SALEM, N.H. — Mitt Romney on Thursday branded President Obama a “crony capitalist” for making three appointments to the National Labor Relations Board without Congressional approval, suggesting the move was a reward to organized labor for its political support.
“This president has engaged and is engaging in crony capitalism,” Mr. Romney said. “It is happening with the Labor Relations Board.”
It was an unusually pointed and personal attack on Mr. Obama, whom Mr. Romney has long sought to portray as an overzealous advocate for labor unions, and it appeared deliberately timed to appeal to Republican primary voters in South Carolina: the state has relatively relaxed union rules and a labor board decision involving a Boeing airline plant there has stirred widespread anger.
Also too, please note one of the appointees is a Republican.
Okay, let’s just get out of the way that he has reversed the meaning of the phrase in trying to make his point:
Crony capitalism is a term describing a capitalist economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, and so forth.
since a government appointment is not one of the ‘rewards’. Yet he continues on this line of accusation:
“This president is a crony capitalist,” Mr. Romney said. “He is a job killer.”
The president’s relationship with organized labor has become the focus of Mr. Romney’s central critique of the Obama presidency: that it promotes an “entitlement society” driven by government spending and judgments, rather than the rules of the free market.
“You know he said he wanted to create green jobs,” Mr. Romney said of the president. “I don’t think we understood that he wants to give jobs to the people who gave him the green.”
Unfortunately Mittney fails to explain how supporting unions equates to being a ‘job killer’, something which Romney himself has been accurately accused of, just today.
I think we know who the job killer is, Mittney.
Monthly Archives: January 2012
Out Late
This can’t end well
Getting Some Exercise
Corporations are People My Friends?
A Breath of Fresh Air
Love letter to the UPS man It’s been a while but it reminded me how very much I love UPS Men. For a moment, I even forgot about my current William Holden obsession. Well, not really, but it made an inroad. I know I am not alone in this. When I used to work for the Smithsonian, and Red Cross, and other companies, I worked with a lot of women. So the ladies and I used to wait in unmentioned anticipation every day for the UPS man to come in and light up our dull office routine for a few minutes. What IS it about UPS men? Why are they always in a good mood? Is it because every woman in reception quickly stops and swivels around when he comes in to check out those legs in the cute brown shorts? Is that why? Anyway, it was always a little thrill to sign for those packages and exchange a few inane pleasantries. Then watch him go. Of course, the minute he was gone, we all started talking about him. Sigh! The UPS Man. Like a little Hershey’s kiss in man form.
A UPS man in a truck let me cut in on Route 50 tonight and I saw a flash of bare leg.
UPS Pilots Union Sues FAA Challenging New Anti-Fatigue Rules
Dec. 22 (Bloomberg) — The union representing United Parcel Service Inc. pilots is challenging the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration’s decision to exempt the crew of cargo planes from rules aimed at combating fatigue. The Independent Pilots Association filed a lawsuit today in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington seeking to have cargo operators covered “because of the safety benefits provided by the rule,” William Trent, the union’s general counsel, said in an e-mailed statement. The FAA yielded to “unprecedented industry pressure” when it exempted cargo airlines in the new rules, Robert Travis, president of the pilots group, said yesterday after the regulation was published. Laura Brown, an FAA spokeswoman, didn’t immediately respond to a telephone message seeking comment on the lawsuit. The FAA rules, which take effect in two years, require that passenger-airline pilots work shorter shifts and get longer rest periods. It was the first revision of rest rules since 1985. While the agency had proposed applying the new measures to cargo-carrier pilots, the final rule exempted them because the costs were too steep, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said yesterday. The pilots’ union argued that the FAA let cargo operators submit information about costs of complying with the rule after the comment period ended, and the data weren’t subjected to public scrutiny. “The rule is wholly and utterly opaque when it comes to providing any factual support for the cost benefit conclusions,” Trent said in the statement. Mike Mangeot, a UPS spokesman, declined to comment on the union’s lawsuit. “The bottom line is that the FAA made the right decision,” he said in an e-mail. “Cargo flying is different than passenger flying.” The case is Independent Pilots Association v. Federal Aviation Administration, 11-1483, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (Washington).