Bachmann Supported Public Sector Unions


On the campaign trail, Michele Bachmann likes to claim that she is a true “constitutional conservative”.  The truth is, Michele Bachmann is not being honest when she says this. No “constitutional conservative” would support a bill that forces states to give collective bargaining rights to public safety employees, flying directly in the face of the 10th Amendment.

In 2007, Bachmann co-sponsored HR 980, A.K.A. the “Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007.” What did this bill do? This bill would have given the federal government unprecedented power over the states and their relationship with public employee unions. The bill forced states to give collective bargaining rights t0 public safety employees. It was specifically targeted at Virginia and North Carolina, two states where public safety employees had no collective bargaining rights. I don’t know about you, but I don’t think the federal government has any right to pass a law to target specific state laws. Isn’t this why we have the 10th Amendment, to protect states from the federal government? Apparently the 10th Amendment is one part of the constitution Michele Bachmann chose to ignore. I also think it is important for Michele Bachmann to answer why she opposed an unfunded mandate for health care, but supported one for unions?

Not only was HR 980 unconstitutional, but it would have cost the federal government and various state and local governments millions of dollars. According to the CBO, this bill would have cost the federal government $44 million. It would have put a huge burden on state and local governments already struggling to balance their budgets under a recession and more intrusion of this kind by the federal government.

Sometimes, you can learn all you need to know about a bill based on its supporters and opponents. Who joined Michele Bachmann in supporting this bill? Barack Obama. Ted Kennedy. Barbara Boxer. Hillary Clinton. Sherrod Brown. Bernie Sanders. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. The AFSCME. The AFL-CIO. 99% of House Democrats. Who opposed this bill? Jim DeMint. Steve King. Mike Pence. Americans for Prosperity. The Heritage Foundation. The National Right to Work Committee.  And what did Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff have to say about this bill? “[HR 980] represents an unprecedented intrusion into state and local decision making, potentially disrupting our nation’s carefully developed emergency response functions, and raises serious Constitutional questions under the 10th Amendment.” What did the Citizens Outreach Project, a conservative advocacy group, say about this bill? “H.R. 980 is not legislation dealing with public safety or security. It is a raw, blatant pay-off to union officials. Failing to attract members on their merits, unions have turned to their allies in Congress to have government impose them on workers.” Michele Bachmann was one of those union allies.

Supporters of this bill argue that it would have increased public safety. That is simply not the case. The National League of Cities, the National Sherriff’s Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the National Association of Counties all opposed this bill, partly because they felt it would harm public safety, and partially because of the burden it would have on their budgets.

There you have it. Michele Bachmann supported unions,increased spending, harming our safety, and giving the federal government even more power over the states. At a time when Scott Walker and Wisconsin Republicans are taking away collective bargaining because of its cost to the state, Michele Bachmann wanted to force them to give collective bargaining rights to move employees, making balancing the budget without tax increases that much harder.

I know many of you will want to see my sources, so here they are:

Bill Text (pdf)

House Co-Sponsors

House Roll Call

Senate Co-Sponsors

CB Report (pdf)



RSS feed

4 Comments Leave a comment

You should have the whole story on this.

gekster (Diary) Thursday, August 11th at 8:34AM EST (link)

Why didn’t you put into the articl that when Bachmann found out the details
of the bill, she withdrew her support and then opposed the bill.
There is plenty of information as to her change of mind.

Such as this article.
from:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0811/Bachmanns_bad_information.html
____________________________________________________________
excerpt.:
“When the congresswoman first went to Washington in 2007, she was presented this bill and was given bad information on the implications of the bill for firefighters and first responders. When she examined the bill, she came to the conclusion that it violated the 10th Amendment, hurt the right to work of first responders in all 50 states and hurt the ability of first responders to perform their jobs (especially volunteer fireman). When she came to that conclusion, she sent a letter to her constituents explaining why she would oppose the bill rather than wait for the bill to come up for a vote.

Greg Mourad, vice president of the anti-union National Right to Work Committee, forwarded a copy of Bachmann’s letter, which is dated December 2010:

When this legislation was presented, its authors knew it flew in the face of some of the core principles by which we should govern. But they presented it as a bill to support our first responders, as legislation to uphold our public servants.

In actuality, the bill will burden our public servants and systems. Upon close review of the legislation, I have refused to co-sponsor it and will not vote for it.

It’s a vote that, with an intensely anti-labor mood in the Republican Party, could come back to haunt her. But Mourad said Right to Work is “not worried” about Bachmann because she’s admitted the vote was a mistake.”
___________________________________________________________
And you should have included her letter about the bill, found here.
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM192_bachmann_public_safety_letter.html

So she was urged to sponser the bill by her new colleagues in congress,
proceeded to find out what was actually in then bill, then withdrew her support.

As Paul Harvey would say, “and thats the rest of the story”

They say Republicans are for the rich, Democrats are for the poor.
If they need more voters,
then they have to make more of who they are for.

We are there in the various Tea Party groups, leaderless, but not rudderless.
We steer always toward the Constitutional principles this nation was founded upon.
Erick Brockway

Ok folks, 2012 is here. Get involved

Well done, and thanks!

BA Cyclone (Diary) Thursday, August 11th at 9:50AM EST (link)

Statist liberals are the ones who live and breathe in the land of the superficial, we don’t need that mindset here where conservatism reigns!

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” — James Madison

“Electing Republicans who don’t have the courage of their convictions may be easier in some circumstances, but it won’t save our country.” — Jim DeMint

BA Cyclone’s blog

BA Cyclone on Twitter

 

Glad to see this

redtillimdead (Diary) Thursday, August 11th at 5:26PM EST (link)

I hadn’t seen this before. She still should have known at the time, however, that this bill violated the 10th Amendment. Its not hard to figure out.

Nancy Pelosi can kiss my asstroturf.

If you had read the letter....

gekster (Diary) Thursday, August 11th at 10:05PM EST (link)

you would have seen she did figure it out.

from the letter:
“I believe this legislation is a violation of the 10th amandment. Congress has no business imposing labor policy on the employees of state, county, and local governments”.

They say Republicans are for the rich, Democrats are for the poor.
If they need more voters,
then they have to make more of who they are for.

We are there in the various Tea Party groups, leaderless, but not rudderless.
We steer always toward the Constitutional principles this nation was founded upon.
Erick Brockway

Ok folks, 2012 is here. Get involved