The Inevitable New The Inevitable Trump Mocking Thread
- Thread starter Nonononono
- Start date
Sheriff Joe
DA
[URL='https://www.americanthinker.com/static/comments_faqs.html'][URL='https://www.americanthinker.com/static/contact_information.html'][URL='https://www.americanthinker.com/static/donate_to_american_thinker.html'] [/URL][/URL][/URL]
July 11, 2018
Public-Sector Unions and Gifts of Public Funds
By Deborah J. La Fetra
The Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. AFSCME prohibits states from allowing public employee unions to dock non-union members’ wages to support collective bargaining and other political activities.
The ink had barely dried on that decision before experts began proposing workarounds. For example, First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh and others suggest that states could reduce public employee salaries by the amount needed by the union to engage in collective bargaining, and then allocate that amount of public funds directly to the union.
On its face, this proposal seems plausible, because courts offer taxpayers little recourse in making First Amendment free speech challenges to public expenditures.
But there’s a big problem: all state constitutions contain a Gift Clause that prohibits the government from making a gift of public funds to a private organization. Originally these clauses were added to prevent states from gifting public lands to railroads, but recently taxpayers have made Gift Clause challenges to state funds provided to public employee unions.
For example, many state and local governments agree to union collective bargaining agreements that give certain employees “release time” -- basically, excusing them from their normal duties so they can spend their days doing union work. In Rozenblit v. Jersey City Education Association, a case pending in the New Jersey appellate court challenges a release time provision that pays classroom teacher salaries and benefits to the teachers’ union president and vice president while they spend every working hour for the union.
Release time challenges brought under Gift Clause provisions have yet to succeed. The Arizona Supreme Court in Cheatham v. DiCiccio (2016) narrowly rejected a claim brought by taxpayers who objected to paying for six full-time and 35 part-time employees of the Phoenix police department who worked for the benefit of the union -- including lobbying activities. But the decision was 3-2, and the lower appellate court had ruled in favor of the taxpayers, suggesting this argument may be gaining traction among judges.
Public employee unions in California face a particularly high hurdle because, in addition to the state constitution’s Gift Clause, a state statute prohibits the “waste of public funds.” In 1990, the Supreme Court held in Keller v. State Bar of California that attorney members of a mandatory bar association could not be forced to subsidize the State Bar’s political and ideological activities. To ensure compliance with that ruling, Ventura County District Attorney Michael Bradbury sued the Bar to assert his ability to withhold those political subsidies when he used public funds to pay the bar dues for the attorneys in his office.
Bradbury invoked a California law that allows taxpayers to challenge any “waste of public funds” and argued that public employers could not pay for the Bar’s political activities or they would risk lawsuits under that law. In County of Ventura v. State Bar of California, an appellate court agreed, equating payments to support Bar politicking to a “direct contribution by the agency, on its employee’s behalf, to a political party or candidate or an ideological organization,” which “would be worse than totally unnecessary or useless or without public benefit -- it would be a wholly inappropriate encroachment by government into the political arena, and thus a waste of public funds.” The court acknowledged that public employees can make political contributions as they choose, “but government should have no part of it.”
This bring us to Janus’s holding that there’s no constitutional distinction between “political and ideological” union activities and activities related to collective bargaining -- all involve matters of substantial public concern and all are therefore inherently political. As a result, the Ventura decision would apply, rendering any direct allocation of taxpayer funds to the union’s collective bargaining an illegal waste of public funds.
Rather than seeking a legislative end-run around public workers’ First Amendment rights, public sector unions should turn their focus inward and find ways to increase their value to workers, who would then choose to join and support the union voluntarily. This not only protects, but enhances, all workers’ speech rights.
When Jersey City taxpayers sued, arguing that the release time was an unconstitutional gift of public funds to the teachers’ union, the trial court disagreed on the theory that the union officials engaged in “peacemaking” activities (dealing with grievances and such) that justified the use of taxpayer funds. Yet shortly after the lower court decision, teachers in this very same union walked out on an illegal strike. Peacemaking, indeed!
Release time challenges brought under Gift Clause provisions have yet to succeed. The Arizona Supreme Court in Cheatham v. DiCiccio (2016) narrowly rejected a claim brought by taxpayers who objected to paying for six full-time and 35 part-time employees of the Phoenix police department who worked for the benefit of the union -- including lobbying activities. But the decision was 3-2, and the lower appellate court had ruled in favor of the taxpayers, suggesting this argument may be gaining traction among judges.
That's pretty funny. T had no complaint about drug prices until Pfizer raised the price of Viagra.
Sheriff Joe
DA
Helped both of you then.
Is your wife still hiding them?
Hüsker Dü
DA
Does that mean they actually started making Trump stuff in America?
Hüsker Dü
DA
. . . and where is your Ivanka outrage?Elon Musk Announces China Tesla Plant After Paying Lip Service to Trump’s Trade Campaign
159EmailGoogle+Twitter
Peter Sparks/AFP/Getty, Lintao Zhang/Getty Images for IAAF
11 Jul 20181,437
Tesla announced Tuesday the embattled electric car company plans to build a factory in Shanghai, dramatically increasing its notoriously constrained production capacity.
CEO Elon Musk said the plant, whose plans have reportedly been in the works for a year, would eventually have an annual production capacity of 500,000 cars, adding that he hoped it would be “completed very soon.”
A joint announcement released by Shanghai’s government said a preliminary agreement had been signed to build the plant in the commercial hub’s Lingang district.“Shanghai will be the location for the first Gigafactory outside the United States,” said Musk. “It will be a state-of-the-art vehicle factory and a role model for sustainability. We hope it will be completed very soon.”
The announcement has raised questions about how the new facility will be paid for. Tesla benefits from millions in U.S. government subsidies and has been burning through billions of dollars as it has struggled to raise the rate of production of its more “affordable” Model 3 car. At the end of the first quarter, the company had just $2.7 billion of cash on its balance sheet.
According to reports, Tesla’s new factory would be the first in China’s to be wholly owned by a non-Chinese carmaker. The U.S. has criticized China for requiring foreign manufacturers to partner with domestic Chinese companies, a practice the U.S. says facilitates theft of U.S. intellectual property and technology.
But that may not be enough to prevent China from stealing Tesla technology.
“On Tuesday, Tesla also signed an electric vehicle investment agreement with Shanghai’s Lingang Management Committee, the Lingang Area Development Administration and the Lingang Group. A development and innovation center will also be set up. In theory, this is where a technology transfer could happen, even without a joint venture company,” Bloomberg columnist Anjani Trevedi pointed out. “That would defeat the purpose of having a wholly owned enterprise.”
It would take approximately two years before production begins and then up to three more years before it reaches full production. “Tesla is deeply committed to the Chinese market, and we look forward to building even more cars for our customers here,” a spokesperson for the car company said. “Today’s announcement will not impact our US manufacturing operations, which continue to grow.”
Tesla last month told shareholders that it was working with officials in Shanghai on establishing the plant, which would build electric cars and battery packs.
At the time, Musk claimed the electric carmaker was being reorganized to speed up production of Model 3 vehicles — a key to profitability at the fast-growing firm.
Expectations of an impending announcement spiked following reports Musk would travel to Shanghai on Tuesday, followed by a visit to Beijing. The joint announcement said “Tesla plans to construct and operate a wholly-owned” factory in Shanghai. China typically requires that foreign automakers set up joint ventures with Chinese firms when establishing auto manufacturing plants.
Tesla has been looking to expand into global markets, plans that faced a potential threat from intensifying trade frictions and President Donald Trump’s push to keep manufacturing jobs at home.
In keeping with his campaign promise to crack down on Beijing’s unfair trade practices, the United States Friday on pulled the trigger on 25 percent duties on roughly $34 billion in Chinese machinery, electronics and high-tech equipment, including autos, computer hard drives and LEDs. President Trump has for years slammed what he describes as Beijing’s underhanded economic treatment of the United States, with the trade deficit in goods with China ballooning to a record $375.2 billion last year. The move triggered immediate and similar retaliatory tariffs by China — perhaps heightening Tesla’s urgency in reaching a deal with Shanghai.
Tesla’s announcement to build a Chinese manufacturing plant comes mere days after Musk inserted himself into the rescue effort for 12 boys and their soccer coach trapped inside a south Thailand cave. Musk flew to Chiang Rai and offered various solutions to extract those inside the cave — but none were used. The billionaire even constructed a miniature “submarine” equipped with oxygen tanks and the ability to shuttle one person
Sheriff Joe
DA
That's the problem.It has never come up.
Sheriff Joe
DA
She is a citizen.
Sheriff Joe
DA
US Pays 22.1% of NATO Budget; Germany 14.7%; 13 Allies Pay ...
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/us-pays...
The national contributions go towards NATO’s military costs, civilian costs and the NATO Security Investment Program (NSIP), which deals with investment in command and control systems etc.
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/us-pays...
The national contributions go towards NATO’s military costs, civilian costs and the NATO Security Investment Program (NSIP), which deals with investment in command and control systems etc.
All government unions need to be abolished.
July 11, 2018
Public-Sector Unions and Gifts of Public Funds
By Deborah J. La Fetra
The Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. AFSCME prohibits states from allowing public employee unions to dock non-union members’ wages to support collective bargaining and other political activities.
The ink had barely dried on that decision before experts began proposing workarounds. For example, First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh and others suggest that states could reduce public employee salaries by the amount needed by the union to engage in collective bargaining, and then allocate that amount of public funds directly to the union.
On its face, this proposal seems plausible, because courts offer taxpayers little recourse in making First Amendment free speech challenges to public expenditures.
But there’s a big problem: all state constitutions contain a Gift Clause that prohibits the government from making a gift of public funds to a private organization. Originally these clauses were added to prevent states from gifting public lands to railroads, but recently taxpayers have made Gift Clause challenges to state funds provided to public employee unions.
For example, many state and local governments agree to union collective bargaining agreements that give certain employees “release time” -- basically, excusing them from their normal duties so they can spend their days doing union work. In Rozenblit v. Jersey City Education Association, a case pending in the New Jersey appellate court challenges a release time provision that pays classroom teacher salaries and benefits to the teachers’ union president and vice president while they spend every working hour for the union.
When Jersey City taxpayers sued, arguing that the release time was an unconstitutional gift of public funds to the teachers’ union, the trial court disagreed on the theory that the union officials engaged in “peacemaking” activities (dealing with grievances and such) that justified the use of taxpayer funds. Yet shortly after the lower court decision, teachers in this very same union walked out on an illegal strike. Peacemaking, indeed!
Release time challenges brought under Gift Clause provisions have yet to succeed. The Arizona Supreme Court in Cheatham v. DiCiccio (2016) narrowly rejected a claim brought by taxpayers who objected to paying for six full-time and 35 part-time employees of the Phoenix police department who worked for the benefit of the union -- including lobbying activities. But the decision was 3-2, and the lower appellate court had ruled in favor of the taxpayers, suggesting this argument may be gaining traction among judges.
Public employee unions in California face a particularly high hurdle because, in addition to the state constitution’s Gift Clause, a state statute prohibits the “waste of public funds.” In 1990, the Supreme Court held in Keller v. State Bar of California that attorney members of a mandatory bar association could not be forced to subsidize the State Bar’s political and ideological activities. To ensure compliance with that ruling, Ventura County District Attorney Michael Bradbury sued the Bar to assert his ability to withhold those political subsidies when he used public funds to pay the bar dues for the attorneys in his office.
Bradbury invoked a California law that allows taxpayers to challenge any “waste of public funds” and argued that public employers could not pay for the Bar’s political activities or they would risk lawsuits under that law. In County of Ventura v. State Bar of California, an appellate court agreed, equating payments to support Bar politicking to a “direct contribution by the agency, on its employee’s behalf, to a political party or candidate or an ideological organization,” which “would be worse than totally unnecessary or useless or without public benefit -- it would be a wholly inappropriate encroachment by government into the political arena, and thus a waste of public funds.” The court acknowledged that public employees can make political contributions as they choose, “but government should have no part of it.”
This bring us to Janus’s holding that there’s no constitutional distinction between “political and ideological” union activities and activities related to collective bargaining -- all involve matters of substantial public concern and all are therefore inherently political. As a result, the Ventura decision would apply, rendering any direct allocation of taxpayer funds to the union’s collective bargaining an illegal waste of public funds.
Rather than seeking a legislative end-run around public workers’ First Amendment rights, public sector unions should turn their focus inward and find ways to increase their value to workers, who would then choose to join and support the union voluntarily. This not only protects, but enhances, all workers’ speech rights.
When Jersey City taxpayers sued, arguing that the release time was an unconstitutional gift of public funds to the teachers’ union, the trial court disagreed on the theory that the union officials engaged in “peacemaking” activities (dealing with grievances and such) that justified the use of taxpayer funds. Yet shortly after the lower court decision, teachers in this very same union walked out on an illegal strike. Peacemaking, indeed!
Release time challenges brought under Gift Clause provisions have yet to succeed. The Arizona Supreme Court in Cheatham v. DiCiccio (2016) narrowly rejected a claim brought by taxpayers who objected to paying for six full-time and 35 part-time employees of the Phoenix police department who worked for the benefit of the union -- including lobbying activities. But the decision was 3-2, and the lower appellate court had ruled in favor of the taxpayers, suggesting this argument may be gaining traction among judges.
They are a cancer on our republic.
Hüsker Dü
DA
Business is business, emoluments are emoluments.
Sheriff Joe
DA
Fake news.
Sheriff Joe
DA
Hmmmm, they don't seem very proud.
Left-Wing AntiFa Terrorists ‘Freaking Out’ over Proposed ‘Unmasking’ Law
The left-wing terrorist organization that calls itself Antifa is “freaking out” over a proposed law that would enhance penalties for anyone who “injures, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates any person” while wearing a disguise or mask.
Left-Wing AntiFa Terrorists ‘Freaking Out’ over Proposed ‘Unmasking’ Law
The left-wing terrorist organization that calls itself Antifa is “freaking out” over a proposed law that would enhance penalties for anyone who “injures, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates any person” while wearing a disguise or mask.
Hüsker Dü
DA
"Antifa has been allowed to run rampant, committing countless acts of violence against everyday, peaceful supporters of President Donald Trump.Hmmmm, they don't seem very proud.
Left-Wing AntiFa Terrorists ‘Freaking Out’ over Proposed ‘Unmasking’ Law
The left-wing terrorist organization that calls itself Antifa is “freaking out” over a proposed law that would enhance penalties for anyone who “injures, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates any person” while wearing a disguise or mask.
Anita has also been responsible for untold amounts of vandalism and property damage, and targets the alt-right."
Oh those poor put upon white nationalist, poor babies are being picked on by people disgusted by the mere presence of the "alt-right" and the support Breitbart and people like lil joe and the plumber give them.
That is one of the most disgusting displays of blatant support for hate groups I've ever read . . . . and the lemmings like lil joe eat it up. No wonder they wear masks, it's obvious there is institutional support for these white nationalist pieces of shit. I'm sure Sessions wouldn't think twice about distributing photos of the antifa group to his fellow fascist. Fucking disgusting that this is can occur in America now with the blessings of congressmen and those from the executive branch.
Sheriff Joe
DA
You ok?
I just posted about the violent lefty antifa group who is obviously ashamed of themselves and you attack me and the plumber.