Democrats’ Deja Vu: One Month Later, Another “Power Grab” | Dems Give Voting Rights to Non-Members of Congress, Take Away From American WorkersPosted by GOP Leader Press Office on February 28th, 2007
ONE MONTH AGO House Democrats pushed a controversial rules change giving Delegates and Non-Members of Congress the right to vote on the House floor, boosting the number of votes Democrats can count on for their agenda. An affront to the plain language of Article I of the Constitution, the move was derided as little more than a “greedy power grab.” The Washington Times wrote:
But House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) told the San Francisco Chronicle:
THIS WEEK House Democrats will strip American workers of their right to a private ballot election when deciding whether to unionize, leaving them open to harassment, intimidation, and union pressure. This bill is little more than a ploy by Democrats to forcefully boost Big Labor’s numbers, thus ensuring a critical source of campaign cash continues to flow – another “greedy power grab.” House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) wrote today in Human Events:
A month ago, Democrats were giving non-Members of Congress a vote. This week, Democrats are taking voting rights away from American workers. If Democrats are “interested in extending opportunities for democracy, not limiting them,” why would they give votes to individuals who aren’t supposed to have them and take votes away from workers who should? Perhaps the bigger question is: How will the Democratic Delegates and non-Members – bestowed with a House vote just weeks ago – use said vote on this bill stripping American workers of their rights? READ MORE:
Card Check Bill Stripping Workers’ Rights Opposed by 91 Percent of Democratic Voters | Dem Bill A Payback for “Desperate” Big Labor ContributorsPosted by GOP Leader Press Office on February 27th, 2007
Why would House Democrats push the misleadingly titled Employee Free Choice Act to undermine the most basic right of working Americans – the right to vote via secret ballot – even though a large majority of Americans, including most Democrats, oppose it? A recent McLaughlin & Associates survey found that 89 percent of the public want to preserve the right to a secret ballot when deciding whether to form a union and oppose the Big Labor-backed card check procedure that leaves workers vulnerable to threats, harassment, and intimidation – including 91 percent of Democrats. Why would House Democrats continue to insist on doing this favor for their union boss friends even though the public roundly rejects it? Could it be because organized labor gave more than half a billion in contributions to Dem candidates since 1994 – with more than $1 million in direct contributions to House Dem leaders in the 2006 cycle alone? An op-ed in Townhall.com by Rep. John Kline (R-MN) talks about the real reason behind this bill:
A column today by George Will in the Washington Post says the declining membership is making labor leaders “desperate”:
This bill is little more than a ploy by Democrats to forcefully boost Big Labor’s numbers, thus ensuring a critical source of campaign cash continues to flow. If Democrats are willing to take away a right as fundamental as the private ballot to pay off the union bosses for their support, what else could be in store for hard-working Americans? Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-CA), senior Republican on the Education & Labor Committee, today released a sampling of organizations steadfastly opposed to the bill. READ MORE:
Dems’ Card Check Bill a “Payoff to Union Leaders” For Campaign Contributions | Norwood: “Democrats and Their Big Labor Bosses Are Seeking to Steal Workers’ Rights to Cast Ballots in a Private Voting Booth”Posted by GOP Leader Press Office on February 26th, 2007
House Democrats’ comically misnamed Employee Free Choice Act will outlaw workers’ right to a federally-supervised private ballot election when organizing a union, forcing all workers to submit to the Big Labor-favored “card check” process. An editorial in the San Francisco Examiner calls the bill “exquisitely Orwellian,” and labels it “anti-freedom, anti-democracy”:
The Examiner hits the driving factor in Democrats’ effort to outlaw federally-supervised private ballot elections altogether: money. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, organized labor gave more than half a billion in contributions to Dem candidates since 1994 – with more than $1 million in direct contributions to House Democratic leaders in the 2006 cycle alone. The easier it is to force workers into unions – and keep them there – the more money will be available for Democratic candidates and causes. Phil Kerpen, policy director for Americans for Prosperity, writes in National Review that there is no other reason for Democrats to ban private ballot elections. After all, if workers want to unionize, they “will vote for them in federally supervised, secret-ballot elections.” Kerpen notes how unpopular this undemocratic scheme is with the public:
The late Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-GA) introduced alternative legislation, the Secret Ballot Protection Act, preserving workers’ right to a federally-supervised private ballot election. In December, Norwood told the New York Times:
Republican Members of the House Committee on Education & Labor offered a series of amendments aimed at protecting workers’ rights, all of which Committee Democrats rejected. Read more here. READ MORE:
Will Dem Leaders Continue to Support Murtha “Slow-Bleed” Strategy or Disavow it?Posted by GOP Leader Press Office on February 26th, 2007
On February 16, the Washington Post reported that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) strongly backed the slow-bleed strategy authored by Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) to choke off funding for U.S. troops fighting in Iraq. The title of the story says it all: “Pelosi Backs War Funds Only With Conditions” Now media reports indicate a handful of Democrats are uneasy about the Murtha plan. Do Pelosi and other Dem leaders still support the plan or will they disavow it? They have yet to say. Charles Krauthammer boiled the “slow-bleed” strategy down, writing “[u]nless the troops are given the precise equipment, training and amount of rest Murtha stipulates — no funds.” He then writes:
Krauthammer then blasts the latest proposal by some Democrats to “reword” the resolution that authorized the use of force against Saddam Hussein, and finds it embodies the same principles as the “slow-bleed” strategy:
American troops are waiting for answers from Dem Leaders: will they come out and publicly denounce any strategy that leaves American troops in harm’s way “exposed and unable to succeed?” Will Speaker Pelosi and other Dem Leaders continue to support Murtha’s slow-bleed strategy or will they denounce it? READ MORE:
Dem Leaders Set to Pay Off Union Bosses at the Expense of Union Workers | Detroit News: “The Move Is Clearly a Payoff For Big Labor’s Help in the Election”Posted by GOP Leader Press Office on February 26th, 2007
In a calculating move to pay off Big Labor for helping Democrats take the majority in Congress, Democratic leaders will bring to the floor this week legislation aimed at boosting the power of union bosses at the expense of the workers they claim to represent. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, organized labor gave more than half a billion in contributions to Dem candidates since 1994 – with more than $1 million in direct contributions to House Dem leaders in the 2006 cycle alone. Aimed solely at boosting flagging union membership and operating cash – rather than protecting their members’ democratic rights – the Dem bill would strip American workers of the right to make their own decision, freely and anonymously, whether to form a union, while leaving them open to harassment, intimidation, and union pressure that is still commonplace today. The Democrats’ bill does away with the normal process that protects workers’ rights to make this choice freely and of their own volition – the federally-supervised private ballot election – and instead forces workers to accept unions through a “card check” system without giving them the opportunity to express their wishes free from intimidation by co-workers, union organizers, and employers. The Detroit News has editorialized recently about the real motivations of House Democrats, saying: “The move is clearly a payoff for big labor’s help in the election.” Want more? The Democrats’ duplicity have already been exposed, having insisted on secret ballot union elections in Mexico, even though the card check bill they support would end that right for workers here in the United States. On August 29, 2001, many current sponsors of the ill-conceived “Employee Free Choice Act” told Mexican officials:
Democrats have also been exposed by demanding secret ballot rights for workers seeking to decertify a union. Big Labor has passionately insisted on a secret ballot election in these cases, calling the vote a “solemn” occasion, imperative to preserving “privacy and independence.” Don’t fully understand yet? Bruce Raynor, president of Unite Here, a union representing hotel, apparel, food service and other workers, told the New York Times what everyone already knows. Union bosses can’t afford to let workers make their own choice:
If Democrats are willing to take away a right as fundamental as the private ballot to pay off the union bosses for their support, what else could be in store for hard-working Americans? After all, the easier it is to force workers into unions against their will – and keep them there – the more money and power will be available for union bosses’ and their Dem candidates and causes. READ MORE: Dems, Special Interests Gear Up to Sell “Slow-Bleed” Strategy | Cheney Criticizes Dem Plan: Terrorists Will “Win Because We Quit”Posted by GOP Leader Press Office on February 26th, 2007
After taking the “first step” last week, Democrats and special interest groups are plotting a “multi-million-dollar” ad campaign to sell the American public on their “slow-bleed” strategy — a proposal by Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) that would “block further relief and reinforcement for American troops, leaving them exposed and unable to succeed.” An editorial in the Cedar Rapids Gazette discusses the scheme:
In an interview yesterday, Vice President Dick Cheney questioned Democrats’ plan to choke off funding for American troops in harm’s way, denying them the resources they need to fight – and defeat – radical Islamic terrorists:
Recent surveys show a solid majority of the American people are opposed to withdrawing from Iraq without succeeding. But Democrats still seem intent on denying resources and reinforcements for American troops on the battlefield fighting terrorists in Iraq. Indeed, as the Gazette notes, Democrats seem to be “in favor of a cynical end run calculated to derail American foreign policy without taking responsibility for the consequences, including the effect it could have on soldiers and Marines currently in the field.” READ MORE:
Dems’ “Slow-Bleed” Strategy Blocks Reinforcements, Restricts Supplies to American Troops | Dems’ Scheme At Odds With American Public That Wants Victory in iraqPosted by GOP Leader Press Office on February 21st, 2007
After Democrats approved their non-binding “first step” resolution, William Kristol took a look at Dems’ next step. In an article for the Weekly Standard, Kristol addresses the impact of the plan by Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) and Dem Leaders on our military’s ability to fight radical Islamic terrorists:
An editorial in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette says the Democrats’ “slow-bleed” strategy would “restrict supplies and reinforcements” for American troops in harm’s way:
Rich Lowry argues in National Review that “Congress was never meant to, nor is it suited to, direct tactical military decisions, as Murtha seeks to do with his restrictions”:
By working to guarantee America’s failure in Iraq and the Global War on Terror, Democrats are working against overwhelming public opinion. A survey cited by Investor’s Business Daily shows two-thirds of the American public (66 percent) believes victory in Iraq is important, including 53 percent of Democrats and 85 percent of Republicans. READ MORE:
Editorials Blast Dems’ “Slow-Bleed” Strategy | “Redirecting Funding” Is Just Another Way of Saying “Choking Off Funding” For Our TroopsPosted by GOP Leader Press Office on February 20th, 2007
On Friday, House Democrats approved a non-binding resolution they called the “first step” in their effort to cut off funding for American troops in harm’s way. The Washington Post says the next step is a plan crafted by Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) and supported by Dem Leaders which would deny our troops the resources they need to succeed “by crudely hamstringing the ability of military commanders to deploy troops”:
An editorial in the Daily Oklahoman blasts the Democrats’ “slow-bleed” strategy:
Of course, Democrats won’t actually say they will choke off funding — they say they only want to “redirect” dollars away from our troops so they can micromanage the war effort. Investors Business Daily quoted Congressman Murtha, saying as much:
But what is “redirecting money” other than another way of saying “choking off” funding for reinforcements that our troops on the ground need in Iraq? If you “redirect” dollars from our troops on the ground to some other purpose, you’re choking off dollars for our men and women in harm’s way. The New York Post calls the scheme what it is: an effort to “completely undermine” the Global War on Terror “by limiting funds”:
The New York Daily News says the Democrats’ plan will shut down funding and stop our troops in their tracks:
The New Jersey Star-Ledger said the plan by Dem Leaders “would put Congress in the inappropriate position of micromanaging the war.” And the Denver Post cautioned that “Congress needs to take care not to micromanage the war effort beyond its funding and oversight responsibilities.” No matter what they call it, Dem Leaders have crafted a scheme that will deny America’s troops in harm’s way the resources they need to succeed in the Global War on Terror. READ MORE:
Dems Will “Make it Impossible for American Troops to Properly Do Their Job” | Democrats’ “Slow-Bleed” Scheme Will “Effectively Stop the Troops In Their Tracks”Posted by GOP Leader Press Office on February 16th, 2007
The House has spent nearly an entire week debating a non-binding resolution by Democrats criticizing the new strategy for success in Iraq that neither offers an alternative strategy nor contemplates the consequences of failure. An editorial in this morning’s Chicago Tribune put the debate in perspective:
Earlier this week, House Republicans attempted to force a vote on a bill that would prohibit Congress from cutting off funds for American troops in harm’s way. But Democrats refused and instead pushed their non-binding resolution, which they call a “first step.” An editorial in this morning’s Washington Times addresses Democrats’ next step:
The Times editorial is describing a “slow-bleed strategy” by Dem Leaders designed to hamstring our military’s ability to defend America against al Qaeda. When asked about the practical impact cutting off reinforcements for our troops in harm’s way and forcing them to face the enemy without our full support, Murtha replied:
This effort has the backing of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), and directly contradicts a claim by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) that no Democrats “will not support” America’s troops “when they are deployed at the point of the spear.” READ MORE:
Dems Plot to Limit Resources For American Troops in Battle | Today’s Non-Binding Resolution, Democrats Say, Is Just the “First Step”Posted by GOP Leader Press Office on February 16th, 2007
On last night’s edition of CBS Evening News, Sharyl Atkisson discussed Rep. John Murtha’s (D-PA) plan to “choke off” the funding and resources our troops need to succeed in the Global War on Terror:
According to the Washington Post, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) backs Murtha’s effort to cut off funding for troops in harm’s way by making sure the reinforcements they need to complete their mission in Iraq never arrive. Pelosi’s support for Murtha’s scheme directly contradicts a claim by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) that, “No one in this Congress, and our troops ought to know, that no one in this Congress will not support them when they are deployed at the point of the spear.” According to the Post:
Congressman Murtha yesterday unveiled Dem Leaders’ scheme to pull the rug out from under American troops in the combat zone by cutting off their reinforcements and forcing them to face the enemy without our full support. When asked about the practical impact of his limitation plan on our military, Murtha responded flatly:
All week, Democrats have come to the House floor, one after another, and referred to their non-binding resolution as a “first step” in the effort to cut off funding for American troops in harm’s way. Now know we know Democrats’ next step will be to deny our troops the resources needed to succeed in the Global War on Terror. READ MORE:
|
SubscribeArchivesCategories
|
GOP Leader Blog
-
EMAIL ALERTS
-
PODCAST
-
TWITTER
-
FEEDS
-
OHIO�S 8th DISTRICT
Office of the House Republican Leader
- H-204 The Capitol |
- Washington, DC 20515 |
- p. (202) 225-4000 |
- f. (202) 225-5117 |
- Click here to email the Republican Leader
- home |
- news |
- contact information |
- email updates |
- privacy policy