DeVos speaks, MIGOP listens

Why are state Republicans still listening to DeVos?

Republicans who control the state Senate got a pep talk Tuesday from GOP businessman and 2006 gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos.

DeVos, who lost to Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm in the November election and is rumored to be eyeing another bid, spoke for 20 to 30 minutes during a Senate GOP caucus meeting at the start of session. [...]

DeVos said Republicans outside Lansing support the GOP's stance that significant structural changes in government must be made before there is any consideration of a tax increase.

I guess the party feels obligated because the man spent millions of dollars of his own money trying to unseat Gov. Granholm, but the fact that he was trounced should be a clue that the public finds him as irrelevant as George Bush.

Seriously. DeVos based his election on somewhat dubious, if not downright untruthful claims. He ran around crowing that, "49 other states are doing great. 49 other states are moving forward. 49 other states are adding jobs. And yet, Michigan is the only one lagging behind," and he placed the blame squarely on Gov. Granholm.

That's not how several papers saw it. As the Ludington News Daily said, "The near collapse of the Big Three is not the fault of the Legislature nor the governor. It’s in part the fault of the Big Three for failing to adapt to a global economy, work together with their unions to comply with that increased competition and changing consumer desires."

It wasn't how the voters saw it either. CNN reported that the economy nearly tied Iraq as the reason voters across the country came out to vote last November.

DeVos also ran a series of ads about our depressed housing market and the glut of homes on the market. The implication was that housing was doing great in 49 other states. Yeah, right. Foreclosures rates have been growing across the country since last spring, right about the time DeVos started running his first campaign ads.

From ABC News:

New data released this afternoon indicates that one in every 656 homes in the United States went into foreclosure during May. [...]

"The principal source of the slowdown in economic growth that began last spring has been the substantial correction in the housing market," said Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke in a speech in late March. [emphasis added]

Michigan currently ranks eighth among states, with one in every 448 homes in foreclosure, but we're certainly not alone in our misery like DeVos wanted us to believe.

Aside from the misleading and disingenuous twisting of facts, why are state Republicans listening to DeVos on taxes? He supports the GOP's stance that structural changes in government must be made before there is any consideration of a tax increase, yet he and his family are willing to let taxpayers help build a new stadium for their basketball team in Orlando. If they don't see this as a double standard, shame on them.

And what about the millions of taxpayer dollars that benefit his brother-in-law, Eric Prince, owner of Blackwater Security? I've never heard DeVos raise objections about that money, not even when it came to light that Rep. Henry Waxman wrote Sec. Donald Rumsfeld requesting answers as to why taxpayers paid exorbitant prices for Blackwater's services. Waxman is still waiting for those answers (and so is the public).

And why are state Republicans listening to DeVos when they should be questioning him and his family about Blackwater's lack of transparency and accountability: Blackwater Heavies Sue Families of Slain [Fallujah] Employees for $10 Million in Brutal Attempt to Suppress Their Story.

If taxpayer money provides funding for Blackwater Security, then taxpayers deserve to know if the company cut corners in order to maximize profit - and in the process jeopardized those mens' lives. Surely, Michigan's GOP believes in accountability and transparency, right?

Whatever their reason for listening to DeVos, there's an old adage they might want to consider: When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. They need to ask themselves if that's a risk they're willing to take. It hasn't worked out so well for many Bush loyalists and it just might not work out so well for them either.

Steelworkers union gets Wall Street attention

It's not too often a paper like the Wall Street Journal writes a positive story about a union (if ever), but as the AFL-CIO blog points out, even Wall Street can't help but admire success.

Today’s Wall Street Journal takes note of the United Steelworkers (USW) successful corporate strategies. As the Journal writes, the union’s

…strategy, rather than simply to pound the table for higher pay or threaten strikes, is to block takeovers, take sides in bidding wars and fight for board seats.

The paper cites the example of Brazilian steel corporation CSN, which maneuvered last year to merge with Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp.

The USW wanted what it considered a more union-friendly bidder than CSN, and found one in Chicago upstart Esmark Inc. Executives of Esmark promised that if they got hold of Wheeling-Pitt, there would be no union layoffs there. The union threw its weight behind Esmark, which then mounted a fierce proxy fight to oust the Wheeling-Pitt board. In November, it won handily.

“We turned the entire board over in one day—little old Steelworkers and little old Esmark,” says Ron Bloom, the steel union’s point man in the battle.

Bloom is the economic advisor and assistant to International Union President, Leo Gerard, and he's also a former Wall Street investment banker who joined the USW as a strategy advisor in 1996. His pedigree as a former Wall Streeter may be one reason the WSJ wrote about the union, but he definitely has some populist ideas that show concern and respect for those of us who worry about losing our jobs to outsourcing.

Here's a sample of some remarks Bloom delivered last year to the INSOL International Annual Regional Conference [pdf] [emphasis mine]:

We certainly acknowledge that we live in a global market economy, but we make no apology for our belief that the market does not adequately express the value of labor. This is the fundamental reason why workers act collectively—so that they can achieve more for themselves than the market would otherwise provide.

Now we happen to believe that this structure is an intrinsic part of a democratic and just society. But whether you agree with that or not, the fact is that in normal times, and even more so in an insolvency, when everything is both figuratively and literally up for grabs, you should expect that we will use our collective strength to protect what we have worked so hard to achieve.

I also cannot help noting that I find it more than a little incongruous to be told by someone making more in an hour than a pensioner receives in a month that pension benefits and the union who helped secure them are the cause of the company’s problem.

Amen.