Twinkies company liquidates due to demands of greedy labor union

The Wall Street Journal explains.

Excerpt:

Hostess Brands is going to liquidate, a blow to lovers of Twinkies, Wonder Bread and Drake’s Coffee Cakes all around the globe.

But CEO Gregory Rayburn told CNBC today that as the company winds down its operations after failing to reach an agreement with a union, it will try to sell its various brands. There are 30 separate brands under the companies sugary umbrella.

[...]Rayburn, a restructuring veteran brought in for the bankruptcy, did not shy away from blaming the striking bakers’ union for the liquidation after the company put out an ultimatum earlier this week for them to return to work or face this consequence. He told the television network the union hasn’t “returned our calls in a couple of months.”

There is a silver lining to this story, though:

The reason: insurmountable (and unfundable) difference in the firm’s collective bargaining agreements and pension obligations, which resulted in a crippling strike that basically shut down the company… [the company] was unable to survive empowered labor unions who thought they had all the negotiating leverage…  until they led their bankrupt employer right off liquidation cliff.

[...]Hostess’ numerous brands will be bought in a stalking horse auction by willing private buyers, however completely free and clear of all legacy labor and pension agreements which ultimately led to the company’s liquidation.

Now that’s progress. But what causes union bosses to be so uninformed and ignorant of basic economics? How is it that they do not understand how businesses work?

Consider this quote from Richard Trumka about the looming fiscal crisis:

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka has declared there’s no fiscal cliff and any address of runaway government spending is just “a manufactured crisis.”

[...]“‘Take what the media are calling ‘the fiscal cliff.’ There is no fiscal cliff!” Trumka thundered at a National Mediation Board Conference Thursday, sounding like an alcoholic pleading for one last swig well before he hits rock bottom.

[...]“What we’re facing,” he said Thursday, “is an obstacle course within a manufactured crisis that was hastily thrown together in response to inflated rhetoric about our federal deficit.

“But all the deficit chatter has distracted us from our real crisis — the immediate crisis of 23 million unemployed or underemployed workers. It’s time to protect Social Security benefits. It’s time to protect Medicare and Medicaid benefits. And it’s time to raise taxes for the richest 2%,” he went on.

In short, Trumka is arguing that there’s no such thing as too much government spending, that deficits don’t matter and that entitlements cannot be cut. Such denialist thinking is beyond irresponsible in the face of a $16 trillion debt, highest on global record and a sign of an irrational agenda often followed by would-be tyrants.

Trumka is trying to intimidate congressional Democrats into intransigence on a debt deal with Republicans to restore the solvency of the U.S. Instead, he wants them to stand fast on the idea that the debt, deficit and entitlements can be addressed simply by taxing higher-income earners who already account for more than half of federal income-tax revenue.

This is the kind of irresponsible thinking that has triggered riots in Greece and Spain — a belief that the money is there and only the meanness of austerity is keeping the common man from his share.

In reality, the money is not there — the pot is empty. Medicare and Social Security are now on “unsustainable paths,” paying out more in benefits than they take in, with their trust funds projected to run dry by 2024 and 2033, according to their own trustees.

Socialism is meeting its natural end — which, in the words of former U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, is when it “runs out of other people’s money.”

Unions don’t make anything on their own, only businesses do. And they just don’t understand that. They don’t understand that at some point it is possible to suck too much blood from the host so that the host dies.

I feel bad for the conservatives who are forced to join these labor unions and pay dues to greedy union bosses who don’t understand capitalism or economics. My recommendation is that individual states pass right-to-work laws. Right-to-work states have created FOUR TIMES as many jobs as forced unionization states, since 2009. That’s what happens when you embrace freedom and capitalism.

Filed under: News, AFL-CIO, Bankruptcy, Collective Bargaining, Debt, Deficit, Ding Dongs, Economics, Economy, Fiscal Cliff, Hostess, Jobless, Jobs, Labor Union, Lawyer, Liquidation, Prosperity, Richard Trumka, Right to Work, Socialism, Twinkies, Unemployment, Union, Unions, Worker

Another looming debt crisis: law school students racking up $100,000+ in debt

Consider this scary article from the Competitive Enterprise Institute. (H/T Hans)

Excerpt: (links removed)

Federal financial aid policies haveencouraged law students to borrow increasing amounts to attend law school, despite the glut of lawyers (oddly, government policies encourage more people to go to law school, driving up law schooltuition, even as the Obama administration seeks to cut back on vocational education aimed at training the skilled blue-collar workers who are in desperately short supply in much of the country). The result, says law professor Brian Tamanaha, is a “Quickly Exploding Law Graduate Debt Disaster” in which most recent graduates of many law schools will never be able to pay off their staggering student loan debt. At the liberal Balkinization blog, Tamanaha notes that the average student has over $100,000 in debt just from law school at many schools…

[...]As one commenter noted earlier, federal financial aid and student loans have driven up law school tuition and student loan debt: “education loans . . . often have implicit government guarantees,” even those not explicitly backed by the government. As a result, “like the GSE’s, the supply of credit for education loans has continued to expand. So in a way colleges and universities, public and private have been in a bubble akin to the housing bubble. The benefits to the institutions are irresistible and so there is no way they will try to reign in costs and thus tuition. Not as long as students are willing and able to borrow.” When the bubble pops, taxpayers will be on the hook for countless billions of dollars (many graduates already are not repaying their student loans). “Why is college so expensive? A new study points to a disconcerting culprit: financial aid,” notes Paul Kix on page K1 of the March 25 Boston Globe. I and professors and education experts commented earlier on that study at Minding the Campus. Other studies also have concluded that increased federal financial aid, such as student loans, drives up college tuition, and you can find links to some of them here.

[...]When law school graduates are unable to pay off their student loans, lenders will come after their elderly parents who co-signed for the loans.  As the Washington Post notes, “Americans 60 and older still owe about $36 billion in student loans . . . Many have co-signed for loans with their children or grandchildren to help them afford ballooning tuition.”

According to the liberal New York Times, law schools do a woeful job of preparing students to practice law.

Excerpt:

The lesson today — the ins and outs of closing a deal — seems lifted from Corporate Lawyering 101.

“How do you get a merger done?” asks Scott B. Connolly, an attorney.

There is silence from three well-dressed people in their early 20s, sitting at a conference table in a downtown building here last month.

“What steps would you need to take to accomplish a merger?” Mr. Connolly prods.

After a pause, a participant gives it a shot: “You buy all the stock of one company. Is that what you need?”

“That’s a stock acquisition,” Mr. Connolly says. “The question is, when you close a merger, how does that deal get done?”

The answer — draft a certificate of merger and file it with the secretary of state — is part of a crash course in legal training. But the three people taking notes are not students. They are associates at a law firm called Drinker Biddle & Reath, hired to handle corporate transactions. And they have each spent three years and as much as $150,000 for a legal degree.

What they did not get, for all that time and money, was much practical training. Law schools have long emphasized the theoretical over the useful, with classes that are often overstuffed with antiquated distinctions, like the variety of property law in post-feudal England. Professors are rewarded for chin-stroking scholarship, like law review articles with titles like “A Future Foretold: Neo-Aristotelian Praise of Postmodern Legal Theory.”

So, for decades, clients have essentially underwritten the training of new lawyers, paying as much as $300 an hour for the time of associates learning on the job. But the downturn in the economy, and long-running efforts to rethink legal fees, have prompted more and more of those clients to send a simple message to law firms: Teach new hires on your own dime.

“The fundamental issue is that law schools are producing people who are not capable of being counselors,” says Jeffrey W. Carr, the general counsel of FMC Technologies, a Houston company that makes oil drilling equipment. “They are lawyers in the sense that they have law degrees, but they aren’t ready to be a provider of services.”

[...]Consider, for instance, Contracts, a first-year staple. It is one of many that originated in the Langdell era and endures today. In it, students will typically encounter such classics as Hadley v. Baxendale, an 1854 dispute about financial damages caused by the late delivery of a crankshaft to a British miller.

Here is what students will rarely encounter in Contracts: actual contracts, the sort that lawyers need to draft and file. Likewise, Criminal Procedure class is normally filled with case studies about common law crimes — like murder and theft — but hardly mentions plea bargaining, even though a vast majority of criminal cases are resolved by that method.

[...]“We should be teaching what is really going on in the legal system,” says Edward L. Rubin, a professor and former dean at the Vanderbilt Law School, “not what was going on in the 1870s, when much of the legal curriculum was put in place.”

Not only that, but the marketplace is saturated with lawyers already. When supply increases and demand decreases, prices fall. The new batch of lawyers are not going to be able to command the same salaries as the old batch.

Filed under: News, Academia, Billion, Bubble, Debt, Default, Graduate, Job Market, Law School, Lawyer, Loans, Marketplace, Million, Professor, Repayment, Student Loan, Subsidies, Tuition, Tutition Bubble

Sandra Fluke supports mandatory coverage of sex change surgery

The Other McCain has the scoop!

Excerpt: (links removed)

Rather belatedly, we are becoming aware that this supposedly typical Georgetown coed is not very typical at all:

[B]irth control is not all that Ms. Fluke believes private health insurance must cover. She also, apparently, believes that it is discrimination deserving of legal action if “gender reassignment” surgeries are not covered by employer provided health insurance. She makes these views clear in an article she co-edited with Karen Hu in the Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law.
The title of the article . . . is “Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons” and was published in the Journal’s 2011 Annual Review.

Remember, as Byron York previously reported, Fluke was rejected as a last-minute substitute witness at a Feb. 16 committee hearing because staffers for Chairman Issa were unable to discover Fluke’s claim to expertise relevant to the subject of the hearing. This law school journal article is the sort of thing that might have been discovered about Fluke’s background, had the Democrats who put Fluke forward as a witness done so with the usual 72-hour advance notice. Here’s one brief quote from the article:

Transgender persons wishing to undergo the gender reassignment process frequently face heterosexist employer health insurance policies that label the surgery as cosmetic or medically unnecessary and therefore uncovered.

Now, imagine Fluke trying to defend this language about “heterosexist” policies in a public hearing, with Republican members of the committee questioning her about whether religious institutions (or private businesses, or taxpayers) should also be required to foot the bill for “gender reassignment.”

Congratulations, America: You’ve been scammed!

And if you think that’s bad, check out this link that McCain provides.

Excerpt:

Hormone treatments for transgendered detainees, abortion services and extensive outlets for complaints — these are just a few of the reasons Texas Republican House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith is not pleased with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) recently released Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS).

In the spirit of detention reform, in 2011, for the first time since 2008, ICE finished its revision of detention standards for those being held for being in the country illegally. Those new standards were released this month. ICE has already started to implement the changes. [...]

According to Smith, however, the revisions amount to a vast and expensive expansion of privileges.

“The Obama administration’s new detention manual is more like a hospitality guideline for illegal immigrants,” Smith wrote in a statement. “The administration goes beyond common sense to accommodate illegal immigrants and treats them better than citizens in federal custody.”

The standards also outline a wide range of medical procedures available to those in detention facilities, including services such as abortion access, hormone treatments for transgendered people, dental work and a 15-day supply of medications upon release, deportation or transfer.

That’s what the left really wants – in fact, that’s already available in Canada’s socialized health care system and in the UK’s National Health Service, too. This is like the Holy Grail of the left – changing your sex from man to woman, or vice versa, and back again – all paid for by your stuck-up Christian neighbors and their children, who will have to work till they are 90 to pay for it all. Hurray for measly cheese sandwiches! Equality for all!

In addition, there is something else that emerged about this story since I wrote about it last week – the hypocrisy of the left.

Excerpt:

During the 2008 election Ed Schultz said on his radio show that Sarah Palin set off a “bimbo alert.” He called Laura Ingraham a “right-wing sl*t.” (He later apologized.) He once even took to his blog to call yours truly a “bimbo” for the offense of quoting him accurately in a New York Post column.

Keith Olbermann has said that conservative commentator S.E. Cupp should have been aborted by her parents, apparently because he finds her having opinions offensive. He called Michelle Malkin a “mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick.” He found it newsworthy to discuss Carrie Prejean’s breasts on his MSNBC show. His solution for dealing with Hillary Clinton, who he thought should drop out of the presidential race, was to find “somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out.” Olbermann now works for über-leftist and former Democratic vice president Al Gore at Current TV.

But the grand pooh-bah of media misogyny is without a doubt Bill Maher…

And I’ll just stop it right there – don’t you dare click that link, because it is incredibly rude.

Here is my previous post on Sandra Fluke, in which I explain why her demand that we subsidize Yale Law School students who spend $1000 a year on contraception is bad for marriage and bad for children. (Note: I am not Catholic – I’m an evangelical Protestant). At least if I pick on particular women, which is rare – because I normally stick to general issues – they have to say something to deserve it. And I would never say anything as bad as what the left-wing media says about Republican women, and for no other reason than because they are conservative.

Filed under: News, $3000, Contraception, Contraceptives, Feminism, Law School, Lawyer, Man Up, Mandate, Mark Driscoll, Measly Cheese Sandwich, Obamacare, Premarital Sex, Prostitute, Prostitution, Recreational Sex, Redistribution of Wealth, Reproductive Rights, Sandra Fluke, Wealth Redistribution, Women's Health, Women's Rights

Sandra Fluke: Georgetown students spend $3000 on contraception

From CNS News, a very funny story.

Excerpt:

A Georgetown co-ed told Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s hearing that the women in her law school program are having so much sex that they’re going broke, so you and I should pay for their birth control.

Speaking at a hearing held by Pelosi to tout Pres. Obama’s mandate that virtually every health insurance plan cover the full cost of contraception and abortion-inducing products, Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke said that it’s too expensive to have sex in law school without mandated insurance coverage.

Apparently, four out of every ten co-eds are having so much sex that it’s hard to make ends meet if they have to pay for their own contraception, Fluke’s research shows.

“Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy (Georgetown student insurance not covering contraception), Fluke reported.

It costs a female student $3,000 to have protected sex over the course of her three-year stint in law school, according to her calculations.

“Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school,” Fluke told the hearing.

$3,000 for birth control in three years? That’s a thousand dollars a year of sex – and, she wants us to pay for it.

Yes, us. Where do you think the insurance companies forced to cover this cost get the money to pay for these co-eds to have sex? It comes from the health care insurance premiums you and I pay.

But, back to this woman’s complaint that she’s spending $3,000 for birth control during her time in college.

“For a lot of students, like me, who are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary,” she complains.

So, she earns enough money in just one summer to pays for three full years of sex. And, yes, they are full years – since she and her co-ed classmates are having sex nearly three times a day for three years straight, apparently.

The problem with government-run health insurance is that it turns into nothing but vote buying. The government forces everyone to pay for coverages they don’t want so that they can redistribute the wealth from people who don’t engage in risky, costly behaviors to people who do. It encourages people to be more reckless and irresponsible when someone else is paying for it. In economics, this is called “moral hazard”. Promiscuity costs money – money for contraceptives, abortions, etc. What happens when support for promiscuity it is counted as “health care” is that people who abstain from promiscuity end up subsidizing the promiscuity of others. And that’s why we get more of it – you get more of anything when you reduce the costs of it.

The most troubling thing about subsidizing premarital sex is that research has shown that premarital sex reduces the stability of marriages as well as the quality of marriages. Another study showed that teenage premarital sex increases the risk of divorce. Furthermore, the more marriages break down, the more society pays to deal with the fallout – $112 billion per year according to a recent study.

The same thing happens with subsidized single motherhood by choice – the more that the government subsidizes single motherhood by choice, the more of it you get. Many women want the baby without the husband now, and it’s easier for them when the government pays for it by taking money from workers and businesses. This is in spite of the research showing how harmful the decline of marriage is to society, especially because the decline of marriage leads to increased child poverty and increased violence to women and children.

The testimony by Sandra Fluke reminds me of that Christina Hoff Sommers book “Who Stole Feminism?” where the feminists just make up numbers out of nowhere in order to blame men and portray themselves as helpless victims in need of new laws, policies and bailouts. I guess this is what they learn to do in Women’s Studies programs.

What’s scary to me is that women like Sandra Fluke become lawyers and judges and they do influence what society will look like. Men have to make decisions about what to do in a society that does not support men or marriage very much anymore.

UPDATE: A little bit more information about Sandra Fluke.

I put that in quotes because in the beginning she was described as a Georgetown law student. It was then revealed that prior to attending Georgetown she was an active women’s right advocate. In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown’s insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn’t cover contraceptive services, she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy. During this time, she was described as a 23-year-old coed. Magically, at the same time Congress is debating the forced coverage of contraception, she appears and is even brought to Capitol Hill to testify. This morning, in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it was revealed that she is 30 years old, NOT the 23 that had been reported all along.

In other words, folks, you are being played. She has been an activist all along and the Dems were just waiting for the appropriate time to play her.

The whole thing was engineered, but don’t expect the mainstream media to report that to you.

Related posts

• Research paper explains why college students abandon courtship for hook ups
• Pro-lifers should not condone premarital sex as a pathway to marriage
• Study: 80% of single evangelicals aged 18-29 are no longer virigins
• Should Christian men marry? What’s the worst that could happen?
• New study finds that female teachers give male students lower marks
• For women under 30, most births occur outside of marriage
• How feminist pastors like Mark Driscoll and Kevin DeYoung undermine marriage
• Is Mark Driscoll afraid to hold women accountable for their own choices?
• In the UK welfare state, single motherhood is passed from mother to daughter
• Conservative woman blames liberal women for choosing bad men
• New study finds that women choose mates based on appearance
• New study finds that teens who lose their virginity are more likely to divorce
• New study finds that cohabitation damages children
• New peer-reviewed paper highlights the benefits of pre-marital chastity/abstinence
• Does being a virgin before marriage affect marital stability?
• How more compassion and less moral judgments increases teen pregnancy
• Can a person be a feminist and still believe in marriage?
• What happens when the government pays people to have babies out-of-wedlock?
• New survey finds women more sexually active than men in high school
• Research to help you understand the “hook-up” culture on campus
• Why do feminist academics think that feminism has empowered women?
• Who is really responsible for the abolition of marriage? Men or feminists?
• Who is to blame for the hook-up culture?
• How the feminist welfare state causes generations of fatherlessness
• Obama’s new proposals penalize married couples and stay-at-home parents
• How feminism’s war against men ends up hurting women
• Less than half of 7 to 21 year old women think marriage precedes child-bearing
• How socialism undermines the traditional family in Sweden
• What causes women to become single mothers, and how are children affected?
• Which family configuration is best for raising children?
• New Scientist article shows why fathers are necessary for children’s well-being
• New study finds that cohabitation damages children

Filed under: News, $3000, Contraception, Contraceptives, Feminism, Law School, Lawyer, Man Up, Mandate, Mark Driscoll, Measly Cheese Sandwich, Obamacare, Premarital Sex, Prostitute, Prostitution, Recreational Sex, Redistribution of Wealth, Reproductive Rights, Sandra Fluke, Wealth Redistribution, Women's Health, Women's Rights

How lawsuit abuse hurts businesses and raises unemployment

Consdier this paper from the Heritage Foundation, featuring a variety of views on lawsuit abuse.

Excerpt:

LAWRENCE J. McQUILLAN, Ph.D.: I am an economist. I focus on this issue as an economic issue, an economic problem. I have been working on this issue for about four years as a full-time project, and the first study that we did in 2006 was Jackpot Justice, which Hans mentioned earlier.

In this study, what we set out to do is measure the total cost of the U.S. tort liability system and put that cost in perspective. Hans mentioned a figure of $252 billion a year. That is the direct cost of the tort liability system, but what we wanted to do in this study is also measure the indirect cost. When we crunched the numbers, we arrived at a total of $865 billion annually as the cost.

It is a lawsuit industry. That’s really the way to look at it. It truly is an industry in terms of the size, scope, and amount of resources devoted to it. To put it in perspective, it’s roughly the size of the U.S. restaurant industry: About 6.5 percent of GDP would be the equivalent. It is about 30 times what the National Institutes of Health spends each year on finding cures for deadly diseases. It’s a huge amount of resources that are diverted toward, basically, a transfer system.

The Costs of Lawsuit Abuse

Every year, lawsuit abuse costs each American about $2,000. That is the cost that is factored into all the goods and services that we buy, from ladders to lawnmowers. Built into every price is a component to pay for liability insurance and lawsuit defense.

We estimated the wasteful part of that $865 billion to be about $589 billion a year. In other words, you could remove that part from this total cost and not change manufacturers’ incentives to produce safe products. You could still fully compensate truly injured individuals.

Here is one of the ways that lawsuit abuse changes the free market:

Indirect Costs: Defensive Medicine[...]The first one that gets talked about a lot these days is defensive medicine. Ninety-three percent of all physicians report practicing defensive medicine. These are basically unnecessary tests, procedures, referrals that they know are not really medically necessary to protect the patient, but they do them anyway to protect themselves from litigation. About 25 percent of all procedures, according to a survey last year by the Massachusetts Medical Society, are deemed by the physicians themselves to be unnecessary defensive medicine procedures.

We crunched the numbers in terms of how much this defensive medicine costs the economy. We arrived, in 2007, at $124 billion a year, which is about 8 percent of total health care expenditures. Today, that number would be roughly about $191 billion a year.

You also have to remember that these defensive medicine expenditures get passed along to all of us. We all end up paying for this in terms of our insurance. So insurance premiums go up, which then crowds out a lot of people from being able to afford insurance that they normally would be able to afford. We wanted to estimate what that costs. After crunching the numbers, we estimate that about 3.4 million Americans would have insurance today but do not because of the higher premiums due to just defensive medicine: today about $191 billion.

I think yesterday there was a report that came out that showed something like 14,000 people a year die because they do not have health insurance. It would not surprise me if a lot of these 14,000 people that die every year are part of those 3.4 million people.

And one more:

Indirect Costs: Research and Development

Another indirect cost of the excessive tort liability system is R&D impact. Of course, businesses have to spend a lot more money on legal defense that would otherwise go to product research and development, new product innovation, and new products being introduced. We estimated that total at about $367 billion a year of lost sales of new products that would otherwise come to market but do not because of the diversion of resources basically away from R&D and new product development toward legal defense: again, another huge indirect cost where it is hard to measure what would have been but is not.

Basically, the vaccine industry has fled the country. It is hard to find a manufacturer anymore in the U.S. that does vaccine development and manufacturing, primarily because of liability concerns. It was reported that the FDA granted the H1N1 virus vaccine to four companies to be manufactured, and without much of a surprise, three of the four companies are actually located outside the U.S.: Swiss, Australian, and French companies were all awarded the vaccine licenses.

There is one company in the U.S in Maryland, but I think it got the license to manufacture only because they have a technological advantage. They are going to produce an inhalable version of the vaccine rather than the standard injectable version. I think that is probably why they got a license. Otherwise, I think all of the manufacturers would have come from Europe or Australia.

That is a great example of how it really does impact U.S. business and how the liability system is forcing more and more business overseas. As a result, it hurts us in terms of the economy and job growth.

As another example, Volkswagen was going to introduce a three-wheel vehicle, very green technology, that gets about 49 miles per gallon. They were going to sell it in the U.S. for about $17,000 a vehicle. Probably most people in this room would not want to drive this vehicle, but I can tell you that where I come from in California, it would have sold well. It would have had a big market. It actually got qualified, too, to use the HOV lanes in California.

At the last minute, Volkswagen decided to pull it from the U.S. and not market it here because of liability concerns, but it is available in Europe. So once again, another example where European markets are perceived to be more favorable in terms of liability than the U.S.

I do not think it is any accident, too, that they tend not to have punitive damages in Europe and, also, that they have the loser pay system. This is another example of the indirect costs, fewer products available in the U.S. A lot of people probably would have loved to buy this car, but it is not available.

In terms of how expensive the U.S. system is compared to other countries of comparable standards of living, the estimate is that we have about 59 percent higher tort costs. These are direct costs. These are awards, attorneys’ fees, and administrative expenses. This does not include the indirect costs that I just talked about, but it gives you a good indication of our system compared to other systems in the world. It is just much more expensive for compensating injured individuals.

That is just one of the perspectives provided in this excellent article.

If we expect to have jobs in the future, then we should be thinking about who we expect to hire us. Tacking on frivolous costs onto business owners who develop products and services that we need means that there will be fewer businesses to hire us when we are looking for jobs and less choice and competition when we make purchases.

Keep in mind that trial lawyers are one of the pillars of the Democrat party, and they fight against any regulation of lawsuit abuse.

I noticed that Hans Bader published an article here talking about how the Supreme Court has been attacking businesses. This is one of the reasons why we are bleeding jobs to other countries. Judicial activism is hostile to business and the free market.

Filed under: Commentary, Award, Business, Costs, Court, Jobs, Law, Lawsuit Abuse, Lawyer, Malpractice, Nuisance Lawsuit, Personal Injury Lawyer, Plaintiff Lawyer, Regulation, Trial Lawyer, Unemployment