Someone keeps introducing this ghastly bill
Ever been curious to know how union bosses use their friends in congress (spit) to rape you? Then read this bill. It's S. 3194, introduced by...actually I'll wait a minute and see if you can predict which of those corrupt bastards had the unmitigated gall--and power--to introduce this piece of work.
This bill is an exact copy of S. 1611, introduced in August of 2009, and virtually a copy of HR 413, introduced in the House with 227 co-sponsors, including at least a dozen RINOs. From this it would appear that the bill would pass easily and wouldn't need any type of reconciliation.
The stated purpose of the bill is "To provide collective bargaining rights for public safety officers employed by States or their political subdivisions."
Hmmm..."collective bargaining rights for public-safety officers". Gee, that sounds sorta familiar, doesn't it? In fact it sounds like union representation. We'll know for sure when we see what the bill's author decided to name it: If it's a totally misleading name, like "Freedom and security for all children" you know it's a con job.
Sure enough, the author called it the ‘Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2009’. (Even though it was introduced on April 13th of 2010--barely a month after congress passed that other incredibly popular law called "National Health Care."
The key phrase there is "Employer-Employee Cooperation Act." Recall that the author of this piece of crap has every intention of it becoming law. Which means if anyone in the U.S. violates a single one of its provisions, the power of the federal government will come down on him/her/it like a thousand furies. But of course the actual title has the word "cooperation" in it, so there's not a hint that there any, um...coercion, force, fines, shitstorms et cetera might be involved.
No sir.
Continuing: Right after the title is a "Declaration of purpose and policy," the first 'graf of which declares that "it is the union that provides the institutional stability as elected leaders and appointees come and go."
But according to its defenders, this isn't at all a law to forcibly unionize all cops and firefighters in the country.
No sirree.
Ah the hell with it. The author was none other than the senate's majority leader, Democrat Harry Reid. (The original in 2009 was introduced by Republican Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, with 26 cosponsors.) Reid's bill doesn't have any co-sponsors, but I don't know if this is significant.
It may also be significant that bills with exactly the same title have been introduced every year for the last 13 years. All but the last two are shown as "dead," and while this is somewhat reassuring, the hugely alarming aspect is that whoever is pushing these bills is both determined and has enough clout to keep getting it introduced every year. This is really frightening, because it suggests that if the folks keeping it from passing get distracted even once, it's gonna pass.
Wheee!
This bill is an exact copy of S. 1611, introduced in August of 2009, and virtually a copy of HR 413, introduced in the House with 227 co-sponsors, including at least a dozen RINOs. From this it would appear that the bill would pass easily and wouldn't need any type of reconciliation.
The stated purpose of the bill is "To provide collective bargaining rights for public safety officers employed by States or their political subdivisions."
Hmmm..."collective bargaining rights for public-safety officers". Gee, that sounds sorta familiar, doesn't it? In fact it sounds like union representation. We'll know for sure when we see what the bill's author decided to name it: If it's a totally misleading name, like "Freedom and security for all children" you know it's a con job.
Sure enough, the author called it the ‘Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2009’. (Even though it was introduced on April 13th of 2010--barely a month after congress passed that other incredibly popular law called "National Health Care."
The key phrase there is "Employer-Employee Cooperation Act." Recall that the author of this piece of crap has every intention of it becoming law. Which means if anyone in the U.S. violates a single one of its provisions, the power of the federal government will come down on him/her/it like a thousand furies. But of course the actual title has the word "cooperation" in it, so there's not a hint that there any, um...coercion, force, fines, shitstorms et cetera might be involved.
No sir.
Continuing: Right after the title is a "Declaration of purpose and policy," the first 'graf of which declares that "it is the union that provides the institutional stability as elected leaders and appointees come and go."
But according to its defenders, this isn't at all a law to forcibly unionize all cops and firefighters in the country.
No sirree.
Ah the hell with it. The author was none other than the senate's majority leader, Democrat Harry Reid. (The original in 2009 was introduced by Republican Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, with 26 cosponsors.) Reid's bill doesn't have any co-sponsors, but I don't know if this is significant.
It may also be significant that bills with exactly the same title have been introduced every year for the last 13 years. All but the last two are shown as "dead," and while this is somewhat reassuring, the hugely alarming aspect is that whoever is pushing these bills is both determined and has enough clout to keep getting it introduced every year. This is really frightening, because it suggests that if the folks keeping it from passing get distracted even once, it's gonna pass.
Wheee!
posted by SF at
10:34 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home