This was the GOP’s moment. Conservatives were going to take the hill … literally. But while liar-Hillary Clinton is still issuing blame for “what happened” in her campaign failure, conservatives are also asking “what happened” to our campaign victory. We wonder why Republicans can’t get health care done, and why tax policy is such a struggle. Why everything is such a struggle.
First, some assumed that an “R” by a person’s name meant “conservative.” That assumption has proven to be wrong. The big reveal this year has been the depth of the fault lines within the GOP, not the “deep divisions” between red states and blue states. On the Republican side of the aisle, there’s a blend of types spanning from the principled conservatives to the establishment types to the libertarian-leaning sort to the Trumpian populists.
On the other side of the aisle, the Democrats vote as a block and as a team, mainly because they tend to be more focused on the endgame: winning.
Republicans could learn something from this method. Conservatives vote for their principles while establishment types cling to their power. This fault line within the GOP has proven to be the greatest barrier to winning. So how do Republicans win when a minority establishment group continues to block the good things the rest of Congress supports? Is it too much to ask that all Republicans be conservative, or at least try to work together?
To begin our audit, we need to evaluate the team as a whole. Evoking a sports analogy, there are some players on the team who refuse to catch a pass. The ball is thrown and they stand around with their hands in their pockets. Or they dodge the ball entirely. In a real football game, the coach would pull them off the field and put them on the bench. Republicans can’t win the game with players who refuse to play … or even worse, play so that the other team wins. Rather than snatching victory from the jaws of defeat, these players manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The GOP has some really great players, and a president who will support them, but a handful of do-nothings continue to sabotage the ability to win.
Another issue within Congress is the incentive structure. Regular business incentivizes people to take risks so that they can make a profit. In business the goal is the endgame: selling your product. The congressional system motivates elected officials to play it safe. One wrong move and the media slam them with labels, followed by their election loss. One high-risk move can (or should) mean “out of a job” to a politician. Thus, the system motivates some members of Congress to do just enough to tell the constituents they did something, but not enough to really make any major changes. To return to the football analogy, success for some members of Congress means returning home with a clean uniform. “Look,” they brag, “I didn’t even get a scratch!” This is unacceptable. We sent them there to play the game, not to come home with a clean uniform.
In real life, we have no problem letting hotel managers know when the service they promised and failed to deliver was unacceptable. And we don’t wait two years to say something, hoping that the management will change.
We should have the same resolve to change unacceptable service from Congress. If this is a government by the people and for the people, then the people need to say something. Remember the old saying about crime? See something, say something. This should be the same way we deal with Congress. If we see something — something that inadequately represents our interests — then we should say something. The trick is that we need to be watching what is going on in order to “see something” so that we can “say something.”
There’s a caveat, here. People do say something, quite loudly and often. But voters rarely do anything. The congressional re-election rate is typically above 90%, despite lawmakers’ low approval. “Throw [the other guys’] bums out,” we suppose.
The final issue with Congress is how they are shielded from the laws they make. Case in point: liar-nObamaCare. If members of Congress actually saw their health care options change from a reasonable price with reasonable care to ridiculously expensive and covering nothing, then maybe they would be more motivated to pass something.
In the end, “We the People” can pull the players off the field who just stand around and deliberately miss a pass. It’s called elections. And in the meantime, we need to call their offices and let them know when we see a poor performance, and encourage them when they do something right.
To find the contact information of your elected officials, click here. ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51690
by Lewis Morris: A pivotal case will be heard before the Supreme Court this term that could have major ramifications for public-sector labor unions in the United States. Janus v. AFSCME focuses on whether Mark Janus, an Illinois state employee, should have to pay union dues to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. The larger issue at play is whether employees should be forced to pay into a union that uses its members’ money to support political stances they oppose. And let’s face it, if you are in a public-sector union in this country, then you better be prepared to support Democrats.
In theory, unions collect dues from members in order to bargain collectively on their behalf, provide financial support to members during work stoppages or strikes, and administer to the broader organization that seeks to improve the lot of union members.
In practice, particularly with public-sector unions, dues that are collected feed the bloated bureaucracy of the union administration and support politicians, namely Democrats, who in turn lobby for better wages and benefits for government employees, which in the end are paid for by taxpayers.
In 1977, the Supreme Court ruled in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that government workers could be forced to pay their share of costs for traditional union activities, but not for political actions. This led to the creation of the agency fee, a rate lower than union dues that was charged to employees who worked under the umbrella of a union but were not members of that union.
Over time in many states, the agency fee became just another tool for public-sector unions to squeeze money out of employees to do what they do best, which is lobby politicians and help fund the Democrat Party. In 2014, the Supreme Court stopped unions from expanding their reach in Harris v. Quinn, which protected home health care aids hired with Medicaid subsidies from having to pay public-sector union dues. In 2016, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association came close to ending the agency fee, but the case was stalled 4-4 after Justice Antonin Scalia’s death. Janus is considered to be a worthy successor to that case, and with Neil Gorsuch on the bench, the odds swing in favor of breaking this First Amendment choke hold public-sector unions have over employees.
Naturally, the unions want to paint this as another attack on the working man. Lee Saunders, president of AFSCME, said, “The Janus case is a blatantly political and well-funded plot to use the highest court in the land to further rig the economic rules against everyday working people.”
There is nothing “everyday” about public-sector employees. Thanks to the power grip public-sector unions hold over the federal workforce, public-sector employees are paid, on average, 17% higher than their private-sector counterparts. They receive better benefits, and it is nearly impossible to fire a federal employee, even if they are caught red-handed in blatantly dishonest or illegal activities.
This should be a concern to all Americans. Taxpayers foot the bill for all of this. People continuously voice their displeasure over the poor quality of service they receive from government agencies and how that quality of service seemingly deteriorates every year. Like any worker, federal employees should be held accountable for their performance.
Public-sector unions have shielded federal workers from accountability by growing immensely powerful. One of the ways they have done this is to grow their membership through coercion. This case before the Supreme Court might help bring an end to that practice and bring these all-powerful unions back down to Earth. And that will be better for everyone. ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51657
{townhall.com} ~ A number of news reports out this afternoon claim Speaker of the House Paul Ryan shelved a vote on legislation which includes the deregulation of firearm suppressors in response to the attack in Las Vegas Sunday night. The reports also imply Ryan pulled the bill in response to criticisms from liar-Hillary Clinton and Senate Minority Leader Chuck clown-Schumer.
Those reports are false. The bill in question, the SHARE Act, was never scheduled for a vote this week. Ryan said this during a press conference earlier today.
"That bill is not scheduled now," Ryan said. "I don't know when it's going to be scheduled."
The floor schedule for this week went out from Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy's office on Friday and hasn't changed.
"No, there was no intention to have the SHARE Act on the House floor this week. Any news report saying that is false. Below is the schedule for the week. This was released Friday and has not changed," a leadership aide tells Townhall.
Comments