We have been discussing the failure of President Obama and both parties to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while our cities and states continue to sell off property and shutdown vital programs due to a lack of money (here and here and here and here and here). Rep. Ron Paul again showed his mettle this month and again called for an end to the Afghan war. In legislation proposed with Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina, Paul sought to withdraw funding for the war at a savings of more than $116 billion a year by ending the war in Afghanistan.
That figure again is $100 billion a year that would easily cover the budget shortfalls that we have been detailing in recent stories.
Nevertheless, the measure was voted down overwhelmingly by Democrats and Republicans alike — including the recently elected Tea Party members. So, the Congress will continue allow our states to cut away programs and sell off both parks and buildings to cover their bills. The failure of leadership is breathtaking.
I have long had respect for Rep. Paul and this is an excellent example of why. He has become the leading anti-war voice in this country as had Rep. Jones. Rep. Barbara Lee also joined in the effort with Paul and Jones.
This bill is an example of a profile of courage . . . as opposed to those who voted against it.
By the way, these same legislators also voted down an effort to prevent the Army from spending $100 million in endorsements for Nascar.
Source: SF Gate
Ron Paul: We Live in a Dictatorship
Many people are not aware of Ron Paul’s views on social and racial issues. His positions are conservative enough to keep getting him re-elected from his rural Texas district.
@Ambrose
I have read many of Paul’s writings on abortion. The fact is he sees a fetus as a human being. He does not draw that conclusion from science, it is based on his interpretation of Christian scripture. Of course, once you have that view, you can try to draw parallels with slaves and talk about how the state can protect one class of humans while allowing another to be killed. You can bring out how abortion is a violation of one’s liberty and so on. But you have to make that leap and Paul made it based on his religion.
Hi Ishobo,
Re: logic and Ron Paul’s stance on abortion, the logic flows from the defence of his position that is to be found in the video in swathmore mum’s comment above.
You may disagree with him on this issue (as I do), but to say that his opinion has not been weighed carefully and is based solely on religion is unfair.
Thank you Lottakaz for taking the time to explain your position, i’ll yield to your extensive argument and find solace in your second-to-last paragraph of which I can find no fault.
Ambrose, I apologize for attributing the quote to you when in fact it was not yours.
Ambrose: “Your assumption presumably being “that the right of the people peaceably to assemble” is analagous to a strike.”
——
Actually no. The right to peaceably assemble can be obstructionist without being a strike and that large numbers of protestors may be union members seeking redress of particular grievances or petitioning for certain benefits is no more than peaceable assembly.It’s the same as if a similar number of business-disrupting protesters were demanding gay rights or an end to the Iraq/Afghanistan war.
Strikes are governed by the Taft-Hartley Act (which amended the Wagner Act) for the private sector. The law regarding strikes is Title 29, Chapter 7, Subchapter II, Section 158 (29USC Sec. 158 (4i)(4ii).) There is a Federal corollary (5USC ss7116 (b)(7).) for Federal employees.
There are two kinds of strikes, economic and ULP strikes. Economic is just what is sounds like it is and Unfair Labor Practice strikes ULP strikes are strikes that occur when the employer is violation of the law in such a way as to leave no alternative to the employees or/and unions to bring the employer into compliance with the law, or secure their legal rights, except to strike.
ULP’s are the listed legal responsibilities of employers to employees (while organizing a union) and to unions once certified. This difference is significant because there is no legal mandate for a return to employment for employees out on an economic strike but there is in a settled or fully adjudicated ULP case that finds for the employees or union. When you strike for economic reasons you essentially quit your job.
While Public employees are barred from striking, in some instances at the State and Municipal level where replacing all or a majority of employees is practically impossible, work slow-downs and modified strikes are in fact called; think “blue flu”. The normal penalty of such actions, job forfeiture, is rare to nonexistent.
The only two strikes of Federal employees that I recall are the Mail Handlers Union and PATCO.
What is happening in Wisconsin and Ohio and Kansas are not strikes, they are citizens petitioning their government. Considering Walkers persistent, incredibly stupid, public refusal to negotiate (which is a ULP) a strike, a lawful strike, is not out of the question IMO but might bring a loss of public support. Walker may well be trying to goad the union into just that action.
That a business would suffer an economic impact due to a strike is recognized as the aim and primary leverage of a strike. Wagner/Taft-Hartley mitigates and codifies when such a tool is appropriate and which parties may take and materially support such actions and in what manner that support may come.
In order to enforce Taft-Hartley the President may deem some industries too important to commerce (or security) to be impacted by a strike and can direct that union members remain on the job under penalty of criminal sanction including jail. I recall that being done by a couple of presidents and only the union leaders were arrested. (Nixon, Carter and Reagan come to mind immediately.)
Taft-Hartley was a very bad law in that it tipped the scales in favor of business immensely and used the power of the government to do it.
So what is happening is not a strike and the First Amendment has been eroded (grossly IMO), by limitations under Taft-Hartley which were not present under the Wagner Act. Strikes were not illegal under the Wagner Act or the first legislation protecting unions, the Norris–La Guardia Act. Actually that would be the Clayton Act but…
1932 to 1947, the years between Norris-La Guardia and Taft Hartley has been the only, ONLY, period of time actual market forces were at work regarding labor. If you are struck by the fact that I talk about freedom but it relies on Clayton, Norris-La Guardia and Wagner I suggest you look them up as well as significant dates/incidents in labor history, the Ludlow Massacre is a god place to start as is the International Ladies Garment Worker Strike. They struck for a 52 hour workweek. Yea, 52 hours.
The specific statement by F D R:
(Keep in mind though that FDR was very pro private sector unions, he just had a blind spot about public sector unions; the Great Depression and WWII probably distracted him from giving the matter of Federal unions the thought it required.)
“…A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it,…”
So? That is my response to President Roosevelt. Certain classes of Federal employees are not allowed to organize because their work is so crucial to the well-being of the nation that any disruption, division of loyalties, burden on the employer, or restraint on the employer’s ability to act is deemed harmful by the Federal Labor Relations Authority. I don’t subscribe to that but that’s the law. I reiterate that I don’t subscribe to that principle.
IMO, whereas the law has taken up the matter of determining which positions are suitable for organizing I don’t think that any prohibition on any concerted action should be placed on those organized employees at the State or Federal level. To say teachers can legally organize but can not strike (Economic strike, with return to work through bargaining as the private sector unions do it.) is ridiculous and contrary to the free market.
If that means a teacher’s salary floats to $150.000.00 a year so be it. If that’s what a middle school teacher can demand and receive with threat of or actual strike (the withholding of labor) as a tool, then that is the free market. If they can all be replaced with satisfactory replacements, then so be it.
Restraining public labor from using all methods available to them simply is a tool by which a government can ignore the actual priorities the citizens they represent actually have and the actual worth of the people they employ.
Buddha Is Laughing
1, February 24, 2011 at 12:08 am
Must . . . resist . . . urge for easy joke. 🙂
==========================================
I so admire your self-discipline
ishobo,
My neighbor has been a Paul supporter for years and I have heard all about his position on different issues … I must agree with you when you write “It scares the crap out of me when liberals support this man. I am dumbstruck when atheists support him.”
@Ambrose
“Ron Paul is anti-abortion, but reaches that conclusion via logic and principal.”
—
Principal yes, logic no. Using religon is not logical.
@puzzling
“I may differ with him on a several issues, but it seems to me we could use a few more consistent anti-war, pro-drug legalization, anti-Patriot Act, anti-corporatist, anti-death penalty, anti-torture, anti-surveillance, anti-DADT members of congress.”
—
Everything Paul says has to be put in the context of his view of the federal government.
Paul is not anti-war, he believes the current wars are illgeal because there was no declaration of war and the United States has no right to meddle in another country’s affairs, including for humanitarian purposes, which is why he is also against foreign aid. And, the withdrawl from international poltical bodies.
Paul has never been pro-drug legalization. He wants the federal government out of the drug regulation business, with the DEA and FDA dismantled; Paul has no problem if states regulate the legality of drugs.
Paul is not anti-corporation. He does want federal corporate welfare ended, including tax breaks and R&D funding (the same funding that created the Internet). He also wants the elmination of the NSF and NIH. He voted against giving shareholders of publicly traded companies the right to decide executive compensation, not becuase he loves CEOs, rather that power does not fall on the federal government.
—
“I believe Paul even opposes government licensing of marriage, a.k.a. government restrictions on marriage between consenting adults.”
—
What he opposes is the federal government meddling in a state issue, marriage. He would prefer if state’s would not hand out licenses, where marriage would be a voluntary association. I would assume that means he wants divorce to be a voluntary thing too. If you cannot have state sanctioned unions, you most certainly cannot have divorces. I am not sure how separation of financial assets would work in this situation.
Look, this is a man that thinks humans and dinos walked around at the same time, he does not accept evolution. He wants creationism taught in public schools and sees no problem with allowing prayer. He has no issue with the Ten Commandments in court houses. Why would he, he thinks the United States was founded as a Christian nation.
It scares the crap out of me when liberals support this man. I am dumbstruck when atheists support him.
Just because somebody believes in his convictions does not make him sane. There are plenty of folks that believe in homoepathy and astrology. Many liberals can find common ground on some of Paul’s views but do not kid yourself of his motivations.
Must . . . resist . . . urge for easy joke. 🙂
Stamford Liberal,
8) Creative F* U’s R US
Hi Lottakatz,
Thanks for your response.
The statement you have credited to me was made by FDR. See http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445
I also take notice of your reference to the 1st Amendment. Your assumption presumably being “that the right of the people peaceably to assemble” is analagous to a strike.
The case law on this isn’t straightforward ( http://www.law.utoronto.ca/documents/conferences2/StrikeSymposium09_Pope.pdf has some good background ) but proves interesting reading.
Puzzling:
“That’s a whole lot more overlap with alleged principles claimed here than we are seeing from the current President, or members of his party.”
You crack me up, you think progressives are in any way interested in personal freedom? You make me laugh, very funny, hahahaha, good one. Keep em coming.
It is always a little scary when I agree with a conservative. But on this issue I agree wholeheartedly and so do most Americans.
What kind of company is JT keeping here?
Paul is a “monster”? Please.
I may differ with him on a several issues, but it seems to me we could use a few more consistent anti-war, pro-drug legalization, anti-Patriot Act, anti-corporatist, anti-death penalty, anti-torture, anti-surveillance, anti-DADT members of congress. I believe Paul even opposes government licensing of marriage, a.k.a. government restrictions on marriage between consenting adults.
That’s a whole lot more overlap with alleged principles claimed here than we are seeing from the current President, or members of his party.
Blouise
1, February 23, 2011 at 5:34 pm
Mark Smith,
One night stands are such a bore … you could have at least stayed for coffee
————————————————————
I really need to stop reading your posts before I have a mouth full of tea … You’d think I would have learned my lesson by now … where’s the damned paper towels?!
This decision just demonstrates again that there is only one political party.
Mark Smith,
One night stands are such a bore … you could have at least stayed for coffee
Ambrose, I would rework your statement just a bit: “A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is
unthinkable and intolerable.”Awesome!It’s not unthinkable but was anticipated and codified as the First Amendment.