From The Hill:
Unions to spend $100M in 2010 campaign to save Democrat majorities.
"The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) plans to spend in excess of $50 million during the 2010 campaign, part of which will fund "a massive incumbent protection program," according to Gerry McEntee, president of the union.AFSCME spent roughly $67 million on its political activities in 2008. But the $50 million slated for the 2010 elections is the largest expenditure the union will make in a midterm election, according to union officials. The money will go to help defend the union's top tier of eight Senate seats and 34 House members.
"We have got to protect the incumbency in the House. We have got to protect the incumbency in the Senate," McEntee said. "It is going to be hard. Those tea-baggers are out there. There is an anti-incumbency mood out there.""
Protectionism. Cronyism. Payoffs. Look for the union label.
And you thought politicians were only in the pocket of Big Business.
Plus, there's Obama's buds - the SEIU which "plans to spend $44 million in total on its 2010 election program. The union spent $85 million on its 2008 campaign, according to union officials."
Their chief worry, of course, being those evil "tea-baggers."
I, for one, am surprised. Who knew so many democrats were queer and eager to suck the sweat off those Red, White & Blue TEA bags??
Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Embrace your inner TEA bagger.
TY L
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Big government, Unions
Comments (9)
Gotta love the MSNBC mug, t... (Below threshold)1. Posted by TexBob | May 21, 2010 12:43 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Gotta love the MSNBC mug, the Alinksy book, and Stretch Pelosi's picture at the end of the video getting hammered by wet soggy tea bags!
1. Posted by TexBob | May 21, 2010 12:43 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on May 21, 2010 12:43
2. Posted by GarandFan | May 21, 2010 12:46 PM | Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
Odd, haven't we been told repeatedly that the Tea Party is a 'fringe movement' and nothing to worry about?
Now their spending $100 million to combat a 'nothing' threat?
2. Posted by GarandFan | May 21, 2010 12:46 PM |
Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
Posted on May 21, 2010 12:46
3. Posted by 914 | May 21, 2010 12:55 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
So there gonna throw more of our hard earned cash down the poop shoot?
They got as much chance of staying in power as Barry does of creating one legitimate job, which is to say Zilch@!.
3. Posted by 914 | May 21, 2010 12:55 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on May 21, 2010 12:55
4. Posted by Oyster | May 21, 2010 1:07 PM | Score: 9 (11 votes cast)
Municipalities don't have the funds to pay government employees or pensions for their retirees, but their union has $50M to toss at politicians that will continue to kowtow to their demands which will cost taxpayers even more money. Disgusting.
4. Posted by Oyster | May 21, 2010 1:07 PM |
Score: 9 (11 votes cast)
Posted on May 21, 2010 13:07
5. Posted by MikeNC | May 21, 2010 1:15 PM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
These would be the same unions whose pensions funds are broke and want to be bailed out by us taxpayers and companies who have been responsible with their pension funds.
5. Posted by MikeNC | May 21, 2010 1:15 PM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on May 21, 2010 13:15
6. Posted by JLawson | May 21, 2010 1:30 PM | Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
Hey, you gotta have priorities. What's more important - giving money you promised out to old folks, or making sure the money keeps rolling on in to 'support the union'?
My wife's dad was in a unionized steel mill. The perqs were great - one year the union arranged for all the employees to have two months 'vacation time', a one-time sabattical sort of thing. They had a good summer, driving all over the country. The next year, the union got them ANOTHER two-month sabattical. One time good deal - let the good times roll!
The third year, the mill went out of business and the union guys moved elsewhere. Too bad, so sad, but they promised to be back if the mill opened again!
They didn't loot the pension completely - that was one good thing to say for 'em.
Somehow, union control of the country just doesn't seem like a good idea to me at all.
6. Posted by JLawson | May 21, 2010 1:30 PM |
Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
Posted on May 21, 2010 13:30
7. Posted by GarandFan | May 21, 2010 2:52 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
"They didn't loot the pension completely - that was one good thing to say for 'em."
There was a study published awhile back. Seems union bosses have their pensions funded at 100%. The workers, IF they're luck, have theirs funded between 45-65%.
Priorities.
7. Posted by GarandFan | May 21, 2010 2:52 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on May 21, 2010 14:52
8. Posted by retired military | May 21, 2010 3:43 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Why dont they put that money into their pension plans to try to get it more solvent?
Oh wait, I forgot that is what they have taxpayers for.
8. Posted by retired military | May 21, 2010 3:43 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on May 21, 2010 15:43
9. Posted by John S | May 23, 2010 10:44 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
...defend the union's top tier of eight Senate seats and 34 House members...
That's interesting wording. I assume these are the 44 Democrats that the union OWNS and controls. In two years politicians like this will be hanging from light posts.
9. Posted by John S | May 23, 2010 10:44 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on May 23, 2010 10:44