collapse

* Recent Posts

2024 Transfer Portal by Johnny B
[Today at 09:52:26 PM]


2024 NCAA Tournament Thread by MU82
[Today at 09:51:16 PM]


2024 Coaching Carousel by WhiteTrash
[Today at 09:34:43 PM]


Maximilian Langenfeld by TSmith34, Inc.
[Today at 09:22:20 PM]


NIL Future by PointWarrior
[Today at 09:03:13 PM]


MU Gear by TallTitan34
[Today at 07:27:40 PM]


Recruiting as of 3/15/24 by Uncle Rico
[Today at 05:33:25 PM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address.  We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!


Author Topic: Democrats cutting back on government size  (Read 3865 times)

ChicosBailBonds

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22695
  • #AllInnocentLivesMatter
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Democrats cutting back on government size
« on: July 19, 2007, 01:55:13 PM »
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110010343

The new Democratic Congress has finally found a government agency whose budget It wants to cut: an obscure Labor Department office that monitors the compliance of unions with federal law.

In the past six years, the Office of Labor Management Standards, or OLMS, has helped secure the convictions of 775 corrupt union officials and court-ordered restitution to union members of over $70 million in dues. The House is set to vote Thursday on a proposal to chop 20% from the OLMS budget. Every other Labor Department enforcement agency is due for a budget increase, and overall the Congress has added $935 million to the Bush administration's budget request for Labor. The only office the Democrats want to cut back is the one engaged in union oversight.

ZiggysFryBoy

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5115
  • MEDITERRANEAN TACOS!
Re: Democrats cutting back on government size
« Reply #1 on: July 19, 2007, 03:41:10 PM »
you'd think the Dems would be in favor of this office cracking down on union leaders stealing there money, after all, it's the union man that votes democratic.  Unless they're worried that the unions are going to have less "play" money to give them for their campaigns......