Expand The Parkway?

I see the idea of expanding the Lake Parkway south to Oak Creek is percolating again. With that in mind, here's an old response to that proposal (at the time, July 2009, being pushed by Pat McIlheran, Journal Sentinel writer, and Pat Jursik, Milwaukee County board member):

Pat [McIlheran] follwed up his last bit of nonsense with more of the same, Radical old idea: Let us move around.

In the latest expounding of obliviousness, Pat pushes for extending the Lake Parkway all the way to southern Oak Creek. Is there any problem more highways will not solve for these guys?

McIlheran then runs through the typical gamut of right-wing, development, talking-points: the automobile represents freedom, no one wants to ride the train/light-rail, and building on green space is cheap and therefore preferable.

His description of Pat Jursik's, Milwaukee County Board member, idea for this highway expansion is "revolutionary". In today's environment - sprawl, pollution, water shortages, crumbling roads and infrastructure, stressed budgets - to suggest we build more is absurd. To suggest we build mass transit options that alleviate our dependence on automobiles and highways is, as Pat would say, "Right on!"

McIlheran thinks that if we don't expand highways and if we do expand rail options, we are "cutting off people's options." Someone check into Pat's relationship with the highway lobby. Is there a status quo entity for which he is not a shill? Again, Pat goes back to the oldie but goodie, implying that because we are Americans we can do whatever we want...the planet be damned! Not building highways, continuing to allow us to spew pollutants, nor paving over green space somehow equates to American freedom and would be "cutting off our options".

He then goes on to show more ignornace regarding the latest research, and a complete blindness to a Milwaukee case study. He, agreeing with Jursik, pontificates that tearing down the highway and replacing it with a surface street or lift bridge would be foolish. Maybe they both should read, 4 Cases of How Tearing Down a Highway Can Relieve Traffic Jams.

They mention how surface streets isolate one area of the region from the other. But on the contrary, what they actually do is encourage high-density development and community along those surface streets. Just the opposite of what McIlheran and Jursik are proposing. They want to relieve surface streets of traffic - which would relieve the businesses along these streets of customers. This of course would lead to more exit-ramp, big-box retailers sprouting up along the highways so drivers can jump on and off to get items they might need on any given day. We'd hate to see people shopping in their own neighborhoods supporting local retailers and entrepreneurs. It's much better that we spend money at absentee-owned stores that pay a lower wage and subsequently siphon much of that spending outside our border. Basically, McIlheran and Jursik just want more of the same. More highways for more driving, just not on surface streets, so all of our driving can be at higher speeds, alongside more of the same, haphazard development we've seen over the last 50 years.

The boogeyman here is congestion. We need more highways to relieve all our congestion? What congestion? Milwaukee has one of the shorter commute times of any larger city. Milwaukee was recently ranked the third best city in the country for commuters by Forbes magazine.

We need an investment in rail. Being one of only two or three areas in the country without, or not planning, light-rail is bad for business, the environment, and our quality of life. And, this would only make our commute time even better.

Glaringly absent from the article is a discussion of induced demand. The phenomenon whereby building highways, adding lanes, actually increases congestion on those highways. But economic development, urban planning, and quality of life are obviously not Pat's forte. He's only worried about convenience.

Is McIlheran unaware of the environmental issues breathing down our necks? Or just unwilling to make lifestyle changes to avoid catastrophe? He even makes a crack about, "the silliness of opposing all new pavement." Seemingly, somehow, glorifying and proclaiming the righteousness of paving over open space. Again, showing his complete ignornace regarding the environmental issues with sprawling development.

For Further Reading:

Car Clowns

Road To Nowhere 

Swimming Fool

Patrick McIlheran thinks Milwaukee County taxpayers are going "to get soaked." The County Board, in the latest budget, called for improvements of Moody pool. One of many long-overdue maintenance and repair projects needed by the County. Rather than seeing "spending unleashed," as the column claims, we will be able to witness government acting responsibly and carrying out its duties.

But, as Dan Cody commented, "Patrick, you have your facts wrong about a number of things in this opinion piece, most importantly the assertion that taxpayers will get "soaked" as a result of the pool being repaired. In your haste to pen a piece that plays to the usual talking points about Milwaukee being a "tax hell" and such, you overlooked - or ignored - the fact that the the tax levy won't go up one cent as a result of the proposal to rehabilitate Moody Pool. The source of the funds are capital improvement bonds, something the County Exec. used a great deal in last years budget to finance various capital improvements throughout the County. I very much doubt you called it a "soaking" then, so why now? Another fact is there was and is significant pressure to rehab the boarded up property that was Moody Pool from area neighbors, businesses and community groups."

The $5 million price-tag on the Moody repair is .005 percent of a $1 billion County budget. Even though, comparatively speaking, this is a minuscule part of the overall County budget, McIlheran wants us to believe it's and "important gauge." Yes, I would say an important gauge of a governing body realizing it must actually maintain County properties which enhance the quality of life for residents and visitors. But sadly for McIlheran, .005 percent of a budget is a red flag of runaway spending.

The Planet Can Wait

Don't worry about saving the planet. Al Gore is a liar. "Climategate" supports such conclusions.

Or so Pat McIlheran, Journal Sentinel conservative hack, would have us believe.

The Associated Press and Media Matters debunked this weeks ago.

For Further Reading:
Scientific Consensus on Climate Change?

Extrapolate Your Head From Your...

Wouldn't it be nice if politicians and their talking-heads could just admit when they're wrong, when they've misunderstood something or misspoke? Sadly it seems that will never be the case in our "with us or against us" political system.

Patrick McIlheran at the Journal Sentinel aims to deduce the seedy, underlying "meaning" in the Democrats' health care proposals. He parrots the Republican qualifier that "death panel" may not be in any proposal, but the implication is there.

Pat quips, regarding death panels, “They’re not in the bill but the logic is most certainly contained in what the bill empowers government to do.”

The proposals simply state that if a person or their family chooses to have an end of life consultation it is reimbursable. Basically, you're now covered to enact a living will. But the masters of political treachery - the Republicans - have turned this into the death sport of Democrats versus grandmothers.

But I guess this is typical Republican tactics: focus on that which cannot be proven or disproven. [Since they choose to ignore actually reading the proposals; it's so much easier to just make stuff up.] Obama was born in Kenya. Even when they're shown his birth certificate, that still doesn't disprove their crazy lie. Next, they fabricate "death panels". When it's shown that no such thing is in any bill, they simply say, "But that's obviously the intent."

Is there really any point trying to have a debate/discussion with these people? As Barney Frank said to an agitator at a town hall meeting the other day, "Trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with the dining room table."

The Right-Wing Health Care Harangue

"Well-intentioned bureaucrats" are trying to reform health care, a central component of which is a "public option". "That's worrisome," according to self-avowed health care guru, Patrick McIlheran at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

The veiled logic begins with the statement, "many more people will have their health coverage funded, subsidized or legally specified by the federal government. This means their health is no longer their concern but ours. When anything is paid for publicly, it is decided politically. Health care will be no different."

Shouldn't the health of our fellow citizens already be a concern? Shouldn't the government play a major role in the health of the nation? Just as it does with housing, transportation, finance, and well, everything! Why should health care be untouchable? We have a private-run system now. It costs twice as much as any other country and we have 50 million without coverage. So, obviously the private sector does not know how to run health care.

And, public action being decided politically - that's called democracy. Obama won. His side (the majority of America ) wants health care reform. Those already served under a government-run public option - Medicare - are very happy with their health care.

Patrick has a rant in the article on abortion. All I'll remind Pat here is this - abortion is a legal medical procedure. Stop trotting out the wedge issue(s) that divide everyone and speak to the issues where we can reach compromise.

He claims the President is dodging certain specifics, mockingly saying, "This man ran on change." Just as McIlheran is speculating about the health care proposals he obviously has not viewed, yet he still feels qualified/obliged to fantasize about what they mean and what the results will be.

Being the good right-wing soldier he is, Pat had to mention "rationing." One of a few boogeymen (rationing, death panels) the right has erected in the health care debate. Health care is already rationed. Private insurers decide who is covered and who is not. They decide what procedures will be paid be for, or whether one can even have a procedure. We have an ineffective bureaucrat between the doctor and the patient already - it's the private insurers.

Does any thinking individual feel that using science to determine what procedures are the most cost-effective for health outcomes is a bad thing? Government curbing overly expensive yet no more effective procedures is good management. Are Republicans saying we should spend just for the sake of spending? Aren't they the ones always preaching about not throwing money at things?

There also seems to be a bit of the, "We're Americans, we're the best, there can be no restrictions on anything we do." It's a very infantile urge to be tapping into. But the right loves latching onto the lowest-common-denominator and playing on peoples' emotions.

Pat then brings up the Congressional Budget Office review (which some have found problematic) that finds the proposals will not slow health care cost increases. As long as we don't control pharmaceutical costs and re-imagine our health care system more holistically with more preventative care, active lifestyles and in accordance with healthier, locally grown foods, I agree, costs will continue to rise.

This is also a standard-of-living issue. Health care is a right in a civilized society. The American standard-of-living has been falling. Yet, I haven't heard the Republicans outraged by this. Income inequality has been skyrocketing over the last 30 years. Where are the Republican voices on this issue? Suddenly they're concerned with our rights, our health, how we live, our choices? Yet they've been silent as jobs have been outsourced, more and more went without insurance, more and more were thrown into crippling debt over medical bills, wages have stagnated, and citizens have found it harder and harder to make ends meet. But now we should trust them? They've got our best interests at heart.

To allow the system to continue to be run by private entities, whose interest is profit and not health, can only lead to worse and worse outcomes. As Albert Einstein said, "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is insanity."

Road Warriors

WOW! I almost need a staff just to stay on top of and respond to all the misinformation and unenlightened opinions of Pat McIlheran at the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. (And, it should be noted, John Torinus' falsehood-spewing isn't far behind.)

Pat follwed up his last bit of nonsense with more of the same, Radical old idea: Let us move around.

In the latest expounding of obliviousness, Pat pushes for extending the Lake Parkway all the way to southern Oak Creek. Is there any problem more highways will not solve for these guys?

McIlheran then runs through the typical gamut of right-wing, development, talking-points: the automobile represents freedom, no one wants to ride the train/light-rail, and building on green space is cheap and therefore preferable.

His description of Pat Jursik's, Milwaukee County Board member, idea for this highway expansion is "revolutionary". In today's environment - sprawl, pollution, water shortages, crumbling roads and infrastructure, stressed budgets - to suggest we build more is absurd. To suggest we build mass transit options that alleviate our dependence on automobiles and highways is, as Pat would say, "Right on!"

McIlheran thinks that if we don't expand highways and if we do expand rail options, we are "cutting off people's options." Someone check into Pat's relationship with the highway lobby. Is there a status quo entity for which he is not a shill? Again, Pat goes back to the oldie but goodie, implying that because we are Americans we can do whatever we want...the planet be damned! Not building highways, continuing to allow us to spew pollutants, nor paving over green space somehow equates to American freedom and would be "cutting off our options".

He then goes on to show more ignornace regarding the latest research, and a complete blindness to a Milwaukee case study. He, agreeing with Jursik, pontificates that tearing down the highway and replacing it with a surface street or lift bridge would be foolish. Maybe they both should read, 4 Cases of How Tearing Down a Highway Can Relieve Traffic Jams.

They mention how surface streets isolate one area of the region from the other. But on the contrary, what they actually do is encourage high-density development and community along those surface streets. Just the opposite of what McIlheran and Jursik are proposing. They want to relieve surface streets of traffic - which would relieve the businesses along these streets of customers. This of course would lead to more exit-ramp, big-box retailers sprouting up along the highways so drivers can jump on and off to get items they might need on any given day. We'd hate to see people shopping in their own neighborhoods supporting local retailers and entrepreneurs. It's much better that we spend money at absentee-owned stores that pay a lower wage and subsequently siphon much of that spending outside our border. Basically, McIlheran and Jursik just want more of the same. More highways for more driving, just not on surface streets, so all of our driving can be at higher speeds, alongside more of the same, haphazard development we've seen over the last 50 years.

The boogeyman here is congestion. We need more highways to relieve all our congestion? What congestion? Milwaukee has one of the shorter commute times of any larger city. Milwaukee was recently ranked the third best city in the country for commuters by Forbes magazine.

We need an investment in rail. Being one of only two or three areas in the country without, or not planning, light-rail is bad for business, the environment, and our quality of life. And, this would only make our commute time even better.

Glaringly absent from the article is a discussion of induced demand. The phenomenon whereby building highways, adding lanes, actually increases congestion on those highways. But economic development, urban planning, and quality of life are obviously not Pat's forte. He's only worried about convenience.

Is McIlheran unaware of the environmental issues breathing down our necks? Or just unwilling to make lifestyle changes to avoid catastrophe? He even makes a crack about, "the silliness of opposing all new pavement." Seemingly, somehow, glorifying and proclaiming the righteousness of paving over open space. Again, showing his complete ignornace regarding the environmental issues with sprawling development.

Parasitic Pat

Patrick McIlheran's stubborness, obtuseness, and ignorance are on full display in his screed on Milwaukee's water wars, Dollars and sense stall water war.

Pat feels the Water Works, or whomever does what they do, purifies water and pipes it to your home...and they only real issue here is whether this is done effectively and cheaply. Since Milwaukee has some of the lowest water rates in the land, is internationally recognized for our water system, and the Water Works is a handsomely profitable entity - according to McIlheran's own standards, the Water Works is the epitome of efficiency.

As usual, rather than adding anything to this debate other than the typical conservative talking points, McIlheran seems to use the water issue, as he does with many other issues, to simply take shots and make wise-cracks about environmentalists, Democrats, and citizens concerned with their water supply.

Pat is still oblivious to sprawl, how water diversions are connected with development patterns, and the ill effects all of this has on our environment. But, in Pat's eyes, we have dominion over the earth, we must continually build new highways, develop open space into parking lots and strip malls, drive our SUVs, and pretty much do whatever the hell we want. We're Americans, damn it! If we do it, it can't be wrong.

Pat's argument that Lake Michigan water really belongs to all of us, therefore there should be not contention about this issue, is also logically adrift. We all live in the U.S., Alaska is part of the U.S., so, by Pat's logic, all of us here in Wisconsin (along with all the other states) should be getting an annual check from Alaska's oil profits. It's funny to see conservatives like McIlheran become socialists when their worldview and the existence of the suburbs would disappear without such an intellectual manipulation.

Sorry, if suburbs want to keep sprawling and building in places where they shouldn't, they are going to have to pay a steep price. Pat should do some reading on externalities.

Pat is one of a number voices unable to come to terms with the FACT that low-density development must die. Either than or the planet will die. Not a very tough choice.

McIlheran believes, as all right-wingers do, that privatization will solve everything. Privatization would "depoliticize water". But maybe they should be careful what they wish for regarding their privatized paradise. I guarantee a private company would charge the suburbs much, much more for their water diversions and usage. The suburbs and McIlheran think Milwaukee is playing hardball, just wait until an absentee-owner, accountable to no one, controls the water.

Plus, do Pat and his ilk not realize that continued growth of places like Waukesha and other exurbs is the reason for water shortages and the sudden interest of private companies to control major water ways and water systems?

Maybe they need to talk with Australians, Californians, and Kansans about the outcomes of their water diversions and over usage.

There is no assurance any of this - water, oil, the planet - will continue in perpetuity. Acting as if we can do whatever we like and ignoring the consequences ensures disaster. It's time we begin acting like stewards rather than continuing to act like parasites.

For Further Reading:
A Win in the Water Wars
Alternatives to Water Privatization
California Water Wars
California's Real Water Wars
Fighting the Corporate Theft of Our Water
Is Water Becoming the New Oil?
Localize Water
The Real Cost of Water
Thirsty Suburbs
Water
Water Barons
Water & Sprawl
Water: Public Good
Who Owns Our Water?

Paranoia Overdose

It's almost become cliche here that whenever John Torinus or Patrick McIlheran write a column in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel I have to spend a post correcting their many fallacies.

Well, Pat has done it again. So here I go.

In his piece - Not against taxes, just an overdose - McIlheran mumbles on about teabaggers and deficits. Let's do a point-by-point critique of the many falsehoods, embellishments, and misdirections.

First, I'd like to point out McIlheran's go-to research group, The Tax Foundation. Their work has been discredited over and over by many much more thoughtful social scientists. His continual reliance on them in article after article only weakens his arguments.

He then refers to deficit spending as a "deferred bill". Deficit spending is an investment like any other. Corporations use internally financed capital expenditures to grow their businesses (Henwood, Wall Street, p. 3). When the private sector is not providing the demand stimulus in the economy, the only entity left to do such is the government. Deficit spending is an investment in the future. Conversely the Republicans' tax cutting has led to increased inequality, allowed our infrastructure to crumble, and increased deficits with no tanglible improvements to show for it.

Next, Pat tried to revive the story that the Teabag fiasco was a grassroots endeavor. This is a display of delusion and cognitive dissonance on a grand scale. (Maybe Pat needs a history lesson regarding the original Tea Party.) He goes on and on about citizens rightfully uprising over onerous taxation. The Teabag theater was organized by well-funded Washington lobbyist groups - Freedom Works (Dick Armey) and Americans for Prosperity (Newt Gingrich). And, most importantly, President Obama has not increased taxes on 98 percent of the population. To keep claiming the opposite of reality just so that these right-wingers can hear themselves speak really does a diservice to the country, and muddles any attempt at a civil discourse - which seems to be their aim.

McIlheran then goes on to compare all Wisconsin municipalities with Washington County to prove there can be good government with little cost. Pat also states that these people have no problem with the share of taxation consumed by the Fire and Police departments. In the City of Milwaukee, the proposed 2009 total budget for general city purposes is $590,058,363; total wages and salaries for the police department are $159,065,554 - 27 percent; for the fire department $71,126,450 - 12 percent. I doubt most people know that fire and police consume 39 percent of the total budget for general city purposes. Across the U.S. these two departments, on average, account for 25 to 75 percent of budgets.

Moreover, Washington County (pop. 129,277) doesn't have the population, amenities, infrastructure, and concentration of poor people, like the City of Milwaukee (pop. 602,191). If we expand to Milwaukee County, the population is 953,328. So, comparing Milwaukee to Washington County is deceptive at best. And, to think that the surrounding communites do not benefit from the many amenities - the stadium, Calatrava, the lakefront, the theater, the riverwalk, the festivals, etc. - provided by the City is ridiculous.

Mr. McIlheran then bellows about an "ever-growing, unlimited government". Talk about paranoid. Government runs up its largest deficits and expands in size the most under Republican administrations. It also performs the worst economically under right-wing rule.

He then goes on to make snide insinuations toward "nationalized health care and vast new energy taxes." I guess he feels our health care system that doesn't cover 50 million people and cost twice as much as any other industrialized nation is just fine. He also must think our dependence on foreign oil and the fact that its pollution is destroying the planet isn't anything to worry about either.

He routinely comes back to the (I'm paraphrasing) 'government is taking your money' mantra. The fact is, most people feel government is a necessary regulator of the market, a provider of base services and institutions, and a means to ensuring equality of opportunity among its citizens.

McIlheran closes his rant by complaining about "subsidizing, taxing, regulating, and bailing out every corner of life." This completely ignores the fact that a lack of enforcement and regulation enabled our current mess. It also ignores the fact that the majority of government subsidization is corporate welfare. Only 1 percent of state and local budgets go toward assistance to the poor. And, the ones bailed out thus far have been corporate behemoths and the largest banks...the (auto) workers have been the only ones whom have had to sacrifice.

It is really work to correct and keep up with all the misinformation Teabaggers like McIlheran can imagine.

Housing Is A National Decision

Patrick McIlheran at the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel pontificates on housing and how it must remain in the realm of individual decision-making. Somehow property and housing - wherever a person wants to build and live - is a right. There shall be no input from government, no growth boundaries, no planning involved in how we create our built environment, house our citizens, and construct our society and communities.

This McIlheran-thinking is really just another stunning example of selfish, greedy, base-instincts at their worst. These are some of the same driving forces and impulses that led to the current economic mess we're in.

Is McIlheran really that uninformed regarding the many environmental and economic issues involved in sprawling development? The upkeep of the new roads, additional sewer and water issues, policing, electrical grid infrastructure, commuter pollution, paved land, among many others. There are ecosystems, food sources, natural resources, animals, wet lands, and other natural systems that are destroyed in our continually destructive "build wherever land is cheapest and construct a highway out to it" mentality.

Can we all also agree on the point that just because we desire something or would like things to be a certain way, this does not mean that we automatically get what we want, nor does it mean that things should be our way, nor does it imply things will turn out a certain way? There are larger societal issues here than just each individuals wants and desires.

Although the advertisers and public relations hucksters may want it this way, we should not be aspiring to be a nation of hedonistic gluttons. Just because some developers want to sell the "American Dream" as a McMansion on 5 acres an hour out in the middle of nowhere doesn't make it so and it doesn't make it the most highly productive, efficient, or beneficial housing or development policy. It's a way to make a quick buck for the developers, while the negative externalities are passed on the public.

It's time for us to be more responsible to the environment and more sustainable in our development decisions. It's time to realize that what is right and just is not always cheap and easy.

Chris Caldwell, of the Financial Times, gives a nice primer on highway building, suburban sprawl, and the many negative consequences of both here.

Nudging Away Nonsense

Patrick McIlheran, conservative ideologue and propagandist of the Milwaukee-Journal Sentinel, has yet another infuriatingly misinformed (as usual) screed pertaining to a government mandate - when taxpayers fund over a million dollars of a private project, decent wages must be paid to the workers of the project.

Seems rational. Oh, but not in McIlheran's race-to-the-bottom model of development.

How dare the government demand that there be labor standards in projects where they're paying over a millions dollars! By now, we know the drill: give our tax dollars to the private sector, let them do what they wish, expect nothing, and shut our collective mouth. Sounds like a great investment - because I believe in corporations and the free markets and I know, deep down in my heart, that somehow it'll all work out best for all of us, gosh golly. [Please excuse the dripping sarcasm.]

By the way, how are all those privatization schemes, private sector financial innovations, and deregulatory initiatives working out?

From the article: "If we have a problem with people getting jobs," said Council President Willie Hines, an ordinance opponent, "the solution can't be to increase wages." The "increase" in wages is better thought of as the interest paid by the private developer on the risk assumed by the government in helping to fund/start the project.

A business is choosing to develop a site because of the income stream, the cash flow, that can be generated from that site. Every site is not duplicable anywhere we'd like. Certain spots have better exposure and demand, and that's why those sites are chosen for whatever project may be planned (except of course when "subsidies" - bribery or pay-off is a better descriptor - distort the market by courting a business to move with tax breaks and exemptions to what could be considered a comparatively less than optimal site). This fact squashes the claim that a developer can just go anywhere else they want. Cheapness is not a comparative advantage. And, as has been repeatedly found in numerous studies, labor cost is not the boogey-man the race-to-the-bottom cabal claims it to be [see For Further Reading below].

For McIlheran, being paid an honest days wage for an honest days work is "suspect." Our labor laws and standards, the labor movement in general, all part of a nefarious conspiracy. Luckily McIlheran, Mr. Consistency, doesn't have any type of representation in his profession of journalism. Oh, wait, I almost forgot about the Newspaper Guild, the International Federation of Journalists, the International Press Institute, the Society of Professional Journalists, and the National Writers Union.

He also shows another glaringly uninformed - regarding sprawl and the environment - viewpoint, "You see buildings rising, instead, out where the parking is free and the costs are lower. Developers and their tenants have choices." It doesn't even cross his mind that there might be negative economic and environmental issues with this type of development. More on this obliviousness here and here.

He also then tries to take a shot at the sick day ordinance and the 'tax hell' (as some falsely try to claim) that oppresses business here, "This sick leave outrage is part of a continuum. From high taxes to a weird fee on going out of business to a general feeling that they're seen as the class enemy, businesses aren't finding our city a welcoming place. Why, then, would leaders want to give entrepreneurs one more reason to leave?"

As 9 to 5 has noted, "Since enactment of paid sick time on February 5^, 2007, San Francisco has maintained a competitive job growth rate that has exceeded the average growth rate of nearby counties without paid sick days. Likely benefits include improved health outcomes, speedier recoveries for workers and their families, and greater family economic stability with more consistent employment tenure." Another no-brainer with a case study for evidence. But that doesn't jibe with the McIlheran narrative, so forget it.

[Michael Rosen, of Midcoast Views, has an interesting post about Milwaukee developers and their lobbying efforts to undermine the ordinance.]

The problem is, most of what the McIlherans of the world think, most of the policies they push, have no grounding in solid empirical data. It's an ad hoc paradigm they operate from where they mold reality to fit into their narrow worldview. They imagine it, therefore it must be so.

But keep railing for the interests of the powerful at the expense of the many, Mr. McIlheran. Big Business will always be eager to pay for shills willing to present their propaganda to the public.

For Further Reading:
A New Development Paradigm
Attracting Economic Development - At What Cost?
Beginner's Guide to Accountable Development
Building Good Jobs & Strong Communities
Economic Benefits of Union Membership
How Unions Help All Workers
NAFTA: Still Not Working
Shielding Public Incentives for Corporate Relocations from Public Scrutiny
The Economic Civil War
Union Advantage By The Numbers
Union Wage Advantage for Low-wage Workers
Want Change?