Like just about everybody else in America, I have an extremely hard time believing almost anything out of a politician's mouth. But that's not to say that THEY don't believe that which is emanating from their lie-hole. As confident I am in my skepticism about their words, I'm less so in asserting that they don't believe them either.
That being said, I'm can't imagine that the President actually believes the things he's saying.
"So I’m deeply disappointed that a new anti-worker law in Wisconsin will weaken, rather than strengthen workers in the new economy. Wisconsin is a state built by labor, with a proud pro-worker past. So even as its governor claims victory over working Americans, I’d encourage him to try and score a victory for working Americans – by taking meaningful action to raise their wages and offer them the security of paid leave. That’s how you give hardworking middle-class families a fair shot in the new economy – not by stripping their rights in the workplace, but by offering them all the tools they need to get ahead."
The nonsense contained in that paragraph simply boggles the mind. He cannot possibly think they’re true.
First of all, to call the bill "anti-worker" completely turns upside down the meaning of the word "anti." Wisconsin is now the 26th state to allow workers the freedom to choose whether or not they want to join a union. Businesses will no longer be allowed to force union membership but must leave it up to the individual as to whether they'll be dues-paying members or not. Giving a worker the ability to choose should be far more closely associated with the word "pro."
Secondly, how can reducing the restrictions on business be considered to have been a "victory over working Americans"? Businesses are actually the ones that strive to grow and hire more workers to support that growth. It’s a simple formula: reducing barriers to growth will yield growth. In plain language, that’s a victory.
Lastly, encouraging "meaningful action to raise their wages" is not-so-veiled code for increasing the state's minimum wage. Is it at all possible that the President thinks that the primary lever to pull to yield economic growth -- and higher wages -- is a mandated higher wage? Legitimate arguments can be had that some sort of minimum wage is needed – though they fail to convince me – but the President’s statement puts it right up front. That’s absurd.
One need only look west of Wisconsin, to the Dakotas, to see states where typical starting wages far outstrip those states' minimum wage requirements. Because their economies are red-hot and demand for labor is at a similar temperature, the effective minimum wage is higher than the legal one. Any Econ 101 student recognizes that when demand for labor outpaces supply, the price of labor (i.e., the wages paid) increases.
Recent studies on the superior performance of right-to-work states, the negative impact of collective bargaining on growth and wages, and how union and non-union workers overwhelmingly support right-to-work laws, should have brought all the arguments to a close. Except, of course, if you're a union boss. Or, if in the case of Obama, you have a significant debt to pay off to the unions for your electoral victories. And that may explain it all. It doesn't, however, mean that behind the scenes he doesn't actually know the truth.