Aside from the defeat of fascism, World War II left us with two lasting innovations in the civilian sphere: the jeep and employer-provided health coverage. At the time, businesses couldn’t raise wages due to government-enforced wartime salary caps. Health coverage was offered as a means of attracting potential job applicants.

Since then, we have gradually convinced ourselves that an anomaly should be the norm, and politicians have discovered the political benefits of promising to make it so. What was once seen as a fringe benefit is now cast as an employment right. And in California, Maine, and many states in between, lawmakers are trying to sell the idea as at least part of a solution to what is perceived as the crisis of healthcare today.

The worst thing about employer mandates is that they confuse rhetoric with practice. While it is useful to pretend that employers somehow represent a unique class of citizens, the truth is that they are as locked into the state economy as anyone else. The costs that they must bear are at best one degree removed from that which will be borne by all the state’s residents once employers are forced to raise prices, reduce employees’ hours or even cut jobs altogether. Read the rest of this entry »

Peer pressure.  If you’re like me, this term evokes images of high school and the desire to conform, rebel, or just be accepted.  Many of us now relate peer pressure with our teenage sons and daughters, an abstract concept with which students are left to grapple and overcome.  The reality is that the pressure to conform never ends and the consequences of resistance only increase.

As citizens of a democratic nation, Americans have the right to elect their public officials in secrecy and without coercion.  While no one would dream of exposing American voters to public ridicule or intimidation at the voting booth, this is exactly what Democratic leaders are proposing to force upon American workers.

The House of Representatives tomorrow will consider the grotesquely misnamed “Employee Free Choice Act.”  Contrary to the title’s implications, this measure seeks to repeal employees’ rights to hold secret ballot elections when deciding whether to form a union and leaves them exposed to — you guessed it — peer pressure. Read the rest of this entry »

It has been 14 months since Manuel Bartsch, a constituent of mine, was first detained by our immigration officials because, as an 11-year-old boy, he had unknowingly overstayed his 90-day visa. Manuel’s step-grandfather brought him from Germany only to abandon him years later, an immigrant in the only country he called home. Now Manuel has become the symbol for a broken immigration system where our sheriffs cannot get federal authorities to take custody of violent alien criminals because they are busy detaining harmless children. That is why I introduced the Education Access for Rightful Noncitizens Act (EARN Act), which would allow undocumented children to earn legal status if they meet certain criteria.

Each year, 65,000 undocumented immigrants graduate from high school. Many of them are future doctors, lawyers and soldiers who were brought to the United States as children, only to find out later that they lacked the proper documentation to legally remain in America. Read the rest of this entry »

What will be on the floor of the House tomorrow is a bill brought forward by Democrats and the leadership that will end the requirement of a secret ballot election to form a union. This is a remarkable assault on democracy and on something all Americans hold dear, and that is the ability to have a secret ballot in any election.

H.R.800 is called the “Employee Free Choice Actâ€? by the Democrats; in fact it’s the Employee Intimidation Act, and employees will be exposed to intimidation from union bosses and some from employers, so the solution is to have a secret ballot election.

This is all the more troubling when just a few years ago Representative Miller (D-Calif.), who chairs the Education and Labor Committee, sent a letter to a union local in Mexico that was considering not using a secret ballot, and he said along with other Democrat leaders, “We feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose.” That letter is dated August 29, 2001, so what we have is a Democrat leadership that supports a secret ballot for Mexican workers but not American workers. This is a “new direction” for America that is a huge step backwards.

President Bush has claimed the Iranian government is supplying deadly weapons to fighters in Iraq and that those weapons are being used to kill U.S. troops. This sounds horrific and frightening — and that is the point. The Administration is preparing for a military strike against Iran. The justification chosen by the Administration is the one circumstance in which a President could bypass Congress and still wage a military conflict.

The intelligence backing up these assertions is questionable. The sources were anonymous. Since the briefing, the Administration has backed away from the assertion made by Pentagon briefers the day before that Tehran was behind these weapons transfers. No new evidence has been presented. But the President, Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff all repeat the questionable assertions.

The newly claimed grievance with Iran could be used to satisfy section 2(c) of the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which states that the President can introduce armed forces into a conflict or a national emergency created by an attack upon the armed forces. The President seems to have laid the groundwork for an attack on Iran while avoiding Congressional approval. Read the rest of this entry »

I’m suggesting that the President announce a public schedule of success checkpoints - policy decisions by the Iraqi government that could make it possible for the surge to succeed.

Two key success checkpoints would be the adoption of a fair oil law and the return of Baath Party members to positions of public trust.

Lay out a schedule of success checkpoints. Show Shias and Kurds and Sunnis that they could have a fair future in a unified Iraq. Quell some of the sectarian violence. Hold the Iraqi leaders accountable. Give our troops the certainty that their military best is being matched by our political best. Connect the dots for our own people by mapping the success checkpoints. We did it before with elections and the adoption of a constitution; let’s do it again.

Last week, the Episcopal Church in the United States and its larger worldwide Christian body, the Anglican Communion, made news headlines as a result of the leaders of Anglican provinces’ (called “primates�) meeting in Tanzania. “Anglican Leaders Warn U.S. Church on Gay Unions, Bishops,� The Washington Post reported on February 20. “Anglicans Rebuke U.S. Branch on Blessing Same-Sex Unions,� read The New York Times. Several other headlines used the term “ultimatum� to describe the message of the larger Anglican Communion to the Episcopal Church.

The current coverage builds upon the events of August 2003, when the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church voted to consent to the consecration of openly gay Bishop Gene Robinson at the Church’s 75th General Convention. Inevitably, most stories arise as a result of meetings: the General Conventions of 2003 and 2006 and the primates’ meetings since August 2003 have been the sources of the lion’s share of the stories. And as the tensions within the Anglican Communion have continued, the press has discovered that this is not just a tale of divisions within a Christian body over social issues; it’s also about the future of the entire worldwide body.

It’s also a revealing political story. Anglicanism generally makes decisions through church councils. The Episcopal Church, as the official expression of Anglicanism in the United States, takes this approach but with a twist—its political process uses structures similar to that of the United States government. There are two houses, the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops, that meet and make decisions every three years at the Church’s General Conventions. Resolutions are passed only through approval by both houses. Read the rest of this entry »

Today the Congress Blog is launching a new feature: video posts. Now lawmakers can appear on camera to deliver their ideas and opinions directly to you.

Like anything else that’s new, this is an experiment. Whether we’re asking questions or simply taking statements, our goal is to expand the site as a communications tool for members, interests groups and organizations.

Today Sen. Craig Thomas (R-Wyo.) discussed the Endangered Species Act with us from his office. We’d like to thank Sen. Thomas for being the first member to participate in our new endeavor. We are excited to take the Congress Blog to this new level, and we look forward to continuing to bring you lawmakers’ views in this new format.

Regards,

Chris Good & Jeremy Jacobs

Editors

Today, I reintroduced the Corporate Charitable Disclosure Act to require public companies to disclose their charitable donations to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). It has been only slightly more than 5 years since our nation witnessed the damage corporate misconduct can have on every American. With these memories still fresh, it seems obvious that corporations need to be more forthcoming about their expenditures, including charitable contributions.

Under current law, a corporation that makes significant contributions to charitable organizations is under no obligation to publicly disclose how shareholder monies are being spent. My legislation will ensure that if a corporation makes a contribution, the American public and the shareholders are aware of where the money is going.

Most gift-giving has a legitimate purpose, and some public companies already disclose their charitable contributions voluntarily. If charitable contributions are legitimate, corporations should have nothing to hide by disclosing those gifts.