NLRB Assumes Control over Business Location Decisions

By John Semmens: Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News The Democratic majority on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) boldly asserted a new authority to control where businesses may locate their production facilities. The power grab was inspired by the Boeing Corporation’s attempt to establish a new airplane factory inSouth Carolina.“The notion that a business is free to do whatever it wants without regard to the President’s plan forAmericais what we’re fighting against here,” said NLRB legal counsel Lafe Solomon. “Moving production to a ‘right-to-work’ state is contrary to President Obama’s vision for this country. Boeing’s argument that it is seeking to lower its costs by this maneuver is precisely the kind of self-serving greed that we are trying to stamp out.”Solomon was adamant that “unless Boeing can show cause as to why the NLRB should permit the move it will be blocked. Generations of union employees inWashingtonhave come to rely upon these good paying jobs. They cannot be dispossessed of this right merely for the sake of increased profits for Boeing’s shareholders.”Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) was incensed by what he termed “a lunge toward tyranny. The President is not the ‘Fuhrer’ ofAmerica. His minions have no authority to dictate where a business may locate its facilities in pursuit of lower costs and higher profits. This usurpation negates the efficiency benefits of our free market system and replaces it with the worst sort of crony capitalism.”In preparation for the move, Boeing has already hired 2500 employees for theSouth Carolinaplant. These jobs will be lost if the NLRB prevails in blocking the company’s decision.America Is Not “Broke” Says Credit SuisseWhile Standard & Poor’s reclassification of theUSFederal Government’s debt situation from “stable” to “negative” shook financial markets around the globe, Credit Suisse offered a contrary perspective.“If you confine your analysis to the resources currently available to the US Government things do, indeed, look perilous,” observed Credit Suisse spokesman Pierre Petit. “Default seems inevitable. However, there is more than sufficient wealth in private hands to cover the outstanding obligations.”Petit laid out the “math.” “Outstanding debt is in the $14 trillion range,” he pointed out. “There is no way this can be serviced, much less paid off under existing tax rates. But who says tax rates cannot be changed? Right now, there is an estimated $57 trillion worth of assets in private hands in theUnited States. A 25% capital levy on these assets would net the Government about $14 trillion—enough to wipe out all of the current debt.”The Credit Suisse input was warmly welcomed by President Obama. “It supports what I’ve been saying and polls have been confirming, the rich aren’t paying their fair share,” the Present asserted. “A one-time levy of 25% on everyone’s net worth would wipe out the debt and give us a fresh start.”The President touted the fairness of such a levy. “Folks who don’t own any assets or who owe more than they’re worth wouldn’t have to pay,” he explained. “Only those lucky enough to have a positive net worth—home owners with real equity, people with stock or mutual fund portfolios, IRAs, 401ks, business owners and the like—would have to chip in. What could be fairer than that?”President Campaigns for Higher TaxesEncouraged by polls showing voters opposed to cutting entitlement spending and warm toward the idea of increasing taxes on “the rich,” President Obama confidently promised he would bring the deficit under control by “making the rich pay their fair share.”The President disdained to debate the specifics of defining “a fair share” other than to say that it would need to be “more than what they’re paying now.” “The American people know who I’m talking about,” Obama insisted. “It’s that family down the street in the house with the three-car garage. It’s the guy who drives his gas-guzzling SUV to work instead of taking the bus. We see them in the seats at the stadium of the game we’re watching on TV. These are the kind of people I’m talking about. They’re people who can afford ostentatious personal spending because they have more money than they need.”Under current tax rates the top 1% of earners account for 20% of the nation’s income, but pay nearly 40% of the income taxes collected. The bottom 50% of earners account for 12% of the income and pay 3% of the taxes.In related news, Hollywood A-list movie stars including Jamie Foxx, Tom Hanks, and Will Ferrell paid $35,000 apiece to dine with President Obama at the Tavern Restaurant. Obama asked for their continued support to help him get reelected “so we can achieve the kind of redistribution of income we all know this nation needs.”Arizona Governor Vetoes Two BillsConservatives were stunned when Governor Jan Brewer (R) vetoed two bills this last week. One would’ve required candidates for public office to provide documentary evidence of their eligibility to hold the office they seek. The other would’ve allowed persons with a concealed carry permit to bring guns onto college campuses.“Inasmuch as the currently sitting President of the United States might become ensnared by a requirement that he show documents that he might prefer not to show, I felt compelled to veto this bill lest it become a source of embarrassment and destabilize the government of this country,” Brewer explained. “Whether a person is eligible for office is a matter for voters to decide. If they are willing to elect a person without seeing documentation it would be undemocratic of us to insist on such a requirement.”As for the veto of the bill allowing weapons on campus, Brewer asserted that “it would’ve unduly complicated the situation by placing a presumptive individual right to bear arms into conflict with school administrative authority to control what goes on within their jurisdiction.”Brewer denied that individual rights were being unduly suppressed. “Going to college is voluntary,” she said. “One of the costs is submitting to the rules imposed by those running the institution. We already allow college authorities to suppress freedom of speech. It’s only logical that we allow them authority to prohibit guns.”President Vows to Investigate High Gas PricesWhile contending that “high gas prices are, on balance, good forAmerica,” President Obama vowed he would have his people “look into the matter to ensure that any wrongdoing is punished.”“If having to pay more to fill up the SUV encourages a driver to switch to public transit, that’s a good thing,” the President argued. “The fewer cars there are on the road, the cleaner our air is going to be. Who could be against cleaner air?”“But trying to profit from higher prices, well, that’s something entirely different,” Obama added. “Profit comes from charging prices in excess of costs. It expropriates value that, by right, ought to belong to all of the people. It is this type of expropriation that will not be tolerated by my Administration.”In line with the President’s directive on this issue, Attorney General Eric Holder has formed the Financial Fraud Enforcement Working Group and has promised “to haul profiteers and speculators in to explain themselves with regard to the prices they’re charging for fuel.”President Urged to “Get Tough” with Tax Protestors In addition to being the traditional date for filing your income tax forms, April 15 has become a day of tax protests across the nation. The persistence of such protests has sparked a call from the left for the President to “crack down on the enemies of social justice.”At anArkansasan anti-Tea Party rally,former Democratic state representative and 2010 Green Party Gubernatorial nominee Jim Lendall suggested that opponents of social justice be threatened with beheading. Citing what he called “the effective use of terror on behalf of the people’s rights during the French Revolution of 1789, Lendall called for “parking a guillotine in front of every chamber of commerce, corporate office, bank, investment house, and Republican Party headquarters to remind them that opposition to the will of the people is not without risk.”This threat was deemed not to be outside the bounds of accepted standards of civil political discourse according to Attorney General Eric Holder because “it doesn’t contemplate the targeting of recognized officers of the government by anarchic individuals. Using a guillotine on enemies of the state would only be undertaken by legitimately designated government personnel.”Success of Atlas Shrugged Movie Surprises CriticsPanned by mainstream critics, the long-awaited movie version of Ayn Rand’s best-selling novel Atlas Shrugged saw strong returns in its opening week.“I did my best to discourage movie-goers from seeing this film,” said renowned movie critic Roger Ebert. “It’s not the kind of movieAmericaneeds right now. It praises individualism at a time when President Obama is trying to mold a new social consciousness. We must hope that the message in the movie is too intellectual to resonate with the vast majority of Americans.”A Satirical Look at Recent News  John Semmens’ ArchivesMore Semmens Archives