* Recent Posts

Al's Run Canceled by Jay Bee
[Today at 07:15:04 PM]

NCAA Tournament by MuggsyB
[Today at 07:12:10 PM]

2023 Team Outlook by Vander Blue Man Group
[Today at 06:53:02 PM]

2023 Coaching Carousel by Uncle Rico
[Today at 06:34:20 PM]

Recruiting as of 3/15/23 by Ellenson Guerrero
[Today at 05:39:00 PM]

Shaka needs a gray haired assistant.... by DavidBoone2inchesTaller
[Today at 05:02:09 PM]

2023 Portal Transfers by GoldenEagles03
[Today at 04:56:46 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 1979 times)


  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22695
  • #AllInnocentLivesMatter
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Democrats cutting back on government size
« on: July 19, 2007, 01:55:13 PM »

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.


  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4996
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......