RUTHFULLY YOURS

This is welcome news…..and hard working union members should also challenge the unions’ use of dues to promote candidates…..rk

As its membership plummets, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is seeking to unionize home health-care workers, who have never previously organized and do not fit the traditional description of the public employees SEIU typically represents. The union is making its attempt in states across the country, but in Minnesota, where it has been rife with fraud, the personal-care attendants are pushing back, pursuing one of the largest union-decertification efforts in the history of the United States.

In 2013, Governor Mark Dayton (D.) signed a law declaring that home health-care providers — mostly women caring for disabled family members — are government employees, but only for purposes of collective bargaining. Shortly thereafter, the SEIU swooped in, pressuring workers to vote for unionization. Fewer than 6,000 ballots were cast, but because Minnesota law requires unions to receive majority support only from those who vote rather than from the entire bargaining unit, the 3,543 yes votes were enough to unionize all 27,000 personal-care attendants in the state.

To make matters worse, caretakers allege that SEIU did more than harass and “stalk” them — they say the union also forged signatures and denied anti-union voters ballots in the representation election.

Nonetheless, the resulting contract stipulated that 3 percent of the Medicaid funds that caregivers received in compensation for their work would be taken from them and handed over as union dues to the SEIU. But thanks to the Supreme Court decision in Harris v. Quinn (2014), unions representing home health workers can collect payment only from those who voluntarily opt in to the union and agree to have the dues deducted. But in Minnesota, the SEIU was caught deducting dues from caregivers who never gave them permission to do so.

Patricia Johansen, a personal-care attendant in Otter Tail County, Minn., told Matt Patterson of the Center for Worker Freedom that she never voted for the union or agreed to join and have dues deducted. In the fall of 2015, however, she noticed that the SEIU had been skimming dues from her Medicaid funds. When she complained, the SEIU said it had her signed dues-deduction authorization card on file.

Patricia, who is left-handed and “writes in an elegant and distinctive cursive” script, requested a copy — and received a form that had been filled out in her name in “crude, block letters” with a “clumsy” signature. Patricia had her dues refunded after notifying the union that she had been defrauded, but others have not been as lucky.

Now she and other personal-care attendants are collecting signatures to put the SEIU back on the ballot in hopes of decertifying this union that appears to have engaged in voter disenfranchisement, identity theft, and unlawful dues deduction, all in order to divert Medicaid funds to its own coffers.

In 2011, Dennis Kucinich was still a Democratic congressman from Ohio. But he was not walking in lockstep with President Obama — at least not on Libya. True to his anti-war leanings, Kucinich was a staunch opponent of Obama’s unauthorized war against the Qaddafi regime.

Kucinich’s very public efforts included trying to broker negotiations between the administration and the Qaddafi regime, to whom the White House was turning a deaf ear. It was in that context that he took a call in his Washington office from Saif al-Islam Qaddafi, the ruler’s son and confidant. Four years later, as he recalled in a recent opinion piece, Kucinich learned that the call had been recorded and leaked to the Washington Times.

The former lawmaker believes the monitoring of his communication and the subsequent leak are the work of American intelligence agents.

To be sure, it is not a solid case. Kucinich is now a commentator at Fox News, on whose website he explains his side of the story, and on whose programming ardently pro-Trump contributors are a staple — including contributors who have been sympathetic to the new president’s claim that he was monitored by his predecessor. The gist of Kucinich’s piece is to “vouch for the fact that extracurricular surveillance does occur.” The express point is to counter the ridicule heaped on Trump’s claim that he personally was wiretapped at Trump Tower.

As we’ve repeatedly noted (see, e.g., here, here, and here), there is no known support for Trump’s narrow claim (made in a series of March 4 tweets). Yet, there is now overwhelming evidence that the Obama administration monitored Trump associates and campaign and transition officials. There were, moreover, leaks of classified information to the media — particularly in the case of Trump’s original national-security adviser, Michael Flynn, whose telephone communications with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. were unlawfully disclosed to the Washington Post.

There is a question closely related to that of whether the Obama administration was guilty of a gross abuse of power — exploiting its foreign-intelligence-collection authority to keep tabs on its political opponents, thwarting and punishing their resistance. The question is: Did it start with Donald Trump?

President Trump is filling out his Administration, but too slowly, and an offshore drilling proposal shows why having personnel to mind the store is so important. Barring a late reversal, Mr. Trump may abet his predecessor’s goal of undermining American energy production.

Two days before President Obama left office—the encyclopedia definition of a midnight regulation—U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CPB) rolled out a new rule on the Jones Act. Under this 1920 law, all ships transporting goods between U.S. ports must be U.S.-flagged, constructed in the U.S., owned by U.S. citizens and crewed by U.S. citizens.

Most ships in the offshore oil and gas industry like crewboats or platform-supply vessels already comply with the Jones Act in the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska and elsewhere. But Customs now wants to extend the mandate to certain specialized drilling, construction and engineering vessels. Currently, about 30 CPB regulatory precedents stretching back 40 years exempt these ships from the Jones Act.

The reason is that the drilling industry is global and mobile. Heavy-lift construction vessels, for example, are used to install moorings in deep water and perform other specific, limited tasks. There are 76 in the world—and none of them comply with the Jones Act. The international fleet of crane barges tops out at 173, only 17 of which qualify.

If the CPB reverses historic precedent, the damage will be immediate and disorderly. Current development will be delayed or the rule could even become a de facto moratorium. Removing foreign-flagged vessels from the U.S. supply chain will make future projects riskier and more expensive. Proponents claim U.S. fleets can simply buy new equipment, but that takes time and in any case is a misallocation of resources to satisfy an arbitrary regulation.

The motives of Mr. Obama and career CPB staff are obvious: to reduce oil-and-gas investment. Less obvious is the support of some Republicans in Congress, especially the Louisiana delegation led by Majority Whip Steve Scalise. They’re cheering because they think blocking foreign competition will benefit the local maritime trade.

As the national taxpayer advocate, I oversee an independent unit within the Internal Revenue Service that has helped more than four million individual and business taxpayers resolve their IRS account problems, and I am required to report to Congress annually on the most serious problems encountered by U.S. taxpayers.

If I had to distill everything I’ve learned into one sentence, it would be this: The root of all evil is the complexity of the tax code.

There is currently considerable support in Congress to take up corporate tax reform, and corporate reform is certainly needed. But I urge policy makers to remember that, as compared with about two million taxable corporations, there are 151 million individual taxpayers, including 27 million who report sole-proprietor or farm business income with their individual returns. There are also nearly nine million pass-through entities (S corporations and partnerships), the income from which is reported on individual income-tax returns. These taxpayers desperately need relief from the extraordinary compliance burdens the tax code imposes.

I have long believed comprehensive tax simplification is achievable by following the model of the landmark Tax Reform Act of 1986. Skeptics point out that asking taxpayers to give up tax breaks from which they currently benefit will generate pushback, and that’s certainly true. But if policy makers pair substantial reductions in tax expenditures with substantial reductions in tax rates, and maintain current tax-burden levels by income decile, I believe taxpayers will appreciate that their tax burdens on average won’t change much—and they will actually end up better off because they will save money on compliance costs. That approach prevailed 30 years ago, and despite some significant differences in circumstances, it could prevail again today.

I recommend that policy makers consider the following core principles in developing tax-reform legislation:

First, the tax system should not be so complex as to create traps for the unwary.

Health reform may be on life support and tax reform uncertain, but one part of the Donald Trump economic growth project is succeeding: deregulation. The question is whether the President will now rev up the effort.

President Trump last week signed the 13th bill repealing regulations through a potent tool called the Congressional Review Act (CRA), which allows Congress to reject rules in a majority vote within 60 legislative days of publication. The 1996 law had previously been used only once, when Congress and George W. Bush nixed an ergonomics directive from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Two other repeal resolutions have passed the House and are pending in the Senate.

The list of rejects includes the Interior Department’s Stream Protection Rule, which would have eliminated a third of coal-industry jobs and usurped state authority over mining, for little environmental improvement. Awaiting Senate repeal is the Bureau of Land Management’s venting and flaring rule for natural-gas fracking. That aimed to reduce methane emissions, though they have already dropped more than 15% since 1990 even as U.S. energy exploration has doubled in a decade.

Other worthy targets: A Federal Communications Commission regulation that would have forced Comcast to abide by consumer privacy standards that Amazon and Google could ignore. Sen. Ben Sasse (R., Neb.) moved a bill to deep-six a teacher training mandate that features incentives for teachers to avoid struggling schools that need talented instruction most. The left is spreading panic about potential sludge rivers or killer toys, but these reversals merely restore the status quo of six months ago.

Congressional Review actions do not include Mr. Trump’s executive orders, which have directed agencies to reconsider the trillion-dollar Clean Power Plan, the Labor Department’s financial advice diktat known as the fiduciary rule, among many others.

Then there are the rules that agencies have delayed and may eventually scrap, from micromanaging ceiling fan efficiency to organic farming standards. Sam Batkins at the American Action Forum estimates that 15 delayed rules alone would require 10 million hours of paperwork. That time could be devoted to activities that produce wealth and innovation, and the main losers would be compliance lawyers.

The White House and Senate Republicans have said the 60-day review period for Congressional Review Act measures will end next month. But our colleague Kimberley Strassel has explained how the law applies to past rules that agencies failed to report to Congress as required. The same is true for “guidance” letters, such as the Education Department’s sexual assault “Dear Colleague,” that were imposed with the force of law without having to go through a public comment period.