-Caveat Lector- WJPBR Email News List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peace at any cost is a Prelude to War! CONGRESS ACTION: February 25, 2001 ================= IGNORE THE LAW: Democrats are incensed and outraged. The source of their outrage? President Bush is enforcing the law. That would be the same democrat hypocrites who spent weeks being incensed and outraged because they pretended to fear that John Ashcroft, as Attorney General, would not enforce the law. As was observed during the Ashcroft nomination fight, the democrats didn't really fear that Ashcroft would not enforce the law, what they really feared was that he would. Democrat reaction to a series of Executive Orders signed by President Bush on February 17 proves the truth of that observation. "This is no way to set the tone for bipartisanship," huffed Senator Paul Wellstone. Which is very revealing -- apparently to Wellstone, enforcing the law is "partisan", joining the democrats in ignoring the law would be "bipartisan". Which proves another truth about democrats -- they are more comfortable ignoring the law than enforcing it. Unions are also incensed and outraged, and have been more threatening in their reactions than democrats. The four Bush Executive Orders overturned Clinton-era orders and policies that significantly favored labor unions. One such Clinton policy encouraged federally funded construction projects to favor union over non-union contractors, and one Bush Executive Order is aimed at fostering a more open and competitive process to award federal contracts. The AFL-CIO responded that such open and competitive contracting would "hurt consumers and the public" because "you won't have the opportunity for more orderly resolution of labor disputes". In addition to that veiled threat, unions also threatened lawsuits to overturn the Executive Orders. But the primary area of dispute is Executive Order # 13201 implementing the 1988 Supreme Court case of Communications Workers of America v. Beck (487 U.S. 735). In Beck, the Supreme Court ruled that the National Labor Relations Act "does not permit a union, over the objections of dues-paying nonmember employees, to expend funds collected from them on activities unrelated to collective-bargaining activities." The focus is on non-union members who are required to pay what are called "agency fees" in lieu of dues. Because non-union members receive the benefits of collective bargaining, it is considered fair for non-union members to contribute to paying the cost of that collective bargaining. Fair enough. But the dispute arises when unions spend those dues and agency fees on things other than collective bargaining -- such as on political ads and contributions to political parties and candidates. During the past election, it is estimated that unions spent about $800 million in soft money and in-kind political activities, 95% of that on behalf of democrats. However, it is also estimated that 40% of union members voted for Bush, and one could assume that the percentage of non-union members (the subjects of the Beck case, whose money from agency fees comprised part of that $800 million) who voted for Bush was at least as high. So the issue is one of fundamental fairness -- why should a person be forced to pay to support a political candidate, party, or ideology that he or she opposes? "...to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical..." -- Thomas Jefferson On April 13, 1992 -- following an unforgivable 4 year delay -- President George H. W. Bush issued Executive Order 12800, requiring employers to post notices in their workplaces advising employees of their Beck rights. EO 12800 stood for less than a year. Within weeks of taking office, on February 1, 1993, President Bill Clinton issued EO 12836, revoking Bush's EO 12800. As of 1996, eight years after the Beck decision, a survey found that 78% of union members (and probably a like number of non-union members) still had never heard about their Beck rights to demand an accounting of how their fees were used and their right to demand a refund. The Clinton administration, the National Labor Relations Board, and labor unions have successfully kept employees ignorant about their Beck rights. Naturally unions and democrats don't want to lose the gusher of money that unions extract from unknowing workers and spend on democrats. Which brings us back to President George W. Bush's EO 13201 of last weekend, ordering once again that notices be posted in the workplaces of federal contractors, advising employees that they "cannot be required to join a union or maintain membership in a union in order to retain their jobs." And further that employees "who are not union members can object to the use of their payments for certain purposes and can only be required to pay their share of union costs relating to collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment. If you do not want to pay that portion of dues or fees used to support activities not related to collective bargaining, contract administration, or grievance adjustment, you are entitled to an appropriate reduction in your payment. If you believe that you have been required to pay dues or fees used in part to support activities not related to collective bargaining, contract administration, or grievance adjustment, you may be entitled to a refund and to an appropriate reduction in future payments." Note that Beck, and thus EO 13201, is limited to non-union members. Union members still have no such protection. And EO 13201 requires notices only in the workplaces of federal contractors. But because of the way the labor laws are written and interpreted, the only practical protection that workers have to defend their Constitutional rights is recourse to the National Labor Relations Board. But the NLRB has "a decidedly pro-union bent" (the words of a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge), and it is unlikely that the current members of the NLRB will go out of their way to help workers exercise their rights as defined by the Supreme Court. So unless Bush also engages in a thorough house-cleaning, it is likely that employees who pay union agency fees will continue to see large portions of those fees used to support left-wing politicians and causes that at least 40% of them find abhorrent. DEMOCRAT SCAM: Over the past century, democrats have engineered the perfect scam. They have hit a few minor bumps along the way, but for the most part they have been able to foist this scam on the public virtually unimpeded. Elections have become contests to see which candidate can pry more of our money loose from the grasping clutches of Washington and bring it back to the home state. And democrats are waging an ongoing campaign to assure the utter subservience of the American people in perpetuity. They see their losses in this past election as just one of those minor stumbling blocks, to be overcome by the ignorance and greed of Americans. And in the meantime, they intend to make sure that absolutely nothing gets done in Washington that will in any way impair their agenda. Here's how the scam works. There are two essential elements -- graduated income taxation, and a regulatory bureaucracy that can impose, without accountability, inefficiencies and consequent cost increases in the free markets. Costs go up, and some people suddenly find themselves unable to provide certain basic needs for themselves and their families. "Not to worry", comes the response from the ever-so-thoughtful left, "We have a new government program to help you pay for those basic needs. After all, no one should be deprived of those basic needs. We'll just have to hike the income tax rate just a little bit (or institute just a small sales tax or user fee or some other tax that we can call by a different name) to help pay for this new program, then all will be well." But as our income is reduced by a few dollars more every week to pay that small sales tax or user fee or other tax, more people find themselves unable to provide for a few more basic needs. "Not to worry", comes the response again from the ever-so-thoughtful left, "We have another new government program to help you pay for those needs. We'll just have to hike your taxes just a little bit more to help pay for this new program, then all will be well." So it goes. The government takes more of our money, imposes more hidden costs through regulatory hurdles, then comes up with a new way for the government to provide what the people should provide for themselves -- but can no longer afford because the government has taken their money to pay for the last "free give-away". Gradually, dependency on government grows. And by the way, if you want to get your share of those new government goodies, you'll have to alter your behavior just a little bit to satisfy the politically correct ideologues who created the program. You can no longer afford a home because of rent control, endangered species, and land use restrictions? "Not to worry", comes the response from the ever-so-thoughtful left, "You can live in government subsidized housing. But of course you'll have to abandon your Second Amendment rights to own a firearm, and abandon your Fourth Amendment rights to be free from warrantless searches (so we can be sure you aren't exercising your Second Amendment rights). It's all for the greater good of the community, especially the children, you understand." You can no longer afford food or health care for your children? "Not to worry, you can sign up for any of a multitude of government welfare programs. But of course you'll have to agree to frequent and unannounced visits from caring and compassionate social workers, so we can be sure that those kids we're now paying for are being raised properly. All for the greater good of the community, especially the children, you understand." You can no longer afford to have one parent stay home and raise your children, because both parents now have to work to pay all those taxes? "Not to worry", comes the response from the ever-so-thoughtful left, "You can put your child in a government subsidized and approved day care facility, where your little toddler will learn proper love and devotion to the almighty government and to the government subsidized and approved day care provider, and will learn proper suspicion of the oppressive and archaic patriarchal family unit. All the current talk from democrats about how the government "can't afford" a large tax cut, and that the budget surplus should stay in Washington so the politicians can allegedly pay down the debt, is just another variation on the same theme. That was revealed by none other than so-called moderate former Vice Presidential candidate Joe Lieberman. In a speech on the Senate floor, Lieberman condemned Bush's tax cuts as a "fiscally irresponsible" and proposed -- what else? -- more spending. "I fear that we're going to end up in a race to see who can give more away -- a race that will ultimately put us in a position where the American people will not be able to take care of themselves." Your see? Allowing you to keep more of your own money will make you unable to take care of yourself. So good old Joe proposes to have the government take care of us. Sure, Joe does propose a modest ".broad-based progressive tax cut, one that is directed at the middle class.". Whenever you hear a democrat use the words "progressive tax cut", hold on to your wallet, because that means more income redistribution, from people who the democrats think don't deserve to keep their own money, to people who didn't earn it. But primarily Joe wants to increase spending: "I think we have the opportunity to make some investments in a limited, restrained and targeted way." Here we go again, democrats proposing to "invest" your money (because they are so much smarter than you). Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt claim they want to set aside $2.9 trillion of the projected $5.6 trillion budget surplus for debt reduction, and then divide the rest into thirds: one-third for tax cuts, one-third for additional debt reduction, and one-third for new spending. In case you missed it, debt reduction was allocated twice in the Daschle/Gephardt plan, a total of $3.8 trillion. Which democrats will no doubt promise to set aside in one of their magical mythical "lockboxes". And of course those reliable left-wing republican Senators Jim Jeffords and Lincoln Chafee can't wait to board the Daschle/Gephardt Lockbox Express. Lieberman ended his Senate speech with a standard whopper that "fiscal discipline has played a critical role in the growth of our surplus". That budget surplus wasn't from all the excess taxes you have been paying, you see, it came about because Congress has exhibited fiscal discipline and cut spending. Right. When was the last time anyone can remember a single solitary federal program actually receiving a smaller budget from one year to the next, or actually terminating its operations? And the biggest farce is that we keep voting for these people. FOR MORE INFORMATION. ======================== Communications Workers of America v. Beck (487 U.S. 735): http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&linkurl=<%LINKURL%> &graphurl=<%GRAPHURL%>&court=US&case=/data/us/487/735.html Executive Orders: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html http://www.nara.gov/fedreg/eo.html Executive Orders Federal Register references: EO 12800: 57 FR 12985 EO 12836: 58 FR 7045 EO 13201: 66 FR 11221 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mr. Kim Weissman [EMAIL PROTECTED] *COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for nonprofit research and educational purposes only.[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ] Want to be on our lists? Write at [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a menu of our lists! <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
