Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Lawless expansion of government’s role

March 24, 2009

Advertisement

— With the braying of 328 yahoos — members of the House of Representatives who voted for retroactive and punitive use of the tax code to confiscate legal earnings of a small unpopular group — still reverberating, the Obama administration Monday invited private-sector investors to become business partners with the capricious and increasingly anti-constitutional government. This latest plan to unfreeze the financial system came almost half a year after Congress shoveled $700 billion into the Troubled Asset Relief Program, $325 billion of which has been spent without purchasing any toxic assets.

TARP funds have, however, semi-purchased, among many other things, two automobile companies (and, last week, some of their parts suppliers), which must amaze Sweden. That unlikely tutor of America regarding capitalist common sense has said, through a Cabinet minister, that the ailing Saab automobile company is on its own: “The Swedish state is not prepared to own car factories.”

Another embarrassing auditor of American misgovernment is China, whose premier has rightly noted the unsustainable trajectory of America’s high-consumption, low-savings economy. He has also decorously but clearly expressed sensible fears that his country’s $1 trillion-plus of dollar-denominated assets might be devalued by America choosing, as banana republics have done, to use inflation for partial repudiation of improvidently incurred debts.

From Mexico, America is receiving needed instruction about fundamental rights and the rule of law. A leading Democrat trying to abolish the right of workers to secret ballots in unionization elections is California’s Rep. George Miller who, with 15 other Democrats, in 2001 admonished Mexico: “The secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose.” Last year, Mexico’s highest court unanimously affirmed for Mexicans the right that Democrats want to strip from Americans.

Congress, with the approval of a president who has waxed censorious about his predecessor’s imperious unilateralism in dealing with other nations, has shredded the North American Free Trade Agreement. Congress used the omnibus spending bill to abolish a program that was created as part of a protracted U.S. stall regarding compliance with its obligation to allow Mexican long-haul trucks on U.S roads.

The program, testing the safety of Mexican trucking, became an embarrassment because it found Mexican trucking at least as safe as U.S. trucking. Mexico has resorted to protectionism — tariffs on many U.S. goods — in retaliation for Democrats’ protection of the Teamsters union.

NAFTA, like all treaties, is the “supreme law of the land.” So says the Constitution. It is, however, a cobweb constraint on a Congress that, ignoring the document’s unambiguous stipulations that the House shall be composed of members chosen “by the people of the several states,” is voting to pretend that the District of Columbia is a state. Hence, it supposedly can have a Democratic member of the House and, down the descending road, two Democratic senators.

Congress rationalizes this anti-constitutional willfulness by citing the Constitution’s language that each house shall be the judge of the “qualifications” of its members and Congress can “exercise exclusive legislation” over the District. What, then, prevents Congress from giving House and Senate seats to Yellowstone National Park, over which Congress exercises exclusive legislation? Only Congress’ capacity for embarrassment. So, not much.

The Federal Reserve, by long practice rather than law, has been insulated from politics in performing its fundamental function of preserving the currency as a store of value — preventing inflation. Now, however, by undertaking hitherto uncontemplated functions, it has become an appendage of the executive branch. The coming costs, in political manipulation of the money supply, of this forfeiture of independence could be steep.

Jefferson warned that “great innovations should not be forced on slender majorities.” But Democrats, who trace their party’s pedigree to Jefferson, are contemplating using “reconciliation” — a legislative maneuver abused by both parties to severely truncate debate and limit the minority’s right to resist — to impose vast and controversial changes on the 17 percent of the economy that is health care.

When the Congressional Budget Office announced that the president’s budget underestimates by $2.3 trillion the likely deficits over the next decade, his budget director, Peter Orszag, said: All long-range budget forecasts are notoriously unreliable — so rely on ours.

This is but a partial list of recent lawlessness, situational constitutionalism and institutional derangement. Such political malfeasance is pertinent to the financial meltdown as the administration, desperately seeking confidence, tries to stabilize the economy by vastly enlarging government’s role in it.

— George Will is a columnist for Washington Post Writers Group.

Comments

righthanded 5 years ago

Barney and Nancy (and now turbo tax timmy Geithner) are all mentally retarded!

Boot all of those people out PLEASE!

0

TrooGrit 5 years ago

LoL...the corrupt "right wing media"....that is indeed a true gem. Every day I wake up to something sillier than the day before, and she doesn't even have a government job! But at least she knows the media is a tool of the Barney Franks and Nancy Peolsi's of the world!

0

beawolf 5 years ago

"Do you want to ban door-to-door salesmen, Jehovah's Witnesses and girl scouts as well?"....

Yes.

0

JHOK32 5 years ago

Hey Merrill, I kinda like the way you think!. I think the mountains of elephant manure left behind by the Repubs will be stinking for decades & will ensure that no other Bush will ever get elected again, except maybe to chair the crawford ranch ladies flower club for the next century and a half! I'm not sure what tore our country apart worst, Bush or Katrina. They both left thousands of good people dead, ruined our economy (unless of course your rich & you can clean up foreclosed homes across the country for 50 cents on the dollar) - the rich get richer & the poor can go to where the sun don't shine, no job, no house, no healthcare, no food, - Who do you think's going to come out richer than ever after this is all over? You got it friends, we've just been suckered silly. We may be dumb but were not stupid!

0

jayhawklawrence 5 years ago

I would bet money that George Will did not write this. I give George credit for more brain power than this.

Where do you start with this stupidity?

The best thing to do is to give it to a High School English class and ask them to hack away with facts and common sense, things that are oftentimes missing from the national political discourse we see on the boob tube.

0

madmike 5 years ago

No my doper friend ocean, we are on the bribk of bankruptcy over this administrations social engineering experiments.

0

ocean 5 years ago

on the brink of what?

not being able to pay for recent wars?

0

tempting_butnothanks 5 years ago

"Ever since Obama has been in office, right wingers, talk-radio and FOX News have hammered him. That is NOT helping solve anything."


lets turn this around a bit.
Ever since Bush has been in office, left wingers, hollywood, and CNN have hammered him. That is NOT helping solve anything.

now doesn't that sound about the same?

Are you saying that we should give Obama a full pass and just let him run amok with our money and lives? It must just be horrible for poor Obama to have to deal with critics questioning every single move he makes as president.

0

tempting_butnothanks 5 years ago

"the unions have a right to try and sell their service."


They do have a right to try and sell their service. However, the do not have the right to cause intimidation in the workplace. The unions have had mob ties for as far back as there have been unions. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell you that you don't mess around with the union reps. ask Hoffa.

0

tempting_butnothanks 5 years ago

KansasVoter (Anonymous) says…

Mr_Nancy_Boy_To_You (Tom Shewmon) says… “Democrats like Dick Morris”

LOL…..What?!? Dick Morris is not and never has been a Democrat.


Dick Morris was an advisor to Bill Clinton and has only seemingly become Republican after seeing how Bill & Hill. went on a power hungry ego trip for 8 years (actually Hillary is still on it). It's no wonder Dick Morris is shunned by Democrats, he knows all their secrets.

0

Tom Shewmon 5 years ago

"The corrupt right wing news media..." -BigAl

I crack up everytime you post that comment, ya' big ol' loveable, huggable lug ya'!

0

parrotuya 5 years ago

Riddle me this:

What is another difference between Republicans and Libertarians?

Republicans want tax cuts but Libertarians want no taxes!

More tax cuts for the wealthy!

0

madmike 5 years ago

Al, you really need to get a grip. Aren't you one of the dissenters that tore President Bush apart and cheered with glee every night while NBC/MSNBC slanted their reporting?

0

Liberty_One 5 years ago

snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…

"Show of hands, who wants a union organizer to show up at your home, present you with a card and then stand there to see how you vote?"

As MyName points out, some people may enthusiastically want to join a union. Even if you don't, we shouldn't use the power of the government to stop a union from trying to sell its services to potential members. Do you want to ban door-to-door salesmen, Jehovah's Witnesses and girl scouts as well? You are trying to make the union sound threatening and scary--ooh, they're bothering you at home! Making threats or using force to get someone to join is against the law. We don't need to go any further than that--the unions have a right to try and sell their service.

0

BigAl 5 years ago

The fact is that Obama inherited a terrible mess from Bush/Cheney. That is a fact. Ever since Obama has been in office, right wingers, talk-radio and FOX News have hammered him. That is NOT helping solve anything. Yesterday we have a very good day in the stock market and Bill O'Reilly opens his show by hammering on Obama for several minutes and then he backs it up with Newt Gingrich. Fair and balanced my arse…… The corrupt right wing news media continues to tear this country apart to promote their own agenda. If President Obama is successful then media outlets like FOX News and talk radio will look bad. These people have become despicable.

0

MyName 5 years ago

Show of hands, who wants a union organizer to show up at your home, present you with a card and then stand there to see how you vote?

Umm... that would assume that people don't want the higher pay, better benefits, and protections from being fired for no reason that Unions typically offer. But maybe the correct answer would be "the employer".

0

MyName 5 years ago

Ugh, this must be the place where the TL;DR posters go to die. But seriously, where was George Will even 4 years ago?

Obama Administration: "I think we should have the US government actually do something to fix this instead of sitting on hands while Wall Street burns to the ground"

George Will: "Nooo!!! We're going to be taken over by Communists!"

Four Year earlier...

Bush Administration: "I think we should secretly spy on Americans and should be able to torture anyone we feel like while keeping them in prison indefinitely without being charge."

George Will: "And if you disagree with this, you're Un-American!"

0

Flap Doodle 5 years ago

Show of hands, who wants a union organizer to show up at your home, present you with a card and then stand there to see how you vote?

0

KansasVoter 5 years ago

Mr_Nancy_Boy_To_You (Tom Shewmon) says… "Democrats like Dick Morris"

LOL.....What?!? Dick Morris is not and never has been a Democrat. When you spout easily refuted lies like that, there's absolutely no reason for anyone to believe anything else that you say.

0

XD40 5 years ago

And where would we be without Obama's Hitler Jugen:

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com:80/2009/03/house-passes-dear-leaders-hitler-youth.html

They did modify the language on 'camps'.

0

madameX 5 years ago

Liberty's right. If you can't be bothered to read the fine print on something before you sign it then that's on you.

0

Liberty_One 5 years ago

RE: the misleading wording on the cards. Sorry, but being stupid is not a defense to a breach of contract claim. You signed the contract, you are responsible for knowing what you sign. Don't come crying to the government to fix your mistakes.

0

Tom Shewmon 5 years ago

Two words: one term.

If there did happen to be another attack of the magnitude of September 11, 2001, the almost certain botching of the response by The Three Stooges and cast and crew will guarantee not only buh-bye to Obama, but probably at a minimum, 25-30 Dems in congress. Of course, it's already speculated by Democrats like Dick Morris that the Dems will all but lose, if not lose the majority next year. This all within the first critical 100 days that must be seeming like an eternity for Obama by now. Has any honeymoon ever ended so abruptly? Wow!!

Of course, if you're a Dem, miracles can happen, but at this point in time, things ain't lookin to swuft.

0

Liberty_One 5 years ago

Marion--in response to your criticism of the employee free choice act, voting to join a union is not like voting for elected officials. Joining a union is making a contract--you agree to transfer your right to bargain with the employer over to the union in exchange for union dues and acting consistent with the union. Contracts do not need to be made by secret ballot, and I, as a free market capitalist, have no problem whatsoever with people choosing to enter into an agreement with a union through the card check system. They still have every right to choose not to enter the union. And there are laws against unfair labor practices by the union--they can't coerce or use undue pressure to force someone to join. If you believe in freedom of contract, then when someone signs a card saying they agree to join the union and transfer their right to bargain over, you should respect that contract and enforce it.

0

Marion Lynn 5 years ago

Barack Hussein Obama; half-Kenyan, has scrubbed his mandatory Obama Jugend...at least for now......

http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-website-scrubs-mandatory-community-service-call.html

"Following a controversy over language that appeared on Barack Obama’s official website suggesting that Americans would be mandated to complete up to 100 hours of community service as part of a national service program, the original text has been memory-holed and replaced with a more sanitized version.

Despite numerous bloggers picking up on the switch, along with screenshots from before and after proving the language was changed, mesmerized Obama supporters are still claiming that that detractors had invented the language and that the website had not been altered.

The text from Obama’s change.gov website, which went online shortly after the election result, originally appeared as follows (emphasis mine).

Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.

The text was changed at some point on Friday afternoon/evening to the following (emphasis mine).

Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free."

http://www.wariscrime.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/obamajugend.jpg

0

duplenty 5 years ago

The fact that repubs would still consider Palin after the utter trainwreck of her campaign w/ McCain is hilarious.

0

beobachter 5 years ago

Zwarte, Will it be Dumb /Dumber or Dumber /Dumb?

0

Richard Heckler 5 years ago

Republicans do not want the economy back on track =obstructionists= no jobs

What happens if americans are employed and with health insurance for all? Republicans will not seize control again for a very long time and should not!

Sarah Palin is being brought out to represent the republican party smear and distortion campaign at repub fundraisers.

Proving once again they are obstructionists and do not want americans back to work. They fear what might be discovered if this financial fiasco is investigated and fear nationalization of their campaign money sources. With 30 years of big time criminal history its' time the democrats and citizens without jobs to tell the repub party to take a hike.

Republicans do not want the economy back on track so they continue the daily character assassination campaigns to persuade america into believing that GW Bush never was president and did not screw up the economy and did not lie to the public about Iraq and did not lie to the public about social security and does not live in Texas.

0

XD40 5 years ago

The Obambi administration and the dimocrat majority in Congress are the toxic assets the country now holds. Changey hope won the election and now owns this mess. Carping about Bush is just tinfoil hat denial by the sheeple on the fascist left who willingly, blindly voted for hopey change.

Obama has failed. Unfortunately he failed upward into the presidency. The Obama, Pelosi, Reid menage a trois will end up screwing the nation more than they screw each other.

0

RETICENT_IRREVERENT 5 years ago

Zwarte, Will it be Palin /Jindal or Jindal / Palin?

0

georgeofwesternkansas 5 years ago

"The Obama administration is considering asking Congress to give the Treasury secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy, according to an administration document."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032302830_pf.html

0

madmike 5 years ago

Will someone take Merrill's keyboard away from him?

0

Flap Doodle 5 years ago

Wow, we haven't seen those links in a least a week, thanks, merrill.

0

Richard Heckler 5 years ago

http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com/war/bush_family_and_the_s.htm

Since 1980 and 20 years of that period the neoconservative facist republicans had complete control of the USA government. During that 20 years a Geo. H.W. Bush or a Geo W. Bush has been in or very very close to the White House. Jeb Bush and cousin George Walker were employed with Lehman Brothers when Lehman Bros went broke. Members of the Bush family seem to in high office when USA financial institutions fall apart with tax dollars being there for the bail out each time.

There are several ways in which the Bush family plays into the Savings and Loan scandal, which involves not only many members of the Bush family but also many other politicians that are still in office and still part of the Bush Jr. administration today. Jeb Bush, George Bush Sr., and his son Neil Bush have all been implicated in the Savings and Loan Scandal, which cost American tax payers over $1.4 TRILLION dollars (note that this is about one quarter of our national debt).

Between 1981 and 1989, when George Bush finally announced that there was a Savings and Loan Crisis to the world, the Reagan/Bush administration worked to cover up Savings and Loan problems by reducing the number and depth of examinations required of S&Ls as well as attacking political opponents who were sounding early alarms about the S&L industry. Industry insiders were aware of significant S&L problems as early 1986 that they felt would require a bailout. This information was kept from the media until after Bush had won the 1988 elections.

Con't http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com/war/bush_family_and_the_s.htm

0

Richard Heckler 5 years ago

Lets focus on cleaning up campaign commercials,campaign funding and how our candidates are selected. Special interest money is root of political evil.

The media has become a large part of the special interest takeover of our process as if they know what is best for all of us. Voters support this takeover by voting for those candidates who spend the most money and the question is why?

Campaigns go too long,spend way too much money and do not necessarily provide the best available. It is up to us to stop the nonsense at the voting booths.

Replace 95% of all elected officials every 4 years for the house and every 6 years for the Senate.

Not voting sends the wrong message and changes nothing.

Lets’s demand a new system and vote in Fair Vote America : http://www.fairvote.org/irv/ Demand a change on the next ballot.

The big money candidates are more beholden than ever to corporate special interests due to the very long nature of campaigns. How do they have time to do the job they were elected to do?

We need public financing of campaigns. Citizens cannot afford special interest money campaigns for it is the citizens that get left out. Let citizens vote on this issue. http://www.publicampaign.org/

Who would be against Public Funding? The special interest money providers and their bought and paid for politicians!

Demand all presidential candidates participate in debates NOT only those selected by the media and two parties.

0

ArumerZwarteHoop 5 years ago

Just remember any further expansion of executive power, Palin will wield in 2012

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years ago

So opponents should offer an amendment cleaning up the language on the cards-- that'd be the honest way to deal with this complaint. But, of course, what employers really want is to block union organizing, not protect "democratic elections."

0

i_tching 5 years ago

We must never challenge authority.

0

Flap Doodle 5 years ago

"There is a bloody spin war over whether card check abolishes the secret ballot or not. Pro-card-check forces insist that it doesn't. Unfortunately, these voices include many mainstream reporters who consistently use the language preferred by Big Labor. They note that if 30% of the workers sign a card asking for an election, they can have one.

But this ignores the unions' crimp tactics. For starters, the cards are written in ways that make "predatory lending" mortgages seem like paragons of full disclosure.

At the National Right to Work website, you can find an example of one of these cards. In big, bold letters on top, it says "Request for Employees Representation Election." But after you fill out all the relevant info, then there's the small print, authorizing the Teamsters to "represent me in all negotiations of wages, hours and working conditions."

In other words, in many cases, workers who think they're just voting for an election are in fact voting for unionization. The unions make it as difficult as possible to do the former without also doing the latter. Check a card, find the king's shilling.

Also, if the number of cards is over 30% but below 50%, there still isn't an election unless the organizers -- not the workers -- want it.

As Mickey Kaus, a one-man blogging crusader against card check, wrote, "No individual worker will know if his signed card will provide the 31% plurality or the 51% majority. Only the organizers know this. You could sign the card intending to provoke an election and discover that you actually prevented an election. There's no way for ordinary workers to reliably game the system in order to 'choose' a secret ballot."" http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldberg24-2009mar24,1,5225787.column

0

BrianR 5 years ago

"...transforming America into an intensely government centered, government controlled behemoth, usurping the constitution and stripping mainstreet of as much freedom and power as possible."

THE SKY IS FALLING!!!

right thinker, you've completely abandoned including any semblance of truth or honesty in your posts. Why am I not surprised?

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years ago

"The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) (H.R. 1409, S. 560) is pending legislation in the United States. Its text states that it would "amend the National Labor Relations Act to establish an easier system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes."[1] The latest version was introduced into both chambers of the U.S. Congress on 10 March 2009.[2]

In order for a workplace to organize under current U.S. labor law, the card check process begins when an employee requests blank cards from an existing union, and requests signatures on the cards from his colleagues.[3] Once 30% of the work force has signed the cards, the employer may decide to hold a secret ballot election on the question of unionization.[3] In practice, the results of the card check are not presented to the employer until 50 or 60% of employees have signed the cards to help ensure winning the election.[3] If the majority of votes favor the union, the National Labor Relations Board will certify it as the exclusive representative of the employees for the purpose of collective bargaining. If enacted, EFCA would require the NLRB to certify the union as the bargaining representative without directing an election if a majority of the bargaining unit employees signed cards;[1] however, employees may still request a secret ballot election if 30% of employees petition for one.[3] The EFCA would, according to Christopher Beam, "allow the employees—rather than the employer—to decide whether to hold a secret-ballot election."[3]"

So quite clearly, the law does exactly as I said. It doesn't eliminate secret ballot elections. It merely makes that the choice of the workers, not the companies. But I can understand why companies don't like losing that significant control they have over workers' organizing themselves.

0

Marion Lynn 5 years ago

cont'd:

Under details released Monday, the plan will take $75 billion to $100 billion from the government's existing $700 billion financial-bailout pot. The government will pair this with private investments and loans from the FDIC and the Fed to generate $500 billion in purchasing power.

Geithner says purchases eventually could grow to $1 trillion -- roughly half of the estimated $2 trillion of toxic assets on bank books now.

The fleshed-out plan is designed to help place a value on damaged mortgage loans and other toxic securities.

If the value of the securities goes up, the private investors and taxpayers would share in the gains. If the values go down, the government and private investors would incur losses.

AIG's decision to pay millions in bonuses has created a public relations headache for President Barack Obama at a time when he is trying to gin up public and political support for his economic policies, bank-rescue plan and overhaul of the nation's regulatory structure.

AIG is a globally interconnected colossus, with 74 million customers worldwide and operations in more than 130 countries. The government decided it was simply too big to let fail.

As a result, the government has bailed out AIG four times to the tune of more than $180 billion. The company recently paid at least $165 million in bonuses to employees who worked in a division that has been blamed for the insurance company's near-collapse last year. The bonuses came even as AIG reported a stunning $62 billion loss, the biggest in U.S. corporate history.

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said Monday that 15 employees who received some of the largest bonuses from AIG have agreed to return them in full, totaling more than $30 million.

Over the past 18 months, AIG was the case that angered him the most, Bernanke says. He says he "slammed the phone more than a few times on discussing AIG."

Government bailouts of AIG, Citigroup Inc., Bank of America Corp. and others have put billions of taxpayers' dollars at risk over the past year and angered the American public.

"These actions have involved extremely unpleasant and difficult choices," Bernanke said last week. However, a failure of a huge, globally interconnected company would have had potentially devastating effects on the financial system and the broader economy. "I do not think we have had a realistic alternative to preventing such failures," he added.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Marion writes:

"Hugo Barack Hussein Obama", anyone?

0

Marion Lynn 5 years ago

And now the tax-cheat Geithner seeks to be able to seize private business:

Geithner to Seek Power to Seize Imperiled Firms

The White House will seek unprecedented powers to seize large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, leaping beyond its present authority to seize only banks, according to a report published Tuesday.

The White House is considering seeking unprecedented powers to seize large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, leaping beyond its present authority to seize only banks, the Washington Post reported.

Treasury secretary Timothy Geithner is expected to make the case for such powers at a hearing Tuesday on Capitol Hill, according to the newspaper.

Geithner and the Federal Reserve's chairman will make a rare joint appearance at Tuesday's congressional hearing, ostensibly to take a scolding over the handling of bonuses at AIG, the giant insurance company that has become the symbol of reckless risk-taking on Wall Street.

But after venting their spleen yet again at a House hearing Tuesday, lawmakers also were expected to press Geithner and Fed boss Ben Bernanke on the new risks to taxpayers from their latest effort to save tottering banks and the U.S. economy: a plan to take over up to $1 trillion in dodgy mortgage securities with the help of private investors.

At the same time, Bernanke and Geithner are likely to once again call on Congress to enact legislation that would allow the government to safely dismantle a big financial institution, like American International Group Inc., to minimize any damage to the U.S financial system and the broader economy.

Obama last week said his administration soon will propose new financial industry oversight that includes a "resolution authority" with powers similar to those of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which can seize control of banks, take over their bad assets and sell the good ones to competitors.

The proposal would give the treasury secretary the unprecedented power, after consulting with officials at the Fed, to take control of a major financial institution and run it. The treasury chief is an official of the administration, unlike the FDIC, which is an independent regulatory agency.

At Tuesday's hearing Geithner "will focus on the need for the government to address companies and markets that pose systemic risks to our financial system, ensuring that we close the gaps in the regulatory framework and that we never have to face situations like AIG again," treasury spokesman Andrew Williams said.

The toxic assets plan is a crucial part of the Obama administration's strategy to prop up banks and stabilize the financial system. If the bad assets are taken off banks' books, they'll be in a better position to lend more freely to customers.

cont'd:

0

Flap Doodle 5 years ago

One tick in the "wrong" column for bozo.

0

imastinker 5 years ago

Beo - it's not Obama's job to "fix" it. That's what our problem with Obama is - he's trying to fix something that shouldn't be fixed to push his agenda.

0

Marion Lynn 5 years ago

cont'd:

Employee "Free Choice" Act Strips Workers’ Rights

The EFCA would make it easier for union officials to pressure workers. Under the card-check process, union organizers would publicly solicit signatures on union authorization cards. After a majority of workers at a company sign the cards, the union becomes the bargaining representative of all the workers at the company.

Without secret ballots, union organizers know exactly who has signed union cards and who has not. In the past, union organizers have repeatedly approached and pressured—and, in some cases, threatened—reluctant workers.[1] They have also used pro-union co-workers to solicit signatures, putting peer pressure on "holdouts" to change their minds.

The card-check process also denies workers the right to vote "yes" or "no" on joining a union. Workers can only vote "yes" by signing the card. Not signing a card simply means "not yet." Organizers are free to return again and again until they get the result they want. That is not voting, which by definition is a choice between two or more options.

Even the limited freedom of saying "not yet" would be denied to some workers. Under card check, all workers in a company must join the union after organizers collect cards signed by a majority, even if some of those workers did not know about the organizing drive and were never asked to sign a card. A worker has a right to express his or her views with a ballot, even if that vote does not change the results of the election. Card check takes that right away.

Disenfranchising 105 Million Workers

The EFCA applies only to workers covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which does not cover government employees, agricultural workers, the self-employed, or railway or airline workers. The Act also excludes supervisors. Still, the EFCA would disenfranchise 105 million American workers, which encompasses more than two-thirds, or 68.8 percent, of the American workforce.

0

Marion Lynn 5 years ago

Employee Free Choice Act Would Disenfranchise 105 Million Workers by James Sherk WebMemo #1768 In the presidential primaries, Americans vote in secret ballot elections for who they want to be the Democratic and Republican nominees. Voters can publicly urge their friends, neighbors, and co-workers to support their favored candidate; but on Election Day, they cast votes in private. American workers decide whether to join a union by the same method. However, Congress is now considering a little-known bill that would strip millions of workers of this fundamental right.

The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) would disenfranchise 105 million American workers. For union organizing elections, the legislation would replace the secret ballot with a system of "card checks," where union organizers pressure workers to publicly sign a card stating they want to join a union. Workers would never have the option of voting against union membership, and millions of workers could be forced into a union without ever getting the chance to vote on the matter. Congress should preserve a worker’s right to vote in privacy on union membership.

The Right to Vote in Privacy

A fundamental principle of American democracy is that votes are private choices. Secret ballot elections ensure that voters can choose the candidate who truly represents them, not the candidate whom their friends or neighbors want them to support. Millions of Americans cherish this freedom, but many Members of Congress want to take it from American workers.

For more than 60 years, American workers have decided whether to form a union with a private vote. When enough workers at a company sign union authorization cards, the government supervises a secret ballot election. Workers vote "yes" or "no" on union membership. If a majority of workers vote "yes," a union is formed, but neither management nor union organizers know how each individual worker voted. The secret ballot lets workers vote their conscience without risking job loss or physical assault for making the "wrong" choice.

cont'd:

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years ago

" A leading Democrat trying to abolish the right of workers to secret ballots in unionization "

It does no such thing. All it does is allow workers to organize openly if they so choose. The current law allows the companies to dictate the manner in which employees unionize themselves.

0

Tom Shewmon 5 years ago

The notion that Obama, the entire adm. and congress are making missteps needs to be addressed here. This is exacty what they planned on doing while in power: transforming America into an intensely government centered, government controlled behemoth, usurping the constitution and stripping mainstreet of as much freedom and power as possible. They (Obama and crew) do not feel they are doing anything wrong. Whoever believes they are just "screwing things up" when in reality have a strict socialist agenda to fulfill needs to wake up.

0

beobachter 5 years ago

if Bush hadn't screwed up so bad, Obama wouldn't be in the position of trying to clean up the disaster Bush left. Will take more than 8 weeks in spite of what you ditto heads think.

0

imastinker 5 years ago

I'm so tired of hearing "where were you eight years ago!"

The federal expansion that we saw under Bush wasn't right either, but that makes this no less wrong!

0

couranna1 5 years ago

lighten up marionbigot bushco can still be prosecuted

0

Marion Lynn 5 years ago

queequeg (Anonymous) says…

“…and increasingly anti-constitutional government. ”

Gee, where were you eight years ago George?"

Marion writes:

Nice try, queequeg (Anonymous)!

The important thing is what we are going to face in The Obamination!

0

John Kyle 5 years ago

"...and increasingly anti-constitutional government. "

Gee, where were you eight years ago George?

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.