Obama’s Big Labor ethics loophole

Canceled2

Banned
The story that got lost amidst so many other administration blunders~~~

Obama’s Big Labor ethics loophole
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2010

Everything you need to know about President Obama’s fraudulent ethics pledge can be summed up in four words: SEIU lawyer Craig Becker.

Becker is the left-wing lawyer Obama sneakily installed on the National Labor Relations Board. The U.S. Senate rejected Becker’s nomination on a 52-33 cloture vote in February. Obama responded by flipping the bird and ramming through his recess appointment during the congressional spring break. (The New York Times approvingly dubbed it a “muscular show of his executive authority.” When that authority was exercised by GOP President George W. Bush, of course, the Times editorial board called it a “constitutional gimmick.”)

Despite the White House’s much-heralded policy of binding every executive appointee to strict conflict-of-interest guidelines, a defiant Becker now remains free to rule on cases involving his former Big Labor bosses. And the most ethical administration in U.S. history isn’t doing a thing to stop him.

While serving as an associate general counsel for both the SEIU and AFL-CIO in 2009, Becker generously lent his legal expertise to the White House. He served as an Obama transition team member for labor issues and helped draft several union-backed executive orders.

These new rules essentially blackball non-union contractors targeted by labor organizers and blacklist non-union employees in the private sector from working on taxpayer-funded projects. Another union protectionist measure immediately adopted by Obama requires that when a government service contract runs out — and there’s a new contract to perform the same services at the same location — the new contractor must retain the old workers. Such regulatory favoritism limits freedom in the workplace and raises the cost of doing business. This suits Becker and his White House champions (who reaped $60 million in SEIU campaign donations and support in 2008) just fine.
 
I think it's pretty funny that Malkin complains about an recess appointment for a person that received only 19 more votes in favor of appointment than against (52 - 33).

I may also add that the NLRB is not an executive agency. It is an independent agency.

Once again, you shouldn't read this ignorant shit. It makes you more stupider than you already are.
 
I think it's pretty funny that Malkin complains about an recess appointment for a person that received only 19 more votes in favor of appointment than against (52 - 33).

I may also add that the NLRB is not an executive agency. It is an independent agency.

Once again, you shouldn't read this ignorant shit. It makes you more stupider than you already are.

I think its funny that you show your partisan ass everytime you open your mouth, but hey, that's just the way you roll,.

The NLRB is an agency of power granted by congress to administer labor complaints! Your attempt to make this somehow unimportant in light of the conflicts of interest is so typical of you when it's a "D" appointment.

Malkin's fact based op-ed still stands as a light on the cronyism of
Obama's gangster style politics.
 
I think its funny that you show your partisan ass everytime you open your mouth, but hey, that's just the way you roll,.

The NLRB is an agency of power granted by congress to administer labor complaints! Your attempt to make this somehow unimportant in light of the conflicts of interest is so typical of you when it's a "D" appointment.

Malkin's fact based op-ed still stands as a light on the cronyism of
Obama's gangster style politics.


You link to Malkin but I'm a partisan? Interesting.

The NLRB is an independent agency. It does not fall within the scope of the White House conflict of interest policy. This fact is important. That you (well, Malkin, not you since you are incapable of independent thought and merely parrot what the right-wing bomb throwers say) ignore this very simple and basic fact pretty much undermines the entirety of the little op-ed you've posted up there.

Malin's op-ed isn't based on facts. It's based on bullshit. Quit felching.
 
You link to Malkin but I'm a partisan? Interesting.

The NLRB is an independent agency. It does not fall within the scope of the White House conflict of interest policy. This fact is important. That you (well, Malkin, not you since you are incapable of independent thought and merely parrot what the right-wing bomb throwers say) ignore this very simple and basic fact pretty much undermines the entirety of the little op-ed you've posted up there.

Malin's op-ed isn't based on facts. It's based on bullshit. Quit felching.

Linking to a conservative is the only way many of these stories ever see the light of day because yes, partisan hacks such as yourself never write about them or dismiss them out-of-hand!

Yeah, it's independent BUT IT IS STILL A POWERFULL AGENCY! This guy has the power to decide complaints on labor issues the conflict arises due to his close associations with labor unions that support Obama.

This fact and the sneaky way the appointment was done makes Malkin's story legitimate and as per usual you only have "Malkin bad...you bad".
 
Linking to a conservative is the only way many of these stories ever see the light of day because yes, partisan hacks such as yourself never write about them or dismiss them out-of-hand!

Riiiight. You can't be so deluded that you actually think conservatives have a hard time getting media play for the stories they think are important. If so, you really are proper fucked in the head.

Yeah, it's independent BUT IT IS STILL A POWERFULL AGENCY! This guy has the power to decide complaints on labor issues the conflict arises due to his close associations with labor unions that support Obama.

None of that matters. Malkin based her piece on the White House conflict of interest policy. That policy does not apply to NLRB appointments. It doesn't suddenly become applicable because it is a powerful agency.

And, moreover, having a working knowledge of labor unions and the labor-management relations is exactly the type of background that qualifies a person to serve on the NLRB, it isn't something that disqualifies a person from serving on the NLRB. When Democrats win the presidency they nominate people with labor union background. When Republicans win the presidency they appoint people with union busting background. That's the way it works.

This fact and the sneaky way the appointment was done makes Malkin's story legitimate and as per usual you only have "Malkin bad...you bad".

Yes, recess appointments are sooooo sneaky, just like every other constitutionally provided power that has been enjoyed and exercised by pretty much every president since George Washington. Adding to it the fact that this guy *only* received 52 votes in favor of his appointment but had an overwhelmingly high 33 votes against really makes it super sneaky.
 
Riiiight. You can't be so deluded that you actually think conservatives have a hard time getting media play for the stories they think are important. If so, you really are proper fucked in the head.

None of that matters. Malkin based her piece on the White House conflict of interest policy. That policy does not apply to NLRB appointments. It doesn't suddenly become applicable because it is a powerful agency.

And, moreover, having a working knowledge of labor unions and the labor-management relations is exactly the type of background that qualifies a person to serve on the NLRB, it isn't something that disqualifies a person from serving on the NLRB. When Democrats win the presidency they nominate people with labor union background. When Republicans win the presidency they appoint people with union busting background. That's the way it works.

Yes, recess appointments are sooooo sneaky, just like every other constitutionally provided power that has been enjoyed and exercised by pretty much every president since George Washington. Adding to it the fact that this guy *only* received 52 votes in favor of his appointment but had an overwhelmingly high 33 votes against really makes it super sneaky.

The so called "media play" conservatives get is FOX news which is merely another opportunity for partisan hacks such as you to dismiss them without ever dealing with the facts presented.

<snip>Despite the White House’s much-heralded policy of binding every executive appointee to strict conflict-of-interest guidelines, a defiant Becker now remains free to rule on cases involving his former Big Labor bosses. And the most ethical administration in U.S. history isn’t doing a thing to stop him.

While serving as an associate general counsel for both the SEIU and AFL-CIO in 2009, Becker generously lent his legal expertise to the White House. He served as an Obama transition team member for labor issues and helped draft several union-backed executive orders.

These new rules essentially blackball non-union contractors targeted by labor organizers and blacklist non-union employees in the private sector from working on taxpayer-funded projects. Another union protectionist measure immediately adopted by Obama requires that when a government service contract runs out — and there’s a new contract to perform the same services at the same location — the new contractor must retain the old workers. Such regulatory favoritism limits freedom in the workplace and raises the cost of doing business. This suits Becker and his White House champions (who reaped $60 million in SEIU campaign donations and support in 2008) just fine. <snip>

The conflict of interest DOES exist no matter how often you say it does not.
 
Back
Top