One of the unsung heroes of this administration has been Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, who has used her discretionary power to strengthen reporting requirements for unions, bringing more transparency and accountability to what the Big Labor bosses do with the dues their members pay. (You can view them at UnionReports.gov.)

In an indication that Chao and Co. aren’t taking their foot off the gas, the Department of Labor yesterday issued new guidance under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) that would make it harder for unions to engage in what is known as “shareholder activism.”

Currently, unions often invest retirement dollars in shares of corporate stock not to maximize return for workers, but to force management to address union concerns. The Labor Department says that is no longer allowable. According to a DOL press release:

The guidance reiterates that plan fiduciaries, who are charged by law with the responsibility for operating employee benefit plans on behalf of plan participants, may never increase expenses, sacrifice investment returns, or reduce the security of plan benefits in order to promote legislative, regulatory or public policy goals that have no connection to the payment of benefits or plan administrative expenses.

It speaks volumes about the modern labor movement that the Department of Labor has to issue guidance to unions telling them to put their workers first.

Fox News is reporting that the ACORN office in Las Vegas, Nevada was raided today as part of a voter fraud investigation. The raid was prompted by “ongoing complaints about ‘erroneous’ registration information” being submitted by ACORN under the Project Vote voter sign-up drive.

“Some of them used nonexistent names, some of them used false addresses and some of them were duplicates of previously filed applications,” [a spokesman for the Nevada Secretary of State] said, describing the complaints, which largely came from the registrar in Clark County, Nev. He said some registrations used the names of Dallas Cowboys football players.

This is the same ACORN that 1.) has a history of voter fraud, 2. ) Democrats in Congress wanted to reward with potentially billion of dollars in the financial rescue bill before Republicans stopped them, and 3.) Barack Obama worked with when he was a community organizer to intimidate banks into making subprime loans to people who could not afford them. How can Democrats continue defending this group?

The Employee Freedom Action Committee is hitting the airwaves tonight with a new TV ad featuring Sen. George McGovern trashing the so-called Employee Free Choice Act, which would do away with the secret ballot for union elections and replace it with a “card check” system that merely requires a majority of workers to sign a card to unionize. You can see it here.

Of course, a card check system would be an open invitation to intimidation, fraud, and coercion by labor thugs. The ad comes on the heels of an opinion column by McGovern in the Wall Street Journal two months ago in which McGovern chided his party for not respecting secret ballots union elections, writing:

I worry that there has been too little discussion about EFCA’s true ramifications, and I think much of the congressional support is based on a desire to give our friends among union leaders what they want. But part of being a good steward of democracy means telling our friends “no” when they press for a course that in the long run may weaken labor and disrupt a tried and trusted method for conducting honest elections.

Enacting card check would be a disaster for this country. Andy Stern is head of the 1.9 million-member Service Employees International Union, which is planning to spend upwards of $75 million to elect liberal Democrats. He is a big believer in expanding union power through expanding union membership. (For more on what Stern is up to, see this NRO column by Carl Horowitz, “Labor and Immigration.”) Stern estimates that passage of card check would result in 1.5 million new union members per year for 10-15 years.

Right now, private sector unions collect $7 billion in annual dues and use a hefty amount of that on pushing their radical left-wing agenda – an amount that would swell with millions more dues-paying members. Without card check, private sector union membership will continue to decline. So not only is card check an illegitimate attempt to deny workers a fundamental right, it essentially represents the last gasp of a dying movement.

Barack Obama has pledged support for card check and if he becomes president the only thing standing between the bill and enactment would be the Senate. But if Democrats are successful in getting to 60 seats in the senate, card check has a very good chance of becoming the law of the land.

Joe Eule

This blog can also be read at Freedom’s Watch.

In a posting on The Hill‘s blog, Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope says more offshore drilling will do “nothing to lower gas prices” and bemoans the fact that Americans now “struggle” to fill up their tanks. But since when does the Sierra Club care about high gas prices? The Sierra Club likes higher gas prices.

Here is the same Carl Pope in an op-ed on the Sierra Club’s own website:

Every civilization has its blind spots – ideas so profoundly embedded in the culture that they are rarely even debated, but so fundamentally flawed that they can steer a whole society onto the rocks…Our own folly is cheap fuel.

The sub-headline of the article reads, “We’re better off without cheap gas”

Don’t you feel better off?

Yet instead of celebrating the high gas prices they have always wanted, the Sierra Club is now trying to convince us that they’re really on our side. Sure.

And ask yourself, who benefits from the higher gas prices the Sierra Club and Pope advocate? I’ll let Pope answer: “While Americans struggle to fill up their tanks, oil companies are raking in record profits.”

For those of you who are confused, here is Pope’s’ position in a nutshell: The Sierra Club supports the higher gas prices that have led to the record oil company profits that the Sierra Club now condemns in a blog post bemoaning high gas prices. Got it?

Apparently chutzpah is not an endangered species at the Sierra Club.

Joe Eule

The Democrats are hoping to use the turmoil in the stock market to scare seniors in a typical election year smear. They’re charging that if Republicans had their way, all their Social Security would be “tied up” in the stock market. Of course, it is simply not true, as this article in The Politico shows.

However, there is one politician who promoted investing Social Security in the stock market: Bill Clinton.

In his 1999 State of the Union address, Clinton proposed investing $700 billion of the Social Security Trust Fund surplus in the stock market, which would have made the U.S. Government the biggest player on Wall Street.

Clinton’s $700 billion plan was subject to intense debate, with Alan Greenspan telling senators that it would be impossible to keep political considerations out of investment decisions (my guess it would be “No” to profitiable fast food, oil, and cigarette companies, but “Yes’ to risky green industries) and therefore it would not be the most productive use of capital. The plan eventually died a well-deserved death.

So before Democrats go about casting stones on voluntary privatization efforts, they should remember their own history in this regard.

Mind you, I do not follow Detroit politics. I’m not that much of a masochist. But I work with someone who is a Michigan native and who keeps me informed about the goings on in the Motor City.

Thus came the news into my email box that the former head of the city council, Ken Cockrel, was today sworn in as mayor, taking over from Kwame Kilpatrick who, as you recall, is going to jail in the wake of the “sex and text” scandal.

Cockrel became something of a minor celebrity earlier in the year when he was called “Shrek” by Monica Conyers, wife of House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI), during a city council meeting. Check out this hilarious video report by the Detroit News. Be sure to watch the entire thing to see how Conyers handles a group of schoolchildren with questions about her behavior. The second schoolgirl in particular does a stellar job in skewering Conyers’ lame excuses. The conclusion is inescapable: that schoolgirl, and not Monica Conyers, should be on the city council.

One thing is clear – Cockrel has an impossible job ahead of him.

Joe Eule

This post can also be read at the Freedom’s Watch blog.

The Hill reports the good news that the “Gang of 20” will not be offering an energy bill before Congress leaves for good this fall. Instead, they will offer a “statement of principals” (sic) on a wide range of energy issues.

According to an aide quoted in the story, the Gang will come back next year with a legislative proposal. Lucky for us if we play our cards right we won’t need an energy bill next year. If the president and pro-exploration members of Congress stick to their guns and refuse to go along with a renewal of the offshore ban (which also locks up oil shale fields in the West), it will simply expire on October 1, allowing access to at least 65% of America’s undiscovered, recoverable oil, and 40% of its natural gas

Given Dick Durbin’s comments the other day and the grim economic news, we now have a better than even chance of ending the ban without new taxes, new subsidies, or new regulations. Republicans in Congress and the president must seize it!

Joe Eule

Manchester United is the largest sports team in the world and its team shirt is recognized just about everywhere. Emblazoned on the front is the logo of the team’s sponsor: AIG. Yep, that AIG.

Since AIG is now 80 percent owned by the Federal Reserve Board, I think it’s time to update the Man. U. shirt, and offer the following before and after images.

Joe Eule

On Good Morning America we got a lesson in patriotism from Joe Biden, who said paying higher taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthy Americans.

“It’s time to be patriotic … time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.”

First, imposing higher taxes on so-called “wealthier” Americans (even when the spokeman of one such American claims he’s struggling) is hardly the stuff of true patriotism. Patriotism is not something that can be forced on people, but must come from within. I suppose one could argue it’s the difference between volunteering for the military and being drafted. The act is the same (military service), but the motivations behind it are different.

Second, in Obama’s speech addressing his “patriotism problem,” he told us that “the dissent of ordinary Americans may be the truest expression of patriotism.” So I say it’s time to practice some Obama-style patriotism and dissent from this destructive tax increase that will only further weaken our economy and hurt not just the wealthy, but the rest of us as well.

Finally, Calvin Coolidge once said, “Patriotism in is easy to understand in America. It means looking out for yourself by looking out for your country.” Not looking out for your government, as Biden implies, but your country. And as long as liberal Democrats keep equating America the country with the American government, they will continue to struggle electorally.

Joe Eule

This blog post can also be viewed at the Freedom’s Watch website.

Rep. Barney Frank and his Democratic allies in Congress have a long history of claiming that concerns over the soundness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were overblown, as evidenced by this New York Times story from September 2003.

“These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

“I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.

Frank may defend his sorry record on Fannie and Freddie, but The Wall Street Journal blows the lid on his ridiculous excuses. One thing is for certain, with the failures of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the collapse of the housing sector, Reps. Frank and Watt have got their wish – affordable housing. Indeed, housing prices are becoming more affordable by the day – if, that is, you can find a lender.

Joe Eule

The news for those of us pushing for more American energy exploration gets better and better. Senator Dick Durbin tells The Hill * newspaper that Democrats might not be able to continue the nearly 30-year-old moratorium on oil and gas exploration off the Outer Continental Shelf and in the oil-shale fields of the West. The ban is set to expire on October 1. Reports *The Hill:

Democrats had considered pushing through the stopgap [spending] resolution with the offshore drilling ban and daring the GOP to block the measure, which would shut down the federal government just weeks before Election Day. But they now seem reluctant for such a high-profile fight before Nov. 4.

“That will be hard to do, at this point,” Durbin said of extending the offshore drilling ban. “As you can see, we’re making some concessions on the issue.”

Under withering pressure from Republicans and the American people who overwhelmingly support new drilling, Democrats clearly have made concessions – but they don’t go nearly far enough. Indeed, the House-passed bill is a joke. Republicans have an excellent opportunity to end the ban on offshore drilling without any new taxes, regulations, or subsidies simply by refusing to go along with the ban’s renewal. In other words, the ban is lifted if Congress does nothing.

If Senate Republicans instead decide to go along with the plan being pushed by the “Gang of 16,” which would keep massive quantities of oil and gas off limits while increasing taxes, it would be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. This is one time we really need a “Do Nothing” Congress.

Joe Eule

Byron York over at NRO has a good piece on the paltry charitable giving of Joe Biden. According to ten year’s worth of Biden tax returns, the senator and his wife contributed about one-eighth of one percent (0.0015%) of what they earned to charity, well below the two percent average of American households. During that time Biden’s adjusted gross income (AGI) ranged from about $215,000 to $320,000.

Biden spokesman David Wade says the figures are not an accurate reflection of Biden’s support of charitable causes because they don’t count the time he volunteers or the other kinds of non-monetary support he provides. And then this:

*Wade also suggests that Biden, who is famous for being the least wealthy member of the U.S. Senate, simply doesn’t have piles of money to give. “Like a lot of families that put three kids through college and have an aging parent move in with them, the Bidens aren’t divorced from the realities of everyday life,” Wade says. *

Hmmm. The Senator had $320,000 in AGI last year and it sounds like he’s struggling a bit financially. How can that be? According to Barack Obama’s economic plan that level of income puts Biden among the “wealthiest” of Americans. Indeed, not only would Obama subject individuals making more than $250,000 to higher Social Security payroll taxes, but they would also face higher marginal rates as a result of Obama’s wanting to eliminate the Bush tax cuts.

Doesn’t Wade’s admission that a family earning $320,000 a year isn’t “divorced from the realities of everyday life” destroy the underlying assumption of the Obama tax plan, to wit that someone earning $250,000 (some $70,000 less than the Bidens made) is wealthy?

So which is it? Is Biden wealthy as Obama’s tax plan declares? Or is he struggling as his spokesman says?

Joe Eule