ObamaCare's Big Labor toll
The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 legally established the 40-hour work week. The Stabilization Act of 1942 enshrined employer-sponsored health insurance to counter government wage controls during World War II. How ironic that the latest crown jewel of “progressive” liberalism — ObamaCare — now eviscerates both.
Despite becoming pillars of the American labor movement, both staples find themselves on the cusp of radical transformation, if not outright elimination. Who bears responsibility for the damage? Evil Republicans? Greedy corporations? The “1 percent”? Wall Street? George W. Bush?
Why, none other than Barack Hussein Obama himself and his Democrat/Bolshevik allies in both the House and Senate. They have successfully demolished what corporate America never could with their disastrous, pyrrhic Affordable Care Act.
Shifting to embrace a socialistic European model based on “social justice” over capitalism during the last several decades, Big Labor has seen a corresponding decline in membership and benefits that has had a deleterious effect on morale, political clout and the erosion and loss of more than 70 years of benefits for its members and all working Americans.
Paul Kengor, Grove City College professor, named those who unwittingly supported communism “dupes.” The less charitable but more deserving name for the more-than-50-percent who twice voted for the “fundamental transformation” of our nation and health-care system while inflicting economic damage to themselves and all of us collaterally has its origin with Karl Marx himself — ”useful idiots.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.