New Bill Would Guarantee Secret Ballot For Workers

Republicans are pushing for legislation that could fundamentally shift American labor law away from hereditary and coercive unionism.

On Monday, GOP lawmakers in the house and Senate introduced the Employee Rights Act, a bill that would guarantee secret ballot union elections. It also allows workers to hold regular re-certification to see whether unions still enjoy support from members, a stark change from the status quo in which unions inherit members unless employees successfully follow onerous decertification procedures.

Rep. Tom Price (R., Ga.) introduced the legislation in Congress with the hope that it will return the focus of labor law to individual workers, rather than businesses and unions.

“Whether it be the right to secret ballots on union elections, an opt-in requirement for union dues be used for political donations, or protection of union coercion or threats – this bill puts the power back to the individual to allow them to use their own conscience in workplace decisions,” Price said at a Monday press conference.

Workers are not always given the opportunity to take an up-or-down vote on unionization. Karen Cox, an employee at Americold Logistics in Rochelle, Ill., has been fighting to decertify the Retailers Union since it used card check procedure to unionize her and about 100 co-workers. She has since petitioned the National Labor Relations Board, which oversees union elections, with about 40 other colleagues for a secret ballot election. The agency denied two of those efforts before granting an election. A union appeal led local NLRB officials to throw out the ballots before releasing the result, according to Cox.

“We all thought we were going to have an election, make an informed decision for or against, but they snuck their way in and bypassed a secret ballot election,” she said.  “I totally believe they [the NLRB] were working in the union’s interest over workers.”

Cox said politicians should understand that the status quo of labor relations has drifted away from the worker.

“I think it’s important for [lawmakers] to know that I’m just exercising my rights, and I still face an uphill battle with the NLRB,” she said.

Via: WFB

Continue Reading....

An Obamacare Replacement That Works

Tom Price, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, is the latest Republican to unveil a conservative health-care plan to replace Obamacare. It's a good plan, although it could be made better -- and it helps to clarify some of the trade-offs involved in health policy.

Price's plan would give people tax credits to buy health insurance. The credits would be based on age but not on income. Everyone between 35 and 50 would get $2,100 a year, for example. Both the Affordable Care Act and some other conservative health-care bills, such as the one proposed by Senator Orrin Hatch and colleagues, instead phase out tax credits with income. The credits could be used to buy insurance in a much less regulated market than Obamacare creates: No longer would insurance policies have to cover a federally approved list of essential health benefits, for example.

The plan has already elicited some reasonable criticism over the choices Price made. If you offer the same tax credit regardless of income, you send money to people who don't need it. On the other hand, you relieve the administrative difficulty and unpredictability of an income-based credit. A lot of people don't know how much help they can count on from Obamacare; they would have more certainty with Price's plan.

Price also avoids a potentially serious problem with Obamacare. A credit that phases out with income raises effective marginal tax rates: People don't get the full benefits when they start working longer hours or get raises. That's one reason the Congressional Budget Office found that Obamacare would lead people to work fewer hours.

Other criticisms of Price's bill would apply to almost all conservative alternatives to Obamacare. Those alternatives generally loosen the Affordable Care Act's prohibition on discriminating against customers with pre-existing health conditions. This protection is popular, but it necessitated the law's least popular provision: the fine on people who don't buy insurance. Insurers demanded the fine because otherwise people might wait until they got sick to buy a policy, at which point they couldn't be turned down or charged a higher rate.

Price would instead forbid insurers from discriminating against people based on health status if they've maintained continuous coverage. That way there's no incentive for them to wait until they're sick to buy a policy, and no need for a fine for not buying one. Those with pre-existing conditions would have stronger legal protection than they had before the Affordable Care Act. And people who got insurance through Obamacare could continue to buy policies in the future on the same terms as everyone else.

Via: Bloomberg View

Continue Reading.....

Tom Price’s Alternate to Obamacare

Rep. Tom Price (R., Ga.) is tired of hearing that the GOP is not proposing alternatives to Obamacare.

Price has proposed variations of comprehensive health care reform during three different Congresses. The first proposal came in 2009, then again in 2011, and most recently inJune 2013.

“You can’t beat something with nothing,” Price told the Free Beacon. “I think you always have to have that contrasting positive, principled solution and that’s what we’ve been putting forward.”

Price’s latest bill, the Empowering Patients First Act of 2013, has 40 cosponsors and is currently in a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee.

To date, none of the proposals have made it out of committee or enjoyed support of GOP leadership. However, as the Affordable Care Act faces a turbulent rollout, Price’s legislation seems increasingly well positioned to warrant reconsideration.

“There’s not unanimity [within the GOP] about whether there should be a comprehensive Republican plan. I’ve been pushing for it since the very beginning, as have some of the people […] and we’ll continue to push,” Price said.

“I understand why it’s difficult to move forward when you’ve got a law that is currently in place that is garnering so much attention. Folks’ attention isn’t that great unless there is a crisis. The crisis is coming and so I think there will be greater attention paid to the alternatives available,” he said.

A key difference, and perhaps the most marketable, between Price’s legislation and the current health care law is the method employed to encourage individuals to purchase insurance.

Via: WFB

Continue Reading.....

CONGRESSMAN: OBAMA'S TAX INCREASES FUND GOVERNMENT FOR EIGHT DAYS

President Barack Obama has proposed raising taxes on the rich to put America's fiscal house in order, but critics say federal spending is so massive that the wealthy don't have enough money to cover the nation's unprecedented debt.

In an interview with MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell, Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) said President Barack Obama's plan to raise taxes on the wealthy would only generate enough revenue to fund the federal government for eight days.

"The president’s plan to increase taxes on the upper two percent covers the spending by this federal government not for eight years, not for eight months, not for eight weeks but for eight days. Eight days only," said Mr. Price. "It’s not a real solution. So, again, I’m puzzled by an administration that seems to be more interested in raising tax rates than in gaining economic vitality."

The problem is that the rich don't have enough money to put so much as a dent in America's $16 trillion national debt. "If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion," writes John Stossel. "That’s only a third of this year’s deficit. Our national debt would continue to explode."

Still, Mr. Obama's supporters persist in proposing tax hikes on the wealthy. On Sunday, billionaire Warren Buffett proposed a minimum tax for America's top earners. "We need Congress, right now, to enact a minimum tax on high incomes. I would suggest 30 percent of taxable income between $1 million and $10 million, and 35 percent on amounts above that."

There's just one problem with such an approach, says author Mark Steyn:

If you took every single penny that Warren Buffett has, it'd pay for 4-1/2 days of the US government. This tax-the-rich won't work. The problem here is the government is way bigger than even the capacity of the rich to sustain it. The Buffett Rule would raise $3.2 billion a year, and take 514 years just to pay off Obama's 2011 budget deficit.

Indeed, even Mr. Buffett seems to concede that he and the president's "soak the rich" proposals are more an act of political theater designed to generate an emotional response than serious solutions: Mr. Buffett told Matt Lauer he believes his proposal would boost the "morale of the middle class." 

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading...