Et tu, Thad McCotter?

"The most alive is the wildest. Not yet subdued to man, its presence refreshes him." Thoreau's words resonate with irony in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Above, a "dragonfly tries to clean itself as it is stuck to marsh grass covered in oil" on the gulf coast of Louisiana. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

"ET TU, Thad McCotter?" we twittered our favorite Congressman (R-MI 11th) this morning, seeking to understand the thinking behind his embrace of HR 3936, a bill sponsored by Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) and Patrick Tiberi (R-Ohio) that is getting a lot of bad press:

Americans for Limited Government (ALG) has sent a letter to 9 House Republicans urging that they withdraw their support from legislation providing a taxpayer bailout of labor-union-run pension funds …

“We are asking that each Representative remove his or her cosponsorship of this blatant handout to unions, which are now asking the American people to bail them out of their own mismanagement of pensions,” Wilson said, adding that “Compensating poor investment strategies, like those pursued by the multi-employer pension plans, only incentives further underfunding of these plans” …

Citing the hundreds of millions of dollars spent by labor bosses to support Obama, the Democratic majority, and the 9 House Republicans (see attachments below), Wilson decried unions’ “audacity to try to cash in on their political investment by foisting these unfunded liabilities accumulated under their watch onto the backs of taxpayers, who are struggling to fund their own retirements.”

Rep McCotter sent along this video of himself holding forth in the House of Representatives in defense of HR 3936:

What it does is good government. It allows employers the space they need to make sure they meet the pension obligations that they have for their workers. It is not a government bailout. Taxpayer funds are not involved, unless, of course, these institutions, these unions and their pension plans fail.

It is a wonderful idea by my colleague Pat Tiberi (Another of the 9 Repubs to whom the ALG letter was sent), it is endorsed by many, many business groups, and I would hope that over the course of the coming hours the truth will out. Again, you can't always believe what you see on TV.

It was the "unless, of course" part that gave us pause. The House bill is apparently similar to one introduced last week by Senator Casey, described by the National Right to Work Committee as a "taxpayer-funded union pension bailout":

Legislation introduced last week could shift costs of union pension plans to taxpayers in an attempt to stave off organized labor’s pension funding crisis. Senator Bob Casey, Pennsylvania Democrat, introduced the so-called Create Jobs & Save Benefits Act of 2010 to address the funding problems faced by union-administered multi-employer pension plans by shifting the burden to the taxpayers. Casey said his bill would cost the taxpayers $8 to $10 billion.

According to a FoxBusiness report and bloggers who are following the story, the tab could run much higher:

If passed, the bill could put another $165 billion in liabilities on the shoulders of American taxpayers …

As FOX Business Network’s Gerri Willis reported Monday, these pensions are in bad shape; as of 2006, well before the market dropped and recession began, only 6% of these funds were doing well.

Although right now taxpayers could possibly be on the hook for $165 billion, the liability could essentially be unlimited because these pensions have to be paid out until the workers die. It’s hard to say at the moment what the chances are that the bill will pass. A hearing is scheduled Thursday, which will give the public a sense of where political leaders sit on the topic, said Willis.

Professor Reynolds was not amused:

WHILE AMERICANS’ 401(K) PLANS SHRINK, Congress wants to bail out unions’ overgenerous and underfunded pension plans.

Our man Dan Riehl had the scoop on deep background way back in early March. His "Big Labor, Obama And Dems Have Big Plan$ For You" is a must-read to get up to speed. It includes interviews with Brett McMahon of the Associated Building Contractors and Katie Packer of the Workforce Fairness Institute. A lot to digest. If you're reading this, Dan, please feel free to join the conversation.

Related: USA Today's "Private pay shrinks to historic lows as gov't payouts rise" and John Fund's "Tea Parties vs. Unions in November."

Update: Michelle Malkin "Buzzworthy" link.

Crossposted at Riehl World View and Liberty Pundits.

Comments

[brooklyn]

Ughhh, these few Republicans really have to wake up. Yes, the "unless they fail" will involve Taxpayer funds, and no, we need not bailout Unions.

Banks who give loans, which drive the US Economy, are understandably something taxpayers would want to make sound. The toxic assets, largely created by the Democrats undermining the Mortgage Industry, needed to be dealt with to prevent a massive collapse. The Bush Administration was correct in trying to reform the mess, some 17 times in one year alone. GW Bush was probably correct in listening to the economic giants at the time, to provide the original TARP.

Too bad Democrats exploited the financial crisis. Too bad Americans empowered Nancy, Harry, Hillary, Barack, etc., beginning in 2006.

It is clear Democrats are so lost, irresponsible, misguided, corrupt, inexperienced with reality, dedicated to failed tax and spend collectivism, they simply cannot be trusted with ever having this kind of influence - power again.

As long as the mighty SISU is kicking, we have a chance to empower sanity again.

Then foolish Republicans won't be led astray by this nutty folly.

Unions Pensions are unreasonable in nearly every case I study. They are pure political bribery for votes - power - often with the design to redirect Taxpayer funds back to the Democratic Party.

Time to end this mess.

It is sinking us all.

[goomp]

I see dictatorship looming as the government becomes the chief employer and the economy crumbles. Throwing out the incompetents who now rule us is the last hope.

[tommy mc donnell]

unions intend to spend 100 million to support democrats in the upcoming elections. and not one union rank and file member will have a word to say about it. do you think the bailout money is a payback for this support? the unions should use that 100 million to shore up their pensions instead of using it for political purposes. speaking as a retired public union member living on one of those pensions everyone is upset about, the problem with unions is the leaders of the unions are all democratic party politicans. they run the unions for the benefit of the party not like in the past when union leaders tried to use the democratic party for the benefit of the union.

[mrcopolo]

All - don't assume. You NEED TO READ THE BILL!!!! This bill doesn't have anything to do with the bailout. It has to do with time. The bill gives pensions more time to recover so we DON'T HAVE to give them a bailout. It's a good bill.

The Union BAILOUT was already passed into law - which the R's voted against. McCotter, I'm sure, said "unless they fail" because he knows as well as I that the BAILOUT bill already passed. Don't blame the R's - they're trying to make the best out of a shit-sandwich. Hell, NAM even supports the bill (John Engler??) http://bit.ly/bXORxT