Connect with us

Opinion

Biden plan spends more building unions than roads, bridges

Published

on

Biden plan spends more building unions than roads, bridges

President Joe Biden — and his media allies — are touting his latest $2 trillion spending push as a plan to rebuild America’s crumbling infrastructure. But the single-biggest line item has nothing to do with roads or bridges or even green-energy plants: It’s a ploy to vastly enlarge and unionize the ranks of home health-care aides.

That’s millions of low-skilled workers getting far more than now, so they can pay hefty dues to hard-left unions such as the Service Employees International Union, or SEIU, which can use that windfall to elect more left-wing Democrats.

Biden’s plan, unveiled in Pittsburgh last week, calls for $400 billion over eight years (a full fifth of the $2 trillion total) to create jobs and raise wages for these workers — while ensuring that they unionize.

He does it with another expansion of Medicaid, specifically its funding of caregivers for the elderly and people with disabilities. In the last year with available data, 2018, the feds spent $71 billion on home care via Medicaid. Biden’s “COVID relief” law already boosted the federal matching rate for state spending on such services by 10 percent for a year. Now he’d add $50 billion a year.

And Medicaid is an entitlement program: Such spending (which is already the central driver of the nation’s vast annual budget deficits) is immune from normal fiscal restraints. As long as “need” grows, so does the spending, automatically, with no new vote in Congress to expand it.

Biden’s largesse comes with a big string: A White House fact sheet says the money will be tied to care workers getting “the ability to collectively bargain.” In other words, states will have to let them unionize — and Biden’s labor allies will see that it happens. (Overall, the fact sheet on the plan mentions unions 24 times, specifically vowing the $2 trillion in outlays will “promote union organizing and collective bargaining.”)

The home-care proposal “was incorporated in part due to a push by the SEIU, which represents close to 1 million caretakers and lobbied White House officials for its inclusion,” The Washington Post reports. The White House also consulted labor activist Ai-jen Poo, director of the National Domestic Workers Alliance. The Nation notes Biden’s plan “adopts the language of advocates” — for example, by calling it “care infrastructure.”

The SEIU, which endorsed Biden for president, noted on its 2020-election Web site that a Biden-Harris administration would “put 3 million Americans to work in new care and education jobs.” Biden’s own campaign site said he’d spend $450 billion on home-care workers, expanding “the caregiving and community health workforce by roughly 1.5 million jobs.”

That’s 1.5 million to 3 million (counting his education boost, which will likely add unionized pre-K staffers) newly unionized workers under the umbrella of unions that form a key part of the Democratic hard left. It’s unions like these that have helped ensure that AOC-style progressives dominate the New York state Legislature and the Big Apple’s City Council.

Naturally, a coalition that includes the SEIU and the National Domestic Workers Alliance will spend $20 million advertising and advocating Biden’s proposal. Then they’ll spend even more ensuring that the new workers, and the hundreds of thousands who now aren’t unionized, sign up with the SEIU or a similar union. And with Biden’s nominees dominating the National Labor Relations Board, none of those workers will have a choice.

That’s just a small amount compared with the dues the unions will collect if Biden gets his way — money the president’s team expects will help turn more states into Democratic strongholds like New York, California and Illinois, ensuring permanent Democratic control of Congress and the White House, and a never-ending stream of new schemes like this.

Biden’s not joking when he says he aims to transform the nation — he’s just not leveling with the voters about what that transformation really means.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

COVID can’t unfairly let pols treat believers like second-class citizens

Published

on

COVID can’t unfairly let pols treat believers like second-class citizens

When Christians met in each other’s homes for prayer or Bible study, they had to be careful. Such gatherings were illegal, and the organizers never knew who might inform the authorities.

Although that sounds like a scene from the Soviet Union, it in fact describes the situation in California under COVID-19 regulations that the Supreme Court blocked last Friday. By issuing an injunction against Gov. Gavin Newsom’s restrictions, the Supremes reaffirmed that politicians must comply with the Constitution when they decide how to deal with a pandemic.

The main rule at issue in this case limited at-home religious gatherings, whether inside or outside, to people from no more than three households. If two people from different households joined a host for a prayer meeting or Bible study session, for example, no one else was allowed to come.

As the petitioners noted, that limit “does not permit an individual to gather with others in her own backyard to study the Bible, pray or worship with members of more than two other households, all of which are common (and deeply important) practices of millions of contemporary Christians in the United States.” Meanwhile, California was allowing much larger groups to gather in other settings: inside stores, barbershops, nail salons, tattoo parlors, movie studios and (in some counties) restaurants, for example — or outdoors at restaurants, wineries, gyms, movie theaters, zoos, museums, sporting events, concerts, political demonstrations, weddings and funerals.

The upshot was that Californians could “sit for a haircut with 10 other people in a barbershop, eat in a half-full restaurant (with members of 20 different families) or ride with 15 other people on a city bus.” But they were not allowed to “host three people from different households for a Bible study indoors or in their backyards.”

Justice Elena Kagan, who objected to the Supreme Court’s injunction in a dissent joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, argued that the Golden State’s regulations did not implicate the First Amendment to the US Constitution, because they were neutral and generally applicable. The state “has adopted a blanket restriction on at-home gatherings of all kinds, religious and secular alike,” she noted.

The petitioners argued that Newsom’s rules nevertheless amounted to “a subtle but unmistakable religious gerrymander.” Five justices were inclined to agree, concluding that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail in their claim that the restrictions on private religious meetings violated the First Amendment.

This isn’t the first time that the high court has called attention to the impact of COVID-19 control measures on religious freedom. It blocked enforcement of Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s onerous restrictions on houses of worship in New York last November, vacated a decision upholding Colorado’s limits on religious services in December and reached similar conclusions in four cases involving state and local regulations in California two months later.

By now, the court said, it should be clear that public-health regulations are subject to strict scrutiny “whenever they treat any comparable secular activity more favorably than religious exercise,” and that the relevant consideration is “the risks various activities pose, not the reasons why people gather.” To pass strict scrutiny, a state has to “show that measures less restrictive of the First Amendment activity” — such as face masks, physical distancing and more generous group limits — “could not address its interest in reducing the spread of COVID.”

Kagan is certainly right, based on the court’s pre-pandemic precedents, that disease-control measures can be constitutional even if they incidentally impinge on religious freedom. But Kagan, Breyer and Sotomayor always seem willing to accept politicians’ public-health judgments, even when they are scientifically dubious, change in the midst of litigation or result in policies that privilege politically influential industries or explicitly treat religious gatherings as a disfavored category.

At this point, it isn’t clear that Kagan and her allies on the high court can imagine any disease-control policy that would violate the Free Exercise Clause, provided it was presented as necessary for the protection of public health, as such policies always are.

Twitter: @JacobSullum

Continue Reading

Opinion

The mindless mask regime might be here to stay, unless YOU resist it

Published

on

The mindless mask regime might be here to stay, unless YOU resist it

The masks might be forever. We have to come to terms with the fact that a large chunk of the US population will be wearing masks in public for years, maybe even decades to come.

Even if we unquestionably achieve herd immunity, even if 100 percent of the population is vaccinated, even if COVID cases nationwide drop to zero and even if the coronavirus by some miracle learns to communicate in a human language and tells us, forthrightly, “Well, you beat me,” some Americans, especially those in blue metropolises, will continue to cover their faces — and shame you for not going along.

It’s a massively depressing thought.

For more than a year, public-health authorities have urged us to put up with temporary inconveniences, always with the soothing promise that it will be only a little while longer. But recently, NPR cheerfully reported about the growing number of people who see masks as a source of Permanent and Absolute Safety.

Flu and other respiratory illnesses are down this year owing to our ubiquitous face coverings, our state-run news agency tells us, so maybe we should just keep wearing them. Meanwhile, the rapper Will.i.am and Honeywell have introduced a super-duper smart mask that runs $300. The “Xupermask” allows the wearer to chat on the phone or listen to some dulcet music while signaling her virtue.

None of this should give anyone the slightest bit of confidence that the days of ubiquitous mask wearing will soon be behind us.

Yes, masks reduce the transmission of airborne illnesses. You know what else reduces transmission? Staying in a protective plastic bubble in your living room and never venturing into the dirty, filthy, infectious outdoors. And even if it makes sense to wear a mask in tight indoor quarters, it is utterly unscientific and, yes, moronic to wear them outside, and yet blue-state denizens insist.

Sigh. The mask fanatics — some of whom hold advanced degrees that make them no wiser as human beings — can’t be reasoned with.

The awkward moments with double-masked parents at kids’ birthday parties, the ridiculous restaurant rituals, the seething public glares from masked to maskless on our streets — all will continue. They will say it’s but a small price to pay for Health Most Holy and Sacred Safety. Huge swaths of Americans will literally be lost to our sight and recognition.

It’s a sinister phenomenon that runs radically counter to our cultural history.

Many cultures embrace face covering. Western culture, however, isn’t among them. Western culture revels in the human face and form. That is why “Westernization” is so often associated with immodesty in the East (often unfairly, for celebrating the face needn’t entail baring the backside or plunging décolletage).

A future in which millions hide behind protective masks as they wander around is a steep departure from the Western ideal, rooted in both the Greco-Roman celebration of the human form and the Genesis teaching that God formed man and woman in his image.

The typical conservative reaction — to blame government — doesn’t quite apply here. It’s mainly cultural forces that promote masking in needless places. And private actors have lined up eagerly, with Big Tech actively suppressing science that questions the efficacy of mask-wearing.

Yet we still can resist the phenomenon. We can fight against this faceless future with our own refusals. We can proudly display our lipstick, smile at a passerby and even be understood clearly when we speak. Put simply, we can go back to a normal past, when people’s faces brightened our day instead of terrifying us.

Of course, there is some marginal safety upside to wearing a mask; there always has been. But in the more sensible recent past, most people realized that such small protection wasn’t worth hiding our faces night and day.

We should treat with compassion our fellow citizens who sheepishly embrace the forever-mask regime — but not too much compassion. Those of us who value things like basic human interaction shouldn’t feel shy about mocking those who cling to the facial security blankets or who don high-tech, celebrity-endorsed visage eviscerators. It’s OK to acknowledge that a world without faces isn’t one we want to inhabit.

So let’s bare our faces to the nice, fresh air, pucker and smirk at every available opportunity. Don’t be daunted by the masked masses. Plenty of us want to see your face.

Twitter: @BlueBoxDave

Continue Reading

Opinion

Post-Wright mayhem helps no one — yet cynical pols fan the flames anyway

Published

on

Post-Wright mayhem helps no one — yet cynical pols fan the flames anyway

Outrage at the death of Daunte Wright is warranted, but rioting and looting only make everything worse — as do fan-the-flames comments from cynical politicians.

Video footage strongly suggests the shooting was accidental: The Brooklyn Center officer, Kim Potter (who stepped down Tuesday “in the best interest of the community”), thought she was firing her Taser instead of her gun as Wright resisted arrest.

It’s all horrible: Wright was just 20. Yet the mayhem that followed was terrible, too. Within hours, hundreds of “protesters” gathered. Some threw bricks and cans at cops, jumped on their vehicles and even “shot up” a police station, as the chaos spread to Minneapolis and beyond. The ensuing looting rampage all but destroyed several businesses, including a Foot Locker, a T-Mobile and a men’s clothing store.

This isn’t protest, it’s jumping on an excuse to run amok. (Same in Portland, where the folks who’ve been doing rolling riots for months now used the excuse to shoot fireworks and other objects at cops, smash windows and try to set a dumpster on fire.)

This, when local authorities are rushing to do the right thing: conduct a full investigation, figure out what went wrong and take steps to prevent a recurrence. Even if Potter were a racist murderer — and there’s zero sign of that — burning everything down only hurts the community.

Yet politicians holding top jobs couldn’t resist fueling the fire. As news of the shooting broke, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz immediately tweeted about “another life of a Black man taken by law enforcement.” New York’s scandal-swamped Gov. Andrew Cuomo tweeted, “We cannot stand by and watch as a flawed system again and again devalues the lives of Black men & women” — essentially egging on the violence.

Most cynical were “Squad” members Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.): Wright’s death “wasn’t an accident” but “government-funded murder,” Tlaib insisted. “From slave patrols to traffic stops,” Pressley said.

Their prescription? “No more policing, incarceration and militarization,” declared Tlaib. Lunacy: Minority communities resent crime as much as any other, if not more so. In a Gallup survey last year, more than 80 percent of blacks and Hispanics nationwide said they want at least as much, or even more, policing in their neighborhoods. So why does the Squad want to deny them the protection they seek — and need?

Because their shtick is to play to radicals (mostly white ones) nationwide. Riots and looting that set back minority neighborhoods are just the necessary price for forwarding . . . their own personal ambitions.

Continue Reading

Trending