Posts Tagged ‘board’

‘Independent’ NLRB My Foot: Obama Agency Pounds NLRB To Destroy Business’ Right To Locate In Right To Work States

May 30, 2011

The White House has been hiding behind the assertion that the National Labor Relations Board is an “independent” agency, and that they have nothing whatsoever to do with the lawsuit attacking Boeing for building a new plant in right-to-work state South Carolina:

White House Dodges Questions About NLRB’s Complaint Against Boeing
Posted by: Carter Wood under Briefly Legal, Economy, Labor Unions on May 11, 2011 @ 6:43 pm

From today’s White House press briefing conducted by Jay Carney:

Q    Boeing CEO Jim McNerney, who chairs the President’s Export Council, said the National Labor Relations Board suit against his company for building a plant in a right-to-work state is a fundamental assault on capitalism.  I’m wondering is the President aware of the issue, and does he think the government should be involved in how businesses allocate capital or resources?MR. CARNEY:  Well, it’s obviously been in the news, so we are aware of it, but I would refer any questions about it to the NLRB because it is an independent agency, and we do not get involved in particular enforcement matters of independent agencies.

Q    The President has weighed in on outside issues before, though.  I mean is this something — it’s also coming from someone who is chairing the Export Council, who’s saying this is hurting job creation.

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have a reaction to this from the President.  And I think the fact that he’s weighed in on outside issues doesn’t mean that he will weigh in on an independent agency’s enforcement action.

Carney then changed the subject to tout the President’s record on the auto industry and hail the growth of manufacturing.

Well, first of all, let me take a moment to ask a question: why is Obama dodging this issue rather than claiming credit for it?  Because it’s wrong; it is un-American; and this radical hard-core union agenda action will hurt the economy by forcing businesses to locate overseas.  If they can’t build factories where they want to in America, then they will go overseas to where they have the freedoms our soldiers fought for.  Amazingly, communist China is actually far more free market and pro-capitalist than the Obama administration.

Now let me get to my main point.

Like absolutely everything else from this lying president and this lying White House, BULLCRAP.  Not only is it absolutely true that Obama has weighed in on virtually every issue under the sun – including bizarre issues such as the “stupidity” of the Cambridge Police Department in Massachusetts – but we now have it in WRITING that the NLRB is anything but an “independent agency.”

Let’s take a look at just how “independent” the NLRB actually is.  First, we find that the agency’s top officials are literally partisan political hacks out there taking partisan political sides to attack Obama’s Republican opponents.  Then – given that obvious appearance of any lack of “independence” – the White House’s OMB literally orders the NLRB to take down the attacking memo and demands that they clear everything with them first.  Which actually goes about as far as you can go to demonstrate that the National Labor Relations Board – which Obama PACKED with radical leftist union types by bypassing even a Democrat-controlled US Senate – is marching to Obama’s drumbeat.  And then, if that isn’t enough, when the NLRB did Obama’s bidding to take down the partisan hack memo, the notice basically said, “The content in this statement has been removed. For further information on this subject, please see what our Messiah Obama says, as we’re really just his minions anyway.”

“Independence” my butt:

Obama official ordered labor board to pull rebuke of GOP budget
By Kevin Bogardus – 05/29/11 07:40 AM ET

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had an independent agency take down a stinging press release aimed at the House Republicans’ budget proposal, according to a newly released document.

In an e-mail obtained by The Hill under a Freedom of Information Act request, an OMB official told a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) officer she should have checked before sending out a Feb. 18 press release titled, “Top NLRB officials respond to House budget proposal.”

The NLRB statement slammed what was then the GOP’s proposed continuing resolution to fund the government for the rest of fiscal year 2011.

On the day the labor board’s statement was published, Michael Lazzeri, OMB’s examiner for the NRLB, wrote to Shanti Ananthanayagam, the labor board’s budget officer, and asked her to take it down.

“In case didn’t get my vmail. That press release needs to come down from your website. In the future you guys have to clear that stuff with us,” Lazzeri wrote to Ananthanayagam in the e-mail.

The press release quoted NLRB Chairwoman Wilma Liebman and Lafe Solomon, the board’s acting general counsel, as saying the funding cuts would lead to agency delays and “would occur at a great cost to working people and responsible employers trying to survive in this difficult economic climate, and would have the potential to destabilize relations between labor and business.”

They also said the proposed budget cuts would reduce the agency’s annual funding by 18 percent, or $50 million, which could lead to furloughs for all of the labor board’s 1,665 employees for 55 workdays.

The press release was subsequently taken down. In its place on the labor board’s website is a bland statement that says, “The content in this statement has been removed. For further information on this subject, please see the President’s Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) regarding the budget, which can be found on the OMB website.”

OMB asking the labor board to take down the press release was first reported by The Huffington Post.

Asked why the press release was taken down, a spokeswoman for the labor board referred questions to OMB.

“In accordance with longstanding clearance procedures in Circular A-11, agencies are asked to clear such comments through OMB. In this case, the language on budget-related legislation had not been cleared, so it was taken down,” said Meg Reilly, an OMB spokeswoman.

Circular A-11 is a memo sent by OMB to federal agencies regarding the president’s budget proposal. The memo states that communications to Congress or the media about the president’s budget proposal need to receive clearance from OMB before being sent out, including “proposed press releases relating to the president’s budget.”

Despite the fears the labor board expressed in the original press release, the Republican-proposed budget cuts for the agency did not come to pass.

In the compromise deal to prevent the government shutdown, the labor board’s annual $282 million budget received only a 0.2 percent haircut — a reduction in line with other administrative agencies. The cut took $500,000 from the NRLB’s fiscal year 2011 funding.

Further, an amendment to the continuing resolution by Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) that would have defunded the labor board entirely failed to pass earlier this year. Sixty House Republicans voted against axing the labor board’s budget in a 176-250 vote.

The agency has recently become a source of controversy. NRLB’s April 20 complaint against Boeing for allegedly retaliating against union workers has incensed GOP lawmakers and business groups.

Under scrutiny is Boeing’s decision to establish a second production line for its new Dreamliner jet in South Carolina — a right-to-work state that generally prohibits mandatory union membership or dues — instead of in Washington state, where Boeing has unionized operations.

The labor board cited statements made by Boeing executives expressing fear that work stoppages could hurt production as the reason the complaint was issued.

Republicans in both the House and Senate have threatened to hold up Solomon’s nomination as general counsel over the Boeing complaint and are pressing the NRLB to hand over the documents that explain the reasoning behind it.

Democrats have defended the labor board from the attacks. They say it is an independent agency that is performing a law enforcement action and should be free of political pressure.

The complaint is set to go before an administrative law judge at a June 14 hearing in Seattle.

“Should be fre of political pressure”?  In the age of Obama?  Not likely.  He is a fascist.  Fascism is simply one viral species of socialism.  And “NAZI” stood for “National Socialist German Worker’s Party“).  Obama is waaaaaayyyyyy on the left side with the SEIU Andy Stearns (“Because workers of the world unite it’s not just a slogan anymore“; and “We’re trying to use the power of persuasion. And if that doesn’t work, we’re going to use the persuasion of power “) and SEIU Stephen Lerner (“There are actually extraordinary things we could do right now to start to destabilize the folks that are in power and start to rebuild a movement“; “you could put banks at the edge of insolvency again“).  The mantra of Obama’s labor union buddies is “Forget about the law.”  These are people who are perfectly willing to “Get a little bloody” to get their way – no matter who else gets hurt or how badly. And Obama has been deeply involved behind the scenes in stirring up rowdy unrest in states like Wisconsin and Ohio.  Obama is one of them.

And to the extent that Obama is dishonest about his deep involvement in hard-core leftist union agenda issues, that aint a good thing.

Obama, the White House, and Democrats in general ROUTINELY lie.  These are the type of people who disingenuously, falsely and maliciously attack Republicans with “Mediscare” tactics when in fact Republicans are trying to save Medicare while Democrats are intent on seeing the system collapse into total bankruptcy while they attack anybody who tries to prevent that documented future fact from happening.

The National Labor Relations Board case – again, said board packed by Obama behind the US Senate’s back – against Boeing is a case against business.  It is a case against freedom.  It is a case against America.  It is a case against everything this country stands for.  It is certainly a case against the right to work without having to say “Yes sir” and “No Ma’am” to a union boss.  The unions want to have the power to shut down any business that doesn’t toe their socialist line – as they have repeatedly done with Boeing.  They would rather corporations relocate all their operations overseas than see those corporations build plants in right to work states.

I can understand why this fascist president wouldn’t want the American people to really know what he stands for and what he is doing to destroy their way of life.

 

Advertisements

White House Whitewash Sestak Cover-Story Falling Apart

June 1, 2010

Pennsylvania Democrat Governor Ed Rendell had this to say about the Sestak contoversy:

“Stonewalling it for months — yes, not smart. This explanation is perfectly reasonable. They should have put it out there at the beginning.”

So we have an acknowledgment that the White House has been stonewalling for months.  That much is correct.

What ISN’T correct is that the “explanation is perfectly reasonable.”  It isn’t reasonable at all.

First of all, the White House itself refutes the notion that the Bill Clinton telephone offer of a non-paying position in exchange for Sestak dropping his Senate bid was all there was to this story.

The White House memo uses the plural word “discussions.”  As in “discussions between White House staff and Congressman Joe Sestak.”  And these discussions took place between June and July.  Which means unless Bill Clinton called Joe Sestak in June and hung up the phone two months later, this call clearly wasn’t all there was.

So we’re not just talking about one conversation with Bill Clinton.  Nor is Bill Clinton a member of the White House staff.  The White House itself acknowledges that a member or members of the White House staff contacted Joe Sestak.  Which member of the White House staff?  When?  And regarding what?

And the memo also says:

“Efforts were made in June and July of 2009 to determine whether Congressman Sestak would be interested in service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch advisory board, which would avoid a divisive Senate primary, allow him to retain his seat in the House, and provide him with an opportunity for additional service to the public in a high level advisory capacity for which he was highly qualified.”

Wow.  They really make that advisory position sound like “something of value,” i.e., something which would be illegal to offer in the first place.

But the claim that Sestak could serve on the presidential board and retain his seat in the House of Representatives is simply factually incorrect.

Rep. Joe Sestak would in fact NOT have been able to serve in the House of Representatives and serve on a presidential or “executive” advisory board.  Ever hear about a little thing called “the Separation of Powers”?

May 29, 2010
Sestak cover story starts to unravel
Ed Lasky

Crafting a cover story that is consistent with awkward facts is hard. Did the best and the brightest miss this? Sestak was not eligible to serve on the Intelligence Advisory Board. Byron York of the Washington Examiner reports:

In a little-noticed passage Friday, the New York Times reported that Rep. Joe Sestak was not eligible for a place on the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, the job he was reportedly offered by former President Bill Clinton.  And indeed a look at the Board’s website reveals this restriction:
The Board consists of not more than 16 members appointed by the President from among individuals who are not employed by the Federal Government. Members are distinguished citizens selected from the national security, political, academic, and private sectors.

As a sitting member of Congress, Sestak was not eligible for the job. [….]


The statement from White House counsel Robert Bauer did not specifically mention the intelligence board, but speaking to reporters Friday, Sestak said of his conversation with Clinton, “At the time, I heard the words ‘presidential board,’ and that’s all I heard…I heard ‘presidential board,’ and I think it was intel.” In addition, the Times reported that “people briefed on the matter said one option was an appointment” to the intelligence board. But the White House could not legally have placed Sestak on the board.

An already implausible story has become much harder to believe.

How “reasonable” is this story, Governor Rendell?  And THIS is the story that justifies what you yourself acknowledge was MONTHS of STONEWALLING???

It is hard to imagine that anyone believed for a second that Joe Sestak would pass up a unique opportunity to become a United States Senator in exchange for such a flimsy offer.  It is even more ridiculous to believe that Bill Clinton – a former president – would be called upon to make such a transparently ridiculous offer.  And it is even more ridiculous yet that neither the White House, or Bill Clinton, or Rep. Sestak would have been so completely unaware that the very basis of the offer – a position which would allow Sestak to serve in the House AND serve on a presidential board – was in fact completely false.

You want to know what makes a lot more sense?  The White House stonewalled for months because they had no legitimate answer to the Joe Sestak bribe offer, and then a White House lawyer thought fast and crafted a transparently false explanation.

For the record, Joe Sestak affirmed several important points: 1) that he was offered a “federal job.”  A federal job is the kind of thing that pays.  2) Sestak affirmed that the “federal job” was “high ranking.”  3) Sestak affirms that it was the “White House” that made the “high ranking” “federal job” offer.

The current White House Whitewash fails to deal with all three points.  And then on top of that, they acknowledge that “discussions” (plural) took place over a two month period while only releasing an account of only ONE discussion.  And that these discussions were between the White House staff and Congressman Sestak.  And that the basis of the job offer was something that Sestak could do while retaining his job as Congressman – which has clearly been refuted.

And this was the best thing that the White House could come up with after three months of stonewalling.

This is clearly a cover story.

Something really stinky is going on.

This is clearly a serious violation of the law.

And this is also part of a clear PATTERN OF CORRUPTION:

Sestak-gate: White House Offered Romanoff Job, Too
Wednesday, 26 May 2010 08:18 PM
By Jim Meyers

Allegations that the White House offered Joe Sestak a job in exchange for dropping out of the Pennsylvania Senate race echo an earlier report of a job offer to candidate Andrew Romanoff in Colorado.

On Sept. 27, 2009, the Denver Post reported that the Obama administration offered Senate candidate Romanoff a position if he canceled plans to run for the Democratic nomination against incumbent Sen. Michael Bennet.

The paper said the job offer, which specified particular jobs, reportedly was delivered by Jim Messina, Obama’s deputy chief of staff. One position the Post cited was a job at USAID, the foreign aid agency.

And do I need to invoke the name of “Blagojevich” and his attempt to sell Barack Obama’s Senate Seat?

The Chicago way is a very, very ugly way.  And Obama has been in it up to his eyeballs.  Chicago is a dirty place filled with dirty politicians – and Obama was perfectly at home with all the dirt.

That Chicago corruption extends right into Obama’s home, by way of his wife Michelle.  This is a woman who sat on high-paying boards in direct quid-pro-quo consequences of Obama advancing in public office.  And in some of those boards, she participated in the worst kind of hospital patient-dumping.

Here’s a video of Michelle Obama you ought to watch – if you can stand the revelations:

Too bad we voted to nationalize the Chicago Way.

Joe The Plumber Right On Socialism, Soaring Taxes On Small Businesses Under Obama

April 28, 2009

It’s not like Barrack Obama didn’t promise the American people that he would lead them into socialism.  You might remember the famous encounter with Joe “the plumber”:

Wurzelbacher said he planned to become the owner of a small plumbing business that will take in more than the $250,000 amount at which Obama plans to begin raising tax rates.

“Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?” the blue-collar worker asked.

After Obama responded that it would, Wurzelbacher continued: “I’ve worked hard . . . I work 10 to 12 hours a day and I’m buying this company and I’m going to continue working that way. I’m getting taxed more and more while fulfilling the American Dream.”

“It’s not that I want to punish your success,” Obama told him. “I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success, too.

Then, Obama explained his trickle-up theory of economics.

“My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

“Spread the wealth around,” Obama said.  From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Joe the Plumber famously answered, “That sounds like socialism.”

And how the liberals howled.  Pieces like Mc Clatchey Newspapers’ “Obama plan isn’t ‘socialism’; it’s traditional progressive taxation” by David Lightman and William Douglas abounded:

“It wouldn’t qualify as socialism.

“The answer is clearly no, Senator Obama is not a socialist,” said Paul Beck, a professor of political science at Ohio State University. “We’ve had a progressive tax system for some time, and both Republicans and Democrats have bought into it.”

Socialism involves state ownership of the means of economic production and state-directed sharing of the wealth. America’s democratic capitalist system is neither socialist nor pure free market; rather, it mixes the two, and it has at least since the progressive income tax was introduced 95 years ago. Under it, the wealthy pay higher income tax rates than those who are less fortunate do. It’s a form of sharing the wealth.”

Now, of course, I read that last paragraph and I’m just rolling on the floor laughing at how ignorant and dishonest these liberals were – and are.

Let me just say two words:  “Auto industry.”  Let me say two more: “banking industry.”  Let me add a few others: “Obama fires GM CEO.”  And, “Government forcing GM board out,” And, “Obama won’t allow banks to repay bailout loans.”  And, “Government, UAW Own 89% of GM In Restructuring.”  And, “Government Power and Control: The One Trillion Dollar Takeover Of Health Care.”  And, “Obama’s cap-and-trade plan a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”  And, most frightening and revealing of all: “Financial Rescue Nears GDP as Pledges Top $12.8 Trillion.”

“Let’s move it along, folks.  Move it along.  No socialists to see here.”

Sorry, mainstream media: Obama is as socialist as the sun is hot.  The fact that you were too blatantly dishonest and corrupt and incompetent to do your job during the campaign is just one more case in point that we are now under the thrall of totalitarian propaganda.

As the February 16, 2009 issue of Newseek gleefully trumpeted:

we-are-all-socialists-now

That pretty much makes it official: Obama and the Democratic Party lied to us: they were socialists all along, and too dishonest and too corrupt to honestly and legitimately represent themselves.

I also have to point out the fact that the VERY WORST ELEMENTS OF SOCIALISM – right out of the playbook of the “National Socialist German Workers’ Party” or the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics” – were used to attack Joe Wurzelbacher simply for asking a candidate for president a couple of questions right outside his house.  The media and the Democrat machine went after him with everything they had, including snooping through his private records in a very KGB-like manner in hopes of dredging up dirt on him.

You know, kind of like what Obama and his Democrat lynch mob are doing to Bush administration officials even as we speak in 1) releasing memos selectively targeted to make Bush look like a torturer while refusing to release any memos that would show how Bush’s actions kept America safe; and 2) threatening to prosecute Bush officials for their part in 1) in what would amount to a show trial.  How quintessentially totalitarian of them.

All this said, our socialist – and frankly fascist – president is now about to come after small business owners EXACTLY as Joe Wurzelbacher feared he would to pay for his socialist Statist agenda:

Small Businesses Brace for Tax Battle
Under Obama Plan, Some Entrepreneurs’ Bills Would Soar
By Lori Montgomery and V. Dion Haynes
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, April 27, 2009

Gail Johnson doesn’t think of herself as wealthy. The former pediatric nurse has spent 20 years building a chain of preschools and after-school programs that accommodate sick children so working parents can keep their jobs.

But, like most small-business owners, Johnson reports her profit on her personal tax return. In a typical year, she and her husband make more than $500,000, according to her accountant, a figure that throws them squarely into the ranks of the richest Americans — and makes them a prime target for the Obama administration’s tax policy.

Since last year’s campaign, President Obama has vowed repeatedly not to increase taxes for families making less than $250,000 a year. That pledge, while politically popular, has left him with just two primary sources of funding for his ambitious social agenda: about 3 million high-earning families and the nation’s businesses.

Johnson, with her company, falls into both categories. If Obama’s tax plans are enacted, her accountant estimates that her federal tax bill — typically, around $120,000 a year — would rise by at least $23,000, a 19 percent increase.

“You hear ‘tax the rich,’ and you think, ‘I don’t make that much money,’ ” said Johnson, whose Rainbow Station programs are headquartered near Richmond. “But then you realize: ‘Oh, if I put my business income with my wages, then, suddenly, I’m there.’ ”

Across the nation, many business owners are watching anxiously as the president undertakes expensive initiatives to overhaul health care and expand educational opportunities, while also reining in runaway budget deficits. Already, Obama has proposed an extra $1.3 trillion in taxes for business and high earners over the next decade. They include new limits on the ability of corporations to automatically defer U.S. taxes on income earned overseas, repeal of a form of inventory accounting that tends to reduce business taxes, and a mandate that investment partnerships pay the regular income tax rate instead of the lower capital gains rate.

‘A Permanent Target’
Business groups say they’re bracing for even more battles with the administration.

“They’re desperate for revenue. And therein lies the concern of the broader business community,” said R. Bruce Josten, chief lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

“We’re going to be a permanent target, and we understand that,” added Catherine Schultz, vice president for tax policy at the National Foreign Trade Council. “The way they see it, corporations don’t vote.”

[Read the rest of the article]

Many small business owners file individual income tax returns.  Their “incomes” do not merely go into their pockets; rather, they use their profits to pay their employees and reinvest in their businesses:

Johnson declined to say whether she voted for Obama. But she said she ignored his tax plans until her husband, who handles real estate and construction for the schools, mentioned it one day. “I’ve since talked to my accountant,” she said. “And, oh, my gosh!”

The accountant, Carroll Hurst, said Johnson is unlikely to owe any federal taxes this year due to accounting changes that confer a one-time tax benefit. But in a typical year, he said, Johnson and her husband earn about $515,000 from various entities related to the schools. They claim around $90,000 in deductions — much of it contributions to charity — reducing their taxable income to around $425,000. Johnson said the sum they take home in wages is “substantially less.”

In a typical year, Johnson’s federal tax bill would be about $120,000. But starting in 2011, the higher marginal rates would add about $13,000 a year, Hurst said. Capping the value of itemized deductions at 28 percent would add another $10,000, for a total increase of $23,000.

And Johnson’s tax bill stands to grow dramatically if Obama were to revive a plan to apply Social Security tax to income over $250,000 instead of capping it at the current $106,800. Because Johnson is an employee and an employer, she would have to pay both portions of the tax, Hurst said, tacking another $30,000 onto her bill.

Johnson said such an increase would force her to consider scaling back operations.

“You can try to pass it on to consumers. But if you raise tuition, you put pressure on family budgets,” she said. “For us, we’re caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.”

Other business owners are also nervous. Jim Murphy, president of EST Analytical in Fairfield, Ohio, which sells analytical instruments to environmental testing labs and pharmaceuticals, said his company is struggling in the sluggish economy. But if profit returns to pre-recession levels — about $455,000 — Murphy said his accountant estimates that Obama’s proposals could add $60,000 to his $120,000 tax bill.

“The misconception is that guys like me take [our profits] and put it into our pockets,” said Murphy, who employs 47 people. “But the money the company earns in a given year is used to buy additional inventory so we can grow and hire.” A 50 percent tax increase, he said, would be “really painful.”

So let’s review the basic facts: Barack Obama IS a socialist, just as Joe the Plumber intuitively understood even as liberal “intellectuals” loudly howled with all the outrage they could muster.  There’s no question of that fact any longer.  In fact, he is essentially a fascist, just as progressives such as Woodrow Wilson and even FDR were before him.  And Obama IS coming after small businesses and their owners, just as Joe the Plumber rightly feared.  And, furthermore, the Obama White House and the mainstream media alike will apply any tactic to attack and demonize their opponents for political purposes just like the worst socialist regimes in world history.