US Rep. Peter Hoekstra, a candidate for Governor, has made it clear that he does not support the conservative ideals of Free-Trade and Capitalism by declaring that he would not support a ballot issue to make Michigan a "right-to-work" state. That's not very Republican.
It's also another way of saying, "too bad about your jobs, I don't give a damn." Is he getting kickbacks from his Republican Teamster buddies? We shouldn't be surprised, there is a long history between the Republicans and the Teamsters, none of it good.
Hoekstra said he has had good relations with organized labor, particularly the Teamsters union.
"There's a lot of Republican Teamsters out there," he said.
-FREEP
Why else would he oppose a measure that could attract business to Michigan, create jobs and reduce unemployment?
Ohio, Indiana and Michigan are losing auto jobs, but many of these "runaway plants" are not fleeing to China, Mexico or India. They've moved to more business-friendly U.S. states, including Texas.
-WSJ
And this man wants to be Governor.
Ohio's most crippling handicap may be that its politicians -- and thus its employers -- are still in the grip of such industrial unions as the United Auto Workers. Ohio is a "closed shop" state, which means workers can be forced to join a union whether they wish to or not. Many companies -- especially foreign-owned -- say they will not even consider such locations for new sites. States with "right to work" laws that make union organizing more difficult had twice the job growth of Ohio and other forced union states from 1995-2005, according to the National Institute for Labor Relations.
...
The challenge for our national economy in a world of competition is to become more like Texas and less like Ohio.
-WSJ
We should think hard before we elect someone that doesn't want to make positive change for the working people of Michigan. Of course, after everyone leaves the state to pursue employment elsewhere, Rep. Hoekstra can enjoy himself while governing a population of none.
3 comments:
Good stuff. Thanks. Could you please post the date of the WSJ article you cited, and the headline if you know it? Would like to reference that in some work I'm doing.
Thanks, I really could/should have done a better/more thorough job at the post but I was a bit pressed for time but did want to absolutely comment on it as I heard about Hoekstra's statement yesterday on the radio.
It was March 3, 2008 and the headline is "Texas v. Ohio."
You can get the whole thing here: http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120450306595906431.html
Thanks!
Post a Comment