Problem Politics

Let’s stipulate at the outset that if the Republican Congress had done a decent job addressing the nation’s problems over the past two years, the Foley scandal and cover-up wouldn’t now be plunging the Republicans into political perdition. Instead, the scandal has served chiefly to crystallize in the public’s mind much that it has come to loathe about both the Congress and the Bush administration -- above all, their unwavering focus on the politics of a problem rather than the problem itself.

It’s not just that congressional Republicans have neglected to do anything about the conduct of the war in Iraq, or diminishing medical and retirement benefits, or the 12 million undocumented immigrants living and working here. It’s also that they’ve fabricated crises if the politics seemed propitious. (Remember Terry Schiavo?) Or they’ve concocted public problems in order to go after groups that pose political problems for them. So they’ve contended that trial lawyers, who are a major funding source for Democrats, are a major reason for the high cost of medicine (which they’re not) and sought to reduce jury awards by legislative fiat. Similarly, they periodically attack unions, the linchpin of the Democratic coalition, by pointing up the perils they pose -- some of them so dire they don’t, in fact, really exist.

Consider, for instance, a quiet subcommittee hearing conducted late last month to address the looming crisis of “mixed unions” -- a term that refers not to a union’s racial composition but to the membership both of private security guards and of other workers within the same larger union. If that somehow fails to set off your alarm bells, you’re obviously not a Republican member of Congress.

On September 28th, Texas Republican Sam Johnson (who regularly introduces legislation to repeal the 16th Amendment, which established the income tax) convened his subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations to examine the threat to civilization posed by the organizing campaign that the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) was conducting among the employees of Wackenhut, the venerable security guard company. SEIU also happens to be among the most politically active unions, usually on the Democratic side, in the land.

“In the post 9/11 world,” Johnson intoned, "we cannot risk the potential for a lapse in security that could have disastrous consequences.” The hearing that followed was plainly designed to demonstrate how having security guards in a union that also has janitors and nurses as members (as SEIU does) would pose such a risk. In fact, it demonstrated quite the opposite.

Under the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, guards are indeed supposed to be in unions of their own -- a provision written to ensure that they did not side with other workers during the many strikes that characterized labor relations in the very different world of the 1940s. The act makes an exception, though, if the employer consents to a mixed union, a decision that SEIU has been pressuring Wackenhut to make. Over the past several decades, the union has organized thousands of security guards around the country; indeed, the security guards at work at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 -- the very first workers on the scene to coordinate the evacuation of the towers -- were SEIU members.

But the object of the hearing was to allow retired General David Foley, president of Wackenhut Services, to lay out the peril posed by SEIU. “There’s a possibility,” he testified, “the strategic federal facilities, including DOD, DOE, NASA and other highly sensitive complexes could have their security compromised.”

Serious stuff. But when New Jersey Congressman Rob Andrews, the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, asked Foley how things were proceeding at Fort Bragg, where the Wackenhut security guards who protect the Delta Force headquarters belong to one of those dread mixed unions, Foley responded, “Sir, that contract has run wonderfully.” Massachusetts Democrat John Tierney brought up the fact that Wackenhut’s parent company, Group 4 Securicor, has contracts with mixed unions in a range of countries, including Britain (where they guard intelligence facilities) and Israel, and wondered whether Wackenhut’s position was that American workers are uniquely disloyal. (Foley said no.)

Finally, when Michigan Democrat Dale Kildee pointed out to Foley that “you really cannot cite any example where there’s been any lessening of security or feeling of obligation of security on behalf of the members of these mixed unions,” Foley agreed. “No, sir, I can’t,” he replied.

“So are we then looking for a solution for a problem that does not exist?” Kildee wondered. Kildee also happens to be the one Democrat on the committee that oversees the congressional page program -- the guy the Republicans somehow neglected to inform about a very real problem crying out for Congress’ attention.

It’s not just that congressional Republicans have neglected to do anything about the conduct of the war in Iraq,

Like what? Fund it? or would the writer rather just cut and run. The last time the civillian government micromanaged a war was in Vietnam.

Oh, that's right, the Left thinks Iraq=Vietnam.

... or diminishing medical and retirement benefits,...

Diminishing where? People are living longer, they spend it. Otherwise, who said it is the Government's provenance to provide anything more than that which was promised in Social Security? If private corporations are paying less, that is a private problem.

...or the 12 million undocumented immigrants living and working here.

More like 30 million, and every time Republicans start to do something the outcry for the LaRaza Left is deafening. Any response is either obstructed or branded "hatespeak". Gotta get votes from somewhere as the diminishing pool of neophyte moonbats dries up. People who cannot read the Constitution in English seem like fertile ground for victimhood and the Democratic Party, even if the policies which guarantee their children will continue to speak Spanish were leftist ideas in the first place.

It’s also that they’ve fabricated crises if the politics seemed propitious. (Remember Terry Schiavo?)

Fabricated? A person being starved and dehydrated to death is a fabrication, now?

She died. The Republicans could not do a d@mned thing about that within the law. If Republicans were the evil geniuses they are claimed to be, they would have at least wasted their Munchausen moments fabricating a crisis they could fix.

Or they’ve concocted public problems in order to go after groups that pose political problems for them.

Yeah. Like those Branch Davidians at Waco...oh. that was the other guys. nevermind

So they’ve contended that trial lawyers, who are a major funding source for Democrats, are a major reason for the high cost of medicine (which they’re not)...

Whoah. Right there. If you shelled out half of your income on malpractice insurance, and the rates went up--which they have for all doctors due to 'settlements', you'd be charging more, too. Add in HIPPA and your costs go up even more. Follow the money. There is a rich lawyer buying 'personal injury lawyer' airtime somewhere on a cable channel near you.

... and sought to reduce jury awards by legislative fiat.

Reigning in the award to some semblance of a person's anticipated lifetime income might be a tad more realistic than awarding someone who scrubs toilets 40 million for a botched hangnail operation.

Wow!, what a warmup to discuss the discussion of whether the guards' union should be separate from the other employees' unions.

That is what the article is really about, hang the garbage at the beginning designed to get you to think the Republicans have been sooo wrong about sooo much, so they are wrong about this, too.

I take it none of the cited examples have had a labor dispute, either. After all many are military facilities, and (for example) I really wouldn't want to try screwing with the Delta Force guys.

Waiting for a problem to arise however, misses the point. In the event that the guards are in the same union having a labor dispute with an employer, the employer has no one guarding the gate.

The idea of a separate union is one which eliminates the conflict of interest which could otherwise arise, before it arises

Otherwise, someone had better be 'guarding the guards'.

Anything less is like waiting until your engine seizes to check the oil.

It shows the Republican Congress has wasted most of the past 11+ years with ridiculous sideshows leading nowhere.

Is that why republicans keep getting elected every two years even though the MSM tells us our time is up? What do the unwashed masses know anyway? If only they'd do what MurryMom and Myerson want them to do all would be well with the universe. Can you say elitist?

No wonder the economy has added less than 3 million new jobs over the past 6+ years

Is that why unemployment is a whopping 4.6% and why real incomes are increasing?

and the DJIA is lower now on an inflation adjusted basis than it was on 1-21-2001

Yeah, I'm sure that fact will resonate with voters since our household net worth has increased more than 30%, to a new record, in that same time frame.

even with all the tax subsidies devoted to propping up the Dow stocks.

Do you mean tax cuts? It must kill you to see people being able to keep more of their money since it takes power away from the government. I understand why the past 11 years have been so disconcerting to socialists such as yourself. It's been a lot of fun from the conservative perspective however. I thank you and your party for offering nothing as an alternative. Selling the same tired and worn out themes just hasn't yielded much in the way of returns. Thank goodness you and yours still haven't learned.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.