November 24-25, 2011
Nov 24 11:52 Why forced unionization should infuriate everyone Nov 24 13:01 Dayton administration's defensive defense of forced unionization Nov 24 17:30 Obama's 'Godless' Thanksgiving Nov 24 22:58 NJ Star-Ledger's editorial board is stark-raving nuts Nov 25 09:52 Mitt Romney: Hardline Blowhard Nov 25 11:26 GOP immigration purity test Nov 25 12:36 President Obama: a leadership-challenged, solutionless bystander
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Why forced unionization should infuriate everyone
I've written alot of posts about the forced unionization push of AFSCME and SEIU. See here , here , here , here , here and here .) I haven't said anything in those posts that could be considered complimentary to these unions. With good reason. AFSCME and SEIU are filthy, corrupt organizations. Their sole concern is accumulating as much political influence as possible.
First, their predatory practices are outlined perfectly in this LTE :
About a year ago, I had the unions come to my door, during my working hours, and ask me if I was interested in a union for providers. I did not have time to discuss the topic and asked if I could please get information from them. They asked me to please sign a card so they could send information.
I later found out this happened to many providers, and much to our dismay that card was used as a 'yes' vote for the unions!
I have written many times asking for my card back and my vote to be omitted. I have not heard one word from anyone regarding my request!
Talk about intentionally planning an ambush. These organizers didn't hesitate in ambushing this child care provider while she was busy. In fact, it isn't a stretch to think that they went there at a busy time with the goal of getting Ms. Boughner to sign a card, knowing that they'd say this was proof of interest in a union.
Second, it's questionable whether Gov. Dayton's EO is legal. Ms. Boughner writes:
In-home child care providers are independent, small-business owners and are not subject to collective bargaining arrangements.
In-home child care providers aren't public employees as defined by Minnesota state statute:
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;
The unions' corruption and this administration's corruption is exposed in their attempt to rig the election :
As language in your order requires unions to be involved in quality improvement initiatives, all providers will be affected by unionization and therefore should have the right to vote.
This seems logical and straightforward. It's so straightforward that even a DFL governor should be able to understand it. If that isn't straightforward enough, consider this: We know that there are 4,287 in-home child care providers providing care for parents receiving government assistance. Further, we know that Gov. Dayton's executive order limits the vote to those child care providers.
What's troubling is that Gov. Dayton's executive order prohibits the other 6,700 in-home child care providers from voting. It's disgusting for at least 2 reasons. First, these in-home child care providers will tell you that it's possible that they'll care for a child whose parents are receiving government assistance.
Second, as the MLFCCA's letter to Gov. Dayton highlighted, unions would be empowered by Gov. Dayton's executive order to negotiate with legislators and Department of Human Services bureaucrats on issues like safety rules and other issues.
Theoretically speaking, if the unions negotiated child safety rules or other regulations that affect all Minnesota in-home child care providers, shouldn't all in-home child care providers be allowed to vote?
The right answer to that question is yes. The Dayton administration's response to that question is resoundingly different:
The Minnesota Licensed Family Child Care Association , which represents about 5,000 providers, is requesting Dayton revise his order so that all of the state's family child care providers be allowed to vote , not just the 4,300.
The governor's spokeswoman, Katie Tinucci, said he would not revise his order . She said any changes discussed between representatives of a child care union and state agencies could not be unilaterally implemented and would still require approval by the state Legislature.
"Everyone has a voice in that process," Tinucci said.
Over 6,700 in-home child care providers don't have a vote on the unionization issue that potentially affects them, both financially and with work rules. Ms. Tinucci can't explain how "everyone has a voice in that process." She can't explain that because the 6,700+ in-home child care providers don't have a vote.
It's apparent that the Dayton administration is taking a hardline position on this issue. This is the best administration that AFSCME and SEIU can afford.
This paragraph is especially telling:
The effort is starting with providers in the subsidized program because they have the most direct financial relationship with the state, said AFSCME's Jennifer Munt, but the hope is eventually all 11,000 providers would be able to elect to be unionized.
TRANSLATION: Let's rig the unionization vote, establish the union, then try and bully the other child care providers into unionization or, at minimum, get them to pay their Fair Share dues.
AFSCME and SEIU are corrupt, as is the administration they bought. Their attempt to force unionization down in-home child care providers' throats should be stopped in the courts before a single vote is cast.
There isn't a legal foundation for Gov. Dayton's executive order. The only foundation for Gov. Dayton's executive order is that his puppeteers have ordered him to do this.
This is proof that this administration isn't of, by and for the people. This administration is of, by and for AFSCME and the SEIU.
Posted Thursday, November 24, 2011 11:52 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 25-Nov-11 11:21 AM
Is forced union busting the other side of the card?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 25-Nov-11 11:44 AM
You can't bust unions that don't exist. AFSCME is a public employee union. PERIOD. They don't negotiate for private sector workers. That's why it's beyond Gov. Dayton's authority to call for a unionization vote. Independant contractors, which is what in-home child care providers are, are just that: independant. I'm checking federal labor law because I'm not certain that independant businessmen or women can be unionized.
If unionization of these businesses is forbidden by state & federal statutes, where's the unionbusting?
Dayton administration's defensive defense of forced unionization
The Dayton administration is on the defensive on the forced unionization of child care, as are the SEIU and AFSCME. I highlighted in this post how Gov. Dayton's spokesperson, Katie Tinucci dodged the question on why all 11,000 in-home child care providers won't be allowed to vote:
The Minnesota Licensed Family Child Care Association, which represents about 5,000 providers, is requesting Dayton revise his order so that all of the state's family child care providers be allowed to vote, not just the 4,300.
The governor's spokeswoman, Katie Tinucci, said he would not revise his order. She said any changes discussed between representatives of a child care union and state agencies could not be unilaterally implemented and would still require approval by the state Legislature.
'Everyone has a voice in that process,' Tinucci said.
Ms. Tinucci is working feverishly against talking about the fact that in-home child care providers, whether they're unionized or not, would be subject to Minnesota's Fair Share laws.
This is the true definition of tyranny.
Over 6,700 in-home child care providers would be forced to pay Fair Share dues to SEIU or AFSCME even though they didn't have the right to vote yea or nay on AFSCME's and SEIU's forced unionization because Gov. Dayton's executive order prohibits them from voting.
Paying union dues without getting to vote on unionization is just as corrupt as colonial Americans getting taxed without their having a voice in the debate.
Linda Jesson, Dayton's commissioner of Human Services, dodged the question of why Gov. Dayton's executive order prohibits all in-home child care providers the right to vote:
In an interview, Jesson said the "meet-and-confer" process with the unions would not stop other groups or providers from meeting with state officials. Where the state and unions discuss issues involving all providers, such as licensing, she said, "I would want to hear from everyone that is affected."
Jesson, like Ms. Tinucci, pretends that Minnesota's Fair Share laws don't exist, that they wouldn't directly and financially affect the other 6,700 in-home child care providers. Here's the relevant portion of Minnesota's Fair Share laws:
Subd. 3.Fair share fee .
An exclusive representative may require employees who are not members of the exclusive representative to contribute a fair share fee for services rendered by the exclusive representative. The fair share fee must be equal to the regular membership dues of the exclusive representative, less the cost of benefits financed through the dues and available only to members of the exclusive representative. In no event may the fair share fee exceed 85 percent of the regular membership dues. The exclusive representative shall provide advance written notice of the amount of the fair share fee to the employer and to unit employees who will be assessed the fee. The employer shall provide the exclusive representative with a list of all unit employees.
If forced unionization is passed, all 11,000 in-home child care providers would be subject to paying AFSCME and SEIU Fair Share dues without having had the right to vote on the unionization issue.
Gov. Dayton's administration is just as corrupt as SEIU and AFSCME. Clearly, they've conspired to rig the unionization election. Clearly, they're prohibiting people with a direct financial interest in forced unionization from voting.
Clearly, Minnesota needs a constitutional amendment that makes Minnesota a right-to-work state.
Minnesota's unions and their DFL allies, both in the legislature and in this administration, are committed to increasing union membership because union dues are used to support DFL election campaigns.
Amending Minnesota's constitution is the only remedy for preventing the unions' corruption.
Posted Thursday, November 24, 2011 1:01 PM
No comments.
Obama's 'Godless' Thanksgiving
President Obama's Thanksgiving Day address will serve as a constant reminder of his misunderstanding of what makes America great. There's something conspicuously missing from this video:
During the address, President talks about America's luck, its sense of family and other liberal gobbledygook. At no point does President Obama talk about how God guided this nation.
President Obama had the opportunities, talking about how our nation hung in the balance during the Civil War and the World Wars. Those great presidents called our nation to prayer, as did other great presidents and commanders.
During the Revolutionary War, General Washington certainly called on God. When the American people decided that they couldn't tolerate Britain's tyranny any longer, they declared their independance from the throne, saying that they were "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights."
President Lincoln refered to God in the Gettysburg Address :
It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us, that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion, that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Though President Obama didn't acknowledge Nature's God as the Provider of our nation's prosperity and liberty, we'll soon forget this little president.
That's because he isn't inspired by America's founding principles nor does he comprehend its source of inspiration.
God has richly blessed this nation with prosperity, liberty and strength beyond its people's abilities.
America's Civil War was the inspiration Julia Howe needed to write The Battle Hymn of the Republic .
In the aftermath of 9/11, God Bless America became the first national hymn of the 21st Century.
Though many Thanksgiving feasts have been consumed, though many people are returning home after enjoying the fellowship of their families and friends, let's give thanks for this nation's Founding Fathers, for the priniciples they fought for and the liberties we have as a result of their humbling themselves before Nature's God.
Posted Thursday, November 24, 2011 5:30 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 25-Nov-11 11:17 AM
Good for Obama. There's a lot to criticize him for, but this time, his not whoring to the GOP Jesus jockeys, he earned a gold star on his speech text. Leave that demeaning thing to Romney, et al., who expect something in return for the whoring.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 25-Nov-11 11:34 AM
Apparently, a little paranoia goes a long ways. Was FDR a "GOP Jesus jockey" when he offered a prayer for our troops when he declared war? Was George Washington's prayer at the end of his second term proof that he was the forerunner to the "GOP Jesus jockeys"?
Shame on you for ignoring so much of American history. Then again, with political correctness eliminating much of these writings, & with the DFL becoming the hostile secularist party, I shouldn't be surprised you'd say something like that.
NJ Star-Ledger's editorial board is stark-raving nuts
The NJ Star-Ledger's editorial board is either nuts, deceitful or they're incredibly stupid. I'm betting that they're incredibly deceitful. That's the only conclusion that can be drawn from this editorial :
We shouldn't bother reforming education for poor kids, Newt Gingrich says. Forget graduation rates; what these kids need is to spend more time scrubbing bathrooms.
Yes, since thousands of children are stuck in failing schools, we might as well put them to work there as janitors, the presidential candidate says.
Anyone who knows anything about Newt Gingrich knows that he doesn't tolerate status quo thinking, especially when it comes to education. Anyone familiar with Newt's history knows that he's a history professor.
Thinking people know that college professors don't want students to be trapped in whatever station in life they were born into, whether they're poor or rich. Thus, the NJ Star-Ledger undoubtedly knows better.
It isn't difficult finding out what Newt originally said. Here's what Newt originally proposed :
Newt Gingrich has some unconventional ideas about education reform. He wants every state to open a work-study college where students work 20 hours a week during the school year and full-time in the summer and then graduate debt-free.
In poverty stricken K-12 districts, Mr. Gingrich said that schools should enlist students as young as 9 to14 to mop hallways and bathrooms, and pay them a wage. Currently child-labor laws and unions keep poor students from bootstrapping their way into middle class, Mr. Gingrich said.
Finding this information wasn't difficult since I'd written about it less than a week ago. Apparently, the Editorial Board of the NJ Star-Ledger don't read LFR. Apparently, they don't read that bastion of conservative thinking otherwise known as the NYTimes, either. That's who first wrote about Newt's proposal.
Newt's idea makes perfect sense considering the fact that student loan debt just topped $1,000,000,000,000 recently. It makes even more sense when you consider the fact that student loans account for more personal debt than credit card debt.
Why shouldn't we offer approaches that keep student loan debt to a minimum? Why shouldn't we give these students the opportunity to graduate with a real degree that helps them add value to the economy?
This paragraph is intellectually dishonest:
If he were president, Gingrich told an audience at Harvard University last week, he'd do away with such laws. They're the real reason for income inequality in this country, if poor kids weren't "trapped in child laws," they'd be able to earn money. (Just think of the riches they'd earn as school janitors).
The NJ Star-Ledger implies that Newt wants these students forever trapped as janitors. The NYTimes' post shows that that's the opposite of what Newt wants.
The lesson that the S-L doesn't want its readers to learn is that Newt wants students to develop a solid work ethic during their early teenage years. If the students work their way through college rather than take out one student loan after another, they won't face a mountain of debt the minute they graduate.
I'd love hearing the S-L explain why that's a bad thing.
Originally posted Thursday, November 24, 2011, revised 25-Nov 11:29 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing, at 26-Nov-11 09:59 AM
I think that you should admit that Newt is no ordinary college professor. Most college professors, like all liberals, absolutely love the poor and disadvantaged so long as they remain poor and disadvantaged and dependent on Liberal governments. Any suggestion that these people should become independent and then self-sufficient sends Liberals screaming for their tropes.
Mitt Romney: Hardline Blowhard
Since Newt said that he was prepared to "take the heat" for his immigration policy, Mitt Romney has attempted to hit him hard with accusations that Newt is soft on immigration. I say attempted because, like with many things, Mitt's talk is conservative but his actions are anything but.
Here's what FactCheck said about Mitt's tough-on-immigration bloviating . First, here's Mitt's quote:
Romney: As governor, I authorized the state police to enforce immigration laws.
Here's FactCheck's reaction to Mitt's quote:
Well, yes. But, as we noted in August, he didn't do so until he had less than a month left in his term. He was already considering running for president, and the new governor-elect was expected to rescind the arrangement.
Mitt the hardliner is total fiction. It's Mitt's latest sales pitch, his latest attempt to win over conservatives.
It goes further:
Romney began talking about giving troopers the power to make arrests on immigration charges earlier in 2006, but he didn't sign an agreement with the federal government, a necessary condition for that authority to be granted, until Dec. 13 of that year. Romney was scheduled to leave office Jan. 4, 2007.
That's amazing. Officially, Hardline Mitt was an immigration hardliner for all of 3 weeks. Now that's a principled commitment. Then again, that's probably longer than some of his other flip-flops. But it doesn't stop there:
During his tenure, at least four Massachusetts cities enacted or renewed legislation declaring themselves sanctuaries for illegal immigrants. Brookline and Cambridge reaffirmed their longtime status as sanctuary cities in so many words. Somerville and Orleans didn't officially deem themselves "sanctuaries," but Somerville affirmed its "long-standing policies in support of all immigrants," while Orleans forbade city officials from turning in illegal immigrants without probable cause.
We asked Romney's campaign if he had acted against these cities, but they didn't provide us with any examples. As far as we were able to determine in our own research, Romney made no attempts to penalize, censure, or cut funding to them.
Mitt the immigration hardliner is fiction. He isn't reality. Maeve Weston's LATimes article sums things up perfectly:
For many GOP voters in early primary states, hesitation about Romney comes back to one thing: their perception that he has routinely molded his views to suit the political mood, with ambition his overriding principle.
That's why Mitt hasn't broken the 25% barrier in polling. It's why he likely won't eclipse that mark, either. That's the biggest reason why his electability argument is fiction, too. The people want someone that's principled, who says what he'll do, then does it. That isn't Mitt.
One reason why people don't trust Washington is because they're seen as too unprincipled, too willing to say anything to get elected. That fits Mitt perfectly.
President Obama has talked a great centrist game. What's gotten him in dire straits is that he's acted far left. Mitt isn't far left but his words haven't consistently matched his actions.
Mitt the Hardliner is myth. So is his electability argument. It's time to chuck him to the side.
Posted Friday, November 25, 2011 9:52 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 25-Nov-11 11:20 AM
Is it really boiling down to Newt and Mitt, and the rest stage props? Your drumbeat on it is not much different from the MSM intent to focus the field. I still think Ron Paul and Huntsman are the only two with ideas that expand the "playing field." I guess much of the GOP wants it narrowed and not expanded, but from the outside looking in ...
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 25-Nov-11 11:37 AM
Huntsman & Paul are liberals. So is Romney. Period. Personally, my top tier is limited to Newt & Rick Perry. It's just that we're stuck with Mitt as a frontrunner because the elitist wing of the GOP can't kiss Mitt's ass enough.
GOP immigration purity test
Following Tuesday night's GOP presidential debate, alot of chatter is focused on Newt's stated position on not deporting all illegal immigrants. Newt has rightly received criticism for that policy statement.
Before writing him off at liberal on immigration, it's important to think whether his stated positions on enforcing the border and streamlining visa programs are mainstream thinking. I'd argue that they're pretty mainstream.
Let's compare Newt's positions with Mitt's actions, which I wrote about here . Mitt's portraying himself as an immigration hardliner. What's interesting is that his immigration 'epiphany' is inextricably linked to his presidential ambitions. Here's what FactCheck wrote about Mitt's 'epiphany':
Romney: As governor, I authorized the state police to enforce immigration laws.
Well, yes. But, as we noted in August, he didn't do so until he had less than a month left in his term. He was already considering running for president, and the new governor-elect was expected to rescind the arrangement.
Romney began talking about giving troopers the power to make arrests on immigration charges earlier in 2006, but he didn't sign an agreement with the federal government, a necessary condition for that authority to be granted, until Dec. 13 of that year. Romney was scheduled to leave office Jan. 4, 2007.
In other words, this was Mitt at his political posturing best. This isn't proof of an epiphany. It's proof that Mitt's a political opportunist .
For those who say that there are other options besides Newt and Mitt, let's examine their records, starting with Ron Paul. Dr. Paul's position on immigration is certifiably insane. Remember the debate where he was asked about building a border fence? His reply was in question form: "How do we know that they won't use the fence to keep us in?"
Michele Bachmann passes the purity test but she hasn't shown any interest in reforming the visa program. She hasn't shown that she's given it a moment of thought. In that respect, she isn't as informed on the total immigration package as Newt is.
While securing the border is important, it isn't the only immigration consideration. It's the total package. And by that, I don't mean a 'Grand Bargain' type of "comprehensive immigration reform." That's just the Left's euphemism for amnesty and new Democrat voters.
I'm talking about immigration that's fierce about protecting America's sovereignty while welcoming immigrants into our nation who've passed through a sane, efficient federal system.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Fred Thompson said it best when he said that "the United States should be a nation of tall fences and wide gates."
Michele, Newt and Rick Perry all appear to pass that test with ease. Mitt and Dr. Paul don't pass that test. Meanwhile, Newt appears to be the only candidate who's thought through his position on streamlining the visa process.
That's important because streamlining the visa programs would shrink the need for people to illegally enter the country. (I think Mitt refers to that as eliminating the magnets.)
The bottom line is this: None of the GOP presidential candidates pass both the purity test on immigration and the streamlining the visa program test. Of all the GOP presidential candidates, I'd trust Newt's immigration plan the most, followed by Rick Perry's, then Michele's.
I wouldn't trust Dr. Paul's or Mitt Romney's. I wouldn't trust Dr. Paul's because it's beyond bizarre. I wouldn't trust Mitt's because he's prone to saying one thing, then doing the opposite.
Posted Friday, November 25, 2011 11:26 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 25-Nov-11 01:39 PM
What's crazy is that Newt hasn't suggested anything that doesn't already exist. Those illegal immigrants who have been in this country 25 years or more would have been eligible for complete amnesty under Reagan in 1986 - 25 years ago. More worthy of note is that we were supposedly going to build a fence, build up security and reform the visa system then, yet here we are.
The plan I like best has us building a fence and patrolling it thoroughly. While that is being built we will require all employers to access the E-verify system and certify that all of their workers are here legally. Any that are not will be required to exit the US and come back in through the "wide door" if and only if they have a job and sponsor waiting, and register. This ends the magnet effect. What we do with these "guest workers" we can figure out another time (I'm against the whole idea, but reality bites).
President Obama: a leadership-challenged, solutionless bystander
The first of many requisites for presidents is leadership. President Obama isn't a leader. He's a portrait in political cowardice :
President Obama has distanced himself from the congressional supercommittee, politically and geographically, in a strategy aimed at avoiding political risk rather than putting his leadership on the line for a long-shot deal, analysts say.
'Politically, staying out of the supercommittee dynamic was much better for him than jumping into it,' said Norman Ornstein, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. 'Washington's going to take a hit' for the committee's failure to reach an agreement.
The thing that Mr. Ornstein isn't admitting is that President Obama will get criticized for not showing leadership. He'll be criticized for not having solutions for this nation's biggest problems. What value is a president if he's a leadership-challenged, solutionless bystander when it really matters?
The reality is that President Obama hates the rich except when they're making contributions to his presidential campaigns. Then he tolerates them. The unions, indeed the full array of the progressives' special interest allies, are the objects of President Obama's affections.
That explains his affection towards the lice-infested criminals of the OWS movement. Ditto with the intimidation specialists in SEIU and AFSCME's thugs that threatened to boycott Wisconsin businesses if they didn't put banners in their stores windows:
Last month, Dawn Bobo, owner of Village Dollar Store in Union Grove, Wis., was asked to display a pro-union sign in her window. Ms. Bobo, a self- described conservative Republican, refused and received a letter from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees asking her to reconsider.
'Failure to do so will leave us no choice but do [sic] a public boycott of your business,' the letter said.
President Obama frequently accuses Republicans of putting political party ahead of doing what's right for America. I'd love hearing his explanation for his supporting these union thugs and hatemongers who threaten small businesses. Isn't his silence on these issues proof that he'll consistently put his political ambitions ahead of doing what's best for the nation?
But I digress.
The reality behind President Obama's distancing himself from the debt committee is because he isn't worried about racking up annual trillion dollar deficit after trillion dollar deficit. He's the worst spendaholic that's ever lived in the White House. By far.
Mr. Ornstein might be right on a tactical, short-term level but he couldn't be more wrong from a big picture, strategic perspective. Then again, that's typical Washington.
Posted Friday, November 25, 2011 12:36 PM
No comments.
