I meant to write about the Disclosure Act last night when it passed the House, but my future step-son is home from the Army for a few days, so we decided to spend time with him and took a time-out from politics.  He's scheduled to redeploy to Afghanistan in July.  I'll be writing in the near future about him and also WWII tribute that will bring a tear to your eye.  God bless him.  Hat tip to Bob over at Republicanreporter.com for reminding me this morning about the Disclosure Act.

Earlier this year, the US Supreme Court struck down a portion of McCain-Fiengold that barred corporations from donating to candidates.  The Court ruled that even corporations have 1st Amendment rights.  Congress disagrees.  Well, the Democrats in Congress disagree that is.  As the ink from the Supreme Court's ruling was still drying, Congress was already writing a new law that would restrict donations by corporations to candidates.  Meanwhile, unions have been given an exemption from the Disclosure Act as well as the NRA (which essentially has sold it's soul to the devil).  So unions can contribute or spend as much as they want to elect candidates, but businesses cannot.  Doesn't seem like much has changed from the Supreme Court ruling.

Why would Congress - Democrats especially - want to exempt unions and ban business contributions?  Could it be that the unions spent $68.3 million of the total $74.5 million contributed to campaigns on Democrats?  According to the American Institute for Economic Research:

Since 1990, labor unions have contributed over $667 million in election campaigns in the United States, of which $614 million or 92 percent went to support Democratic candidates.

Furthermore, the article questions whether or not the status quo or increase in government workers (depending on what state and which agency) had anything to do with this:

[The $787 billion dollar stimulus earmarks] is no doubt related to $38 million dollars that the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Union has contributed to Democratic Party campaigns since 1990, with nearly $2.6 million being given during the 2008 election. Public sector unions as a whole have given around $160 million to Democratic candidates between 1990 and 2008, with donations of $6 million in 2008.

Even more alarming from the same article:

Already, unions have contributed $6.5 million to the 2010 elections, and $6 million has gone to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, D.C.

All these figures do not take into account the millions spent in special interest advertising - like the ads opposing Gov. Chris Christie pro-property tax increase cap by the teacher's unions in Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey.  Or any other special interest ads run in other states opposing certain policies by conservative or Republican officials/candidates but not naming them by name. 

Like it or not, the 1st Amendment applies to businesses, and the Democrats know that if they don't close the gap before November, the unions will be outspent by business and considering the Democrats' anti-business platform, I would expect to see similar percentages of spending toward Republicans as unions have spent with Democrats.

Which brings me to another point.  I was talking with a union car hauler the other evening, and he was complaining about being 52, and not being sure whether or not he will have a pension or not.  He was lamenting about how when he started in 1976, their contract ensured them "30 and out" or in other words, drive 30 years with the company and you get to retire with a fully funded pension.  He stated that the union leadership was more concerned about protecting their own butts and were consistently giving away more and more with each passing contract.  The driver also stated that every year they get to watch a video put out by the union featuring union leaders "working for us" and looking at the camera and saying "we're there for you, brothers".  I asked my friend, the union car hauler (I've known him about 7 years now), why should people be allowed to retire - with pension - at 55 or "30 and out", while the rest of us have to wait until 62, 65, or 67 (depending on when you were born)?  The answer?  Because I'm union and they promised me I would have a pension through my contract".  I asked him as well, why should public union employees also retire at 55 with full pensions, funded by taxpayers?  He said they shouldn't if their union and leadership hadn't been taking care of their pension funds.  So I continued by asking him what he thought of the millions of dollars his union and other unions have spent on campaigns and such while their pensions go underfunded and they are asking their members to cut benefits and wages.  His response?  "It's bull---t".

Now, I do have to say that my friend earns more per mile that the average company driver out there (by almost over 2 times as much).  In fact, the other day, I overheard two owner-operators talking about what they are averaging for the year.  One said $1.45 a mile and the other said $2.10.  However, the gentleman that said $1.45 stated that was before he took out for diesel, which he said then brought it down to 65 cents per mile - and really, that even before he takes out for food, hotel lodging or other expenses.  Meanwhile, the union car hauler doesn't have to worry about paying for diesel - they have a company gas card - or hotel - the company pays for that.  That leaves food and other expenses.  And I'm supposed to be concerned about his pension?  Or public funded union pensions?  I don't think so.  Again, who retires at 55? 

Look at our European friends (if we still have any) to see the mentality of retiring at a younger age.  As a result of their liberal social programs, countries like Greece have gone broke and riots broke out because the IMF  put the Greek government on an austerity program of raising retirement age and cutting pensions (about the only good the IMF has ever done really).  Likewise in France, President Sarkozy wants to raise the retirement age to over 60.  The result?  The unions went on a one day strike.  England, as well, is going to raise pension eligibility to 66 years of age much to the chagrin of socialists and unions.   Spain, Italy, Portugal, and other countries are also considering similar austerity programs, cuts to pensions, or changing eligibility age for benefits. 

Ladies and gentlemen, pensions are thing of the past.  As states run into the brick wall of pension obligations, things will have to change whether unions or anyone else for that matter like it or not.  The individual will end up being responsible for his or her retirement and ensuring that they have money for retirement because companies and states cannot keep up.  Sad, but it's true.  I sit here at 33.  No pension.  No hopes of ever seeing a Social Security payment when I am eligible at age 67.  I have my Roth IRA, and my savings account.  That's what I plan on having when I retire.  I'm not looking to the government to pave my road or some union contract to guarantee me something they shouldn't have.  My grandfathers took that same approach as I am, only they didn't have Roth IRAs back then.  They saved every penny they had so they could retire some day and live out their lives.  They invested, they went without.  If you want to call it my own personal austerity program, go right ahead, but when I do get to retire some day, I will have paved my own road to my golden years instead of looking to someone or a government to do it for me.  Individual responsibility.  Odd to think that I am in the minority on that when it used to be the other way around.  Thanks FDR.  Thanks LBJ.  Thanks W.  Thanks Obama.  Or should I have said NO thanks FDR, LBJ, W. or Obama?