Monday, April 10, 2017
Hate-filled DNC Chairman Perez Doesn't Share American Values
"Republicans don't give a s**t" about you" - DNC Chairman Tom Perez, addressing attendees at a rally
Is this what public discourse has come to? The head of one of the two major parties uses potty mouthed language in public...and then goes on to say he doesn't care what people think about what he said. Charming, isn't he...
Of course, we shouldn't be surprised...Perez was Obama's labor secretary. Anyone who worked for someone as virulently opposed to all of America's founding ideals and way of life as Barack Obama is bound to be infected with the same Alinksy inspired communist drivel.
Perez seems to be lacking when it comes to facts in general. In addition to his other "colorful" remarks, the DNC head claimed that "Donald Trump, you don't stand for our values."
Whose values? Those of Perez and the left wing loons that form the largest part of the Democrat party? Those values?
People may question how sincere President Trump is regarding his campaign platform, but the policies he ran on are America's values.
America First means having fair trade that helps keep and expand American jobs for American workers. Does Mr. Perez disagree with helping to expand job opportunities for American citizens?
America First means keeping out people who don't belong here, thereby preserving jobs for Americans. It also means to stop picking the pockets of American taxpayers who have been forced to support the cost of keeping up those who are here illegally. Mr. Perez apparently finds that not to be a value he shares with the majority of Americans, who do support Trump's policies.
America First also means keeping our people safe from those who mean us harm. Perez doesn't share that value either, as he apparently thinks the more potential jihadists flooding into the country, the better.
Actually Mr. Perez, it's a lot more than just "Republicans" or "Trump" who don't "share your values".
Donald Trump won the votes of millions of people who aren't "Republicans". They were independents, moderates, working class and yes, a lot of disaffected Democrats who like Reagan, said many years ago, "I didn't leave the Democrat Party, they left me".
While your party has sold out to a myriad of special interests and engaged in identity politics for the sake of getting votes, you left the middle class behind.
Because of that, those middle class "deplorables" find the current Democrat Party deplorable...That's why your party lost all of those rust belt states that you took for granted of all these years.
Now you have the nerve to open up that potty mouth of yours and insult the people who said enough of class warfare and the divisive Democrat Party.
You're right, we don't share "your values", because your values are rooted in a very deep anti-American hatred. Your values represent destroying jobs for Americans. Your values represent destroying the rights of Christians to worship and exercise their faith freely as outlined in the first amendment of that document that you so despise.
Your values mean a never ending cycle of poverty for the inner cities with continued high unemployment and crime in black communities, because you'd rather buy their votes with welfare schemes than empowering small businesses.
Your values mean attacking law enforcement and making those communities even less safe as a result.
I could go on, but the fact is you're right about one thing - we don't share your "values". What you call values are not values at all...they are nothing more than a not so subtle attempt to take down this country.
No Mr. Perez, we don't share your "values", and we never will.
Another poisonous bureaucracy
What happens when a reckless, unaccountable arm of the administrative state collides head-on with a Congressional committee demanding answers for constituents who have been harassed, extorted, or ignored for more than five years?
In the case of yesterday’s appearance by Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Director Richard Cordray before the House Financial Services Committee, that would be a call for his dismissal. Surrounded by a cadre of green t-shirt wearing “consumer advocates,” Cordray was greeted by Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) with this statement:
“Under Dodd-Frank, you can be removed for cause. Either way, I believe the President is clearly justified in dismissing you and I call upon the President — yet again — to do just that, and to do it immediately.”
Harsh? Maybe. Undeserved? Consider Chairman Hensarling’s succinctly stated case against the CFPB:
“[U]nder Mr. Cordray’s leadership, the CFPB has shown an utter disregard for protecting markets and has made credit more expensive and less available in many instances; this is particularly true for low and moderate income Americans. What is also clear is that under Mr. Cordray’s leadership, the CFPB has acted unlawfully, routinely denied market participants due process and abused its powers.”
If the charges against the CFPB had ended there, Chairman Hensarling would have had enough reason for calling the agency and Cordray out on the carpet. But the CFPB has been tagged with a laundry list of other shady practices, including race and sex discrimination, political favoritism, the targeting of individuals, and extravagant advertising.
Of even greater concern is the CFPB’s total lack of accountability. Created by the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB’s only oversight requirement is to appear and report twice annually before the House Financial Services and Senate Banking committees. Its funding comes from the Federal Reserve System, not Congress; therefore, it is considered “off-budget” and not constrained by the Congressional appropriations process. The CFPB is run by a single director, who does not report to the President and can only be removed for “good cause.” Recently, a federal appeals panel found this structure to be unconstitutional, calling the unelected CFPB director “the single most powerful official in Washington,” aside from the duly elected President.
This absence of agency accountability, combined with the CFPB’s unprecedented thumbing of its nose to oversight inquiries, reinforced an adversarial environment for the hearing. Knowing that their opportunities to question Mr. Cordray were few and far between, committee members gave the CFPB director their best shots. Sadly, committee members had more questions than Cordray had answers. Here are a few highlights.
In October 2016, the CFPB issued a 1,689-page rule, regulating the issuance of prepaid cards, which have garnered popularity due to rising checking account fees and minimum balance requirements. Opponents of the rule say it endangers providers of these cards and the nearly 68 million Americans who use these products. Congressional threats pressured the CFPB to delay implementation of the rule. At the hearing, Rep. Roger Williams (R-FL) stated his intention to pursue legislation introduced by him and Senator David Perdue (R-GA) to use the Congressional Review Act to rescind the rule.
Small Dollar Lending
Last summer, the CFPB proposed a far-reaching rule regulating small dollar, or “payday” lending practices. Under questioning from Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO), Cordray mentioned that the CFPB had received more than a million public comments to the rule. But he passed on answering Luetkemeyer’s questions about alternatives for small-dollar loan users if the regulations effectively ban the product. Nor did Cordray respond to questions about when to expect a final rule, despite the public comment period ending six months ago.
Under questioning from Rep. Andy Barr (R-Ky.), Cordray stated that the CFPB could not exempt credit unions from its regulations, in spite of the fact that CFPB’s burdensome rulemaking has forced credit unions on military bases to stop offering remittance products to American military personnel. Cordray made his assertion, despite the disagreement of Barr and other committee members, including Democrats.The CFPB continues to review this regulation.
Questions were also directed at Cordray regarding potential law breaking by the CFPB during the issuance of indirect auto lending regulations and rules adversely affecting the manufactured housing industry. Throughout the hearing, Cordray hemmed, hawed, and otherwise neglected to give answers.
Congress is unlikely to put up much longer with the dilatory tactics of the CFPB to explain its heavy-handed and abusive “consumer protection” tactics. Last year, Chairman Hensarling offered “The Financial CHOICE Act,” which would overhaul the Dodd-Frank Act, severely rein in the CFPB, and build in greater accountability safeguards for the agency and its director. With Hensarling preparingto introduce a 2.0 version of the Financial CHOICE Act this year and the possibility that President Trump could remove Cordray from his perch of power, the director may have to come up with some answers — while he still can.
She Never Joined a Union. But Union Fees Got Deducted From Her Paycheck
ST. PAUL, Minn.—Patricia Johansen has worked as a home caregiver for her two special-needs grandchildren for about 10 years.
Since she never agreed to join the union that represents such Medicaid-eligible caregivers in Minnesota, Johansen was surprised to discover that union dues had been deducted from her benefit check for about four months.
In an affidavit, the Fergus Falls resident says she is convinced the union, SEIU Healthcare Minnesota, forged her signature so it could start deducting the dues.
Johansen’s story is one reason a state lawmaker is scheduling a hearing where she expects the head of the state’s labor relations agency, a political appointee of Gov. Mark Dayton, to explain how SEIU Healthcare Minnesota won a unionization election—and why it should continue to represent the home caregivers.
State Rep. Marion O’Neill, chairman of the Subcommittee on Employee Relations, told The Daily Signal that she wants the Dayton appointee to appear before the joint panel of the Minnesota House and Senate to address evidence of “fraudulent signatures, nonexistent voters, and ballot tampering” in a 2014 unionization election.
Johansen’s experience is one such discrepancy.
“We are going to have a full, robust hearing on how this process happened and have the personal care assistants come forward to talk about their experiences, and to talk about how it came to be that union dues were taken out of their paycheck without their knowledge or permission,” O’Neill, a Republican from Buffalo, said in an interview with The Daily Signal.
The SEIU affiliate collects $4 million to $5 million in annual dues from the Medicaid benefits paid to what Minnesota calls personal care assistants, a lawyer representing them estimates.
The state government considers residents who care for chronically ill or disabled relatives at home to be personal care assistants who are able to receive Medicaid benefits for providing that care.
As The Daily Signal previously reported, a relatively small number of Minnesota’s 27,000 eligible personal care assistants voted in favor of an affiliate of Service Employees International Union, or SEIU, becoming their representative in collective bargaining.
Now personal care assistants such as Johansen have banded together in an effort to set a new election to decertify SEIU Healthcare Minnesota, in part because of what their lawyers describe as questionable tactics and the evidence of fraud.
The Minnesota Bureau of Mediation Services, a state agency that describes itself as promoting “stable and constructive labor-management relations,” has denied the caregivers’ petition for a new election.
O’Neill wants Commissioner Josh Tilsen, appointed in 2011 by Dayton, a Democrat, to lead the bureau, to explain its pro-SEIU actions so far.
For more blog postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, and Paralipomena (Occasionally updated), a Coral reef compendium and an IQ compendium. (Both updated as news items come in). GUN WATCH is now mainly put together by Dean Weingarten. I also put up occasional updates on my Personal blog and each day I gather together my most substantial current writings on THE PSYCHOLOGIST.
Email me here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here (Academic) or here (Pictorial) or here (Personal)
Posted by JR at 12:23 AM