Category: Guest Authors

New Torquemadas

One could be forgiven for throwing one’s hands up in despair at the sheer audacity of it all. A fortnight ago, as the federal government took to the courts to defend a rule that deliberately burdens the consciences of America’s more religiously devout entrepreneurs, the professional Left adopted the position that companies do not have consciences, griped that a harsh separation of the public and the private spheres was a recipe for the suffering of unpopular or put-upon individuals, and insisted that any links between the activities of an employee and the deeply held beliefs of his boss should be thoroughly shattered. Today, the opposite case is regnant. Defending the appalling hounding of Brendan  Eich, progressives seem to have suddenly got the message: reminding critics that there exists no legal right to be the CEO of a non-profit; insisting correctly that this sordid and alarming little affair does not in any way implicate the First Amendment; and acknowledging that, the doctrine of at-will employment being what it is, a man may resign from his job for whatever reason — up to and including harassment.

Well, comrades — which is it to be?

The answer to this question, one suspects, is “whichever suits the moment.” Which is to say that the Eich affair is ultimately about power, not principle — the latest in a series of plays contrived to show who is in charge. Convenient as it might be to pretend otherwise, the Left does not truly believe that private companies may behave as they wish to, but that private companies may behave as the Left wishes them to — whether instructed by government or not.

Adroitly obfuscating the nature of his departure, Mozilla insisted that Eich “chose to resign,” which may be technically accurate but is a reasonable description of what happened here only in the sense that it is reasonable to contend that pirates who are asked to walk the plank ultimately “chose to jump.” As being faced with 200 sailors carrying scimitars provides quite the incentive to plunge into the icy Atlantic, so being the target of a cyclonic witchhunt helps along the hand that signs the resignation papers. It is all allowed under the law, certainly — and should be. But that is not really the material question here. What is legal, as William F. Buckley famously noted, is not always reputable. And this has been a greatly disreputable affair.

Mozilla’s chairwoman, Mitchell Baker, explained oleaginously to the excited press corps yesterday that by hiring Eich in the first place, her outfit “didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act.” I’m not so sure. My support for gay marriage has long been tempered by the suspicion that the admirable calls for freedom and for toleration would swiftly be subordinated to the enforcement of orthodoxies and to the punishment of heretics. Anybody who has observed in action the maxim that what was yesterday prohibited will tomorrow be mandatory would have expected Mozilla to act precisely in this way — to make a good decision initially but then pithlessly to become the latest Petri dish in which the never-sated advocates of “respect” might successfully try their luck. Later, Baker continued her abject apology by suggesting, inexplicably, that the company “didn’t move fast enough.” Short of his being thrown screaming from a window at the inaugural board meeting, it is difficult to see how Mozilla could have moved more quickly. Eich was pushed out after only ten days in charge — a remarkably quick scalp, even in our breathless age. The consequence of reflection and debate this decision was not. It was a victory for the mob, and nothing less.

How quickly has liberty been transmuted into orthodoxy. For the entirety of human history, gay marriage was a veritable non-issue — a thought that had occurred seriously to nobody and for which there was neither a meaningful constituency nor measurable pressure. In the space of a decade it has moved from a fringe and novel proposition to a moral imperative — and, now, to fodder for the new inquisitors. That the issue has now achieved the approval of a narrow majority is to my mind no bad thing. That the movement’s more vocal champions have started bludgeoning their enemies one and a half minutes into their still-fragile victory speaks tremendously ill of them, and does not portend well for the republic.

Eich’s crime is to have contributed $1,000 to Proposition 8, a successful 2008 California ballot initiative that amended the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Unlike the incumbent president of the United States, who not only affirmed in that year that he believed marriage to be between “one man and one woman” but contended that his religion required him to protect this definition, Eich has been relatively silent on the question of homosexuality. Still, we can presume rather reasonably that his contribution implied his support in that year, which puts him neatly in line with 52 percent of the California electorate, with Bill and Hillary Clinton, with the president and vice president, with the majority of the United States Congress, and with the American public — all of which, half a decade ago at least, were content to defend the status quo. One can only wonder at what manner of firings we would have to expect were we to rifle through the campaign contributions of other American leaders and chief executives. As is the proclivity of the technology industry, Mozilla evidently regards itself as especially open and unprejudiced — a beacon that burns bright in the night. But rare is the corporation that does not pay lip service to the very principles on which Mozilla appears so erroneously to pride itself. If we are to make long-term fealty to progressive doctrine the prerequisite to corporate management, America’s economy will fold overnight. Who is next, Torquemada?

Nervous that his appointment had provoked some doubt as to his “commitment to fostering equality and welcome for LGBT individuals at Mozilla,” Eich immediately set about issuing promises. As CEO, he would strive to keep “a place of equality and welcome for all,” “work with LGBT communities and allies, to listen and learn what does and doesn’t make Mozilla supportive and welcoming,” and demonstrate an “active commitment to equality in everything we do, from employment to events to community-building.” In response to this assurance, Eich was shown precisely how “supportive and welcoming” Mozilla was: He was urged to leave.

The entreaties ranged from the contradictory to the sinister. Wrapping her intolerance and hysteria in the vapid, saccharine, and malleable language of the graduate-school prospectus, an employee named Sydney Moyer explained on Twitter that because the company offered a “big, open, and messy” “culture of openness and inclusion,” her new CEO should be forced to go away. Once upon a time, individuals who could not square their consciences with their circumstances saw fit to remove themselves. But, safely ensconced under the new cultural carapace, Moyers evidently recognized that she had all the power. I “cannot reconcile having Brendan Eich as CEO with our company’s culture and mission,” Moyers wrote. “Brendan, please step down.” Thus, once again, was the English language — the language of Mill, Shakespeare, Milton, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Churchill — impressed not into the service of individual liberty and defense of conscience but inverted and twisted in the hope of silencing the different. It seems that one can get away with the most extraordinary non sequiturs if one wraps them in enough nonsense. Two spoons of sugar, one of vinegar; let’s hope that nobody notices the taste.

All in all, it is tempting to see Moyers and her ilk as little more than sad victims of their generation — lost souls who have a poor grasp of the meaning of words and an unfortunate tendency to swallow zeitgeists whole and to cheer on their enforcers. So often now, platitudes are offered as replacements for thought — reason being held in lower esteem than the unholy mixture of corporatespeak and progressive silliness has infected our national conversation. Contemptible as her behavior was, Moyers and the thousands who think like her are not the cause of the problem, but a symptom — useful idiots, not evil schemers. Alas, the same cannot be said of the ringleaders — of men such as Owen Thomas, a tech gossip columnist and amateur tyrant who was so vexed by Eich’s employment that he saw fit to issue what can only be described as a catechism. Among the commandments that Thomas etched onto his website were: “Stop saying that this was merely a private matter that won’t affect your work as Mozilla’s CEO”; “say that whatever chain of logic led you to conclude that your personal views required you to support Proposition 8 was flawed, erroneous, incorrect”; “Say that you support the rights of people to enter into same-sex marriages everywhere”; and “make a donation equal in amount to the money you gave to Proposition 8 and candidates who supported it to the Human Rights Campaign or another organization that fights for the civil rights of LGBT people.”

Elsewhere, a Credoaction petition accrued 75,000 signatures behind the demand that “CEO Brendan Eich should make an unequivocal statement of support for marriage equality. If he cannot, he should resign. And if he will not, the board should fire him immediately.”

In other words, Eich must repent: Specifically, he must prostrate himself before his betters and announce publicly that he has sinned; he must thank his inquisitors for their forbearance and beg for their forgiveness and charity; and, perhaps most sinister of all, he must start tithing to a church of their choice lest he be refused redemption and ostracized like a common leper. And if he should refuse this call to betterment? Hie thee to a monastery, man! — or, better perhaps, to the public stocks at the bottom of the valley.

Notably missing from the hysteria was any explanation of precisely what Eich’s critics expected to happen were he left in charge. Instead, Mozilla’s press office merely asserted that the company was such a diverse, tolerant, and live-and-let-live sort of place that it was all but obliged to hound a man out of office because he possessed slightly different political views from the majority of its staff. Nowhere was it suggested that Eich would damage the company. Nowhere was it argued that he was personally hostile or unpleasant toward its employees. Nowhere was it implied that he would seek to discriminate against those about whom he might have personal qualms. Instead, we were left with the uncomfortable impression that the assembled denizens of the open-source browser industry are so pathetic and so delicate in their sensibilities that they cannot work alongside anybody who displays the temerity to disagree with them. Is that who we want to be?

Announcing its nasty little victory, Mozilla informed the public that the resignation had struck a blow for “free speech and equality.” Gay Conformity Agency GLAAD went one further, praising corporate America for demonstrating its commitment to providing an environment that is “inclusive, safe, and welcoming to all.” The most comprehensive commitment to toleration, however, came from a different source — from a man who assured spectators before he left office that he wished only to ensure “that Mozilla is, and will remain, a place that includes and supports everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, age, race, ethnicity, economic status, or religion.” That affirmation was penned by Brendan Eich, but it can’t be held to count for much, because he has the wrong sort of heart.

Charles C. W. Cooke is a staff writer at National Review.

 

Visit BillLawrenceDittos.com for New Torquemadas
Visit BillLawrenceOnline.com for New Torquemadas

 

 

Unionize College Sports? Strike That!

By Chris Freind

Footballs are leather. Teams play on grass. Pads are made of nonmetallic materials. So why is the United Steelworkers union bankrolling the efforts of the Northwestern University football team to unionize?

Maybe it’s because they play on a grid-iron. But if so, the Ironworkers union must be molten-mad at what would seem a hostile takeover of its natural constituency.

Or maybe it’s because organized labor is desperate in its quest to stay relevant, given that private sector union density is a paltry 7 percent, a level not seen since 1932.

But using a trick play, the Steelworkers and the football team, led by quarterback Kain Colter, are ahead in the first quarter, thanks to a controversial call by the ref — National Labor Relations Board Regional Director Peter Sung Ohr. In his ruling, Ohr decided that Northwestern scholarship players are “employees” of the university, and can therefore unionize. On its face, the argument would seem likely to get sacked. But with the courts, you never know.

But the union issue is a red herring, with the big picture being entirely missed. Instead of discussing whether players should be paid or if they are “student-athletes” or just “athletes,” the situation can never truly improve until the NCAA is either abolished, or at the least, massively reformed.

Let’s review:

The NCAA — officially a nonprofit, which sounds like an April Fool’s joke — has become an authoritarian religion demanding that all who want to play, or administer, college sports must bow to it, strictly adhering to its creed — or risk swift excommunication. It rakes in billions off the backs of football players and their universities while rewarding both with mind-boggling restrictions. No one pays to watch sanctimonious, fat cat hypocrites masquerading as caring NCAA executives. The athletes are the star attraction, yet they get precious little for their efforts, compared to the revenue they generate.

The NCAA monopoly needs to be broken, and reformed from top to bottom. Only government can do it under the auspices of anti-trust violations, but given its complexity, we’ll deal with that in a separate column.

Now let’s look at the lawsuit itself:

1. On a political note, this case illustrates an often-overlooked but extremely important aspect of presidential power. While high-profile nominees generate headlines, those appointed to the obscure National Labor Relations Board make decisions that affect millions of Americans. From its case against Boeing — because that company moved some production facilities to another state — to the Northwestern case, the NLRB, reflecting the philosophy of the president, has made many far-reaching decisions.

2. Are scholarship players employees of the university? Maybe.

There are numerous statutes defining what constitutes an employee, but a general description is one who reports to a boss (in this case, the coach), at a particular place and time (a set schedule), and fulfills agreed upon duties (practice, games and all team-related activities) in exchange for economic compensation (scholarships). From that perspective, it becomes difficult to argue that they are not employees — especially given the benefit received by the employer (millions in revenue).

3. On the other hand, one of the “employee” arguments is that players are sought solely for their playing abilities. Therefore, they are not student-athletes, but just athletes. But if that were the case, the athletes wouldn’t be required to attend class, since the “student” part would no longer be relevant. But they are mandated to go to class and required to maintain certain grades to remain eligible. Tutors travel with the teams, and academics, depending on the school, play an important role in college athletes’ lives. If team members didn’t go to class, they wouldn’t remain on the team.

4. Ohr ruled that Northwestern prioritizes football over academics, since players aren’t permitted to take classes that conflict with practice or leave practice early to make a class. This clearly demonstrates that the director is a Monday morning quarterback who knows nothing about the real world.

My God — the horror that one has to schedule classes around practice! Guess what? So does the band, many of whom are also on scholarship. And other athletes. And the student body president. And all those who have jobs on or off campus. Kind of like how people have to schedule their privates lives — from picking up the kids to dropping off the dry cleaning — around their jobs. To claim that players are employees because the team has a dedicated schedule is downright insulting. Maybe if Ohr had a private sector job, he’d understand the concept.

5. Regardless of whether players are employees, where does it end? Can academic scholarship recipients form a union? Surely they would be employees too, since they are being “paid” via their scholarship, and they bring in revenue, even if indirectly, when their high marks and excellent records make the university a more desirable institution — allowing it to charge higher tuition. What about poor, affirmative action students? They add diversity to the school, further enhancing its appeal, which can be a financial windfall, as many state and federal grant programs exist solely for minority and low-income students — money that ends up in university coffers.

So if the criteria for “employees” to unionize are based on revenue generated for the school, it clearly can’t, and won’t, just be for football.

6. The elephant in the room is whether athletes should be paid, receiving some stipend to offset expenses. Sure, a full ride at 50, 60 and even 70 grand per year is fantastic, but to lose it all because a dirt-poor student signs a jersey for pizza money or accepts a bus ticket home to see mom and dad at Thanksgiving is insane.

Paying athletes shouldn’t be for the NLRB to decide. Instead, it should be a decision made at the university or conference level, using the free market as a guide. But the NCAA doesn’t allow it, and things won’t change until the justice department breaks the NCAA’s monopoly on deciding such issues.

Undoubtedly, college football players deserve some level of protection and compensation. But permitting them to unionize isn’t the way to go. Instead, it’s time to strike at the heart of the matter, demanding that the NCAA reform itself, or be locked out. And that would be a touchdown — for everyone.

Visit BillLawrenceDittos.com for Unionize College Sports? Strike That!
Visit BillLawrenceOnline.com for Unionize College Sports? Strike That!

 

Just A Pinch Of Incense

By Fr. Frank Pavone

W. A. Criswell, in The Offense of the Cross, points out,

“The Roman Empire was the most tolerant, the most liberal, the most wise, and the most accurate in its handling of the many provinces and religions of its empire of any kingdom that ever existed. Men could worship, have temples, and do as they pleased. And yet the Roman Empire and the Caesars persecuted the Christians. Why? For one simple reason: the Christian refused to compromise his faith with any other religion whatsoever.”

That refusal to compromise is seen in the response of the apostles themselves to the command not to teach in the name of Jesus: “We will obey God rather than men!” As it was in the beginning, so it is now. Christians in America face another one of those key moments – seen frequently in Scripture and Christian history – of conflict between the commands of civil authority and the demands of their faith. And believers of other traditions are standing with them as well.

The Obama Administration, implementing one of the provisions of “Obamacare,” has declared its intent and goal to increase access to various “preventive services” that include contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs. This is an open, publicly-announced plan. Numerous Americans, and the religious traditions they embrace, teach that such “drugs and services” are immoral to use. Therefore, they oppose this plan.

But the conflict goes deeper than that. If those believers are also employers who offer their employees health insurance, the Obama Administration is requiring them to cooperate in the plan by making coverage for those drugs and services an essential part of those health insurance plans.

And that’s where we say “No!” If the government wants to expand access to these immoral – and in some cases lethal – activities, it’s going to need to do it without us. We do not want to be involved.

And that is the argument regarding the HHS mandate, and the theme of the multiple lawsuits that have been introduced against it. We at Priests for Life filed the fourth of what are now dozens of such lawsuits launched both by religious groups and for-profit businesses.

On  March 25, the Supreme Court heard two consolidated cases on behalf of two of those businesses, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Woods, run by believers who refuse to cooperate with the mandate. The Court considered, among other things, whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to for-profit corporations to protect them from this mandate.

In a separate action, the Supreme Court is also being asked to take up the matter of the non-profit and religious entities who object to the mandate, and whose rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act are not in doubt. We at Priests for Life have petitioned the Supreme Court to hear our case, and it should be learned in the next few days as to whether it will happen.

The claim that the government is making is that it is in fact exempting the religious groups like Priests for Life from following the mandate. In fact, President Obama himself addressed this in his February 2 interview with Bill O’Reilly. The President said, “Here’s the way this thing works. All they have to do is sign a form saying they don’t — they are a religious institution —And — and they get what they want.”

In other words, the form we are being asked to sign states that we object to the mandate because of our institutional religious convictions. Then, our insurance policy will not have to include coverage of the objectionable drugs and services.

At first glance, that sounds quite reasonable to sign. But what the government says further is that upon us signing the form, and receiving the names of our employees on the plan, they will make separate provision to cover the objectionable drugs and services. In other words, by signing the form, we are still part of implementing the plan to provide access to those drugs and services. The form is an authorization; our employees are covered precisely because they are our employees. It’s not a matter of who pays for it; it’s a matter of being the gateway to the immoral activities.

President Obama, in his O’Reilly interview, seems to indicate that he understands this. He said, “The problem is they don’t want to sign the form — Because they think that that somehow makes them complicit.” Exactly right. And Mr. President, that’s not only what we and the other religious plaintiffs think; that’s precisely what our religion teaches. And the freedom to follow that teaching is precisely what you and the law need to respect.

All this may seem like a big deal to be making over the signing of a form. But to go back to W.A. Criswell, he points out, “When the Christians were invited just to bow down before the Roman image, their lives could be spared if they would merely take a pinch of incense and put it on the fire that burned in the presence of the image of the Roman Caesar. The Christian died rather than compromise with a pinch of incense.”

Whether it’s about government incense or a government form, we will obey God rather than men.

Father Pavone is national director of Priests for Life.

 

Visit BillLawrenceDittos.com for Just A Pinch Of Incense
Visit BillLawrenceOnline.com for Just A Pinch Of Incense

 

 

March Top Stories

By Chris Freind

As the month comes to a close, let’s look at some events so bizarre that you just couldn’t script them:
:

» World Trade Center Security Breach Number Two: Freindly Fire’s last
column detailed how a 16-year old thrill seeker bypassed security at
the new World Trade Center, roaming the building for hours. Turns out
that infiltration wasn’t even the first breach of the Freedom Tower. Six
months ago, a group of parachutists did the same thing before jumping
from the top. In both cases, the trespassers had unfettered access to
what was supposed to be, for obvious reasons, one of the nation’s most
secure structures.

But here’s the best part. Despite all the reports this week
highlighting the inexcusable security lapses, yet another guard was
caught sleeping on the job. Even more bizarre, he was the only guard at
the ground floor security desk, yet he “could barely see half the lobby”
(his own words) because he is blind in one eye and has limited vision
in the other. And to top it off, ABC News reported that he was named
Security Officer Of The Year.

So that we don’t have to revisit this, is there anyone out there who hasn’t sneaked into the Freedom Tower?

» TSA “Theatre” Now Playing — again: The Transportation Security
Administration just released a report recommending that armed police be
present at security checkpoints and ticket counters, as well as in
places where many people gather. Gee, that narrows it down. Well, except
for anyone watching a 76ers game.

They’re good ideas. But it begs the question: Why aren’t police there
now? That’s easy. Because we A) much prefer window dressings to real
solutions, have extremely short memories, C) don’t want to “offend”
anyone by instituting policies that would actually make flying safer,
and D) lack even basic common sense.

The debate, like always, will revolve around either irrelevant issues
or no-brainer solutions that could be implemented in five minutes, yet
the government still refuses to do its job of actually protecting us.
Consider:

1. A frequent traveler with no criminal record can be granted TSA
PreCheck status, a screening initiative that supposedly enhances
aviation security and expedites the process. There’s another, much more
apt label: American stupidity.

Once enrolled, you breeze through your own airport security line
while enjoying benefits of not removing shoes, belts or jackets. And
neither laptops nor clear bags holding liquids are required to be
removed from carry-ons.

Which means one of two things. Either the
show-us-your-shoes/belts/laptops mandate for all other security lines is
completely bogus, since TSA machines are capable of scanning those
items whether or not they are removed, or, more likely and much more
terrifying, the TSA is admitting it isn’t screening PreCheck travelers
with the scrutiny employed on everyone else. There is no third option.

Are they serious? Do they not think a terrorist, especially a
homegrown one, isn’t smart enough to game the system? Keep a clean
record, become a member of TSA PreCheck, and then — showtime. Oklahoma
City bomber Tim McVeigh is a prime example: U.S. citizen, Bronze medal
winner, Gulf War veteran — yet still a murderous terrorist. Time to end
all special privileges for flyers. If they don’t like it — take the bus
to Europe.

2. A passenger flying on America’s biggest airline recently went
through security (TSA PreCheck, of course), and, upon arriving at his
gate, was informed that his meeting had been canceled in his destination
city. Informing airline personnel that he had canceled his flight, he
asked where he could retrieve his checked bags. Their response? They
don’t take bags off domestic flights.

Isn’t that a big no-no? Most terrorists aren’t suicidal, preferring
to watch their target explode while sipping a latte instead of going
down with the ship — or plane. Since a passenger checking in but not
flying is rare, it should be standard procedure to get his bags off the
plane ASAP. No exceptions. Yet complacency still rules the day at our
airports.

» Boston bomber should never have bombed: Once again, a simple lack
of common sense came back to haunt us. A report being released by the
House Homeland Security Committee documents the missed opportunities to
detain Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev before he acted.

Russian intelligence, starting in March 2011 (more than two years
prior to the bombing), warned both the FBI and CIA that Tsarnaev had
ties to violent Muslim militants. The CIA in turn notified the National
Counterterrorism Center, Homeland Security, and the State Department.
Yet Tsarnaev passed right through our grasp at JFK Airport twice — first
flying to Russia, and then returning six months later after his
terrorist training.

The reason for this foul-up? His name was spelled “Tsarnayev,” with
an extra “y,” in a database. Honestly, you can’t make this stuff up.

Google any subject and the computer knows what you are trying to
find, even if you are misspelling the word or phrase. Yet the most
powerful, and certainly the most important, computers in our government
can’t figure out whom we are attempting to access in a database, or at
least bring up a list of people with similar names?

The president just stated his fear of a nuclear bomb exploding in New
York. Based on the above, he, and we, should be afraid. Very afraid.

» Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett’s unpopularity goes global: It’s bad
enough Corbett’s popularity is in the toilet at home, but he just
suffered a blow of global proportions, this time courtesy of Pope
Francis. Corbett’s much-ballyhooed trip to Rome — together with
Archbishop Chaput and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter — had made big
headlines, since the purpose was to convince the pontiff to attend World
Conference on Families in Philadelphia next year. All that was needed
was the guv to work his oratory magic and seal the deal during a private
audience with the Holy Father in his papal apartment.

One small problem: The pope changed the plans, opting instead to meet
Corbett and the Pennsylvania delegation in public after his weekly
general audience in St. Peter’s Square instead. All involved insist it
was not a snub, merely a change of schedule.

While atoning for his sins might’ve actually done the governor some good, why the last-minute change of plans?

Did the world’s most popular man simply not want to break bread with
America’s least popular governor? Or did the pope become wise to
Corbett’s Jerry Sandusky Sins — an issue that hits close to home for the
church?

Whatever the reason, Corbett’s response that “with the church, you
never know what’s going to happen” probably didn’t endear him to the
pontiff. Given the pope’s change of plans, Corbett is now the Rodney
Dangerfield of politics — he truly gets “no respect.”

With all these sins of commission and omission, maybe we should call
the pope and beg for absolution to get America back on track.

Since Tom Corbett will soon have a lot of time on his hands, maybe we
could ask him to ring Pope Francis for us. On second thought, maybe
not.

Visit BillLawrenceDittos.com for March Top Stories
Visit BillLawrenceOnline.com for March Top Stories

Paycheck Protection Helps Pa

By Lisa Esler

Currently, Harrisburg is considering “Paycheck Protection” legislation, known as HB1507, a bill sponsored by Rep Bryan Cutler. HB 1507 effectively bans all use of public resources to collect, bundle and transmit public sector union dues and PAC contributions as a service to the unions and their members. The Senate version of the bill is SB1034.
Neither version would end collective bargaining rights of the unions.

Under Paycheck Protection legislation, school districts and
counties would stop collecting dues for the unions via automatic payroll deduction. Seven states have already banned this practice.

Public union members, such as teachers and state and county
public employees, will be responsible for paying their own dues and
political contributions directly to the unions. This would bring public
sector unions, which are private organizations, in line with any other
private organization or business.

With Paycheck Protection in effect, taxpayers’ resources such as
our school district or government entity would no longer act as a
collection agency for the unions.

Dues and political contributions are used by the unions to lobby for or against legislation for their members’ best interest, many times conflicting with the taxpayer’s best interest. Pension reform would be the best example of this. It is also used to bargain for better wages and generous benefits which are paid with tax money.

While unions claim the cost to collect their dues is negligible,
that is not the issue. The issue is the breach of public trust and
conflicts of interest in using public resources to assist funding
political activities that may be against the political views or best
interests of the public.

When legislators depend on special interest contributions to fund
their elections, their legislative decisions will surely follow the
money, not the best interest of their constituents. Without Paycheck
Protection, this unfair cycle will continue with the poor taxpayer’s
best interest and concerns being silenced.

Polls show popular support for passage of Paycheck Protection. In
fact, one poll shows 58 percent support among union households!

Paycheck Protection is the most important issue because it
directly affects all other legislation in Harrisburg. Putting a stop to
this practice is the right thing to do.

Let’s educate ourselves on this issue and encourage our lawmakers
to fight for the best interest of the Pa. taxpayer instead of bowing to
union pressure for the status quo.

Lisa Esler is a member of the Penn Delco School Board in Delaware County, Pa.

Visit BillLawrenceDittos.com for Paycheck Protection Helps Pa
Visit BillLawrenceOnline.com for Paycheck Protection Helps Pa

Christie Vs Tesla

By Chris Freind

Well, it’s official. Chris Christie has lost it.

No, not his weight. And not the widespread notion of his involvement in the Bridgegate scandal.

It’s much worse. He’s lost his mind.

In an act that defies comprehension, Christie veered off the road of common sense when his Motor Vehicle Commission barred auto manufacturers from selling directly to the public. Christie’s “fiat” mandating that all cars be sold through dealers has kept the special interests’ status quo alive and well, and amounts to a hit-and-run on that thing called the free market.

In hitching his trailer to New Jersey’s car dealer lobby, Christie
has shown his true colors as an elitist country club Republican firmly
in the backseat of big business — will of the people be damned.
Ironically, this is a U-turn in the perception of Christie, whose
brusque, tell-it-like-it-is style had earned him a rare “man of the
people” status.

They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but it is
hard to see any good intent in Christie’s latest dictate. Which leads
one to ask if Chris Christie really is who his critics claim him to be —
just another good ol’ boy who talks a great game but is no different
than the typical Jersey pol. How many times can you give Christie the benefit of the doubt? And on this one, there’s no he-said, she-said. The decision to jump in bed with the car dealers has Christie’s hood emblem all over it. And it’s really tough to stomach.

The center of the storm involves upstart electric carmaker
Tesla Motors, whose innovative business model cuts out the middleman, with the company selling directly to the public through storefront offices and the Internet. As a result of the rule change, Tesla’s two successful retail New Jersey locations, as well as two planned service centers, will close. Isn’t this the same Chris Christie who said he wanted to create jobs, not eliminate them?

Several points come to mind regarding this car-wreck policy:

1. Is this really the image the Republican Party wants or needs?
Being in bed with business plays right into the stereotype of who is
controlling the GOP. And being nakedly anti-competition rankles
conservatives to such an extent that even more will abandon the Party and bolt to the Libertarian ranks. Strong-arming such rule changes also alienates good-government types, many of whom are swing voters. Given that the Republicans have been looking at the Democrats’ taillights for quite awhile, this unpopular policy is the last thing with which the party’s leaders should be associated.

2. Tesla, which had been selling cars in New Jersey for over a year,
said the Christie administration went back on its word by unilaterally deciding on the matter. Previously, the arrangement had been to allow the Legislature to handle it in a fair, public manner. Given Christie’s track record of late, the benefit of the doubt has to go to Tesla.

The Legislature has every reason to be upset by Christie’s bypassing
that body, calling into question the governor’s respect for the
separation of powers. Enacting such a far-reaching rule change should be the domain of elected lawmakers, not bureaucrats in vehicle commissions.

3. The rule is a kick in the teeth to competition and fair play, not
to mention the innovation that Tesla has brought to the industry. Will
automakers selling directly to the public be a winning business
strategy? No one knows, but that’s what the free market is all about:
Coming up with bold ideas, takings risks and seeing if the public likes
what is offered. The Tesla business model should rise or fall on
people’s choices — not government intervention based on the deep pockets
of special interest groups.

The new rule, in addition to mandating new cars be sold by
franchisees, requires a dealer’s facility to have 1,000 square feet of
display area, with showroom space for at least two cars, and equipment
to service vehicles — none of which fits into Tesla’s business model.
Who is the government to tell a company how to market and sell its
products? Seems like the car dealer lobby just got a ticket on the
government gravy train, courtesy of hundreds of thousands in campaign
contributions to the governor.

4. New Jersey is not alone enacting these laws. Texas and Arizona —
both Republican-dominated states — have anti-Tesla regulations on the
books, and a number of other states controlled by both parties are
considering them. Why? No idea.

So perhaps someone smarter could decipher the words of Jim Appleton,
president of the New Jersey Coalition of Automotive Retailers, when he
chided, “What is it about Tesla that makes them immune from the concerns
of zero price competition and a monopoly market, or not fully and
fairly administering safety and recall services?”

He lost me at immune.

If incoherent babblings about recalls,
service and price controls are the best arguments proponents have, this
will be an easy victory lap through the courts for Tesla CEO Elon Musk.
And make no mistake. This rule is clearly unconstitutional on a number
of fronts, such as the Interstate Commerce and Equal Protection Clauses.

There is much more at stake here than how cars are sold. It
is an issue that deals with the environment (electric cars generate no
carbon emissions), honest competition, government interference in the
marketplace, the need for term limits and the role of deep-pocketed
special interests in shaping policies for the benefit of a few, to the
detriment of many. Allowing such a rule to stand would send a message
that America is a nation where the rights of the individual are trumped
by big business and corrupt government. And at that point, we will have
lost our uniqueness.

As the race to the White House begins, the call is going out for
candidates to start their engines. For Chris Christie, this latest
head-on collision will ensure that he won’t be in the driver’s seat.

Visit BillLawrenceDittos.com for Christie Vs Tesla
Visit BillLawrenceOnline.com for Christie Vs Tesla

 

Union Members Like Paycheck Protection

Government unions aren’t about fightingfor public employees and workers any more — they’ve become political operations with agendas that harm both their members and taxpayers. Americans, and even union members themselves, increasingly realize that public-sector unions often do not serve the public interest.

As a consequence, several states — including Washington, Idaho, Utah, Michigan, and Wisconsin — have passed commonsense “paycheck protection” laws to protect employees and taxpayers from being abused by union bosses. Lawmakers in my home state of Pennsylvania are looking to follow their lead. The idea is so sensible that polling suggests the majority of members of Pennsylvania union households support it.

Paycheck protection is a simple reform that would prohibit
taxpayer-funded “automatic deduction” of dues and campaign contributions
from government-union members’ paychecks. Current law grants government
union leaders the unique privilege of using public resources (the
government payroll system) to collect their union dues and PAC money,
which they use for lobbying and political activity. Dues are mandatory
and can go to certain political purposes, while members can agree to
make extra donations to PACs — also collected by the state payroll
system — which can be spent on almost any political activity.

Like every politically privileged group, union leaders are fighting
tooth and nail to hold on to this unfair advantage. Recently,
Pennsylvania’s union bosses stormed our state capitol to protest
paycheck protection by ranting against “big corporations” and even
leading obscene chants. Yet union leaders danced around the core policy
issue: whether taxpayer resources should be used for politics.

Perhaps that’s because many bussed-in union protesters actually
supported the concept of paycheck protection. When Media Trackers asked protesters
why they thought the government should collect their union dues, union
members answered that government shouldn’t be involved. Ironically, this
is exactly what paycheck protection would mean.

In fact, this is the view of most union members. In a new survey
of union households in Pennsylvania, we found that a large majority
support paycheck-protection legislation. Nearly two-thirds agreed that
such a law would empower workers to have greater control over how their
money is spent on politics. Moreover, an overwhelming 80 percent of
union households said taxpayer resources should not be used to collect
campaign contributions.

Several Pennsylvania legislators have recently gone to prison for
using taxpayer resources for politics. Yet government unions are
permitted to essentially engage in this practice right under the capitol
dome and in public schools across our state.

Taxpayer-funded collection of government-union political money gives
union bosses an unfair political advantage. In Pennsylvania, government
unions reported spending nearly $5 million in dues on political activity
and lobbying in 2012, plus more than $2.6 million in campaign
contributions. All of that money was collected using public resources
and sent directly to union bosses.

Nationally, the numbers are even more astounding: Labor unions spent more than $1.6 billion on politics in 2011 and 2012.

While government-union bosses argue their political spending will
“protect the middle class,” the policies they support actually harm
middle-class families, including their own members.

Here in Pennsylvania, union politicking recently blocked pension
reform — resulting in higher taxes and teacher layoffs — and
liquor-store privatization, despite overwhelming public support for the
latter measure, even among union members. Union-funded ad campaigns
against charter schools prevented thousands of children from escaping
violent and failing schools. Government unions lobbied for Obamacare
too, to the detriment of school employees and taxpayers.

Matt Eason, a teacher in the Philadelphia suburbs, opposes his
union’s politics: “It’s going against, not only my beliefs and morals
and values,” he says. “It’s something I don’t want to support, but I
don’t have a choice.”

Because Pennsylvania is a compulsory union state (as opposed to a
right-to-work one), paycheck protection would empower teachers like Matt
to hold his union accountable. Instead of automatically deducting money
from his paycheck, union leaders would have to look Matt in the face
each pay period to explain how the union plans to spend his money, and
ask for his dues.

Paycheck protection doesn’t silence union voices in politics; nor
does it hinder unions’ ability to collectively bargain. It certainly
isn’t right to work. It simply means that government unions will have to
collect their own dues and political money just like every other
private political organization.

Paycheck protection would, however, do one thing that both sides of
the political aisle should agree on: Stop spending taxpayer money on
politics.

Matthew J. Brouillette, a former history
teacher, is the president and CEO of the Commonwealth Foundation,
Pennsylvania’s free-market think tank.


Visit BillLawrenceDittos.com for Union Members Like Paycheck Protection
Visit BillLawrenceOnline.com for Union Members Like Paycheck Protection

 

Public School Funding SOS LOL

By Priya Abraham

The message—really an SOS—about public school funding came from rural Tioga County, but it’s one most Pennsylvanians have grown used to hearing.

“We are in a much, much more difficult situation than we were five or six years ago,” a teacher wrote to the Commonwealth Foundation. “We have had to cut staff, programs and even close schools in our district just to stay afloat.  We have never been able to offer many extras in our curriculum due to the size of our school and minimal tax base, but now we are down to the bare essentials.”

It’s a story playing out for teachers, parents, and students across the state: slashed staff and scaled back arts and language programs. Why? The popular myth advanced by teachers unions is that Gov. Tom Corbett cut $1 billion from public education funding three years ago.

The truth is far less dramatic—and a lot more sobering.

At the governor’s recent state budget address, the spotlight again swung to education spending. The governor has proposed $10.1 billion for public schools, slightly higher than last year, which was then a record high. So what’s all the fuss about cuts?

School districts are indeed feeling real financial stress, but this stems from a lapse of temporary federal stimulus money—not from a governor’s stinginess.

Initially, the stimulus dollars that came to Pennsylvania went to other types of government spending, like welfare. But the influx in funds allowed then-Governor Ed Rendell to spend more on public education.

However, the stimulus was only a temporary boost.  School districts, lawmakers, administrators—everyone in charge knew the money would disappear.  But rather than planning for when funding would reset, many school districts added staff and programs they couldn’t sustain.

The victims are now the students and teachers who are wondering what hit them.

While many educators are reeling, it’s important to look at the real status of education funding in Pennsylvania. Adjusted for inflation, average funding per student—made up of local, state, and federal money—has been around $14,000 since 2008.

Of that money, 58 percent goes to instruction, while 12 percent goes to construction and debt, which is one of the fastest-growing spending categories. In fact, between 1995 and 2012, spending on instruction increased 81 percent, while spending on construction and debt ballooned a whopping 171 percent.

At the same time public school officials complained of dwindling resources, they amassed $3.5 billion in reserve funds across the state’s 500 school districts and charter schools—increasing $300 million in the last year alone.

In addition, the disconnect between public school enrollment and staffing has been worsening. Teachers and staff have certainly seen layoffs in the last three years. But since 2000, schools have added 17,000 staff while the number of students actually fell by 60,000.

Over 15 years, administrators and other professional staff grew 40 percent, and support staff 18 percent, while the number of teachers rose only 14 percent.

In short, public school funding been rising—but it hasn’t always been spent in ways that would best benefit our children. And budgets will be squeezed further by the school employee pension system crisis, which holds nearly $33 billion in debt.

To survive, we must spend more effectively. A good start is reforming the broken student funding formula for school districts, which holds funding steady regardless of enrollment changes. As a consequence, districts with growing student populations often receive too little funding.

Another solution is to allow school districts to pre-pay their future pension obligations using their reserve funds. School boards should also be permitted to opt out of prevailing wage mandates, which artificially inflate their construction costs. And schools must be able to keep their best teachers, regardless of age or experience—a commonsense practice currently prevented by state seniority law.

If we’re to help teachers in Tioga and across Pennsylvania, changing we fund public schools—not just —will be critical.  If not, teachers, students, and taxpayers will be paying far into the future.

Priya Abraham is a senior policy analyst for the Commonwealth Foundation, Pennsylvania’s free market think tank.

Visit BillLawrenceDittos.com for Public School Funding SOS LOL
Visit BillLawrenceOnline.com for Public School Funding SOS LOL

 

Befriend Cuba Already

By Chris Freind

In 1961, an American-backed, CIA-trained paramilitary force stormed Cuba in the hopes of deposing Fidel Castro. After an initial victory, the counter-revolutionaries were routed, proving a major embarrassment to the United States and reinforcing the notion throughout Central America that the U.S. was a nation hellbent on imperialism. That ill-fated operation came to be known as the Bay of Pigs.

Over the last 53 years, America’s policy has been, and continues to be, isolating Cuba through a strict embargo in the hope that its socialist government collapses. Given that a half-century has gone by with no results, it’s safe to say that the policy is flawed, and the leaders who refuse to change it are pigheaded.

But what else is new dealing with our own hemisphere?

America freely gave away one its most strategic assets, the Panama Canal, while gaining nothing. It is continually at odds with Venezuela, which happens to have the world’s largest proven oil reserves. And it can’t gain Mexico’s good-faith cooperation to control drugs and illegal immigration. Rectifying any of those, let alone all three, is an extremely tall order, no matter what party controls Washington.

That’s not exactly a stellar track record. But with bold leadership and foresight (along with a little humility), we can change direction and gain huge victories for freedom and free enterprise right in our backyard.

It’s called befriending Cuba.

To be fair, enacting the embargo on and restricting Americans’ access to Cuba during the height of the Cold War, when Castro cozied up to the Soviet Union, was reasonable. Common sense should have told us that if it didn’t produce the desired results in five or even 10 years, it was never going to work. But since political common sense is an oxymoron, the sanctions continue to this day.

As a result, Americans and American products are denied a huge market within close proximity. We lose access to cheap Cuban goods, and perhaps most important, the relatives of Cuban-Americans continue to suffer under authoritarian rule in a stagnant economy, while U.S. law makes family reunions in Cuba all but illegal.

Since it would be a win for everyone to lift the embargo and improve relations, it’s a fair question to ask why we aren’t doing so. Consider:

1. Too many presidential candidates (along with Florida’s congressional delegation) still bow to the demands of an increasingly small but highly vocal minority of Cuban Americans who detest the notion of “helping” a Cuba ruled by anyone named Castro. Given Florida’s paramount importance in electoral politics, it’s understandable for candidates to think that opposing this lobby could lose them the state (much like opposing ethanol subsidies in Iowa).

But they have failed to see that the Cuban voting bloc is no longer tied to the embargo issue as it had been decades ago. The number of first-wave Cuban refugees with the strongest passion are dwindling, and each successive generation not only places less importance on the sanctions, but view closer ties as the path to prosperity.

Being beholden to a special interest is never good, but placating one that doesn’t exist is stupidity.

2. Despite the embargo, development in Cuba is on the upswing, fueled by European businesses that are snatching up the prime real estate and business opportunities — an easy task when American competitors are nonexistent. American jobs take a hit, and economic growth lags when it should be booming. If the embargo’s objective was (and is) to collapse the Cuban economy, and it didn’t work before, it certainly can’t be successful now that numerous other countries are stepping up Cuban involvement. It’s time for us to get in the game.

3. No one likes to admit they were wrong, but 53 years of isolation with nothing to show? We can’t wait for three minutes at the drive-thru without complaining, yet, we patiently adhere to a woefully ineffective law that will soon approach six decades of failure. What exactly do we think will miraculously change?

4. The embargo hurts the very people we purport to be helping: The Cubans themselves. By denying them economic opportunities, we keep them in poverty with no chance at prosperity. The way to win people’s hearts is through their wallets, as a growing middle class produces stability and respect for law — a rising tide that floats all boats. Yet, that unique American lesson is not being taught.

5. Defenders of the embargo love to rattle off conditions Cuba needs to meet: institute human rights; hold fair elections; free political prisoners; embrace democratic ideals; and compensate families of the oppressed. Gee, that’s nice. And it would be great if the world were filled with rainbows and lollipops! Except that it’s not. To make those demands shows a naivete at best, and hypocrisy at worst.

If those are prerequisites for doing business with other nations, our list of trading partners would shrink to Antarctica and Santa’s workshop.

Out-of-touch politicians aside, there is a growing call to lift the embargo and increase diplomatic, economic and cultural ties with Cuba.

In doing so, America would get back to what it does best: Be a beacon of hope to the world, showcasing that freedom and capitalism are its biggest exports. China still has a long way to go, but America, not through force but by its values, has transformed that nation in a revolutionary way, guiding it toward liberalism (small “l”). A vibrant middle-class has been born and they are starting to taste the good life as more freedoms are earned and opportunities realized.

If we can accomplish that with China, doing the same with Cuba, with its dynamic people and incredible cultural heritage, would be a walk in the park.

So let’s build a bridge to our neighbor just 90 miles from our shores, and tear down that wall.

Visit BillLawrenceDittos.com for Befriend Cuba Already
Visit BillLawrenceOnline.com for Befriend Cuba Already

 

Panama Lessons Must Be Remembered

By Chris Freind

The great ship moved silently through the water, knifing the
jet-black Caribbean Sea as it approached Panama. As dawn broke and the
fog lifted, it finally appeared, in all its glory: The massive Gatun
locks of the Panama Canal, lifting ships 1,000 feet long and 90,000 tons
85 feet above sea level to a water bridge crossing the Continental
Divide and connecting the Pacific. The 50-mile canal, separating two
continents but uniting the world, shaves a whopping 8,000 miles off a
run from New York to San Francisco. A dream that goes as far back as
Columbus undisputedly stands as one of the greatest achievements of in
all of human history.

Yet it almost never came to be, as centuries’ worth of attempts to
construct a path between the seas all resulted in disaster due to
ineptitude, disease and the deaths of more than 30,000 workers.

So what changed? Who found success where others had failed? How were
seemingly impossible obstacles, literal and otherwise, bulldozed on the
path to victory?

Easy. The United States got involved.

As we look back from this 100th year anniversary of the canal, it’s
abundantly clear that “America” was synonymous with “greatness” at that
point in history. The country was alive and vibrant, forging ahead with
bold ideas carried to fruition by bold leaders. Men like Teddy
Roosevelt, who innately understood what was in America’s strategic
interests and pursued those initiatives with a gusto that made success a
foregone conclusion. Failure simply wasn’t in the lexicon.

How things have changed. The nation that once valued decisiveness
over impotence, and risk over fear, somehow morphed into a timid,
risk-averse politically correct shell of its former glory that too often
tries to be all things to all people — so long as those people aren’t
its own citizens.

And there is no better example of that warped mindset than the
giveaway of the Panama Canal. While seeing the canal makes one gape in
sheer awe, it also evokes a fury, a constant “what were we thinking?”
refrain, reinforcing a notion that our nation is in decline, entirely of
our own making.

An outline of the canal’s history seems too far-fetched to be true,
as it defies the common sense expected of the world’s most powerful
nation:

» Thousands die trying to connect the oceans. Project declared impossible.

» America defies the odds by constructing canal ahead of schedule and under budget.

» America saves countless lives by eradicating yellow fever and
discovering the cause of, and thus controlling, the region’s ultimate
killer: Malaria.

» America operates canal not for profit but to facilitate
international commerce, even for those not trading with the United
States.

» America, despite its 85 years of flawless operation, freely gives
the canal to Panama in exchange for absolutely nothing, netting a zero
return on investment.

» American ships now pay massively increased fees (passed on to
American consumers) while Panama laughs all the way to the bank.

» Despite the giveaway, America continues to guarantee Panama’s security in perpetuity, with no benefit to the U.S.

If this story weren’t so tragic, it would be a comic, because giving
away the canal made America’s strategic vision a complete joke.

President Jimmy Carter negotiated and signed the 1977 treaty giving
away the canal (which took effect in 1999). The list of American
giveaways is substantial: The canal itself, the huge Gatun Lakes dam,
the hydroelectric plant, the isthmus-wide railroad, and the 10-mile wide
Panama Canal zone, with all its infrastructure. Rubbing salt in the
wound, even Titan, one of America’s largest cranes (war booty from
Hitler’s Germany) was given to the Panamanians in 1999 after 50 years of
operation in Long Beach, Calif. All invalidate the blood, sweat and
yes, deaths, of the Americans who worked so proudly on the canal.

Perhaps most startling, no consideration was given to America for all
it had done, despite it being the largest user, by far, of the canal.
Virtually all the new equipment, from the “mule” trains that guide the
ships to the massive steel doors going into the enlarged locks now under
construction, is made everywhere but America.

Five other nations are involved in the construction of the new locks,
but America is not one of them. And yet that consortium has already
experienced money problems, labor disputes and cost overruns for the $5
billion project, whereas we spend that amount every 12 hours. Nor does
America manage the large ports on either side of the canal. Instead,
that honor goes to China. Naturally.

Not only does Panama rake in $2 billion annually from its fees, but
it doesn’t spend a penny on an army, because thanks to Uncle Sam, it
doesn’t have one. So if Nicaragua becomes belligerent, American men and
women will fight and die solely for Panama’s sake. Help me out on that
one.

Some may ask, “Nice history lesson, but why bring it up now? What’s done is done.”

Wrong, for two reasons:

1. While the treaty won’t be scrapped,
America could clearly exact concessions from Panama to benefit American
shippers and consumers. Our ships, at a minimum, should receive a
substantial discount for passage (the Colombian Navy passes for free. Go
figure). Those savings would make our products and companies more
competitive, and keep jobs in America. If Panama resists, the protection
deal could be immediately revoked along with all other foreign aid to
Panama. No third-world country should be dictating to America,
especially one in our own backyard.

2. Infinitely more important, it should be a wake-up call to stop
engaging in one-sided deals that only hurt America. The Panama giveaway
is not an isolated incident, but a mindset that persists to this day.

Both parties are complicit, but it is we the people who are
ultimately to blame, as we no longer demand excellence and strategic
vision from our leaders. Instead, mediocrity with no eye to the future
rules the day, and with it, a lingering pessimism that seems destined to
be with us until a leader like Teddy Roosevelt emerges. Someone who, in
Teddy’s words, “is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust
and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly … who spends himself in a
worthy cause … so that his place shall never be with those cold and
timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”

Let’s re-read our history, learn from our mistakes and regain the greatness that is uniquely American.

Visit BillLawrenceDittos.com for Panama Lessons Must Be Remembered
Visit BillLawrenceOnline.com for Panama Lessons Must Be Remembered