Mediaboss Marketing

House Republicans plan to introduce a bill Wednesday that would institute right-to-work policies in the entire country if it became law, delivering a severe blow to the labor movement.

Right-to-work laws give workers the option to stop supporting unions whilestill enjoying the benefits of representation. Theres nothing new about such proposals being made in Washington whats different now is the political climate, which should alarm labor unions and their allies.

Republicans who back such laws control both chambers of Congress and the White House for the first time in years. Meanwhile, more and more states under GOP control continue to pass their own right-to-work measures, increasingly making them the norm rather than the exception.

Republicans and business groups would still face a Democratic filibuster in the Senate. But they have all the momentum on this issue, and theres no reason to think that will change anytime soon.

A spokeswoman for Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), a sponsor of the legislation, said as much in a note to reporters Tuesday.

Similar legislation has been introduced in the past, but we believe that this year, the legislation could garner more support than ever before, Leacy Burke wrote.

Under U.S. labor law, a union must represent all the employees in a workplace it has unionized, even those who may not want to be in a union. Unions argue that its only fair for all workers to contribute money to help cover the costs of bargaining.

But right-to-work laws make such arrangements illegal, allowing workers to opt out of paying fees to a union that will have to represent them anyway. Unions call the phenomenon free riding. Supporters of right-to-work laws argue that no worker should be required to support a union, regardless of whether it bargains on his behalf.

Republican lawmakers and business groups have had startling success with right-to-work legislation in the last few years. Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, West Virginia and Kentucky have all gone right-to-work since 2012; in Kentucky, it was essentially the first order of business last month when the GOP assumed full control of the statehouse for the first time in nearly a century.

Twenty-seven states are now right-to-work, and Missouri and New Hampshire could soon follow suit. Union-dense, Democratic-leaning states on the coasts are highly unlikely to pass their own right-to-work laws, but a federal statute could take care of that for them. The passage of national a right-to-work bill would make it the law of the land in all states, regardless of their own statutes.

A Democratic filibuster is currently the only sure firewall against a federal right-to-work law. Although President Donald Trump has tried to play nice with certain unions, he voiced support for such policies while on the campaign trail.

I love the right to work, he said last February. It is better for the people. You are not paying the big fees to the unions.

Even if Democrats can beat back such proposals in Congress, right-to-work may spread anyway thanks to the Supreme Court. Unions narrowly dodged a bullet last year when the case known as Friedrichs died with a split decision following Justice Antonin Scalias death. A conservative majority could have ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, a group of public school teachers in California who argued that workers in public-sector unions should not be required to pay any union fees.

A ruling against unions would effectively make the entire public sector right-to-work throughout the country, regardless of state laws. Although they did not success with Friedrichs, right-to-work backers plan to try again once a solid conservative majority is in place on the Supreme Court.

Trump put forth a conservativenominee, Neil Gorsuch, on Tuesday.

Original post:
Republicans Want To Pass A National Right-To-Work Law - Huffington Post

Since Obama put some of the laws in place during the end of his term, the rule will let Congress strike them down without much fuss, and President Trump isn't likely to veto those actions. "During a presidential transition when we're transferring from one party to another party, that's the only time when it really makes a difference," energy lawyer Scott Segal told the Washington Post last year.

The most contentious is a bill to repeal the National Park Service's 9B rule updates, a move that paves the way for weaker oil and gas exploration regulations on pristine public land. "If the Park Service's drilling rules are repealed, national parks across the country would be subjected to poorly regulated oil and gas drilling, threatening parks' air, water and wildlife," said National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) head Nicholas Lund.

Forty parks in the US have split-estate ownership, where the federal government owns the land but cedes below-surface mineral rights to private companies. The rules require detailed planning, but Congress wants to strip out recent protection updates from President Obama and make it harder for future governments to reintroduce them.

Ever since Republican President Teddy Roosevelt spurred their expansion more than 100 years ago, there has been a broad consensus across political lines to protect parks. However, the so-called anti-parks caucus has recently angled to unlock more public land for drilling and development.

In a statement, Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar said that President Obama "has exceeded the intent of the Antiquities Act more than any other president in the history of this country" by designating 24 new monuments and locking up 4 million acres of land. However, a recent Center for American Progress poll showed that 71 percent of Americans are opposed to oil and gas drilling in parks. It also notes that parks, monuments, forests and wilderness areas generate $646 billion in consumer spending, more than the mining, oil and gas drilling and logging industries combined.

The House will also vote today to eliminate laws that protect streams from coal mining developments. The aim of the rules, developed over years by the Department of the Interior, was to prevent coal waste from contaminating water sources around mountaintop mines. However, Republicans say the law goes too far and makes coal projects economically unfeasible. "Tomorrow, we're turning the page on Obama's war on coal," said Virginia Republican Rep. Evan Jenkins.

The proposed Republican rule, environmental groups claim, would eliminate much of the oversight related to coal mining operations. "The attacks on this rule are shortsighted and an insult to the tens of thousands of citizens who spoke up for strong stream protections," says Appalachian Voices' Thom Kay.

On Friday, Republicans also hope to chop an Obama administration law that would force oil refiners to get a better handle on methane leaks at oil and gas facilities. It was designed to prevent disasters like the Aliso Canyon methane leak (below), which dumped 107,000 tons of methane into the atmosphere. Since methane is a potent greenhouse gas, the leak was equivalent to the CO2 emissions from half a million cars.

Another law on the block is a 2011 regulation requiring automakers to achieve an average 54.5MPG fuel-economy rating, a rule that would force them to build more electric cars. Given their age, those rules will be more difficult to undo, as the EPA would need to put a replacement law in place. However, the Trump administration reportedly plans to attack it by going around the EPA and through the Department of Transportation.

We're not surprised at what they're doing, but maybe a little surprised at how fast and furious it's all happening. But we were bracing for it and we're ready.

Opposition groups have accused Republicans of kowtowing to the industry, ignoring multiple stakeholder groups that helped the last administration craft the rules. On its website, the Sierra Club criticized proposed Trump EPA chief Scott Pruitt, saying he "led the fight against climate action and the Clean Power Plan, doing the bidding of the fossil fuel industry."

Recent polls have shown that the majority of Americans, including Republicans and Trump supporters, support renewable energy over coal and oppose the rollbacks by Congress. That will no doubt mean more public protests against the rules, and environmental groups say they're also ready for a fight. However, the Republican-controlled House is killing multiple protection laws nearly simultaneously, making it difficult for environmentalists, the public and the industry to react quickly enough.

"We're not surprised at what they're doing, but maybe a little surprised at how fast and furious it's all happening," Sierra Club Legal Director Pat Gallagher told PBS News Hour. "But we were bracing for it and we're ready."

See the rest here:
Republicans poised to roll back environmental protections - Engadget

Republicans on Capitol Hill are on edge over what they view as Stephen Bannons growing influence inside President Trumps White House.

The White House counselors elevation to being a permanent member of the National Security Council has deepened the debate, as has the furor surrounding Trumps controversial executive order on immigration.

Bannon has reportedly formed an alliance with White House senior adviser Jared Kushner, who is also Trumps son-in-law. That would give him enormous power in the White House given Kushners perceived influence with Trump.

On the refugee order, Bannon is seen as having worked closely with White House senior adviser Stephen Miller, a former aide to Sen. Jeff SessionsJeff SessionsFranken slams Cruz for trying to impugn his record The Hill's 12:30 Report Dem rips Trump's 'lip service' during Black History Month MORE (R-Ala.) known for his hard-line position on immigration.

Sessions, who is expected to be confirmed soon as Trumps attorney general, is also seen as a Bannon ally. And Bannon has brought other people to the White House from Breitbart News, giving him more influence.

We clearly see what Bannon is doing. Theres no secret in it. Hes increasing his people inside and aligning with Kushner, said one former GOP leadership aide. And the person to look at is really Kushner, because at the end of the day, hes the person Trump trusts most. And together, those two guys seem like they want to knock everyone else over.

Many Republicans fear that Bannons ascendance is coming at the expense of Trumps chief of staff, Reince Priebus, the former Republican National Committee chairman who is a home-state friend of Speaker Paul RyanPaul RyanHouse begins to map out infrastructure strategy Homeland Security chairman suggests changes possible to Trump refugee order Republican leadership: The new silent majority MORE (R-Wis.) and has longstanding ties with many lawmakers.

In a joint statement announcing the hiring of Bannon and Priebus last November, Trump said the two would work together as equal partners. But Republicans on Capitol Hill say they are seeing scant evidence of that.

If Priebus is seen as a Washington insider, Bannon is the ultimate outsider.

Before joining Trump, he oversaw Breitbart News, which repeatedly published stories criticizing Ryan and other GOP lawmakers for a lack of conservative fortitude. Many lawmakers saw those attacks as unfair, and this history is weighed into their views of what is happening now at the White House.

The lack of vetting on Trumps immigrant and refugee order which bars citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from traveling to the United States for 90 days, freezes the nations refugee program for 120 days and indefinitely pauses the acceptance of Syrian refugees left many Republicans on Capitol Hill fuming. House GOP leaders have acknowledged they only learned of the order when it was being rolled out, even though staff on the House Judiciary Committee reportedly provided input to the White House.

Theyre not doing the basic blocking and tackling, and that makes it more difficult for congressional leaders to defend it, one former GOP leadership aide said.

The decision to make Bannon a permanent member of Trumps National Security Council was a shock. Past White House political advisers such as Karl Rove and David Axelrod didnt make that leap.

[Bannon] wouldnt be anywhere near my National Security Council if I were president, Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.) told The Hill.

While Trump added Bannon, the director of national intelligence and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will only attend committee meetings when the discussions pertain specifically to their areas of expertise.

Why would you remove the [director] and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Sen. Susan CollinsSusan CollinsThe growing case against Scott Pruitt's nomination to lead EPA White House has '100 percent confidence' in DeVos confirmation Freedom Caucus meets with senators on ObamaCare replacement MORE (R-Maine) said to The Hill. I dont think thats a good decision, and I hope the president will reconsider. The removal of two people whose advice is essential when these critical policy decisions are made that bothers me.

Allies of Trump on Capitol Hill are eager to defend Bannon.

Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Fla.), who initially supported Sen. Marco RubioMarco RubioSenate confirms Tillerson as secretary of State Trump's regulatory rollback a relief to small business Bannons power puts Republicans on edge MORE (R-Fla.) for president, told The Hill that it makes sense for Trump to have his chief strategist sit in on important national security meetings.

And any executive orders that Bannon may have had a hand in should have been expected, Rooney said, because Trump promised it all during his campaign.

The furor over Bannons rise is just because its him and hes controversial, Rooney said.

Others, like House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), who campaigned with Trump several times during the 2016 race, are excited about Bannons rise because they think it puts Washington on notice.

He is a brilliant strategic thinker who understands how to get the most out of a team, Meadows told The Hill. Bannon, Kushner, Miller and [Kellyanne] Conway have built a winning combination, and they are not afraid to act as long as they believe that they have the best interest of the country at the core of their mission.

Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), a key Trump ally on Capitol Hill and a policy adviser to the campaign, said reports of Bannons rise are overplayed. Bannon has always been one of Trumps most trusted confidants, Cramer said, and Americans elected Trump knowing that.

I think hes always had a lot of influence, and maybe its just becoming more obvious, Cramer said. While he seems to be a controversial figure to some, I dont find it all that egregious personally.

There is always enormous interest in who holds power in a White House, and thats no exception for Trumps team.

The presidents history in setting up rival centers of power in his businesses has only raised interest in how he will manage his White House team as has the sense that whoever talks to Trump last might have an edge.

Theres always been a nice balance for every Trump, there was a [Vice President] Pence; for every Bannon, there was a Priebus, said one current GOP aide. Now, the important question is who will be the first among the equals, because whoever that is will determine whether this is an administration that Republicans think they can work with.

Scott Wong contributed.

See the rest here:
Bannon's power puts Republicans on edge - The Hill

THE MORNING PLUM:

The furor over President Trumps new immigration ban continues to grow, as Trump has now fired the acting attorney general for saying she questioned its legality and would not defend it in court. Faced with an international outpouring of opposition including rising consternation among congressional Republicans the measures chief architect, Steve Bannon, has responded with a crescendo of bluster and defiance, blaming the controversyon out-of-touch media elites, which probably endears Bannon to Trump, who shows no public signs of budging.

Yet new reporting indicates that other members of Trumps team may be going wobbly about the ban, and that Republicans are coming to view the current situation as untenable. Axios reports this morning:

Republican sources tell us that the Department of Homeland Security may issue implementation guidance that would allow for softening, and even policy changes, to President Trumps travel restrictions on migrants. The White House insists that any further guidance wouldnt constitute a walk-back.

But the internal conversation, led by Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, reflects the widespread view among top Republicans that the current chaotic situation beset with blame-casting, backstabbing and unintended consequences is untenable.

The important larger context here is that Kelly, the secretary of homeland security, has already made his dissatisfaction known about this executive order leading to internal conflict with Bannon over it. Kelly was reportedly not briefed on the executive order until Trump was basically in the process of signing it. And DHSprivately concludedthat the ban did not legally apply to green card holders but was overruled by Bannon, who insisted that it did, because, well, because he said so. The White House subsequently reversed course on this point.

Trump administration officials defended the president's executive order temporarily banning entry to the U.S. from seven mostly Muslim countries, but lawmakers from both parties expressed strong concern or objection. (Bastien Inzaurralde/The Washington Post)

Now it appears that people at DHS or Republicans who are allied with them are letting it be known that the agency may put some kind of checks or limits on the policy, via implementation guidance.The executive order would temporarily ban refugees and migrants from seven Muslim-majority countries, and those challenging the order in court argue that, based on Trumps own campaign rhetoric about his desired Muslim ban, the intent of it is to replicate such a ban and discriminate against Muslims via legally permissible means.

[Trumps firing of the acting attorney general sets a dangerous precedent]

Its hard to know what any DHS effort to soften this via implementation guidance might look like. But one possibility is that DHS could employ the discretion to make exceptions to the executive order in individual cases.

If they wanted to, DHS could in fact soften this to a certain degree, immigration attorney David Leopold says. They could say that the executive order gives us the ability to decide on a case-by-case basis that its in the national interest to let in some refugees or legal immigrants from these countries.

Of course, its also possible thatsuch a softening could be cosmetic. DHS could say that they are applying exceptions, to create the impression that theyre being humanitarian, while in fact enforcing a complete ban, just as Trump wants, Leopold says.

Whatever ends up happening, the core point here is that some senior members of Trumps administration and some congressional Republicans want to be seen distancing themselves from the substance and intent of this immigration ban, even though it is viewed by Bannon, the keeper of the eternal flame of Trumpism, as central to Trumps appeal to his voters. Bannon likes to argue that a massive silent majority of ordinary Americans is rooting for Trumpism he has now declared that the current turmoil shows that a new political order is being born before our eyes. According to Bannon, only out-of-touch coastal elites do not get what is happening.Putting aside the contempt this betrays for all the ordinary Americans who are horrified by this first iteration of Trumpism and are resisting it in various ways, the battle over the meaning of the political reaction to it will have important long term implications.

Thats because there are still plenty of other fights ahead over immigration that will determine how far Trumpism gets in the real world. There is the possibility that Trump could extend this executive order or even expand it to include other countries. It is still not entirely clear what Trump has in mind for the hundreds of thousands of people brought here illegally as children. The degree to which Trump will expand deportations among millions of other undocumented immigrants remains to be seen. The revival of a registry for visitors from select countries remains a possibility. It is not hard to imagine that Trump might be tempted to ratchet some or all of these things up to 11 if there is a major terrorist attack.

[Will backlash to Trumps travel ban paralyze the executive branch?]

Thus, the massive blowback greeting the current measure and the fact that some Trump administration insiders and more reasonable Republicans are coming to see being associated with it as substantively, morally and politically untenable will hopefully serve as an early warning of sorts. It might make them more reluctant to stand idly by as Bannon and his allies try to convert more of Trumpisms cruelest and ugliest impulses into reality.

****************************************************************

* WHY ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL REFUSED TO ENFORCE BAN: Monday night, acting attorney general Sally Yates was fired by Trump after she announced she would not defend his refugee ban in court. The Times explains her decision:

Ms. Yates believed that the department had to consider the intent of the order, which she said appeared designed to single out people based on religion. Mr. Trump had campaigned on a promise to single out Muslims for immigration restrictions. Rudolph W. Giuliani said in an interview that Mr. Trump wanted a Muslim ban but needed the right way to do it legally. Mr. Trump said in a later interview that Christian refugees would be given priority for entry visas to the United States.

Indeed. And Trump himself has even discussed his Muslim ban and this sort of limitation on entry from Mideast countries as in effect the same proposal. The intent is obvious.

* FIRING OF YATES SETS UP BIGGER FIGHT OVER SESSIONS: Bloomberg reports that Trumps decision to fire Yates gives Democrats a new line of questioningto press on Jeff Sessions before hes confirmed as Attorney General:

Senate Republicans likely can clear Sessionswith a final vote as early as Friday, if they turn quickly to address his confirmation. But Democrats say they want more time to question him, particularly over whether hed have the independence to stand up to Trump if he disagreed with the president. Democrats say thats whatYates did, and it cost her her job.

No doubt Senate Republicans will gladly give Dems more time to question the prospective chief law enforcement officer of the U.S. on a matter as important as whether hell be independent of Trump.

* TOP NATIONAL SECURITY OFFICIALS KEPT IN DARK ABOUT BAN: The Associated Press reports:

At least three top national security officials Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly and Rex Tillerson, who is awaiting confirmation to lead the State Department have told associates they were not aware of details of the directive until around the time Trump signed it. Leading intelligence officials were also left largely in the dark, according to U.S. officials.

But Steve Bannon knew about it indeed, he had a heavy hand in writing it and apparently, thats all that matters.

* TRUMPS NONSTOP LIES STIR ALARM OVERSEAS: Mark Landler reports that foreign leaders and diplomats are watching Trumps endless lying and wondering how that might impact international relations:

From defense treaties to trade pacts, foreign leaders are struggling to gauge whether they can depend on the United States to honor its commitments. They are sizing up a fickle president whose erroneous remarks on small issues cast doubt on what he might say on the big ones the future of NATO, say, or the Iran nuclear deal that involve war and peace.

Trump is being unpredictable and disruptive. Its a brilliant, tremendous strategy, believe me.

* BIGOTRY INFUSES THE TRUMP WHITE HOUSE: David Brooks ties Trumps executive order on refugees to his wall on the Mexican border:

Its becoming increasingly clear that the aroma of bigotry infuses the whole operation, and anybody who aligns too closely will end up sharing in the stench. The administration could have simply tightened up the refugee review process and capped the refugee intake at 50,000, but instead went out of its way to insult Islam. The administration could have simply tightened up immigration procedures, but Trump went out of his way to pick a fight with all of Mexico.

It does sometimes seem as if creating the impression of a U.S. fight with Islam or Mexico is a feature, not a bug, of Trumps policies.

* AND TRUMP KEEPS DISSEMBLING ABOUT EXEC ORDER: Trump and the White House keep saying that only 109 people were impacted by the ban. Glenn Kessler sets the record straight:

The 109 number is old, and rather dubious. For instance, it does not reflect how many people were prevented from even boarding a plane.The real number is about 90,000. According to State Department statistics, thats how many people received either nonimmigrant or immigrant visas from the seven affected countries in fiscal year 2015.

The pointy-headed elite media fact-checkers just dont get this. Alternative facts cannot be fact-checked by definition.

Read the original here:
There are new signs Republicans are going wobbly on the 'Muslim ban' - Washington Post (blog)

Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said they couldn't commit to voting for President Trump's education secretary pick Betsy DeVos on the Senate floor Tuesday. (Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions)

Two Republican senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said Tuesday they are not yet committed to voting for Michigan billionaire Betsy DeVos for U.S. education secretary on the Senate floor. They became the first Republicans to say so.

It was the first time that any Republican senators said they might not vote for President Trumps nominee, who is the most polarizing education secretary nominee in the departments history.

Collins and Murkowski made the comments during a meeting of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. The committees members are scheduled to vote shortly on Trumps nomination of DeVos, whose supporters praise her for being a longtime advocate of school choice who has helped low-income students find alternatives to failing public schools. Her critics say her education advocacy is aimed at privatizing the countrys public education system. They point out that she has called public schools a dead end, a remark she made in 2015.

[Six astonishing things Betsy DeVos said and refused to say at her confirmation hearing]

Collins, often seen as more moderate than other Republicans on Capitol Hill, said she would vote for DeVos in the committee so that the nomination would be sent to floor of the Senate so all senators can vote.

Actually, the nomination would have been sent to the floor for a full vote by the chairman of the committee, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) even if the committee voted against DeVos. But Collins said she felt that any president has a right to have all senators consider nominations.

Democrats say they have 48 votes against DeVos on the floor but need 51 and they have been looking for Republican votes against DeVos since her Jan. 17 hearing, where she displayed little understand of some key education issues.

Collins said she was keeping her options open in regard to DeVos for the full Senate vote.

Now let me make clear that I know that Mrs. DeVos cares deeply about children. I recognize that she has devoted much time and resources to try and improve the education of at-risk children in cities whose public schools have failed them. And I commend her for that service.

Like all of us, Mrs. DeVos is the product of her experience. She appears to view education through the lens of her experience in promoting alternatives to public education in Detroit and other cities where she has no doubt done valuable work.

Nevertheless her concentration on charter schools an vouchers raises the question of whether or not she fully appreciates that the secretary of educations primary focus must be on helping states and communities, parents, teachers, school board members and administrators strengthen our public schools

That is why I wrote to Mrs. Devos seeking her assurances in writing that she would not support any federal legislation mandating that states adopt vouchers nor will she condition federal funding on the presence of voucher programs in the states. She has provided that commitment

There remain other questions about Mrs. Devoss knowledge of certain education laws. While it is unrealistic and unfair toe expect a nominee to know all of the details of such programs, I was surprised and concerned about Mrs. Devos apparent lack of familiarity with the landmark 1975 law, IDEA, that guarantees a free and appropriate education for children with special needs. Therefore, I will continue to evaluate this nomination before it comes to the floor, even as I vote today to advance it so that all of our colleagues have the opportunity to assess this nominee.

Murkowski expressed concern about DeVoss emphasis on school choice, which is difficult if not impossible to implement in rural areas which dominate Alaska. She said thousands of Alaskans have visited her offices, called and sent messages expressing concern about DeVos and that she was not certain how she would vote on the Senate floor. But Murkowski, like Collins, said she would vote to approve the nomination in the committee.

[What Trump said when he signed nomination papers for Betsy DeVos, his education nominee]

She said:

I will show the same respect, the same deference to President Trumps nominee as I did President Obamas. And I will vote to report Mrs. DeVoss nomination to the full Senate.

But do know that she has not yet earned my full support.

Link:
Two Republican senators says they aren't committed to voting for Betsy DeVos on Senate floor - Washington Post