by Rob
SayAnythingBlog
January 4, 2010
Sure. Why not. The auto bailouts were about propping up America’s unionized domestic auto industry for the UAW. Why wouldn’t the “stimulus” be about preserving government jobs for the public workers’ unions?
Public-sector employment peaked at 22.6 million in August 2008. It fell a bit in 2009, then has rebounded back to 22.5 million in November. That’s less than a 1 percent decline.
This is not an accident; it is the result of deliberate public policy. About one-third of the $787 billion stimulus package passed in February 2009 was directed at state and local governments, which have been facing declining revenues and are, mostly, required to balance their budgets.
The policy aim, Democrats say, was to maintain public services and aid. The political aim, although Democrats don’t say so, was to maintain public-sector jobs—and the flow of union dues to the public employees unions that represent almost 40 percent of public-sector workers.
The “stimulus” was nothing but a big transfer of wealth from the private sector to the government, and then on to the unions. All paid for with money borrowed from China against our children’s future tax payments.
Because the tax dollars you and I will pay in for the rest of our lives has already been spent.
Hope for change.
