A Shameful Proclamation(bush suspends wage laws for NO area)wtf?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - A Shameful Proclamation(bush suspends wage laws for NO area)wtf?

Posted: 9/11/2005 1:29:56 AM EDT

A Shameful Proclamation
September 10, 2005
www.nytimes.com/2005/09/10/opinion/10sat2.html?oref=login
On Thursday, President Bush issued a proclamation suspending the law that requires employers to pay the locally prevailing wage to construction workers on federally financed projects. The suspension applies to parts of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida.

By any standard of human decency, condemning many already poor and now bereft people to subpar wages - thus perpetuating their poverty - is unacceptable. It is also bad for the economy. Without the law, called the Davis-Bacon Act, contractors will be able to pay less, but they'll also get less, as lower wages invariably mean lower productivity.

The ostensible rationale for suspending the law is to reduce taxpayers' costs. Does Mr. Bush really believe it is the will of the American people to deny the prevailing wage to construction workers in New Orleans, Biloxi and other hard-hit areas? Besides, the proclamation doesn't require contractors to pass on the savings they will get by cutting wages from current low levels. Around New Orleans, the prevailing hourly wage for a truck driver working on a levee is $9.04; for an electrician, it's $14.30.

Republicans have long been trying to repeal the prevailing wage law on the grounds that the regulations are expensive and bureaucratic; weakening it was even part of the Republican Party platform in 1996 and 2000. Now, in a time of searing need, the party wants to achieve by fiat what it couldn't achieve through the normal democratic process.

In a letter this week to Mr. Bush urging him to suspend the law, 35 Republican representatives noted approvingly that Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Richard Nixon and the elder George Bush had all suspended the law during "emergencies." For the record, Mr. Roosevelt suspended it for two weeks in 1934, to make time to clear up contradictions between it and another law. Mr. Nixon suspended it for six weeks in 1971 as part of his misbegotten attempt to control spiraling inflation. And Mr. Bush did so after Hurricane Andrew in 1992, two weeks before he was defeated by Bill Clinton, who quickly reinstated it after assuming the presidency.

If Mr. Bush does not rescind his proclamation voluntarily, Congress should pass a law forcing him to do so.

Posted: 9/11/2005 1:32:13 AM EDT

[#1]

Bottom line. The GOP is in power and guns are being confiscated from law-abiding citizens. Wake up.

Posted: 9/11/2005 1:33:40 AM EDT

[#2]

That law is BS. What the hell is the "local prevailing wage?"

In the end, it will be illegal alien Mexicans doing the work, and I could give a shit less if they get paid at all.

Posted: 9/11/2005 1:35:35 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
That law is BS. What the hell is the "local prevailing wage?"

In the end, it will be illegal alien Mexicans doing the work, and I could give a shit less if they get paid at all.

Yup

Posted: 9/11/2005 1:38:50 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Quoted:
That law is BS. What the hell is the "local prevailing wage?"

In the end, it will be illegal alien Mexicans doing the work, and I could give a shit less if they get paid at all.

Yup

a couple of illegals begging me for money said they were trying to get money to get to NO.........

Posted: 9/11/2005 1:51:35 AM EDT

[#5]

Wow, you mean people will actually have the ability to set their own wages in accordance to what they are willing to work for? How un-union like.

Posted: 9/11/2005 2:01:00 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
...and guns are being confiscated from law-abiding citizens.

By the order of the local authorities, who are Democrats.

Didn't you just post some sad-sap story about not wanting to be a douche-bag liberal anymore?

Posted: 9/11/2005 2:08:34 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Quoted:
...and guns are being confiscated from law-abiding citizens.

By the order of the local authorities, who are Democrats.

Didn't you just post some sad-sap story about not wanting to be a douche-bag liberal anymore?

And also said that the Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same credit card. The Democrats need to wake up as well. Both parties, IMO, would like to see increased dependance on the government.

I don't trust either party as far as I could spit a rat.

Posted: 9/11/2005 2:12:03 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
I don't trust either party as far as I could spit a rat.

You go off blaming the GOP for what it did not do, then try to claim to be nonpartisan? Ya, right.

Posted: 9/11/2005 2:21:01 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't trust either party as far as I could spit a rat.

You go off blaming the GOP for what it did not do, then try to claim to be nonpartisan? Ya, right.

Fair enough. I see your point.

That said, here we are. I'm not a fan of either party at this point. I'll keep your point in mind in the future and be more specific.

Posted: 9/11/2005 3:09:29 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Bottom line. The GOP is in power and guns are being confiscated from law-abiding citizens. Wake up.

No...the LIBERALS are in power in LA and have been for 60+ years...THEY are confiscating the lawfully owned firearms and the GOP is doing NOTHING to stop it. They're ALL culpable, regardless of party lines.

Posted: 9/11/2005 4:25:57 AM EDT

[#11]

Fuck the New York Times and the morons who write their editorials. Did anyone hear on Rush how after the hurricane they criticized Bush for not adequately funding or supporting building of levees around NO (even though it's Congress that determines what money goes where, LA had the most civil works funding of any state, and it'd take 20 years to reinforce the levees to the point they could have resisted a hurricane with the force of Katrina).

Never mind all that, but their criticism and Monday-morning quarterbacking contradicted an editorial they wrote just earlier this year, where they criticized Bush for supporting spending bills on levees and dredging around NO, because it damaged wetlands.

Posted: 9/11/2005 4:27:41 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That law is BS. What the hell is the "local prevailing wage?"

In the end, it will be illegal alien Mexicans doing the work, and I could give a shit less if they get paid at all.

Yup

a couple of illegals begging me for money said they were trying to get money to get to NO.........

Tell them to walk/swim.

It was good enough to get them here.

Posted: 9/11/2005 4:29:55 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
...and guns are being confiscated from law-abiding citizens.

By the order of the local authorities, who are Democrats.

Didn't you just post some sad-sap story about not wanting to be a douche-bag liberal anymore?

I thought he did too.
I guess the liberal in him is just to strong.

Fight it Peak_Oil, you can beat that affliction called liberalism.

Posted: 9/11/2005 5:05:48 AM EDT

[#14]

Anybody ever have to deal with the Davis-Bacon act on a Federal project?????????????

It is a law that guarantees Union wages and you have forms and inspectors UP THE REAR for as long as the project lasts and THEN SOME.

22bad,

You AND THE DAVIS BACON ACT- can go pound sand, if that is your intention by printing this garbage.

If not, I apologize.

It is a horrible burden on contractors and on the govt to monitor this, NOBODY HAS TIME to jump thru these hoops.

.

Dram out

Posted: 9/11/2005 5:20:10 AM EDT

[#15]

Seeing how the tax payers have to pay for the rebuilding of NO, the suspension of the act allows contractors to pay what the labor market will bear. You'll have illegals doing the work no matter what. It makes good economic sense by allowing labor costs to remain competative. Why should taxpayers have to foot the bill for a manual laborer, in all likelyhood an undocumented person, to earn Union wages? No one will work for $2 an hour when they can make 3 times that or more at a Fast Food joint, so it will all balance out. It's just economically prudent.

Posted: 9/11/2005 5:25:10 AM EDT

[#16]

Summary:

Government supports Capitalism, Liberals soil themselves

Posted: 9/11/2005 12:57:15 PM EDT

[#17]

Since when do we care about holding down costs?

Posted: 9/11/2005 1:01:12 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
A Shameful Proclamation
September 10, 2005
www.nytimes.com/2005/09/10/opinion/10sat2.html?oref=login
On Thursday, President Bush issued a proclamation suspending the law that requires employers to pay the locally prevailing wage to construction workers on federally financed projects. The suspension applies to parts of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida.

By any standard of human decency, condemning many already poor and now bereft people to subpar wages - thus perpetuating their poverty - is unacceptable. It is also bad for the economy. Without the law, called the Davis-Bacon Act, contractors will be able to pay less, but they'll also get less, as lower wages invariably mean lower productivity.

The ostensible rationale for suspending the law is to reduce taxpayers' costs. Does Mr. Bush really believe it is the will of the American people to deny the prevailing wage to construction workers in New Orleans, Biloxi and other hard-hit areas? Besides, the proclamation doesn't require contractors to pass on the savings they will get by cutting wages from current low levels. Around New Orleans, the prevailing hourly wage for a truck driver working on a levee is $9.04; for an electrician, it's $14.30.

Republicans have long been trying to repeal the prevailing wage law on the grounds that the regulations are expensive and bureaucratic; weakening it was even part of the Republican Party platform in 1996 and 2000. Now, in a time of searing need, the party wants to achieve by fiat what it couldn't achieve through the normal democratic process.

In a letter this week to Mr. Bush urging him to suspend the law, 35 Republican representatives noted approvingly that Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Richard Nixon and the elder George Bush had all suspended the law during "emergencies." For the record, Mr. Roosevelt suspended it for two weeks in 1934, to make time to clear up contradictions between it and another law. Mr. Nixon suspended it for six weeks in 1971 as part of his misbegotten attempt to control spiraling inflation. And Mr. Bush did so after Hurricane Andrew in 1992, two weeks before he was defeated by Bill Clinton, who quickly reinstated it after assuming the presidency.

If Mr. Bush does not rescind his proclamation voluntarily, Congress should pass a law forcing him to do so.

Why can't he do that on the F-22 and F-35 program. We are capitolists here they don't like it go elsewhere.

Posted: 9/11/2005 1:11:24 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Bottom line. The GOP is in power and guns are being confiscated from law-abiding citizens. Wake up.

Uh BULLSHIT

Guns are being confiscated by DEMOCRATS.

Posted: 9/11/2005 1:15:55 PM EDT

[#20]

It controls the price gouging.

Posted: 9/11/2005 1:43:22 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Anybody ever have to deal with the Davis-Bacon act on a Federal project?????????????
It is a law that guarantees Union wages and you have forms and inspectors UP THE REAR for as long as the project lasts and THEN SOME.
22bad,
You AND THE DAVIS BACON ACT- can go pound sand, if that is your intention by printing this garbage.
If not, I apologize.
It is a horrible burden on contractors and on the govt to monitor this, NOBODY HAS TIME to jump thru these hoops.
Dram out

Pound your own sand
I heard about this on Fox IIRC
this editorial was the only written source I could find "quickly"
(I have not had as much free time to search around lately)

I thought it was important because I took it as an indication that illegals would be
heavily involved in this rebuilding effort funded by taxpayer dollars

I know several experienced contractors in several different industries
I doubt many of them will work for half wages, so who will? will we be getting substandard
work for our taxpayer dollars..........I guess I just answered my own question

Posted: 9/11/2005 1:47:05 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:
...and guns are being confiscated from law-abiding citizens.

By the order of the local authorities, who are Democrats.

Didn't you just post some sad-sap story about not wanting to be a douche-bag liberal anymore?

He got over it.

Posted: 9/11/2005 1:49:53 PM EDT

[#23]

Much as I dislike command economy and recognize that law is unconctitutional anyways, since when did the President have the power to rescind legislation by dictate?

Posted: 9/11/2005 1:52:32 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Bottom line. The GOP is in power and guns are being confiscated from law-abiding citizens. Wake up.

Horseshit. The local and state government (which are both DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED) are confiscating the guns.

Posted: 9/11/2005 1:53:57 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Much as I dislike command economy and recognize that law is unconctitutional anyways, since when did the President have the power to rescind legislation by dictate?

executive orders
I tried to look at clintons because I remembered some of them were waaaaaaay off the scale
the only list I could find had about 90% of them "classified"
the president can make up a law and have it take effect immediately

Posted: 9/11/2005 1:55:08 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Much as I dislike command economy and recognize that law is unconctitutional anyways, since when did the President have the power to rescind legislation by dictate?

executive orders
I tried to look at clintons because I remembered some of them were waaaaaaay off the scale
the only list I could find had about 90% of them "classified"
the president can make up a law and have it take effect immediately

I'm sure that's exactly what the founders intended when they set up 3 separate branches of government...

Posted: 9/11/2005 1:56:13 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Much as I dislike command economy and recognize that law is unconctitutional anyways, since when did the President have the power to rescind legislation by dictate?

executive orders

Spoken like someone who doesn't have the slightest idea how executive orders actually work.

Posted: 9/11/2005 1:57:53 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Much as I dislike command economy and recognize that law is unconctitutional anyways, since when did the President have the power to rescind legislation by dictate?

executive orders

Spoken like someone who doesn't have the slightest idea how executive orders actually work.

well, lets ask an expert.............YOU tell us how it works
I have seen some pretty extreme executive orders, maybe I was just dreaming

Posted: 9/11/2005 1:58:17 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Much as I dislike command economy and recognize that law is unconctitutional anyways, since when did the President have the power to rescind legislation by dictate?

executive orders

Spoken like someone who doesn't have the slightest idea how executive orders actually work.

That's all right.

This is the internet.

Posted: 9/11/2005 1:59:30 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Bottom line. The GOP is in power and guns are being confiscated from law-abiding citizens. Wake up.

Uh BULLSHIT

Guns are being confiscated by DEMOCRATS.

My personal politics have nothign to do with this. But the as the DEMOCRATS sit by stealing our weapons, the GOP Administration is doing nothign to stop it. Which in my opinion is just as despicable as confiscating them in the first place.

Posted: 9/11/2005 2:01:40 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Much as I dislike command economy and recognize that law is unconctitutional anyways, since when did the President have the power to rescind legislation by dictate?

executive orders

Spoken like someone who doesn't have the slightest idea how executive orders actually work.

well, lets ask an expert.............YOU tell us how it works
I have seen some pretty extreme executive orders, maybe I was just dreaming

First of all, an executive order can ONLY be used to affect the enforcement of laws or regulations that are already on the books. You can't just say "I am signing an order to ban guns" for example...you can only do something like changing a line in the interpretation of a gun law already passed, as they did with the ban on USAS12s and Streetsweepers under Clinton. The law gave them the authority to ban guns of that type if they had no "sporting purpose" so Clinton just decided that those guns didn't have a "sporting purpose."
Second, we RIGHTLY excoriated Clinton for abusing the XO. Should we encourage President Bush to abuse it, even if it's in a good cause?

Posted: 9/11/2005 2:02:25 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Bottom line. The GOP is in power and guns are being confiscated from law-abiding citizens. Wake up.

Uh BULLSHIT

Guns are being confiscated by DEMOCRATS.

My personal politics have nothign to do with this. But the as the DEMOCRATS sit by stealing our weapons, the GOP Administration is doing nothign to stop it.

Damn that inconvenient Constitution, with it's blasted separation of powers...

Posted: 9/11/2005 2:03:05 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Bottom line. The GOP is in power and guns are being confiscated from law-abiding citizens. Wake up.

Uh BULLSHIT

Guns are being confiscated by DEMOCRATS.

My personal politics have nothign to do with this. But the as the DEMOCRATS sit by stealing our weapons, the GOP Administration is doing nothign to stop it. Which in my opinion is just as despicable as confiscating them in the first place.

Hi fiend.

Joined :: April 2005
Post Number :: 15

Hang around and you will definitely learn a few things.

In the mean time, remember this important rule: God gave you two ears and one mouth. This is so that you can listen twice as much as you talk.

Posted: 9/11/2005 2:03:47 PM EDT

[#34]

This suspends the requirement the gobberment has to pay or those who take gobberment money in Nola have to pay union wages which are generally higher than true prevailing wages. Excellent move

Posted: 9/11/2005 2:12:29 PM EDT

[#35]

Damn that inconvenient Constitution, with it's blasted separation of powers... hr

Now I admit I am wrong when I am. But explain how the separation of powers has anything to do with the Federal Government(The Administration/Congress) stepping up to the plate and publicly condeming the illegal and unconstitutional confiscation of our firearms.

Hang around and you will definitely learn a few things.

In the mean time, remember this important rule: God gave you two ears and one mouth. This is so that you can listen twice as much as you talk.

15 posts, six months. Maybe you couldn't tell, I read more than I post.

Posted: 9/11/2005 2:14:13 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Damn that inconvenient Constitution, with it's blasted separation of powers...

Now I admit I am wrong when I am. But explain how the separation of powers has anything to do with the Federal Government(The Administration/Congress) stepping up to the plate and publicly condeming the illegal and unconstitutional confiscation of our firearms.

Condemning it? Nothing. Stepping in and overruling local authorities? Everything.

Posted: 9/11/2005 2:15:31 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
A Shameful Proclamation
September 10, 2005
www.nytimes.com/2005/09/10/opinion/10sat2.html?oref=login
On Thursday, President Bush issued a proclamation suspending the law that requires employers to pay the locally prevailing wage to construction workers on federally financed projects. The suspension applies to parts of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida.

By any standard of human decency, condemning many already poor and now bereft people to subpar wages - thus perpetuating their poverty - is unacceptable. It is also bad for the economy. Without the law, called the Davis-Bacon Act, contractors will be able to pay less, but they'll also get less, as lower wages invariably mean lower productivity.

The ostensible rationale for suspending the law is to reduce taxpayers' costs. Does Mr. Bush really believe it is the will of the American people to deny the prevailing wage to construction workers in New Orleans, Biloxi and other hard-hit areas? Besides, the proclamation doesn't require contractors to pass on the savings they will get by cutting wages from current low levels. Around New Orleans, the prevailing hourly wage for a truck driver working on a levee is $9.04; for an electrician, it's $14.30.

Republicans have long been trying to repeal the prevailing wage law on the grounds that the regulations are expensive and bureaucratic; weakening it was even part of the Republican Party platform in 1996 and 2000. Now, in a time of searing need, the party wants to achieve by fiat what it couldn't achieve through the normal democratic process.

In a letter this week to Mr. Bush urging him to suspend the law, 35 Republican representatives noted approvingly that Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Richard Nixon and the elder George Bush had all suspended the law during "emergencies." For the record, Mr. Roosevelt suspended it for two weeks in 1934, to make time to clear up contradictions between it and another law. Mr. Nixon suspended it for six weeks in 1971 as part of his misbegotten attempt to control spiraling inflation. And Mr. Bush did so after Hurricane Andrew in 1992, two weeks before he was defeated by Bill Clinton, who quickly reinstated it after assuming the presidency.

If Mr. Bush does not rescind his proclamation voluntarily, Congress should pass a law forcing him to do so.

GOOD!

Posted: 9/11/2005 2:22:40 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Much as I dislike command economy and recognize that law is unconctitutional anyways, since when did the President have the power to rescind legislation by dictate?

executive orders

Spoken like someone who doesn't have the slightest idea how executive orders actually work.

well, lets ask an expert.............YOU tell us how it works
I have seen some pretty extreme executive orders, maybe I was just dreaming

First of all, an executive order can ONLY be used to affect the enforcement of laws or regulations that are already on the books. You can't just say "I am signing an order to ban guns" for example...you can only do something like changing a line in the interpretation of a gun law already passed, as they did with the ban on USAS12s and Streetsweepers under Clinton. The law gave them the authority to ban guns of that type if they had no "sporting purpose" so Clinton just decided that those guns didn't have a "sporting purpose."
Second, we RIGHTLY excoriated Clinton for abusing the XO. Should we encourage President Bush to abuse it, even if it's in a good cause?

NO, bush should not be encouraged to be as abusive to our country as clinton was

As far as the executive orders go.........I think some of them were not EXACTLY a "clarification"
of existing laws. For instance YOU CAN just sign a law saying I am going to imprison all Japanese

www.answers.com/topic/executive-order
One extreme example of an executive order is Executive Order 9066, where President Roosevelt delegated military authority to remove all people (used to target specifically Japanese-Americans and German-Americans) in a military zone. The authority delegated to John DeWitt subsequently paved the way for all Japanese-Americans on the West coast to be sent to internment camps for the duration of World War II. 11,000 German-Americans were also sent to internment camps under executive order.