ShareThis Page
News Columnists

Another Mr. Fix It boondoggle

| Monday, Sept. 13, 2010

President Obama calls his latest attempt to revive the economy a "Plan to Renew and Expand America's Roads, Railways and Runways." I'm calling it "The Mother of all Big Dig Boondoggles."

Like the infamous "Big Dig" project in Boston, this latest White House infrastructure spending binge guarantees only two results: Taxpayers lose; unions win.

The plan would add at least $50 billion more to the nearly $230 billion already allocated in the original trillion-dollar stimulus law for infrastructure. Less than one-third of that infrastructure stimulus money has been spent, but the urgency to pile on has increased exponentially as the midterm elections approach and unemployment hovers near 10 percent.

So, the president says he wants to "put people back to work" through a new "upfront investment" in surface transportation, airports and the air-traffic control system paid for by repealing tax incentives for the oil and gas industries -- followed by massive, unpaid-for expenditures on pie-in-the-sky high-speed rail, "environmental sustainability" and "livability," whatever that means.

Obama spoke emotionally at an AFL-CIO rally on Labor Day about unemployed construction workers. A "lot of those folks, they had lost their jobs in manufacturing and went into construction; now they've lost their jobs again," he said.

But here's the rub: Not all workers are equal in Obama's eyes. And most of them will remain "idled" by the Democrats' own design.

The key is E.O. 13502, a union-friendly executive order signed by Obama in his first weeks in office, which essentially forces contractors who bid on large-scale public construction projects worth $25 million or more to submit to union representation for their employees.

The blunt instrument used to give unions a leg up is the project labor agreement (PLA). It requires contractors to hand over exclusive bargaining control; to pay inflated, above-market wages and benefits; and to fork over dues money and pension funding to corrupt, cash-starved labor organizations.

These anti-competitive agreements undermine a fair bidding process on projects that locked-out nonunion laborers are funding with their own tax dollars. And these PLAs benefit the privileged few at the expense of the vast majority: In the construction industry, 85 percent of the work force is nonunion by choice.

We don't need to theorize about how this shakedown works in the real world. Boston's notorious Big Dig was a union-only construction project because of a Massachusetts government-mandated PLA. The original $2.8 billion price tag for the project skyrocketed to $22 billion in state and federal taxpayer subsidies thanks in no small part to ballooning labor costs.

In short, Obama's new Union Infrastructure Rescue Plan is a political-favoritism scheme that raises the cost of doing business and bars tens of thousands of skilled, nonunion laborers from securing work. In the name of patching up America's highways and byways, Mr. Fix It would create another gaping fiscal sinkhole to appease his special interest donors.

Recovery Summer turns to Union Payback Fall.

Michelle Malkin is the author of "Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies" (Regnery 2009).

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.

click me