November 21-23, 2011
Nov 21 01:30 Gov. Dayton parrots AFSCME's & SEIU's chanting points Nov 21 12:51 The radical votes Sen. Klobuchar wants to stay hidden Nov 21 15:08 If it's for the children, keep it with the children Nov 21 22:48 Is President Obama still voting present? Nov 22 10:00 Hensarling outlines rejected GOP proposals Nov 22 15:38 Spineless unions avoid child care hearing Nov 23 09:12 It's time to write Crazy Uncle's Obituary
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Gov. Dayton parrots AFSCME's & SEIU's chanting points
Based on this article , it's easy to conclude that Gov. Dayton is parroting AFSCME's and SEIU's chanting points. Here's a line worth highlighting:
For unions to be allowed to represent home day care providers, more than half must vote for the action. Even then, Dayton said, no provider is required to join or pay dues.
Either Gov. Dayton is ill-informed or he's intentionally misleading people. Minnesota's Fair Share laws require that industries that have been unionized must pay Fair Share dues if they 'benefit' from unionization. Leo Pusateri highlights the SEIU's attempt to downplay the issue of dues in this post :
Notice how the SEIU thug at first tries to poo-poo the fact that non-union daycare providers will still have to shell out fair share costs to the union ('Fair Share' in the State of Minnesota is 80 percent of union dues-still a hefty price in anyone's book); but after being pressed on the issue, explains away the higher cost of daycare via unionization by saying that 'the increased subsidies' as a result of unionization will 'more than offset the (increased) cost.
In other words, the SEIU leadership acknowledges that they will attempt to shift the cost of union membership of daycare providers to taxpayers (yes, that means you and I).
Follow the link to Leo's post to watch his video of his questions for the SEIU representatives. It highlights the SEIU's depravity.
Gov. Dayton's statements on paying union dues doesn't fit with Minnesota state statutes. Fair Share has been the law for a long time. I can't believe that Gov. Dayton doesn't know about Minnesota's Fair Share laws, especially because he owes his administration to Minnesota's PEU's.
Also, it's impossible to think that Gov. Dayton isn't aware of labor laws that've been on the books since at least 1989 .
The GOP is pushing back hard:
Immediately after Dayton's announcement, a pair of Senate Republicans challenged the legality of a governor making such a decision and promised they would take him to court.
'Our reading of current law makes clear that private, home-based child care providers are not public employers or employees and therefore do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Mediation Services and are not subject to public employee labor relations law,' Sen. Mike Parry, R-Waseca, said.
The definition of public employees couldn't be clearer :
What is the status of home-based child care providers under the Public Employment Labor Relations Act (PELRA)?
Answer: Minnesota Statutes Chapter 179A defines a public employer as the state of Minnesota or other local political subdivisions. The law also defines public employees as those appointed or employed by a public employer. Under current law, a self-employed, home-based child care provider would not be a public employer or a public employee.
14. Public employee or employee
'Public employee' or 'employee' means any person appointed or employed by a public employer except:
(a) elected public officials;
(b) election officers;
(c) commissioned or enlisted personnel of the Minnesota National Guard;
(d) emergency employees who are employed for emergency work caused by natural disaster;
(e) part-time employees whose service does not exceed the lesser of 14 hours per week or 35 percent of the normal work week in the employee's appropriate unit;
(f) employees whose positions are basically temporary or seasonal in character and: (1) are not for more than 67 working days in any calendar year; or (2) are not for more than 100 working days in any calendar year and the employees are under the age of 22, are full-time students enrolled in a nonprofit or public educational institution prior to being hired by the employer, and have indicated, either in an application for employment or by being enrolled at an educational institution for the next academic year or term, an intention to continue as students during or after their temporary employment;
It's time for AFSCME, SEIU and Gov. Dayton to start telling the truth, the verifiable truth and nothing but the truth. The chanting points that they're currently peddling are verifiably not truth.
Posted Monday, November 21, 2011 1:30 AM
No comments.
The radical votes Sen. Klobuchar wants to stay hidden
Yesterday's appearance on Esme Murphy's DFL infomercial serves as a reminder that Sen. Klobuchar loves playing the role of sensible moderate without being a sensible moderate.
The media has played their part, especially Esme Murphy, in helping Sen. Klobuchar maintain her centrist image. That centrist image would quickly disappear if she had to answer real questions from a real journalist.
Everyone knows that Sen. Klobuchar voted to give federal bureaucrats control of America's health care system. Everyone pretty much knows that Sen. Klobuchar's vote was a vote to stifle medical innovation. I'm betting, though, that people don't know Sen. Klobuchar's vote triggered a flurry of new taxes . Here's a partial list of those tax increases:
- Increase the Medicare tax on wages and self?employment income by 0.9 and impose a new 3.8% surtax on certain investment income (for individuals over $200,000 and couples over $250,000) Estimated 10 year revenues: $210.2 Billion
- Increase, from 7.5% to 10% of income, the threshold after which individuals can deduct out of pocket medical expenses Estimated 10 year revenues: $15.2 Billion
- New annual tax on health insurance Estimated 10 year revenues: $60 Billion
- New 2.3% excise tax on certain medical devices Estimated 10 year revenues: $20 Billion (Boston Scientific, Medtronic must love that tax increase.)
- Tobacco tax increase and expanded enforcement authority Estimated 10 year revenues: $65.515 Billion
There's no arguing that there's alot of regressive tax increases that will hurt the working poor and the middle class. There's no arguing that the new tax on medical device manufacturers will hurt them. In fact, it's driving companies out of Massachusetts :
'This bill is a jobs killer,'' said Ernie Whiton, chief financial officer of Chelmsford's Zoll Medical Corp., which employs about 650 people in Massachusetts. Many of those employees work in Zoll's local manufacturing facility making heart defibrillators. 'We could be forced to (move) manufacturing overseas if we can't pass along these costs to our customers,'' said Whiton.
Sen. Klobuchar's vote for Obamacare's regressive tax hikes isn't her only radical vote. Consider Sen. Klobuchar's vote to invoke cloture so Craig Becker could be confirmed as a member of the NLRB. Here's a sampling of Mr. Becker's radicalism :
In a 1993 Minnesota Law Review article, written when he was a UCLA professor, he explained that traditional notions of democracy should not apply in union elections. He wrote that employers should be barred from attending NLRB hearings about elections, and from challenging election results even amid evidence of union misconduct. He believes elections should be removed from work sites and held on 'neutral grounds,' or via mail ballots. Employers should also be barred from 'placing observers at the polls to challenge ballots.' More extraordinary, Mr. Becker advocated a new 'body of campaign rules' that would severely limit the ability of employers to argue against unionization. He argued that any meeting a company holds that involves a 'captive audience' ought to be grounds for overturning an election. If a company wants to distribute leaflets that oppose the union, for example, Mr. Becker said it must allow union access to its private property to do the same.
Sen. Klobuchar knew about Mr. Becker's radical viewpoints but still voted to invoke cloture so she could vote for Mr. Becker's confirmation to the NLRB. Is that a vote that a true centrist would cast? I don't think so. At a time when gas prices and energy costs were skyrocketing, Sen. Klobuchar voted for Cap and Trade :
Vote Smart's Synopsis: Vote to invoke cloture on an amendment that caps carbon emissions starting in 2012 and creates funds for programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Highlight:
- Starts to cap carbon emissions at 5,775 million units in 2012 and reduces that amount by 70 percent to 1,732 million units by 2050 (Sec. 201).
- Establishes a Greenhouse Gas Registry to monitor emissions in the U.S. that includes methods for avoiding the double-counting of emissions, protocols to prevent any avoidance of reporting requirements, and methods to verify and audit submitted data, and establishes consistent policies for calculating carbon content and greenhouse gas emissions for each type of fossil fuel reported (Sec. 102).
- Establishes a market for carbon emission allowances that provides holders with the ability to freely trade, transfer, or sell allowances (Sec. 401, 402, 411, 412).
- Allows owners or operators of entities that fall under the emissions caps to borrow up to 15 percent of their emissions allowances from the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Sec. 511).
- Requires the Administrator of the EPA to hold an annual carbon emission allowance cost-containment auction from 2012-2027 that is separate from other emission auctions and limits prices to $22-$30 per allowance for 2012 with readjusted prices each subsequent year (Sec. 522, 523, 526).
- Requires states that rank in the top 20 for annual usage of home heating oil to use at least 5 percent of the state's emission allowances to prevent consumers from suffering hardship due to increases in home heating oil prices (Sec. 614).
It isn't difficult to argue that Sen. Klobuchar isn't a centrist. Instead, she's a tax-raising enthusiast who's voted for Cap and Trade and for the biggest expansion of government intrusion into people's lives in a generation. She's also voted for a pro-union activist to oversee union elections.
Sen. Klobuchar isn't a centrist. She just plays one on TV.
UPDATE: Welcome HotAir readers. Don't forget to stop past my Examiner companion piece . This is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg on Sen. Klobuchar's radical votes. Subscribe to my Examiner columns for future updates on Sen. Klobuchar's radical votes.
Posted Monday, November 21, 2011 3:53 PM
Comment 1 by JoeSteel at 21-Nov-11 03:06 PM
Why am I not surprised?
Comment 2 by frank at 21-Nov-11 03:09 PM
She's a DEMOCRAT, what more needs to be said?
Comment 3 by Whitey Ford at 21-Nov-11 03:27 PM
Klobuchar is a socialist radical. She wants to take America the way of Greece and Italy. She wants to block American oil and gas. She wants to ruin our great nation. She is anti-American trash, as are her idiot voters.
Comment 4 by Whitey Ford at 21-Nov-11 03:28 PM
I think she is anti-American as it gets.
Comment 5 by drowningpuppies at 21-Nov-11 03:41 PM
Hey, thanks Minnesota, not only Klobuchar but Al Franken also. Must be all the cold weather and snow.
Comment 6 by Bob J. at 22-Nov-11 11:26 AM
Klobuchar is the Witless Wonder. If we didn't have a completely supine media in Minnesota, more people would know it by now.
Comment 7 by Barry O. at 22-Nov-11 12:58 PM
She is nothing more than Obama in a skirt.
Comment 8 by eric z. at 22-Nov-11 02:30 PM
There has not been a radical vote in Congress during my lifetime. Perhaps during Eisenhower's terms, when I was too young to remember. Censuring McCarthy ...
Response 8.1 by Gary Gross at 22-Nov-11 03:01 PM
There has not been a radical vote in Congress during my lifetime.So voting to confirm a lawyer who thinks that labor laws are nuisances isn't a radical vote? The NLRB & Mr. Becker will get slapped down the minute the lawsuit reaches an appellate court.
You're saying that voting for $670,000,000,000 in tax increases, some of which will force companies to lay off workers or move overseas, isn't radical at a time of 9% unemployment? What about the families left without a job? Do you really think this isn't a big deal? Shame on you for not thinking this through.
I know you aren't heartless but I can't say that you aren't careless in your thought process this time.
If it's for the children, keep it with the children
If I got a dollar for each time I've heard the DFL or one of their special interest allies justify spending by saying it's for the children, I'd be a wealthy man. If I got a $5 bill for each time the DFL or one of their special interest allies made that justification without meaning it, I'd rich beyond my wildest dreams.
Needless to say, that's why I love Rep. Kathy Lohmer's legislation regarding child care unionization:
Rep. Kathy Lohmer, R-Lake Elmo, authored a bill that would ensure child-care assistance money is applied to the care of children - rather than going toward unions.
'It is unnerving to think tax dollars we provide to care for our children could be siphoned by unions,' Lohmer said in a news release. 'My bill simply mimics federal law and keeps the money where it is supposed to be, supporting care for kids.'
Last week Dayton issued an executive order calling for a vote among child-care providers that could unionize the group. Immediately after Dayton's announcement, a pair of Senate Republicans challenged the legality of a governor making such a decision and promised they would take him to court.
Lohmer's bill creates what she says establishes a layer of protection to 'maintain the integrity of Child Care Assistance Program.'
Gov. Dayton's EO could potentially put more money into the unions' pockets, which then would get filtered into DFL candidates' pockets or DFL causes. Gov. Dayton's EO isn't about the children. It's about the unions maintaining politically relevancy.
Rep. Lohmer's legislation would prevent that from happening.
Thankfully, GOP legislators are standing up for the children and their parents. They're essentially telling AFSCME, SEIU and Gov. Dayton to keep their slimy mitts off the parents' CCAP assistance. They're telling AFSCME, SEIU and the DFL that the money should be spent on the children, not on the DFL re-election slush fund.
Gov. Dayton's EO has upset alot of child care providers. If Gov. Dayton's EO is thrown out by the courts, which should happen, then there will be alot of unhappy child care providers lining up to skin the nearest DFL legislator next November.
Posted Monday, November 21, 2011 3:08 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 22-Nov-11 11:40 AM
I don't understand how such legislation would work? Unless you outright prohibit the collection of union dues from childcare workers, the money they collect is all fungible.
Comment 2 by Heather Falk at 22-Nov-11 01:00 PM
I think this is a terrific bill, I see no reasons representatives on both sides of the isle wouldn't support this. The childcare assistance program is a family benefit, not a childcare providers paycheck. A low income family applies for these funds, then send in the needed accounting paperwork each month and those families should have the right to choose to care for their children. If the union manages to be able to deduct dues from those funds I know many quality childcare providers who will refuse to take low income families. Keep those funds in the hands of the families and children who need them.
Comment 3 by Dinah Spurgin at 22-Nov-11 02:02 PM
I was happy to hear of this bill when I read some remarks yesterday. However, I'm wondering if it goes far enough. What about grant monies. Will these be the next place from where union dues might be deducted? Or, in the case of many faith based type child cares in out-state MN, who are licensed under Rule 2, will the churches be obligated to pay union dues? Personally, I see this as just the start of as some have suggested, ligitation and as presented here, legislation. Allowing the unions in only complicates an already sufficeiently regulated business.
Is President Obama still voting present?
The Supercommittee's failure was predictable. So is the two parties' responses, with Democrats blaming Republicans for their unwillingness to accept massive tax increases. Republicans are saying, correctly, that entitlement reform, along with other spending cuts, will put the United States on stable financial footing.
Lost in the blame game was President Obama. Lost as in the past tense. Thanks to Sen. Judd Gregg's op-ed , he isn't lost anymore. He's just MIA.
The president was in Hawaii while the supercommittee hit stall speed. What is new about this? Very little.
Throughout his term, President Obama has avoided leading on the issue of fiscal responsibility. He walked away from his own commission, the one led by former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY) and former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, when he found its report filled with inconvenient choices.
Let's step back for a glimpse of reality. The reality is that President Obama's deficits, the biggest in U.S. history, prove that he isn't interested in deficit reduction.
It's important that conservatives criticize President Obama for being the biggest economic disaster in U.S. history. Not only are his deficits the biggest in U.S. history but his job creation record is miserable. He's the worst jobs president ever.
In answer to the question posed in the title, President Obama isn't voting present. That isn't because he's shown leadership. It's because, to vote present, you have to be present. The reality is that he's the first president in history to be AWOL -- America Without Leadership.
Everyone knows that I'm a big fan of Newt's and that I've clear favorites. Still, any of the top tier GOP candidates are better leaders than President Obama. President Obama has been a disaster. He needs to be fired ASAP.
Back in August, Speaker Gingrich predicted in a debate what officially happened today: the collapse of the overhyped not-really-Supercommittee. Here's Newt's campaign video highlighting what he said in that Aug. 11 debate:
President Obama isn't a great leader. For that matter, he isn't a great legislator, having only served minimal amounts of time in the Illinois state Senate, then serving 2 years in the U.S. Senate.
Add to that the fact that he isn't a capitalist by nature and you've got the witch's brew that's led to the economic disaster we're in.
We can't afford another 5 years of President Obama's unserious administration. Unserious in the sense that he's golfed more than he's governed. Unserious in the sense that he's partied more than he's presided. Unserious because he's talked more than he's led.
America can't wait to throw this failure out of office.
UPDATE: I didn't define my GOP top tier earlier. My GOP top tier list is 3 people: Newt, Mitt and Rick Perry.
I'm betting that there's alot of people rolling their eyes after seeing Gov. Perry's name on the list. I'm not predicting another Perry surge, much less his winning the nomination. It's that he's been impressive in the 2 GOP events after his 53-second gaffe. Likewise, he was impressive in his interview with Bill O'Reilly and with his appearance while sitting in Special Report's Center Seat.
He's got genuine fundraising ability, too. If Gov. Perry can string a few more impressive debate performances together, he'll be a force to be reckoned with.
Posted Monday, November 21, 2011 11:06 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 22-Nov-11 11:37 AM
"Still, any of the top tier GOP candidates are better leaders than President Obama."
Thank you for that, but as far as I'm concerned you could leave out the words "top tier" and still be 100% correct. I said when Obama was elected I was going to assume that everything he would do or say would be wrong. He hasn't disappointed me yet.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 22-Nov-11 02:28 PM
Ron Paul.
Comment 3 by Ron J at 22-Nov-11 07:34 PM
Yes, Gary, what about Ron Paul? He has surged with Newt and in many polls he is tied or leading Mitt, Cain, and Newt.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 22-Nov-11 09:51 PM
I haven't seen a single poll where he's leading them all in the early states of Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina & I'd bet I never will. Tonight's debate showed why he'll never be a true top-tier candidate. Paul's belief that criminal laws are the same as the laws of war is a serious misinterpretation of the Constitution & the treaties that the U.S. is signatory to. It's like comparing basketball with football. They both use balls but one's a contact sport. The other is a collision sport.
Hensarling outlines rejected GOP proposals
That the anything-but-Supercommittee has failed isn't news. In fact, it's predictable. This morning's news comes from Jeb Hensarling's WSJ op-ed in the form of the GOP proposals that the Democrats rejected. It's a stunning list:
President Obama summed up our debt crisis best when he told Republican members of the House in January 2010 that "The major driver of our long-term liabilities...is Medicare and Medicaid and our health-care spending." A few months later, however, Mr. Obama and his party's leaders in Congress added trillions of dollars in new health-care spending to the government's balance sheet.
Democrats on the committee made it clear that the new spending called for in the president's health law was off the table. Still, committee Republicans offered to negotiate a plan on the other two health-care entitlements - Medicare and Medicaid - based upon the reforms included in the budget the House passed earlier this year.
The Medicare reforms would make no changes for those in or near retirement. Beginning in 2022, beneficiaries would be guaranteed a choice of Medicare-approved private health coverage options and guaranteed a premium-support payment to help pay for the plan they choose.
Democrats rejected this approach but assured us on numerous occasions they would offer a "structural" or "architectural" Medicare reform plan of their own. While I do not question their good faith effort to do so, they never did.
Democrats won't accept any entitlement reform because they're planning on campaigning against evil Republicans who want to push Granny off a cliff. That isn't hyperbole. They've already run this ad:
This ad shows that Democrats will do or say anything to hold onto or regain power. They won't hesitate in lying through their teeth if they think it'll help them win elections.
As reprehensible as their rhetoric has been, their unwillingness to think about reforms is pathetic and short-sighted.
Republicans on the committee also offered to negotiate a plan based on the bipartisan "Protect Medicare Act" authored by Alice Rivlin, one of President Bill Clinton's budget directors, and Pete Domenici, a former Republican senator from New Mexico. Rivlin-Domenici offered financial support to seniors to purchase quality, affordable health coverage in Medicare-approved plans. These seniors would be able to choose from a list of Medicare-guaranteed coverage options, similar to the House budget's approach - except that Rivlin-Domenici would continue to include a traditional Medicare fee-for-service plan among the options.
This approach was also rejected by committee Democrats.
I wasn't surprised when Democrats started blaming the anything-but-Supercommittee's failures on Republicans. President Obama didn't hesitate in blaming the anything-but-Supercommittee's failings on the Do-Nothing GOP.
The bad news for Democrats is that Rep. Hensarling's op-ed lists the GOP's proposals that Democrats rejected. Included in the GOP's proposals was one that's supported by Alice K. Rivlin, President Clinton's Budget Director.
Still, Democrats blaming Republicans will have to answer to this:
The Congressional Budget Office, the Medicare trustees, and the Government Accountability Office have each repeatedly said that our health-care entitlements are unsustainable. Committee Democrats offered modest adjustments to these programs, but they were far from sufficient to meet the challenge. And even their modest changes were made contingent upon a minimum of
$1 trillion in higher taxes - a move sure to stifle job creation during the worst economy in recent memory.
In 2009, Democrats dramatically increased spending when it passed the stimulus bill. They then increased spending dramatically when they passed the 2009 omnibus bill that funded government the rest of FY2009. During this administration's time in office, spending has increased by almost $1,000,000,000,000.
What's stunning, besides that figure, is the fact that Democrats insist that spending isn't the problem. What's stunning is that Democrats insist that raising taxes is the solution for their spending addiction.
NOTE TO AMERICA: Democrats' solutions to America's problems are more spending and more taxes. Even when they've spent too much and they've raised taxes too much.
Republicans were willing to agree to additional tax revenue, but only in the context of fundamental pro-growth tax reform that would broaden the base, lower rates, and maintain current levels of progressivity. This is the approach to tax reform used by recent bipartisan deficit reduction efforts such as the Bowles-Simpson fiscal commission and the Rivlin-Domenici plan.
The Democrats said no. They were unwilling to agree to anything less than $1 trillion in tax hikes - and unwilling to offer any structural reforms to put our health-care entitlements on a permanently sustainable basis.
Republican candidates, the RNC, the NRSC and the NRCC should run commercials from now through Election Day, 2012, on the fact that Democrats think tax increases of less than $1,000,000,000,000 aren't big enough for their spending habits.
They should run that advertising campaign even when the DNC's push-polling comes out. And make no mistake: that push-polling is imminent. The RNC, the NRSC and the NRCC should especially be wary of polls allegedly supporting tax increases if the question is phrased like this: Do you support a balanced approach to deficit reduction?
That's how the DNC will use euphemisms to 'create' majorities where they don't exist. The results to that question will be dramatically different than if the question that people are asked is phrased like this: Do you support raising taxes to balance the federal budget?
Republicans need to become the 'education party' in the sense that they should spend lots of time at townhalls highlighting the Democrats' deceitful habits and their hiding the whole truth. Republicans should tell people about the things that the newspapers don't report their liberal world view.
President Obama and his Democratic Party minions will push the U.S. into a substantially bigger disaster than they inherited because they insist on raising taxes substantially rather than dealing with their spending addiction.
Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for putting ideology over practical solutions.
Posted Tuesday, November 22, 2011 10:00 AM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 22-Nov-11 11:24 AM
Pretty much sums it up. Excellent post.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 22-Nov-11 11:33 AM
At what point does liberal hyperpartisanship cross over into the realm of insanity? Are all Democrats so insane they cannot see we are headed over the cliff, like Greece?
Comment 3 by eric z. at 22-Nov-11 02:27 PM
Funny, but I expected the three of you to side with the other side. I guess my crystal ball is foggy. That must be it.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 22-Nov-11 03:12 PM
The Democrats' fiscal irresponsibility is showing & it's going to hurt them next November. Spending has increased by $1,000,000,000,000 since President Obama was inaugurated. Idiots like John Kerry & devious people like Chris van Hollen insist that we've got a taxation problem.
That's total BS.
Next year, Democrats should expect to wear the Supercommittee's failure throughout the campaign. Let's see how much people are willing to get their taxes increased. I'm not talking "the rich" having their taxes increased either. To achieve meaningful deficit reduction, which is a necessity, the Democrats would have to raise lots of taxes on "the rich" & the middle class. They'd need to raise regressive taxes & progressive taxes.
Next time, Eric, think things through better. Your policy chops are pretty weak.
Spineless unions avoid child care hearing
Even though there was a major public hearing into the forced unionization of in-home child care providers Monday morning, AFSCME and SEIU refused to send representatives to the hearing , thereby shortcircuiting the public's right to know what's behind their assault on child care providers:
Chairman Joe Hoppe, R-Chaska, of the Commerce Committee said that he could call another meeting if union leaders would appear, adding that he may look into whether he can subpoena them to testify.
The morning-long committee meeting ended with many questions, including some that the Dayton administration officials who plans to conduct the unionization election could not answer.
'We are in uncharted waters here,' Hoppe said because no one can recall a similar election in which private businesses are being asked to vote to form a union to negotiate with the state.
The biggest questions both Republicans and Democrats wanted answered are who will be eligible to vote and whether those who are not part of a union will be affected by union negotiations.
These child care providers have a right to know why SEIU and AFSCME wants to limit voting to 4,287 child care providers that currently take care of children getting assistance. As the MLFCCA highlighted earlier, all child care providers would be subjected to the unions' negotiations on a wide range of topics.
If that doesn't entitle them to a vote, what does?
There's an inescapable truth emerging from this battle: that unions are deceptive, corrupt and motivated solely by a craving for achieving maximum political power. AFSCME and SEIU aren't motivated by an altruistic drive to make life better for children, their parents or their child care providers.
They're motivated by a desire to collect lots of union dues, which will quickly be translated into support for DFL legislative and congressional candidates.
The spineless unions tried using this spin to avoid attending the hearing:
Rep. Joe Atkins, DFL-Inver Grove Heights, said he understands why a union would not want to testify: Sen. David Hann, R-Eden Prairie, plans to sue to stop the election. Atkins said that anything an election supporter said could be used in the upcoming court battle.
That's pure spin. If AFSCME's and SEIU's behavior is forthright and honest, what's the big deal? A: The big deal is that SEIU and AFSCME representatives would be asked why their organizers have posed as food program monitors .
SEIU and AFSCME don't want the scrutiny of a legislative hearing because they're attempting to hide their deceitful organizing tactics.
Trey Kovacs' article is must reading on the legality of Gov. Dayton's EO. Here's the biggest jolt:
First and foremost, Gov. Dayton's executive powers do not extend to mandating union elections. Considering that child care providers are independent small business owners, they are not even subject to collective bargaining arrangements.
Though that's the biggest jolt, it isn't the only jolt. Here's another:
To unionize a class of workers, Minnesota's Labor Relations Act calls for a majority of workers to vote for union representation. In the vote to unionize child care providers, the majority of workers are excluded from voting. Out of 11,000 child care providers, less than 4,300 are eligible to vote. Eligible voters are state-licensed and -subsidized child care providers. To make matters worse, Minnesota is a forced-unionism state. Gov. Dayton's E.O. is unclear if the 6,000-plus child care providers ineligible to vote will be forced to pay their 'fair share' dues to the unions. Given Gov. Dayton's history of union favoritism, there is little doubt compulsory dues will be forced on all child care providers.
The bigger the spotlight that gets shined on this issue, the more disgusted people on Main Street will become with SEIU and AFSCME. That's a worthwhile goal if ever I heard one.
SEIU, AFSCME and their DFL allies are disgusting people who are mostly interested in satisfying their craving for raw political power. This fight isn't about making life better for children, their parents or child care providers.
Posted Tuesday, November 22, 2011 3:38 PM
No comments.
It's time to write Crazy Uncle's Obituary
After watching last night's debate on national security, I've reached the conclusion that it's time to write off Crazy Uncle, aka Ron Paul. Like Herman Cain, Crazy Uncle is totally out of his element the minute the subject shifts to national security.
His statement that he doesn't remember voting for going to war simply isn't credible. The AUMF clearly states that it's giving President Bush the authority to wage war:
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Approved September 18, 2001.
Clearly, Congress voted to give President Bush the permission to wage war "against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
That's pretty clear in its intent. Congressman Paul, like his supporters, insist that this isn't Congress approving going to war. What part of "the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force" and that "the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution" doesn't Congressman Paul understand?
Does Congressman Paul think that that isn't sufficient because it doesn't follow a mythical form letter that's to be used in declaring war?
Crazy Uncle was at it again when he talked about Timothy McVeigh in the context of the Patriot Act. Thankfully, Newt Gingrich explained that there's a difference between criminal law and acts of war and that the Constitution makes clear the differences. Here's Byron York's take on the exchange:
First, the Presidential Oath of Office says that, as Commander-in-Chief, he'll protect against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It doesn't say that he'll prosecute them after they've killed hundreds of people.
Better to treat terrorism as a crime, Paul argued. "I think the Patriot Act is unpatriotic because it undermines our liberty," he said. "I'm concerned, as everybody is, about the terrorist attack. Timothy McVeigh was a vicious terrorist. He was arrested. Terrorism is still on the books, internationally and nationally, it's a crime and we should deal with it. We dealt with it rather well with Timothy McVeigh."
At that point, it was Gingrich's turn to look like a man who couldn't believe what he had heard. " Timothy McVeigh succeeded ," Gingrich said incredulously. "That's the whole point. Timothy McVeigh killed a lot of Americans. I don't want a law that says after we lose a major American city, we're sure going to come and find you. I want a law that says, you try to take out an American city, we're going to stop you."
Second, there's a distinction between reasonable searches and unreasonable searches. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches. It doesn't prohibit reasonable searches.
Among the things that the Fourth Amendment doesn't prohibit are items in plain sight or gathering intelligence in times of war.
Last night's debate showed why Ron Paul shouldn't and won't be president. That's why this article shouldn't be taken seriously.
Still, Ron Paul keeps moving steadily toward a position of strength in the early voting, especially in Iowa. So he may yet surprise the pundits writing him off today.
Ron Paul will have a decent finish in Iowa. The minute he gets to New Hampshire and especially South Carolina, though, he's history. Northeastern libertarians are more centrist than Dr. Paul. South Carolina is home of conservatives, not libertarians. Dr. Paul's faithful followers will show up but there aren't nearly enough of them to make a difference.
That's why I'm certain that the Ron Paul boomlet won't happen. It's time for Crazy Uncle to retire.
Posted Wednesday, November 23, 2011 9:12 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 25-Nov-11 11:26 AM
With so little GOP love, might Ron Paul go the route of being a third candidate, an independent? Of the pack he is the only one who could credibly go that way, and given how he was disrespected the last time too, the incentive exists. Then the question for your people is were Paul to run as an independent, would choice of a nominee differ than if he and his supporters bite their tongues and close ranks? I personally do not see any wisdom to that kind of speculation in choosing between candidates, but might it happen anyway, with others thinking it a viable concern?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 25-Nov-11 11:48 AM
I hope Paul doesn't go that route but if he does, I'll demolish him as being a me-first prima donna who isn't a team player. Then I'll demolish his credibility because he's a total nutjob. Saying that putting up a border fence might be used to keep Americans in is the stuff that conspiracy theory nutjobs think.
