“Fast

calmatters commentary A union pot calls a union kettle black

‘The pot calling the kettle black” is an old saying about hypocrisy, applied to someone who does something while criticizing someone else for doing the same thing.

The Capitol saw a classic political example of the syndrome last week during a long and otherwise tedious committee hearing on a lengthy and complicated state budget “trailer bill.” We should all know by now that such trailer bills, which receive fast-track approval because of their supposed connection to the state budget, have morphed into political Christmas trees with ornaments of special favors to those with political pull.

Dan Walters The measure in question, Senate Bill 132, is this year’s higher education omnibus bill containing dozens of provisions affecting the state’s colleges and universities and Section 67 is a favor to the unions that represent tens of thousands of non-faculty employees of the University of California.

It would, in essence, block all construction at UC campuses until an ad hoc assortment of union-friendly state officials had certified that the university had maximized its employment of unionized non-faculty workers and minimized – in fact virtually eliminated – outside contractors for support activities.

The issue has been percolating for years and the unions, principally AFSCME Local 3299, have obtained other favorable legislative decrees, but imposing mandates on the constitutionally independent UC system is legally difficult.

“For the past six years, we have worked with the Legislature on three bills, three budget language provisions and the constitutional amendment,” Local 3299’s Kathryn Lybarger told the Assembly Budget Committee last week. “We’ve gone through policy and fiscal committees dozens of times and earned hundreds of yes votes. And yet, UC still insists on outsourcing, janitors who clean their toilets, groundskeepers who mow their grass, and cooks who prepare their food.”

Section 67 is the unions’ neutron bomb. They hope a threat to shut down construction will finally compel UC to end outsourcing.

UC officials obviously oppose it, saying that it would seriously impede campus improvements, including those affecting health and safety, while simultaneously declaring that they are honoring the previous decrees from the Legislature.

However, the threat of halting billions of dollars in construction work has drawn sharp opposition from another group of unions with oodles of political clout, led by the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, whose members’ jobs would be affected.

Dozens of union representatives expressed their implacable opposition to Section 67 during the hearing, complaining that it was unfair that one union bloc would pursue its goals at the expense of another.

The hypocritical aspect of the construction unions’ opposition to the UC unions’ efforts to legislate job security for their members is that the “the trades,” as they are called in the Capitol, have been doing exactly the same thing.

They have insisted that virtually every legislative bill to increase the supply of housing contain language that, in effect, requires the use of union construction workers, even though it sharply increases costs. The boilerplate language that the trades insist be included refers to a “skilled and trained” workforce that includes apprenticeship training administered by the unions.

“You cannot address poverty and housing by driving construction workers and our families into poverty,” Robbie Hunter, the Trades Council president, told CalMatters recently. “It just doesn’t work.”

Whether UC unions or construction unions should rely on legislative mandates to bolster their memberships is certainly debatable.

However, there’s no uncertainty that the political infighting over Senate Bill 132 and Section 67 is hypocrisy in its rankest form.

CALmatters is a public interest journalism venture committed to explaining how California’s state Capitol works and why it matters. For more columns by Dan Walters, go to calmatters.org/commentary.

DAILY REPUBLIC

A McNaughton Newspaper Locally Owned and Operated Serving Solano County since 1855 •

the right stuff What we get for what we pay: Part 3

Ihave written for the past two weeks about our 537 elected federal employees’ salaries and benefits so we, their employers, understand their compensation. So, let’s look at the qualifications, the duties (job description) and responsibilities stated in the U.S. Constitution.

The overall intent and purpose of the Constitution of 1787 was to replace the Articles of Confederation, which proved inadequate. The Preamble is arguably the best description of the intent of people to govern themselves ever written. Those 52 words clearly summarized what the Founders were considering as they thrashed out the basic rights of citizens and responsibilities of the three branches of government. Indeed, Supreme Court Associate Justice Joseph Story (1779-1845) wrote in his book, “Commentaries on the Constitution,” that “. . . its (the Preamble’s) true purpose is to state the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution.”

James Madison stated in Federalists Paper No. 49: “The people are the only legitimate fountain of power.”

The Preamble states: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, (ensure) domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Article I with its 10 Sections and 29 subsections describes the powers vested in a Congress, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives. Section 2 states: “No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained the age of twenty-five years, and been seven years a Citizen of the United States. He shall be, when elected, an inhabitant of the State he is representing.”

Section 3, states: “No person shall be a Senator who has not attained the age of thirty years, and has been nine years a Citizen of the United States, and shall be, when elected, an inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.”

Now, let’s look at some of the most important things they actually do for this compensation. Section 7, Subsection 1, says, “All Bills for raising money shall originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as to other Bills.”

The House and Senate must agree to a final bill before sending it to the president for signature.

The Congress shall have the power to assign and collect taxes . . . to pay debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

Here are other examples of what they do: (1) regulate commerce with foreign nations and among our states; (2) borrow money on the credit of the United States; (3) approve treaties; (4) make criminal and civil laws; (5) declare war; (6) arm and regulate our armed forces (the most powerful on

Earth); and (7) confirm presidential and judicial appointments. There are many other duties listed in our Constitution but the three main responsibilities for our congressional employees are to introduce bills and resolutions, offer amendments, and serve on committees. Members of the House of Representatives represent Jim McCully on average 700,000 citizens. Two senators represent their entire state. Article 2, Section 1 states: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four years . . . .” There are three sections and 10 subsections describing the duties, powers and authorities of this office. The president appoints ambassadors, department heads, commissions, all officers of the armed forces and has the power to pardon for all offenses committed against the United States, among other powers. Subsection 5 states: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . .” The only other requirements are that a person must be at least 35 years old and have been a resident within the United States for 14 years. The same requirements hold for the vice president. Are they doing the jobs well? More next week.

Jim McCully is a member of the Solano County Republican Central Committee, Vacaville resident and former Northwest Regional vice chairman of the California State Republican Party.

commentary Infrastructure bill part of rickety politics

The political maneuvering about infrastructure is getting pretty strange, what with President Joe Biden first cheering a bipartisan bill, then threatening to veto it, and then taking back the veto threat in the span of two days.

When the action on stage gets hard to follow, it can be helpful to review the main characters and their motivations.

The 21 bipartisan dealmakers in the Senate want to see their bill passed not just because they think it would improve the country’s roads and bridges but because it would reduce the likelihood that Congress will take two other steps: passing a Democratic bill that spends additional trillions on child care and raises taxes, and weakening the filibuster.

Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer had planned to spend June building the case against the filibuster, as The New York Times reported. He would advance one piece of appealing-sounding legislation after another – especially a bill that would supposedly “protect voting rights” – and then blame their demise on the excessive use of the tactic.

The infrastructure deal foiled this plan. The Senate ended its June work with a demonstration that a significant number of Republicans are willing to legislate, not just obstruct, and that the chamber can work without having to change its rules.

Progressives and most Senate Democrats, meanwhile, worry that the moderate Democrats in the bipartisan group will point to any success on the infrastructure bill as a reason to pare down or walk away from the second spending bill that Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Budget Committee chairman, is preparing. One theory for Biden’s behavior, based on both news reports and some discussions with Senate aides, is that the White House was taken by surprise when the bipartisan group reached a deal, felt obliged to endorse it and then got scorched by progressives. To appease them, he blurted out that he would not sign the bipartisan bill without signing the second one “in tandem.” But that infuriated the moderate Democrats, so he had to backtrack.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is still keeping the pressure on the moderates, though, saying she will not allow the House to vote on the bipartisan bill until the Senate has passed the partisan one. It’s a strategy that will require stubbornness.

It will take weeks to convert the bipartisan agreement into legislative language. Drawing up Sanders’ bill and getting it through procedural hurdles will take months. Democrats do not yet agree even on the price tag: He has floated $6 trillion, while Sen. Joe Manchin has talked about $2 trillion. Even in today’s Washington, that’s a big difference.

Most congressional Republicans are watching the Democratic infighting from the sidelines. They oppose both spending bills.

They think we have been spending quite enough money over the past two years as it is – COVID legislation alone has added more than $5 trillion

to the federal debt – and also want to deny Biden legislative victories. They don’t believe our infrastructure is crumbling, and they are skeptical that federal infrastructure spending will go where investments would do the most good. They are right about that, by the way. Ramesh Ponnuru It’s true that the American Society of Civil Engineers says that we are in dire need of more spending on infrastructure. If there’s a National Society of Barbers, it probably thinks we all need more haircuts. And Congress is not exactly laser-focused on using an infrastructure bill to maximize the country’s productivity. Getting a win for Biden, stopping him from getting one, influencing the debate over the filibuster: These are the type of considerations that are on the top of legislators’ minds. Unsurprisingly, then, much of the negotiation has turned on arbitrary spending levels and not, say, on which projects deserve funding and which do not. Polling suggests that the public likes the idea of infrastructure spending but doesn’t see it as a high priority. Democrats decided to make it a top issue, and now they are running the risk that by holding out for everything, they will get nothing. If the bipartisan infrastructure deal fails, it won’t be because the Senate is dysfunctional. It will be because the Democratic Party is.