The news anchors last night were reporting that the House just passed the “Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act,” and it was only symbolic because the US Senate will not bring it up for a vote, and Obama will veto it anyway. Still, it was a great vote to try and rein in an out of control federal board from killing jobs in the US. Here is the text summary of this bill:
Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act – Amends the National Labor Relations Act to deny the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) any power to: (1) order an employer (or seek an order against an employer) to restore or reinstate any work, product, production line, or equipment; (2) rescind any relocation, transfer, subcontracting, outsourcing, or other change regarding the location, entity, or employer who shall be engaged in production or other business operations; or (3) require any employer to make an initial or additional investment at a particular plant, facility, or location. Applies the amendment made by this Act to any complaint for which a final adjudication by the NLRB has not been made by the date of enactment.
Let’s say, for the sake of discussion, that the vote is symbolic. If this is true, then I want to know what symbolic message Congressman Clyburn, from South Carolina’s 6th district, is conveying. Does Rep. Clyburn want the NLRB to have the power to close down the Boeing plant in South Carolina and cost 1,100 employees in South Carolina their jobs? Do a majority of his constituents in the 6th district want the NLRB to to have this power? As regards the second question, I don’t think so. In 2010 the voters in South Carolina elected four excellent new members to the US House to join Rep. Joe Wilson. In 2012, the voters in the 6th need to vote out Clyburn, and elect a new conservative congressman.
The at-large House seat in Alaska has been held by Don Young since 1973. What is the symbolism of his “No” vote? Alaska is supposed to be a place where folks love freedom and independence and want less interference from government. Really? The two Senators and Congressman Young, do not reflect much of that spirit or attitude by their votes. The attitude I see is one of not caring about undoing anything the federal government has done…so long as the royalties from the federal government for energy products keep coming their way. It’s time to retire 78 year old Congressman Young, and replace him with a true liberty loving conservative in 2012.
Ohio’s 14th congressional district has been held by Steven LaTourette since 2003. Labor Union Report can provide numerous examples of Rep. LaTourette voting to curry favor with Big Labor. This northeast Ohio district includes many constituents who are union members. However, his thinking that he can hold his seat just as long as he helps big labor is flawed thinking. It is akin to believing the alligators are going to eat me last. The big unions use the money in their coffers to elect Democrats into office. The only way he can vote so many times the way the unions want and have them truly like him is to switch parties. We need the conservative Republicans in his district to recruit a candidate to defeat him.
The other five Republicans who voted “No” are freshmen House members from New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. This one bad vote is not enough reason for me to wish for them to be primaried in 2012, but it is enough to call them out by name.
- Patrick Meehan (PA-7)
- Mike Fitzpatrick (PA-8)
- Michael Grimm (NY-13)
- Chris Gibson (NY-20)
- David McKinley (WV-1)
Chris Gibson is someone I recently gave kudos to for two previous votes. All five of these members need to rethink any fear they have of Big labor. Big Labor has been shrinking for years in the private sector. Right to work states and Asia have become alternative choices for US manufacturers to expand their business without costly setbacks from unions. If the powers the NLRB have grabbed are not removed, then in the future the only alternative for US manufacturers to expand their businesses will be Asia. I hope the news anchors were wrong in their report of this vote being symbolic, but these seven Republicans and one South Carolina Rep. must defend what their “No” vote symbolized.