Obama Draws Fire for Appointing SEIU's Stern to Deficit Panel

Obama Draws Fire for Appointing SEIU's Stern to Deficit Panel

www.foxnews.com

President Obama's decision to appoint his close political ally, union leader Andrew Stern, to the newly created National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform has set off a firestorm of criticism from business and conservative groups who charge he is a political radical who should be investigated for failure to register as a lobbyist.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Well....Looking at the bright side of things, at least Obama is consistent.

I made mention of this in another thread and unfortunately it already appears to be playing out. With the newly forming panel of "experts" that will focus on how exactly to whittle down the soaring deficit, we are once again going to sit back and watch the fighting, name calling, bickering, and partisan BS start up all over again!

I am opposed to this entire panel at this point for a few reasons:

1. Looking at the current deficit, which some analysts have already labeled "catastrophic" to the financial future of the United States, there is nothing that 18 people are going to come up with -- all while drawing brand spanking new salaries -- that is going to make much of a difference in the next year or so.

2. This is yet another distraction that the US does not need right now. The only thing this administration should be focusing on is jobs. Period. How many more excuses are going to come from the White House as to why they can not tackle jobs now -- but will very soon since it's such a "priority".

3. More lobbyists that have Obama's ear. Fantastic. Nothing like breaking one of the biggest campaign promises -- the eradication of lobbyists in the White House -- and instead promoting them to your administration. The funniest part about this is in order to actually appoint these people, Obama has to waive his own executive order barring lobbyists from his administration.

4. The bickering will all be made public and will continue to further erode an already completely dysfunctional White House.

5. Money. Appointing people costs money. Negotiating about the panel costs money. Paying 18 more salaries costs money. And let's not forget about all of the time -- and salaries -- that our dear politicians will collect just discussing possible panel appointees. Oh, and in case you didn't know, we don't have any money which is ironically *why* we need this panel?!

6. Last, but certainly not least, we are once again spending MORE MONEY and GROWING GOVERNMENT in order to control spending and lower the deficit. What a backwards way of doing things. Not if you have an agenda, though I suppose.

Here's a couple of other tidbits of interest:

Stern, the 59-year-old president of the 2.2 million-member Service Employees International Union, has angered business groups and political conservatives because of his support for health care reform and controversial "Card Check" legislation, which would make it easier for unions to organize in workplaces.

Called "the most important labor boss in America today" and once considered for secretary of labor, Stern has become a political lightning rod. His appointment to the commission, wrote Investor's Business Daily, "is like having a serial arsonist organize Fire Prevention Week." Katie Packer, executive director of Workforce Fairness, a group backed by the Chamber of Commerce, said his appointment to the commission "doesn't pass the laugh test."

Using public records, press reports, White House logs, Twitter messages and disclosures in union reports filed with the labor department, their investigation found that Stern spent more than 20 percent of his time in contact with policymakers and elected officials.

Stern, whose union funneled $60 million to the Obama election campaign, has been a regular visitor to the White House since Obama's inauguration. White House logs released last October showed he visited the presidential mansion 22 times since Obama took office, including seven meetings with the president. But most of the visits were for group events, and it is an open question whether his attendance would count as lobbying activity.

Since this if the first appointee, and it's a doozy by anyone's standards, this doesn't appear as if it is going to go very well. How on Earth, at this point, can anyone possibly think that Obama and his cronies are capable of ANYTHING??




www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 6-3-2010 by lpowell0627]

Some additional information about Andrew Stern:

Andrew L. "Andy" Stern (born November 22, 1950), is the president[7] of the 2.2 million-member Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the fastest-growing union in the Americas. SEIU is the second largest union in the United States and Canada after the National Education Association.[8][9] Stern was elected in 1996 to succeed John Sweeney. Stern is intent upon influencing federal legislation that helps revitalize the labor movement through universal health care, expanding union ranks via the Employee Free Choice Act (commonly known as “card check”) [10], stronger regulations on business, profit sharing for employees, and higher taxes, efforts consistent with a new global economic model that moves American businesses away from traditional, free-market capitalism [11].

Under Stern, the SEIU has poured millions into a group called Health Care for America NOW!, which set up pavilions at nearly every major health care protest in 2009, and has given the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now nearly $6 million since 2006 – including $250,000 in 2009 – according to U.S. Department of Labor disclosure and the union's own statements[32]. The SEIU recently "cut all ties to ACORN" after a pair of amateur journalists who, dressed as a pimp and hooker, filmed themselves obtaining advice from ACORN staff members on how best to shelter the proceeds of a child-prostitution ring from taxation[37]. It is an unsubstantiated rumor that the SEIU and ACORN have had joint bank accounts with Wells Fargo bank. It is an unsubstantiated rumor that copies of their bank statements were retrieved in documents thought to be lost in Hurricane Katrina.

Link: en.wikipedia.org...

Here is also a copy of the Executive Order that Obama signed banning lobbyists from his administration.

It also serves as a little humor since "PolitiFact" scores this as: PROMISE KEPT, however, fails to keep track of how many times he has actually waived his own order.

I guess having an Executive Order that you don't follow is better than not having one at all?! Oh, yes, I forgot -- IMPERFECT plans are better than no plan at all....

Obama signs executive order on lobbyists and gifts
Updated: Wednesday, January 21st, 2009 | By Angie Drobnic Holan

In one of his first acts as president, Barack Obama kept a campaign promise to toughen ethics rules, signing an executive order on Jan. 21, 2009.

"If you are a lobbyist entering my administration, you will not be able to work on matters you lobbied on, or in the agencies you lobbied during the previous two years," Obama said at the signing ceremony. "When you leave government, you will not be able to lobby my administration for as long as I am president. And there will be a ban on gifts by lobbyists to anyone serving in the administration as well."

The title of the order is "Executive Order on Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel."

We rate his promise to ban lobbyists' gifts to executive employees as Promise Kept.

Sources: CNN, " Vowing transparency, Obama OKs ethics guidelines ," Jan. 21, 2009 The White House Office of the Press Secretary, text of executive order: THE WHITE HOUSE

Link: www.politifact.com...

Further, an investigation has already begun since Andrew Stern simply resigned as a lobbyist in 2007 -- and then proceeded to spend more than 20% of his time lobbying throughout 2008 & 2009:

By this letter, we urge you to investigate the activities of Mr. Andy Stern, President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), regarding meetings and other lobbying contacts with administration, White House and Congress during 2009. Specifically, it is important to determine whether those and related activities could constitute unregistered “lobbying” by Mr. Stern in violation of the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA), 2 U.S.C. 1601, et seq. In fact, Mr. Stern was a registered lobbyist for SEIU until January of 2007 when he terminated his registration. For the reasons discussed below it appears that Mr. Stern continued to lobby extensively after he terminated his registered status, and in 2009 devoted so much time on lobbying and related activities that he should have re-registered as a lobbyist under LDA.

Link:biggovernment.com...

This goes right along with his plan of Totalitarianism, just like nominating known domestic terrorist Bill Ayers as Architect of the Capitol.

Obama nominates Ayers to be next Architect of Capitol

He's placing as many close radical people as possible in places of Washington D.C. power he can, planning for the overthrow.

[edit on 3/6/10 by Ferris.Bueller.II]

reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II


Good point and thank you for bringing it up. I don't know what it is going to take for people to realize that nothing good is going to come from anything this man does -- at least not for "We the People".

A couple of "bad" appointees....OK. A couple of questionable objectives.....OK. A little growing of government.....OK if it's really necessary.

But this is getting ridiculous. He has yet to appoint someone that has NOT caused a stir. Between lobbyists and the politicians that don't pay taxes, his entire "dream team" is made up of a bunch of crooks.

And yes, it makes it worse with Obama simply because he spent so much time campaigning AGAINST this very thing!!

reply to post by lpowell0627


These aren't 'bad' appointees, though. These are who Obama wants, and shows who Obama truly is. He wants domestic terrorists and radical extreme left wing people close to him.

reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II


Agreed.

I put the word "bad" in quotes since I did not mean it literally, but rather was suggesting that a few appointees with problems and/or tax issues and / or a questionable lobbying history would be OK. Everybody can find a few bad apples -- especially when looking into a bushel of politicians!

However, and this goes to what you were saying, he is obviously LOOKING for these types of people otherwise he would not, merely by chance, to be able to dig up quite so many of them.

The million-dollar question of course being:

How did more than 60% of the country vote in a man only to have him turn his back on what 67% of the country actually wants?