More Evidence Of The Stimulus Payoff

The Associated Builders and Contractors today denounced the repeal of Executive Order 13202. Barack Obama repealed the EO which “prohibited federal agencies and recipients of federal funding from requiring contractors to sign union-only project labor agreements (PLAs) as a condition of performing work on federal and federally funded construction projects.”

Obama repealed the EO so now agencies can make union only agreements when bidding out the projects funded with taxpayer money. This is a payoff for union support.

There is no other reason to repeal EO13202 since companies that use union employees were free to bid on contracts. The EO prevented agencies from requiring companies to use union employees but never prevented them from competing with companies that did not.

Typically, non union labor is not as costly and bids are more reasonable. The repeal of the EO will, according to ABC, discriminate against 84% of the construction workforce:

“Construction contracts subject to union-only PLAs are designed to be awarded exclusively to unionized contractors and their all-union workforces,” said Pickerel. “Absent the economic benefits of competitive bidding, union-only PLAs are known to increase construction costs between 10 percent and 20 percent and discriminate against minorities, women and qualified construction workers who have traditionally been excluded from union membership.

“Union-only PLAs drive up costs for American taxpayers while unfairly discriminating against 84 percent of U.S. construction workers who choose not to join a labor union,” added Pickerel. “All taxpayers should have the opportunity to compete fairly on any project funded by the federal government.” ABC Press Release

The so called stimulus plan is nothing more than a spending bill that is designed to put in place a bunch of items Democrats have tried to get for a long time. Despite their assurances that no “pork” would be in the bill, the thing is comprised almost entirely of pork projects that do little, if anything, to stimulate the economy.

The bill is a payoff and the repeal of EO 13202 is another step in the process of rewarding those who supported the sainted one.

Look for more of this as Democrats work to pay off debts and to build stronger support for the next election.

Change we can believe in?

As far as I am concerned, they can keep the change.

Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

14 Responses to “More Evidence Of The Stimulus Payoff”

  1. Adam says:

    You’re such a whistle blower. I don’t know how you found out. The Democrats worked so hard to keep it a secret but somehow you found it out and you’ve gone public with it: The Democrats support unions! Oh NO!

    What have the Democrats wanted to get for a long time that they couldn’t do now that they control everything? Why do you think they have to wrap it all up in a spending bill and argue over it when they could clearly tackle it piece by piece if that was the issue? You think they can’t get contraceptives and NEA funding any other way? You’re kidding yourself. Whether you like it or not Obama and his economic advisers and his support in Congress believe this stimulus package will help America.

    Whether it will work is a whole other conversation.

    And enough with the “it’s not a stimulus bill it’s a spending bill” nonsense you’re parroting. There’s a reason you won’t find many Democrats trying to rebuke you on that point…because they believe spending IS stimulus.

  2. Big Dog says:

    Adam,
    The way I see it you are parroting Obama with his spending is the point.

    Not all spending is stimulus. And any stimulus that MIGHT be realized from spending on the NEA is negligible as is the stimulus on most of the bill. There is little to be gained from making a dog park or frisbee golf course. These items benefit a small portion of the population and cost way more than necessary while providing few jobs.

    The Democrats could not get these things if introduced separately. They try to hide them in a thousand page bill. There would be no Republican support for contraceptives or STD prevention or a dog park and they could block it in the Senate. It is easier for the left to use the economy as a reason to get all kinds of thinsg passed.

    Remember the ballerina, never let a good crisis go to waste. Use it ti get things you could not normally get.

    Yes, Democrats support unions but it is not the government’s business to provide them an unfair playing field by allowing union only contracts. That is using taxpayer money to discriminate.

    That would be no different than saying only straight people could work on a project. Discrimination is discrimination.

    I know the liberals have a hard time with that because they are challenged upstairs…

    You can say spending is stimulus but if that were the case Einstein we would have no problem because, as you and Obama pointed out, Bush spent a lot of money.

  3. Adam says:

    I have said already that it depends on what you spend it on. About the only thing I can think of that Bush spent on that actually stimulates anything other than the bank accounts of the rich is defense spending. That’s always a shovel ready project as I’m sure you’ll agree.

    I have my doubts that this package will be effective simply because it’s not large enough in size or money. It’s been cut up and watered down through “bipartisanship” until it is most likely not going to work well and then the Democrats will suffer the consequences.

  4. Barbara says:

    Ok Adam, where do you think this extra money is coming from that you think should go into the stimulus package? I guess just print some more worthless money. Do you realize what you are doing to our great and great-great grandchildren. They are the ones who will suffer and yet, this debt will never get paid off. Of course, you don’t care about others, only what you want.

  5. Adam says:

    Barbara:

    Why so concerned about grand children now? I know it’s hard to swallow a Democrat raising the debt for a change since it’s usually just Republicans that drive up record deficits, but relax, this thing might just work…

    • Big Dog says:

      Adam, Reppublicans were responsible for about half of the last 8 years. Democrats were in charge for part of the time.

      And really, Democrats have been the party of tax and SPEND for a very long time.

      I know that your lifetime might say it is all Republicans but history tells us otherwise.

  6. Bunny Colvin says:

    Hey Dog-

    Whatever happened with that fiction that you and a few other amateur sleuths uncovered about the big ACORN payoff in the stimulus bill?

    You’re not credible

  7. Adam says:

    Remember, it was the Democrats that caused the Reagan and Bush record deficits and the Republicans that caused the Clinton deficit reductions and surpluses, and the Democrats who caused the 1st and 2nd recessions and the deficits in the Bush 43 years. The buck stops…somewhere over there….

  8. Big Dog says:

    Bunny,
    I think there has been enough discussion about this ACORN business. The news, the newspapers and other sources. ACORN was not mentioned by name but they stand to make big gains. I know it is hard for you to see.

    All of 2001 (until November when Republicans took control but the Senate was out of session)
    From 2007-2009

    3 out of 5 years is, as I wrote, about half.

  9. Big Dog says:

    Adam, remember THERE WAS NEVER A SURPLUS. Clinton left with a deficit. The government’s official numbers show a deficit. There was never a surplus. I wish you would educate yourself.

    However, Republicans were in control when the deficits were reduced (during Clinton).

    They are all guilty of spending too much. Democrats had control for 40 years until 1994 so they were the big spenders.

    Let us not forget that Reagan’s tax cuts brought more money into the treasury just like Bush’s did. Congress spent the extra money that came in.

    Tax cuts have always increased revenue to the government. Unfortunately, government does not know how to control spending.

    This so called stimulus is an example. A lot of money that will do nothing.

    The Democrats held control of at least one chamber during Reagan’s entire presidency.

  10. Bunny Colvin says:

    Dog- With your detective skills I think that you should be hunting terr’sts, not imaginary ACORN earmarks. Let this “revolution” of yours wait. Put it on the back burner for a bit. Use your secret decoder ring to find Bin Laden. Then you’ll have the street cred to start your revolution!

  11. Adam says:

    You wish I’d educate myself? I wish you’d stop revising history. They don’t teach total bull of this caliber in any normal school in America. Sorry. Clinton had a surplus, get over it.

    Unless of course you change the way a “surplus” is calculated conveniently to no longer match what the CBO calls a “surplus.” Revise away…

    • Big Dog says:

      Adam, I am including a link to educate you. The graph you provide is a graph that only includes public debt. That is how government calculates debt. They DO NOT include intergovernmental debt. As the article points out, Social Security takes in more than it pays out and quite a bit more during Clinton when we had the dot com bubble. Anything not paid out, by law, must be used to purchase treasury bonds. The government spends the money but when they calculate debt they DO NOT include it even thought they owe it. The article spells out how government counts debt.

      There are charts for each year showing how much debt the US had and you will notice that each year has debt. It you have debt there is no surplus.

      I doubt you will read it and if you do it is likely you will either not understand it or will ignore it because it does not follow your belief. He also addresses the graph you displayed and shows why it is inaccurate. Follow the links to the government’s own numbers.

      Let me say it again, there was no surplus during Clinton’s term (and we have had debt for a very long time). This is not revision, it is being intelligent enough to understand the way things are done.

      So to be clear, I did not change the way you calculate a surplus, the government did. You cannot exclude debt when calculating. Then again, the products of public school still believe this.

      Read it here and then continue with YOUR revisionist history.