My take, simply, is that they want to change to voting from a primary system to a caucus. A primary is a private vote and a caucus is very public, and open to public pressure. A primary is less so. If you’ve ever participated in a caucus, you know what I mean.

You say it turns the tables from the employer as the “bullies” to the union. That is somewhat true – the union will be given a blank check to bully 50%+1 in order to force arbitration. Right now, BOTH management and the union have the opportunity to plead their case before the “primary”, and that is right, as both management and labor are the principals in the discussion. Under card-check, the union can quietly accumulate the necessary votes to force the union in, without management even having their say. If the two parties can’t come to an agreement, an arbitrator will dictate the terms. It is conceivable, and quite probable, that 50%-1 may never even see a card to check their preference. That, in my opinion, is unconscionable, and undemocratic.

It is true they won’t remove the current rule – 30% cards checked, goes to entire workforce private vote. They want to add the 50%+1 rule. That will make them work harder to get that, since it guarantees union representation in that workforce. Do you think they won’t use every tool they can to make that happen? Even if they DON’T talk to everyone? How would you feel if you were told one day, “We’re unionized, pay your dues” and you never knew it was coming?

I don’t hate unions, they serve an important purpose – ensuring that the labor that helps bring revenue to a company is properly compensated for their efforts. To that end, they have helped increase prosperity and the middle class, ensure fair workforce rules, and protect the worker from being taken advantage of. It’s American, and it’s right (how many unions were there in the Soviet Bloc countries? How much trouble did they cause? Solidarnosc, anyone?) . But they also can go too far, too much of a good thing and all that. See the current issues with the U.S. Automakers and their expensive labor problems – paying people to not work, for example. And the UAW won’t budge in order to save their own jobs. Amazing.

I get the feeling they don’t realize that the profitability of the companies has a direct impact on their membership – and the dues they pay to the union. Basically, no jobs, no union. They need to understand (again) that they are in somewhat of a partnership with management to ensure their company is a going concern – again no jobs, no union. They need to understand that compromise is vital if they want to still represent labor.

#1,2 &4 – I think we all would not have a problem with higher taxation – as long as it was across the board. A flat income tax (or the “fair tax”) we could understand and even get behind – as long as it funded legitimate expenses and was appropriate to these expenses. As far as the companies that would benefit – great! However, they are a only a certain segment of the small corporations around, and what happens when the money runs out? It’s probably true that infrastructure improvements have a long term benefit to the economy – the Eisenhower interstate freeways have immeasurably helped – but it takes decades to see the results (not that that’s a bad thing). Overall, “priming the pump” hasn’t worked as well as proponents have hoped – see the Japanese “lost decade” and even FDR’s efforts in the 30′s. I was in Japan early in that era, and I remember articles worrying it wouldn’t work – and they were right.

The best way (and faster than your Keynesian idea) to increase the GDP is to encourage business by NOT taking their money to be distributed by the government – and that is what is proposed, make no bones about it. Take the taxes out at the margin – lower the rates for those that aren’t public, and lower the capital gains rates for those that are. It has bee shown that they ultimately INCREASE total revenue to the federal government while increasing employment. Yes, “trickle-down” works. Ask Bill Clinton – he lowered capital gains and ended up with a budget surplus (not only his credit, but you get the idea). I know, it’s counter intuitive – lower taxes means more money. At a certain point, it’s no longer true. Obviously at a certain point, no taxes means no revenue. We need tax money to fund essentials of the government. There is a point of less return. but we are not there right now, and that fact proposes that we are OVERtaxed.

#5 – The market moves on it’s own. It takes into consideration many variables, including what the President says. His statements have done little to keep it up. You say it would be lower, I disagree. President Obama called the Dow “no more than a tracking poll”. In that, he is disastrously mistaken – a tracking poll is merely a gauge of opinion. The Dow (and the S&P 500 and the NASDAQ, etc.) carries REAL MONEY with it, and the fact that many “real Americans” retirement is tied up in the stock market means that many retirements are in jeopardy – many of those who Obama aims to help. IMHO, he would do better by dong nothing.