A Contest: Which Story Is More Upsetting?

Here's a change of pace. Instead of doing separate blog posts on the following two stories, I'm curious to see which one generates the most irritation/anger/disgust from you readers. The first option comes from the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, which is appropriately upset that Government Motors...oops, I mean General Motors...is back in the business of lobbying and dishing out campaign contributions. I don't think there's anything wrong with petitioning government and participating in the political process, but I don't think individuals or companies should be doing it with money taken from me by a coercive government.

General Motors is 61%-owned by American taxpayers, who were less than thrilled when forced to buy GM by Presidents Bush and Obama. We can only imagine how M's unwilling owners will react now that the company is once again spending freely on lobbying and political campaigns. The Journal reports that the company has been particularly kind lately to Midwestern Democratic incumbents while shovelling out a total of $90,500 in campaign donations so far in the current election cycle. On the lobbying side, The Hill newspaper reports that GM has spent $7 million in the four quarters since exiting bankruptcy, retaining a who's who of Washington hired guns. This may sound like the business model of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac all over again, but remember that the failed mortgage giants at least had to shut down most of their Beltway influence operation once they explicitly became wards of the state. GM has your money and now it apparently has the license to use it to lobby Congress and support its political friends. ...There's also the intriguing legal matter of the United Auto Workers union still lobbying Congress and supporting political campaigns even after becoming a partner with the government in the automobile business.

The second option embarrasses me greatly, because it is a sign of bureaucratic nonsense from my beloved University of Georgia. A student got in trouble for sending an email to the Parking Services division to gripe about the lack of scooter parking. The snot-nosed bureaucrat who received the email apparently got the vapors because of this sentence: "Did you guys just throw darts at a map to decide where to put scooter corrals? Can I expect you guys to get off your asses and put in a corral near there some point before I fucking graduate and/or the sun runs out of hydrogen?" This led to the student being subjected to real threats and potential disciplinary action. Fortunately, the great folks at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education came to the rescue and the craven bureaucrats at UGA backed down.

The University of Georgia (UGA) has withdrawn charges of "disorderly conduct" and "disruption" filed against a student after he sent a mocking e-mail to UGA Parking Services to complain about the lack of parking spaces for scooters on campus. Although Parking Services specifically asks students for both "negative & positive" comments on its performance, student Jacob Lovell spent nearly a month under the threat of punishment after submitting his e-mail. UGA backed down after Lovell came to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for help. "Jacob Lovell just wanted to park his scooter on campus, and when he found it a frustrating experience he sent a joking e-mail to the department that had asked for his feedback. But when it received his e-mail, he was threatened with punishment!" said FIRE President Greg Lukianoff. "Only on a college campus could a clearly flippant response to requests for complaints about parking on campus be turned into a judicial investigation for disorderly conduct." ...On August 17, 2010, Lovell e-mailed Parking Services with his complaint about its service. His flippant and joking e-mail mused, "Did you guys just throw darts at a map to decide where to put scooter corrals?" and otherwise made fun of the department for what he perceived to be its poor job of providing parking for scooters. Four hours later, Parking Services replied, "Your e-mail was sent to student judiciary." On September 3, 2010, Associate Dean of Students Kimberly Ellis sent Lovell a letter charging him with two violations of UGA's University Conduct Regulations, stating, "Specifically, it is alleged that Mr. Lovell engaged in disorderly conduct and disrupted parking services when he sent an email to them that was threatening." ...The letter required Lovell to make a disciplinary appointment by September 13. Ellis informed Lovell that failure to do so would result in his record being "flagged," rendering him unable to add, drop, or register for classes. Lovell complied with this requirement on September 13. Meanwhile, on September 10, FIRE wrote UGA President Michael F. Adams, explaining that Lovell's grievance was protected by the First Amendment. FIRE also repeated to President Adams that UGA maintains unconstitutional speech codes in addition to the regulations used against Lovell's protected speech, and that administrators could be held personally liable by a court for the violation of students' constitutional rights, as a federal judge in Georgia ruled recently. On September 14, Ellis informed Lovell that she "did not find sufficient evidence to move forward" with the charges and that the matter was now "closed."

So which story is more nauseating? In the grand scheme of things, the General Motors story is more meaningful because the company is stealing our money and then using our money to lobby for more handouts. Yet I can't help but think the UGA story is very symbolic of arrogant and stupid bureaucracy. as many of us have experienced on our trips to a DMV or our efforts to get through security at airports. Every encounter creates the risk that a job-for-life bureaucrat may decide to make your life miserable.

Bashing Bailouts and Inflexible Unions

No CAP bedwetter to debate in this segment.

Labor Day, Unions, and the Role of Government

In a free society, people obviously should be free to join unions and companies should be free to negotiate with unions. But that also means that companies should be free to resist union demands and hire non-union workers. There is no right or wrong in these battles, just as there is no right or wrong when McDonald's decides to sell french fries for a particular price. The market will reward good decisions and penalize bad choices. The only appropriate role for policy in this area is to enforce contracts and protect public safety. The government should not attempt to tip the scales either in favor of unions or in favor of employers. Our friends on the left, however, want the rules rigged in favor of unions, in part because of a reflexive desire for coerced equality. E.J. Dionne waxes nostalgic in the Washington Post for the good ol' days, when unions held significant power in the American economy.

Only 12.3 percent of American wage and salary workers belong to unions, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, down from a peak of about one-third of the work force in 1955. A movement historically associated with the brawny workers in auto, steel, rubber, construction, rail and the ports now represents more employees in the public sector (7.9 million) than in the private sector (7.4 million). Even worse than the falling membership numbers is the extent to which the ethos animating organized labor is increasingly foreign to American culture. The union movement has always been attached to a set of values -- solidarity being the most important, the sense that each should look out for the interests of all. This promoted other commitments: to mutual assistance, to a rough-and-ready sense of equality, to a disdain for elitism, to a belief that democracy and individual rights did not stop at the plant gate or the office reception room. You might accuse me of being a union romantic, and in some ways I am, having grown up in a union town, loved the great union songs, and imbibed such novels about labor's struggles as John Steinbeck's fine and underrated "In Dubious Battle."

There would be nothing wrong with Dionne's love letter to big labor - but only if he also agreed that the government should not take sides. Unfortunately (and predictably), that's not the case. Like other statists, he wants a thumb on the scales to help unions. He thinks he is being pro-worker, but his mistake is failing to understand that above-market wages (at least in the private sector) are not sustainable in the long run. Workers ultimately get paid on the basis of what they produce and if it costs $25 per hour to employ a worker and that worker produces $23 per hour of output, that ultimately is a recipe for unemployment. A good example is the American auto industry, which has declined in part because of a compensation system that is not matched by productivity. This does not necessarily mean that wages are too high. It could mean that productivity is too low. Some of that, to be sure, is the fault of government policies such as a corporate tax system that penalizes investment (thus making it more difficult for workers to boost productivity). But unions also have used their government-granted power to insist on absurd workforce practices. The picture below, taken from Mark Perry's excellent blog, compares union contracts in 1941 and 2007. With all the bureaucracy that is buried in those pages, is it a surprise that American auto workers don't produce as many cars per hours as their main foreign competitors?

GM's New Supercar: The 2011 Obummer

Clever creation on someone's part, but since we're on the topic of government-created cars, this video is the best and funniest I've ever seen.

The Corrupt Washington Version of Recylcling

If you're an American taxpayer, you're doubtlessly overjoyed to be an involuntary shareholder in General Motors. You'll be even happier to know that the company is squandering funds on political causes. In other words, they have enough money to be greasing the palms of politicians, but somehow don't have enough money to survive without stealing money from us. But this does give us a teachable moment (albeit a very expensive one). The behavior of GM illustrates how politicians manage to get kickbacks whenever they give away our money (though the story didn't mention the biggest source of kickbacks - the money and other forms of political support from the United Auto Workers). This is Washington's version of recycling. Politicians take money from us, give it to some interest group, and then the interest group gives a slice of the money back to the politicians. Everybody wins. Except people with ethics.

When General Motors went through bankruptcy last year, it suspended its political donations. Now that it's owned by the U.S. government, it's donating to lawmakers' pet projects again. The carmaker gave $41,000 to groups associated with lawmakers, the vast majority of it -- $36,000 -- to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, the company reported on a disclosure form last week. The CBC Foundation is a charity with 11 members of the Congressional Black Caucus on its board. ...The U.S. government now has a 60 percent stake in the reformed company. ...General Motors has not reactivated its political action committee, which can give to election campaigns, according to the latest reports with the Federal Election Commission. The PAC contributions come from senior employees who give to support the company's political goals.

Washington vs. America

One of the dirty little secrets of Washington is that Republicans and Democrats have more in common with each other than either party has with ordinary Americans. Tim Carney has an excellent (but depressing) column in the Washington Examiner exposing how both Democrat and Republican lobbyists are raking in big buck from General Motors, even though the car company only exists because of massive government subsidies. As Tim writes, this scam redistributes wealth from you and me to well-connected millionaires:

If you've flown into Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and your plane took the northern approach coming down the Potomac, you may have looked out the window at the five-, six- or seven-bedroom homes on both the Maryland and Virginia sides of the river, with three-car garages and swimming pools. Thanks to the Obama administration and General Motors, your tax dollars are now subsidizing the millionaire lobbyists who live in these neighborhoods. GM, the failed carmaker whose $400 million in monthly losses is borne mostly by U.S. taxpayers, has in recent months hired high-priced K Street lobbyists to petition Washington for subsidies, special tax breaks and other government favors on top of the $52 billion in aid the Treasury has already provided. ...GM has since rehired two of its old K Street firms, the Duberstein Group and Greenberg Traurig, and picked up new representation in the firm GrayLoeffler. Rounding out GM's K Street quartet is the well-connected Washington Tax Group, which began representing the company in 2007 and kept its affiliation with GM over the summer, according to a search of the House and Senate lobbying databases. ...Among the four firms, 18 lobbyists are registered to represent GM, including many wealthy and well-connected revolving-door players from both parties. Former Reps. William Gray III, D-Pa., and Jim Bacchus, R-Fla., are both on GM retainer, as are fabled Republican and Democratic operatives Ken Duberstein (White House chief of staff under Ronald Reagan) and Michael Berman (counsel to Vice President Walter Mondale and campaign aide to every Democratic presidential nominee since LBJ). ...GM, of course, is still owned mostly by the federal government and is still losing money -- $1.2 billion in the third quarter. That means the company's expenses are the taxpayer's expenses. That means you are paying these lobbying fees. Put another way, the Obama administration, through GM, is transferring wealth from average Americans to millionaire former public officials. ...I contacted the White House and the Treasury Department to ask whether the administration found this arrangement appropriate, but neither returned my calls and e-mails. None of the lobbying firms returned calls or e-mails, either. ...The auto bailouts of Presidents Bush and Obama teach us once again that when government gets bigger, it's the well-off who fare the best.