By WFI Staff
What’s the game behind filibuster reform? It’s an important question because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his minions seem hard pressed to push it. Why pick a bruising fight over an obscure rule change when there are so many other more important issues to focus on?
The answer might be found in this past presidential election cycle in which union bosses were among the top donors to President Obama’s re-election campaign. Backtrack to February 2012 where Big Labor was telling The Associated Press that they were planning on spending upwards of “$400 million” on voter mobilization efforts for Obama. And Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) – which spent $250,000 of its money for Obama’s re-election -reportedly told The Washington Times during an interview that he expected “payback” for the labor movement’s efforts on behalf of the President.
This is what filibuster reform is all about: payback. It’s essentially an in-kind return for all the hard work of union bosses who wanted Obama and Reid re-elected so they could do the bidding of Big Labor. Reported the Huffington Post recently:
“The head of a major labor union is warning Senate Democrats that those who aren’t willing to take on Republicans over the obstruction of presidential nominees – and deploy the so-called ‘nuclear option’ if necessary for confirmation – will lose the union’s support. ‘We’re done,’ a frustrated Larry Cohen, president of the Communications Workers of America, said on call with reporters Monday. ‘We have said to them that we are not going to sit back and see these agencies literally fall apart … We expect them to step up and tell us why we [should] care if on something this moderate – the ability of the White House to govern – you’re not with us.’”