Do you ever get tired of being played for a sucker? Well, get ready because the White House is getting to ready to do it yet again.
It’s no secret that the federal government awards billions in government contracts. What isn’t getting a lot of press coverage is that the White House is considering a new policy that would give an advantage to companies that pay workers “living wages” and offer generous benefits. So, you’re probably asking yourself, where did this new scheme come from? To understand the latest sucker punch the White House is mulling over for the American people, a little history is in order.
The “living wage” campaign was initiated in Baltimore in the mid-1990s by ACORN and a coalition of left-leaning church leaders, unionists, and community activists. The coalition pushed for a “social compact” that would increase the minimum wage to 43 percent above the federal minimum wage for service workers in hotels and other businesses in Baltimore’s redeveloped Inner Harbor -- a prime tourist area.
The mayor signed a compromise that included a higher minimum wage (not as high as the coalition was plugging for) for workers of any company contracting with the city. Supporters described it as a costless victory for low-income workers.
The problem was that shortly after the compromise was signed, the city’s economy crashed. 58,000 jobs disappeared. Opponents pointed out that the compromise was just one more example of the anti-business climate that helped produce Baltimore’s economic collapse.
In Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, ACORN and the socialist New Party fought for a law that increased the minimum wage for city-contracted janitors and security guards. It was no coincidence that the living wage campaign was a main platform of the New Party.
While agitating for the living wage, the New Party also worked to get members elected with the objective of moving the Democratic Party to the extreme left with the ultimate goal of forming a new political party with a socialist agenda.
The New Party, established in 1992, took advantage of what was known as electoral “fusion.” This allowed candidates to run on two tickets at the same time and, thus, attract voters from both parties. The Supreme Court put a stop to “fusion” and the party went defunct a year later in 1998. While in existence, the New Party worked closely with ACORN in backing candidates.
Here’s where things get interesting. In an interview, former top member of the New Party, Marxist activist Carl Davidson, discussed Obama’s involvement with the New Party. A subcommittee met with Obama to see if his position on the living wage and other reforms were the same as the party’s. They verified Obama’s views were the same as the party’s, and, consequently, they endorsed him in his campaign.
Davidson has an interesting history. He is a former national leader in the radical anti-Vietnam War movement and served as the national secretary for the Students of a Democratic Society from which the Weather Underground terrorist group (remember Bill Ayers?) splintered off.
Davidson recalls Obama attending a New Party meeting to thank them for their support.
Although Davidson denied the New Party was specifically a socialist party, their socialist-oriented goals were spelled out on their website. Among the stated objectives were “full employment, a guaranteed minimum wage, a universal “social wage” including basic benefits such as health care, child care, vacation time, and lifelong access to education and training.”
Many of the New Party’s founding members were leaders in the Democratic Socialists of America and members of a breakaway group of the Communist Party USA. Obama attended several DSA events and meetings. He sought and received their endorsement.
During his presidential campaign, Obama denied ever being an actual member of the New Party. However, copies of the party’s official newspaper show Obama posing with party leaders , lists him as a New Party member, and quotes him as a member.
The spring 1996 newspaper declared, New Party members won three primaries -- one being Barack Obama (State Senator). The paper listed other politicians it endorsed who were not members but specified Obama as a New Party member.
So, how does this all relate to what the White House is considering doing? The AP obtained documents that show the government would examine the wages and benefits (health insurance, retirement, paid leave) a company pays its employees as a factor in the process of awarding government contracts. (Do you need to go back and reread the New party goals? They’re in the preceding fourth paragraph.)
The problem is that a living wage advantage when awarding government contracts will hurt small companies -- as if that would make the White House stop and reconsider. Furthermore, case studies confirm cities that adopted similar policies (think Baltimore as an example) faced major financial losses. It would also increase government procurement costs.
This must be another one of Obama’s strategies for spreading the wealth around.
Are you fed up yet?
Posted by Lynda Gurr 03/02/2010
Kamala Harris Family Secret Service Agent Reportedly Moonlighted As Plus
Size Model
-
'Agent was featured in a magazine profile'
52 minutes ago
As I told the writer in the story, the New Party was designed specifically NOT to be a socialist party, and it wasn't. Now if you want to claim that fighting for a living wage of $10 an hour on tax funded projects, along with fair housing practices, means one is a 'socialist,' what are you saying about capitalism? That we should want people to work for third world wages and have no rights a landlord is bound to respect?
ReplyDeleteMr. Davidson:
ReplyDeleteWilliam Shakespeare wrote, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet.” Claim what you will about the New Party, one only has to go as far as its goals to recognize its political perspective.
Socialism and Communism sound good in theory, but when actually implemented, fail wretchedly in allowing individuals, with relatively few exceptions, to better their lives or realize their dreams. That is because the individual serves the state or government not himself. One only has to examine the average standard of living of the citizenry in the former Soviet Union, East and West Germany before the wall came down, and today’s North and South Korea to recognize the limitations these forms of government put on the human spirit.
The capitalist system that you and your colleagues hold in such disdain allows individuals, if they so choose, to know success. Oprah Winfrey, H. Wayne Huizenga, and Chris Gardner provide examples of what individuals can achieve if they are willing to put in the time and effort. How many children of migrants are the first in their families to graduate from high school, let alone from college? How many of what you would consider “down trodden” start their own businesses?
On the other hand, I will be the first to admit that the same system that allows for success also allows individuals to fail. But as is so frequently observed, the U.S. doesn’t have to build walls or put armed guards on its borders to keep its citizenry in.
The problem that I have with your so-called “fighting for a living wage” and other socialist ambitions is that your success is won at a significant cost to those who take personal responsibility for their own lives and their future. Why should a father who is willing to work two jobs to give his family the standard of living he chooses to provide be required to subsidize those who you and your colleagues feel should receive a higher wage? Why should a college student who is working his way through school be required to support a person who chooses not to improve his own standard of living?
Furthermore, how many jobs are lost because small businesses can’t afford to pay your living wage? How many high school and college kids do your efforts insure won’t be able to find a job?
You fail to acknowledge that no individual is held captive in life and has a myriad of opportunities to improve his life if he so chooses. Instead, you feel you have the right to force your views onto the rest of us and mandate that we financially subsidize your views. I suppose it is easier to take from working citizens than to assist your “clientele” in taking personal responsibility for improving themselves.