Union Bosses Very Happy With Obama

It always amuses me the pull that unions still have with the Democrats. They kiss the unions asses more than they do women's groups, African-Americans and anti-gun groups combined. They court them and stroke them and generally support them against the mean, evil corporations who are keeping them out (think WalMart) or the greedy CEO who won't bargain nicely. The only time they don't speak out for the unions is when it's the NY Times doing the screwing but I digress.

Well, the unions are getting their moneys worth from The One who worked them for donations the entire campaign:

Fifty years ago, Congress passed the landmark Landrum-Griffin Act to protect rank-and-file union members from malfeasance by union leaders. Senate hearings had uncovered serious corruption and other unethical practices inside the labor movement, and a bipartisan coalition emerged to shine the light of disclosure on union practices.

Nevertheless, Democrats in Congress and in the executive branch have often attempted to undercut that law's financial reporting and disclosure requirements. Prior to reforms adopted in the George W. Bush administration, for example, one union could get away with reporting a $62 million expenditure as nothing more than "contributions, gifts, and grants to local affiliates" -- with no further explanation. Unfortunately, the Obama administration is already showing that it wants to return to this nontransparent standard of financial disclosure.

Within days of the inauguration, the new leadership at the Labor Department moved to delay implementing a regulation finalized in January that would have shed much needed light on how union managers compensate themselves with union dues. The regulation required disclosure of receipts for expenditures and for the purchase and sale of union assets -- disclosures that would help deter embezzlement. The administration has since moved even more aggressively, initiating proceedings to rescind this rule and others promulgated when I was secretary of labor.

Now why should we be concerned about union bosses scamming the members, that never happens, right? I mean, the case where a mobster was scamming the operators and the laborers unions was an anomaly, right? And the case where the Business Manager of Operators Local 825 was charged for bribery was something that almost never happens, correct?

In light of that, I can't imagine why would need more transparency for unions instead of less.

Update: Obama isn't even trying to hide it anymore. He's now telling the UAW that they don't have to pay back the billions of our tax dollars given them.