Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bonnuss_in_austin who wrote (219986)	1/18/2002 7:21:27 PM
From: ThirdEye	Respond to of 769670

Bush’s ban on unions at Justice serves no purpose, union says By Kellie Lunney klunney@govexec.com President Bush’s decision to exempt certain Justice Department offices from a labor law is “bizarre” and the result of bad advice from his subordinates, argues a lawyer for the largest federal employees’ union. On Jan. 7, Bush issued an executive order exempting five Justice Department offices from union representation for national security reasons. The New York Times reported this week that White House officials said the executive order was necessary to prevent union contracts from restricting, through strikes or other means, the ability of Justice agencies to do their work. But Title 5, Sec. 7311 and Title 18, Sec. 1918 of the U.S. Code already prohibits federal employees from participating in strikes against the government. “Either the President’s advisers are totally ignorant of these fundamental laws, or they deliberately falsified the rationale for the President’s actions,” said Phil Kete, general counsel at the American Federation of Government Employees, on Tuesday. Kete said the executive order “reflects negatively on the advice that President Bush is being given by his subordinates.” Neither the White House nor the Justice Department returned calls on the matter. The decision affects more than 500 employees in the National Central Bureau of Interpol, Justice’s criminal division, the National Drug Intelligence Center, the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review and the 93 U.S. attorneys’ offices across the country. The offices included in the order are responsible for carrying out intelligence and investigative activities related to national security. According to Kete, the existing relationship between AFGE and the U.S. attorneys’ offices has not disrupted the government’s ability to carry out investigations related to national security. “AFGE has represented people in the U.S. attorneys’ offices, in some cases, for more than 20 years,” he said. “Not once has any U.S. attorney suggested that this representation made it more difficult, much less made it impossible, to carry out the national security tasks of the office.” govexec.com

To: bonnuss_in_austin who wrote (219986)	1/18/2002 8:02:39 PM
From: Arthur Radley	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

Don't you just love it when the White House spokesperson makes the following comments..."The administration said its actions were in no way influenced by Enron's political contributions to Bush. Enron was Bush's biggest political backer heading into the 2000 presidential election, making about $623,000 in contributions to his campaigns since 1993, when he was raising money for his first Texas gubernatorial race. ``The United States taxpayers have an exposure to risk and loss through OPIC,'' White House spokesman Ari Fleischer (news - web sites) told reporters. ``It's not uncommon for (companies) to have exposures which do require contacts between American officials and government officials in other countries to minimize those risks to taxpayers" And just why was Fliescher making these comments? Seems that it comes out now that Cheney was doing a little lobbying for Enron with India and now Fleischer is trying to put a little spin on the story. BUT WAIT A MINUTE...If American TAXXPAYERS have exposure that need protecting by Cheney, what about those TAXPAYING Americans that have been fleeced out of their retirement and investments by ENRON. So lobbying the India governement to protect Enron is okay, but protecting taxpayers from being fleeced is a no-no.