Politics Plus

It did not take long for there to be  a legal challenge to Barack Obama’s recess appointments.  As I anticipated, the challenge comes from a business front group, rather than from the Republican Party, as Republicans have no standing to sue over them.  The manner in which the challenge has developed could nor demonstrate more clearly why the appointments were so necessary.

President Barack Obama’s recess appointment of three members to the National Labor Relations Board was challenged in court by the National Federation of Independent Business, which claims a constitutional violation.

The filing yesterday may be the first legal action targeting the White House appointments made without Senate confirmation on Jan. 4 during a brief congressional break. It was made as part of an existing lawsuit in federal court in Washington over a new NLRB rule that requires employers to notify workers of their rights to form a union.

Without a legal quorum, the board has no authority to enforce the rule, the NFIB, which was joined by four other groups and companies in the filing, argued.

“The grounds for the motion are that very significant events have transpired since the filing of the complaints in this case, particularly within the last ten days,” according to the filing. “The president purported to appoint the new members without the advice and consent of the Senate.”… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Bloomberg>

Here it is in a nutshell.  The NLRB needs a quorum to enforce its rules, such as the rule that requires employers to notify employees on their right to form a union.  Anti-union employers want to disobey those rules, thus depriving workers of their just rights.  To enable such employers to get away with breaking the law, Senate Republicans hobbled the NLRB by refusing to confirm anyone appointed to the boards, thus preventing an NLRB quorum.  Obama’s recess appointments to fill the vacancies on the NLRB created the quorum necessary for the NLRB to enforce the law.

Any vote that does not help keep Republicans out of office is a vote against workers rights.

Yesterday Barack Obama proposed that Congress give him the authority to merge six separate agencies related to commerce, in  move sure to confound Republicans.  Although nobody will be fired, this will eliminate 1,000 federal jobs by attrition, save $3 billion, eliminate duplication of effort, and provide one-stop access for business.  In theory, this should be a Republican wet dream, except for one thing.  They hate Barack Obama more than they like their own policies.

President Obama will ask Congress on Friday for the power to consolidate parts of the federal government, proposing a first step of combining several trade- and commerce-related agencies under a plan that the White House said could eliminate more than 1,000 jobs and save $3 billion over 10 years.

A senior administration official said the White House proposal is Obama’s follow-through on his promise during last year’s State of the Union address to create a leaner, more efficient bureaucracy.

But the move also comes at a politically opportune moment, as the president heads into his re-election campaign and aims to blunt Republican criticism that his policies have stunted business growth and bloated the federal budget at a time of ballooning debt…

Congressional Republicans scoffed at the relatively small scale of Obama’s proposal, saying many more cutbacks are needed to tame the deficit.

…Obama will propose combining the functions and staff of six trade- and commerce-related agencies and offices: the Small Business Administration; the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative; the Export-Import Bank; the Overseas Private Investment Corporation; and the Trade and Development Agency. The move would ease the regulatory burden on businesses and save money by eliminating duplicative functions such as human resources, the White House official said… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Washington Post>

Here is the video of Obama’s speech.

Rachel Maddow covers this and expands it into other areas, in which Republicans are contradicting themselves, just to oppose Obama.  In addition, she interviews Ezra Klein.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

What hypocrites Republicans are!

My best estimate is that, since this is good for America, Republicans will hold it hostage and attempt to negotiate something bad for America, such as piling more hardship on the poor,  in return.

Ron Paul is making it a point to repeat that Americans need liberty, free from interference from the big Nanny State.  That may be reasonable, except for one thing.  Ron Paul is lying, because he has no qualms about having the Big Brother state take the liberty from and trampling the rights of individual Americans.

When GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul was asked today about Tuesday’s federal court ruling upholding an aggressive new sonogram law in his home state of Texas, the congressman said the requirement that women seeking an abortion first get a sonogram “should always have been a Texas state position.’’

“Like Roe v Wade should never have been heard in the Supreme Court,” he said after a midday speech and rally at the Columbia Metropolitan Airport at the Eagle Aviation Building .

Paul, who opposes abortion rights, has consistently railed against intrusive Big Brother government when it comes to other issues, especially health care reform. But it’s hard to imagine anything more literally invasive than a required sonogram.

In fact, Dr. Paul’s colleagues in the Texas Medical Association came out against the law last year, saying it “not only sets a dangerous precedent of legislation prescribing the details of the practice of medicine, but it also clearly mandates that physicians practice in a manner inconsistent with medical ethics.”… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Washington Post>

It should come as no surprise to anyone that Ron Paul has lied about liberty.  After all, he is a Republican.  Furthermore, he is the same Republican bigot who wrote racist articles, defended their content three years after writing them, and recently said he never knew about them until ten years after writing them.  He is not fit to hold public office.