time that then-Supreme Court president Aharon Barak declared that “everything is justiciable,” the court gutted the requirement for legal standing. It has worked hand in glove with radical groups like Peace Now to dictate government policy. Through this collaboration, the court – not the government – determines Israel’s policies on everything from Israel’s legal position in Judea and Samaria to environmental issues, to the nature of Israel’s penal system, to homosexual unions, to education policy, to permissible military tactics in wartime.
In this environment of judicial tyranny, Weinstein can freely undercut governmental authority, because he knows that so long as his breach of trust pushes government policy to the Left, the Supreme Court will support his unlawful actions.
Aside from Migron, the most striking example of the legal fraternity’s recent collaboration to undercut governmental authority was its torpedoing of the government’s February 2011 appointment of Maj.-Gen. Yoav Galant to serve as the IDF chief of staff. At the time, the court agreed to hear a petition submitted by the Green Movement demanding the cancellation of Galant’s appointment.
The Green Movement claimed Galant was unfit to lead the military because in the past he had committed an administrative infraction by wrongfully using state land adjacent to his homestead on Moshav Amikam. The Green Movement had no direct interest in Galant’s administrative infraction and therefore, if the Supreme Court followed even the lowest standards for standing, it should never have received a hearing.
Even with the forbearance of the court, the Green Movement’s ability to win the case was dubious at best. The Senior Appointments Committee had already vetted Galant’s candidacy, and approved it despite his misuse of state lands. But Weinstein had other plans.
Claiming he had “ethical difficulties” defending Galant’s lawful appointment, Weinstein refused to defend the government before the Supreme Court. Consequently, Weinstein compelled the government to force Galant to resign his commission and appoint someone else to serve as the IDF’s top commander.
Netanyahu has come under sharp criticism, particularly from his voters, for his refusal to stand up to Weinstein and his band of legal despots. And this makes sense. Netanyahu should have stood up to Weinstein in defense of Galant. And he should have denounced Weinstein last month for his unlawful defiance of the government on Migron. He should also stand up to Weinstein on the Levy Commission report, and just as a matter of policy, adopt its findings as the formal position of Israel’s government.
But even if he does these things, all they would serve to do is temporarily mitigate the frustration of his voters. They wouldn’t change the basic calculus of power. The fact is that today Netanyahu lacks the means to curb the legal fraternity’s abuse of power.
The media staunchly defend every move the legal fraternity takes to usurp the powers of the government and the Knesset. Indeed, the media represents the legal brotherhood’s unlawful moves as supreme acts of selflessness on behalf of Israeli democracy and the rule of law.
Every potentially powerful critic of their behavior has found himself the subject of protracted criminal probes. This includes Netanyahu during his first term, Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman for the past decade, former justice ministers Tzachi Hanegbi and Haim Ramon, and Justice Minister Yaakov Neeman during his first tenure in office.
The dispossessed residents of Migron are just the latest casualties of the legal fraternity’s campaign to force its radical agenda on an unwilling electorate. If we wish to save Israel’s democratic system, the people of this country must stand up and demand that our representatives protect our right to be governed by those whom we elect and not by self-appointed clerks.
The only suitable response to Migron is a legislative overhaul of Israel’s legal system.
Originally published in the Jerusalem Post.

#NVSen New Ad: Berkley Steals $1 Trillion from Medicare, Puts Government in Charge

www.youtube.com screen capture 2012-9-4-9-11-18

Raids Medicare Program and Gives Bureaucrats Power to Make Hard Decisions

(Las Vegas, NV) – Heller for Senate released a new ad today that that shows how seven-term Congresswoman Shelley Berkley has voted to raid Medicare of one trillion dollars to pay for more big government programs, and then hand over control to 15 bureaucrats in Washington to make decisions for America’s seniors.

“Shelley Berkley has based on her entire campaign on ‘Lie of the Year,’ but the fact is she is the only candidate in this race that has a history of repeatedly voting to cut Medicare by as much as one trillion dollars. Shelley Berkley’s idea for fixing one of the most pressing issues for our nation’s seniors is to cut benefits, and then hand the power over to Washington bureaucrats to make the really tough decisions.  Over and over again, Shelley Berkley has lied to Nevada seniors and pretended to protect them, while in fact she is risking the future of this important program. Shelley Berkley, it’s time for Nevadans to know the truth,” said Chandler Smith, Heller for Senate spokeswoman.

The ad released today airs only days after Heller for Senate released a different ad focused on Shelley Berkley’s one trillion dollar cuts to Medicare.

1)      Fact: “A trillion dollars.  That’s how much Shelley Berkley voted to cut from Medicare.”

  • Cut 1: $193 billion – H.R. 3162; Vote #787, Aug. 1, 2007; “Estimated Effect on Direct Spending and Revenues of H.R. 3162, the Children’s Health and Medicare Protection Act, for the Rules Committee,” Congressional Budget Office, Aug. 1, 2007
  • Cut 2: $716 billion – ObamaCare; Vote #165, H.R. 3590; Vote #167, H.R. 4872, March 21, 2010; Letter to the Honorable John Boehner, Congressional Budget Office, July 24, 2012
  • Cut 3: $123 billion – Budget Control Act; Vote #690, S 365, Aug. 1, 2011; “Estimated Impact of Automatic Budget Enforcement Procedures Specified in the Budget Control Act,” Congressional Budget Office, Sept. 12, 2011

2)      Fact: “Seven Hundred billion of those Medicare cuts just to pay for ObamaCare.”

  • Shelley Berkley voted for ObamaCare, which took funds from Medicare to pay for other parts of the bill. (Vote #165, HR 3590, Vote #167 HR 4872, March 21, 2010).
  • The total cost to the Medicare program is $716 billion. (Letter to the Honorable John Boehner, Congressional Budget Office, July 24, 2012

http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43471-hr6079.pdf)

3)      Fact: “Even worse, Shelley Berkley voted to create a new panel of 15 Washington bureaucrats to ration Medicare.”

  • “IPAB’s unelected members will have effectively unfettered power to impose taxes and ration care for all Americans, whether the government pays their medical bills or not. In some circumstances, just one political party or even one individual would have full command of IPAB’s lawmaking powers. IPAB truly is independent, but in the worst sense of the word. It wields power independent of Congress, independent of the president, independent of the judiciary, and independent of the will of the people. The creation of IPAB is an admission that the federal government’s efforts to plan America’s health care sector have failed. It is proof of the axiom that government control of the economy threatens democracy.” ( Diane Cohen, Michael F. Cannon, “The Independent Payment Advisory Board,” Cato Institute, June 14, 2012)
  • Votes for ObamaCare: Vote #165, HR 3590; Vote #167, HR 4872, March 21, 2010

4)      Fact: “A trillion dollars in cuts to Medicare”

  • Shelley Berkley voted for the Budget Control Act (Vote #690, S 365, Aug. 1, 2011), which mandated 2 percent cuts to the Medicare program at an estimate cost of $123 billion.
  • From the CBO cost estimate: “Reductions of 2.0 percent each year in most Medicare spending because of the application of a special rule that applies to that program, producing savings of $123 billion, and reductions ranging from 7.8 percent (in 2013) to 5.5 percent (in 2021) in mandatory budgetary resources for other nonexempt nondefense programs and activities, yielding savings of $47 billion. Thus, savings in nondefense mandatory spending would total $170 billion.” (“Estimated Impact of Automatic Budget Enforcement Procedures Specified in the Budget Control Act,” Congressional Budget Office, Sept. 12, 2011)

5)      Fact: “And thanks to Shelley Berkley, now Washington will decide if I get care, not my doctor.”

  • “IPAB’s unelected members will have effectively unfettered power to impose taxes and ration care for all Americans, whether the government pays their medical bills or not. In some circumstances, just one political party or even one individual would have full command of IPAB’s lawmaking powers. IPAB truly is independent, but in the worst sense of the word. It wields power independent of Congress, independent of the president, independent of the judiciary, and independent of the will of the people. The creation of IPAB is an admission that the federal government’s efforts to plan America’s health care sector have failed. It is proof of the axiom that government control of the economy threatens democracy.” ( Diane Cohen, Michael F. Cannon, “The Independent Payment Advisory Board,” Cato Institute, June 14, 2012)
  • Votes for ObamaCare: Vote #165, HR 3590; Vote #167, HR 4872, March 21, 2010

Fla GOP Ad Asks Crist (on behalf of Dems?): “How conservative are you?”

www.youtube.com screen capture 2012-9-4-8-53-4

In the 2010 FL. Senate race Charlie Crist said; “I’m about as conservative as you can get.” and whole host of other memorable one-liners both touting his supposed Republican/Conservatism and bashing president Obama as David Freddoso explains in the Washington Examiner:

But then the squeeze began coming from all directions. In June, Crist’s handpicked Republican Party chairman — whom the state’s conservatives despised — was arrested for self-dealing with party money. In late September, the state Democratic Party began running a blistering ad that contained no commentary at all. None was needed — all they had to do was quote from all the conservative posturing Crist had done before his decision to defect: “I’m about as conservative as you can get … I’m a Jeb Bush Republican … President Bush is a leader of courage and conviction … I was impressed at Gov. Palin being picked. I watched her speech today, I was very impressed … I’m a pro-life, pro-gun, anti-tax Republican … I think it’s important for people to understand who the true conservative is in this race, and it’s Charlie Crist.”

All of these quotations now make Crist look silly. So do the tweets he sent out, trashing Obama and Obamacare: “Pres. Obama and Dems ignored the will of the ppl and passed a partisan-gov’t run HC bill.” “Pres. Obama needs to support NASA with more than just a photo op.”

Crist’s September 2009 comparison of Obama to Carter will also live on: “They wanted a change back in 1976. You remember? Richard Nixon had been president. That ended. Gerald Ford took over. The people decided they wanted a change. They got one — Jimmy Carter. Four years later, they took care of business — Ronald Reagan. It may happen again.”

Today, as the Democrat National Convention gets underway, and with Charlie Crist due to speak the Florida GOP has unleashed an ad asking (on behalf of Dems?): “How conservative are you?”

Politico tells us more about when and where the ad will run:

A GOP source said the ad will run on MSNBC in Florida, with a six-figure sum behind it over three days. The spot is reminiscent of a Florida Democratic Party ad from the 2010 cycle, hitting Crist from the left as an insincere flip-flopper.

The difference is that now, Republicans want to kneecap Crist with the party that’s about to embrace him before the Crist reboot gets fully underway. The fact that the ad is running on MSNBC only tells you almost all you need to know.

I think the Democrats choice of Crist highlights the fact that this is a party with no direction, their leader has failed, their policies have failed, and know there’re searching for anyone who will throw stones at a surging Republican Party… Sad really.

BA Spending Daily September 4, 2012

Digital Image by Sean Locke
Digital Planet Design
www.digitalplanetdesign.com

Bankrupting America Keeping An Eye on the Debt
With the national debt projected to reach $16 trillion any day now, Bankrupting America (BA) wants to ensure that our elected representatives don’t miss this milestone. The RNC’s decision to include a debt clock at its convention allowed attendees and viewers to see the size of the debt and its rate of growth throughout the convention. Since the DNC has not announced plans to use a debt clock, BA will track how often the debt is referenced throughout their convention. Each morning, we will post an updated tally of references to the debt, the deficit or the need to cut government spending in speeches from the night before. We will also track how long into each speech it took to reference the debt. The first step on the road to recovery is admitting you have a problem. Let’s see who’s willing to admit it!  For updates throughout the Convention, follow Bankrupting America’s twitter feed, @BankruptingAM, and become a fan on Facebook.

GSA ‘s “Virtual Employees” Cost Taxpayers $7.7 Million “Real Dollars”
CNNreports, “The General Services Administration — already under scrutiny for excessive spending — spent $7.7 million over the past four years to transport hundreds of employees who work full-time from their homes to various government conferences and meetings across the country, according to records released this week by the federal agency.

The GSA is currently reviewing its so-called ‘virtual employee’ program as part of a top-down review of all of its practices.

The GSA made headlines this year after a scathing inspector general’s report showed that it spent $823,000 on a 2010 conference in Las Vegas. Reports and video clips of the lavish conference sparked taxpayer indignation over the wasteful spending, the resignation of the GSA’s top leaders and a congressional investigation into the agency’s spending practices. Since then, reports of more wasteful spending at the government agency have surfaced.”

Debt Expected to Hit $16 Trillion This Week
The Washington Times reports, “Just as Democrats are gaveling in their convention Tuesday, the federal government likely will announce another dubious milestone — $16 trillion in total federal debt. In an election already focused on domestic issues of jobs, spending and deficits, the $16 trillion number is likely to underscore just how much is at stake in November for both parties, which are offering dramatically different ways to begin to eat away at the deep hole. Gross federal debt has been flirting with $16 trillion for the past two weeks, and the government ended Thursday $15.991 trillion in debt. … The Obama campaign didn’t respond to a message seeking comment on the milestone, but, speaking on ‘Fox News Sunday,’ David Axelrod, a top adviser to Mr. Obama, said the president has a ‘plausible plan’ to stabilize the debt, but acknowledged the plan doesn’t actually begin to reduce it.”

Politico: “DNC 2012: Even Democratic Party faithful want more on economy”
Politico reports, “Delegates at the Democratic National Convention here are the truest of true believers, decked out in red, white and blue ‘Obama ’12′ buttons and energized for the fall campaign. But even they are echoing the question Mitt Romney and the Republicans posed at their convention: Are Americans better off than they were four years ago? These delegates are worried about the still-sluggish state of the economy and want to know what President Barack Obama is going to do about it in a second term. As they arrived at a convention set against a backdrop of 8.3 percent unemployment and tepid economic growth, a half-dozen delegates said in interviews that they won’t be satisfied to hear more of the same attacks on Romney’s plans and business background. They want new details from Obama on Thursday night about how he’ll persuade businesses to start hiring again and put more money in people’s wallets. And they want some clear promises that better days lie ahead.”

Cochrane: CBO’s Fiscal Cliff Warnings Worth Closer Look
John H. Cochrane editorializes in Bloomberg, “Last month, the Congressional Budget Office released a report warning that the ‘fiscal cliff’ would cause a new recession. It came to the right conclusion for all the wrong reasons. … This is the cliff: Unless Congress acts, the Bush-era income-tax cuts will expire, Social Security payroll taxes will increase, and capital-gains and dividend tax rates will rise sharply. … How does the CBO come up with these numbers? Its projections are Keynesian. If the government borrows $1 billion and spends it, the CBO will project that this action raises gross domestic product by $1.5 billion. Government workers are counted as ‘producing’ what they cost, so borrowing money to keep them employed generates the same GDP as building a bridge. If the government just gives the money to people, this also raises the CBO’s GDP estimate. Reducing government spending and transfers has the opposite effect. If, like me, you think that spending less money on useless projects is good for the economy, or that taking money from A and giving it to B has little overall effect, you would come to much different conclusions from the CBO’s.”

Bankruptcy for Rhode Island City Means Tax Hikes, Pension Cuts
Reuters reports, “Central Falls, in Rhode Island, is close to emerging from bankruptcy with a plan that hammers its retired municipal employees but leaves bondholders unscathed, in a contrast with other recent U.S. municipal bankruptcies. On Thursday, a state-appointed receiver overseeing the finances of the tiny, impoverished city is expected to win court approval for a plan that rescues Central Falls from financial collapse and should balance its budget for at least the next five years. Unlike the approach of some other U.S. states such as California, which left struggling cities to try to fix their finances on their own, the plan for Central Falls reassured the credit markets, but scarred the city. The smallest city in Rhode Island and the only one ever to file for bankruptcy will emerge with powerless elected officials, property owners facing tax hikes every year and retired public employees irate about having their pensions slashed. … The cuts drove home the message to public sector pensioners in other Rhode Island cities that if they didn’t agree to renegotiate their retirement benefits, they could be facing even steeper cuts if their city goes bankrupt.”

Bernanke: “gravely high unemployment” May Prompt Fed Action
The Wall Street Journal reports, “A defiant Ben Bernanke sought to shoot down criticism of the Federal Reserve’s easy-money policies and strengthen the case for new efforts by the central bank to bring down what he described as gravely high unemployment. Markets have been on edge for months about whether the Fed will launch another large bond-buying program. Fed Chairman Bernanke, speaking Friday at the central bank’s annual retreat here, offered a vigorous defense of the Fed’s $2.3 trillion in bond purchases since 2008, estimating they helped lead to more than two million jobs—and signaled that he is strongly considering another installment. … It is a high-stakes moment for the Fed. The U.S. recovery remains weak and unemployment high more than three years after the recession ended.”

Economic Slowdown and Fiscal Cliff Hindering Growth
Bloomberg reports, “Business activity in the U.S. expanded at a slower pace in August, indicating companies may hold the line on production until sales pick up. … Companies may lack the confidence to invest in new equipment and hire as they face a global economic slowdown and the so-called fiscal cliff threat of more than $600 billion in government spending cuts and higher taxes. Manufacturing, which helped spur the recovery, is providing less of a boost for the three-year-old expansion.”

Unemployed European Youth Dubbed “lost generation”
The Washington Post reports, “More than 5.5 million young people across Europe are unemployed, the European Commission reports, part of what scholars are dubbing a lost generation.The youth unemployment rate in Greece and Spain has climbed to a staggering 53 percent. That rate is 36 percent in Portugal, 34 percent in Italy and 23 percent in France, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. That compares with 15 percent in the United States. Globally, one in eight people under the age of 25 is unemployed. In the euro zone, the unemployment rate is 26 percent — the highest since the creation of the common currency. In a report in July, the OECD, a group made up of 34 democratic countries, warned that youths are bearing the burden of the economic crisis in Europe. While many of these young people have their families to fall back on and can often live at home for free, the OECD warned of the lifetime damage — or ‘scarring effect’ — that comes with derailing career plans and earnings potential at such an early age. And the problem isn’t confined to those who lack education or skills. Even those with college degrees are finding themselves stuck without work or in temporary, dead-end jobs.”

Heritage: Union Money in Elections

unions_and_politicians

Originally posted at The Foundry by Amy Payne

This election year, millions of Americans will donate to the political candidates and initiatives of their choice at the local, state, and federal levels. But for unionized workers, union dues come out of their paychecks and go to political causes—and they aren’t consulted on where that money will go.

In July, The Wall Street Journal’s Tom McGinty and Brody Mullins published an eye-opening report that “Organized labor spends about four times as much on politics and lobbying as generally thought.”

They broke down the unions’ political spending from 2005 to 2011: $1.1 billion “supporting federal candidates through their political-action committees, which are funded with voluntary contributions, and lobbying Washington, which is a cost borne by the unions’ own coffers.”

But that was only the beginning. Add to that another $3.3 billion for political activity from “polling fees, to money spent persuading union members to vote a certain way, to bratwursts to feed Wisconsin workers protesting at the state capitol last year.” Who pays for this? The workers, McGinty and Mullins report: “Much of this kind of spending comes not from members’ contributions to a PAC but directly from unions’ dues-funded coffers.”

Despite findings that 60 percent of union members object to their dues being spent on political causes, this practice continues. Why?

In the 27 states without right-to-work laws, many unions are able to put clauses in their contracts that allow them to fire workers who do not pay union dues. If a worker wants to work for a unionized firm, he or she is forced to join the union and pay the dues, which can run from several hundred to several thousand dollars a year.

In a new paper, Heritage’s James Sherk gives an example of this rule at work: “The United Auto Workers (UAW), which organized General Motors’ Michigan factories in 1937, is a case in point. Michigan does not have a right-to-work law, so union-represented workers must pay the union’s dues or get fired.”

Notice the year there—1937. The workers coming on the job in 2012 are bound by a vote taken by their ancestors, essentially. “General Motors’ current employees never had the chance to vote for or against the UAW. UAW representation was a non-negotiable condition of their employment.”

Sherk argues that these rules make no sense for today’s workers. Just 7 percent of private-sector union members voted for the union that represents them, and the vast majority of government unions organized at least 30 years ago. The workers inherit the representation of yesteryear, which negotiates their terms of pay, promotion, layoff, and retirement.

Once organized, unions remain indefinitely. Naturally, that gives union leaders little reason to be accountable to their members in any way—they’re not going to have to stand for re-election.

To give unionized workers the freedom they deserve, Sherk says, this system should end.

Congress and state legislatures should at the least require government and private-sector unions to stand for re-election. Re-election votes every two to four years would allow employees to regularly assess their union’s performance as their representative.…

An even better reform would be to give workers representative choice—allowing individual employees to choose who represents them, irrespective of who other employees select. This would remove the union’s monopoly over the workplace, allowing employees to negotiate contracts tailored to their needs.

Workers should have the freedom to choose whether they want union representation or not. And if they do want to join a union, they should be able to choose which union they join. This freedom would give them more say over paying union dues in the first place, and how those dues are used. It would also give them the opportunity to negotiate merit-based raises, which unions do not allow.

America’s unionized workers deserve the same freedoms as non-unionized workers—in an election year and every year.

The Pension Dilemma

dollar-ex

While defined benefit pension plans play less of a role in corporate America than they did in the heyday of “The Man In The Gray Flannel Suit”, millions still depend on them for stable retirement income. Unfortunately, corporations are running into headwinds as they try to maintain the viability of their plans.

Treasury and Risk notes that corporate plans are faced with a painful asset-liability squeeze, and plan deficits are rising sharply despite good returns in the equity markets. The article highlights a key finding by Mercer, the prominent financial consulting firm:

It estimates the plans’ aggregate funded ratio has fallen to 70%, down from 75% at the end of 2011 and 81% at the end of 2010.

While pension plan assets are closely tied to market value, plan liabilities are mathematically determined by using an assumed interest rate to discount future cash outlays, and those rates must be reasonably reflective of current interest rates, which are of course at rock-bottom levels as a result of monetary policies designed to fight the recession. As a result, plan liabilities are growing much faster than plan assets, and plan sponsors may be tempted to freeze or terminate their plans.

Not to worry, though- there is always Social Security.

Zero Hedge – Key Upcoming Events

MREU

Europe took August off. Today, it is America’s turn, as the country celebrates Labor day, although judging by recent trends in the new ‘Part-time” normal, a phenomenon we have been writing about for years, and which even the NYT has finally latched on to, it would appear the holiday should really be Labor Half-Day. After today the time for doing nothing is over, and with less than one month left in the quarter, and trading volumes running 30% below normal which would guarantee bank earnings in Q3 are absolutely abysmal, the financial system is in dire need of volume, i.e. volatility. Luckily, things are finally heating up as the newsflow (sorry but rumors, insinuations, innuendo, and empty promises will no longer cut it) out of various central banks soars, coupled with key elections first in the Netherlands and then of course, in the US, not to mention the whole debt-ceiling/ fiscal cliff ‘thing’ to follow before 2012 is over. So for those who still care about events and news, here is the most comprehensive summary of the key catalysts over the next week and month, which are merely an appetizer for even more volatile newsflow in October and into the end of the year.

From SocGen and DB:

undefined

Data wise the key release will be the ISM manufacturing on Tuesday and the payrolls/unemployment report on Friday, the latter will be critical to any FOMC decision next Thursday. In Europe, we will get the final PMI manufacturing revisions today and the same for services on Wednesday. Euroland PPI (Tues), Euroland retail sales (Wed), Euroland Q2 GDP second estimate  (Thurs), German factory orders (Thurs), and German/French trade data (Fri) are the other key releases.

Key events in September:

-3 September (today): EU parliament debates Banking Union.

-Early September: Troika leaders arrived in Athens to begin the final phase of the review programme but it may take a few weeks before a report is ready.

-4 September (tomorrow): ISM manufacturing.

More

Metal Gear Solid: How to Get the Movie Right

MRmgs4

Our thoughts on director, plot and cast for a Metal Gear Solid Movie.

IGN – After years of false starts, that most movie-ish of video games is finally coming to the big screen.

An announcement at Konami’s Metal Gear 25th Anniversary confirmed that Columbia Pictures are committed – with the help of superhero movie producer de jour Avi Arad – to bringing the adventures of Solid Snake and his cardboard box to life.

But with over 20 games, some truly bonkers plots, and creator Hideo Kojima‘s notoriously complex vision to choose from, it’s going to be a tough job creating a coherent action flick that lives up to the bad-assery of its material.
Which is where we come in. This is how you make a Metal Gear Solid Movie….

More

Stanford researchers make heart implant powered by radio waves, put batteries out of a job

poon-wirelessly-pMRowered-cardiac-device

Engadget – Batteries used to be the only way to power implantable gadgets, but additional surgeries are needed to replace the power packs once their juice runs out — a less-than-ideal solution for patients. Recent discoveries, however, have such medgadgets being powered by photons, hip hop and now high-frequency radio waves. Electrical engineers at Stanford built a cardiac device that uses a combination of inductive and radiative transmission of power, at about 1.7 billion cycles per second, to its coiled receiving antenna.

More

Did NYTimes Piece on Valerie Jarrett Miss the Big Question?

hc01

Politico’s Mike Allen says one of his favorite stories he wrote describes a debate among bureaucrats about whether a hot dog is a meal or a snack.

Every single thing that I’ve written since then,” Allen said, “whether it’s about a mayor or a governor or senator or president, it all boils down to, ‘Hot Dog: A Meal or a Snack?’ All great questions come from small questions.

In the controversial New York Times piece about the influence of senior adviser to the president Valerie Jarrett, Jo Becker did not ask a couple of small questions that could have lead to a great question. The first small question is “Did Jarrett teach the President how to do the lazy altar boy pose?”

It looks like this:

And this:

And from the side like this.

It’s an odd pose. Try it and you’ll see why. It’s unnatural, even theatrical. Do many world leaders do it? I’ve spotted two so far. Argentina’s President Cristina Fernandez.

And the Queen of England.

Oh, and a third: Valerie Jarrett.

This is her “go to” pose. Here she strikes a lazy altar boy with Sex and the City’s Kristin Davis at a recent Oxfam America fundraiser.

Few women pose that way.

Very few.

When we see both the president and his most important longtime adviser strike the same odd pose it’s time to ask a small, silly question. It might explain other things we have seen during this administration. For example, the New York Times piece describes Jarrett as

…the guiding hand in everything from who sits on the Supreme Court to who sits next to whom at state dinners….

Now that we know that, the official cabinet photograph is a bit easier to understand. Look at their hands.

Based on the extent of Jarrett’s influence reported by the Times, it seems likely that she had her interlaced fingers in this. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Posing people is no sin. True, on the day you have reach the top of your profession it would be nice if you weren’t asked to pose like a Brownie troop.

And in a more normal pose poor Kathleen Sebelius would not look like she is in an ad for universal healthcare.

So aside from the simple silliness of the pose, there’s nothing wrong going on here. But if you accept the premise that Jarrett was involved, then suddenly the photograph becomes fascinating because one person is not cooperating. Take a look at Hillary Clinton.

Hillary’s almost endearing refusal to toe the new company line begs the second small question: Why has she decided she is having none of this foolish interlacing of fingers that has been so obviously suggested to the group? As I think Mike Allen would agree, it is a small question that could lead to a really great question. Given the tremendous potential for reader interest, it is odd that the New York Times did not ask the question: “How are Hillary and Valerie getting along?”