Okay. As I've disclosed before, except for 2008, every presidential election I've donated my time to the AFL-CIO (and refused payment) to help with get out the vote efforts like block walking. I've been bused to areas I never even heard of (and found them wonderful). I don't do that now only due to the fact that Barack Obama is not a friend to the worker and he is a War Hawk. Richard Trumka is the president of the AFL-CIO and I wish I was noting him to praise him. He was on The NewsHour tonight (link goes to segment -- which has video, transcript and audio options). From the segment:
JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, let me -- I want to pick up on that, because, you know, making that point, are you -- how worried are you that, if Governor Walker wins this argument in Wisconsin, that there could -- that it just builds and makes stronger the argument against unions in these other states? I mean, we already see this.
RICHARD TRUMKA: Look, this isn't an argument about unions. This isn't about unions.Huh? Then why are public employees protesting? Then why is Trumka on the show?
This is about unions. And when you say something like that, forget about anyone hearing anything else you say.
That was a stupid, stupid thing to say.
Without unions, we wouldn't have the two-day weekend, we wouldn't have various laws protecting us in the work force, we wouldn't have anything.
I'm not getting into the Wisconsin story because I can't believe how badly so many are bungling it; however, when Trumka makes such a stupid remark, I will call it out.
In good news, Jennifer Epstein (Politico) reports:
How is that good news? I read through the entire article looking for the AFL-CIO. I was thinking, "Now hold on a minute. I'm telling them not to pay me and that I'm happy to help and the union's paying how much?"
But it wasn't mentioned in the article. So that was good news.
Unless . . .
Yes, I used the link to the Center for Public Integrity and there found that Richard Trumka was paid $283,340 in 2009. You want to explain that to me? 2009 was an economic crisis. I don't believe that they should be paid that much. If it had been $100,000? I probably would have looked the other way. But that's outrageous. That's 40% ,at least, more than most union workers make a year.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for Thursday: