Justin's Political Corner

First New York, then central Pennsylvania, and then Chicago. Now St. Louis is the latest American city to be hit with a strike by non-union fast food workers demanding higher wages and the right to form a union. Over the course of Wednesday and Thursday, over 100 employees at approximately 30 different St. Louis-based restaurants walked off the job, demanding the right to form a union and a raise from Missouri’s $7.35 hourly minimum wage to $15 per hour. The strike was organized by an alternative workers’ group called the St. Louis Organizing Committee as part of a campaign called STL Can’t Survive on $7.35.

“Increasingly, fast food jobs are the only options for St. Louisans, but these workers can’t even afford to pay for rent, food, or carfare,” said Rev. Martin Rafanan, director of STL Can’t Survive on $7.35, in a statement. “If the workers earned more, fast food workers would spend that money at local businesses here in St. Louis and help lift our economy.”

The strike—which hit restaurants such as McDonald’s, Jimmy John’s, Wendy’s and Domino’s—was only a quarter a size of New York’s second fast food strike, still the largest walkout to occur in the industry. Still, the recent events in St. Louis indicate that labor unrest within the industry is not going away, and that the nationwide momentum shows no sign of abating.

A significant chunk of the jobs being gained during America’s economic recovery are concentrated in the service and retail sectors; in fact, the fast food industry is growing at twice the rate as the rest of the economy, according to The Nation’s Annie Shields. As a result, St. Louis is highly unlikely to be the last American city to be hit with a fast food strike.

h/t: MSNBC.com

House Republicans are launching their first concerted effort to win back female voters on Tuesday with the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013, a bill that’s being packaged as a lifeline to working moms across the country.

Unfortunately, the legislation is a particularly cruel hoax—a slick attempt to give employers more power, and hourly workers much less.

At first blush, the idea sounds good. The bill would allow hourly workers to convert overtime pay into time off: in other words, instead of getting paid for extra hours, they could stockpile additional vacation time. The pitch here is that working parents could have more flexibility in their schedule and an enhanced ability to balance work and family. “This week, we’ll pass [Representative] Martha Roby’s bill to help working moms and dads better balance their lives between work and their responsibilities as parents,” House Speaker John Boehner said Tuesday.

The GOP is specifically invested in convincing women this bill is for them. The GOP spent $20,000 last week on a digital ad campaign focusing on so-called “mommy blogs,” like Ikeafans.com and MarthaStewart.com, and geo-targeting Democrats in swing districts. “Will Rep. Collin Peterson stand up for working moms?” one iteration of the ad asked.

But it’s not too hard to see how pernicious this legislation truly is. “Flexibility” is a word that should make hourly workers check for their wallets—employers hold most of the power in the relationship with hourly workers, which is all the more true if they are not unionized. So “flexibility” to decide if you want to get paid for overtime work, instead of getting fewer hours later on, can quickly become a way for employers to withhold payment for overtime work while also cutting your hours down the road.

Over 160 labor unions and women’s groups sent a letter to members of Congress on Monday, protesting that the Working Families Flexibility Act is “a smoke-and-mirrors bill that offers a pay cut for workers without any guaranteed flexibility or time off to care for their families or themselves.”

Republicans say this isn’t true, and that there are safeguards in the bill that would prevent employers from muscling their employees into surrendering overtime pay. “It is illegal for them to do that. There are enforcement mechanisms in the bill,” Eric Cantor said in February.

But this is where they’re being really tricky—the bill does give workers the right to sue over such intimidation, but denies them the right to use much quicker, and cheaper, administrative remedies through the Department of Labor. It also gives the Department of Labor no additional funds to investigate nor enforce provisions of the act.

So if hourly workers get intimidated into giving up overtime pay in exchange for working even fewer hours down the road, they’re more than welcome to hire a lawyer and sue—a rather improbable outcome given how expensive that might be. Otherwise, tough luck.

There also isn’t quite as much flexibility in the act as it seems. As the National Partnership for Women and Families points out, while the bill does allow hourly workers to turn overtime pay into as much as 160 hours of comp time, it gives them no right to decide when they can use that time—even if there’s a family emergency. That’s still entirely up to employers.

Further hampering workers’ flexibility is that once they bank more than eighty hours in comp time, employers can unilaterally decide to cash out any additional hours. Also, workers who decide later that they need to cash out the comp time they’ve earned can do so—but employers have thirty days to cut the check, which could certainly be a problem for hourly workers on a tight budget.

Moreover, this isn’t even a new idea. Republicans proposed this same bill ten years ago, prompting the late Molly Ivins to remark “the slick marketing and smoke on this one are a wonder to behold.”

The legislation, simply, is a straightforward boon to big employers. “It pretends to offer time off but actually asks [employees] to work overtime hours without being paid,” Judy Lichtman of the NPWF told reporters on a conference call Monday. She added that it’s simply a “no-cost, no-interest loan to the employer.”

House Democrats will be nearly, if not entirely, unified in opposition. “The Working Families Flexibility Act sounds good, but it is a sham and we are going to call it out for what it is. It would cause more harm than good and we are going to reject it,” Representative Rose DeLauro said yesterday during the same conference call.

Due to the Republican majority in the House, the bill is likely to pass on Tuesday, but Senate passage seems dubious at best, and the White House has already issued a veto threat.

In 1993, when Congress considered and ultimately passed the Family and Medical Leave Act—which mandates only twelve weeks of unpaid family time off—Republicans were apoplectic. One House member from North Carolina called it “nothing short of Europeanization—a polite term for socialism.” A young John Boehner, years from becoming House Speaker, said the legislation would “be the demise of some [businesses].

“And as that occurs,” he said, “the light of freedom will grow dimmer.”

h/t: George Zornick at The Nation

WASHINGTON (AP) — It seems like a simple proposition: give employees who work more than 40 hours a week the option of taking paid time off instead of overtime pay.

The choice already exists in the public sector. Federal and state workers can save earned time off and use it weeks or even months later to attend a parent-teacher conference, care for an elderly parent or deal with home repairs.

Republicans in Congress are pushing legislation that would extend that option to the private sector. They say that would bring more flexibility to the workplace and help workers better balance family and career.

The push is part of a broader Republican agenda undertaken by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., to expand the party’s political appeal to working families. The House is expected to vote on the measure this week, but the Democratic-controlled Senate isn’t likely to take it up.

“For some people, time is more valuable than the cash that would be accrued in overtime,” said Rep. Martha Roby, R-Ala., the bill’s chief sponsor. “Why should public-sector employees be given a benefit and the private sector be left out?”

But the idea Republicans promote as “pro-worker” is vigorously opposed by worker advocacy groups, labor unions and most Democrats. These opponents claim it’s really a backdoor way for businesses to skimp on overtime pay.

Judith Lichtman, senior adviser to the National Partnership for Women and Families, contends the measure would open the door for employers to pressure workers into taking compensatory time off instead of overtime pay.

The program was created in the public sector in 1985 to save federal, state and local governments money, not to give workers greater flexibility, Lichtman said. Many workers in federal and state government are unionized or have civil service protections that give them more leverage in dealing with supervisors, she added. Those safeguards don’t always exist in the private sector, where only about 6.6 percent of employees are union members.

Republicans and business groups have tried to pass the plan in some form since the 1990s.

Democrats say the bill provides no guarantee that workers would be able to take the time off when they want. The bill gives employers discretion over whether to grant a specific request to use comp time. Opponents also complain that banking leave time essentially gives employers an interest-free loan from workers.

h/t: TPM

Stand down Twinkies hoarders, you can start eating your secret stash.

Twinkies will hit store shelves nationally by late July, Michael Cramer, executive vice president of Hostess Brands LLC told NBC News on Thursday. “We expect to be making and selling in July,” he said. “Probably the later half of the month before the product hits the stores.”

All of the classic Hostess snack brands will return, some making their return in August and September. Hostess Donettes and some of the snack cakes will be among the first to return. And “Twinkies for sure,” Cramer said.

In November, all 36 Hostess Brands, Inc., plants shut down after an extended stand-off with the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union. That Hostess company has almost completely wound down its operations, selling its assets in pieces. The bulk of the Hostess Snacks brands the public knows best — Twinkies, Cup Cakes, Ho Hos, Zingers, Ding Dongs and Suzy Q’s — were purchased in April for $410 million by hedge funds Apollo Global Management and Metropoulos & Co. Other Hostess lines, such as Wonder bread, went to affiliates of Flowers Foods, while its Beefsteak bread brand was snatched up by Grupo Bimbo, S.A.B. de C.V.

It is the new company, Hostess Brands, LLC, that will start hiring this weekend to resume operations with 200 employees at the Dolly Madison Bakery in Columbus, Ga., one of the locations shuttered in November.

As the hiring resumes, it will not be in conjunction with the unions, Cramer said. “We’re sure not going to invite the unions in. We don’t have to do it,” he said. Though of course nothing prevents the workers from unionizing down the line, he said.

But when Twinkies return to the shelves after an absence of more than six months, it will find competition.

Flowers Foods, Inc., which purchased some of Hostess’ other assets, has its own Twinkies lookalikes. Its Blue Bird brand sells Bingles while its Mrs. Freshley label sells Dreamies cream-filled cakes. McKee Foods’ Little Debbie brand also makes its own Twinkies twin called a Cloud Cake. The name’s even trademarked.

A spokesman for Mexico-based Grupo Bimbo, the world’s largest bread baker and the owners of Sara Lee and Entenmann’s brands in the United States, on Wednesday declined to say whether it was considering its own Twinkies competitor in the United States. But should Grupo Bimbo decide to jump into the fray, it has a pretty good options on hand.

Bimbo already makes a Twinkies lookalike in Mexico called Submarinos, which are available with vanilla, chocolate or strawberry filling. Bimbo Bakeries USA since 1997 has been importing strawberry-filled Submarinos into the United States under its Marinela brand catering to Hispanic customers. In 2012 it started importing the vanilla ones as well, a company spokesman said.

After this story was originally published, a reader sent a picture of another Twinkies clone he said recently hit shelves in Los Angeles. The packaging of the new Golden Creme Cakes state they are made by the Sara Lee division owned by Bimbo Bakeries USA. However, a spokesman for the company declined to confirm they are new Sara Lee products.

The hard-core Hostess fan will return to Hostess, but the discretionary snackers will be the key market to regain, predicted Gary Karp, the executive vice president at Technomic Inc., a food industry research and consulting firm. “Their absence has allowed people to try a variety of products that are out there,” Karp said.

h/t: NBCNews.com

By Christie’s deeds and his words, he is clearly committed to the death of the labor movement and every other sort of social progress.

Two years ago, Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin introduced his falsely-named “budget repair bill.”  In doing so, he transformed himself from an obscure Midwestern Governor to the personification of a nationally-orchestrated, well-funded right-wing movement that was more – much more - than just an attempt to balance the budget on the backs of public service workers. His plan, concocted in quite public collaboration with the Koch brothers, was to gut public sector collective bargaining rights altogether.

The right had a new champion. Having weakened and nearly destroyed the private sector union movement in America over the last 30 years, it was time to hone in on a new target: public sector unions and, in fact, the very idea that a fair society requires a robust public sphere. (Hint: this is true for the non-wealthy, less so for people who can buy their way into private schools, private beaches, private jets and so on…).

As everyone knows, the people of Wisconsin fought back. Madison became our Tahrir Square. It was thrilling to watch, and the entire labor and progressive movement understood how important a battle it was. Tactics included civil disobedience on a scale rarely seen in the U.S. and an ambitious electoral recall of a handful of Republican State Senators and Walker himself. Several Senators lost their seats in the recall, but Walker won. Unfortunately, too many union members themselves voted for Walker, despite an enormous groundswell of progressive labor mobilization in the recall.  Walker’s re-election campaign in 2014 will be another “all or nothing” moment for labor and progressive forces as we learn whether Walker-Koch conservatism is here to stay.

Before we get to the 2014 re-match, however, there’s another Governor up for re-election in 2013 who is also in the public eye. I’m referring to the East Coast’s own version of Scott Walker. No one would confuse Chris Christie’s brash {pugilistic?} demeanor for that of a polite Midwesterner. But when it comes to strict adherence to right-wing ideology, Christie is every bit the match for Scott Walker — and in some cases, even worse. I’m from New Jersey, and it’s astonishing to me that someone this awful is the Governor of my home state. .

Before the dust had settled in Madison, Christie was pushing a similar package of collective bargaining “reforms” in New Jersey. Christie frequently made the comparison himself. During a series of press events in Wisconsin during the recall campaign, Christie rallied support for Walker by comparing and celebrating what he and Walker had done.The New Jersey Star Ledger reported it this way in May 2012:  

The Republican governor [Christie] drew no distinction between the pension and benefit reforms pushed through New Jersey’s Democrat-controlled Legislature and Walker’s near-elimination of collective bargaining rights for public-sector unions — actions that flooded the Madison statehouse with protesters and could make him Wisconsin’s first governor to be dumped during his term.

“You see what I’ve been able to do is give Scott and the people of Wisconsin a little preview of what good conservative governance can do for states,” Christie told several hundred people at a landscaping equipment maintenance shop near Milwaukee.

But Christie isn’t just hostile to working-class organizations. He has an all-encompassing right-wing philosophy that seeps into every aspect of his agenda. No matter the issue – minimum wage, marriage equality, climate change, directing public money to private corporations, lowering taxes on the rich – Chris Christie is a hard-right Republican. He may be a huge fan of Bruce Springsteen, but I can guarantee that Springsteen is not a fan of his.

So, as a public service for any progressive or labor-friendly voter who might have been disoriented by Christie’s post-Hurricane Sandy photo opportunities with President Obama, here’s a short dossier on why we should not be confused by this guy. Sadly, some New Jersey-based building trades locals have already endorsed Christie in his 2013 re-election bid. But hopefully everyone else will line up with his Democratic opponent, State Senator Barbara Buono. Christie is clearly the odds on favorite in the race– he’s got a ton of cash, his opponent is relatively unknown, and he taps into a deep well of suburban anger about stagnant wages and soaring property taxes. But he is in fact as bad as Scott Walker.  Period.

He’s firmly on the side of the 1%.

Last year, Governor Christie proposed a $1.2 billion tax cut, with the bulk of the cuts going to the top, even though the state faced enormous budget gaps. He has repeatedly vetoed Democratic legislative efforts to close those gaps by raising taxes on millionaires.  Romney would be proud, and surely, Christie’s wealthiest donors are too.

But here’s where it gets even more unbelievable.  Since taking office, Christie has awarded more than $2 billion in tax breaks to huge corporations like Prudential Insurance, Panasonic, and Goya Foods. They promise new jobs, but in fact just shuffle around existing ones. Prudential got a quarter billion just to move its headquarters a few blocks in Newark. Instead of investing precious tax dollars in actual job creation, New Jersey wastes it on hand-outs to well-connected corporations.

… and not the 99%

Meanwhile, he did raise taxes on one group: the working poor. Christie cut the Earned Income Tax Credit, a program with a long record of bipartisan support that puts more cash in the pockets of struggling families. And just for good measure, Christie also vetoed a modest $1.25/hr increase in the minimum wage.

Need to keep the beer cold?  As Jim Hightower would say, put it next to Chris Christie’s heart.

But isn’t he a social liberal?

People sometimes get the idea that Northeastern Republicans are “fiscal moderates and social liberals.” Not Christie.

On Marriage Equality: Christie is not only against same-sex marriage, he vetoed a bill that would have given equal rights to same sex couples.

On the DREAM Act: He killed it. This was a bill to allow the children of immigrants who graduated high school in New Jersey to attend state colleges at in-state tuition rates.  

On women’s health and abortion rights: He eliminated all funding for women’s health, cutting $7.4 million to Planned Parenthood and other clinics that offer contraception, cancer screenings and other essential services.

That’s not all.

Christie’s blind faith in trickle-down economics has left New Jersey with the seventh highest unemployment rate in the country (9.3%). Yet Christie single-handedly killed the biggest public infrastructure project in the country. The ARC tunnel would have connected New Jersey to New York and created 45,000 permanent jobs, but Christie blocked the project. He’s like one of those moronic Republican Governors who turned down high-speed rail money from the Federal Stimulus Act in Florida or, you guessed it, Wisconsin.

He’s also endangering New Jersey’s reputation as a state that cares about education. In his first year in office he cut $1.2 billion in state aid to public schools. The cuts were so deep that the state Supreme Court found they violated students’ rights. As a candidate, Chris Christie pledged to increase funding for higher education. But then he was elected. And he turned around and cut higher education funding 15%.  All the while, referring to the leaders of the state’s teachers’ union as a “group of political thugs” for opposing these policies.

But what about that great moment after Sandy? Doesn’t that mean anything?

No. Not really. Christie said he didn’t ‘give a damn’ whether global warming contributed to the storm. And while climate scientists agree that climate change will produce worse and worse storms, Christie pulled New Jersey out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. The RGGI is a compact among the northeast states to limit carbon emissions, and is widely seen as a very smart policy. .

Christie is up for re-election this November. It will tough to defeat him, even as he richly deserves to go down. The media like him, and some Democrats in the State Legislature have on occasion made it too easy for him to look effective and far-sighted. If we tell the truth to ourselves, the truth is – right now, Christie is popular. The latest polling has him ahead of his likely Democratic opponent by 35 points. And he has a huge financial advantage.

Still more alarmingly, Christie has somehow secured support from some segments of organized labor, notably the laborers and plumbers unions. No doubt the leaders of these unions see themselves faced with a difficult choice. With Christie so far ahead in polls, it’s tempting to play the percentages and bet on the likely winner in the hopes of securing some small advantage for your members. Pragmatism has its place in politics. We get it.

But in this case, it’s deeply troubling.  

Sometimes, even when the odds are bad, you have to fight. The alternative is simply making an enemy stronger.

This isn’t the first time labor has made this mistake. There are many famous examples of letting short-term pragmatism blind you to a longer term reality. The Air Traffic Controllers backed Ronald Reagan for President in 1980, and he turned around and crushed them. Richard Nixon was backed by many construction unions in 1968 and 1972, and he then worked to undermine them. And of course in Wisconsin, the police and firefighters unions endorsed Walker in his first campaign, and have to know what a gigantic mistake that was.

Christie’s record speaks for itself, and his kind words for Scott Walker should erase any doubt: Christie is no moderate. His worldview should be an anathema to progressives everywhere.  He’s also dangerous, because he’s popular and is a strong contender for the Republican nomination in 2016. A landslide victory in 2013 will be a launching pad for his 2016 race—“I won a bi-partisan landslide in a blue northeastern state (one that Barack Obama won by 18 points and Bob Menendez won by 20 points), I tamed the unions, and I can make a conservative message work everywhere from New Jersey to New Mexico.”  Being able to point to labor support will only bolster his case.

h/t: AlterNet

Long-simmering tensions between labor and business over importing new workers are spilling out in the open, raising fears that an impasse between two of the biggest stakeholders in the immigration debate could scuttle comprehensive immigration reform.

The tone of what had been mostly quiet and behind-the-scenes talks between the AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce has been heating up in recent days as Republicans and business lobbyists have gone out of their way to preemptively blame unions for killing a bill. It’s not clear whether the public tiff is part of tough final negotiations or a sign that talks are deteriorating — or perhaps both.

The union federation and the chamber have been in talks for months, with the blessing of a bipartisan group of senators working on immigration reform, but so far has only produced abarebones set of principles that would create a new class of immigrant workers and a new federal agency to monitor employment trends. Senators in the so-called “Gang of 8” have complained about the two sides’ progress, which could make plans to release legislation before early next month more difficult.

Randy Johnson, a senior vice president of the Chamber of Commerce who is tasked with handling immigration issues, took the dispute public on Friday, venting to reporters that business’ demand of 400,000 new guest worker visas was met with a number from labor well below 100,000. He put the chances of a deal at just 50-50.

According to a source close to the business side of negotiations, industry groups are stuck on how much employers should have to pay over market rates in order to hire immigrants and at what point those requirements would kick in. Under the plan under discussion, employers who imported workers would have to pay a premium on standard wages paid to low skilled workers in occupations typically filled by immigrants. That premium, which would come from a mix of government fees and wage requirements, would range from around 20 percent up to an average as high as 60-70 percent, rising or falling based on factors like unemployment rates, the type of job, and whether employers had exceeded agreed-upon visa caps.

Underscoring the increased intensity of talks is the surprising progress lawmakers have made in recent days on other aspects of immigration reform. Republicans of all stripes are signaling that they could accept a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, a huge hurdle that helped wipe out previous attempts at reform. The GOP’s surprising tack to the center is upping the pressure on labor and business to work out a plan for future immigration — or risk being saddled with the blame if reform dies again.

Republicans working on immigration legislation believe that they’ve greatly increased their leverage on guest workers in recent weeks by proving they can recruit tea party conservatives like Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) to the reform cause and keep talk radio relatively quiet.

On the other side, labor is hoping the GOP’s increasing fear of provoking Latino voters, as evidenced by the RNC’s dire new report on minority outreach, will dissuade them from risking blame for a bill’s failure by holding out.

“We’re pretty confident it wasn’t busines that brought those Republicans on board … but the reality that the future of the GOP depends on a new demographic,” Ana Avendano, director of immigration and community action at the AFL-CIO told TPM. “We’ve seen no evidence that the Chamber has actually moved a single politician in the right way. What we heard is they’ve pulled McCain and Graham back from reaching a deal.”

Avendano floated the possibility that Congress might pass a bill without a temporary worker component at all if talks break down, a scenario that Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and other Republicans working on a bill have said would be a deal breaker.

h/t: TPM

Today in union-hating by Dana Loesch: She is defending right-wing loon and The Dana Show regular Steven Crowder’s false accusations that the union member was “assaulting” him, when in fact it was the other way around.

DanaLoeschRadio.com:

 It’s insane to allege that Crowder — who wasn’t standing near the union member, who appeared to trip over his own feet rather than was “pushed,” and who had his back turned and turned with hands up in a non-threatening manner — pushed the union member. Where is Dunnings’ evidence? Why didn’t the union bring charges? Because it’s a bogus assertion. 

Prosecutor Stuart Dunnings said he didn’t obtain the full video until he got it from a far left group which is an absolute, outright lie as the full, unedited video was posted by Crowder when he posted the edited-for-TV video.The full, unedited video was always available.
Dunnings is simply protecting the union members behind the riot which saw them destroy property, put women and children in harm’s way, and assault those who were videotaped simply asking questions. It’s an embarrassment to the office in which he serves.

Dunnings did his job properly, and this is typical of her to demonize unions.


The Lansing State Journal, on the other hand, called out Crowder’s phony baloney:

Eclectablog:

It turns out that I was 100% correct. Ingham County Prosecutor Stuart Dunnings III is not filing charges in the incident because Crowder provided him with highly-edited video and the full, unedited version shows that his “attacker” was simply defending himself. 

Nice try Crowder. You’re a fraud and now everybody knows it.

Loesch and Crowder both are manipulative liars.

(Cross-Posted From DanaBusted.blgospot.com )

When Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) initiated a high-profile effort to bust his state’s public sector unions in 2011, he said that he had no interest in pursuing similar efforts against private sector unions. “Private sector unions are my partner in economic development,” Walker has said. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel noted that he “has consistently downplayed seeking any restrictions on private unions in public statements.”

Walker also said in December that “he wouldn’t pursue any new bills on public or private unions in the coming legislative session.” However, word evidently did not get down to his Republican colleagues, who introduced and are fast-tracking a bill to allow employers to cut hours of union workers without the unions’ consent:

Republicans are hurrying bills through the Wisconsin Legislature that they say could prevent layoffs by allowing companies to cut back workers’ hours, but Democrats on Tuesday called them a renewed GOP attack on unions.

The bills wouldn’t require companies to negotiate with unions about cutting back hours, in contrast to almost all similar laws in other states. But a spokeswoman for the author of the Assembly version of the Wisconsin proposal said there was no intent to harm organized labor.

The Wisconsin GOP is moving this bill under the guise of creating a “work-sharing” program, which is an idea aimed at using government support to allow businesses to cut back worker hours while not laying off employees (with the government picking up the tab for the hours workers miss).

“Republicans began their war on bargaining rights with Act 10, and with this bill they have nowturned their attention to private sector unions,” said state senate Minority Leader Chris Larson (D). “This bill is a clear opening shot at undermining private sector unions.” “The Farrow-Brooks bill says that private sector unions shouldn’t be able to negotiate for their members. It’s one more step toward their goal of ending the right of Wisconsin citizens to have their voice heard in the workplace,” added State Senator Julie Lassa (D).

H/T: Pat Garofalo at Think Progress Economy

Former South Carolina senator Jim DeMint, the incoming president of the Heritage Foundation, spoke with Janet Mefferd yesterday about immigration reform and the future of the GOP.

DeMint was unhappy with President Obama’s immigration proposal and the bipartisan framework presented this week in the Senate, both of which include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Democrats, he claimed, “are much more interested in new voters and union members than they are in fixing the system and honoring our heritage of immigration.”

DeMint, the architect of the 2010 Tea Party takeover, also denied that the GOP needs to moderate its positions to appeal to more voters after its drubbing among women, young people, African-Americans, Latinos and Asian-Americans in 2012. “We’re just not telling our story well and we’re not doing a good job of showing the victims of progressive liberal policies,” DeMint said. “And there are a lot of them around the country and minorities are the biggest victims of these policies.”

H/T: Miranda Blue at RWW

WASHINGTON (AP) — In an embarrassing setback for President Barack Obama, a federal appeals court panel ruled Friday that he violated the Constitution in making certain recess appointments and moved to curtail a chief executive’s ability in the future to circumvent the Senate in such scenarios.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said that Obama did not have the power to make three recess appointments last year to the National Labor Relations Board because the Senate was officially in session — and not in recess — at the time. If the decision stands, it could invalidate hundreds of board decisions.

The court said the president could only fill vacancies with the recess appointment procedure if the openings arise when the Senate is in an official recess, which it defined as the break between sessions of Congress.

The ruling threw into question Obama’s recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray’s appointment, also made at the same time, has been challenged in a separate case.

The White House had no immediate comment.

Obama made the recess appointments on Jan. 4, 2012, after Senate Republicans spent months blocking his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions. Obama claims he acted properly because the Senate was away for the holidays on a 20-day recess. The Constitution allows for such appointments without Senate approval when Congress is in recess.

The three-judge panel, all appointed by Republican presidents, ruled that during one of those pro forma sessions on Jan. 3, the Senate officially convened its second session of the 112th Congress, as required by the Constitution.

“Either the Senate is in session, or it is in recess,” Chief Judge David Sentelle wrote in the 46-page ruling. “If it has broken for three days within an ongoing session, it is not in “the Recess” described in the Constitution.”

Simply taking a break of an evening or a weekend during a regular working session cannot count, he said. Sentelle said that otherwise “the president could make appointments any time the Senate so much as broke for lunch.”

The Obama administration is expected to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. But if the ruling stands, it means that hundreds of decisions issued by the board over more than a year would be invalid. It also would leave the five-member labor board with just one validly appointed member, effectively shutting it down. The board is allowed to issue decisions only when it has at least three sitting members.

Obama used the recess appointment to appoint Deputy Labor Secretary Sharon Block, union lawyer Richard Griffin and NLRB counsel Terence Flynn to fill vacancies on the NLRB, giving it a full contingent for the first time in more than a year. Block and Griffin are Democrats, while Flynn is a Republican. Flynn stepped down from the board last year.

The court’s decision is a victory for Republicans and business groups that have been attacking the labor board for issuing a series of decisions and rules that make it easier for the nation’s labor unions to organize new members.

h/t: AP.org