Skip to comments.Romney Calls Union-Backed Bill “Catastrophic”
Posted on 05/28/2009 5:01:20 PM PDT by GOP_Lady
As Democrats and Republicans stand increasingly at odds over measures to help improve the economy, one bill under consideration highlights how critical party loyalty could be in determining policy measures.
Mitt Romney, a likely contender for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, joined a forum of business advocates in Northern Virginia on Thursday to denounce a union-backed bill, the Employee Free Choice Act, as little more than political payback from Democrats that would worsen the nation's economic footing.
The bill would be "catastrophic for the economy," Romney said. "The impact long term is people start less businesses here. It's not great for the people who start businesses today, but it's even worse for the employees of tomorrow."
The act would make it easier for workers to form a union. Most notably, it would allow workers to automatically form a union if more than a half of them sign a card indicating they want to join one. This method is currently an option for employees so long as their employers approve it; otherwise, workers can form a union through a secret ballot and election process.
Romney on Thursday echoed one of the main complaints of the business community, which has said the increased costs of unionization would drive businesses out of the United States and potentially cripple those left here.
"If you want to start a high tech business, there's no requirement you have to start it in America," Romney said. "That's the risk here."
Mary Beth Maxwell, the executive director of labor group American Rights at Work, told Hotsheet earlier this year that EFCA will in fact help businesses by giving workers higher wages, allowing them to spend more.
"For business to succeed in the United States, we need a strong middle class where workers are working hard and earning wages where they can support their families and buy goods and services and continue to grow American businesses," she said. "People need to be able to make a decent wage and be able to spend that money thats whats going to get this economy back on track."
The Obama administration has painted its policies, like the stimulus package, as pro-business, but Republicans have criticized Democrats for taking a heavy-handed approach to industry.
"There's nothing wrong with well thought-through regulation that makes it more predictable to do business," Romney said. "Sometimes regulation can be counterproductive."
While the Employee Free Choice Act has given Romney an opportunity to flesh out his potential policy proposals before another bid at the White House, it could also prove to be a litmus test for moderate senators, most notably Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Penn.).
The former Republican has waffled on the bill and remained opposed to it after switching to the Democratic party in late April. In mid-May, however, he indicated he could envision supporting a revised version of the legislation.
Specter has shifted slightly left on some issues as it has become clear he will need to earn the trust of his new party in order to keep his seniority in the Senate. He could very well be the deciding vote on the Employee Free Choice Act.
Romney, noting that Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) has a background in business, said, "It's hard for me to conceive of Sen. Warner voting for the bill." Warner is the newest Democratic senator in the recently-turned swing state of Virginia.
The bill, however, may not even make it to the full Senate for a vote. After passing in the House of Representatives before languishing in the Senate last year, it was reintroduced in March and now sits in committee.
Romney and the other speakers said the consequences of the legislation would take time to come to bear, but they would be significant.
"If you look at the auto industry, we don't want that to be the norm for the manufacturing industry," said Brett Vassey, president of the Virginia Manufacturers Association. "There's not enough bailout money" to deal with such a situation, he said.
Good for Romney. He’s right.
The important thing is that we unite to defeat this guy.
No Romney ever.
Romney is, catastrophic for America.
Somebody must have told the twinkie that he had to find, somewhere, sometime, somehow, a conservative position he could support. This one was a no-brainer, so I guess it was about at the right level for him.
“Mitt Romney, a likely contender for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination”
Everyone keeps saying this because, well, there isn’t a frontrunner yet. But I don’t see any real evidence for it, aside from the fact that the MSM reports every time he opens his mouth. Depends on what you mean by “contender,” I guess. One thing is certain. If he couldn’t win against McCain and hardly did better than Huck, he had no business being in the race at all last year.
"Presidential contender for 2012? Oh PAH-Lease..........
I could vote for Romney if his campaign platform included indicting obuma and the entire democrat party for treason and sedition.
Yeh, I know. Never happen, but it was fun to write...
“Mary Beth Maxwell, the executive director of labor group American Rights at Work, told Hotsheet earlier this year that EFCA will in fact help businesses by giving workers higher wages, allowing them to spend more.”
Uhhhh....what “workers?” The ones that get laid off when the business ceases operations?
The bill is safely dead, giving fakes on both sides of the isle easy bonus, yet do nothing, points. No wonder that Mitt, in his ever wimpy, checklist, toe dipping way has forcefully, forcefully mind you, come out against it, although he's open to 'reasonable regulation'.
Good old Mitt. Measure, managed, processed, bleached, consulted.
I love the phrase, “all enemies, foreign and domestic”.
Just don’t ask him how Romneycare is going in MA.
I don’t trust this guy as far as I can throw him. He’s a con artist and opportunist, and if he ever becomes president, he’ll be another RINO that saddles us with an even bigger government. No thanks.
No Romney ever.
With the help of some southern democrats but hey, we'll take it however we can get it.
"In 2006, while Romney was chairman of the National Republican
Governors Association - a group dedicated to electing more
Republican governors - his own hand-picked Republican successor
as governor lost badly to the Democrat, despite the fact that Republicans
have held the governorship in Massachusetts since 1990. Romney largely
ignored the Massachusetts elections and spent most of the time
during the campaign out of state building his presidential campaign.
He came back and publicly campaigned for the Republican candidate
the day before the general election!
Locally, this is a rebuke to Mitt Romney and checking out within six months
after being elected and having accomplished almost nothing,
[Jim] Rappaport [former chairman of the state Republican Party]."
- Boston Globe, 11/8/2006
Your 'front runner' is that who is most demonized BY the msm. They become steeled by the attacks. They grow into the conservative clothing they were always confortable with rather than wear a 'liberal' costume that appeals to others.
Sometimes, the cost of their outfits become the target of attacks. Sometimes, their families are attacked.
While I like Mr. Romney, I doubt he has the pedigree to win against liberals due to the fact that he'll encounter much difficulty rallying conservatives who had justifiable reseverations about compassionate conservatism's G.W. Bush. Voters need a choice, a real choice this time. Playing 'footsie' with moderates and un-decideds compromises everything America should stand for. That dog won't hunt.(see McCain- democrat from Arizona with big-mouthed daughter)
The traditions that made this country great are under attack. The values that make this country great are under attack (see gay marriage). The last thing we need is a candidate from the Northeastern corridor trying to mount a counter-attack. We need someone so removed from the Ivy League it'd make your head spin.
Look to Alaska. I'll say no more.
More from the human herpes virus.
LOL! In his defense, I will say that this description could be applied to a lot of pols. He's just the currently most egregious of them.