This is the way the unions, big government and big business profit, by and large. There are incidents of this type of thing going on all of the time. One, I'll blog on in a month so when I gather more information in what I am pursuing. It needs to play itself out. What I have learned so far, makes me angry and it will make some of my readers, a little disappointed as a big name company and some politicans APPEAR to be involved.
Back scratching. Tomorrow night as the Council votes on the Gary Matthews potential profit without risk hotel venture. Do you think Eric Turner would turn on his "handlers" (Think Big Yellow) and the union card carrying members of the Council would turn on their handlers? After all, we need jobs. Right? No matter that what they build that is taxpayer supported in the next couple of years, the taxpayer will be paying for these public funded or taxpayer guaranteed projects ad infintum. The short term benefit for workers belonging to unions and a select few who will manage the finished product. And long time benefits for union bosses. The rest of the employees may be paid a minimum living wage, not the high paying jobs so many of our politicians have promised us.
Any taxpayer supported projects built within the past 10 years that employ people at more than a bare living wage after they are built? Any on the drawing boards like the museum?
BelWood, perhaps but this facility costs NOW the property tax payer $2 million a year and growing. What will it cost when the $51 million replacement is built??
They say "get used to it". Maybe the new independents will be a major factor in FINDING AND GETTING PEOPLE ELECTED who will say no at least 10% of the time. I blogged where surveys showed that politicians say "no" less that 3% of the time. What money it costs them, is made up in genourus salaries, paid health plans and sizable pensions.
And a guaranteed job forever.
Here is the email forwarded to me. Some may recall, I blogged on this blatant travesty prior to the election. This was printed in the JS but no columnist from the big media pointed out the obvious political implications and the eventual payback.
the top right hand corner of page 17 of the New
York Post, January 24,
2009, was a column entitled,
"Replacing Michelle" in the National Review,
Here it is, as it appeared, below:
employees are simply irreplaceable. Take Michelle
University of Chicago Medical center hired
her in 2002 to run 'programs
relations, neighborhood outreach, volunteer
diversity and minority
In 2005 the hospital raised
her salary from $120,000 to $317,000 nearly
what her husband made as a Senator. Her husband, Barak
Obama, had just become a US Senator. He sure had. He
requested a $1 million earmark for the UC Medical
Center, in fact. Way to network, Michelle!
that Mrs.... Obama has resigned, the hospital says her
remain unfilled. How can that be, if the
work she did was vital enough to
Let me add that Michelle's position was
a part time, 20 hour a week job."
How did this bit of quid pro quo corruption escape the
reporters that dug through Sarah Palin's
garbage and kindergarten files?
I hope this
is forwarded so many times that the media will HAVE to
-- For every action, there is an
equal and opposite government program.