DISCLAIMER: THE FOLLOWING "Cost of Freedom Recap" CONTAINS STRONG OPINIONS WHICH ARE NOT A REFLECTION OF THE OPINIONS OF FOX NEWS AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON AS INVESTMENT ADVICE WHEN MAKING PERSONAL INVESTMENT DECISIONS. IT IS FOX NEWS' POLICY THAT CONTRIBUTORS DISCLOSE POSITIONS THEY HOLD IN STOCKS THEY DISCUSS, THOUGH POSITIONS MAY CHANGE. READERS OF "Cost of Freedom Recap" MUST TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN INVESTMENT DECISIONS.
National Labor Board Suing Arizona and South Dakota Over Union Laws
John Layfield: It's not going to overturn any chance of a job recovery, but there is no doubt that it's going to hurt jobs. This isn't necessarily the unions' fault. The unions just ask for what they can get, but we have politicians who give them whatever they want and it's been well documented the incestuous relationship between the Democrats and the unions has been around for decades. The Democrats give the unions whatever they want. The Republicans don't object because they don't want to isolate a voting block and the unions keep asking for more and more and more and the more powerful the unions get because we have such bad politicians who will agree to whatever they ask for yes, it's bad for jobs.
Jonathan Hoenig: Companies will always gravitate towards the low-cost states as well they should if they care about their bottom lines. What offends me about the unions is that for some reason they feel as if they have more rights than everyone else. They always talk about union rights. Unions don't get any special rights and that's what they're always after Cheryl is not competing in a free and open marketplace, where a job is mutually voluntary and beneficial for both the employer and the employee. Unions want special treatment. They shouldn't get it and I'm glad when they don't.
Christian Dorsey: One key point you're missing is that it violates federal law and you can't pass state laws that violate federal laws. There is something called the Supremacy Clause and let's understand that majority sign up has been used as a valid way to organize by companies like Kaiser, Pacific Gas & Electric, Cingular AT&T. It has worked for those companies and the laws in these states would say you can no longer organize unions in that manner. So it violates federal law and laws that violate federal law should not be allowed to stand. Why is that controversial?
Wayne Rogers: I think there are two fundamental points here. This is going to be tested in the courts. The federal law would prevail if it's true, but the federal law it's not clear and that's why they're testing it. Number two, there's something more fundamental here that's underneath all of this and that is the right to a secret vote. That is a fundamental right to protect individual freedom. You have to ask yourself, why would you bring this suit? If you're in the interest of individual freedom, why do you bring this suit? Why? Because you're on the payroll of some special interest group. Who's the special interest group in this case? The union. Why? Because they deliver votes of course. That is the only reason.
Environmentalists: Going Green Can Prevent Deadly Storms
Jonathan Hoenig: I think it's unbelievably offensive to use this terrible tragedy, lives lost, billions of dollars in damage, as a justification for wasting more money on green social spending. Thankfully we live in a modern, industrial world where the greens don't run the table and we actually have the means to protect ourselves and some of these tragedies, but the fact of the matter is that the environmental movement now uses any natural tragedy. In the natural world there are natural tragedies. They use every natural tragedy; global warming, global cooling, to push for more wasteful spending on green energy programs. Their goal is to hurt mankind and it's just shameful that they've used this terrible tragedy to push their agenda.
Christian Dorsey: The only conversation from a policy perspective that we need to have now is how to provide the emergency assistance and rehabilitation to the communities devastated by these violent storms, but that should also not mean that we dismiss any talk about what we need in terms of green investment for the future. It's not green social spending. It's green investment and business spending. The facts are very clear. If we're going to be a part of winning the energy markets of the future, it's going to be built on green technologies and not non-renewable, non-efficient sources of energy. I'd like to separate these conversations. The devastation in the southeast needs its own attention. The green conversation is a different one, but it's non-the-less an important one to have.
John Layfield: We definitely have something going on with crazy weather. If you look back four thousand years ago, Egypt was built because you had global warming at that time turn the Sahara from an oasis into a desert. People migrated to the Nile River. Things like this have gone on. I don't know if this is an earth cycle or if it's exacerbated by man, but Christian is 100 percent correct. We need to separate this tragedy from what we can do. Every mega-watt of renewable energy creates 20 long-term jobs done by private enterprise.
Wayne Rogers: I happen to agree with Christian and John Layfield. You have to separate this. One has nothing to do with the other. Even the American Geophysical Union reports that you can't make any connections here between green energy or anything like that. It's a totally separate thing. If you want to talk about the tragedy, talk about the tragedy. If you want to talk about alternative energy, talk about that.
Should We Lower Debt Ceiling to Cut Spending or Raise it to Spend More?
WAYNE ROGERS: I don't understand if any state can cut your debt by placing a limit on your debt that help to cut spending. I am all for that. We talk about reducing the deficit. You have to reduce the debt itself at some point. You know the cost of the debt and that is the interest cost and federal government equals eight percent of the budget. You have to stop that.
CHRISTIAN DORSEY: Those are the wrong solutions, first of all. Understand what the debt limit is all about. It is commitments made by this and every other previous congress and presidential administration. It would be like my deciding to take you out for dinner and reconsidering when the check comes. You wouldn't default. You know, if you want a conversation about spending, you need to have that conversation in this country, but it is not part of the debt conversation. This is about upholding the responsibilities that we made, the commitment that we agreed to. We have to raise the limit without condition.
JONATHAN HOENIG: That is just it. The debt ceiling and its concept are an artificial issue. In my opinion. What evokes that anger is we have made those commitments and far exceed the role of government. We have a government responsible now for half of the money and half of the outflows to entitlement programs. That can't continue to me. You set a limit they will spend up to the limit. What we should talk about is the role of government. Shrink that and spending.
JOHN LAYFIELD: Look at morons in Congress. Administration down to the lower rep. $400 trillion over 10 years. They're talking about raising taxes on the millionaires and billionaires. That equates to $50 billion. If we had done that last year, our deficit would be $1.6 trillion. It doesn't pay the interest or address the debt that Wayne is talking about. Yes, we have to raise the debt limit. But morons have to balance the budget.
What Do I Need To Know?
WAYNE ROGERS: Beware of push to put price controls on gas prices. History shows price controls on gas prices backfire
JOHN LAYFIELD: Forget the royal wedding, invest in "real" U.S. royalty (ORCLl)
JONATHAN HOENIG: Protect against falling dollar by investing in India & (ICN)