Monthly Archives: February 2022

America determined decades ago that unionizing the military was a terrible idea. Yet last month, the Biden administrations Justice Department signaled in a court filing that National Guard troops on state active duty can organize as if theyre civilian first responders or civil servants, and members of the National Guard in Texas are now using the DOJs position as justification to start unionizing.

The filing arose from a case in Connecticut where the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), one of the largest unions in the United States with 1.6 million members, sued to demand that Connecticut National Guard members on state active duty had the right to unionize during the Covid-19 lockdowns. Without the governor deploying the National Guard as a public health stopgap, AFSCME might have had more leverage to demand higher pay and more positions. The National Guard undercut their negotiating power.

Following the Biden DOJ filing in the Connecticut case, some disgruntled members of the Texas National Guard are now starting to unionize as well. They cite poor conditions and unreliable paychecks while serving in Republican Gov. Greg Abbotts large-scale response to the Biden border crisis known as Operation Lone Star. Even if, as some critics charge, Operation Lone Star is merely political theater, its mobilized 10,000 of Texass almost 19,000 Army and Air National Guard members to the border to augment the U.S. Border Patrol and Texass Department of Public Safety state police.

Texas law bans strikes and collective bargaining for state employees. But unions, or associations as theyre often called in Texas, still have clout. The effort in Texas is being led by the AFL-CIO.

In both instances, union leadership is likely motivated by membership and dues which, in turn, generate more political power to push pay and benefits for government employees higher still a virtuous circle from the unions standpoint.

As for the Texas border mission, Abbott and the states Republican leadership (with some Democrat support) describe Operation Lone Star as a necessary response to a complete breakdown in border security since Biden took office in Jan. 2021. Abbotts opponents, including former Rep. Beto ORourke, who is seeking to replace Abbott as Texass governor, call it a political game. They also cite poor conditions and difficulty in getting paychecks out.

My last post before retiring from the Army National Guard was as Deputy J1 (Personnel) for the California National Guard. Hearing of poor conditions and delayed pay isnt unusual. Unfortunately, the National Guard uses a separate pay system from the federal government for state missions and it always has issues. Poor conditions? Thats just part of the military mission.

But as the nationwide director of the Army National Guard, Lt. Gen. Jon Jensen, observed, What may be described as a political decision can also be described as a security decision, depending on where you sit on the issue. We cant get caught up on whether border security is a political issue or not.

Although the reasons may be different, the negative effects of unionizing our armed forces on military service would be the same now as they were four decades ago. In 1975, only two years after the United States eliminated the draft and went to an all-volunteer military, there was an attempt to unionize.

That effort was led by the American Federation of Government Employees, an AFL-CIO affiliate. As the military dealt with deep challenges ranging from poor morale to drug abuse, racial strife, and funding cuts in the wake of the dismal end of the Vietnam War, up to half of service members were said to be open to unionizing and six NATO nations featured unionized troops.

But the thought of unionizing the U.S. military quickly died as public opinion and Congress considered military service a unique calling. Unlike unionized jobs where work was viewed as merely occupational, military service was a higher calling it was distinctly honorable.

Congress was also concerned about radical leftists, like those belonging to the Students for a Democratic Society and the Trotskyite Socialist Workers Party, who organized the American Servicemens Union. But this union wasnt a device for traditional workplace organizing; rather, it was a tool to organize opposition to national defense policy within the military itself.

As Congress found at the time:

Members of the armed forces of the United States must be prepared to fight and, if necessary, to die to protect the welfare, security, and liberty of the United States and of their fellow citizens. (2) Discipline and prompt obedience to lawful orders of superior officers are essential (3) collective bargaining cannot and should not be applied to the relationships between members of the armed forces and their military and civilian superiors.

The unionization effort formally ended with President Jimmy Carters signature on S. 274, a bill introduced by Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, in 1978. Then-Senator Joe Biden was 34 years old when he signed on as a co-sponsor of the bill to ban unionizing the military.

The law outlawed organizing any member of the armed forces and defined members as people on active duty or reserve component members while performing inactive-duty training.

But that definition doesnt cover all forms of military service. For instance, the National Guard employs technicians, and many of them are unionized. These specialists, often mechanics, logisticians, or human resources staff, are paid like federal civil servants, but they work in armories while wearing their military uniform and, on the weekends or during training, they join their citizen-soldier colleagues as military members of the National Guard.

There are fundamental principles surrounding federalism and state powers in play as well. Governors are their states commanders in chief. Their authority over the militia both the organized militia (the National Guard) and unorganized militia (those owing allegiance to the nation) mirrors, and even predates, that of the presidents as commander in chief of the armed services and the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.

As such, allowing any union interference in the civilian and military chain of command would be injurious to the good order and discipline of the military in this case, the organized militia of a state.

Unfortunately, the Texas National Guard, when asked about the potential for union representation for its soldiers on the Operation Lone Star mission, issued a noncommittal response. Col. Rita Holton, the public affairs director for the Texas Military Department, said the Texas Guard has no policy prohibiting employee membership in external support organizations. This appears to give an official green light to unionizing the Guard in Texas.

Of course, if a governors actions in deploying the National Guard are viewed negatively by the public, theres a good chance that governor will suffer political consequences, as well as recruiting and retention challenges within the National Guard in a state. The timing of Bidens Justice Department filing, while ostensibly connected to a case in Connecticut, seems aimed at Texas, where Abbott is challenging Bidens military vaccination mandate and Bidens methodical abandonment of border security.

In the meantime, the resurrection of an idea killed by Congress 44 years ago will curtail the executive power of all 50 governors, add to the ranks of union membership, increase government union bargaining power, and degrade the ability of the National Guard to be prepared to fight and, if necessary, to die to protect the welfare, security, and liberty of the United States.

Chuck DeVore is vice president of national initiatives at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a former California legislator, special assistant for foreign affairs in the Reagan-era Pentagon, and a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army (retired) Reserve. He's the author of two books, "The Texas Model: Prosperity in the Lone Star State and Lessons for America," and "China Attacks," a novel.

Read more here:

Why Biden Admin's Plan To Unionize The National Guard Is A Horrible Idea - The Federalist

Since I helped found the Convention of States Project in 2013, Ive heard many objections to the idea of convening state legislatures to amend the U.S. Constitution. Using the process the founders laid out in Article V would allow states to work together to pass limits on federal spending, government power, and politicians terms in office.

Seventeen of the 34 states needed to call the convention have passed resolutions in favor of it, but the movement is not without its critics. Many of the objections Ive heard before appeared in Elaine Donnellys recent article in this publication, Why Is The Right Betting The Constitution On An Article V Convention?

Usually, those objections are coming from the same people and organizations Donnelly claims will rig a Convention of States in their favor. Nearly 250 leftist organizations, many funded by billionaire George Soros, have come out against the Convention of States option.

This coalition has gathered around the ultra-left-wing group Common Cause and includes leftist powerhouses like the Sierra Club, the NAACP, and state chapters of Planned Parenthood and the AFL-CIO. Hillary Clinton has also thrown her influence (such as it is) behind the effort to oppose a Convention of States.

Clinton, Soros, and other organizations join a long line of left-wing activists who in the mid-20th century suckered conservatives into opposing the Convention of States option which could have been used to overturn Roe v. Wade and other big-government initiatives.

Ive seen firsthand how the left offers the exact same arguments against the Convention of States Project as those outlined by Donnelly. Soros-backed groups show up regularly in committee hearings to argue against the Convention of States Resolution. They try to convince state legislators that the process is untried, too dangerous, and will open the Constitution to all kinds of terrible amendments.

Clearly, if the left believed they could rig an Article V Convention of States, its news to them.

Or maybe, the left has come out against the Convention of States movement (currently backed by over 5 million supporters and activists) because they know that a Convention of States can effectively and permanently decentralize power away from Washington.

Article V allows the states to call a convention for proposing amendments to the U.S. Constitution. At this convention, states propose and vote on constitutional amendments that must be ratified post-convention by 38 states.

Its important to note that Donnelly calls an Article V amendments-proposing convention a constitutional convention. This might sound like nitpicking, but the difference matters.

The 1787 constitutional convention operated under the sovereignty of the states. They were empowered by their state legislatures to make any changes as may be necessary to render the Constitution of the federal government adequate to the Exigencies of the Union. In other words, the states in 1787 had the authority to write an entirely new Constitution, offer a new ratification process, and submit that to the states.

Not so with an Article V Convention of States. It would operate under the authority of Article V and therefore must adhere to the process outlined therein. Thirty-four states must apply for a convention, and 38 states must ratify any amendment proposals by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof.

That 38-state threshold is an extremely high bar and ensures that only the best, most popular amendments will become part of our founding document.

But what if, as Donnelly says, liberal activists crash the Con-Con party and whatever ratification process ensues? Donnellys fear is understandable, but it stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of who controls the Article V process.

To answer this question, a quick history lesson is in order. In the waning days of the constitutional convention, George Mason stood up to point out a serious flaw in the original draft of Article V. In that draft, only the national Congress was permitted to propose amendments.

Mason objected that no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive, according to James Madisons notes. Mason proposed, and the framers unanimously adopted, a second method for proposing constitutional amendments: one that was to be directed and governed by the states.

The states control the Article V process. If they didnt, the second method for proposing amendments would be entirely redundant. Why would the framers include two methods for proposing amendments if both were controlled by the U.S. Congress?

Donnelly also suggests that Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer would have the power to select delegates and that they could exclude Republican choices, but this is incorrect. The states choose their own representatives, and while states like California and New York will no doubt send radical leftists, Republicans control 31 state legislatures. This will give Republicans an overwhelming majority at a Convention of States as well as during the ratification process.

Donnelly seems to believe that Article V gives Congress the power to control a convention when it says that Congress calls it. But as the nations leading Article V expert, Rob Natelson, outlines in his seminal work, The Law of Article V, Congress duty in this process is exclusively ministerial.

Just like the DMV must give you your drivers license if you complete the required certifications, Congress must call an Article V convention if 34 states apply for one. The extent of its power to call is to name the time and place for the convention. The DMV agent doesnt control the licensing process, and neither will Congress control the Article V process.

As Natelson outlines, there have been dozens of interstate conventions over the course of our nations history. These conventions limited their topics of conversation, each state sent its own representatives, and each state received one vote no matter the states population. The framers were familiar with this process, which is why they didnt outline how an Article V Convention of States would operate. But thanks to legal scholars and historians like Natelson, we know, too.

Clinton and Soros are dead set against calling a Convention of States because they know Article V is the best way to decentralize power away from Washington and return power to the states and the people. They know that a Convention of States can propose constitutional amendments that limit federal power and eliminate the alphabet soup of federal agencies. Other amendments can force Congress to cut spending while further amendments can impose term limits on federal officials.

They also know that the states, which are overwhelmingly controlled by Republicans, will control the process from beginning to end. This is why leftists cant rig a Convention of States, and its why anyone who cares about limiting federal power should join the movement to use the founders tool to put Washington back in its place.

Mark Meckler is the president and co-founder of the Convention of States Action.

See original here:

If Leftists Could Rig A Convention Of The States, Why Do They Oppose It? - The Federalist

Our kids extracurricular activity was at a location not near anyones house. It was also a long one, clocking in at two hours. While theoretically the parents could have gone home after dropping off the kids and returned to pick them up, a husband and wife had a better idea: Why dont we go grab a beer and some queso at the Mexican restaurant just a few blocks away?

While wed interacted a handful of times, wed never hung out as adults. It had always been as parents, which meant our impromptu gathering involved normal getting-to-know-you pleasantries. When it was my turn to answer the question about what I do, I thought for a moment and admitted Im currently between things when it comes to daytime employment, adding, Plus, Im publicly a right-wing nut job, which likely doesnt help me in the current climate.

I wasnt sure how theyd respond, as many of us who work, or in my case worked, in more stereotypical corporate environments have learned to keep our mouths shut. Theres a prevailing sentiment amongst right thinking (which isnt to say right politically) people that everyone they interact with thinks just like them. The deplorables are elsewhere. So, they say things they consider unobjectionable and we let them go, not wanting to risk cancellation.

At this juncture, I must add that I was not canceled from my previous job, sadly, as that may have been helpful to me. Theres no such thing as bad publicity, right? Maybe next time.

Nor was I canceled at the Mexican joint. Instead, it was as if Id just given the secret handshake, Id spoken the password, Id unlocked the message with my Little Orphan Annie decoder ring. Turns out, despite assumptions, and we all know the thing about assumptions, we were in the trust tree, able to speak freely. And we did, up until we returned to the facility just in time to retrieve our kids.

Theres a reason we start by not speaking freely, of course, and its mostly because the internet ruins things. People spout off in ways they wouldnt otherwise. Theres a very low risk theyre going to get slugged in the mouth through their screen. Opinions crystallize in excessive directions, like defunding the police or suggesting parents dont have a say in their kids educations or that boys and girls are interchangeable.

Add to that that social media, especially Twitter, has a huge bias toward left-wingers, and it seems like our numbers are smaller than they are. It skews our perception about what sorts of opinions people actually hold.

Now, I have no idea who these parents voted for or what party theyre registered with. It wasnt a purity test moment that any of us passed. Nor am I suggesting we limit ourselves to ideological bubbles based on which team were rooting against. (There are people who actually like one of the parties, but for the most part, we just dislike one of them less than we dislike the other. As to people who actually like politicians, Ive got a Reagan quip for you, but you probably wouldnt laugh because of who said it.)

The conversation that followed me outing myself was mostly about things that we as parents are concerned with, whether it be female role models the media tries to push or Covid policies. Suffice it to say, no one at the table ever had an Im With Her sticker or wants kids in masks.

Ive also had such conversations with those who dislike Republicans more, though those tended to lean more toward confession than philosophical discussion. Apparently, Im a safe space for progressives in which they can admit their heterodox opinions.

But life is not the internet, as my experience shows, and we should all be clamoring for more of these real-life conversations, ones that require us to be honest about what we believe. Well, most of what we believe. Its probably best not to lead with things like If were talking equity, how come the average person doesnt have a tank or even a rocket launcher since the government does?

Thats obviously just something I made up and not a real opinion I hold, by the way. We can discuss it more, though, after a few more trips to the cantina.

In my case, as a contributor to this online publication, I sometimes assume that Im more of a known quantity. In terms of job applications, thats likely true as The Federalist is at the top of my rsum. Id rather be blackballed by closed-minded organizations than quietly be a mercenary for one that loudly wants to make the country my kids will inherit worse. As Im just one man, this will have no effect, but also it really isnt hard to Google me, so being upfront is a time-saver.

But most people you encounter, whether its at the annual HOA meeting or through your kids extracurricular activities, arent going to Google you on a whim. If they do, you should probably avoid them regardless of what you agree on or what they were able to find. Which isnt to say you should turn your politics into your personality. Too many people do that already.

We do need to stop censoring ourselves, though. We cant be afraid to admit what we believe, especially when a surprising amount of people privately agree with us. Because the sooner we all reclaim our voices, loudly and proudly, the better off well be as a people.

And if anyone gives you grief for doing so, for entertaining wrongthink, just tell them youre living your truth. Theyre not allowed to argue with that.

See the original post here:

Why You Should Out Yourself As A Conservative - The Federalist

Watching the screen on a gas pump while filling your vehicles tank is liable to induce a panic attack. Paying for a used car almost requires taking out a second mortgage. Speaking of mortgages, members of the middle class are being priced out of the housing market as home prices march relentlessly upward.Many price increasesare out of control.

How did we get here? A little over a year ago, and in the years before the Covid-19 pandemic, most prices were relatively stable. But more recently, general price inflation is at a 40-year high.

The late economist Milton Friedman helped explain the inflation and stagflation of the 1970s. His explanation helped shape the strong economic recovery of the 1980s, built on the principles of limited government, with sound monetary policy that resulted in a steep decline in what had been rampant, double-digit inflation.

Friedman pointed out that inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon. The seemingly force majeure is actually a manmade problem, caused by the Federal Reserve (Fed) creating too much money. These principles of money and inflation arent new.

But those lessons are being disregarded by some in the economics profession. People likeStephanie Keltonhave been promotingModern Monetary Theory(MMT), which is virtually a complete reversal of what Friedman espoused and history demonstrated. This theory contends that the federal governments current deficit spending isnt an issue it can, and should, be solved by the Fed creating money to fund it without concern about inflation as long as the U.S. dollar is the worlds reserve currency.

President Joe Biden has not openly endorsed MMT, but hes no fan of Friedman either. Instead, he seems content to have many mostly younger congressional Democrats advocate for MMT, which provides convenient and seemingly academic reasoning for financing more federal spending without explicitly raising taxes. It has a similar political appeal that Keynesianism presented almost a century ago, and MMT is just as flawed.

But proponents of MMT do get one thing correct the Fed can create money to service the debt and avoid a default. But in real terms, meaning adjusting for inflation, this assertion is false. Creating money to service the debt devalues the currency. Investors then receive a lower real return on their holdings of federal debt.

Furthermore, everyone is hurt by inflation, whether they own government bonds or not. Inflation is essentially a tax, as it robs people of their purchasing power at no fault of their own. Everyone who received a 7.5 percent raise over the last year probably thought they would be able to afford more stuff, but they were deceived. Inflation rose just as much so there was no real raise.

But MMT proponents claim that the massive budget deficits are what allow people to save money. Were it not for those deficits, they contend, people would have no cash to save. At first glance, the pandemic seemed to support that. People received transfer payments from the government and saved much of them due to uncertainty. But more recently, peoples savings are being depleted as this dependency on government dries up and prices soar.

Now that inflation is running amok, MMT adherents believetax increases are the primary (if not only) cure. They claim inflation is not caused by the Fed creating too much money, but by people having too much money to spend; taxation will remove that excess liquidity and stop inflation.

However, MMT doesnt explain why its only inflationary when people spend money, but not when the government spends it. Somehow the Fed creating money by purchasing government debt miraculously doesnt bid up prices for scarce resources. The theory sounds more like a belief than science something that must be trusted rather than demonstrated.

Specifically,MMT ideologyis built on mathematical relationships between economic variables like private and public savings and debt rather than a strong theoretical construct, and breaks down quickly when analyzed withsound economic theory. Moreover, these relationships seem to be used to derive a funding mechanism for theirbig-government policy goals, such as a federal jobs guarantee, universal healthcare, and other costly initiatives.

But MMT is not entirely wrong on using taxation to stop inflation. If those taxes are used to pay for deficit spending which really should be done byspending less rather than the Fed financing it, then higher taxes can lower inflation. But that is far too nuanced of an explanation for MMT, which paints in much broader brushstrokes.

Regardless, MMT cannot dispel the hard truths of monetary policy, which is inflation comes from one place the Fed. When the Fed creates money faster than the real economy grows, prices will rise; its that simple.

To alleviate the uncertainty and distortions across the economy of bad policies in Washington, there should be bindingfiscal and monetary rulesbased on sound economics instead of ideology. This should include changing government spending by less than the growth in personal incomes and only changing the money supply to keep prices stable.

Almost two years after President Biden declared Milton Friedman isnt running the show anymore, the late economist is clearly the one with the last laugh. Perhaps next time, the president will think twice before speaking ill of the dead.

E.J. Antoni, Ph.D., is an economist at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and a senior fellow with the Committee to Unleash Prosperity. Vance Ginn, Ph.D., is chief economist at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and was the associate director for economic policy at the White Houses Office of Management and Budget from 2019 to 2020.

E. J. Antoni and Vance Ginn

View post:

Inflation Comes From The Fed, Contra Modern Monetary Theory - The Federalist