Recess Appointments… or Circumvention?

I am not going to write a really long article about this particular topic (of course it won’t really be a short article either). But it really irks me so I am going to put it out there and watch to see how people either defend or repudiate this act. As you may or may not have noticed on Friday, the President decided that now that Congress is in recess he would use his authority within the Constitution to appoint members to top posts within the administration without waiting for approval from the Senate. In general, I don’t have an issue with this being done. However, I do have issue with one of the appointments specifically. And I refuse to allow the President, of all people to put a false spin on things or to fail to recognize some of the reasons that he is in the situation that he now finds himself. I had a different article planned for tonight, but I will run it tomorrow instead, as I am making a few adjustments to it and awaiting some feedback on it.

Let’s be clear before anyone goes too far off the deep end that the President is well within his authority to appoint members to his administration during a recess of Congress. While I think that there has been a bastardization of this section, which I will cover, the power is granted to the President. Article II, Section 2 clearly states:

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

These appointments are over once the current Congress session expires, meaning that after the mid-term elections, they no longer stand. And let us not pretend that this is a new procedure that Obama is doing. President Bush used the power of recess appointments no less than 15 times by this point in his Presidency and did a total of 171 such appointments during his entire two terms. President Clinton used the maneuver nearly 140 times.

Forget that it is a book. The image and title are the point

There is legal debate as to whether the President has this power to wield in the way that it is currently used. On a basic level, one argument is that the intent of the Constitution was that if a position became vacant during the recess, which in the late 1700’s was generally between 6 and 9 months long, then the appointment was done so that the job got done and then vacated once Congress was back in session. The wording, if taken literally from the Constitution, seems to support the idea that it was to be used only for vacancies that opened up during the recess (to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate). I agree with this legal premise, and feel that any other use is abuse and circumventing the checks and balances of the government. However, this is not a case of Obama interpreting incorrectly, it is a case of many past Presidents setting a bad precedent.

So I don’t have issue with Obama using the power of recess appointments to fill positions. But I do have issue that the power has been perverted in the way that it has. It wasn’t meant to be used in this way, and given the separation of powers and check/balance controls the founders were reaching for, I think they clearly did not intend for the President to use this tactic as an end around technique the way that it has been done.

And I do take a bit of an issue with the emotional rhetoric being spouted off by the commander in chief on this issue. He stated, “I simply cannot allow partisan politics to stand in the way of the basic functioning of government.” Well, I don’t think it stood in the way of a functioning government. If we look at the appointments that were made, they generally weren’t positions that had government at a standstill. But he is right about partisan politics. The Republicans are making an effort to hold up appointments. Now whether it is because they don’t see the nominees as good so they don’t want to let them get to a vote and approved, or whether they are doing it simply to deny Obama is certainly up for debate. Given their childish behavior this last week with refusing to work past 2:00, I lead towards the latter, at least in some of the cases.

One thing I do find ironic in the Obama rhetoric on this issue is the fact that we, once again, find the President in a position where he is doing something he railed against when he was a Senator. During the Bush administration’s push to appoint John Bolton as UN ambassador, then Senator Obama said that the use of recess appointments by a President was “circumventing the will of Congress.” He then, after Bolton was appointed, claimed that because of the recess appointment, Bolton was not credible as the UN ambassador: “To some degree, he’s damaged goods,” said Obama, “I think that means we’ll have less credibility and, ironically, be less equipped to reform the United Nations in the way that it needs to be reformed.” It should be noted that Obama also blocked the nomination of several Bush appointees while in the Senate.

Additionally, Senator Harry Reid, when Bush used recess appointments, said they were “an end run around the Constitution,” and specifically set it up so that the Senate was never out of session long enough to allow the President to make any further appointments. Just pointing out the hypocrisy here. But don’t think it doesn’t exist on the other side. Republicans rallied in support of recess appointments when Bush did it. John McCain even pushed hard to get Bush to do a certain one (although, ironically it was for a Democrat nominee to a Democratic post if I recall correctly).

I also take issue with the fact that the statistic pointed to over and over all weekend by the political pundits and the administration spokespeople was the number of nominees still not confirmed compared to the number for Bush at this point in his Presidency. For Bush there were 5 unconfirmed at this point, while Obama has 77 (although I am now finding amended claims from the White House of just over 200, but I think this is for number of people who took a certain length of time to nomination instead of the number still pending). And that sure sounds horrible, but let’s not forget a few things here. President Bush didn’t come into office with a fairly far reaching liberal agenda that he was trying to cram through in such a hurry. Perhaps the Senate could have had much more accomplished if they weren’t so focused on passing health care reform, stimulus bills, cap and trade BS, Bailout bills, and the like. This Congress has been so busy pursuing the liberal agenda stuff that I am surprised they had time to confirm anyone.

And let’s not forget that the President appoints roughly 1,000 positions that require approval. So, the “obstructionist Republicans” in the Senate had approved a little over 92% of the Obama nominees. Odd how difficult it is to find an article in the media that mentions that silly little fact. No, it is far more effective to list some number of those not done, and never let people realize what a small portion of the overall those unconfirmed positions are.

So there you have my thoughts on the process in general and the President’s use of emotional appeal to justify his actions. Now let’s talk about the one person out of those 15 appointed that the President specifically isn’t mentioning when he justifies his move. I looked all weekend for a single administration official who offered some form of explanation for the appointment of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board. None. And I will contend that this is because there is absolutely no justification that they can offer.

Because, you see, Becker’s vote for confirmation to the position wasn’t being held up by Senate Republicans, despite many claims to the contrary. Oh they would have held it up if they needed to, but they didn’t. In an early February, 2010 bi-partisan vote on a procedural matter to let Becker’s nomination come to the floor for a vote, the Senate voted 52-33 to not lot Becker’s nomination come to the floor for a vote (quick reminder, there are only 41 GOP Senators, not 52). In other words, 52 Senators said no to Becker being appointed to the NLRB. To put it more succinctly, the Senate did vote on Becker, and the Senate said no to his nomination. It wasn’t “held up”, it was dead, with a majority of the Senate saying so.

And the reason? Becker is a union lawyer who worked for the AFL-CIO and, don’t let this be a shock to anyone, the SEIU. He is also a major figure in the push for the deplorable Employee Free Choice Act and the Card Check madness relating to secret votes in unions. Senator Ben Nelson, the now infamous Nebraska Democrat stated, “Mr. Becker’s previous statements strongly indicate that he would take an aggressive personal agenda to the NLRB and that he would pursue a personal agenda there, rather than that of the administration. This is of great concern, considering that the board’s main responsibility is to resolve labor disputes with an even and impartial hand.” Becker has also written that the NLRB can rewrite labor law without the consent of Congress. He is a radical Democratic agenda guy, and there is zero Republican support and limited Democratic support for him.

And just to add another interesting twist to the situation, there is the decision of the President to ignore another nominee to the board. Currently the 5 member NLRB has two members seated. The Chairman is Democrat Wilma Liebman, appointed by Obama in his first week as President. The other member seated is Republican Peter Schaumber, whose term ends in August of this year. Traditionally, the board has always been held to be bi-partisan. The two members there would qualify. The President nominated the three members to fill out the board. His nominees were Democrats Becker and Mark Pearce. He also nominated Republican Brian Hayes.

Here is the twist. In his ongoing commitment to bi-partisanship on a board that has always remained bipartisan, he made the recess appointments of Becker and Pearce, but did not use a recess appointment for Hayes. So he has created a situation where the NLRB has three Democrats and one Republican, and the Republican is set to be finished in August. This apparently qualifies as the quorum needed and the four will immediately get to work clearing a backlog of work. So in essence, the NLRB is no longer bipartisan, it is Democrat controlled and containing at least one member with a radical agenda and a radical interpretation of what the limits of the board are. And they are going to be making some important rulings, including the Dana and MGM cases.

Can you say happy days are here for the Unions? You bet. They will now have the ability to reverse many of the rulings from Bush’s terms and forward the progressive agenda even further. This is not a small issue for business in America. Personally, I would like to see the complete elimination of the National Labor Relations Board. It was wrong when it was formed, and it has been wrong ever since. The NLRB is an intrusion into the private markets by government that has been happening since the 1930’s. As I have said often, the progressive movement has spent a long time getting the country to this point. Hard to see a peaceful way to reverse the perversion of the federal government at this point.

But I am interested in hearing what everyone else thinks. How can those of you on the left justify the recess appointment of Becker? Forget the others who were “held up”. How do you justify the appointment of a guy that a majority of the US Senate voted not to move forward with? Would you be cool with a President doing a recess appointment of a Supreme Court Justice who failed Senate Confirmation? Federal judgeships have been done as recess appointments under both Dem and Republican administrations. What about the NLRB? Is it a dangerous place for us to be in where the board is so controlled by one side? How many of you agree with my contention that the NLRB should be done away with altogether? After all, it primarily deals with union stuff, and I am a big opponent of the fact that unions have so much government support in the first place, but that is another article for another day. Go ahead, fire away!


  1. Good Morning 🙂

    It’s early, but the appointment of Becker will have far reaching ramifications that could last a long time. I have some research to do, but I believe that he could implement “card check” as a legal devise through NLRB rules, without a Congressional vote. NLRB rules have changed with each Presidency over the last few decades, with little ever being noticed by the MSM or the average worker, including those in the Unions. My not so awake opinion is that this is just another ploy to change legislation while circumventing the legal process. As you said USW, it’s been done by both sides of the isle, not just Obama.

    Have a great day!


    • How can a Senator say that the NLRB hs the power to change rules knowing full well that he and his colleagues past and present in Congress granted that power and can take it away t anytime?

      • I don’t think that matters to the Senate right now, T-Ray. I think that it is the same mindset that is currently prevalent now….the Henry Ford….”give ’em any color they want as long as it is black”….Watching Congress sell out and call it business as usual is the same as appointing heads through recess knowing that Congress is not going to stop anybody. Make the changes now and the people (public) will forget it down the road.

        Ya think? Top O’ th’ moanin’ to ya.

    • Becker’s appointment will make my job harder. He will pursue card check through regulation in some manner. Another win for the Union movement. Everything Obama does is hurting business in some manner.

      Yes, both parties make such appointments but Obama knew how controversial Becker was and did it anyway.

      This country does not need more Unions to be successful.

      • Birdman 🙂

        I could not agree more!


        • G-Man:

          I got your e-mail message. My e-mail will receive mail but not send it and I have not called the ISP to get the SMTP. I’ll probably have some time later this week and will get my e-mail account changed. I have a charter account in MI but have Comcast in IL with my apartment.

          I’ll send you an e-mail when I get it set up.


          • Take your time my friend. I read your post on your problems, I’m sure you’ll get it straightened out in time. Good luck with your transistion!


  2. It should be noted that John Bolton’s nomination was filibustered by the Senate dems, but even then Senator Biden said in private that if the vote were held, Bolton would be approved. Making a recess appointment in that case is at least somewhat reasonable. Appointing someone who would (and has) been denied is not reasonable in any way!

  3. Good morning. It is hypocrisy at best. I remember well when the Dems screamed “bloody murder” when Bush did it. Now, it is ok.

    Glad I am in Texas. Open shop..and while there are unions, they are not very powerful here and certainly not representative of the State.

    Becker is dangerous and Obama’s behind the scenes appointments will only serve to do more damage. This progressive movement is very dangerous and not in the best interest of the United States.

  4. I don’t know where I stand on Becker just yet, but I wanted to take a step back and applaud the emphasis Weapon put on the fact that both sides are total hypocrites on this issue. When we do it it’s only because you’re being unreasonable – when you do it, it’s Unconstitional. Bah humbug.

    Anyway, back to the Monday morning grind.

    • Great article:

      However, have to point out that, while I do agree that Dems wing-nuts aren’t generally as crazy, I certainly think an equally fascinating list could easily be compiled for them as well. Now, while I’m sure people here will refute certain items in the list, the overall point is pretty solid.

      So, to recap:
      (1) Both sides are total hypocrites.
      (2) Bah humbug.

      • Buck The Wala says:

        Pretty much agreed (with both posts), but now it seems you’re just asking for a fight today! Bored at work??

        • Thas’ ok Buck…..Matt probably has not had his DP yet. He will have plenty to say when my article is finished. I will submit it today to USW. 🙂
          In the meantime, I have bred Ninja raptors and will send them his way….that will at least occupy some of his time. Then I will slip in the Marilyn Monroe (whom he may not know) raptor and the Sharon Stone (he will know this one)Combination Raptor….that will occupy some more of his time.

          After that, I will send subliminal satellite messages to him to drink a combination Red Bull/DP mixture while eating pure chocolate bars, followed by a Chocolate Malted, Jalepeno cheese stuffed peppers, and a foot long chili cheese coney with purple onions. That should hold him awhile.

          • Wow, D.. you seem to have found a new and terrifying direction to take with your raptor breeding program.

            And, for the record, I may be a youngun, but that didn’t stop me from having this on the wall in my dorm room:

            • Ahhhh…good man, Matt. I have the Red Velvet picture of her framed on my study wall. The significant other even likes it. Careful, sir….I may have you speaking conservative mantra one day. oooooooo……watch the Red Bull, my friend. It will bite you in the proverbial butt this early.

              • I wasn’t sure which picture you were refereeing to, so I Googled it. At work. Where everyone can see my screen.

                How ’bout a little warning next time? 😉

                • Woops….I figured that if I mentioned the sig. other liked would get the idea…ok fair warning next time. 🙂

        • I’m always spoiling for a fight.. can’t seem to get myself into work mode this AM. Fighting the urge to hit the Red Bull.

  5. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Instead of voting not to bring the Becker nomination to the floor for a vote, the Senate should have brought the Becker nomination to the floor for a vote and roundly voted him down. That would have made it much more difficult for Obama to claim Becker was “held up” by the Senate if it was absolutely clear that he had been REJECTED by the Senate.

    • I agree with your thought process, but this is the way the senate does business. This was very much a rejection by the Senate. The only problem is that the American people as a whole do not understand this and so Obama can spin it.

      In the same way, most people don’t understand that the CBO reports only on the numbers they are given. Just because a non-partisan committee says a bill will cost X, doesn’t mean it actually does. Then the political spin gains legitimacy.

  6. Well, I guess I need to do a little research and find out if my Senators voted for or against bringing Becker’s nomination to the floor back in February. It would seem that there are 52 Senators that should be speaking out against this lastest backhanded maneuver.

    • Kath, I strongly discourage holding your breath..

      • It is still early for Kathy, Matt. I think she just tried to combine logic and politics in the same thought process.

        • Well that’s an awfully silly mistake to make..

        • Still hopeful that there are some that are growing a little uncomfortable with the crap that’s coming down and the role they play in all of this…….

          • Seems unlikely.

            I would bet that the people who are going to be uncomfortable are already uncomfortable. The ones who are ok with the way things are will continue to be ok. I don’t foresee much in the way of changing attitudes about this Presidency.

            But I could be wrong. I was wrong once back in ’89. So, I could be wrong now.

            • And that is only because you thought you were wrong…correct?

              • I was 6 and I was trying to calculate the last digit of pi. I was believed it was 4.

                But of course, to my everlasting embarrassment, I was wrong.

                The correct answer is 7.

    • Hey, Kathy….having some fun with you but you really must not try to use logic with today’s politics….I banged my head against the wall several times before I finally figured out that even if I tore down that wall, my head still hurt, and there was always a higher tougher wall. My perfect world would like to think that there are reasonable politicians that would put country above self and party…but. alas, it is not to be.

      • See you have all the key words workin- perfect world- reasonable politicians – and party. Since the first two don’t fit..I say lets just party!

        • Sounds good.. Weather’s warming up. I saw we have ourselves a good old-fashioned kegger at the Weapon household.

          • Good plan Matt..adding that its warmer in NC than Mich

            • Anita, EVERYTHING is warmer than Michigan.

              But at least you won’t be needing to borrow that snow shovel until next season. I’m almost done with my grass seeder if you’d like to borrow it afterward.

              • I would indeed. Just came outta Tractor Supply with 50lbs of seed for my lake property. Wanna help?

                • Sure. I loved seeding my yard (about 1/2 an acre of usable land).

                  I used up 3 50lb bags on my property and have no confidence that I adequately covered it, or if I put down way too much. I’m a brand new homeowner and know jack about gardening.

            • We are going to be in the mid-70’s in WI this week! Whoop! Whoop! Break out the shorts…..

      • Hey I know D13. But I feel a big part of what is going on is that we didn’t hold our representatives accountable for their actions – mostly because we weren’t aware of their actions or didn’t understand them! Haven’t had a chance to look into, but if I’m understanding USW’s article correctly, and my Senators were part of the 52, I would like to hear from them on it. I will also pass this info to my routing list and they will call and write also. They need to know they are being watched more intently than ever. That’s all.

  7. USW….there will be challenges to the NLRB rulings, of course….it will be interesting to see which Fed courts are used.

  8. I need help. Who understands this Cloture language?

    The Becker vote (or the only one I can find).

    00022 09-Feb PN1351 On the Cloture Motion Rejected Cloture Motion on Craig Becker, of Illinois, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board

    What does a YEA mean on this Cloture Motion and what does a NAY mean?

    • USWeapon says:

      Voting Yea means that you vote to end debate and allow the person to come to a real vote. Voting nea means that they are not voting to end debate and thus the person’s nomination cannot be voted on.

      • That’s what I thought. Well, it was almost a party-line vote with the Dem’s voting YEA (including my 2 senators) and Rep’s voting Nay. See below. Oh, wait, just read more. Requires 3/5 vote-didn’t get that so it failed. Wish they just would’ve voted on him.

        Vote Counts: YEAs 52
        NAYs 33
        Not Voting 15

        Grouped By Vote Position YEAs —52
        Akaka (D-HI)
        Baucus (D-MT)
        Bayh (D-IN)
        Begich (D-AK)
        Bennet (D-CO)
        Bingaman (D-NM)
        Boxer (D-CA)
        Brown (D-OH)
        Burris (D-IL)
        Cantwell (D-WA)
        Cardin (D-MD)
        Carper (D-DE)
        Casey (D-PA)
        Conrad (D-ND)
        Dodd (D-CT)
        Dorgan (D-ND)
        Durbin (D-IL)
        Feingold (D-WI)
        Feinstein (D-CA)
        Franken (D-MN)
        Gillibrand (D-NY)
        Hagan (D-NC)
        Harkin (D-IA)
        Johnson (D-SD)
        Kaufman (D-DE)
        Kerry (D-MA)
        Klobuchar (D-MN)
        Kohl (D-WI)
        Lautenberg (D-NJ)
        Leahy (D-VT)
        Levin (D-MI)
        Lieberman (ID-CT)
        McCaskill (D-MO)
        Menendez (D-NJ)
        Merkley (D-OR)
        Mikulski (D-MD)
        Murray (D-WA)
        Nelson (D-FL)
        Reed (D-RI)
        Reid (D-NV)
        Rockefeller (D-WV)
        Schumer (D-NY)
        Shaheen (D-NH)
        Specter (D-PA)
        Stabenow (D-MI)
        Tester (D-MT)
        Udall (D-CO)
        Udall (D-NM)
        Warner (D-VA)
        Webb (D-VA)
        Whitehouse (D-RI)
        Wyden (D-OR)

        NAYs —33
        Alexander (R-TN)
        Barrasso (R-WY)
        Bennett (R-UT)
        Bond (R-MO)
        Brown (R-MA)
        Bunning (R-KY)
        Burr (R-NC)
        Chambliss (R-GA)
        Coburn (R-OK)
        Cochran (R-MS)
        Collins (R-ME)
        Corker (R-TN)
        Cornyn (R-TX)
        Crapo (R-ID)
        Enzi (R-WY)
        Grassley (R-IA)
        Inhofe (R-OK)
        Isakson (R-GA)
        Johanns (R-NE)
        Kyl (R-AZ)
        LeMieux (R-FL)
        Lincoln (D-AR)
        Lugar (R-IN)
        McCain (R-AZ)
        McConnell (R-KY)
        Murkowski (R-AK)
        Nelson (D-NE)
        Risch (R-ID)
        Sessions (R-AL)
        Shelby (R-AL)
        Snowe (R-ME)
        Voinovich (R-OH)
        Wicker (R-MS)

        Not Voting – 15
        Brownback (R-KS)
        Byrd (D-WV)
        DeMint (R-SC)
        Ensign (R-NV)
        Graham (R-SC)
        Gregg (R-NH)
        Hatch (R-UT)
        Hutchison (R-TX)
        Inouye (D-HI)
        Landrieu (D-LA)
        Pryor (D-AR)
        Roberts (R-KS)
        Sanders (I-VT)
        Thune (R-SD)
        Vitter (R-LA)

        You can access legislative information, by bill number or key words, from the THOMAS Web site. Information from the present back to the 93rd Congress (1973) is available on THOMAS.

        The Votes page of the Virtual Reference Desk provides voting procedure information, research guides, and essays about historic votes.

        The Votes category on the Statistics page features facts and figures about votes made by Senators.

    • Always careful, Kathy. There have been several deaths of ranchers and ranch hands in Texas. That is, until we are now weapons free. Read my article when USW posts it. It addresses this very fact and what you do not read in the news. I have only been shot at twice this year and it was not even close….so I am doing ok. Vietnam did not kill me (although it tried really hard), Kuwait did not kill me, Bosnia did not kill me, Afghanistan did not kill me, the Raptor program has not killed me (yet), and the border will not get me.

      I will die by being shot in the back by a jealous husband at the ripe old age of 95.

      • It’s Ok , don’t worry, I’m not jealous, you can have her.. ;=}

        And posting for comments..

      • I don’t know, D13, you’ve had a few marriage proposals right from SUFA – perhaps your wife will get you……..

        All kidding aside, this stuff is very scary and very unneccessary.

  9. 😆

  10. Raptors and House Hunting

    • Flag has his game face on everyone

      Matt I think he’s looking for you here

    • One of my very favorite comics. I read it daily even though it doesn’t update daily.

      By the way, that outer door is not secure. It’s amazing this guy has survived as long as he has with that kind of relaxed attitude toward raptor defense.

  11. It’s Official – America Now Enforces Capital Controls

    Provision requires that foreign banks not only withhold 30% of all outgoing capital flows (likely remitting the collection promptly back to the US Treasury) but also disclose the full details of non-exempt account-holders to the US and the IRS…

    • Something else official…. All these companies that hollered calf rope and saying that they are going to have significant losses and reducing of health benefits are now being summoned to Congress to explain their statements. Hope they do not go. This is bull shit.

      • Pardon me….. I shoulld not curse…..ummmm….. instead of BullS***…it is El toro poo poo….sorry Bf.

    • I wonder if duel citizenship would be an option? Up next, chains and shackles, currently being manufactured in Mexico under a secret government contract, to be delivered to FEMA by the end of the year, only 250 million 😆 🙄

  12. Hi Ya’ll 🙂

    Since we’re talking about being backdoored by the Administration, this could be the ultimate in Govt. say bend over and take like a….

    While Congress spent the last year debating how to provide health insurance for the uninsured, a little-known provision slipped into the heath care law that could cost some Americans upwards of $2,000 a year.

    The Class Act, otherwise known as the Community Living Assistance Services and Support Act, is the federal government’s first long-term care insurance program.

    Under-reported and the under the radar of most lawmakers, the program will allow workers to have an average of roughly $150 or $240 a month, based on age and salary, automatically deducted from their paycheck to save for long-term care.

    The Congressional Budget Office expects the government will collect $109 billion in premiums by 2019.

    Supporters say the program will relieve pressure on Medicaid and should help keep us out of nursing homes by enabling Americans to save for something most will eventually need — assistance in eating, bathing or dressing in their old age.

    Opponents say the provision is little more than a short-term revenue fix that will eventually add to the federal deficit.

    I skepticle as you could imagine. It’s currently voluntary, but I’ll bet all my Mathius’ points that it’s mandatory by the end of 2012.

    Hope today finds everone well!


  13. Everyone should respond to this poll-I hear that the left bloggers are telling all their people to go and answer this question.

    • Buck The Wala says:

      No problem VH, I just responded!

      Not sure if you really wanted me to respond though…


      • I hope you willing to live with the detail Buck, as I posted above. I will agree some insurance changes need made, but this bill will be an economic disaster. I think I know how you answered, and if that’s what you feel then all the power to ya! At least for now we have freedom of speech, just don’t think it will last long!

        Peace my Friend! Hope today finds you and your family healthy!


      • 😆

  14. USWeapon says:

    Interesting that no one is taking the entire process to task. One question that I am particularly interested in hearing thoughts on is the concept that Becker believes in: the National Labor Relations Board has the right to basically set rules for businesses without Congressional approval. It seems to me that this is a bad situation, regardless of which party has power. Private enterprise in America put into the hands of a few people with very little oversight.

    • USW,

      Having been on the Union side of things since 2003, I can say that , yes, then can set policy in this area. It’s not uncommon to have the NLRB rules change from President to President, as each President picks who serves on the Board. However, each State also have their own appointees, which usually fall in line with the Federal line of thought. Their rulings change often, but they also utilize past decisions to back their decisions (depending on who was in office), as their decisions can be taken to Federal Court. Depneding on who the Federal Judge is, and his/her political leanings, play a big role in the outcome of NLRB cases. I can say, with all honesty, the NLRB, and their decisions are not consistant throughout the country.


      • In addition, I agree that this is a bad thing. Labor realtions should be a non-partisan issue, it is NOT! I know the difference between a lagitimate grievance and a BS complaint. Far too often, BS complaints are turned into grievences that have no standing. I refuse to file unwarranted grievences, and have to stand my ground many times.


  15. Thanks to CP! This is a good look at TRUTH!

    545 PEOPLE
    > By Charlie Reese
    > Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then
    > campaign against them.
    > Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are
    > against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
    > Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and
    > high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
    > You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The president does.
    > You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations.
    > The House of Representatives does.
    > You and I don’t write the tax code, Congress does.
    > You and I don’t set fiscal policy, Congress does.
    > You and I don’t control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
    > One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court
    > justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly,
    > legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems
    > that plague this country.
    > I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was
    > created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty
    > to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central
    > bank.
    > I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason.. They
    > have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a
    > congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don’t care if
    > they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the
    > power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is
    > the legislator’s responsibility to determine how he votes.
    > Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what
    > they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of
    > party.
    > What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount
    > of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood
    > up and criticized the President for creating deficits.. The president can
    > only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
    > The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole
    > responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving
    > appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She
    > is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the
    > president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it,
    > they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
    > It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace
    > 545 people who stand convicted — by present facts — of incompetence and
    > irresponsibility. I can’t think of a single domestic problem that is not
    > traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth
    > that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must
    > follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
    > If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair.
    > If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red ..
    > If the Army &Marines are in IRAQ , it’s because they want them in IRAQ
    > If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan
    > not available to the people, it’s because they want it that way.
    > There are no insoluble government problems.
    > Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire
    > and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they
    > can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from
    > whom they can take this power.. Above all, do not let them con you into the
    > belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,”
    > “inflation,” or “politics” that prevent them from doing what they take an
    > oath to do.
    > Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
    > They, and they alone, have the power.
    > They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their
    > bosses.
    > Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
    > We should vote all of em out of office and clean up their mess!
    > Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
    > What you do with this article now that you have it………. Is up to you.
    > This might be funny if it weren’t so darned true.
    > Be sure to read all the way to the end:
    > Tax his land,
    > Tax his bed,
    > Tax the table
    > At which he’s fed.
    > Tax his tractor,
    > Tax his mule,
    > Teach him taxes
    > Are the rule.
    > Tax his work,
    > Tax his pay,
    > He works for peanuts
    > Anyway!
    > Tax his cow,
    > Tax his goat,
    > Tax his pants,
    > Tax his coat.
    > Tax his ties,
    > Tax his shirt,
    > Tax his work,
    > Tax his dirt.
    > Tax his tobacco,
    > Tax his drink,
    > Tax him if he
    > Tries to think.
    > Tax his cigars,
    > Tax his beers,
    > If he cries
    > Tax his tears.
    > Tax his car,
    > Tax his gas,
    > Find other ways
    > To tax his ass.
    > Tax all he has
    > Then let him know
    > That you won’t be done
    > Till he has no dough.
    > When he screams and hollers;
    > Then tax him some more,
    > Tax him till
    > He’s good and sore.
    > Then tax his coffin,
    > Tax his grave,
    > Tax the sod in
    > Which he’s laid.
    > Put these words
    > Upon his tomb,
    > Taxes drove me
    > to my doom…’
    > When he’s gone,
    > Do not relax,
    > Its time to apply
    > The inheritance tax.
    > Healthcare tax
    > Energy tax (Cap & Trade)
    > War tax (proposed)
    > Accounts Receivable Tax
    > Building Permit Tax
    > CDL license Tax
    > Cigarette Tax
    > Corporate Income Tax
    > Dog License Tax
    > Excise Taxes
    > Federal Income Tax
    > Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
    > Fishing License Tax
    > Food License Tax
    > Fuel Permit Tax
    > Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
    > Gross Receipts Tax
    > Hunting License Tax
    > Inheritance Tax
    > Inventory Tax
    > IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
    > Liquor Tax
    > Luxury Taxes
    > Marriage License Tax
    > Medicare Tax
    > Personal Property Tax
    > Property Tax
    > Real Estate Tax
    > Service Charge T ax
    > Social Security Tax
    > Road Usage Tax
    > Sales Tax
    > Recreational Vehicle Tax
    > School Tax
    > State Income Tax
    > State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
    > Telephone Federal Excise Tax
    > Telephone Federal Universal Ser vice FeeTax
    > Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
    > Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
    > Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
    > Telephone State and Local Tax
    > Telephone Usage Charge Tax
    > Utility Taxes
    > Vehicle License Registration Tax
    > Vehicle Sales Tax
    > Watercraft Registration Tax
    > Well Permit Tax
    > Workers Compensation Tax
    > STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY? Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago

%d bloggers like this: