« Was Obama aware of this... (UPDATED) | Main | We are no longer the land of the free »

Big Pay Outs Beget Bigger Pay Offs

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.



TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (9)

Gotta love the MSNBC mug, t... (Below threshold)

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!

Odd, haven't we been told r... (Below threshold)

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?

So there gonna throw more o... (Below threshold)

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 [email protected]!.

Municipalities don't have t... (Below threshold)

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.

These would be the same uni... (Below threshold)

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.

Hey, you gotta have priorit... (Below threshold)

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.

"They didn't loot the pensi... (Below threshold)

"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%.


Why dont they put that mone... (Below threshold)
retired military:

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.

...defend the union's... (Below threshold)
John S:

...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.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy