Wall of Moms, Portland, Oregon 2020
Abigail Spanberger spoke for the entitled crowd apparently on a recent telephone conference call. The call was for Democratic Members of the House of Representatives. AS complained that Progressives hurt the party because the opponents accused her and her crowd of "socialism."
Progressives did not lose their seats in 2020.
Centrists, the entitled crowd of the Democratic House membership, did.
I have started looking at the numbers: It appears that some 80% of the lost seats in the House were held by Democratic Centrists. Maybe they were not Progressive enough. Or maybe the voters decided that if they were going to elect Republicans, they were going to vote Republican and elect the real thing.
Whatever motivated the voters it is clear that Progressives were not the cause of the Democrats' poor House results.
Like I said, I have just started to look into the case of the lost seats and the people who lost them. Some things come clear upon the first examination, however.
The losers included a large number of first-termers, that is, people who were elected in 2018 and so were running for re-election at the end of their first term. People like Donna Shalala of Florida, and Abby Finkenauer of Iowa. No-one ever called Donna Shalala a "socialist" except her opponent. If Ms. Shalala wasn't able to respond to that, it explains a lot about why she is no longer in office.
The losses included close races. Finkenauer lost 51%-48.6% in Iowa, for example, and Harley Rouda of California lost 51%-49%. Not exactly a blowout, even in very Republican Districts. Rouda's District is in Orange County, California and not in Beverly Hills. Mr. Rouda was defeated by the Chair of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, a very conservative and very Republican person in a very conservative and very Republican District.
Collin Peterson of Minnesota had been in Washington, D.C. a long time. This was not his first re-election campaign. However, he consistently voted for GOP interests over the years, as did Max Rose of New York, another of the first-termers. Rouda in fact voted against impeachment. Twice. It is likely that the voters in their conservative Republican Districts decided that if they were going to vote for a Republican, they were going to elect the real deal this year.
I plan to continue to look at the losses and the people who lost. But the beginning of my search leads me to call BS, AS. It was not the Progressives who lost seats. No. It was Centrists who were either not Progressive or not Republican enough for the people in their Districts. And even then, many of these races were close. There were few if any blowouts.
So again I call BS, AS.
Please read the disclaimer. ©2020 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved.
THEY'RE STILL IN POWER, YOU KNOW. COMMENT ON THEIR PROPOSALS ....
... at least until January 20, 2021.
Another Comment period closes on another proposal. Their proposal deserves your Comments, as their proposals mostly have deserved your Comments for four years. The situation has not changed yet, you know. They are still in power, still making proposals, and Comments are still necessary.
What follows is information for you to use regarding the Comment period that ends today on their proposal to circumvent federal labor laws that govern the federal workforce. Feel free to copy all or any part of the following in order to leave your own Comments.
(LexisNexis)
Temporary and Term Employment
A Proposed Rule by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
TO: regulations.gov
Docket No.: 2020-20038.
RIN: 3206-AN92.
Comment Period Deadline: November 10, 2020.
Summary: Currently, "permanent" federal employees are in positions that are expected to continue indefinitely. "Temporary" or "term" employees are in positions with a fixed end date. The current proposed change would increase the present maximum limit of four years for most "nonpermanent" workers from 4 to 10 years.
Relevance and Justification: The American Federation of Government Employees has pointed out that federal agencies could use their authority to fill more positions with employees who will be out of their jobs when their term ends, as they do now under even more limiting rules. The AFGE notes that this sets the stage for a "disposable workforce," as distinct from a career federal workforce. The practice of hiring term and temporary federal workers is apparently widespread at the present time as it is, "with some individuals serving for years and years rotating from one temporary position to another without job security and without proper access to benefit programs," the National Treasury Employees Union has observed.
Term employees in federal employment may not qualify for an annuity benefit and may not be eligible for the same percentage of federal contribution to premiums to continue their federal health insurance coverage when they retire. Further, term employees do not have a right to appeal. As the public policy director of the AFGE has said, "It's a streamlined way to fire people--when your term has ended, they can fire you because your term has ended."
CONCLUSION
Your proposed rule circumvents federal labor laws that apply to federal workers. It is contrary to law. It must be withdrawn or, if it is not withdrawn, then it must be struck down as soon as it is issued, if ever.
Thank you for your consideration of these Comments.
Please read the disclaimer. This article ©2020 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved except that as stated, permission is freely given to quote all or part of the above Comments in any Comment on the proposed rule that may be left on regulations.gov, by any reader, with or without attribution.
Posted by Dennis J. Wall on November 10, 2020 at 07:14 AM in Comments on Proposed Rules, Regulations and rules of administrative agencies., Rules and regulations | Permalink | Comments (0)
Tags: #Comments, #FederalEmployees, #LaborLaws, #OPM, #ProposedRules