Thursday, June 28, 2018
Will Cuomo Subvert the Janus Decision?
Betsy McCaughey, writing in the New York Sun, says that Andrew Cuomo is already scheming to subvert the recent Janus decision, but it will be difficult because the decision requires that employees make a proactive choice to join a public union rather than it be automatic. I've already contacted some competent parties to see whether there is anything I can do to hasten the PSC's cessation of dues deduction.
Wednesday, June 27, 2018
SCOTUS Ends Public Sector Unions' Funneling Dues to Dems
The Supreme Court has ruled in the case of Janus v. AFSCME that public employees can't be coerced to pay dues to public sector unions, which lobby on behalf of a wide range of left-wing causes and funnel significant amounts of dues to Democratic candidates.
Astonishingly, some libertarians have expressed opposition to the right-to-work provision of the Taft Hartley Act (an amendment to the National Labor Relations Act). As a matter of common sense, allowing employees to opt out of unions is a major blow both to the Democratic Party and to statism. Today's landmark decision is related not to right-to-work laws but to public sector employees, who are covered by state labor laws.
A significant reduction in public employee dues money may result. The decision will hamstring the Democrats and reduce the pressure that the unions can bring to expand Medicaid, prisons, and similar big government policies.
Astonishingly, some libertarians have expressed opposition to the right-to-work provision of the Taft Hartley Act (an amendment to the National Labor Relations Act). As a matter of common sense, allowing employees to opt out of unions is a major blow both to the Democratic Party and to statism. Today's landmark decision is related not to right-to-work laws but to public sector employees, who are covered by state labor laws.
A significant reduction in public employee dues money may result. The decision will hamstring the Democrats and reduce the pressure that the unions can bring to expand Medicaid, prisons, and similar big government policies.
Tuesday, June 26, 2018
America Needs a Militia
This interview of
Edwin Vieira is instructive. His
discussion is based on his book The Sword and Sovereignty: The Constitutional
Principles of “the Militia of the Several States.” Vieira holds four degrees from Harvard, including
a Ph.D. and law degree, and as an attorney he has argued landmark labor
cases. I have had a couple of small
interactions with him. As well, Mark
Mix, the head of the National Right to Work Committee, has spoken to my
classes, and Vieira has worked directly with him.
Some of Viera's points are:
-All competent Americans belong to the Constitutional
militia. The chief exceptions involve physical and mental incapacity. The
males-only limitation, which was prevalent in the 18th century, no longer
applies, so all able-bodied and psychologically fit Americans are members of the
militia. That is true legally because the state-based militia codes are still in effect.
-John Trenchard, in the 1690s, made the case that a standing
army is incompatible with liberty. Whoever holds the sword, the ultimate force
in society, exercises sovereignty. Since the US is a self-governing republic,
the people need to hold the sword.
Delegating this authority to the federal government is equivalent to delegating
sovereignty to an elite special interest or tyrant.
-Current approaches to homeland security are incompatible
with freedom, self-governance, and the Second Amendment. A true Constitutional militia is the basis
for true homeland security. The Second
Amendment says that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of
the a state. In other words, only when the people hold military power can the
state be secure and free.
- The average person is the object of control of the current
homeland security institutions; he is not a participant in them. Hence, America
has adopted police state tactics: surveillance, propaganda, lies, indefinite
detention, and ultimately assassinations committed by the executive branch
without judicial review. These practices
are unconstitutional and incompatible with freedom.
-The current homeland security system directly contradicts
the vision of the founding fathers.
-The National Guard is Constitutional, but it is not a
militia. A militia conforms to the
historical patterns of militias that existed in the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries. Vieira says that there are 17
principles associated with a well-regulated militia. These
include universal service and all militia members' owning their own
firearms.
-The militia, although it still exists on paper, withered in
importance because of the Dick Act, also called the Militia Act of 1903 (32
Stat. 775), and The Efficiency in
Militia Act of 1903.” The Act separated
organized and unorganized militias. This distinction is unconstitutional.
-Vieira argues that the pro-freedom and pro-Second
Amendment movements have erred in
emphasizing the individual right to bear arms, which Vieira says is certainly
part of the Second Amendment, but only a small part. The main purpose of the Second Amendment is
to insist that well-regulated militias are necessary to the defense of a free
state; in diminishing the importance of the militia itself, the debate has
centered on individual rights rather than a full understanding of the founding
fathers' vision of freedom.
-Vieira argues for a renewal of legitimate militias that are
similar to the current Swiss militia system. To adhere to the Constitution,
the states would need to establish universal militia service requirements and
training, and the current federal control of homeland security would need to
end. The people should be trained to
protect homeland security, which is not a federal function.
Vieira's view is radical, more radical than any
left-oriented aim of further centralizing the state and putting more police
power in state hands. Institution of universal militia service might lessen the
obsession with higher education, which could be in part replaced by militia
training requirements for 17-year-olds.
Monday, June 25, 2018
Increasing Likelihood of Chinese Debt Crisis
One of the effects of the new tariffs is that China may default on its heavy debt load. Chinese provinces and businesses owe more than twice what the heavily indebted US federal government owes as a percentage of GDP (105% to 256%). Much of that debt is denominated in dollars, so if they cannot trade with the US, they may not be able to pay it back because they will be unable to obtain the dollars. In this article Reuters reports that a firm in Inner Mongolia has defaulted on $629 million in "off-balance sheet loans." It's unclear whether the current crackdown by the Chinese federal government on provincial debt is related to the Trump tariffs, and it's far from certain that a general credit crisis looms in China. They are moving in that direction, though.
If China defaults, that will cause financial troubles here in the US because China owes much of the money to US lenders--more than $1 trillion according to Investopedia.
If China defaults, that will cause financial troubles here in the US because China owes much of the money to US lenders--more than $1 trillion according to Investopedia.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
