Messing with Hilda Solis
There's finally going to be a committee vote today on the nomination of Hilda Solis to be Secretary of Labor. It's about time. The administration had to appoint an interim secretary because this was taking so long Republicans on the Senate Health, Educaiton, Labor and Pensions Committee have been dragging their feet, alleging that her position on the board of directors of Americans Rights at Work, a pro-labor group might have amounted to lobbying. They wanted to know if Solis actually lobbied Congress which, as one ARAW-connected person told me, was absurd because if anything she was a rather passive board member.
The Republicans are really using the Solis nomination to fight the Employee Free Choice Act. Today's Los Angeles Times notes that Republicans now want Solis to avoid lobbying for the bill even after she becomes Labor Secretary which is like asking Tim Geithner to stay neutral about the stimulus package or Robert Gates to take a pass on Afghanistan funding. Of course when Elaine Chao was labor secretary under George W. Bush they had no problems with her advocating for the defeat of EFCA. See her Wall Street Journal op-ed here written during the last days of her tenure.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Remind me, again, why anyone gives a shit what Republicans think?
Crush. These. Cockroaches. now.
February 5, 2009 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right. Somehow she can be a member of Congress and a lobbyist at the same time.
As you note, this is a just a proxy for EFCA.
February 5, 2009 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
From a practical and logistical standpoint, Solis' views on EFCA are just not that relevant vis a vis her stewardship of the Department of Labor. Workplace elections and/or the job of certifying union bargaining representatives are the province of the National Labor Relations Board, which, barring a change in the existing law, will continue to oversee that process---with or without the passage of EFCA. Bottom line---the Department of Labor will have nothing to do with EFCA.
So why is every facet of the media buying into this Solis-EFCA storyline when her position on EFCA will not come into play as it regards her duties as Secretary of Labor? Every time the same storyline gets repeated when reporting the hold-up in her confirmation, reporters do a disservice by not exposing just how obstructionist the Republicans are being, given the fact that she will not have jurisdiction over EFCA-related issues in the first place. I realize that how things get divvied up jurisdictionally among various government agencies, but in this case, it is a very relevant piece of the story. Journalists need to do more than scratch the surface if they want to write credibly on the issue.
February 5, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oops...meant to say in the last part of the above post how things get divvied up jurisdictionally among various government agencies is arguably an arcane topic...just left out a word or two.
February 5, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
@Elana:
I asked this question in comments to your previous post on Solis' committee vote, but you may not have seen it.
At the Health Education Labor & Pensions committee website, the hearing is listed this way:
'Executive Session - Any Nominations Cleared for Action'
Committee: Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and the House Committee on Education and Labor
Date: Thursday, February 5, 2:00 pm
Place: SD-430
The normal meaning of a board or committee meeting in 'executive session' is 'closed to non-members'. Does it mean something else in Congress? Because a confirmation vote would always be public, would it not?
And what does the mention of the House committee mean? Is that an inter-chamber courtesy, that leaders or members of the corresponding House committee are invited to be present at confirmation proceedings?
February 5, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Four and Eight years ago, the news was full of Republican refrains to Let George W. Bush have his selected cabinet. They were even going to change the Senate Rules to get rid of the possibility of filibuster
One more example of hypocrisy.
One more proof that the Republicans are for Party ahead of God, and ahead of Nation.
February 5, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, sorry, Matt. Elana posted yesterday on this hearing and I assumed without looking closely that this was just an update from her.
But if either of you knows the answer to my question, I'd be grateful for a response.
February 5, 2009 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's true about the NLRB's jurisdiction over the NLRA, EFCA, etc. But the larger point is that the Sec. is labor's advocate in the Obama administration. Enzi, being an absurd hack, is saying that he wants Solis to stay out of the EFCA debate. In sum, this is about the political capital it's going to take to get EFCA passed. The Republicans are digging in.
February 5, 2009 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
No argument with that here. My point was simply that from a PR/message standpoint, the Obama administration has to out Enzi et al. on this, and show that Solis as Secretary of Labor would have nothing to do with EFCA. Therefore, Enzi and the Republican opposition is in bad faith anyway, despite the fact that even if she did have jurisdiction over EFCA, she is still nevertheless entitled to an up or down vote...
all assuming that the husband's tax issue gets taken care of(oy, not another one...).
February 5, 2009 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink